Part-Time

Undergraduates in

Postsecondary

Education: 2003–04

Postsecondary Education

Descriptive Analysis Report

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007-165
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
U.S. Department of Education 

NCES 2007-165 

Part-Time 

Undergraduates in 

Postsecondary 

Education: 2003–04 

Postsecondary Education 

Descriptive Analysis Report 

June 2007 

Xianglei Chen 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

C. Dennis Carroll 

Project Officer 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark Schneider 

Commissioner

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

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

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of 

education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning 

and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical 

systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries. 

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

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and highquality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education 

policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless specifically noted, all information 

contained herein is in the public domain. 

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

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

information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or 

report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to 

 National Center for Education Statistics 

 Institute of Education Sciences 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20006-5651 

June 2007 

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

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

Suggested Citation 

Chen, X. (2007). Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education: 2003–04 (NCES 2007-165). U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

For ordering information on this report, write to 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 ED Pubs 

 P.O. Box 1398 

 Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org. 

Content Contact

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502-7334 

aurora.d’amico@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

After dramatic growth between 1970 and 

1990, part-time students have formed a large and 

stable segment of the undergraduate population 

in U.S. postsecondary institutions (Hussar 

2005). In fall 2004, approximately 5.5 million 

undergraduates were enrolled part time, making 

up 37 percent of the undergraduate enrollment in 

all degree-granting postsecondary institutions 

(U.S. Department of Education 2006). While 

part-time enrollment benefits postsecondary 

students in that it lowers their costs, increases 

their access, and offers them more flexibility, it 

provides no guarantee of academic success. In 

fact, part-time enrollment is often associated 

with certain behaviors (e.g., interrupting 

enrollment, working excessively) that may deter 

students from finishing their degree (Berkner, 

He, and Cataldi 2002; Carroll 1989; O’Toole, 

Stratton, and Wetzel 2003). Although it is 

difficult to determine whether the growth in 

part-time enrollment has brought about more 

benefits or limitations to individuals and 

institutions (Davies 1999; McCormick, Geis, 

and Vergun 1995), ongoing research on the 

associations between part-time enrollment and 

postsecondary outcomes helps advance our 

understanding of this issue. 

This report uses data from the 2003–04 

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:2004) to provide a profile of part-time 

undergraduates enrolled in U.S. postsecondary 

institutions in 2003–04. It also uses longitudinal 

data from a nationally representative sample in 

the 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01) to examine 

associations between part-time enrollment and 

education outcomes (i.e., persistence and degree 

completion) 6 years after beginning 

postsecondary education. 

While providing an overall picture of parttime students, this report also takes a closer look 

at a subgroup of part-time students who 

exhibited some characteristics commonly found 

among full-time students. A relevant question is 

why these students chose to attend part time 

even though they may have been able to attend 

full time given their characteristics. Although 

this report cannot fully address this question, a 

descriptive look at this subgroup helps 

determine whether and how these students 

behaved differently from their full-time 

counterparts and other part-time peers in 

postsecondary education and what factors were 

related to degree completion. The major findings 

of this report are summarized below. It should 

be noted, however, that these findings are 

descriptive in nature and do not demonstrate 

causality. 

Overall Picture of Part-Time 

Undergraduates 

About 84 percent of undergraduates 

maintained the same enrollment status 

throughout the 2003–04 academic year: 49 

percent were enrolled exclusively full time and 

35 percent were enrolled exclusively part time. 

The remaining 16 percent changed their 

enrollment status during the year. According to 

these enrollment patterns, this report classified 

students into three groups: exclusively full-time 
Executive Summary 

iv 

students, exclusively part-time students, and 

students with mixed enrollment intensity 

(regardless of whether they started as part-time 

students and subsequently changed to full-time 

students or vice versa). 

Exclusively part-time students differed from 

their full-time peers in many respects. Compared 

with exclusively full-time students, exclusively 

part-time students tended to be older, female, 

Hispanic, financially independent, and firstgeneration students (i.e., their parents did not 

attend college) (figure A).1

 They also tended to 

 

1

 All comparisons made in the report were tested using 

Student’s t statistic. All differences cited were statistically 

significant at the .05 level unless noted otherwise. 

come from low-income families (for dependent 

students), had weaker academic preparation, and 

had lower expectations for postsecondary 

education. Students with mixed enrollment 

intensity typically fell in between these two 

groups, with some characteristics similar to 

those of exclusively full-time students (e.g., type 

of high school diploma and educational 

expectations) and others similar to those of 

exclusively part-time students (e.g., gender, 

race/ethnicity, and remedial coursetaking). 

Figure A.—Percentage of undergraduates with selected demographic and academic characteristics, by

Figure A.—enrollment intensity: 2003–04

1 For dependent students only.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Hispanic includes Latino. Standard error tables are 

available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

14

55

11

35 30

25

89

31

65

19

59

14

43

33

26

89

36

65

46

61

14

75

41

28

85

38

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

Age 30 or

above

Female Hispanic Independent Parent had

only high

school or

less

education

Family

income in

the lowest

quarter

Received a

regular high

school

diploma

Took

remedial

courses

Expected

earning a

graduate

degree

Percent

Exclusively full-time students Mixed students Exclusively part-time students

1
Executive Summary 

v 

Part-Time Students Who Looked 

Like Typical Full-Time Students 

Not all part-time students could be easily 

distinguished from full-time students, though. In 

fact, about 25 percent of part-time 

undergraduates in 2003–04 exhibited some 

characteristics common to full-time students—

that is, they were traditional college age (23 

years old or younger), financially dependent on 

their parents, graduated from high school with a 

regular diploma, and received financial help 

from their parents to pay for their postsecondary 

education. Referred to as “part-time students 

who looked like full-time students,”2

 this report 

compared this subgroup with both full-time 

students and other part-time students to 

determine whether and how their postsecondary 

education behaviors differed from their 

counterparts. 

Part-time students who looked like full-time 

students appeared to be relatively advantaged 

when compared with other part-time students: 

they were more likely to be White, have welleducated parents, come from high-income 

families (for dependent students only), and 

expect to earn an advanced degree in the future, 

and they were less likely to be Black and have 

taken remedial courses (figure B). In addition, 

part-time students who looked like full-time 

students were more likely than other part-time 

students to be male. 

Comparing part-time students who looked 

like full-time students to their full-time 

counterparts revealed both similarities and 

differences: they were slightly more likely than 

exclusively full-time students to be Hispanic, 

but less likely to be Black, and were more likely 

 

2

 It should be noted that not all full-time students fit this 

typical profile. For example, in 2003−04, about one-half of 

full-time undergraduates had these characteristics. 

to come from families where parents held 

bachelor’s or higher degrees and to have taken 

remedial courses after high school. The two 

groups could not be distinguished in terms of 

their gender distribution, family income (for 

dependent students only), and educational 

expectations. 

Enrollment Characteristics 

Several enrollment characteristics 

distinguished exclusively part-time students 

from their full-time peers. For example, a 

majority of exclusively part-time students (64 

percent) attended public 2-year institutions, 

compared with 25 percent of exclusively fulltime students (figure C). On the other hand, 

exclusively full-time students were more likely 

than exclusively part-time students to attend 

public or private 4-year doctoral institutions (33 

vs. 11 percent). 

Consistent with their high concentrations in 

public 2-year institutions, exclusively part-time 

students were more likely than full-time students 

to be enrolled in an associate’s degree program 

or not be in any degree/certificate program and 

much less likely to be enrolled in a bachelor’s 

degree program. In addition, 31 percent of 

exclusively part-time students did not have a 

major field of study, compared with 16 percent 

of exclusively full-time students. 

Although they somewhat resembled full-time 

students with respect to their demographics, 

family backgrounds, and educational 

expectations, part-time students who looked like 

full-time students retained many enrollment 

characteristics associated with part-time 

attendance, such as the tendency to attend 2-year 

colleges, enroll in subbaccalaureate or 

nondegree/certificate programs, and not have a 
Executive Summary 

vi 

major field of study (figure D). These 

enrollment characteristics are generally 

associated with lower persistence and attainment 

rates in postsecondary education (Berkner, He, 

and Cataldi 2002). 

Combining Work and School 

Another important factor that distinguished 

part-time students from their full-time peers was 

employment. In 2003–04, 83 percent of 

exclusively part-time undergraduates worked 

while enrolled, more than one-half (53 percent) 

of them worked full time, and 47 percent 

considered themselves primarily employees 

(figure E). Although a majority of full-time 

students worked while enrolled (73 percent), just 

under one-fourth (23 percent) worked full time 

and 14 percent considered themselves primarily 

employees. 

Compared with exclusively part-time 

students, working intensity tended to be lower 

for part-time students who looked like full-time 

students: 21 percent held a full-time job while 

enrolled (not significantly different from the 23 

percent of full-time students who did so); 11 

percent considered themselves primarily 

employees (lower than the 14 percent of fulltime students); and 69 percent considered 

themselves primarily students (higher than the 

59 percent of full-time students). These patterns

Figure B.—Percentage of full-time and part-time undergraduates with selected demographic and academic 

Figure B.—characteristics: 2003–04

1 For dependent students only.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Black includes African American. Race categories 

exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

45

65

14

46

26

31

65

46

64

10

49

25

36

64

38

60

16

32

16

38

51

0

20

40

60

80

100

Male White Black Parent earned a

bachelor’s or

higher degree

Family income

in the highest

quarter

Took remedial

courses

Expected

earning a

graduate degree

Percent

Exclusively full-time students Part-time students who looked

like full-time students

Other part-time students

1
Executive Summary 

vii 

suggest that many students in this subgroup 

placed more importance on study than work. 

Why did students work? Among students 

who worked but considered themselves 

primarily students, financial concerns appeared 

to be the dominant reason for working: 63 

percent worked to help pay their tuition, fees, 

and living expenses, and 24 percent worked to 

earn some spending money. Less than 1 in 10 (7 

percent) reported that they worked to gain job 

experience. Exclusively part-time students were 

especially concerned about their financial 

situations: 72 percent cited paying tuition, fees, 

or living expenses as the most important reason 

for working, compared with 59 percent of fulltime students. However, part-time students who 

looked like full-time students were less likely 

than full-time students to cite this reason (55 vs. 

60 percent). 

Although 35 percent of those who considered 

themselves primarily students thought that 

working helped them with career preparation, 

fewer (14 percent) said that it helped them with 

coursework. On the other hand, between 31 and 

48 percent said that working restricted their 

academic choices including class schedule, 

number of classes taken, and access to school 

facilities, and 41 percent reported that it had a 

negative effect on their grades. Exclusively parttime students were more likely than full-time 

students to report these problems. Part-time 

students who looked like full-time students were

Figure C.—Percentage of undergraduates with selected enrollment characteristics, by enrollment intensity: 

Figure C.—2003–04

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

33

23 25

61

27

5

16

27

20

36

53

37

6

15 11 13

64

24

50

19

31

0

20

40

60

80

100

Attending 

4-year 

doctoral

institutions

Attending 

4-year

nondoctoral

institutions

Attending

public 2-year

colleges

Enrolling in

bachelor’s

degree program

Enrolling in

associate’s

degree program

Not in a degree

or certificate

program

Did not have a

major field of

study

Percent

Exclusively full-time students Mixed students Exclusively part-time students
Executive Summary 

viii 

also more likely than full-time students to report 

the problems of class choice, class schedule, and 

number of classes they could take. In summary, 

working while enrolled seemed to present 

obstacles to those who considered themselves 

primarily students. 

Persistence and Degree Attainment 

After 6 Years 

This report uses longitudinal data from the 

1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students 

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01) to examine 

persistence and degree attainment 6 years after 

students entered postsecondary education.3

Consistent with earlier research (Berkner, He, 

and Cataldi 2002; Carroll 1989; O’Toole, 

Stratton, and Wetzel 2003), this report found 

that part-time enrollment was negatively 

associated with long-term degree attainment and

 

3

 Because BPS:96/01 covers a longer interval of enrollment 

data than NPSAS:2004, the sample included a higher 

percentage of students who changed their enrollment status 

(i.e., students with mixed enrollment intensity) than in 

NPSAS:2004 (41 vs. 16 percent). Overall, 59 percent of 

BPS:96/01 students maintained the same enrollment status 

for the duration of their enrollment from 1995–96 to 2000–

01: some 47 percent were enrolled exclusively full time, 

and 12 percent were enrolled exclusively part time. Like 

part-time students in NPSAS:2004, part-time students in 

BPS:96/01 were further divided into two subgroups: those 

who looked like full-time students and those who did not. 

A total of 47 percent of part-time students in BPS:96/01 

were identified as part-time students who looked like fulltime students. 

Figure D.—Percentage of full-time and part-time undergraduates with selected enrollment characteristics:

Figure D.—2003–04

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

33

23 25

61

27

5

16

28

14

44 48

40

10

22

13 15

58

29

48

17

27

0

20

40

60

80

100

Attending 

4-year 

doctoral

institution

Attending 

4-year

nondoctoral

institution

Attending

public 2-year

college

Enrolling in

bachelor’s

degree program

Enrolling in

associate’s

degree program

Not in a degree

or certificate

program

Did not have a

major field of

study

Percent

Exclusively full-time students Part-time students who looked

like full-time students

Other part-time students
Executive Summary 

ix 

persistence. Looking at 1995–96 beginning 

students who attended school exclusively part 

time for the duration of their enrollment through 

2000–01, 15 percent had completed a degree or 

certificate by 2001; none had earned a 

bachelor’s degree; 27 percent persisted (either 

had earned a degree or were still enrolled); a 

total of 73 percent had left without earning a 

degree; and 46 percent had left during the first 

year (figure F). In contrast, 64 percent of 

exclusively full-time students had completed a 

degree or certificate, 44 percent had earned a 

bachelor’s degree, 72 percent persisted, 28 

percent had left without a degree, and 12 percent 

had left during the first year. Although part-time 

students who looked like full-time students 

appeared to be more successful than other parttime students with respect to these same 

outcomes, they lagged behind their full-time 

counterparts in overall degree attainment (45 vs. 

64 percent) and bachelor’s degree completion 

(25 vs. 44 percent). 

Part-time enrollment was negatively 

associated with students’ postsecondary 

outcomes even after controlling for a wide range 

of related factors, including students’ 

demographic and family backgrounds, academic 

preparation, and enrollment and employment 

characteristics. Regardless of whether they 

Figure E.—Percentage of undergraduates who worked while enrolled, worked full time while enrolled, or

Figure E.—considered themselves primarily a student or an employee, by enrollment intensity: 2003–04

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

73

23

14

59

80

21

11

69

83

53

47

36

0

20

40

60

80

100

Worked

while

enrolled

Worked full

time while

enrolled

Considered

themselves

primarily an

employee

Considered

themselves

primarily a

student

Percent

Exclusively full-time students

Part-time students who looked like full-time students

Other part-time students

73

23

14

59

79

28

18

61

83

53

47

37

0

20

40

60

80

100

Worked

while

enrolled

Worked full

time while

enrolled

Considered

themselves

primarily an

employee

Considered

themselves

primarily a

student

Percent

Exclusively full-time students

Mixed students

Exclusively part-time students
Executive Summary 

x 

looked like full-time students, exclusively parttime students lagged far behind their full-time 

peers in terms of overall degree completion, 

bachelor’s degree completion, and persistence 

toward a degree after controlling for many 

related factors. Mixed enrollment students also 

lagged behind their full-time peers with respect 

to bachelor’s degree completion, although 

significant differences in their rates for overall 

degree attainment and persistence could not be 

detected after controlling for related factors. 

Were factors related to degree attainment and 

persistence consistent across student groups? To 

address this question, separate commonality 

analyses were conducted for full-time students, 

part-time students who looked like full-time 

students, and other part-time students. The 

results of these analyses reveal both similarities 

and differences among these groups of students. 

First, across all three groups, some factors 

consistently had a negative association with 

students’ postsecondary outcomes. These factors 

reflect poor academic preparation (i.e., remedial 

coursetaking and low scores on college entrance 

examinations), low commitment to 

postsecondary education (i.e., taking breaks in 

enrollment, low expectations for postsecondary 

education), concentrations in subbaccalaureate 

degree programs, and priority given to work 

Figure F.—Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who had earned a degree/certificate or

Figure F.—a bachelor’s degree, who had not earned a degree but were still enrolled, and who had not earned

Figure F.—a degree and were not enrolled, by enrollment intensity: 2001

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

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

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

64

44

7

28

45

25 24

31 34

7

18

49

0

20

40

60

80

100

Earned a

degree or

certificate

Earned a

bachelor’s

degree

No degree 

or certificate but still

enrolled

No degree 

or certificate and not

enrolled

Percent

Exclusively full-time students

Part-time students who looked like full-time students

Other part-time students

64

44

7

28

46

20 23

30

15 12

73

#

0

20

40

60

80

100

Earned a

degree or

certificate

Earned a

bachelor’s

degree

No degree 

or certificate but still

enrolled

No degree 

or certificate and not

enrolled

Percent

Exclusively full-time students

Mixed students

Exclusively part-time students
Executive Summary 

xi 

over study (i.e., students always considering 

themselves as employees or changing their 

primary role from students to employees). It is 

noteworthy that although students who took 

breaks in their enrollment had lower rates of 

degree attainment across all three groups, these 

students consistently had higher rates of 

persistence. 

Not all factors were consistently related to 

students’ postsecondary outcomes across all 

three groups of students. For example, gender 

was a significant factor (favoring females) for 

full-time students, but not for the two subgroups 

of part-time students. Full-time students who 

initially attended private doctoral institutions 

had better postsecondary outcomes than their 

peers who entered public doctoral institutions; 

however, for the two subgroups of part-time 

students, those initially attending private 4-year 

nondoctoral institutions had better outcomes 

than those who entered public doctoral 

institutions. Full-time students without degree 

goals had lower rates of degree attainment than 

those with bachelor’s degree expectations; but 

this pattern was not observed among the two 

subgroups of part-time students (i.e., nondegree 

and bachelor’s degree seekers both had 

relatively low rates of degree completion). In 

summary, while some factors had consistent 

relationships with postsecondary outcomes 

across all three groups, others did not. This 

information may be useful to postsecondary 

administrators in assisting them to design 

programs to help various groups of students 

persist in their postsecondary studies and attain a 

degree. 

Conclusion 

Part-time undergraduates, especially 

exclusively part-time students, were at a distinct 

disadvantage relative to those who were enrolled 

full time: they came from minority and lowincome family backgrounds; they were not as 

well-prepared for college as their full-time 

peers; they were highly concentrated in 2-year 

colleges and nondegree/certificate programs; 

and many of them worked full time while 

enrolled, placed a priority on work over study, 

and did not enroll continuously. 

In addition, the report found that part-time 

enrollment was negatively associated with longterm persistence and degree attainment even 

after controlling for a wide range of factors 

related to these outcomes. This was the case 

even for the group of students with 

characteristics that fit the typical profile of a 

full-time student (i.e., age 23 or younger, 

financially dependent on parents, graduated 

from high school with a regular diploma, and 

received financial help from parents to pay for 

postsecondary education); regardless of whether 

they resembled full-time students, part-time 

students (especially exclusively part-time 

students) lagged behind their full-time peers in 

terms of their postsecondary outcomes even 

after controlling for a variety of related factors. 
xii 

Foreword 

This report uses data from the 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:2004) to provide a profile of part-time undergraduates enrolled in U.S. postsecondary 

institutions in 2003–04. The NPSAS survey, which is carried out every 4 years, targets the 

population of all students in Title IV institutions in the United States and Puerto Rico between 

July 1 and June 30 in a given academic year. It provides detailed information about 

undergraduate and graduate/first-professional students in terms of their demographic 

characteristics, postsecondary experiences, and financial aid. This report uses data collected from 

about 80,000 undergraduates who were enrolled in postsecondary education at any time between 

July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004. 

In addition to data from NPSAS:2004, the report also uses longitudinal data from a 

nationally representative sample in the 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal 

Study (BPS:96/01) to examine associations between part-time enrollment and education 

outcomes (i.e., persistence and degree completion) 6 years after beginning postsecondary 

education. The BPS:96/01 focuses on students identified in NPSAS:96 as first-time beginning 

students in postsecondary education in 1995–96 and covers their experiences over 6 academic 

years. The survey provides rich information about the rates at which these students attained 

degrees, transferred to other institutions, and left postsecondary education without attaining any 

degree. This report used a sample of about 9,000 BPS students who participated in the initial 

survey in 1996 and the last survey in 2001. 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:2004 

Undergraduate Student Data Analysis System (DAS) as well as BPS:96/01 DAS. The DAS is a 

computer application that allows users to specify and generate their own tables and produces the 

design-adjusted standard errors necessary for testing the statistical significance of differences 

between numbers shown in the tables. It is available for public use on the NCES website at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das. Appendix B of this report contains additional information on the DAS. 
xiii 

Acknowledgments 

The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of many individuals to the 

production of this report. At MPR Associates, Laura Horn provided guidance throughout the 

process. Susan Choy and Robin Henke made helpful comments on an early draft. Joanna Wu 

helped with programming and produced regression tables. Andrea Livingston edited the report, 

Natesh Daniel formatted the tables and prepared the figures, Alicia Broadway helped with the 

final production, and Barbara Kridl managed the production process from beginning to end. 

At NCES, Dennis Carroll oversaw the development of the report and shepherded it through 

the review process. Paula Knepper provided thorough technical, methodological, and substantive 

reviews. The author is grateful for thoughtful comments from a number of other reviewers, 

including Clifford Adelman (Office of Vocational and Adult Education), Shelley Burns (NCES), 

Tricia Grimes (Minnesota Office of Higher Education), Daniel Goldenberg (NCES), and Mark 

Schneider (NCES). Lisa Bridges of IES also provided thoughtful comments and gathered and 

synthesized helpful comments from two anonymous external reviewers. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
xv 

Contents 

Page 

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

Foreword.................................................................................................................................... xii

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... xiii

List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. xvi

List of Figures............................................................................................................................ xviii

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

Organization of the Report.................................................................................................... 2 

Data Sources.......................................................................................................................... 2 

Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education...................................................... 5

Demographic and Academic Characteristics ........................................................................ 5 

Part-Time Students Who Looked Like Typical Full-Time Students .................................... 9 

Enrollment Characteristics of Part-Time Undergraduates .................................................. 13

Type of Institution................................................................................................................. 13 

Degree Program..................................................................................................................... 13 

Major Field of Study ............................................................................................................. 16 

Enrollment Duration.............................................................................................................. 18 

Combining School and Work................................................................................................... 21

Employment and Primary Role............................................................................................. 22 

Reasons for and Effects of Working While Enrolled............................................................ 23 

Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years.............................................................................. 27

Degree Attainment and Persistence After 6 Years................................................................ 28 

Timing of Departure.............................................................................................................. 30 

Factors Related to Degree Attainment and Persistence ........................................................ 32 

Summary and Conclusions....................................................................................................... 45

References.................................................................................................................................. 49

Appendix A—Glossary ............................................................................................................. A-1

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology .................................................................. B-1
xvi 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

Text 

1 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by enrollment intensity and selected 

demographic characteristics: 2003–04............................................................................ 7 

2 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by enrollment intensity and selected 

academic characteristics: 2003–04.................................................................................. 9 

3 Percentage distribution of part-time undergraduates with typical characteristics of 

full-time students, by enrollment intensity and selected demographic and academic 

characteristics: 2003–04.................................................................................................. 11 

4 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by type of institution and enrollment 

intensity: 2003–04........................................................................................................... 14 

5 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by degree program and enrollment 

intensity: 2003–04........................................................................................................... 15 

6 Among undergraduates who were enrolled in a less-than-4-year institution or not 

enrolled in a degree or certificate program, percentage who reported various reasons 

for enrolling in postsecondary education, by enrollment intensity: 2003–04................. 16 

7 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by their major field of study and enrollment 

intensity: 2003–04........................................................................................................... 17 

8 Number of months enrolled by enrollment intensity: 2003–04 ...................................... 19 

9 Percentage of undergraduates who worked while enrolled and who worked full time, 

average number of hours worked per week, and percentage distribution by their 

primary role, by enrollment intensity: 2003–04.............................................................. 23 

10 Among students who worked while enrolled but still considered themselves primarily 

students, percentage distribution by their main reasons for working and enrollment 

intensity: 2003–04........................................................................................................... 24 

11 Among students who worked while enrolled but still considered themselves primarily 

students, percentage who reported various effects of working, by enrollment intensity: 

2003–04........................................................................................................................... 25 
List of Tables 

xvii 

Table Page 

12 Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students by highest 

degree of attainment and persistence through 2001 and enrollment intensity ................ 30 

13 Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students by whether 

they attained any degree or certificate in 2001, or if they did not attain, the year they 

left postsecondary education, by enrollment intensity.................................................... 32 

14 Least squared coefficients for percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary 

students who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had earned a 

bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who persisted through 2001 after 

controlling for selected student characteristics ............................................................... 35 

15 Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students with various enrollment intensity, 

least squared coefficients for percentage who had earned a degree or certificate by 

2001, percentage who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who 

persisted through 2001 after controlling for selected student characteristics ................. 39 

Appendix 

B-1 Standard errors for table 1: Percentage distribution of undergraduates by enrollment 

intensity and selected demographic characteristics: 2003–04......................................... B-5 

B-2 Standard errors for table 14: Least squared coefficients for percentage of 1995–96 

beginning postsecondary students who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001, 

percentage who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who 

persisted through 2001 after controlling for selected student characteristics ................. B-12 

B-3 Standard errors for the first three columns in table 15: Among 1995–96 beginning 

postsecondary students who were exclusively full-time students, least squared 

coefficients for percentage who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001, 

percentage who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who 

persisted through 2001 after controlling for selected student characteristics ................. B-15 

B-4 Standard errors for the middle three columns in table 15: Among 1995–96 beginning 

postsecondary students who were part-time students looking like full-time students, 

least squared coefficients for percentage who had earned a degree or certificate by 

2001, percentage who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who 

persisted through 2001 after controlling for selected student characteristics ................. B-18 

B-5 Standard errors for the last two columns in table 15: Among 1995–96 beginning 

postsecondary students who were other part-time students, least squared coefficients 

for percentage who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001 and percentage who 

persisted through 2001 after controlling for selected student characteristics ................. B-21 
xviii 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

Executive Summary 

A Percentage of undergraduates with selected demographic and academic characteristics 

by enrollment intensity: 2003–04.................................................................................... iv 

B Percentage of full-time and part-time undergraduates with selected demographic and 

academic characteristics: 2003–04.................................................................................. vi 

C Percentage of undergraduates with selected enrollment characteristics, by enrollment 

intensity: 2003–04........................................................................................................... vii 

D Percentage of full-time and part-time undergraduates with selected enrollment 

characteristics: 2003–04.................................................................................................. viii

E Percentage of undergraduates who worked while enrolled, worked full time while 

enrolled, or considered themselves primarily a student or an employee, by enrollment 

intensity: 2003–04........................................................................................................... ix 

F Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who had earned a 

degree/certificate or a bachelor’s degree, who had not earned a degree but were still 

enrolled, and who had not earned a degree and were not enrolled, by enrollment 

intensity: 2001................................................................................................................. x 

Text 

1 Percentage distribution of undergraduates by enrollment intensity: 2003–04................ 6 

2 Percentage of dependent undergraduates who reported that their parents helped pay 

various expenses for postsecondary education, by enrollment intensity: 2003–04 ........ 8 

3 Percentage distribution of part-time undergraduates by whether they were part-time 

students who looked like full-time students: 2003–04.................................................... 10 

4 Average number of months enrolled by enrollment intensity: 2003–04......................... 18 

5 Percentage of undergraduates who worked while enrolled and who worked full time, 

by age, dependent status, and family income of dependent students: 2003–04.............. 21 
List of Figures 

xix 

Figure Page 

6 Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning students by enrollment intensity 

through 2001 ................................................................................................................... 28 

7 Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who attended school part time 

between 1995–96 and 2000–01, percentage distribution by whether they were parttime students who looked like full-time students............................................................ 29 

8 Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who started postsecondary 

education with a degree goal, percentage distribution by degree attainment and 

persistence in 2001 and enrollment intensity.................................................................. 31 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
1 

Introduction 

After dramatic growth between 1970 and 1990, part-time students have formed a large and 

stable segment of undergraduate population in the United States (Hussar 2005). In fall 2004, 

approximately 5.5 million undergraduate students were enrolled part time, making up 37 percent 

of the undergraduate enrollment in all degree-granting postsecondary institutions (U.S. 

Department of Education 2006). The part-time enrollment rates are much higher if one looks at 

students’ enrollment data over a longer period of time. For instance, an examination of 

enrollment intensity over the entire 1999−2000 academic year reveals that 51 percent of 

undergraduates were enrolled part time for some or all of that year (Horn, Peter, and Rooney 

2002). In addition, an examination of enrollment data of beginning postsecondary students who 

began in 1995–96 and who were subsequently followed up 6 years later (in 2000–01) indicates 

that 53 percent of these students had attended school part time at least once over this 6-year 

period (Berkner, He, and Cataldi 2002). The sizeable part-time population has drawn much 

attention in recent policy discussions on postsecondary education, and students’ enrollment 

status has been used as a standard variable in predicting outcomes by the research community 

(Adelman 1999; Borden 2004; Davies 1999; Pascarella and Terenzini 1998). 

Although many undergraduates attend part time at some time during their college 

enrollment, those who attend part time rather than full time share some distinctive 

characteristics. Earlier research showed that part-time students are more likely than full-time 

students to be older, Hispanic, married, and financially independent (McCormick, Geis, and 

Vergun 1995; Hearn 1992). Part-time students were also found to be more likely than full-time 

students to attend less-than-4-year colleges, enroll in lower degree programs, and work full time 

while enrolled, and they were less likely to receive financial aid. Partly reflecting these 

conditions, part-time students were more likely than full-time students to interrupt their 

enrollment, prolong their time to a degree, or terminate their studies prematurely without earning 

any degree (Berkner, He, and Cataldi 2002; Carroll 1989; O’Toole, Stratton, and Wetzel 2003). 

Because persisting in college and completing a degree are one of the important goals of college 

education, the lower rates of persistence and degree attainment among part-time students are of 

serious concern to postsecondary institutions, state and federal policymakers, and researchers. 

This report uses data from the 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:2004) to provide an updated profile of part-time undergraduates enrolled in U.S. 
Introduction

2 

postsecondary institutions in the 2003–04 academic year.1 It also uses longitudinal data from the 

1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01) to examine the 

persistence and degree attainment of students 6 years after they initially enrolled in college. 

While providing an overall picture of part-time students, this report also takes a closer look at a 

subgroup of part-time students with characteristics similar to the profile of a typical full-time 

student—that is, who were of traditional college age (i.e., age 23 or younger when beginning 

college), financially dependent on their parents, graduated from high school with a regular 

diploma, and received help from their parents to pay for higher education. This analysis is 

intended to examine whether and how this subgroup behaved differently from their full-time and 

other part-time peers with respect to enrollment, employment, and subsequent persistence and 

attainment. The findings of this report provide a further understanding of part-time students and 

certain conditions that promote or hinder their success in postsecondary education. 

Organization of the Report 

The reminder of this report is divided into four main sections. The first section provides an 

overview of the demographic characteristics, family backgrounds, and academic preparation of 

part-time students. Following this initial overview, this section introduces the subgroup of parttime students who “looked like” full-time students. The next section examines enrollment-related 

characteristics of part-time students, including the type of institution attended, degree program, 

major field of study, and enrollment duration. The third section focuses on how part-time 

students combined school and work and how these concurrent activities were associated with 

their postsecondary experiences. The last section of the report provides an analysis of the rates of 

persistence and degree attainment of part-time students and concludes with multivariate 

commonality analyses of these outcomes after taking various interrelated factors into account. 

Data Sources 

The primary data source for this report is the 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:2004). The NPSAS survey, which is carried out every 4 years, targets the 

population of all students in Title IV institutions in the United States and Puerto Rico between 

July 1 and June 30 in a given academic year. This cross-sectional survey provides data for 

comprehensive descriptions of the undergraduate and graduate/first-professional student 

populations in terms of their demographic characteristics, academic programs, types of 

institutions attended, attendance patterns, employment, tuition and price of attendance, financial 

 

1

 McCormick, Geis, and Vergun (1995) used data from the 1989–90 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:90) to 

provide the first profile of part-time undergraduates enrolled in U.S. postsecondary institutions in 1989–90. 
Introduction 

3 

aid received, and the net price of attendance after aid. This report uses data collected from about 

80,000 undergraduates who were enrolled at any time between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004 in 

about 1,300 postsecondary institutions in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico. These students represent about 19 million undergraduates enrolled in postsecondary 

institutions in the 2003–04 academic year. More information about NPSAS:2004 can be found in 

appendix B. 

In addition to data from NPSAS:2004, this study uses longitudinal data from the 1996/01 

Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01) to provide information on 

the persistence and degree attainment of a nationally representative sample of students who 

began their postsecondary education in 1995−96. Approximately 12,000 students (representing 

about 3 million first-time beginning students) were first interviewed in 1996 when they initially 

enrolled in college. These students were interviewed again in 1998, 3 years after they had started 

postsecondary education; and interviewed for the last time in 2001, 6 years after their initial 

college entry. BPS:96/01, which covers the experiences of first-time beginning students over 6 

academic years, provides rich information about the rates at which these students attained 

degrees, transferred to other institutions, and left postsecondary education without attaining any 

degree. To determine persistence and attainment rates over this 6-year period, this report selects 

a sample of about 9,000 students who participated in the initial survey in 1996 and the last 

survey in 2001. More information about BPS:96/01 can be found in appendix B. 

This report focuses on the comparisons between students with different enrollment 

patterns. All comparisons made in the report were tested using Student’s t statistic. All 

differences cited were statistically significant at the .05 level. In addition, this report uses 

multiple linear regressions (referred to as “commonality analysis”) to explore the unique 

relationship between one particular independent variable (e.g., enrollment intensity) and outcome 

variable (e.g., degree completion) after controlling for all other factors or independent variables. 

Appendix B provides more information about these methods. Standard errors for all estimates are 

available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. 

Results of this study should be interpreted with caution because this report is descriptive in 

nature and was not designed to test an underlying theoretical model. For example, many 

comparisons revealed significant differences between two or more subgroups of students. 

However, these comparisons do not account for complex interrelationships among variables and 

significant differences may disappear after controlling for other factors. Even though this report 

uses the commonality analysis to take into account the interrelations among the variables when 

looking for unique associations between particular dependent and independent variables, 

causality cannot be inferred. Furthermore, some independent variables are measured at a 
Introduction

4 

particular time and do not reflect possible changes in these variables that may affect whether or 

not a student can and does persist toward degree completion (e.g., dependent students may 

become independent or vice versa; work intensity may change). Finally, many variables included 

in the analysis are self-reported and more accurate measures might reveal associations that are 

not evident in the current report. 
5 

Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education 

Part-time students are typically identified by their enrollment intensity at a single point in 

time in a given academic year. For example, as reported in The Condition of Education 2006, 37 

percent of undergraduates in degree-granting 2- and 4-year postsecondary institutions were parttime students in fall 2004 (U.S. Department of Education 2006). Some researchers have argued 

that the estimate for a single point in time tends to understate the prevalence of part-time 

enrollment because it does not take into account the fact that many students change their 

enrollment status during the course of their studies (Adelman 1999). Using a time frame of 1 

academic year in 1989–90, McCormick, Geis, and Vergun (1995) found that 14 percent of 

undergraduates changed their enrollment status at least once during the year. They also found 

that students who made this change did not entirely resemble those who always kept the same 

enrollment status. 

In order to examine the population of part-time students and their postsecondary experience 

in detail, this report uses the pattern of students’ enrollment over a full year to identify part-time 

students. Based on students’ reports of their enrollment status from July 2003 through June 2004, 

students can be classified into three groups: exclusively full time (i.e., enrolled full time only 

during the entire enrollment duration2

), exclusively part time (i.e., enrolled part time only during 

the entire enrollment duration), and mixed (indicating a change in enrollment status during the 

academic year). Using this approach, 49 percent of undergraduates were identified as exclusively 

full-time students in 2003–04, 35 percent were identified as exclusively part-time students, and 

16 percent were identified as students with mixed full-time and part-time enrollment3

 (figure 1). 

Demographic and Academic Characteristics 

Many findings from this study of part-time undergraduates in 2003–04 were consistent 

with an earlier report that profiled part-time undergraduates in 1989–90 (McCormick, Geis, and 

Vergun 1995). Exclusively part-time and full-time students differed in many of their 

characteristics, and those with mixed attendance patterns typically fell in between these two 

groups. Demographically, exclusively part-time students were more likely than exclusively 

 

2

 The enrollment duration could be less than the full academic year (e.g., just one term or semester). 

3

 About 64 percent of students with mixed attendance began as part-time students and subsequently enrolled full time and 36 

percent shifted from full-time to part-time status. About 57 percent were enrolled mostly full time, 22 percent were enrolled 

mostly part time and 21 percent were enrolled full time and part time equally. 
Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education 

6 

full-time students to be age 30 or older (46 vs. 14 percent), female (61 vs. 55 percent), Hispanic 

(14 vs. 11 percent), and first-generation students (41 vs. 30 percent)4

 (table 1). Consistent with 

their age differences, exclusively part-time students were also more likely than exclusively fulltime students to be financially independent (75 vs. 35 percent), married (36 vs. 17 percent), and 

have one or more dependents (39 vs. 27 percent). 

Among independent students, exclusively part-time students were more likely than their 

full-time counterparts to have earnings in the top 25 percent of the income distribution (32 vs. 15 

percent), reflecting in part their differences related to employment (see the section, “Combining 

School and Work”). Among dependent students, however, exclusively part-time students were 

more likely than their full-time counterparts to come from low-income families (28 vs. 24 

percent) (table 1), and correspondingly they were less likely to receive financial help from their 

parents to pay for such costs as tuition and fees, education expenses, housing, and other living 

expenses (figure 2). 

 

4

 A term used to describe a group of college students whose parents have never attended college. 

Figure 1.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by enrollment intensity: 2003–04

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

Mixed

16%

Exclusively

full time

49%

Exclusively

part time

35%
 Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education 

7 

Table 1.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by enrollment intensity and selected demographic 

Table 1.—characteristics: 2003–04

Exclusively Exclusively

Selected demographic characteristics Total full time Mixed part time

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Age as of 12/31/2003

Younger than 24 56.8 72.4 64.2 31.3

24–29 17.3 13.5 17.0 22.9

30 or older 25.9 14.1 18.9 45.9

Gender

Male 42.4 44.9 41.1 39.4

Female 57.6 55.1 58.9 60.6

Race/ethnicity1

White 63.1 65.2 61.8 60.9

Black 14.0 13.5 13.6 14.8

Hispanic 12.7 11.4 13.6 14.2

Asian/Pacific Islander 5.9 5.8 6.9 5.7

American Indian 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0

Other 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4

Dependency and marital status

Dependent 49.7 65.3 56.6 24.6

Independent 50.3 34.7 43.4 75.5

Single with no dependent 15.8 11.9 14.6 21.8

Married with no dependent 7.4 4.5 6.0 12.1

Single with one or more dependents 13.2 10.5 12.0 17.5

Married with one or more dependents 13.9 7.8 10.8 24.0

Parents’ highest education level

High school or less 34.6 30.4 33.0 41.4

Some college 24.4 23.9 25.2 24.7

Bachelor’s degree 22.0 23.9 22.2 19.1

Graduate/professional degree 19.1 21.9 19.7 14.8

Family income of dependent students

Lowest quarter 25.5 24.5 26.3 28.3

Middle two quarters 50.0 49.9 49.2 51.2

Highest quarter 24.5 25.6 24.5 20.6

Income of independent students

Lowest quarter 25.5 35.1 31.1 17.7

Middle two quarters 50.0 49.8 51.4 49.8

Highest quarter 24.5 15.1 17.5 32.5

1

 Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and American

Indian includes Alaska Native. The “other” category includes more than one race or those who identified themselves with 

another race not shown in the table. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

Enrollment intensity
Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education 

8 

Exclusively part-time students were also relatively disadvantaged in academic areas. As 

shown in table 2, exclusively part-time students were less likely than their full-time peers to have 

earned a regular high school diploma (85 vs. 89 percent), more likely to have taken a remedial 

course after high school (38 vs. 31 percent), and less likely to expect to earn a graduate degree in 

the future (50 vs. 65 percent). 

Students with mixed enrollment intensity tended to fall in between the two groups of 

exclusively full-time and part-time students. For example, 19 percent of students with mixed 

attendance were age 30 or older, higher than the proportion for exclusively full-time students (14 

percent) but lower than that for exclusively part-time students (46 percent) (table 1). About 43 

percent of students with mixed attendance were independent students, again falling in between 

the 35 percent of exclusively full-time students and the 75 percent of exclusively part-time 

students. Students with mixed enrollment intensity also exhibited some characteristics similar to 

those of exclusively full-time students (e.g., income, type of high school diploma, and 

educational expectations) and had other characteristics resembling those of exclusively part-time 

students (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, and remedial coursetaking) (tables 1 and 2). 

Figure 2.—Percentage of dependent undergraduates who reported that their parents helped pay various 

Figure 2.—expenses for postsecondary education, by enrollment intensity: 2003–04

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

58 53

46

55

61

56

50

58 57 53

46

57

46 43

29

43

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tuition and fees Education expenses other

than tuition

Housing Living expenses other 

than housing

Percent

Total Exclusively full time Mixed Exclusively part time
 Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education 

9 

Part-Time Students Who Looked Like Typical Full-Time Students 

In addition to making overall comparisons between part-time and full-time students, this 

report takes a closer look at a subgroup of part-time students who exhibited some characteristics 

commonly found among full-time students—that is, students who were of traditional college age 

(age 23 or younger when beginning college), financially dependent on their parents, graduated 

from high school with a regular diploma, and received financial help from their parents to pay 

for postsecondary education.5

 This report takes a detailed look at this subgroup of students to 

examine whether and how they behaved differently from their full-time counterparts and other 

part-time peers and what factors were related to their postsecondary outcomes. 

 

5

 It is important to note that not all full-time students fit this typical profile. For example, in 2003−04, just about one-half of fulltime undergraduates had these characteristics. 

Table 2.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by enrollment intensity and selected academic 

Table 2.—characteristics: 2003–04

Exclusively Exclusively

Selected academic characteristics Total full time Mixed part time

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Type of high school degree

High school diploma 88.0 89.5 89.2 85.4

GED or equivalency 6.9 5.8 6.2 8.7

No high school degree or certificate 1.6 1.3 1.1 2.3

Other1 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6

Ever took remedial course after high school 

Yes 34.3 31.0 36.4 38.0

No 65.7 69.0 63.6 62.0

Highest level of education ever expected 

No postsecondary degree/certificate 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.1

Certificate 2.2 2.3 1.3 2.5

Associate’s degree 8.0 5.6 6.3 12.1

Bachelor’s degree 29.8 27.1 27.6 34.7

Graduate degree 59.4 64.6 64.5 49.5

1 Including those who were home schooled or attended foreign high schools.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

Enrollment intensity
Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education 

10 

Overall, this subgroup of part-time students made up 25 percent of those who attended 

school part time for part or all of their enrollment in 2003–04 (figure 3). Students with mixed 

enrollment intensity were more likely than exclusively part-time students to fall into this 

subgroup (44 vs. 16 percent). Compared with other part-time students, these students were more 

likely to be male, White or Asian/Pacific Islander, have well-educated parents, come from 

middle- or high-income families (dependent students only), and expect to earn a graduate degree 

in the future. They were less likely to have taken any remedial courses after high school (table 

3). 

Compared with their full-time peers, this subgroup of part-time students was slightly more 

likely to be Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander but less likely to be Black, and more likely to 

come from well-educated families and take remedial courses. The two groups could not be 

distinguished in terms of gender distribution, family income (for dependent students only), and 

educational expectations. In summary, this subgroup of part-time students generally resembled 

their full-time peers, and thus are often referred to as “part-time students who looked like fulltime students” in the remainder of this report. 

Figure 3.—Percentage distribution of part-time undergraduates by whether they were part-time students

Figure 3.—who looked like full-time students: 2003–04

1 These students meet all of the following characteristics: (1) age 23 or younger on December 31, 2003; (2) dependent; (3) had a

regular high school diploma; and (4) received parental help to pay tuition and fees, educational expenses, housing, or living 

expenses other than housing.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

56

84

25

44

16

75

0

20

40

60

80

100

All part-time students Mixed students Exclusively part-time

students

Percent

Part-time students who

looked like full-time

students

Other part-time students

1
 Part-Time Undergraduates in Postsecondary Education 

11 

Table 3.—Percentage distribution of part-time undergraduates with typical characteristics of full-time 

Table 3.—students, by enrollment intensity and selected demographic and academic characteristics: 2003–04

Selected demographic and Exclusively Exclusively Exclusively

academic characteristics full time Total part time Mixed Total part time Mixed

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

Male 44.9 45.8 48.2 44.0 38.0 37.7 38.9

Female 55.1 54.2 51.8 56.1 62.0 62.3 61.1

Race/ethnicity1

White 65.2 64.1 60.0 67.2 60.2 61.0 57.5

Black 13.5 10.0 11.2 9.2 15.9 15.5 17.1

Hispanic 11.4 14.5 17.3 12.3 13.9 13.7 14.6

Asian/Pacific Islander 5.8 7.1 6.9 7.3 5.7 5.4 6.5

American Indian 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.4 1.1 1.0 1.1

Other 3.3 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.2

Parents’ highest education level

High school or less 30.4 26.0 30.4 22.8 43.0 43.5 41.3

Some college 23.9 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.9 24.7 25.5

Bachelor’s degree 23.9 25.7 24.8 26.4 18.2 18.1 18.7

Graduate/professional degree 21.9 23.5 20.1 26.0 14.0 13.8 14.5

Family income of dependent students

Lowest quarter 24.5 23.4 24.8 22.3 37.0 34.6 40.8

Middle two quarters 49.9 51.3 52.5 50.5 47.1 48.8 44.6

Highest quarter 25.6 25.3 22.7 27.2 15.9 16.7 14.7

Ever took remedial courses after high school 

Yes 31.0 35.5 39.8 32.3 38.1 37.6 39.7

No 69.0 64.5 60.2 67.7 61.9 62.4 60.3

Highest level of education ever expected 

No postsecondary degree/certificate 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 1.0 1.2 0.4

Certificate 2.3 0.8 1.3 0.5 2.5 2.7 1.9

Associate’s degree 5.6 6.4 9.8 3.8 11.6 12.6 8.4

Bachelor’s degree 27.1 28.6 33.8 24.7 33.7 34.9 29.9

Graduate degree 64.6 63.9 54.6 70.8 51.2 48.6 59.5

1

 Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and American

Indian includes Alaska Native. The “other” category includes more than one race or those who identified themselves with

another race not shown in the table. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

Part-time students who

looked like full-time students Other part-time students
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
13 

Enrollment Characteristics of Part-Time Undergraduates 

Part-time and full-time students differ on many enrollment characteristics, including the 

type of institution attended, degree program in which they were enrolled, major field of study, 

and the length of enrollment time (McCormick, Geis, and Vergun 1995). This section examines 

the extent to which these enrollment characteristics differed between various groups of part-time 

students and their full-time counterparts in 2003–04. 

Type of Institution 

One characteristic that distinguishes exclusively part-time students from exclusively fulltime students is the type of institutions they attend. In 2003–04, a majority of exclusively parttime students (64 percent) attended public 2-year institutions, compared with 25 percent of their 

exclusively full-time peers (table 4). On the other hand, exclusively full-time students were more 

likely than exclusively part-time students to attend public and private not-for-profit 4-year 

doctoral institutions (33 vs. 11 percent). Students with mixed enrollment intensity fell in between 

the two other groups; for example, 36 percent of them were enrolled in public 2-year institutions, 

higher than the proportion for exclusively full-time students (25 percent) but lower than that for 

exclusively part-time students (64 percent). In addition, students with mixed enrollment intensity 

were more likely than the other two groups of students to attend multiple institutions (12 vs. 6−7 

percent). 

Part-time students who looked like full-time students also tended to be clustered in 2-year 

institutions: about 44 percent of these students attended public 2-year institutions compared with 

25 percent of exclusively full-time students. This pattern was especially true for those who 

attended school exclusively on a part-time basis (63 percent). 

Degree Program 

Consistent with their clustering in public 2-year institutions, exclusively part-time students 

were more likely than exclusively full-time students to be enrolled in an associate’s degree 

program (50 vs. 27 percent) or not be in any degree or certificate program (19 vs. 5 percent) and 

were much less likely to be enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program (24 vs. 61 percent) (table 5). 
Enrollment Characteristics of Part-Time Undergraduates

14 

Again students with mixed enrollment patterns tended to fall in between the two other groups, 

with 53 percent in a bachelor’s degree program and 37 percent in an associate’s degree program. 

Although part-time students who looked like full-time students had a higher enrollment rate 

in a bachelor’s degree program than other part-time students (48 vs. 29 percent), they were still 

less likely than their exclusively full-time counterparts to be enrolled in a bachelor’s degree 

program (48 vs. 61 percent). On the other hand, they were more likely than exclusively full-time 

students to be enrolled in an associate’s degree program (40 vs. 27 percent) or not be in any 

degree or certificate program (10 vs. 5 percent). 

Table 4.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by type of institution and enrollment intensity: 2003–04

Private Private

 not-for- not-forPublic profit Public profit More

4-year 4-year 4-year 4-year Public than one

Enrollment intensity doctoral doctoral nondoctoral nondoctoral 2-year institution Other1

 Total 19.3 5.1 10.7 8.4 40.3 7.5 8.7

Exclusively full time 25.1 7.5 12.2 11.3 25.2 6.4 12.4

Mixed 22.9 4.5 13.5 6.5 35.9 12.2 4.5

Exclusively part time 9.4 2.1 7.4 5.1 63.6 6.8 5.6

Part-time students who looked like full-time students

 Total 23.2 4.6 10.5 3.9 44.0 11.4 2.4

Mixed 29.7 6.4 13.3 5.4 29.4 14.1 1.8

Exclusively part time 14.6 2.3 6.9 2.0 63.3 7.7 3.1

Other part-time students

 Total 10.6 2.3 9.0 6.1 58.3 7.6 6.2

Mixed 17.4 3.0 13.8 7.5 41.0 10.7 6.6

Exclusively part time 8.4 2.0 7.5 5.7 63.6 6.7 6.1

1

 The “other” category includes private not-for-profit, less than 4-year institutions and any type of private for-profit institutions.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).
 Enrollment Characteristics of Part-Time Undergraduates 

15 

For students who attended less-than-4-year institutions or were not enrolled in any degree 

or certificate program, it is informative to examine the reasons why they pursued postsecondary 

education. As shown in table 6, the reasons most frequently cited by these students included 

pursuing personal interest or enrichment (47 percent), learning job skills (42 percent), 

completing an associate’s degree (38 percent), and transferring to a 4-year institution (34 

percent). Both exclusively part-time and full-time students were more likely than mixed 

enrollment students to indicate that they were enrolled in college for personal interest or 

enrichment or to learn job skills, whereas the latter group was more likely to cite the reason of 

earning an associate’s degree or transferring to a 4-year institution. Transferring was cited as a 

major reason for pursuing postsecondary education among part-time students who looked like 

full-time students: 47 percent of these students who attended less-than-4-year institutions or were 

not enrolled in any degree or certificate program indicated that they wished to transfer to a 4-year 

college, 7 percent cited transferring to a 2-year college, and 12 percent cited transferring to 

another type of college, compared with 36, 6, and 10 percent, respectively, of their exclusively 

full-time counterparts. 

Table 5.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by degree program and enrollment intensity: 2003–04

Not in a degree or

Enrollment intensity Certificate Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree certificate program

 Total 6.7 36.3 46.9 10.2

Exclusively full time 7.7 26.6 60.7 5.1

Mixed 3.9 36.5 53.4 6.2

Exclusively part time 6.5 49.8 24.4 19.2

Part-time students who looked like full-time students

 Total 3.0 39.6 47.7 9.8

Mixed 1.7 30.1 62.5 5.7

Exclusively part time 4.6 52.1 28.1 15.2

Other part-time students

 Total 6.6 47.5 29.1 16.8

Mixed 5.6 41.7 46.2 6.6

Exclusively part time 6.9 49.4 23.8 20.0

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).
Enrollment Characteristics of Part-Time Undergraduates

16 

Major Field of Study 

Almost one-third of exclusively part-time students (31 percent) had not declared a major 

field of study, compared with 15 to 16 percent of the other two groups (table 7). In addition, 

exclusively part-time students were less likely than the other two groups to major in all fields 

except for computer or information science, health, and vocational or technical fields. Notably, 

exclusively part-time students were about half as likely as full-time students to major in the 

social and behavior sciences, life sciences, physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering. 

Among part-time students who looked like full-time students, the percentage of those with 

no major field of study remained high (22 percent overall and 31 percent for those who were 

exclusively part time). This pattern may reflect the fact that a relatively high proportion of these 

students were not enrolled in a degree program. 

Table 6.—Among undergraduates who were enrolled in a less-than-4-year institution or not enrolled in a 

Table 6.—degree or certificate program, percentage who reported various reasons for enrolling in postTable 6.—secondary education, by enrollment intensity: 2003–04

Complete an Personal Transfer to Transfer to Transfer to

 associate’s Complete Learn interest or a 2-year a 4-year other type

Enrollment intensity degree a certificate job skills enrichment college college of college

 Total 38.5 19.0 42.5 46.6 5.5 33.5 9.0

Exclusively full time 37.9 21.6 44.0 46.0 5.8 36.2 10.0

Mixed 41.0 17.4 38.2 42.6 6.0 39.9 8.5

Exclusively part time 38.2 17.7 42.6 48.2 5.1 29.7 8.4

Part-time students who looked like full-time students

 Total 38.7 16.9 31.9 43.8 7.3 46.6 11.6

Mixed 37.7 16.2 27.9 41.6 7.1 49.0 10.5

Exclusively part time 39.5 17.3 34.6 45.4 7.4 45.0 12.4

Other part-time students

 Total 38.8 17.8 44.1 47.7 4.8 28.3 7.6

Mixed 42.9 18.0 44.3 43.3 5.4 34.6 7.3

Exclusively part time 37.9 17.7 44.0 48.7 4.7 26.9 7.6

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

Reasons for enrolling
Table 7.—Percentage distribution of undergraduates by their major field of study and enrollment intensity: 2003–04

Social Computer 

or be- or infor- Business Vo

Human- havioral Life Physical Mathe- mation Engi- Edu- or man- tiona

Enrollment intensity ities sciences sciences sciences matics science neering cation agement Health techn

 Total 10.4 7.0 3.9 0.6 0.5 4.9 4.2 6.7 15.6 12.9 

Exclusively full time 10.7 8.6 4.8 0.8 0.6 5.0 5.0 7.2 15.9 11.7 Mixed 11.3 8.2 4.5 1.0 0.6 4.7 4.4 8.3 17.0 13.2 Exclusively part time 9.4 4.2 2.3 0.3 0.3 4.9 2.9 5.3 14.6 14.4 Part-time students who looked like full-time students

 Total 12.3 8.1 4.8 0.7 0.7 3.6 4.4 7.6 14.3 9.8 

Mixed 12.1 9.7 5.5 1.0 0.8 3.6 4.9 8.9 16.0 9.5 Exclusively part time 12.6 6.1 3.8 0.3 0.5 3.6 3.6 5.9 11.9 10.3 Other part-time students

 Total 9.3 4.6 2.4 0.4 0.3 5.2 3.1 5.9 15.8 15.4 

Mixed 10.8 7.1 3.6 0.9 0.4 5.7 3.9 7.8 17.9 16.1 Exclusively part time 8.8 3.8 2.0 0.3 0.3 5.1 2.8 5.2 15.1 15.2 

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables ahttp://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04)

Major field of study
Enrollment Characteristics of Part-Time Undergraduates

18 

Enrollment Duration 

Many students took time off from their studies (Berkner, He, and Cataldi 2002). Some 

returned later to complete a program, and others left permanently without attaining a degree. 

Figure 4 presents a comparison of the average number of months enrolled in the 2003−04 

academic year for students with different patterns of enrollment intensity. Overall, students with 

mixed enrollment intensity stayed in school the longest, averaging 10 months of enrollment in 

2003–04. This reflects the fact that students must have attended two terms for a change in 

enrollment status, while those who attended for only one term are necessarily assigned to one of 

the exclusive categories. Exclusively full-time students were enrolled for 9 months, equivalent to 

one academic year.6 Exclusively part-time students were enrolled for fewer months than the 

other two groups, averaging 7 months. This pattern held among part-time students who looked 

like full-time students as well as other part-time students. 

 

6

 A full academic year typically lasts 9 months (e.g., starting in September and ending in May). 

Figure 4.—Average number of months enrolled by enrollment intensity: 2003–04

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

Number of 

months enrolled

8 9

10

7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Total Exclusively

full-time

students

Mixed

students

Exclusively

part-time

students

Number of 

months enrolled

9 9

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Exclusively

full-time

students

Part-time students

who looked like

full-time students

Other

part-time

students
 Enrollment Characteristics of Part-Time Undergraduates 

19 

Short enrollment duration may indicate three possible outcomes: early degree completion, 

late entry, stopout or dropout behavior, or nondegree enrollment in which students finish their 

program in a single term or semester (McCormick, Geis, and Vergun 1995). By focusing 

attention on first- and second-year students who began in the fall and were enrolled in a degree 

program, shorter enrollment likely indicates stopout or dropout behavior. The differences in 

enrollment duration described above remained after these sample restrictions (table 8), 

suggesting that exclusively part-time students may have been more likely than full-time students 

or those with mixed enrollment intensity to stop out or drop out. 

Table 8.—Number of months enrolled by enrollment intensity: 2003–04

First- and second-year students

who began in the fall and were

Enrollment intensity All undergraduates enrolled in a degree program

 Total 8.3 9.2

Exclusively full time 8.7 9.3

Mixed 10.0 10.1

Exclusively part time 7.0 8.5

Part-time students who looked like full-time students

 Total 8.7 9.4

Mixed 10.2 10.2

Exclusively part time 6.8 8.2

Other part-time students

 Total 7.7 9.0

Mixed 9.9 10.1

Exclusively part time 7.0 8.5

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
21 

Combining School and Work 

As college costs rise, increasing numbers of students turn to work to pay for their education 

(King and Bannon 2002). In 2003–04, 82 percent of undergraduates reported that they would not 

be able to attend college if they did not work.7

 Indeed, a majority of undergraduates (78 percent) 

worked while enrolled in postsecondary education in 2003–04 (figure 5). Although working 

 

7

 Estimates from the 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2004), Data Analysis System. 

Figure 5.—Percentage of undergraduates who worked while enrolled and who worked full time, by age,

Figure 5.—dependency status, and family income of dependent students: 2003–04

1 Worked 35 hours or more per week.

2 For dependent students only.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

Undergraduates who worked

75

78

71

75

80

76

82

79

78

0 20 40 60 80 100

Lowest quarter

Middle two quarters

Highest quarter

Dependent

Independent

Younger than 24

24–29

30 or older

Total

Percent

 2

Age

Dependency

Family income

Undergraduates who worked full time1

20

18

14

18

50

20

48

55

34

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent
Combining School and Work

22 

while enrolled was common among all subgroups of students (i.e., by age, dependency status, 

and family income), it was their work intensity (full time vs. part time) that set students apart. 

For example, younger and dependent students (particularly those from high-income families) 

were less likely than older and independent students to work full time. Previous studies have 

indicated that some students report that working while enrolled helps them with their coursework 

and preparation for their future careers, but other students reported that working compromises 

the quality of their college experience and represents a barrier to advancing academically (Horn 

1994; Hudson and Hurst 2002; King and Bannon 2002). This section examines how part-time 

and full-time students combined school and work and how these concurrent activities affected 

their postsecondary experiences. 

Employment and Primary Role 

In 2003–04, 83 percent of exclusively part-time undergraduates worked while enrolled, 

more than one-half (53 percent) of them worked full time, and 47 percent considered themselves 

primarily employees who decided to enroll in school (table 9). Although a majority of 

exclusively full-time students (73 percent) worked while enrolled, just under one-fourth (23 

percent) worked full time and 14 percent considered themselves primarily employees. For 

students with mixed enrollment intensity, their employment rate, work intensity, and perceived 

primary roles were more like those of exclusively full-time students than those of exclusively 

part-time students. 

Working intensity was significantly reduced among part-time students who looked like 

full-time students: 21 percent had a full-time job while enrolled (not measurably different from 

the 23 percent of full-time students); the number of hours they worked per week was 26 hours, 

on average (not significantly different from full-time students); 11 percent considered themselves 

primarily employees (lower than 14 percent of full-time students); and 69 percent considered 

themselves primarily students (higher than the 59 percent of full-time students). These results 

suggest that many of these students may have placed more emphasis on study than work. 

Unlike part-time students who looked like full-time students, other part-time students had a 

heavy work load: 83 percent worked while enrolled, 53 percent of them worked full time, and 

their average work week was 35 hours. In addition, more of them considered themselves 

primarily employees than students (47 vs. 36 percent). 
 Combining School and Work 

23 

Reasons for and Effects of Working While Enrolled 

Why did students work? This question was asked of those who worked but considered 

themselves primarily students. According to their responses, financial concerns appeared to be 

the dominant reason for working: 63 percent worked to help pay tuition, fees, and living 

expenses, and 24 percent worked to earn some spending money (table 10). Less than 1 in 10 (7 

percent) cited that they worked to gain job experience. 

Table 9.—Percentage of undergraduates who worked while enrolled and who worked full time, average 

Table 9.—number of hours worked per week, and percentage distribution by their primary role, by 

Table 9.—enrollment intensity: 2003–04

Of those

who worked,

Percent who number of Primarily Primarily

worked hours worked student who employee Student who

Enrollment intensity Total full time2 per week worked who studied did not work

 Total 77.7 34.2 29.5 51.4 26.3 22.3

Exclusively full time 73.2 22.8 25.7 58.7 14.4 26.8

Mixed 78.9 27.5 27.7 60.6 18.3 21.1

Exclusively part time 83.5 53.3 34.8 36.6 46.9 16.5

Part-time students who looked like full-time students

 Total 79.6 21.4 25.9 69.0 10.6 20.4

Mixed 79.3 14.5 23.4 73.5 5.9 20.7

Exclusively part time 80.0 30.6 29.1 63.1 16.9 20.0

Other part-time students

 Total 82.8 52.9 34.8 36.1 46.7 17.2

Mixed 78.6 38.0 31.0 50.3 28.3 21.4

Exclusively part time 84.1 57.5 35.9 31.6 52.5 15.9

1 Including work-study/assistantship.

2 Worked 35 hours or more per week.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

Worked while enrolled1 Primary role
Combining School and Work

24 

Exclusively part-time students were more likely than exclusively full-time students to cite 

paying tuition, fees, or living expenses as a reason for working (72 vs. 59 percent), whereas 

exclusively full-time students were more likely to cite earning spending money (29 vs. 15 

percent). However, among students who looked like full-time students, the percentage who cited 

paying college-related expenses as a reason for working was reduced: 55 percent cited this 

reason, compared with 59 percent of exclusively full-time students and 76 percent of other parttime students. 

Students who worked while enrolled but considered themselves primarily students were 

also asked about the impact of employment on their study. Overall, their responses indicated 

more limitations than benefits. Although some students reported that working helped them with 

career preparation (35 percent), a smaller percentage (14 percent) thought that it helped them 

with coursework (table 11). On the other hand, between 31 and 48 percent thought that 

employment limited their class schedule (48 percent), reduced the number of classes they could 

take (40 percent), restricted their choice of classes (34 percent), and limited their access to the 

Table 10.—Among students who worked while enrolled but still considered themselves primarily students, 

Table 10.—percentage distribution by their main reasons for working and enrollment intensity: 2003–04

Earn spending Pay tuition, fees, Gain job

Enrollment intensity money or living expenses experience Other

 Total 24.2 63.4 7.3 5.1

Exclusively full time 28.5 59.5 7.3 4.7

Mixed 25.1 62.2 7.7 5.0

Exclusively part time 14.5 72.5 6.9 6.1

Part-time students who looked like full-time students

 Total 32.0 55.2 8.2 4.6

Mixed 35.9 51.6 8.1 4.4

Exclusively part time 26.1 60.6 8.3 5.0

Other part-time students

 Total 10.9 76.3 6.6 6.3

Mixed 12.3 74.8 7.2 5.8

Exclusively part time 10.2 77.0 6.3 6.5

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).
 Combining School and Work 

25 

facility (31 percent). In addition, 41 percent reported that working had a negative effect on their 

grades. 

Students who attended part time for all or some of their enrollment in 2003−04 were more 

likely than their full-time peers to report each of these limitations of working. Part-time students 

who looked like full-time students were also more likely than exclusively full-time students to 

report various limits imposed by their employment. In addition, the likelihood of reporting each 

problem was highest among other part-time students, which was not a surprising result given the 

amount of time they worked each week (table 9). 

Table 11.—Among students who worked while enrolled but still considered themselves primarily students, 

Table 11.—percentage who reported various effects of working, by enrollment intensity: 2003–04

Had

Helped with Helped Restricted Limited Limited Limited negative

career with class class facility number of effects

Enrollment intensity preparation coursework choice schedule access classes on grade

 Total 34.6 13.5 33.7 47.6 30.9 40.2 41.1

Exclusively full time 33.2 12.7 27.8 40.4 26.9 32.3 38.5

Mixed 35.2 13.0 34.0 48.3 30.6 40.1 42.5

Exclusively part time 37.3 15.9 46.8 63.4 39.9 58.4 45.6

Part-time students who looked like full-time students

 Total 36.2 13.1 32.6 48.0 27.4 39.5 37.5

Mixed 36.1 12.7 27.7 41.3 25.5 32.7 35.8

Exclusively part time 36.3 13.9 40.2 58.5 30.4 49.9 40.1

Other part-time students

 Total 36.5 15.6 46.6 62.4 41.2 57.3 48.6

Mixed 34.0 13.4 41.2 56.6 36.6 48.7 50.3

Exclusively part time 37.7 16.7 49.3 65.3 43.5 61.5 47.7

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
27 

Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years 

Persistence toward and completion of a degree are among the most important indicators of 

students’ success in postsecondary education. This section examines these two outcomes. Unlike 

earlier research that typically treated part-time students as one group (McCormick, Geis, and 

Vergun 1995; O’Toole, Stratton, and Wetzel 2003), this analysis divides part-time students into 

various subgroups and compares their persistence and degree attainment among themselves and 

with those of full-time students. The findings of this analysis provide useful information about 

the experiences of part-time students that may be related to their outcomes in postsecondary 

education. 

Persistence and degree attainment are best studied using longitudinal data. For this purpose, 

data from the 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01) are 

used here to examine the rates of persistence and degree attainment of students 6 years after they 

entered postsecondary education. Since BPS:96/01 covers a longer interval of enrollment data 

than the 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2004), one would expect 

to see more mixed enrollment students (indicating a change in enrollment status) in the BPS 

cohort than in the NPSAS:2004. As shown in figure 6, some 41 percent of BPS:96/01 students 

were identified as mixed enrollment students over 6 years, higher than the 16 percent of 

NPSAS:2004 students. Overall, 59 percent of BPS:96/01 students maintained the same 

enrollment status for the duration of their enrollment from 1995–96 through 2000–01: 47 percent 

were enrolled exclusively full time, and 12 percent were enrolled exclusively part time. 

Like part-time students in NPSAS:2004, part-time students in BPS:96/01 were 

distinguished from full-time students based on age, dependency status, type of high school 

diploma obtained, and whether they received financial help from their parents at the time of their 

initial enrollment. Because BPS:96/01 includes only students who enrolled in postsecondary 

education for the first time in 1995–96, it contains a higher proportion of young and dependent 

students8

 and, therefore, a higher proportion of part-time students who looked like full-time 

students than the NPSAS:2004 population discussed above. As shown in figure 7, among 

1995−96 beginning students who had attended school part time at least once over 6 years, 47 

percent were classified as part-time students who looked like full-time students, a higher 

 

8

 For example, 81 percent of BPS:96/01 students were under 24 years old and 73 percent were dependent, compared with 57 and 

50 percent of NPSAS:2004 students, respectively (Berkner, He, and Cataldi 2002; see table 1). 
Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years

28 

proportion than the 25 percent of part-time students in NPSAS:2004. Students with mixed 

enrollment intensity were more likely than exclusively part-time students to be classified as parttime students who looked like full-time students (56 vs. 15 percent). 

Degree Attainment and Persistence After 6 Years 

Consistent with earlier research (Berkner, He, and Cataldi 2002; Carroll 1989; O’Toole, 

Stratton, and Wetzel 2003), part-time enrollment was negatively associated with long-term 

degree attainment and persistence. Looking at 1995–96 beginning students who attended school 

exclusively part time for their entire enrollment through 2001, 15 percent had completed a 

degree or certificate by 2001, none had earned a bachelor’s degree, and 73 percent were no 

longer enrolled and had not earned any degree (table 12). In contrast, 64 percent of exclusively 

full-time students had earned a degree or certificate, 44 percent had earned a bachelor’s degree, 

and 28 percent had left without a degree. Students with mixed enrollment intensity fell in 

between these two groups, with 46 percent attaining a degree or certificate, 20 percent attaining a 

bachelor’s degree, and 30 percent leaving without a degree. 

Figure 6.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning students by enrollment intensity through 2001

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of 

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

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

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

Mixed

41%

Exclusively

full time

47%

Exclusively part time

12%
 Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years 

29 

Large attainment gaps were even observed among students who started postsecondary 

education with a degree goal (figure 8). Again exclusively part-time students were less likely 

than their full-time counterparts to have earned a degree or certificate (15 vs. 65 percent) and 

were more likely to have left without earning a degree (70 vs. 26 percent). 

Part-time students who looked like full-time students appeared to be more successful than 

other part-time students with respect to these outcomes: 45 versus 34 percent completed a 

degree, 25 versus 7 percent earned a bachelor’s degree, 24 versus 18 percent were still enrolled, 

and 31 versus 49 percent left without a degree (table 12). Because they needed more time to 

accumulate credits, part-time students who looked like full-time students still lagged behind their 

full-time peers in terms of overall degree attainment (45 vs. 64 percent) and bachelor’s degree 

completion (25 vs. 44 percent) and were more likely than full-time students to be still enrolled 6 

years after they had started postsecondary education (24 vs. 7 percent). Combining this 

Figure 7.—Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who attended school part time between 

Figure 7.—1995–96 and 2000–01, percentage distribution by whether they were part-time students who

Figure 7.—looked like full-time students

1 These beginning postsecondary students meet all of the following characteristics when first enrolled in 1995–96: (1) age 23 

or younger; (2) dependent; (3) had a regular high school diploma; and (4) received parental help to pay tuition and fees, 

educational expenses, housing, or living expenses other than housing.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

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

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

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

53 44

85

47 56

15

0

20

40

60

80

100

All part-time students Mixed students Exclusively part-time

students

Percent

Part-time students who

looked like full-time

students

Other part-time students

1
Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years

30 

enrollment rate with the overall degree completion rate, both groups had persistence rates of 

roughly 70 percent (not shown in table 12).9

Timing of Departure 

The high attrition rates of exclusively part-time students are of serious concern. Thus, it is 

important to obtain information about when they are most likely to leave postsecondary 

education. Table 13 presents the persistence and annual attrition rates of students who began 

their postsecondary education in 1995–96. About 27 percent of exclusively part-time students 

 

9

 Persistence is measured by the sum of the percentage who had attained a degree or certificate by 2001 and the percentage who 

were still enrolled by 2001. Thus, the persistence rate is 72 percent (64+6+2) for exclusively full-time students and 69 percent 

(46+14+9) for part-time students who looked like full-time students. 

Table 12.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students by highest degree of

Table 12.—attainment and persistence through 2001 and enrollment intensity

Enrolled at

Asso- Enrolled less-thanBachelor’s ciate’s at 4-year 4-year Not

Enrollment intensity Total degree degree Certificate Total institution institution enrolled

 Total 51.0 28.7 10.0 12.3 49.0 8.8 5.6 34.6

Exclusively full time 64.4 43.7 8.3 12.4 35.6 6.0 1.5 28.2

Mixed 46.3 20.0 14.3 12.1 53.7 14.0 9.4 30.4

Exclusively part time 14.9 # 2.3 12.7 85.1 2.9 8.8 73.4

Part-time students who looked like full-time students

 Total 45.4 25.0 13.6 6.8 54.6 14.3 9.4 30.9

Mixed 48.5 27.0 14.5 6.9 51.5 15.3 8.6 27.7

Exclusively part time 7.2 # 2.5 4.7 92.8 1.8 19.8 71.3

Other part-time students

 Total 33.5 6.9 9.7 16.9 66.5 8.9 9.1 48.5

Mixed 43.6 10.9 14.0 18.6 56.4 12.3 10.4 33.8

Exclusively part time 16.3 # 2.2 14.1 83.7 3.1 6.9 73.8

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

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

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

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

Attained a degree/certificate Did not attain a degree/certificate
 Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years 

31 

persisted (i.e., still enrolled or had attained a degree) 6 years after their initial entry, a proportion 

that was substantially lower than the 72 percent for their full-time peers. Looking at the pattern 

of annual attrition rates reveals that the first year was the most common time for students to 

leave postsecondary education. Nearly half of exclusively part-time students (46 percent) left 

college during their first year, compared with 12 percent of exclusively full-time students. Only 3 

percent of students with mixed enrollment intensity left in the first year, which was the lowest 

rate among the three groups. However, mixed enrollment students had somewhat higher attrition 

rates than full-time students starting in the third year. 

As a group, part-time students who looked like full-time students had lower first-year 

attrition rates than other part-time students and exclusively full-time students (4 vs. 20 and 12 

percent, respectively). However, considerable differences existed among part-time students who 

looked like full-time students: a total of 62 percent of those who attended school exclusively on a 

part-time basis left during their first 3 years, a rate that was much higher than that among those 

with mixed enrollment intensity (13 percent). For both groups, attrition rates peaked in the third 

year and declined subsequently. 

Figure 8.—Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who started postsecondary education with a

Figure 8.—degree goal, percentage distribution by degree attainment and persistence in 2001 and enrollment

Figure 8.—intensity

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of 

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

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

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

52

65

47

15

15 23

15

32 26 30

70 9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Total Exclusively full-time

students

Mixed students Exclusively part-time

students

Percent

Not attained and

not enrolled

Not attained but

still enrolled

Attained a degree

or certificate
Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years

32 

Factors Related to Degree Attainment and Persistence 

The tabular analyses described above show that part-time enrollment was associated with 

many demographic, academic, enrollment, and employment characteristics as well as long-term 

persistence and degree attainment. Although these relationships are informative, they are 

bivariate and may reflect more complex relationships among multiple factors. For example, the 

data in table 12 indicate that exclusively part-time students were less likely than exclusively fulltime students to attain a degree. This may be due to the fact that the latter group had family and 

academic backgrounds that were relatively advantaged, which may have had positive effects on 

their long-term persistence and degree completion. Because the independent variables included 

Table 13.—Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students by whether they attained

Table 13.—any degree or certificate in 2001, or if they did not attain, the year they left postsecondary 

Table 13.—education, by enrollment intensity

Attained

Still a degree/

1995– 1996– 1997– 1998– 1999– 2000– enrolled certificate PersisEnrollment intensity 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 in 2001 by 2001 tence1

 Total 12.3 5.4 6.6 4.4 3.9 2.0 14.4 51.0 65.4

Exclusively full time 11.6 5.6 4.4 3.2 2.3 1.1 7.5 64.4 71.8

Mixed 2.8 4.2 8.2 6.5 5.7 2.9 23.3 46.3 69.7

Exclusively part time 46.3 8.8 9.6 2.1 4.4 2.3 11.7 14.9 26.6

Part-time students who looked like full-time students

 Total 4.4 3.8 8.7 6.2 5.0 2.8 23.7 45.4 69.1

Mixed 2.4 3.2 7.8 6.7 5.1 2.5 23.9 48.5 72.3

Exclusively part time 29.1 11.7 20.8 0.1 3.5 6.1 21.5 7.2 28.8

Other part-time students

 Total 20.3 6.6 8.4 4.8 5.7 2.8 18.0 33.5 51.5

Mixed 3.4 5.5 8.8 6.2 6.3 3.5 22.7 43.6 66.3

Exclusively part time 49.2 8.3 7.6 2.4 4.6 1.6 9.9 16.3 26.2

1 Persistence is measured by the percentage of students who had attained a degree or certificate by 2001 or were still enrolled 

in 2001.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

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

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

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

leaving postsecondary education without return 6-year persistence summary

No degree/certificate, the year 
 Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years 

33 

in this study are interrelated, it may be useful to examine the unique relationships between each 

independent variable and each dependent variable (i.e., persistence and degree completion) after 

controlling for the shared, or common, variability among the independent variables included in 

the analysis. This approach is sometimes referred to as “commonality analysis,” in which a 

multiple linear regression is used to look at the relationship between an independent variable and 

an outcome variable while adjusting for the common variation among a group of independent 

variables. It should be noted that commonality analyses conducted in this study are descriptive in 

nature and are not designed to test an underlying theoretical model. A significant coefficient for a 

particular independent variable only indicates the unique relationship between this independent 

variable and the dependent variable when other independent variables are controlled. It does not 

imply causality. For the purpose of this study, commonality analyses were performed on three 

outcomes for 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students: overall degree completion rate, 

bachelor’s degree completion rate, and persistence to a degree. Four commonality analyses were 

performed for each outcome variable, controlling for the common variation among all 

independent variables included in the analysis. The first analysis used the entire student sample 

and focused on the independent relationship of students’ enrollment intensity to three outcome 

variables. The results of this analysis reveal persistence and degree attainment rates for each 

part-time subgroup relative to those of full-time students after controlling for other factors. The 

next three analyses restricted the sample to exclusively full-time students, part-time students who 

looked like full-time students, and other part-time students, respectively.10 The results of these 

analyses help identify whether the factors related to full-time students’ persistence and degree 

attainment are different from those for the two subgroups of part-time students. 

The commonality analyses included the following independent variables: demographic 

characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, dependency status, and family socioeconomic status);11

academic characteristics (type of high school diploma, remedial coursetaking, SAT composite 

test scores, and education expectations); enrollment characteristics (type of institution when first 

enrolled, degree program when first enrolled, major field of study when first enrolled, and 

enrollment continuity and intensity through 2001);12 and employment characteristics 

(employment status when first enrolled and primary role perceived). 

 

10 However, commonality analysis of bachelor’s degree completion rate was not performed for other part-time students because 

there were too few bachelor’s degree recipients in this group to obtain reliable estimates. 

11 Age was excluded because it was highly correlated with dependency status. 

12 Enrollment intensity was included as an independent variable only in the first commonality analysis. It was used as the 

selection filter for the remaining three analyses. 
Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years

34 

Relationship Between Enrollment Intensity and Degree Attainment and Persistence 

Table 14 presents the least squares coefficients from the commonality analyses that 

examined students’ likelihood of earning any degree or certificate, earning a bachelor’s degree, 

and persisting toward a degree over a period of 6 years after they had first entered college. These 

coefficients represent the difference (either higher or lower) in percentage points that might be 

expected between the analysis group (e.g., female students) and the comparison group (e.g., male 

students) after controlling for the interrelationships of all other independent variables included in 

the analysis. Comparison groups are shown in italics. Significant coefficients (indicated by 

asterisks) mean that the observed differences in the likelihood of achieving an outcome between 

the comparison groups and the analysis groups remain even after taking into account the 

covariation of all other independent variables included in the analysis. Standard errors for the 

coefficients are presented in tables B-2 through B-5 in appendix B. 

After controlling for many related factors, part-time enrollment continued to have a 

negative relationship with long-term postsecondary outcomes. In particular, regardless of 

whether they resembled full-time students, exclusively part-time students significantly lagged 

behind their full-time peers in terms of overall degree completion, bachelor’s degree completion, 

and persistence toward a degree even after controlling for many factors related to these 

outcomes. Regardless of their resemblance to full-time students, mixed enrollment students also 

lagged behind their full-time peers with respect to bachelor’s degree completion, but their rates 

of overall degree attainment and persistence were not significantly different after controlling for 

other factors. Two implications can be drawn from these results. First, the extent of students’ 

part-time enrollment (i.e., exclusively versus partially) was related to their postsecondary 

outcomes. Exclusively part-time students fared poorly in comparison with partially part-time 

students in terms of postsecondary persistence and degree completion. Second, the results 

indicate that possessing some characteristics common to full-time students did not guarantee that 

part-time students would be as likely to attain a degree or to persist in college as their full-time 

peers. 

Besides enrollment intensity, several other independent variables were also consistently 

related to postsecondary outcomes. After controlling for other related factors, students who 

entered college without any degree goal, had ever taken remedial courses after high school, 

performed poorly on college entrance examinations, worked full time while enrolled in the first 

year, and always considered themselves primarily employees or changed their primary role from 

students to employees were less likely than their corresponding comparison groups (shown in 

italics) to attain a degree or certificate, to earn a bachelor’s degree, and to persist toward a 

degree. Students who took breaks in their enrollment had lower degree attainment rates but 
 Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years 

35 

Table 14.—Least squared coefficients for percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who had

Table 14.—earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, 

Table 14.—and percentage who persisted through 2001 after controlling for selected student characteristics

Earned a degree Earned a

Student characteristics or certificate bachelor’s degree Persistence2

 Total 77.8 78.8 80.0

Enrollment intensity through 2001

Exclusively part-time student who looked like 

 full-time students -35.6 * -14.7 * -28.5 *

Other exclusively part-time student -27.2 * -10.4 * -22.6 *

Mixed enrollment student who looked like 

 full-time students -7.3 -11.8 * 2.1

Other mixed enrollment student -4.1 -5.9 * 4.1

Exclusively full-time student † † †

Gender

Female 2.4 2.3 1.9

Male † † †

Race/ethnicity3

Black -9.0 * -4.2 -9.4 *

Hispanic -5.6 * -5.2 * -3.8

Asian/Pacific Islander 1.9 4.2 2.0

Other 0.9 9.1 0.0

White † † †

Socioeconomic status index in 1995–96

Moderately disadvantaged -1.8 -3.3 -3.9 *

Highly disadvantaged -3.5 -6.2 * -3.4

Not disadvantaged † † †

Dependency status in 1995–96

Independent without dependents -6.2 * -5.8 -0.8

Independent with dependents -0.6 -3.6 2.2

Dependent † † †

Highest level of education expected in 1995–96

No postsecondary degree or certificate -14.9 * -5.7 * -17.1 *

Certificate 0.9 -6.4 * -1.1

Associate’s degree 0.9 -4.7 -4.6

Graduate degree 7.0 * 7.8 * 8.1 *

Bachelor’s degree † † †

Type of high school diploma

GED or equivalency -2.3 -4.2 -3.6

No high school degree or certificate -8.8 -5.6 -11.8 *

Regular high school diploma † † †

See notes at end of table.

Least squared coefficients1
Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years

36 

Table 14.—Least squared coefficients for percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who had

Table 14.—earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, 

Table 14.—and percentage who persisted through 2001 after controlling for selected student characteristics

Table 14.——Continued

Earned a degree Earned a

Student characteristics or certificate bachelor’s degree Persistence2

Remedial coursetaking after high school

Yes -12.8 * -6.2 * -8.7 *

No † † †

SAT/ACT composite score

Did not take/missing -10.9 * -22.9 * -7.5 *

Lowest quarter -14.7 * -21.6 * -8.4 *

Middle two quarters -5.8 * -11.0 * -3.3 *

Highest quarter †††

Type of first institution

Private not-for-profit doctoral 9.7 * 9.9 * 5.7

Public 4-year nondoctoral -4.3 -6.8 * -3.3

Private not-for-profit 4-year nondoctoral 6.2 * 6.0 * 1.1

Public 2-year -0.9 -2.8 -3.1

Other 7.9 -12.0 * 3.7

Public 4-year doctoral † † †

Degree program in 1995–96

Certificate 5.9 -20.7 * -1.1

Associate’s -5.4 -20.6 * -8.0 *

Bachelor’s † † †

Major field of study in 1995–96

Humanities -0.4 -0.9 -1.6

Vocational/technical -7.6 -5.9 -6.7

Other technical/professional 1.1 -2.9 -0.1

Undeclared -2.9 -4.0 -0.4

Social/behavioral sciences -2.7 0.3 -3.7

Life sciences -1.2 0.0 4.9

Physical sciences -10.0 -5.0 -5.5

Mathematics -5.1 3.0 -9.5

Computer/information science -3.8 -5.0 -3.8

Engineering 3.5 -2.8 5.6

Education 2.9 5.4 0.9

Health 1.7 -4.3 0.6

Business/management † † †

Enrollment continuity through 2001

Not continuously enrolled -16.1 * -19.7 * 7.6 *

Continuously enrolled † † †

See notes at end of table.

Least squared coefficients1
 Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years 

37 

higher persistence rates than those who continued their enrollment, suggesting that many of those 

who took time off but subsequently resumed their education were continuing to persist in 

obtaining a postsecondary degree. 

Several independent variables were primarily related to bachelor’s degree completion. It is 

obvious that students enrolled in certificate or associate’s degree programs were less likely than 

those in bachelor’s degree programs to attain a bachelor’s degree within 6 years of first enrolling 

in a postsecondary institution regardless of other characteristics. Compared with their peers who 

began their postsecondary education at public 4-year doctoral institutions, those who initially 

attended private 4-year institutions (both doctoral and nondoctoral) were more likely to attain a 

Table 14.—Least squared coefficients for percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who had

Table 14.—earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, 

Table 14.—and percentage who persisted through 2001 after controlling for selected student characteristics

Table 14.——Continued

Earned a degree Earned a

Student characteristics or certificate bachelor’s degree Persistence2

Employment status while enrolled in 1995–96

Worked part time -3.0 -1.8 0.9

Worked full time -7.8 * -4.6 * -4.6 *

Did not work † † †

Perceived primary role through 2001

Always considering themselves primarily 

 as an employee -6.9 * -5.7 * -10.9 *

Shifting from primarily a student to primarily 

 an employee -5.2 * -8.9 * -6.5 *

Shifting from primarily an employee to primarily 

 a student 3.9 -1.6 1.8

Always considering themselves primarily 

 as a student † † †

† Not applicable for the reference group. 

* p < .05. 1 Least squares coefficients, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

2 Persistence is measured by the sum of the percentage who had attained a degree or certificate by 2001 and the percentage who 

were still enrolled in 2001.

3 Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. The “other”

category includes American Indian/Alaska Native, those who identified more than one race, and those who identified 

themselves with another race not shown in the table. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. The italicized group in each category is the 

reference group being compared. Standard errors for the least squares coefficients were presented in table B-2 in appendix B 

and also available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

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

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

Least squared coefficients1
Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years

38 

bachelor’s degree within 6 years, whereas those who initially attended public 4-year nondoctoral 

institutions or other institutions were less likely to do so. 

Black and Hispanic students were less successful in their postsecondary outcomes than 

White students. Compared with White students, students from both minority groups had lower 

overall degree completion rates. Hispanic students also had a lower bachelor’s degree 

completion rate than White students, whereas Black students had a lower persistence rate. 

Different outcomes were also found by students’ family socioeconomic status: students from 

highly disadvantaged families had lower bachelor’s degree completion rates than students from 

advantaged families, and students from moderately disadvantaged families were less likely to 

persist than their advantaged counterparts. 

Were Factors Related to Degree Attainment and Persistence Consistent Across Student 

Groups? 

Three commonality analyses were conducted for exclusively full-time students, part-time 

students who looked like full-time students, and other part-time students. The results presented in 

table 15 led to several conclusions. First, factors that were significant for full-time students were 

not necessarily significant for part-time students after controlling for all related factors. For 

example, gender was a significant factor (favoring female students) for full-time students, but not 

for the two subgroups of part-time students. Among full-time students, those who entered college 

without any degree goal had lower degree attainment and persistence rates than their peers with a 

bachelor’s degree goal; however, such differences were not replicated for the two subgroups of 

part-time students (i.e., those without degree goals and those seeking a bachelor’s degree had 

similarly low rates of degree completion). Performance on college entrance examinations were 

significantly associated with full-time students’ overall degree attainment and persistence, but it 

was a significant factor in bachelor’s degree attainment only for the two subgroups of part-time 

students. In addition, full-time students who initially attended private not-for-profit doctoral 

institutions had better postsecondary outcomes than their peers who entered public doctoral 

institutions; however, among the two subgroups of part-time students, those who initially 

attended private not-for-profit nondoctoral institutions had a higher bachelor’s degree completion 

rate than those who entered public doctoral institutions. 

There were, however, several conditions that were consistently associated with 

postsecondary outcomes for all three subgroups. For example, remedial coursetaking was 

negatively associated with overall degree attainment and persistence for all three subgroups even 

after controlling for other related factors. Regardless of their subgroup, those enrolled in 

certificate or associate’s degree programs were less likely than their peers in bachelor’s degree 
Table 15.—Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students with various enrollment intensity, least squared coefficients for p

Table 15.—earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage whTable 15.—after controlling for selected student characteristics

Earned Earned

Earned a bach- Earned a bach- 

a degree elor’s Persis- a degree elor’s Persis- 

Student characteristics or certificate degree tence3 or certificate degree tence3 o

 Total 85.4 79.6 89.7 78.2 76.8 78.8 

Gender

Female 4.0 * 3.4 3.2 * 2.2 3.0 -0.7 

Male † † † † † † 

Race/ethnicity4

Black -12.6 * -5.0 -12.0 * -9.6 -9.2 * -13.0 * 

Hispanic -6.3 * -6.1 -4.8 0.8 -3.9 -0.2 

Asian/Pacific Islander 3.0 6.5 1.2 5.5 0.1 2.2 Other -8.7 -1.7 -1.9 1.7 8.9 -4.0 White † † † † † † 

Socioeconomic status index in 1995–96

Moderately disadvantaged -1.5 -4.6 -3.1 -3.0 -3.4 -4.6 Highly disadvantaged -2.5 -5.1 -1.1 -12.0 * -8.2 * -6.9 

Not disadvantaged † † † † † † 

Dependency status in 1995–96

Independent without dependents -4.0 -6.0 -0.4 — — — Independent with dependents -0.4 -3.8 0.2 — — — Dependent † † † ——— 

See notes at end of table.

Least squared coefficients1

Part-time students who 

Exclusively full time students looked like full-time students
Table 15.—Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students with various enrollment intensity, least squared coefficients for p

Table 15.—earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage whTable 15.—after controlling for selected student characteristics—Continued

Earned Earned

Earned a bach- Earned a bach- 

a degree elor’s Persis- a degree elor’s Persis- 

Student characteristics or certificate degree tence3 or certificate degree tence3 o

Highest level of education expected in 1995–96

No postsecondary degree or certificate -29.2 * -11.8 * -37.4 * 3.3 5.3 20.1 

Certificate 7.0 * -3.9 1.7 -3.0 -8.5 -10.8 

Associate’s degree 7.4 * -5.6 0.9 11.0 -8.7 10.9 Graduate degree 6.8 * 9.7 * 7.2 * 5.2 9.1 * 13.4 * 

Bachelor’s degree † † † † † † 

Type of high school diploma

GED or equivalency -12.6 * -2.6 -9.7 * — — — 

No high school degree or certificate -4.5 0.4 -4.8 — — — 

Regular high school diploma † † † ——— 

Remedial coursetaking after high school

Yes -9.8 * -5.1 -9.8 * -9.9 * -7.5 * -6.0 * 

No † † † † † † 

SAT/ACT composite score

Did not take/missing -16.1 * -24.0 * -13.6 * -9.2 -13.9 * -10.5 

Lowest quarter -14.9 * -21.7 * -14.2 * -7.2 -14.9 * 0.4 

Middle two quarters -6.8 * -9.2 * -4.8 * -2.8 -10.4 * -3.5 

Highest quarter ††† ††† 

See notes at end of table.

Part-time students who 

looked like full-time students

Least squared coefficients1

Exclusively full time students
Table 15.—Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students with various enrollment intensity, least squared coefficients for p

Table 15.—earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage whTable 15.—after controlling for selected student characteristics—Continued

Earned Earned

Earned a bach- Earned a bach- 

a degree elor’s Persis- a degree elor’s Persis- 

Student characteristics or certificate degree tence3 or certificate degree tence3 o

Type of first institution

Private not-for-profit, doctoral 8.6 * 8.2 * 6.4 * 7.9 8.4 2.5 

Public 4-year nondoctoral -3.3 -6.3 -2.8 -9.4 -9.8 * -3.3 

Private not-for-profit 4-year nondoctoral 3.6 2.6 1.9 6.1 8.7 * -1.2 Public 2-year -4.8 -8.6 -3.7 -2.4 -8.9 -5.0 Other 10.4 * -14.6 * 5.7 15.4 -12.0 13.9 

Public 4-year doctoral † † † † † † 

Degree program in 1995–96

Certificate 0.9 -24.7 * -1.3 7.1 -16.0 * -0.8 

Associate’s -4.7 -18.7 * -6.7 -1.6 -14.2 * -4.0 Bachelor’s † † † † † † 

Major field of study in 1995–96

Humanities -5.6 0.5 -7.7 * 4.2 -9.2 * 11.8 

Vocational/technical -14.0 * -4.6 -12.5 * 3.7 -12.5 -11.9 

Other technical/professional -13.5 * -4.2 -12.1 * 7.5 -4.9 5.6 

Undeclared -7.1 * -1.3 -6.4 * -9.9 -10.9 * 1.3 

Social/behavioral sciences -4.7 3.0 -5.1 -5.9 -12.7 * -5.6 

Life sciences -4.6 2.6 -0.3 -6.2 -12.1 * 11.6 

Physical sciences -10.0 -3.2 -4.4 -11.4 -5.6 -1.2 Mathematics -12.0 3.8 -13.9 36.9 30.6 22.6 Computer/information science -2.9 -3.6 -3.4 -15.3 -14.6 -9.3 Engineering -3.0 -4.6 -2.4 -5.1 -12.3 * 3.8 

Education 0.7 6.9 -1.7 -0.6 -1.9 3.7 Health -5.2 -5.3 -5.2 3.1 -8.8 * 8.9 Business/management † † † † † † 

See notes at end of table.

Least squared coefficients1

Exclusively full time students looked like full-time students

Part-time students who 
Table 15.—Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students with various enrollment intensity, least squared coefficients for p

Table 15.—earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage whTable 15.—after controlling for selected student characteristics—Continued

Earned Earned

Earned a bach- Earned a bach- 

a degree elor’s Persis- a degree elor’s Persis- 

Student characteristics or certificate degree tence3 or certificate degree tence3 o

Enrollment continuity through 2001

Not continuously enrolled -17.2 * -26.5 * 6.9 * -15.7 * -23.0 * 5.6 * 

Continuously enrolled † † † † † † 

Employment status while enrolled in 1995–96

Worked part time -1.5 -1.5 -1.1 -13.6 * -7.6 * -3.2 

Worked full time -8.8 * -3.1 -7.7 * -17.1 * -11.9 * -8.5 * Did not work † † † † † † 

Perceived primary role through 2001

Always considering themselves primarily 

 as an employee -14.7 * -9.1 * -15.9 * -26.5 * -9.3 * -31.2 * 

Shifting from primarily a student to primarily 

 an employee 6.0 -5.5 4.8 -13.7 * -13.6 * -16.9 * 

Shifting from primarily an employee to primarily

 a student 2.2 3.4 0.2 -2.9 -7.2 4.4 

Always considering themselves primarily 

 as a student † † † † † † 

— Not applicable. (The variable was used to select the sample for this analysis)† Not applicable for the reference group.* p < .05.

1 Least squares coefficients, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).2 Regression on bachelor’s degree completion rate was not conducted for this group because too few students had attained a bachelor’s degree by 2001, makin

reliable estimates.

3 Persistence is measured by the sum of the percentage who had attained a degree or certificate by 2001 and the percentage who were still enrolled in 2001.4 Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. The “other” category includes American I

who identified more than one race, and those who identified themselves with another race not shown in the table. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unleNOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. The italicized group in each category is the reference group being compared. Stansquares coefficients were presented in tables B-3 through B-5 in appendix B and also available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/0

Part-time students who 

Least squared coefficients1

Exclusively full time students looked like full-time students
 Persistence and Attainment After 6 Years 

43 

programs to attain a bachelor’s degree. Across all three subgroups, students who took breaks in 

their enrollment had lower rates of degree attainment after 6 years, but they had higher rates of 

persistence. Lower degree attainment and persistence rates were also consistently observed 

among students who always considered themselves primarily employees rather than students. 

Finally, some relationships were not consistent across the three subgroups of students. For 

example, Black students were less successful in their postsecondary outcomes than White 

students among full-time students and part-time students who looked like full-time students; 

however, this pattern did not hold among other part-time students. Among part-time students 

who looked like full-time students, highly disadvantaged students were less likely than their 

more advantaged peers to earn any degree or a bachelor’s degree, but such a relationship was not 

observed among full-time students and other part-time students. Working full time while 

enrolled had a negative association with the degree attainment and persistence of full-time 

students and part-time students who looked like full-time students; however, such association 

was not found among other part-time students. Working part time while enrolled had a negative 

relationship to degree attainment only for part-time students who looked like full-time students, 

not for the other two groups. 

In summary, while some factors—such as remedial coursetaking, type of degree program, 

enrollment continuity, and perceived primary role—were consistently related to postsecondary 

outcomes among all three subgroups, other factors showed different results for each subgroup. 

This finding may be useful to postsecondary administrators in assisting them to design programs 

to help various groups of students persist in their postsecondary studies and attain a degree. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
45 

Summary and Conclusions 

Many undergraduate students are enrolled part time in postsecondary education. For 

example, a snapshot of recent college enrollment data indicates that 37 percent of undergraduates 

were enrolled part time in fall 2004 (U.S. Department of Education 2006). Using enrollment data 

covering 1 academic year, this report shows that a majority of undergraduates (51 percent) 

attended school part time for some or all of their enrollment in 2003–04. Thus, it is evident that 

part-time enrollment figures prominently in undergraduate education and is expected to continue 

to do so in the future (Hussar 2005). This report uses data from the 2003–04 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2004) and the 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01) to provide insight into part-time students’ experiences 

and outcomes in postsecondary education. However, this report is descriptive and was not 

designed to test an underlying theoretical model. Thus, readers should bear in mind several 

caveats when interpreting the results of the study. First, the group differences do not account for 

complex interrelationships among variables and significant differences may change or disappear 

after controlling for other factors. Second, even though this report uses the commonality analysis 

to take into account the interrelations among the variables when looking for unique associations 

between particular dependent and independent variables, causality cannot be inferred because the 

variables included in the commonality analysis are not exhaustive. Third, some independent 

variables are measured at a particular time and do not reflect possible changes in these variables 

that may affect whether or not a student can and does persist toward degree completion; and 

many variables included in the analysis are self-reported and more accurate measures might 

reveal associations that are not evident in the current report. With these limitations in mind, the 

major findings of the study are summarized below. 

Part-time students, especially exclusively part-time students, differed from their full-time 

peers in many respects. For example, compared with full-time students, students who attended 

school on an exclusively part-time basis were more likely than full-time students to be older, 

female, Hispanic, married, and financially independent. They were relatively disadvantaged in 

their family and academic backgrounds, were highly concentrated in public 2-year institutions 

and subbaccalaureate or nondegree programs, frequently worked full time while enrolled, and 

had a low level of commitment to college education. Students who had mixed enrollment 

patterns often fell in between the two groups, with some characteristics similar to those of fulltime students and others to those of exclusively part-time students. 
Summary and Conclusions

46 

In order to provide more information about part-time students, this report further divided 

part-time students into two subgroups—those who resembled full-time students based on age, 

dependency status, high school diploma, and whether they received financial help from their 

parents (referred to as “part-time students who looked like full-time students” here), and those 

who did not have these characteristics (referred to as “other part-time students”). Overall, parttime students who looked like full-time students were, on average, more advantaged relative to 

other part-time students in terms of their family backgrounds, academic preparation, educational 

expectations, enrollment characteristics, and work intensity. Comparing them with full-time 

students revealed both similarities and differences. Although they resembled full-time students 

with respect to their demographics, family backgrounds, and educational expectations, part-time 

students who looked like full-time students possessed many enrollment characteristics associated 

with part-time attendance, such as being more likely to enroll in public 2-year colleges, enroll in 

subbaccalaureate or nondegree programs, have no major field, and take breaks in their 

enrollment. These enrollment characteristics are generally associated with lower persistence and 

attainment rates in postsecondary education (Berkner, He, and Cataldi 2002). 

The findings of this report showed that part-time enrollment was negatively associated with 

long-term postsecondary outcomes (persistence and degree attainment). This negative 

relationship remained even after controlling for a wide range of interrelated factors such as 

students’ demographic and family backgrounds, academic preparation, and enrollment and 

employment characteristics. Furthermore, the results indicate that possessing characteristics 

common to full-time students did not guarantee that part-time students would be as successful as 

their full-time peers. In fact, regardless of whether they resembled full-time students, part-time 

students—especially exclusively part-time students—lagged far behind their full-time peers in 

persisting toward and completing a postsecondary degree even after controlling for a variety of 

related factors. Consistent with earlier reports, this finding indicates that part-time students, 

especially exclusively part-time students, are at relatively greater risk for not persisting in 

postsecondary education, and for not completing a degree. 

Some factors consistently showed negative relationships with degree attainment across 

various subgroups of students. These factors generally reflected poor academic preparation (i.e., 

remedial coursetaking and low test scores on college entrance examinations); low commitment to 

postsecondary education (i.e., having low educational expectations); and priority given to work 

over education (i.e., always considering themselves as primarily employees). One finding 

regarding enrollment continuity is worthy of further note: although students who took breaks in 

their enrollment were more likely to have lower rates of degree attainment than those who did 

not take breaks, they had higher persistence rates, suggesting that those who took time off, but 
 Summary and Conclusions 

47 

who subsequently resumed their education, may persist in their efforts to obtain a postsecondary 

degree. 

The findings reported here also revealed that not all factors showed consistent relationships 

across student groups. For example, gender was a significant factor for full-time students, but not 

for the two subgroups of part-time students. Full-time students who initially attended private notfor-profit doctoral institutions had higher overall and bachelor’s degree completion rates than 

their peers who entered public doctoral institutions; however, for the two subgroups of part-time 

students, those who initially attended private not-for-profit nondoctoral institutions had higher 

bachelor’s degree completion rates than those who initially attended public doctoral institutions. 

For full-time students, degree attainment was significantly related to their educational goals; 

however, this was not evident for the two subgroups of part-time students (i.e., those who were 

not seeking any degree and those who sought a bachelor’s degree had low rates of degree 

completion). In summary, while some factors bear consistent relationships with postsecondary 

outcomes across subgroups of students, others did not. Information about the factors that are 

important to each group is useful to college administrators in tailoring programs for specific 

groups of students and helping them persist in and complete postsecondary education. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
49 

References 

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

Bachelor’s Degree Attainment (PLLI 1999–8021). U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 

Aldrich, J.H., and Nelson, F.D. (1984). Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models

(Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences, Vol. 45). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage 

Publications, Inc. 

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

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

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Berry, W.D., and Feldman, S. (1987). Multiple Regression in Practice (Quantitative Applications 

in Social Sciences, Vol. 50). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Borden, V.M.H. (2004). Accommodating Student Swirl: When Traditional Students Are No 

Longer The Tradition. Change, 36(2): 10–19. 

Carroll, C.D. (1989). College Persistence and Degree Attainment for 1980 High School 

Graduates: Hazards for Transfers, Stopouts, and Part-Timers (NCES 89-302). U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Davies, P. (1999). Half Full, Not Half Empty: A Positive Look at Part-Time Higher Education. 

Higher Education Quarterly, 53(2): 141–155. 

Goodman, L.A. (1976). The Relationship Between Modified and Usual Multiple-Regression 

Approaches to the Analysis of Dichotomous Variables. In D. Hoise (Ed.), Sociological 

Methodology (pp. 83–110). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Hearn, J.C. (1992). Emerging Variations in Postsecondary Attendance Patterns: An Investigation 

of Part-Time, Delayed, and Nondegree Enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 33(6): 

657–687. 
References

50 

Horn, L. (1994). Undergraduates Who Work While Enrolled in Postsecondary Education: 1989–

90 (NCES 94-311). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics. 

Horn, L., Peter, K., and Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary 

Institutions: 1999–2000 (NCES 2002-168). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Hudson, L., and Hurst, D. (2002). The Persistence of Employees Who Pursue Postsecondary 

Study (NCES 2002-118). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center 

for Education Statistics. 

Hussar, W.J. (2005). Projections of Education Statistics to 2014 (NCES 2005-074). U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

King, T., and Bannon, E. (2002). At What Cost? The Price That Working Students Pay for a 

College Education. Washington, DC: Public Interest Research Groups. 

Knoke, D. (1975). A Comparison of Log-Linear and Regression Models for Systems of 

Dichotomous Variables. Sociological Methods and Research, 3. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage 

Publications, Inc. 

Lewis-Beck, M.S. (1980). Applied Regression: An Introduction (Quantitative Applications in 

Social Sciences, Vol. 22). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

McCormick, A.C., Geis, S., and Vergun, R. (1995). Profile of Part-Time Undergraduates in 

Postsecondary Education: 1989–90 (NCES 95-173). U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

O’Toole, D.M., Stratton, L.S., and Wetzel, J.N. (2003). A Longitudinal Analysis of the 

Frequency of Part-Time Enrollment and the Persistence of Students Who Enrolled Part Time. 

Research in Higher Education, 44(5): 519–537. 

Pascarella, E.T., and Terenzini, P.T. (1998). Studying Colleges Students in the 21 Century: 

Meeting New Challenge. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2): 151–165. 

Pedhazur, E.J. (1997). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Prediction and Explanation

(3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. 

Skinner, C.J., Holt, D. and Smith, T.M.F. (Eds.). (1989). Analysis of Complex Surveys. New 

York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. 
References 

51 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The Condition 

of Education 2006 (NCES 2006-071). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Wine, J.S., Heuer, R.E., Wheeless, S.C., Francis, T.L., Franklin, J.W., and Dudley, K.M. (2002). 

Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 1996–2001 (BPS:1996/2001) 

Methodology Report (NCES 2002-171). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
A-1 

Appendix A—Glossary 

This glossary describes the variables used in this report, which come from the NPSAS:2004 and BPS:96/01 

Data Analysis System (DAS), a software application developed by NCES to generate tables from the survey data. 

These variables were either items taken directly from the NPSAS or BPS surveys or derived by combining one or 

more items in these surveys. A general description of the DAS software and of the NPSAS:2004 and BPS:96/01 

surveys can be found in appendix B. In the index below, the variables are organized by general topic and, within 

topic, listed in the order in which they appear in the tables. The glossary items are listed in alphabetical order by 

variable names (displayed in capital letters to the right of the variable label). 

Glossary Index 

ENROLLMENT INTENSITY (NPSAS) 

Enrollment intensity................................... ATTNPTRN 

Part-time students who looked like 

full-time students........................................ PTSTSUB 

UNDERGRADUATE CHARACTERISTICS (NPSAS) 

Age as of 12/31/2003.................................AGEGROUP 

Gender ............................................................ GENDER 

Race/ethnicity .......................................................RACE 

Dependency status ......................................DEPEND5B 

Parent’s highest education level....................PAREDUC 

Family income of dependent students.............. PCTDEP 

Income of independent students .................. PCTINDEP 

Parents helped pay tuition and fees.............PARHELPD 

Parents helped pay education expenses 

other than tuition and fees .......................PARHELPB 

Parents helped pay housing.........................PARHELPA 

Parents helped pay other living expenses ...PARHELPC 

Type of high school diploma ............................. HSDEG 

Remedial coursetaking after high school..... REMEVER 

Highest level of education ever expected ...HIGHLVEX 

ENROLLMENT CHARACTERISTICS (NPSAS) 

Number of months enrolled ............................... ENLEN 

Type of institution enrolled............................ AIDSECT 

Undergraduate degree program......................... UGDEG 

Major field of study .....................................MAJORS12 

Reason to enroll: 

 To complete an associate’s degree...............ATTENDA 

 To complete a certificate..............................ATTENDB 

 To learn job skills or prepare for a job.........ATTENDC 

 For personal interest or enrichment ............ ATTENDD 

 To transfer to a 2-year college .....................ATTENDE 

 To transfer to a 4-year college ..................... ATTENDF 

 To transfer to other type of college............. ATTENDG 

EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS (NPSAS) 

Employment status while enrolled, hours 

worked per week, and worked full time.. JOBHOUR2 

Primary role as a student or an employee.... JOBROLE2 

Main reason for working for primarily 

students ......................................................JOBMAIN 

Job effects: 

 Helped with career preparation......................JOBEFFA 

 Helped with coursework................................JOBEFFB 

 Limited class choice ......................................JOBEFFC 

 Limited class schedule...................................JOBEFFD 

 Limited facility access................................... JOBEFFE 

 Limited number of classes taken ................... JOBEFFF 

PERSISTENCE AND ATTAINMENT (BPS) 

Highest degree attainment and persistence 

status as of 2001.......................................PRENRL2B 

Last academic year enrolled without 

a degree................................................... PRENYR2B 

VARIABLES USED IN COMMONALITY ANALYSIS (BPS) 

Enrollment intensity through 2001............... ENIPTT2B 

Part-time students who looked like 

full-time students ...................................... PTSTSUB 

Age as of 12/31/1995.............................................. AGE 

Gender ........................................................SBGENDER 

Race/ethnicity.............................................. SBRACECI 

Dependency status when first enrolled ........ SBDEP3Y1 

Socioeconomic status when first enrolled ..DISADVAN 

Type of high school diploma...................... HSDIPLOM 

College entrance exam score ...................... TESATDER 

Remedial coursetaking when first enrolled .RMANYY1 

Highest education expectations when first 

enrolled ...................................................EPHDEGY1 

Type of first institution enrolled........................ ITNPS2 
Appendix A—Glossary 

A-2 

Degree program when first enrolled ............ DGPGMY1 

Major field when first enrolled ....................SEMAJ2Y1 

Enrollment continuity through 2001...........ENSENU2B 

Worked when first enrolled .........................J1HOURY1 

Primary role as student or employee 

through 2001 ...............................................PRIROLE 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-3 

Age as of 12/31/1995 (BPS:96/01) AGE 

This variable indicates the student’s age as of 12/31/1995. It was recoded to have the following categories used in 

this report: 

23 years or younger 

24–29 years 

30 years or older 

Age as of 12/31/2003 (NPSAS:2004) AGEGROUP 

This variable indicates the student’s age as of 12/31/2003 with the following three categories: 

23 years or younger 

24–29 years 

30 years or older 

Type of institution enrolled (NPSAS:2004) AIDSECT 

This variable indicates the type of institution that the student attended in 2003–04. It also includes a separate 

category for students who attended more than one institution. This variable was recoded to have the following 

categories used in this report: 

Public 4-year doctoral 

Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 

Public 4-year nondoctoral 

Private not-for-profit 4-year nondoctoral 

Public 2-year 

Other (including private not-for-profit less-than-4-year and any type of private for-profit institution) 

More than one institution 

Reason to enroll: To complete an associate’s degree (NPSAS:2004) ATTENDA 

This dichotomous variable indicates that the student’s main reason to enroll in a NPSAS institution is to complete an 

associate’s degree. This question was only asked of students who were enrolled in a less-than-4-year institution or 

were not in a degree program. 

Reason to enroll: To complete a certificate (NPSAS:2004) ATTENDB 

This dichotomous variable indicates that the student’s main reason to enroll at a NPSAS institution is to complete a 

certificate. This question was only asked of students who were enrolled in a less-than-4-year institution or were not 

in a degree program. 

Reason to enroll: To learn job skills or prepare for a job (NPSAS:2004) ATTENDC 

This dichotomous variable indicates that the student’s main reason to enroll at a NPSAS institution is to learn job 

skills or prepare for a job. This question was only asked of students who were enrolled in a less-than-4-year 

institution or were not in a degree program. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable

A-4 

Reason to enroll: For personal interest or enrichment (NPSAS:2004) ATTENDD 

This dichotomous variable indicates that the student’s main reason to enroll at a NPSAS institution is for personal 

interest or enrichment. This question was only asked of students who were enrolled in a less-than-4-year institution 

or were not in a degree program. 

Reason to enroll: To transfer to a 2-year college (NPSAS:2004) ATTENDE 

This dichotomous variable indicates that the student’s main reason to enroll at a NPSAS institution is to transfer to a 

2-year college. This question was only asked of students who were enrolled in a less-than-4-year institution or were 

not in a degree program. 

Reason to enroll: To transfer to a 4-year college (NPSAS:2004) ATTENDF 

This dichotomous variable indicates that the student’s main reason to enroll at a NPSAS institution is to transfer to a 

4-year college. This question was only asked of students who were enrolled in a less-than-4-year institution or were 

not in a degree program. 

Reason to enroll: To transfer to other type of college (NPSAS:2004) ATTENDG 

This dichotomous variable indicates that the student’s main reason to enroll at a NPSAS institution is to transfer to 

another college. This question was only asked of students who were enrolled in a less-than-4-year institution or were 

not in a degree program. 

Enrollment intensity (NPSAS:2004) ATTNPTRN 

This variable indicates the student’s attendance intensity at all institutions attended for all months from July 2003 

through June 2004. It was derived based on institutions’ reports (or if missing, students’ reports) of the number of 

months enrolled full time and part time between July 2003 and June 2004. This variable has the following 

categories: 

Exclusively full time 

Exclusively part time 

Mixed 

Dependency status (NPSAS:2004) DEPEND5B 

This variable indicates the student’s dependency status including his or her marital status and whether he or she had 

one or more dependents in 2003–04. Student’s dependency status was determined first based on the dependency 

status reported in the federal financial aid application; if not available, it was determined according to the federal 

criteria for independence⎯age 24 or older on December 31, 2003; a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces; enrolled in a 

graduate or professional program beyond a bachelor’s degree, married, orphan or ward of the court, or have legal 

dependents other than a spouse. If these were not available, dependency status was obtained from institution records. 

Both martial status and parenthood refer to the status in the 2003–04 academic year and were derived from the status 

reported in the federal financial aid application, students’ interview, or institution records. This variable has the 

following categories: 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-5 

Dependency status (NPSAS:2004)–continued DEPEND5B 

Dependent 

Independent, single with no dependent 

Independent, married with no dependent 

Independent, single with one or more dependents 

Independent, married with one or more dependents 

Degree program when first enrolled (BPS:96/01) DGPGMY1 

This variable indicates the first type of degree program at the first institution attended in 1995−96. It has the 

following categories: 

Vocational certificate 

Associate’s (including transfer) 

Bachelor’s 

Socioeconomic status when first enrolled (BPS:96/01) DISADVAN 

This variable represents an index of socioeconomic diversity with the following three categories based on the status 

of students on three indicators of socioeconomic disadvantage: total family income as a percentage of the 1994 

federal poverty level (the lowest category is family income below 125 percent of the poverty level for family size), 

the highest educational level completed by either parent (the lowest category is students whose parents had no more 

than a high school diploma), and the proportion of the student body in the student’s high school eligible for the free 

or reduced-price lunch program in 1994–95 (the lowest category is schools in which 25 percent or more of the 

student body was eligible for the program). Students not in the lowest category on any of the three factors are 

labeled “Not disadvantaged;” those in the lowest category on any one of the three factors are categorized as 

“Moderately disadvantaged;” and those in the lowest category on two or all three of the factors are labeled “Highly 

disadvantaged.” 

Not disadvantaged 

Moderately disadvantaged 

Highly disadvantaged 

Enrollment intensity through 2001 (BPS:96/01) ENIPTT2B 

This variable indicates the pattern of enrollment intensity of the student for all months enrolled from July 1995 to 

June 2001. It has the following categories: 

Exclusively full time 

Exclusively part time 

Mixed 

Number of months enrolled (NPSAS:2004) ENLEN 

This continuous variable indicates the number of months students were enrolled between July 2003 and June 2004. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable

A-6 

Enrollment continuity through 2001 (BPS:96/01) ENSENU2B 

This variable indicates the number of enrollment spells through June 2001. An enrollment spell is defined as a 

period of enrollment (in one or more institutions) of more than 4 months without a break. An enrollment spell may 

end either with a stopout or leaving without returning. This variable was recoded to have the following categories 

used in this report: 

Continuously enrolled (one spell) 

Not continuously enrolled (more than one spell) 

Highest education expectations when first enrolled (BPS:96/01) EPHDEGY1 

This variable indicates the highest level of education that the student expected to complete in 1995–96. It was 

recoded to have the following categories used in this report: 

Don’t know 

No postsecondary degree or certificate 

Certificate 

Associate’s degree 

Bachelor’s degree 

Graduate or first-professional degree 

Gender (NPSAS:2004) GENDER 

This variable indicates the student’s gender. 

Male 

Female 

Highest level of education ever expected (NPSAS:2004) HIGHLVEX 

This variable indicates the highest level of education that the student has ever expected to complete. It was recoded 

to have the following categories used in this report: 

No postsecondary degree or certificate 

Certificate 

Associate’s degree 

Bachelor’s degree 

Graduate or first professional degree 

Type of high school diploma (NPSAS:2004) HSDEG 

This variable indicates whether the student has graduated from high school and the type of high school diploma 

received. It was recoded to have the following categories used in this report: 

High school diploma 

GED or other equivalency 

No high school degree or certificate 

Other (i.e., homeschooling or attending a foreign high school) 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-7 

Type of high school diploma (BPS:96/01) HSDIPLOM 

This variable indicates whether the student has graduated from high school and the type of high school diploma 

received. It was recoded to have the following categories used in this report: 

High school diploma 

GED or other equivalency 

No high school degree or certificate 

Type of first institution enrolled (BPS:96/01) ITNPS2 

This variable indicates the type of first institution enrolled with the highest offering in 1995−96. It was recoded to 

have the following categories used in this report: 

Public 4-year doctoral 

Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 

Public 4-year nondoctoral 

Private not-for-profit 4-year nondoctoral 

Public 2-year 

Other 

Worked when first enrolled (BPS:96/01) J1HOURY1 

This variable indicates the number of hours that the student worked per week while enrolled during 1995–96. It was 

recoded to have the following categories used in this report: 

Worked full time 

Worked part time 

Did not work 

Job effect: Helped with career preparation (NPSAS:2004) JOBEFFA 

This dichotomous variable indicates whether the student having a job while going to school helped him or her with 

career preparation. This question was only asked of students who considered themselves primarily students working 

to meet expenses. 

Job effect: Helped with coursework (NPSAS:2004) JOBEFFB 

This dichotomous variable indicates whether the student having a job while going to school helped him or her with 

coursework. This question was only asked of students who considered themselves primarily students working to 

meet expenses. 

Job effect: Limited class choice (NPSAS:2004) JOBEFFC 

This dichotomous variable indicates whether the student having a job while going to school limited his or her class 

choice. This question was only asked of students who considered themselves primarily students working to meet 

expenses. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable

A-8 

Job effect: Limited class schedule (NPSAS:2004) JOBEFFD 

This dichotomous variable indicates whether the student having a job while going to school limited his or her class 

schedule. This question was only asked of students who considered themselves primarily students working to meet 

expenses. 

Job effect: Limited facility access (NPSAS:2004) JOBEFFE 

This dichotomous variable indicates whether the student having a job while going to school limited his or her access 

to facilities. This question was only asked of students who considered themselves primarily students working to 

meet expenses. 

Job effect: Limited number of classes taken (NPSAS:2004) JOBEFFF 

This dichotomous variable indicates whether the student having a job while going to school limited the number of 

classes he or she could take. This question was only asked of students who considered themselves primarily students 

working to meet expenses. 

Employment status while enrolled, hours worked per week, worked full time (NPSAS:2004) JOBHOUR2 

This variable indicates the number of hours worked per week while the student was enrolled. It also provides 

information about student’s employment status while enrolled (0 hour as “did not work while enrolled” and 1 hour 

or more as “worked while enrolled”) and whether the student worked full time (35 hours or more as full-time 

employment). 

Main reason for working for primarily students (NPSAS:2004) JOBMAIN 

This variable indicates the main reason for working while enrolled for those who considered themselves primarily 

students working to meet expenses. It has the following categories: 

Earn spending money 

Pay tuition, fees, or living expenses 

Gain job experience 

Other 

No job 

Primary role as a student or an employee (NPSAS:2004) JOBROLE2 

This variable indicates the primary role perceived by the student while enrolled. It has the following categories: 

A student working to meet expenses 

An employee enrolled in school 

Did not work 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-9 

Major field of study (NPSAS:2004) MAJORS12 

This variable indicates the student’s undergraduate major field of study in 2003–04 with the following categories: 

Undeclared or not in a degree program 

Humanities⎯English, liberal arts, philosophy, theology, art, music, speech/drama, history/fine arts, 

area studies, African-American studies, ethnic studies, foreign languages, liberal studies, women’s 

studies 

Social/behavioral sciences⎯Psychology, economics, political science, American civilization, clinical 

pastoral care, social work, anthropology/archaeology, history, sociology 

Life sciences⎯Natural resources, forestry, biological science including zoology, biophysics, 

geography, interdisciplinary studies, including biopsychology, environmental studies 

Physical sciences⎯Physical sciences including chemistry, physics 

Mathematics⎯Mathematics, statistics 

Computer/information science⎯Computer/information science, computer programming 

Engineering—Electrical, chemical, mechanical, civil, or other engineering; engineering technology; 

electronics 

Education⎯Early childhood, elementary, secondary, special, or physical education; leisure studies; 

library/archival sciences 

Business management⎯Accounting, finance, secretarial, data processing, business/management, 

public administration, marketing/distribution, business support, international relations 

Health⎯Nursing, nurse assisting, community/mental health, medicine, physical education/recreation, 

audiology, clinical health, dentistry, veterinary medicine, health/hospital, public health, dietetics, 

other/general health 

Vocational/technical⎯Science technologies, protective services, construction trades, mechanic and 

repair technologies, precision production, and transportation and material moving 

Other professional or technical⎯Agriculture, agricultural science, architecture, professional city 

planning, journalism, communications, communications technology, cosmetology, military science, 

dental/medical technology, home economics, vocational home economics including child care, law, 

basic/personal skills 

Parent’s highest education level (NPSAS:2004) PAREDUC 

This variable indicates the highest level of education achieved by either parent of the student. It was recoded to have 

the following categories used in this report: 

High school or less 

Some college 

Bachelor’s degree 

Graduate/professional degree 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable

A-10 

Parents helped pay housing (NPSAS:2004) PARHELPA 

This dichotomous variable indicates whether parents/guardians helped the student pay housing such as rent or dorm 

cost and utilities. 

Parents helped pay education expenses other than tuition and fees (NPSAS:2004) PARHELPB 

This dichotomous variable indicates whether parents/guardians helped the student pay education expenses other than 

tuition such as books and supplies. 

Parents helped pay other living expenses (NPSAS:2004) PARHELPC 

This dichotomous variable indicates whether parents/guardians helped the student pay living expenses other than 

housing such as food and transportation. 

Parents helped pay tuition and fees (NPSAS:2004) PARHELPD 

This dichotomous variable indicates whether parents/guardians helped the student pay tuition and fees. 

Family income of dependent students (NPSAS:2004) PCTDEP 

This variable indicates the income percentile distribution among parents of dependent students in 2002. It was 

recoded to have the following categories used in this report: 

Lowest quarter 

Middle two quarters 

Highest quarter 

Income of independent students (NPSAS:2004) PCTINDEP 

This variable indicates the income percentile distribution among independent students in 2002. It was recoded to 

have the following categories used in this report: 

Lowest quarter 

Middle two quarters 

Highest quarter 

Highest degree attainment and persistence status as of 2001 (BPS:96/01) PRENRL2B 

This variable indicates the highest degree that the student had attained by 2001 and the level of the institution in 

which he or she was still enrolled if no degree had been attained. It has the following categories: 

Attained bachelor’s degree 

Attained associate’s degree 

Attained certificate 

Never attained, enrolled at 4-year 

Never attained, enrolled at less-than-4-year 

Never attained, not enrolled 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-11 

Last academic year enrolled without a degree (BPS:96/01) PRENYR2B 

This variable indicates whether the student had attained a degree by 2001; if not, whether the student was still 

enrolled; or if no degree attained or not enrolled, the last academic year in which the student had left without return. 

It has the following categories: 

Never attained, left without return in 1995–96 

Never attained, left without return in 1996–97 

Never attained, left without return in 1997–98 

Never attained, left without return in 1998–99 

Never attained, left without return in 1999–00 

Never attained, left without return in 2000–01 

Never attained, still enrolled 

Attained by 2001 

Primary role as student or employee through 2001 (BPS:96/01) PRIROLE 

This variable was derived to describe the student’s perception of his or her primary role as a student working to meet 

expenses or an employee deciding to enroll in school through 2001. It has the following categories: 

Worked while enrolled but always considering primarily a student 

Worked while enrolled and always considering primarily an employee 

Worked while enrolled, considering primarily a student first and an employee later 

Worked while enrolled, considering primarily an employee first and a student later 

Did not work while enrolled 

Part-time students who looked like full-time students (BPS:96/01) PTSTSUB 

This variable indicates whether a student who enrolled part time for some or all of their enrollment from 1995 to 

2001 had some characteristics typically found among full-time students—that is, students who were traditional 

college age (age 23 or younger), financially dependent on their parents, graduated from high school with a regular 

diploma, and received financial help from their parents to pay for postsecondary education. It has the following 

categories: 

Exclusively full-time student 

Exclusively part-time student who looked like full-time student 

Other exclusively part-time student 

Mixed enrollment student who looked like full-time student 

Other mixed enrollment student 

Part-time students who looked like full-time students (NPSAS:2004) PTSTSUB 

This variable indicates whether a student who enrolled part time for some or all of their enrollment in 2003–04 had 

some characteristics typically found among full-time students—that is, students who were traditional college age 

(age 23 or younger), financially dependent on their parents, graduated from high school with a regular diploma, and 

received financial help from their parents to pay for postsecondary education. It has the following categories: 

Not part-time student 

Part-time student who looked like full-time student 

Other part-time student
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable

A-12 

Race/ethnicity (NPSAS:2004) RACE 

This variable indicates race/ethnicity. It was recoded to have the following categories used in this report: 

White 

Black 

Hispanic 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

American Indian 

Other 

Remedial coursetaking after high school (NPSAS:2004) REMEVER 

This dichotomous variable indicates whether the student has taken remedial or developmental courses to improve 

basic skills since he or she completed high school. 

Remedial coursetaking when first enrolled (BPS:96/01) RMANYY1 

This dichotomous variable indicates whether the student took one or more remedial instruction or developmental 

courses in reading, writing, mathematics, study skills, or English language skills in 1995–96. 

Dependency status when first enrolled (BPS:96/01) SBDEP3Y1 

This variable indicates the student’s dependency status including his or her marital status and whether he or she had 

one or more dependents in 1995–96. It has the following categories: 

Dependent 

Independent, no dependent, unmarried 

Independent, no dependent, married 

Independent with dependents 

Gender (BPS:96/01) SBGENDER 

This variable indicates the student’s gender. 

Male 

Female 

Race/ethnicity (BPS:96/01) SBRACECI 

This variable indicates race/ethnicity. It was recoded to have the following categories used in this report: 

White 

Black 

Hispanic 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

American Indian 

Other 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable 

A-13 

Major field when first enrolled (BPS:96/01) SEMAJ2Y1 

This variable indicates the student’s major field of study during the first term enrolled 1995–96 with the following 

categories: 

Humanities⎯English, liberal arts, philosophy, theology, art, music, speech/drama, history/fine arts, 

area studies, African-American studies, ethnic studies, foreign languages, liberal studies, women’s 

studies 

Social/behavioral sciences⎯Psychology, economics, political science, American civilization, clinical 

pastoral care, social work, anthropology/archaeology, history, sociology 

Life sciences⎯Natural resources, forestry, biological science including zoology, biophysics, 

geography, interdisciplinary studies, including biopsychology, environmental studies 

Physical sciences⎯Physical sciences including chemistry, physics 

Mathematics⎯Mathematics, statistics 

Computer/information science⎯Computer/information science, computer programming 

Engineering—Electrical, chemical, mechanical, civil, or other engineering; engineering technology; 

electronics 

Education⎯Early childhood, elementary, secondary, special, or physical education; leisure studies; 

library/archival sciences 

Business management⎯Accounting, finance, secretarial, data processing, business/management, 

public administration, marketing/distribution, business support, international relations 

Health⎯Nursing, nurse assisting, community/mental health, medicine, physical education/recreation, 

audiology, clinical health, dentistry, veterinary medicine, health/hospital, public health, dietetics, 

other/general health 

Vocational/technical⎯ Science technologies, protective services, construction trades, mechanic and 

repair technologies, precision production, and transportation and material moving 

Other professional or technical⎯Agriculture, agricultural science, architecture, professional city 

planning, journalism, communications, communications technology, cosmetology, military science, 

dental/medical technology, home economics, vocational home economics including child care, law, 

basic/personal skills 

College entrance exam score (BPS:96/01) TESATDER 

This is the student’s SAT combined score, derived by either the sum of SAT verbal and mathematics scores or the 

ACT composite score converted to an estimated SAT combined score. It was recoded to have the following 

categories used in this report: 

Lowest quarter 

Middle two quarters 

Highest quarter 

Did not take the exam or missing 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable

A-14 

Undergraduate degree program (NPSAS:2004) UGDEG 

This variable indicates the student’s undergraduate degree program in 2003–04. It has the following categories: 

Certificate 

Associate’s degree 

Bachelor’s degree 

Not in a degree program or others 
B-1 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

The 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

The 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2004) is the latest in a 

series of comprehensive studies of all students enrolled in postsecondary education in the United 

States and Puerto Rico. The study is conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to determine how students and their families pay for 

postsecondary education. It also provides data for comprehensive descriptions of the 

undergraduate and graduate/first-professional student populations in terms of their demographic 

characteristics, academic programs, types of institutions attended, attendance patterns, 

employment, and participation in civic and volunteer activities. The first NPSAS was conducted 

in 1986–87 (NPSAS:87), and since then, five additional studies have been conducted 

(NPSAS:90, NPSAS:93, NPSAS:96, NPSAS:2000, and NPSAS:2004).1

The NPSAS:04 target population consists of all eligible students enrolled at any time 

between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004 in postsecondary institutions in the United States or 

Puerto Rico that had signed Title IV participation agreements with the U.S. Department of 

Education making them eligible for federal student aid programs (Title IV institutions). To be 

eligible for NPSAS, students had to be enrolled in either an academic program with at least one 

course for credit that could be applied toward fulfilling the requirements for an academic degree 

or enrolled in an occupational or vocational program that requires at least 3 months or 300 clock 

hours of instruction to receive a degree, certificate, or other formal award. Eligible students 

could not be concurrently enrolled in high school or in other high school completion program. 

In NPSAS:04, a two-stage sampling design was used: the first stage involved selecting 

eligible institutions, and the second stage involved selecting eligible respondents within each 

eligible institution. The institutional sampling frame for NPSAS:2004 was constructed from the 

2000–01 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Institutional Characteristics 

(IC) file. The institutions in the sampling frame were partitioned into 58 institutional strata based 

on institutional control, highest level of offering, and Carnegie classification. Initially, a total of 

1,670 institutions were selected for NPSAS:2004, and all but 40 of these institutions were found 

to be NPSAS eligible institutions and 1,360 of these eligible institutions provided student 

 

1

 More information about NPSAS is available at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-2 

enrollment lists for use as the second stage (i.e., student) sampling frame. Sampling frames for 

selecting students consisted of enrollment lists or data files provided by the institutions for those 

students enrolled during the NPSAS:2004 year. The sampling procedures resulted in the 

selection of 109,200 students (including undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional 

students), of which a total of 101,000 students were found to be eligible. Upon the completion of 

data collection, 90 percent of the 101,000 sample members were determined to have sufficient 

key data to be included in NPSAS:2004. This report is based on a nationally representative 

sample of all undergraduates in postsecondary education institutions. The information about 

undergraduate students in NPSAS:2004 was obtained from a sample of about 80,000 

undergraduates who were enrolled at any time between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004, in about 

1,300 postsecondary institutions that offered undergraduate programs of study. Information for 

NPSAS:04 was obtained from several sources, including (1) student records from institutional 

financial aid and registrar records at the institutions currently attended (these data were entered at 

the institution by institutional personnel or field data collectors in 2004 using a computerassisted data entry program or directly downloaded from a data file; (2) student interview 

collected directly from sampled students via web-based self-administered or intervieweradministered questionnaires; (3) Central Processing System (CPS) which is the U.S. Department 

of Education database of federal financial aid applications for the 2003–04 academic year; (4) 

National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) which is the U.S. Department of Education 

database of federal Title IV loans and Federal Pell Grant; and (5) Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS) which is the NCES database of descriptive information about 

individual postsecondary institutions. The weighted institutional response rate was 80 percent, 

and the weighted student response rate was 91 percent, resulting in an overall response rate of 72 

percent. The NPSAS:2004 sample of undergraduates represents about 19 million undergraduates 

who were enrolled at any time between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004 in postsecondary 

institutions in the United States or Title IV institutions in Puerto Rico. 

The 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 

The Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study was first conducted in 

the 1989–90 academic year. The 1996/01 BPS (BPS:96/01) was the second in the series of 

studies focusing on first-time beginning students in postsecondary education and is derived from 

a sample of students who participated in the 1995–96 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

(NPSAS:96). The BPS:96/01 began with a sample of approximately 12,400 students identified in 

NPSAS:96 who were beginning postsecondary education for the first time at some point in the 

1995–96 academic year. Beginning students had to be enrolled in either an academic program 

with at least one course for credit that could be applied toward fulfilling the requirements for an 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-3 

academic degree or enrolled in an occupational or vocational program that requires at least 3 

months or 300 clock hours of instruction to receive a degree, certificate, or other formal award, 

and could not be concurrently enrolled in high school or other high school completion program. 

The first follow-up of the BPS cohort (BPS:96/98) was conducted in 1998, approximately 3 

years after these students first enrolled. Approximately 10,300 of the students who first began in 

1995–96 were located and interviewed in the 1998 follow-up, for an overall weighted response 

rate of 79.8 percent. The second follow-up of the BPS cohort (BPS:96/01) was conducted 

between February and September in 2001, approximately 6 years after college entry. All 

respondents to the first follow-up as well as a sample of nonrespondents in 1998 were eligible to 

be interviewed. Over 9,100 students were located and interviewed, all of whom were included in 

this report. The overall weighted student response rate was 76 percent overall, a product of the 

institutional response rate (91 percent) and student response rate (84 percent).2 Information about 

beginning students in BPS:96/01 were obtained from student interviews conduced in base year 

and follow-ups and various sources used for NPSAS data collection (see above). Student 

interviews were conducted using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). 

Weighting 

All estimates in this report are weighted to compensate for unequal probability of selection 

into the survey sample and to adjust for nonresponse. The weight variable used for analysis of 

the NPSAS:2004 data is WTA00, the weight applied to all undergraduates in NPSAS:2004. The 

weight variable used for analysis of the BPS:96/2001 data is WTB00, the longitudinal weight for 

students who responded in both 1996 and 2001 surveys. 

Accuracy of Estimates 

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of 

error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because 

observations are based only on samples of students, not entire populations. Nonsampling errors 

occur not only in sample surveys but also in complete censuses of entire populations. 

Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete 

information about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or institutions 

refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous 

definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct 

information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing, 

sampling, and imputing missing data. 

 

2

 For more information on BPS:96/01, consult Wine et al. (2002). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-4 

Item Response Bias 

From the selected sample of this report, weighted item response rates were calculated for 

all variables used in this report by dividing the weighted number of valid responses by the 

weighted population for which the item was applicable. All variables used in this report and 

defined in appendix A had a high response rate (i.e., above 85 percent). Thus, it is unlikely that 

estimates and reported differences are biased because of missing data. 

Data Analysis System 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NPSAS:2004 and 

BPS:96/01 Data Analysis System (DAS). The DAS software makes it possible for users to 

specify and generate their own tables. The DAS also contains a detailed description of how each 

variable was created and includes question wording for items coming directly from an interview. 

With the DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables presented in this report. In addition 

to the table estimates, the DAS calculates the proper standard errors3

 and weighted sample sizes 

for these estimates. For example, table B-1 contains standard errors that correspond to estimates 

in table 1 in the report. 

If the number of valid cases is too small to produce a reliable estimate (fewer than 30 

cases), the DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of the estimate. All standard errors for 

estimates presented in this report can be viewed at http://nces.ed.gov/das. In addition to tables, 

the DAS can also produce a correlation matrix of selected variables to be used for linear 

regression models (or referred to “multivariate commonality analysis” in the report; see more 

description below). Included in the output with the correlation matrix are the design effects 

(DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. Because statistical procedures generally compute 

regression coefficients based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors must be 

adjusted with the design effects to take into account the stratified sampling method used in the 

NPSAS and BPS surveys. 

The DAS can be accessed electronically at http://nces.ed.gov/das. For more information 

about the Data Analysis System, contact: 

 

3

 Both NPSAS and BPS samples are not simple random samples, and therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating 

sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and 

calculates standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves 

approximating the estimator by balanced repeated replication of the sampled population. The procedure is typically referred to as 

the “balanced repeated replication technique” (BRR). 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-5 

Table B-1.—Standard errors for table 1: Percentage distribution of undergraduates by enrollment

Table B-5.—intensity and selected demographic characteristics: 2003–04

Exclusively Exclusively

Selected demographic characteristics Total full time Mixed part time

 Total † † † †

Age as of 12/31/2003

Under 24 0.52 0.65 0.82 0.50

24–29 0.28 0.29 0.49 0.48

30 or above 0.42 0.50 0.57 0.67

Gender

Male 0.39 0.42 0.69 0.58

Female 0.39 0.42 0.69 0.58

Race/ethnicity

White 0.76 0.74 1.06 1.07

Black 0.62 0.71 0.77 0.73

Hispanic 0.43 0.42 0.61 0.68

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.22 0.21 0.55 0.40

American Indian 0.11 0.16 0.14 0.13

Other 0.11 0.13 0.20 0.20

Dependency and marital status

Dependent 0.56 0.72 0.90 0.53

Independent 0.56 0.72 0.90 0.53

Single with no dependent 0.26 0.29 0.41 0.45

Married with no dependent 0.18 0.18 0.36 0.35

Single with one or more dependents 0.28 0.30 0.50 0.48

Married with one or more dependents 0.30 0.32 0.48 0.53

Parents’ highest education level

High school or less 0.38 0.40 0.79 0.67

Some college 0.25 0.27 0.55 0.49

Bachelor’s degree 0.24 0.28 0.54 0.46

Graduate/professional degree 0.22 0.27 0.52 0.41

Family income of dependent students

Lowest quarter 0.27 0.29 0.66 0.90

Middle two quarters 0.42 0.45 0.92 1.12

Highest quarter 0.39 0.37 0.67 1.06

Income of independent students

Lowest quarter 0.38 0.76 0.88 0.47

Middle two quarters 0.46 0.76 1.15 0.58

Highest quarter 0.52 0.66 1.03 0.66

† Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003–04 National Postsecondary Student 

Aid Study (NPSAS:04).

Enrollment intensity
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-6 

Aurora D’Amico 

Postsecondary Studies Division 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006–5652 

(202) 502-7334 

aurora.d’amico@ed.gov

Statistical Procedures 

The following describes several statistical procedures used in this report. 

Differences Between Means 

The descriptive comparisons in this report were tested using Student’s t statistic. 

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error4

 or significance 

level. The significance of each group difference was determined by calculating the Student’s t

values for the differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with 

published tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing (p < .05). 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the 

following formula: 

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se

E E

t

+

− = (1) 

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not 

independent, a covariance term must be added to the formula: 

t =

1 2

2

2

2

1

1 2

se + se - 2(r)se se

E - E (2) 

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.5 This formula is used when comparing two 

percentages from a distribution that adds to 100. If the comparison is between the mean of a 

subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used: 

 

4

 A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the population 

from which the sample was drawn, when no such difference is present. 

5

 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993. 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-7 

t =

2

sub

2

tot

2

sub

sub tot

se se 2 p se

E E

+ −

− (3) 

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.6 The estimates, standard 

errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS. 

There are some hazards in using statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons 

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the 

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or 

percentages, but also to the number of respondents in the specific categories used for 

comparison. Hence, a small difference compared across a large number of respondents would 

produce a large t statistic. 

A second hazard in using statistical tests is the possibility of a “false positive” or Type I 

error. In the case of a t statistic, this false positive would result when a difference between 

groups measured with a particular sample showed a statistically significant difference when there 

is actually no difference between these groups in the full population. The significance level, or 

alpha, of .05 selected for findings discussed as significant in this report indicates that a difference 

of the magnitude reported would be produced by chance no more than one time out of 20 with 

samples of the size used in this study when there was no actual difference in the group means in 

the full population. 

Multivariate Commonality Analysis 

There are many ways for members of the public and other researchers to make use of 

NCES results. The most popular way is to read the written reports. Other ways include obtaining 

and analyzing public use and restricted use data files, which allow researchers to carry out and 

publish their own secondary analyses of NCES data. 

It is very important when reading NCES reports to remember that they are descriptive in 

nature. That is, they are limited to describing some aspect of the condition of education. These 

results are usefully viewed as suggesting various ideas to be examined further in light of other 

data, including state and local data, and in the context of the extensive research literature 

elaborating on the many factors predicting and contributing to educational achievement or to 

other outcome variables of interest. 

 

6

 Ibid. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-8 

However, some readers are tempted to make unwarranted causal inferences from simple 

cross tabulations. It is never the case that a simple cross tabulation of any variable with a 

measure of educational achievement is conclusive proof that differences in that variable are a 

cause of differential educational achievement or that differences in that variable explain any 

other outcome variable. The old adage that “correlation is not causation” is a wise precaution to 

keep in mind when considering the results of NCES reports. Experienced researchers are aware 

of the design limitations of many NCES data collections. They routinely formulate multiple 

hypotheses that take these limitations into account, and readers of this volume are encouraged to 

do likewise. NCES has a responsibility to try to discourage misleading inferences from the data 

presented and to educate the public on the genuine difficulty of making valid causal inferences in 

a field as complex as education. Our reports are carefully worded to achieve this end. 

This focus on description, eschewing causal analysis, extends to multivariate analyses as 

well as bivariate ones. Some NCES reports go beyond presenting simple cross tabulations and 

present results from multiple regression equations that include many different independent 

(“predictor”) variables. This can be useful to readers, especially those without the time or 

training to access the data themselves. Because many of the independent variables included in 

descriptive reports are related to each other and to the outcome they are predicting, a multivariate 

approach can help users to understand their interrelation. For example, students’ enrollment 

intensity and employment while enrolled are associated with each other and are both predictors 

of degree attainment. What happens to the relationship between students’ enrollment intensity 

and degree attainment when students’ employment differences are accounted for? Such a 

question cannot be answered using bivariate techniques alone. 

One way to answer the question is to create three variable tabulations, a method sometimes 

used in NCES reports. When the number of independent variables increases to four or more, 

however, the number of cases in individual cells of such a table often becomes too small to find 

significant differences simply because there are too few cases to achieve statistical significance. 

To make economical use of the many available independent variables in the same data display, 

other statistical methods must be used that can take multiple independent variables into account 

simultaneously. 

Multiple linear regression is often used for this purpose: to adjust for the common variation 

among a list of independent variables.7

 This approach is sometimes referred to as “commonality 

analysis,”8

 because it identifies relationships that remain after adjustment for “common” 

variation. This method is used simply to confirm statistically significant associations observed in 

 

7

 For more information about least squares regression, see Lewis-Beck (1980) and Berry and Feldman (1987). 

8

 For more information about commonality analysis, see Pedhazur (1997). 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-9 

the bivariate analysis, while taking into account the interrelationship of the independent 

variables. 

Thus, this multiple regression approach is descriptive. Significant coefficients reported in 

the regression tables mean that the independent variables have a relationship with the outcome 

variable that is unique, or distinct from its relationship with other independent variables in the 

model. 

Multivariate description of this sort is distinct from both a modeling approach in which an 

analyst attempts to identify the smallest relevant set of causal or explanatory independent 

variables associated with the dependent variable or variables and an approach using one of the 

many varieties of structural equation modeling. In contrast, a multivariate descriptive or 

commonality approach provides a richer understanding of the data without needing to make any 

kind of causal assumptions, which is why descriptive multivariate commonality analysis is often 

used in NCES statistical reports. 

When should commonality analysis be employed? It should be used in statistical analysis 

reports when independent variables are correlated with both the outcome variable and with each 

other. This will allow the analyst to determine how much of the effect of one independent 

variable is due to the influence of other independent variables, because in a multiple regression 

procedure these effects are adjusted for. For example, because the strength of the statistical 

relationship between students’ enrollment intensity and degree attainment may be affected by 

employment, computing a multiple regression equation that contains both variables allows the 

analyst to determine how much, if any difference in degree attainment between full-time and 

part-time students is due to their differences in employment. 

As discussed in the Data Analysis System section above, all analyses included in PEDAR 

reports must be based on the DAS, which is available to the public online 

(http://nces.ed.gov/das). Exclusively using the DAS in this way provides readers direct access to 

the findings and methods used in the report so that they may replicate or expand on the estimates 

presented. However, the DAS does not allow users access to the raw data, which limits the range 

of covariation procedures that can be used. Specifically, the DAS produces correlation matrices, 

which can be used as input in standard statistical packages to produce least squares regression 

models. This means that logit or probit procedures, more appropriate for dichotomous dependent 

variables, cannot be used.9 However, empirical studies have shown that when the mean value of 

a dichotomous dependent variable falls between 0.25 and 0.75, regression and log-linear models 

 

9

 See Aldrich and Nelson (1984). Analysts who wish to estimate other types of models can apply for a restricted data license from 

NCES. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-10 

are likely to produce similar results.10 Regressions were conducted for three dependent variables 

in this report: completing any degree, completing a bachelor’s degree, and persisting overall. For 

completing any degree by 2001, the overall rate is 51 percent (64 percent for exclusively fulltime students, 45 percent for part-time students who looked like full-time students, and 34 

percent for other part-times students) (table 12). For completing a bachelor’s degree, the overall 

rate is 29 percent (44 percent for exclusively full-time students, 25 percent for part-time students 

who looked like full-time students, and 7 percent for other part-time students), and for overall 

persistence, the overall rate is 65 percent (72 percent for exclusively full-time students, 69 

percent for part-time students who looked like full-time students, and 52 percent for other parttime students). With one exception, all values are within acceptable limits described above. The 

exception is for the bachelor’s degree completion rate for other part-time students (7 percent); 

thus, the regression estimates on this dependent variable for this group was omitted from table 

15. 

The independent variables analyzed in this study and subsequently included in the 

multivariate model were chosen based largely on earlier empirical studies (cited in the text), 

which showed significant associations with the key analytic variable, graduate enrollment, 

persistence, and attainment. Before conducting the study, a detailed analysis plan was reviewed 

by a Technical Review Panel (TRP) of experts in the field of higher education research, and 

additional independent variables requested by the TRP were considered for inclusion. The 

analysis plan listed all independent variables to be included in the study. The TRP also reviewed 

the preliminary results, as well as the first draft of this report. The analysis plan and subsequent 

report were modified based on TRP comments. 

Missing Data and Adjusting for Complex Sample Design 

The DAS computes the correlation matrix using pairwise missing values. In regression 

analysis, there are several common approaches to the problem of missing data. The two simplest 

approaches are pairwise deletion of missing data and listwise deletion of missing data. In 

pairwise deletion, each correlation is calculated using all of the cases for the two relevant 

variables. For example, suppose you have a regression analysis that uses variables X1, X2, and 

X3. The regression is based on the correlation matrix between X1, X2, and X3. In pairwise 

deletion, the correlation between X1 and X2 is based on the nonmissing cases for X1 and X2. 

Cases missing on either X1 or X2 would be excluded from the calculation of the correlation. In 

listwise deletion, the correlation between X1 and X2 would be based on the nonmissing values 

 

10 See, for example, Goodman (1976) and Knoke (1975). 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-11 

for X1, X2, and X3. That is, all of the cases with missing data on any of the three variables 

would be excluded from the analysis. 

The correlation matrix produced by the DAS can be used by most statistical software 

packages as the input data for least squares regression. The DAS provides either the SPSS or 

SAS code necessary to run least squares regression models. The DAS also provides additional 

information to incorporate the complex sample design into the statistical significance tests of the 

parameter estimates. Most statistical software packages assume simple random sampling when 

computing standard errors of parameter estimates. Because of the complex sampling design used 

for the survey, this assumption is incorrect. A better approximation of the standard errors can be 

made by multiplying each standard error by the design effect associated with the dependent 

variable (DEFT),11 where the DEFT is the ratio of the true standard error to the standard error 

computed under the assumption of simple random sampling. The DEFT is calculated by the DAS 

and displayed with the correlation matrix output. 

Interpreting the Results 

The least squares regression coefficients displayed in the regression tables B-2 through B-5 

are expressed as percentage points. Significant coefficients represent the observed differences 

that remain between the analysis group (e.g., students whose parents had a high school 

education) and the comparison group (e.g., students whose parents held graduate degrees) after 

controlling for the relationships of all selected independent variables. For example, in table 14, 

the least squares coefficient for exclusively part-time students who looked like full-time students 

attaining a degree or certificate is –35.6. This means that compared with full-time students, the 

percentage of exclusively part-time students who looked like full-time students who attained a 

degree was roughly 36 percentage points lower, after controlling for the relationships among all 

other independent variables. 

 

11 The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in Skinner, Holt, and Smith (1989). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-12 

Table B-2.—Standard errors for table 14: Least squared coefficients for percentage of 1995–96 beginning 

Table B-2.—postsecondary students who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had 

Table B-2.—earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who persisted through 2001 after 

Table B-2.—controlling for selected student characteristics 

Least Least Least

squared Standard squared Standard squared Standard

Student characteristics coefficient2 error

3 coefficient2 error3 coefficient2 error3

 Total 77.8 4.06 78.8 3.96 80.0 3.55

Enrollment intensity through 2001

Exclusively part-time student who looked like 

 full-time students -35.6 * 5.86 -14.7 * 5.74 -28.5 * 5.19

Other exclusively part-time student -27.2 * 3.46 -10.4 * 3.37 -22.6 * 3.00

Mixed enrollment student who looked like

 full-time students -7.3 2.10 -11.8 * 1.98 2.1 1.91

Other mixed enrollment student -4.1 2.40 -5.9 * 2.38 4.1 2.18

Exclusively full-time student † † † † † †

Gender

Female 2.4 1.65 2.3 1.58 1.9 1.50

Male † † † † † †

Race/ethnicity4

Black -9.0 * 2.55 -4.2 2.38 -9.4 * 2.18

Hispanic -5.6 * 2.40 -5.2 * 2.38 -3.8 2.18

Asian/Pacific Islander 1.9 3.76 4.2 3.56 2.0 3.28

Other 0.9 6.01 9.1 5.74 0.0 5.32

White † † † † † †

Socioeconomic status index in 1995–96

Moderately disadvantaged -1.8 1.80 -3.3 1.78 -3.9 * 1.64

Highly disadvantaged -3.5 2.40 -6.2 * 2.38 -3.4 2.18

Not disadvantaged † † † † † †

Dependency status in 1995–96

Independent without dependents -6.2 * 3.15 -5.8 2.97 -0.8 2.73

Independent with dependents -0.6 2.70 -3.6 2.57 2.2 2.46

Dependent † † † † † †

Highest level of education expected in 1995–96

No postsecondary degree or certificate -14.9 * 5.41 -5.7 * 5.15 -17.1 * 4.78

Certificate 0.9 4.06 -6.4 * 3.96 -1.1 3.55

Associate’s degree 0.9 3.46 -4.7 3.37 -4.6 3.14

Graduate degree 7.0 * 1.95 7.8 * 1.98 8.1 * 1.77

Bachelor’s degree † † † † † †

See notes at end of table.

Persistence1

Earned a 

degree or certificate

Earned a 

bachelor’s degree
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-13 

Table B-2.—Standard errors for table 14: Least squared coefficients for percentage of 1995–96 beginning 

Table B-1.—postsecondary students who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had 

Table B-1.—earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who persisted through 2001 after 

Table B-1.—controlling for selected student characteristics—Continued

Least Least Least

squared Standard squared Standard squared Standard

Student characteristics coefficient2 error

3 coefficient2 error3 coefficient2 error3

Type of high school diploma

GED or equivalency -2.3 3.15 -4.2 3.17 -3.6 2.87

No high school degree or certificate -8.8 4.66 -5.6 4.55 -11.8 * 4.10

Regular high school diploma † † † † † †

Remedial coursetaking after high school

Yes -12.8 * 2.10 -6.2 * 1.98 -8.7 * 1.77

No † † † † † †

SAT/ACT composite score

Did not take/missing -10.9 * 3.31 -22.9 * 3.17 -7.5 * 3.00

Lowest quarter -14.7 * 3.61 -21.6 * 3.56 -8.4 * 3.28

Middle two quarters -5.8 * 2.70 -11.0 * 2.57 -3.3 * 2.46

Highest quarter †† †† ††

Type of first institution

Private not-for-profit doctoral 9.7 * 3.91 9.9 * 3.76 5.7 3.41

Public 4-year nondoctoral -4.3 3.15 -6.8 * 2.97 -3.3 2.73

Private not-for-profit 4-year nondoctoral 6.2 * 3.15 6.0 * 2.97 1.1 2.73

Public 2-year -0.9 4.66 -2.8 4.55 -3.1 4.10

Other 7.9 5.11 -12.0 * 4.95 3.7 4.51

Public 4-year doctoral † † † † † †

Degree program in 1995–96

Certificate 5.9 4.81 -20.7 * 4.55 -1.1 4.23

Associate’s -5.4 4.36 -20.6 * 4.16 -8.0 * 3.82

Bachelor’s † † † † † †

Major field of study in 1995–96

Humanities -0.4 3.15 -0.9 3.17 -1.6 2.87

Vocational/technical -7.6 4.96 -5.9 4.75 -6.7 4.37

Other technical/professional 1.1 3.00 -2.9 2.97 -0.1 2.59

Undeclared -2.9 2.70 -4.0 2.57 -0.4 2.32

Social/behavioral sciences -2.7 4.06 0.3 3.96 -3.7 3.55

Life sciences -1.2 4.36 0.0 4.36 4.9 3.96

Physical sciences -10.0 10.07 -5.0 9.70 -5.5 8.87

Mathematics -5.1 11.72 3.0 11.48 -9.5 10.38

Computer/information science -3.8 5.71 -5.0 5.54 -3.8 5.05

Engineering 3.5 3.76 -2.8 3.56 5.6 3.28

Education 2.9 3.91 5.4 3.76 0.9 3.55

Health 1.7 3.31 -4.3 3.17 0.6 2.87

Business/management † † † † † †

See notes at end of table.

Earned a Earned a 

degree or certificate bachelor’s degree Persistence1
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-14 

Table B-2.—Standard errors for table 14: Least squared coefficients for percentage of 1995–96 beginning 

Table B-1.—postsecondary students who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had 

Table B-1.—earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who persisted through 2001 after 

Table B-1.—controlling for selected student characteristics—Continued

Least Least Least

squared Standard squared Standard squared Standard

Student characteristics coefficient2 error

3 coefficient2 error3 coefficient2 error3

Enrollment continuity through 2001

Not continuously enrolled -16.1 * 1.80 -19.7 * 1.78 7.6 * 1.64

Continuously enrolled † † † † † †

Employment status while enrolled in 1995–96

Worked part time -3.0 1.80 -1.8 1.78 0.9 1.64

Worked full time -7.8 * 2.55 -4.6 * 2.38 -4.6 * 2.18

Did not work † † † † † †

Perceived primary role through 2001

Always considering themselves primarily 

 as an employee -6.9 * 2.70 -5.7 * 2.57 -10.9 * 2.32

Shifting from primarily a student to primarily 

 an employee -5.2 * 2.70 -8.9 * 2.77 -6.5 * 2.46

Shifting from primarily an employee to 

 primarily a student 3.9 3.46 -1.6 3.37 1.8 3.00

Always considering themselves primarily 

 as a student † † † † † †

† Not applicable for the reference group.

* p < .05. 1 Persistence is measured by the sum of the percentage who had attained a degree or certificate by 2001 and the percentage who

 were still enrolled by 2001.

2 Least squares coefficients, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

3 Standard error of least squares coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B). 4 Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. The “other”

category includes American Indian/Alaska Native, those who identified more than one race, and those who identified themselves

with another race not shown in the table. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. The italicized group in each category is the 

reference group being compared.

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

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

Persistence1 degree or certificate bachelor’s degree

Earned a Earned a 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-15 

Table B-3.—Standard errors for the first three columns in table 15: Among 1995–96 beginning 

Table B-1.—postsecondary students who were exclusively full-time students, least squared coefficients for 

Table B-1.—percentage who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had earned a 

Table B-2.—bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who persisted through 2001 after controlling for 

Table B-2.—selected student characteristics

Least Least Least

squared Standard squared Standard squared Standard

Student characteristics coefficient2 error

3 coefficient2 error3 coefficient2 error3

 Total 85.4 3.45 79.6 4.92 89.7 3.75

Gender

Female 4.0 * 1.51 3.4 2.08 3.2 * 1.63

Male † † † † † †

Race/ethnicity4

Black -12.6 * 2.37 -5.0 3.41 -12.0 * 2.63

Hispanic -6.3 * 2.26 -6.1 3.22 -4.8 2.50

Asian/Pacific Islander 3.0 3.34 6.5 4.92 1.2 3.75

Other -8.7 5.93 -1.7 8.51 -1.9 6.51

White † † † † † †

Socioeconomic status index in 1995–96

Moderately disadvantaged -1.5 1.62 -4.6 2.46 -3.1 1.88

Highly disadvantaged -2.5 2.16 -5.1 3.22 -1.1 2.38

Not disadvantaged † † † † † †

Dependency status in 1995–96

Independent without dependents -4.0 3.13 -6.0 4.35 -0.4 3.38

Independent with dependents -0.4 2.70 -3.8 3.78 0.2 3.00

Dependent † † † † † †

Highest level of education expected in 1995–96

No postsecondary degree or certificate -29.2 * 5.61 -11.8 * 8.13 -37.4 * 6.26

Certificate 7.0 * 3.56 -3.9 5.11 1.7 4.00

Associate’s degree 7.4 * 3.34 -5.6 4.92 0.9 3.75

Graduate degree 6.8 * 1.94 9.7 * 2.65 7.2 * 2.13

Bachelor’s degree † † † † † †

Type of high school diploma

GED or equivalency -12.6 * 3.13 -2.6 4.35 -9.7 * 3.38

No high school degree or certificate -4.5 4.53 0.4 6.43 -4.8 5.01

Regular high school diploma † † † † † †

Remedial coursetaking after high school

Yes -9.8 * 2.05 -5.1 2.84 -9.8 * 2.25

No † † † † † †

SAT/ACT composite score

Did not take/missing -16.1 * 3.13 -24.0 * 4.35 -13.6 * 3.38

Lowest quarter -14.9 * 3.23 -21.7 * 4.73 -14.2 * 3.63

Middle two quarters -6.8 * 2.16 -9.2 * 3.03 -4.8 * 2.38

Highest quarter †† †† ††

See notes at end of table.

Persistence1

Earned a 

degree or certificate

Earned a 

bachelor’s degree
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-16 

Table B-3.—Standard errors for the first three columns in table 15: Among 1995–96 beginning 

Table B-1.—postsecondary students who were exclusively full-time students, least squared coefficients for 

Table B-1.—percentage who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had earned a 

Table B-2.—bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who persisted through 2001 after controlling for 

Table B-2.—selected student characteristics—Continued

Least Least Least

squared Standard squared Standard squared Standard

Student characteristics coefficient2 error

3 coefficient2 error3 coefficient2 error3

Type of first institution

Private not-for-profit, doctoral 8.6 * 2.91 8.2 * 4.16 6.4 * 3.25

Public 4-year nondoctoral -3.3 2.48 -6.3 3.59 -2.8 2.75

Private not-for-profit 4-year nondoctoral 3.6 2.37 2.6 3.41 1.9 2.63

Public 2-year -4.8 4.10 -8.6 5.86 -3.7 4.51

Other 10.4 * 4.42 -14.6 * 6.24 5.7 4.88

Public 4-year doctoral † † † † † †

Degree program in 1995–96

Certificate 0.9 4.31 -24.7 * 6.05 -1.3 4.76

Associate’s -4.7 3.77 -18.7 * 5.30 -6.7 4.13

Bachelor’s † † † † † †

Major field of study in 1995–96

Humanities -5.6 3.02 0.5 4.16 -7.7 * 3.25

Vocational/technical -14.0 * 4.10 -4.6 5.86 -12.5 * 4.51

Other technical/professional -13.5 * 2.59 -4.2 3.78 -12.1 * 2.88

Undeclared -7.1 * 2.48 -1.3 3.59 -6.4 * 2.75

Social/behavioral sciences -4.7 3.67 3.0 5.11 -5.1 4.00

Life sciences -4.6 3.67 2.6 5.30 -0.3 4.00

Physical sciences -10.0 8.84 -3.2 12.67 -4.4 9.76

Mathematics -12.0 8.41 3.8 11.92 -13.9 9.26

Computer/information science -2.9 5.61 -3.6 7.95 -3.4 6.13

Engineering -3.0 3.23 -4.6 4.54 -2.4 3.63

Education 0.7 3.67 6.9 5.11 -1.7 4.00

Health -5.2 3.02 -5.3 4.35 -5.2 3.25

Business/management † † † † † †

Enrollment continuity through 2001

Not continuously enrolled -17.2 * 1.83 -26.5 * 2.65 6.9 * 2.00

Continuously enrolled † † † † † †

See notes at end of table.

Earned a 

degree or certificate Persistence1

Earned a 

bachelor’s degree
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-17 

Table B-3.—Standard errors for the first three columns in table 15: Among 1995–96 beginning 

Table B-1.—postsecondary students who were exclusively full-time students, least squared coefficients for 

Table B-1.—percentage who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage who had earned a 

Table B-2.—bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who persisted through 2001 after controlling for 

Table B-2.—selected student characteristics—Continued

Least Least Least

squared Standard squared Standard squared Standard

Student characteristics coefficient2 error

3 coefficient2 error3 coefficient2 error3

Employment status while enrolled in 1995–96

Worked part time -1.5 1.62 -1.5 2.27 -1.1 1.75

Worked full time -8.8 * 2.48 -3.1 3.59 -7.7 * 2.75

Did not work † † † † † †

Perceived primary role through 2001

Always considering themselves primarily 

 as an employee -14.7 * 2.91 -9.1 * 4.16 -15.9 * 3.25

Shifting from primarily a student to primarily 

 an employee 6.0 3.45 -5.5 4.92 4.8 3.88

Shifting from primarily an employee to 

 primarily a student 2.2 3.45 3.4 4.92 0.2 3.75

Always considering themselves primarily 

 as a student † † † † † †

† Not applicable for the reference group.

* p < .05. 1 Persistence is measured by the sum of the percentage who had attained a degree or certificate by 2001 and the percentage who

 were still enrolled by 2001.

2 Least squares coefficients, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

3 Standard error of least squares coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B). 4 Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. The “other”

category includes American Indian/Alaska Native, those who identified more than one race, and those who identified themselves

with another race not shown in the table. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. The italicized group in each category is the 

reference group being compared.

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

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

Persistence1 degree or certificate bachelor’s degree

Earned a Earned a 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-18 

Table B-4.—Standard errors for the middle three columns in table 15: Among 1995–96 beginning 

Table B-3.—postsecondary students who were part-time students looking like full-time students, least 

Table B-3.—squared coefficients for percentage who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage 

Table B-2.—who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who persisted through 2001 after 

Table B-2.—controlling for selected student characteristics

Least Least Least

squared Standard squared Standard squared Standard

Student characteristics coefficient2 error3 coefficient2 error3 coefficient2 error3

 Total 78.2 8.93 76.8 5.36 78.8 8.30

Gender

Female 2.2 3.57 3.0 2.04 -0.7 3.19

Male † † † † † †

Race/ethnicity4

Black -9.6 5.85 -9.2 * 3.44 -13.0 * 5.43

Hispanic 0.8 5.36 -3.9 3.19 -0.2 4.95

Asian/Pacific Islander 5.5 7.47 0.1 4.46 2.2 6.86

Other 1.7 11.69 8.9 6.89 -4.0 10.86

White † † † † † †

Socioeconomic status index in 1995–96

Moderately disadvantaged -3.0 3.74 -3.4 2.30 -4.6 3.51

Highly disadvantaged -12.0 * 6.33 -8.2 * 3.70 -6.9 5.91

Not disadvantaged † † † † † †

Highest level of education expected in 1995–96

No postsecondary degree or certificate 3.3 17.87 5.3 10.58 20.1 16.60

Certificate -3.0 14.13 -8.5 8.42 -10.8 13.09

Associate’s degree 11.0 10.23 -8.7 6.12 10.9 9.42

Graduate degree 5.2 3.90 9.1 * 2.30 13.4 3.67

Bachelor’s degree † † † † † †

Remedial coursetaking after high school

Yes -9.9 * 4.22 -7.5 * 2.55 -6.0 * 3.99

No † † † † † †

SAT/ACT composite score

Did not take/missing -9.2 6.98 -13.9 * 4.08 -10.5 6.55

Lowest quarter -7.2 7.31 -14.9 * 4.34 0.4 6.71

Middle two quarters -2.8 5.85 -10.4 * 3.44 -3.5 5.43

Highest quarter †† †† ††

See notes at end of table.

Persistence1

Earned a 

degree or certificate

Earned a 

bachelor’s degree
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-19 

Table B-4.—Standard errors for the middle three columns in table 15: Among 1995–96 beginning 

Table B-3.—postsecondary students who were part-time students looking like full-time students, least 

Table B-3.—squared coefficients for percentage who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage 

Table B-2.—who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who persisted through 2001 after 

Table B-2.—controlling for selected student characteristics—Continued

Least Least Least

squared Standard squared Standard squared Standard

Student characteristics coefficient2 error3 coefficient2 error3 coefficient2 error3

Type of first institution

Private not-for-profit, doctoral 7.9 8.93 8.4 5.23 2.5 8.30

Public 4-year nondoctoral -9.4 6.82 -9.8 * 4.08 -3.3 6.39

Private not-for-profit 4-year nondoctoral 6.1 6.66 8.7 * 3.95 -1.2 6.23

Public 2-year -2.4 10.88 -8.9 6.38 -5.0 10.06

Other 15.4 13.48 -12.0 7.91 13.9 12.45

Public 4-year doctoral † † † † † †

Degree program in 1995–96

Certificate 7.1 12.67 -16.0 * 7.52 -0.8 11.81

Associate’s -1.6 10.39 -14.2 * 6.25 -4.0 9.74

Bachelor’s † † † † † †

Major field of study in 1995–96

Humanities 4.2 6.66 -9.2 * 3.95 11.8 6.23

Vocational/technical 3.7 19.65 -12.5 11.61 -11.9 18.20

Other technical/professional 7.5 7.96 -4.9 4.72 5.6 7.34

Undeclared -9.9 5.85 -10.9 * 3.44 1.3 5.43

Social/behavioral sciences -5.9 8.77 -12.7 * 5.23 -5.6 8.14

Life sciences -6.2 9.42 -12.1 * 5.61 11.6 8.78

Physical sciences -11.4 18.68 -5.6 10.97 -1.2 17.24

Mathematics 36.9 35.89 30.6 21.30 22.6 33.37

Computer/information science -15.3 12.83 -14.6 7.52 -9.3 11.81

Engineering -5.1 8.93 -12.3 * 5.23 3.8 8.30

Education -0.6 8.12 -1.9 4.85 3.7 7.50

Health 3.1 7.31 -8.8 * 4.34 8.9 6.86

Business/management † † † † † †

Enrollment continuity through 2001

Not continuously enrolled -15.7 * 3.57 -23.0 * 2.17 5.6 * 3.35

Continuously enrolled † † † † † †

See notes at end of table.

degree or certificate

Earned a 

Persistence1

Earned a 

bachelor’s degree
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-20 

Table B-4.—Standard errors for the middle three columns in table 15: Among 1995–96 beginning 

Table B-3.—postsecondary students who were part-time students looking like full-time students, least 

Table B-3.—squared coefficients for percentage who had earned a degree or certificate by 2001, percentage 

Table B-2.—who had earned a bachelor’s degree by 2001, and percentage who persisted through 2001 after 

Table B-2.—controlling for selected student characteristics—Continued

Least Least Least

squared Standard squared Standard squared Standard

Student characteristics coefficient2 error3 coefficient2 error3 coefficient2 error3

Employment status while enrolled in 1995–96

Worked part time -13.6 * 4.22 -7.6 * 2.55 -3.2 3.99

Worked full time -17.1 * 5.68 -11.9 * 3.44 -8.5 * 5.27

Did not work † † † † † †

Perceived primary role through 2001

Always considering themselves primarily 

 as an employee -26.5 * 6.66 -9.3 * 3.95 -31.2 * 6.23

Shifting from primarily a student to primarily 

 an employee -13.7 * 4.87 -13.6 * 2.93 -16.9 * 4.47

Shifting from primarily an employee to 

 primarily a student -2.9 6.98 -7.2 4.21 4.4 6.55

Always considering themselves primarily 

 as a student †† †† ††

† Not applicable for the reference group.

* p < .05. 1 Persistence is measured by the sum of the percentage who had attained a degree or certificate by 2001 and the percentage who

 were still enrolled by 2001.

2 Least squares coefficients, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

3 Standard error of least squares coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B). 4 Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. The “other”

category includes American Indian/Alaska Native, those who identified more than one race, and those who identified themselves

with another race not shown in the table. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. The italicized group in each category is the 

reference group being compared.

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

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

Persistence1 degree or certificate bachelor’s degree

Earned a Earned a 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-21 

Table B-5.—Standard errors for the last two columns in table 15: Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary 

Table B-4.—students who were other part-time students, least squared coefficients for percentage who had 

Table B-4.—earned a degree or certificate by 2001 and percentage who persisted through 2001 after 

Table B-4.—controlling for selected student characteristics 

Least Least

squared Standard squared Standard

Student characteristics coefficient2 error

3 coefficient2 error3

 Total 31.2 11.94 47.3 12.56

Gender

Female 2.7 3.76 1.7 3.97

Male † † † †

Race/ethnicity4

Black -2.9 5.08 0.7 5.29

Hispanic -9.0 5.08 -6.1 5.40

Asian/Pacific Islander 2.4 9.17 9.0 9.58

Other 18.1 13.48 17.5 14.10

White † † † †

Socioeconomic status index in 1995–96

Moderately disadvantaged -0.8 4.09 -5.0 4.30

Highly disadvantaged 6.0 5.19 1.1 5.51

Not disadvantaged † † † †

Dependency status in 1995–96

Independent without dependents -8.8 4.97 -6.1 5.18

Independent with dependents -3.5 4.42 -2.1 4.63

Dependent † † † †

Highest level of education expected in 1995–96

No postsecondary degree or certificate -11.8 8.40 -15.1 8.81

Certificate -2.2 7.18 -3.1 7.60

Associate’s degree -4.7 * 5.97 -13.6 * 6.28

Graduate degree 10.7 4.64 2.8 4.85

Bachelor’s degree † † † †

Type of high school diploma

GED or equivalency 5.8 4.97 0.4 5.18

No high school degree or certificate -10.6 * 7.18 -19.5 * 7.49

Regular high school diploma † † † †

Remedial coursetaking after high school

Yes -15.8 * 4.42 -5.9 * 4.63

No † † † †

See notes at end of table.

Persistence1

Earned a 

degree or certificate
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-22 

Table B-5.—Standard errors for the last two columns in table 15: Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary 

Table B-4.—students who were other part-time students, least squared coefficients for percentage who had 

Table B-4.—earned a degree or certificate by 2001 and percentage who persisted through 2001 after 

Table B-4.—controlling for selected student characteristics—Continued

Least Least

squared Standard squared Standard

Student characteristics coefficient2 error

3 coefficient2 error3

SAT/ACT composite score

Did not take/missing -1.9 9.51 14.9 10.02

Lowest quarter -15.4 10.72 3.8 11.35

Middle two quarters 2.2 9.62 17.0 10.02

Highest quarter †† ††

Type of first institution

Private not-for-profit, doctoral 9.0 15.92 0.9 16.74

Public 4-year nondoctoral -3.6 9.28 -8.0 9.80

Private not-for-profit 4-year nondoctoral 13.1 11.38 -3.7 11.90

Public 2-year 1.1 10.94 -7.8 11.57

Other 16.7 11.61 4.9 12.23

Public 4-year doctoral † † † †

Degree program in 1995–96

Certificate 7.6 10.28 -8.6 10.91

Associate’s -1.0 9.84 -9.6 10.36

Bachelor’s † † † †

Major field of study in 1995–96

Humanities -0.1 7.07 -7.4 7.38

Vocational/technical 13.8 9.73 7.7 10.24

Other technical/professional 24.7 * 6.41 18.1 * 6.72

Undeclared 10.5 5.75 8.8 6.06

Social/behavioral sciences 6.5 8.84 5.7 9.25

Life sciences 9.1 13.60 7.1 14.32

Physical sciences -10.6 30.06 -17.9 31.62

Mathematics -37.4 43.33 -50.2 45.50

Computer/information science 3.7 11.05 -1.5 11.57

Engineering 21.7 * 7.85 21.8 * 8.26

Education 15.8 9.17 13.5 9.58

Health 17.8 6.96 11.1 7.27

Business/management † † † †

Enrollment continuity through 2001

Not continuously enrolled -10.1 * 3.54 17.4 * 3.75

Continuously enrolled † † † †

See notes at end of table.

Persistence1

Earned a 

degree or certificate
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-23 

Table B-5.—Standard errors for the last two columns in table 15: Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary 

Table B-4.—students who were other part-time students, least squared coefficients for percentage who had 

Table B-4.—earned a degree or certificate by 2001 and percentage who persisted through 2001 after 

Table B-4.—controlling for selected student characteristics—Continued

Least Least

squared Standard squared Standard

Student characteristics coefficient2 error

3 coefficient2 error3

Employment status while enrolled in 1995–96

Worked part time 2.4 5.08 10.1 5.29

Worked full time -6.6 5.08 0.4 5.40

Did not work † † † †

Perceived primary role through 2001

Always considering themselves primarily 

 as an employee -8.1 * 4.53 -15.5 * 4.85

Shifting from primarily a student to primarily 

 an employee -3.1 5.42 -4.8 5.73

Shifting from primarily an employee to 

 primarily a student 13.4 7.07 1.3 7.38

Always considering themselves primarily 

 as a student † † † †

† Not applicable for the reference group.

* p < .05. 1 Persistence is measured by the sum of the percentage who had attained a degree or certificate by 2001 and the percentage who

 were still enrolled by 2001.

2 Least squares coefficients, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B).

3 Standard error of least squares coefficient, adjusted for design effect, multiplied by 100 to reflect percentage (see appendix B). 4 Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian. The “other”

category includes American Indian/Alaska Native, those who identified more than one race, and those who identified themselves

with another race not shown in the table. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

NOTE: Estimates include students from the 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico. The italicized group in each category is the 

reference group being compared.

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

Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

Persistence1 degree or certificate

Earned a