Differential 

Characteristics of 

2-Year Postsecondary 

Institutions

Postsecondary Education 

Descriptive Analysis Report

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007-164rev
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
U.S. Department of Education 

NCES 2007-164rev 

Differential 

Characteristics of 

2-Year Postsecondary 

Institutions 

Postsecondary Education 

Descriptive Analysis Report 

July 2007 

Sarah Krichels Goan 

Alisa F. Cunningham 

Institute for Higher Education Policy 

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 

July 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 

Goan, S.K., and Cunningham, A.F. (2007). Differential Characteristics of 2-Year Postsecondary Institutions 

(NCES 2007-164rev). 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 

Two-year institutions, including community 

colleges and career schools, have become 

increasingly important in American higher 

education since the 1940s. In 2003–04, 43 percent 

of all undergraduates were enrolled at 2-year 

institutions (Horn and Nevill 2006). Two-year 

colleges exist in the public, not-for-profit, and forprofit sectors and include many types of 

institutions with various and unique histories. 

Many classification systems for 2-year 

institutions have been developed since that time 

and use a wide array of characteristics and 

perspectives to differentiate between 2-year 

institutions. However, these classification systems 

generally could not be applied to all 2-year 

institutions, or easily adjusted in subsequent years. 

Therefore, a classification system for 2-year 

institutions was developed by Phipps, Shedd, and 

Merisotis (2001) that employed cluster analysis 

and a number of variables available on the 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

(IPEDS) to identify seven groups of 2-year 

institutions: small publics; medium-sized publics; 

large publics; allied health not-for-profits; other 

not-for-profits; degree-granting for-profits; and 

other for-profits.1

This report looks more carefully at the 

institutional categories developed from IPEDS, 

using data from three data sources. Institutional 

characteristics were obtained from the IPEDS 

2003 collection year, newly available online 

 

1 The original classification used different category titles. For 

a crosswalk to the original classification groups, please see 

appendix B. 

through the Data Analysis System (DAS).2 In 

addition, data from the National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study undergraduate sample for 

2003–04 (NPSAS:2004) and the Beginning 

Postsecondary Students (BPS:1996/2001) study 

were used to explore student characteristics and 

outcomes. IPEDS is a survey of the universe of 

postsecondary institutions, while NPSAS and BPS 

are sample surveys of individuals. The analysis of 

NPSAS:2004 and BPS:96/98/01 data analysis uses 

standard t-tests to determine statistical 

significance of differences between estimates, and 

all differences reported in the text are statistically 

significant at the p <. 05 level. For all three 

datasets, the 2-year classification was created in 

IPEDS:2003 and merged into the respective online 

DAS by matching the institutional identification 

numbers. 

In order to illustrate how the various types of 

2-year institutions differ, the report first presents 

brief profiles for each classification type that add 

to the findings presented in the original study. The 

second part of the analysis attempts to answer the 

study questions by focusing on four broad topic 

areas and highlighting the key differences that set 

a particular institutional type apart. These study 

questions include how the categories differ in 

terms of institutional resources, how the 

characteristics of students differ by category, how 

the categories differ in terms of affordability, and 

how measures of success differ among categories. 

 

2 Refer to appendix B for a description of the DAS. 
Executive Summary 

iv 

Institutional Profiles 

The following profiles briefly outline other 

important characteristics of the seven types of 2-

year schools in order to provide context for the 

findings (tables 1 and 2 and figure A). 

Small public institutions 

Small public 2-year schools were more likely 

than other 2-year institutions to be located in 

towns (52 percent) and in the Southeast region of 

the country (51 percent). The average 12-month 

enrollment at small public institutions in 2003–04 

was 978 students. In 2002–03, 62 percent of the 

academic awards granted by small public 

institutions were less than 2-year certificates. 

Medium-sized public institutions 

Like small publics, medium-sized public 2-year 

schools were likely to be located in towns (43 

percent) and were concentrated in the Southeast 

(37 percent). Over 2003–04, an average of 5,105 

students were enrolled at medium-sized publics. 

Like large public institutions, the majority of 

awards (57 percent) granted at medium-sized 

publics in 2002–03 were associate’s degrees. 

Large public 2-year schools were most likely to 

be located in suburban or urban areas (38 and 55 

percent, respectively) and were most frequently 

found in the Far West region of the country (36 

percent). In 2003–04, they enrolled an average of 

21,271 students. Sixty-seven percent of the awards 

granted at large public institutions in 2002–03 

were associate’s degrees. 

Figure A.—Distribution of awards completed at 2-year institutions: 2002–03

System (IPEDS:2003).

NOTE: Totals may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

62%

42%

32%

16%

43% 41%

52%

6%

58% 9%

48%

32%

57%

67%

26%

48%

58%

1%

2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Small public Medium-sized

public

Large public Allied health

not-for-profit

Other not-forprofitDegree

granting forprofit

Other for-profit

Less than 2-year certificate 2-year certificates Associate’s degrees
Executive Summary 

v 

Allied health not-for-profit institutions 

These institutions include a number of schools 

that focus on health professions and nursing. 

About two-thirds (66 percent) of allied health notfor-profit 2-year schools were concentrated in 

urban areas, and 65 percent were located in the 

Mid East and Great Lakes regions of the country. 

In 2003–04, an average of 136 students was 

enrolled at these institutions. Almost 58 percent of 

the awards granted by allied health not-for-profit 

institutions in 2002–03 were 2-year certificates. 

Other not-for-profit institutions 

Other not-for-profit 2-year schools were 

concentrated in suburban and urban areas (24 and 

57 percent, respectively), and more than one-third 

were located in the Mid East region of the 

country. In 2003–04, these institutions enrolled an 

average of 657 students. Almost half of the awards 

granted by other not-for-profits in 2002–03 were 

associate’s degrees, and 43 percent were less than 

2-year certificates. 

Degree-granting for-profit institutions 

Degree-granting for-profit 2-year schools were 

concentrated in urban areas (64 percent) and were 

likely to be located in the Mid East (24 percent), 

Great Lakes (19 percent) and Southeast (21 

percent) regions of the country. In 2003–04, these 

institutions enrolled an average of 765 students. In 

2003–04, 58 percent of the awards granted by 

degree-granting for-profits were associate’s 

degrees, and 41 percent were less than 2-year 

certificates. 

Other for-profit institutions 

Other for-profit 2-year schools, such as barber 

and cosmetology schools, were concentrated in 

urban areas (55 percent), although just over 20 

percent were located in both suburban areas and 

towns. These institutions were located throughout 

the country, although they were slightly more 

concentrated in the Southeast and Far West 

regions. In 2003–04, these institutions enrolled an 

average of 249 students. Fifty-two percent of the 

awards granted by other not-for-profits were less 

than 2-year certificates, and 48 percent were 2-

year certificates. 

Differential Patterns of Institutional 

Offerings and Resources 

Degree and certificate programs offered 

Two-year institutions offer a wide variety of 

programs of study in the form of associate’s 

degrees and certificates (table 3). A clear 

difference exists between institutions offering 

only 2-year certificates and those that offer 

associate’s degrees in addition to certificates. 

Over 80 percent of public schools, other not-forprofits and degree-granting for-profits offered 

associate’s programs, while over 80 percent of 

allied health not-for-profits and other for-profits 

offered 2-year certificate programs.3

Student services available 

Many institutions have on-campus services that 

help students with various aspects of their 

academic career. These can include academic 

counseling, career counseling, employment 

services for current students, placement services 

 

3 By definition, other for-profit institutions granted fewer 

than five associate’s degrees in the classification year. 
Executive Summary 

vi 

for graduating students, remedial courses, and 

other services (table 3). Public institutions were 

more likely to offer remedial services than other 

institutions. Large public institutions tended to 

offer the widest variety of student resources. 

About 83 percent offered day care and 82 percent 

offered cooperative (work-study) programs. A low 

proportion of for-profit institutions offered 

remedial services (39 percent for degree-granting, 

13 percent for other non-profit), but a significant 

proportion offered career counseling and job 

placement (for degree-granting for-profits, 87 and 

99 percent, respectively).

Institutional staff 

The percentage distribution of staff differed by 

type of 2-year institution (table 4). The percentage 

of employees that were full-time ranged from 76 

percent at other for-profit institutions to 47 

percent at large public institutions. Full-time 

instructional faculty comprised 64 percent of all 

full-time staff at allied health not-for-profits, more 

than any other institutional category. All three 

types of public institutions had a higher proportion 

of full-time staff that were clerical and secretarial, 

as well as service and maintenance, than other 2-

year institutions. The majority of part-time staff at 

all types of 2-year institutions was comprised of 

instructional faculty (73 percent to 78 percent). 

Faculty composition 

A majority of full-time faculty (93 percent) at 

allied health not-for-profits were women, while a 

majority of full-time faculty at both types of forprofit institutions were men (59 and 66 percent) 

(table 5). Compared to other public institutions, a 

higher proportion of faculty at large public 

institutions were Hispanic (6 percent) or 

Asian/Pacific Islander (4 percent). Other forprofits had the highest proportions of full-time 

faculty who were Black, non-Hispanic (11 

percent) and Hispanic (7 percent). 

Faculty rank and salaries at degreegranting institutions4

Across all degree-granting 2-year institutions, 

the largest proportion of full-time faculty were 

instructors (34 to 81 percent), followed by faculty 

who had no rank (table 6). Public institutions had 

the largest proportions of full-time faculty who 

had no academic rank, ranging from 22 to 31 

percent.

Full-time faculty of any rank at large public 

institutions received a higher average salary than 

their counterparts at small and medium-sized 

public institutions, ranging from $40,089 to 

$66,665 (table 7). Full-time faculty at for-profit 

degree-granting institutions received the lowest 

average salaries of any faculty, ranging from 

$22,622 to $34,507.

Differential Characteristics of 

Students 

NPSAS:04, a sample survey, allows an 

examination of the characteristics of students who 

attend 2-year institutions. 

Gender, race/ethnicity and age 

While more women attended 2-year institutions 

than men (with the exception of degree-granting 

 

4 The IPEDS faculty survey is limited to degree-granting 

institutions. By definition, other for-profit institutions do not 

grant degrees and are therefore not included in this portion of 

the analysis. 
Executive Summary 

vii 

for-profits5), allied health not-for-profits were 

particularly likely to have a high proportion of 

women (86 percent) (table 8). In addition, students 

at allied health not-for-profits were more likely to 

be between the ages of 30 and 39 than those at all 

other 2-year institutions and less likely to be under 

20. 

Large public institutions, other not-for-profits 

and degree-granting for-profit institutions show 

higher proportions of Hispanic students (19, 20 

and 18 percent, respectively) than small and 

medium publics as well as allied health not-forprofit institutions. In addition, a higher proportion 

of students enrolled at large publics are Asian (9 

percent) compared to all other institutions except 

other not-for-profits. 

 

5 For this group of institutions, the observed difference was 

not statistically significant. 

Dependency status, housing and income 

The percentage of students who were 

dependent students ranged from 21 percent at 

allied health not-for-profits to 46 percent at other 

not-for-profit institutions (figure B). At allied 

health not-for-profits and for-profit degreegranting institutions, 48 percent of all students 

were independent supporting at least one 

dependent such as a child (table 8). Compared to 

other classification categories, a high proportion 

of students at other not-for-profit institutions lived 

on campus (20 percent).6

Degree-granting for-profit institutions had the 

highest proportion of dependent students with 

family incomes of less than $25,000 (37 percent) 

 

6 The observed difference between other not-for-profits and 

other for-profits was not statistically significant. 

Figure B.—Distribution of dependency status of students attending 2-year institutions, by institutional type:

Figure B.—2003–04

NOTE: Totals may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS:2003).

45% 39% 40%

21%

46%

25%

42%

18% 22% 28%

32%

21%

27%

21%

37% 39% 33%

48%

32%

48%

38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Small public Medium-sized

public

Large public Allied health

not-for-profit

Other not-forprofitDegree

granting forprofit

Other for-profit

Dependent Independent without dependents Independent with dependents
Executive Summary 

viii 

compared to all other classification categories 

except other for-profit institutions. Similarly, both 

types of for-profit institutions as well as other notfor-profits had higher proportions of independent 

students with incomes that were less than $15,000 

(between 44 and 54 percent) compared to public 

and allied health not-for-profits. 

Attendance status and work 

Students attending for-profit institutions were 

more likely to attend full-time (72 and 81 percent, 

respectively) than students attending any type of 

public institution (table 8). While about half of 

students attending allied health not-for-profits 

attended full-time, these students also were more 

likely to work part-time (52 percent) than students 

at all other 2-year schools. 

Differential Patterns of Institutional 

Affordability 

NPSAS:04 data also can be used to describe 

the prices and net prices students face at different 

types of 2-year institutions.

Tuition and price of attendance 

Average tuition and fee charges for students 

ranged from $1,906 at large publics to $11,183 at 

degree-granting for-profits (table 10).7 Similarly, 

average prices of attendance, which includes room 

and board expenses as well as tuition and fees, for 

students ranged from $10,412 (again at large 

publics) to $20,418 (again at degree-granting forprofits). Students at allied health not-for-profits 

faced significantly lower average tuition and fees 

 

7 Note that 28 percent of large public institutions are located 

in California, a state-wide system that offers low tuition for 

state residents. 

($5,196) and price of attendance ($15,061) than 

students at all other private institutions. 

Financial aid receipt 

Students attending degree-granting for-profits 

were more likely than their counterparts at all 

other institutions (except other for-profits)8 to 

apply for federal aid (98 percent), to receive Pell 

grants (72 percent), and to receive Stafford loans 

(91 percent) (figure C and table 10). Students at 

degree-granting for-profits were also more likely 

than students at all other types of institutions 

except other for-profits to receive both types of 

loans (subsidized and unsubsidized) (76 percent). 

Students attending large public institutions 

were less likely to apply for any type of financial 

aid (72 percent) or federal aid (58 percent) 

compared to students attending most other 2-year 

institutions.9 Students at other not-for-profits were 

more likely to receive institutional aid (44 

percent) than students at medium and large 

publics as well as those at degree-granting forprofit institutions. 

Net price of attendance and unmet need 

Students face differing prices of attendance, as 

well as different amounts of financial aid. 

Together, the total price minus the financial aid 

received represents a “net price” to the student. 

Further, the net price may be calculated with 

grants alone (net price 1), or considering all aid, 

including loans (net price 2). This distinction is 

important because grants and loans pose different 

levels of cost to students and families.

 

8 The observed difference between federal financial aid 

applications among students at the two types of for-profit 

institutions is not statistically significant. 

9 The observed difference between students attending small 

and large public institutions was not statistically significant. 
Executive Summary 

ix 

When accounting for only grants, students at 

degree-granting for-profit institutions faced higher 

net prices (net price 1) ($16,589) than students 

attending other 2-year schools except other forprofits (figure D and table 11). However, once 

loans were taken into account in a measure of total 

aid (net price 2), there was no statistical difference 

between the price faced by students at degreegranting for-profits and the prices faced by 

students at other 2-year schools. 

A different pattern, however, is found when 

unmet need is considered (figure E). Unmet need 

can be defined as the net price minus the amount 

students and/or parents are expected to pay. It 

therefore represents the remaining amount that 

would be necessary to meet the total price of 

attendance. As was true for net price, when only 

grants are considered (unmet need 1), students at 

degree-granting for-profit institutions had more 

unmet need ($13,564) than students at other 

NOTE: Average estimates do not include zeroes. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey 

(NPSAS:2004).

Figure C.—Percentage of students who applied for federal aid, received a Pell grant, or received a Stafford 

Figure E.—loan, by 2-year institution classification: 2003–04

85%

98%

86%

78%

58%

70%

67%

62%

72%

46%

28%

28%

41%

42%

72%

91%

55%

49%

21%

28%

33%

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

Other for-profit

Degree granting 

for-profit

Other 

not-for-profit

Allied health 

not-for-profit

Large public

Medium-sized 

public

Small public

Received Stafford loan

Received Pell grant

Applied for federal aid
Executive Summary 

x 

2-year institutions except other for-profits. But in 

this case, when loans are also factored into the 

equation (unmet need 2), students at degreegranting for-profit institutions had higher levels of 

average unmet need ($6,436) than students at 

public and allied health not-for-profit institutions. 

Allied health not-for-profit institutions present 

a special case. After taking financial aid into 

account (net price 1), students at these institutions 

faced an average net price after grants ($11,700) 

that was higher than those at medium and large 

public institutions but lower than those at forprofit institutions, while no differences were 

detected when examining net price after all aid. 

Average unmet need after taking into account total 

grant aid (unmet need 1) ($5,541) was higher than 

that faced by students at medium and large public 

institutions but lower than that found at other 

private schools. After taking all aid, including 

loans, into account (unmet need 2), students at 

allied health not-for-profits faced an average 

unmet need ($3,437) that did not significantly 

differ from that reported by students at public 

institutions but was significantly less than the 

average unmet need faced by students at for-profit 

institutions. 

Figure D.—Average net prices faced by students at 2-year institutions, by institutional type: 2003–04

NOTE: All estimates of the average include zeros. Price of attendance is the student budget adjusted for attendance.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey 

(NPSAS:2004).

$6,978

$6,851

$7,907

$7,905

$9,066

$8,786

$10,603

$9,007

$8,277

$8,965

$11,700

$13,337

$16,589

$16,036

$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 $20,000

Other 

for-profit

Degree granting

for-profit

Other 

not-for-profit

Allied health 

not-for-profit

Large public

Medium-sized 

public

Small public Net price 1 (price of attendance

minus all grants)

Net price 2 (price of attendance

minus all aid)
Executive Summary 

xi 

Differential Patterns of Student 

Progression 

Expectations and student transfer 

In 1996, the majority of students at all 

institutional categories for which there were data10

reported that they expected to attain a bachelor’s 

degree (table 12), ranging from 56 percent to 86 

percent. Students who first enrolled at large public 

institutions were most likely to expect that they 

would earn a bachelor’s degree or higher (86 

percent). 

 

10 For students who first started at allied health not-for-profits 

and other for-profit institutions, there were too few cases to 

meet reporting standards. 

Students who first attended degree-granting 

for-profit institutions were more likely to transfer 

to another institution (21 percent) than medium 

and large publics and other not-for-profit 

institutions. For degree-granting for-profits, the 

majority of transfers were to 2-year or less-than-2-

year institutions (73 percent), while for large 

public institutions, the majority (64 percent) of 

those who transferred went to 4-year institutions. 

Degree and certificate completions 

When examining cumulative persistence after 

six years, the proportion of students who attained 

any type of degree (bachelor’s or associate’s) or 

certificate ranged from 34 percent among students 

who began at large publics to 58 percent among 

Figure E.—Average unmet need faced by students at 2-year institutions, by institutional type: 2003–04

NOTE: All estimates of the average include zeros. Price of attendance is the student budget adjusted for attendance.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey 

(NPSAS:2004).

$7,453

$6,436

$5,056

$3,437

$3,695

$3,140

$3,354

$12,225

$13,564

$8,199

$5,541

$4,516

$4,219

$5,101

$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 $20,000

Other 

for-profit

Degree granting

for-profit

Other 

not-for-profit

Allied health 

not-for-profit

Large public

Medium-sized 

public

Small public

Unmet need 1 (price of attendance

minus EFC minus all grants)

Unmet need 2 (price of attendance

minus EFC minus total aid)
Executive Summary 

xii 

students who started at other not-for-profits (table 

12). 

The majority (58 percent) of awards completed 

at allied health not-for-profits were 2-year 

certificates, while almost all awards at other notfor-profits were less than 2-year certificates or 

associate’s degrees (table 13). Conversely, at 

medium and large public institutions as well as 

degree-granting for-profits, associate’s degrees 

comprised the majority of awards granted. 

However, although most small public schools 

offered associate’s degree programs, 62 percent of 

the academic awards granted by these institutions 

were less than 2-year certificates. 

Degree and certificate completions by 

gender and race/ethnicity 

The proportions of men and women receiving 

2-year certificates varied by institutional type 

(table 13). Men received the majority of the 2-year 

certificates at small and medium-sized public 

institutions, as well as at degree-granting forprofit institutions (59, 60, and 63 percent). 

Conversely, women received the majority of the 2-

year certificates at large publics (56 percent), both 

types of not-for-profit institutions (89 and 53 

percent), and other for-profit institutions (54 

percent). 

There were also differences by race/ethnicity. 

For example, 13 percent of associate’s degree 

awards at large public institutions went to 

Hispanic students, compared to 3 percent at small 

publics. At allied health not-for-profit institutions, 

28 percent of associate’s degrees were awarded to 

Black, non-Hispanic students (table 13). 

Conclusion 

This report used a 2-year classification system 

to examine the ways in which 2-year institutions 

differ. The report has illustrated variations among 

2-year schools in terms of institutional and student 

characteristics, institutional resources, costs and 

financial aid, completions, and persistence. 

Among public institutions, small and large 

institutions differed in key areas. Large public 

schools tended to offer lower tuition and more 

services and to be located in urban areas. On the 

other hand, small public institutions tended to 

charge slightly higher tuition, to be rural, and to 

be located in the Southeast. 

For-profit schools appear quite similar to one 

another with the exception of the types of 

credentials offered and completed, which reflect 

the classification itself. In most other aspects—

such as tuition, location, student characteristics, 

and student financial aid—these institutions 

exhibited few differences. 

Other not-for-profits appeared to be similar to 

for-profits, but slightly more traditional. A high 

proportion offered remedial services compared to 

for-profit and allied health not-for-profit schools, 

and they focused on associate’s degrees rather 

than certificates. 

Allied health not-for-profit institutions differed 

from other not-for-profit institutions—and the 

other institutions in the classification system—in 

terms of the programs offered, funding streams, 

student characteristics, student costs and the types 

of awards granted. These schools, which include 

many nursing colleges, appeared to be between 

public institutions and other private schools in 

terms of affordability and financial aid. Students 
Executive Summary 

xiii 

at allied health not-for-profit institutions were 

more likely to be older, independent with 

dependents, and female than their counterparts at 

other 2-year schools. 

Both public 2-year institutions and for-profit 

institutions enroll relatively high proportions of 

dependent and independent students from lowincome families and who fell within the Pell 

eligible threshold. The proportion of students from 

low-income families is larger at private 

institutions—particularly degree-granting forprofits—compared to students at public 

institutions, and students at private for-profit 

institutions are more likely to receive Pell Grants. 

However, public 2-year institutions, which are less 

expensive than private institutions, enroll a 

substantially greater number of students from lowincome families. 
xiv 

Foreword 

This report uses a classification developed in 2001 to examine the differential 

characteristics of 2-year institutions and their students (Phipps, Shedd, and Merisotis 2001). The 

first part of the report provides a profile of the institutions that make up each of the seven 2-year 

classification categories. The second section highlights key differences among these institutional 

types in terms of institutional resources, student characteristics, institutional affordability and 

measures of student success. In addition to the 2-year classification, the report occasionally 

examines 2-year institutions that have high proportions of low-income students. 

For this report, the 2-year institutions classification variable was created using data from 

the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 2003 collection year (IPEDS:2003). IPEDS 

collects data from all primary providers of postsecondary education and can be used to describe 

trends in postsecondary education at the institution, state, and national levels. Institutional 

characteristics used in the classification process and for analysis were obtained from the 

Completions, Employee by Assigned Position, Faculty Salary, Fall Enrollment, Fall Staff, 

Institutional Characteristics, and Student Financial Aid components. 

In addition, student characteristics and outcomes were examined using data from the 

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study undergraduate sample for 2003–04 (NPSAS:2004) 

and the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS:1996/2001) study. 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NCES Data Analysis 

System (DAS), a statistical application that allows users to specify and generate tables for the 

IPEDS, NPSAS and BPS surveys. The DAS produces the design-adjusted standard errors 

necessary for testing the statistical significance of differences among estimates. The DAS is 

available as a web-based application. For more information, consult the DAS website 

(http://nces.ed.gov/das/). Additional information on the datasets used in this report can be found 

in appendix B. 
xv 

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of many individuals to the production of 

this report. At the Institute for Higher Education Policy, Jamie Merisotis provided valuable 

guidance and feedback on the report at multiple stages, while Research Associate Courtney 

McSwain assisted with background research. At MPR Associates, Laura Horn made suggestions 

on the structure and format of the report, Vickie Dingler provided technical guidance, and Patti 

Gildersleeve and Barbara Kridl helped with publication format. 

At NCES, Dennis Carroll provided generous support and feedback through the report’s 

publication, Paula Knepper, Shelley Burns, and Marilyn Seastrom provided technical, 

methodological, and substantive reviews, Sam Barbett helped resolve data issues and Cathy 

Stratham answered questions regarding financial survey data. We also would like to 

acknowledge the thoughtful comments and other assistance provided by the following 

individuals at various stages of the project: Cliff Adelman, Department of Education; Michael 

Cohen, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Ellie Greenberg, University of Colorado; Tricia 

Grimes, Minnesota Office of Higher Education; Alex McCormick, Carnegie Foundation; Kent 

Phillippe, American Association of Community Colleges; and Frank Shaw, National Endowment 

for Humanities. Duc-Le To of the Institute of Education Sciences gathered and synthesized 

helpful comments from external reviewers. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
xvii 

Contents 

Page 

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

Foreword..................................................................................................................................... xiv

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... xv

List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. xix

List of Figures............................................................................................................................. xxi

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

Data sources and methodology .............................................................................................. 3 

Classification universe........................................................................................................... 4 

Degrees and certificates at 2-year institutions........................................................................ 4 

Definitions of the 2-year classification categories ................................................................. 5 

Goal and organization of the report ....................................................................................... 6 

Institutional Profiles.................................................................................................................. 7 

Small public institutions ........................................................................................................ 7 

Medium-sized public institutions........................................................................................... 7 

Large public institutions......................................................................................................... 7 

Allied health not-for-profit institutions.................................................................................. 10 

Other not-for-profit institutions ............................................................................................. 11 

Degree-granting for-profit institutions................................................................................... 11 

Other for-profit institutions.................................................................................................... 11 

Differential Patterns of Institutional Offerings and Resources............................................. 13 

Degree and certificate programs offered................................................................................ 13 

Student services available ...................................................................................................... 13 

Institutional staff .................................................................................................................... 15 

Faculty composition............................................................................................................... 15 

Faculty rank and salaries at degree-granting institutions ....................................................... 15 

Differential Characteristics of Students................................................................................... 21 

Gender, race/ethnicity and age............................................................................................... 21 

Dependency status, housing and income ............................................................................... 23 

Attendance status and work ................................................................................................... 24 
Contents 

xviii 

Page 

Differential Patterns of Institutional Affordability ................................................................ 25 

Tuition and price of attendance.............................................................................................. 25 

Financial aid receipt.............................................................................................................. 28 

Net price of attendance and unmet need ................................................................................ 29 

Differential Patterns of Student Progression .......................................................................... 33 

Expectations and student transfer .......................................................................................... 33 

Degree and certificate completions........................................................................................ 34 

Degree and certificate completions by gender and race/ethnicity.......................................... 35 

Degree and certificate completions at low income serving schools ...................................... 35 

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 39

References................................................................................................................................... 41

Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms................................................................... A-1

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

List of Tables 

Table Page

1 Number of institutions, average 12-month unduplicated headcount, percentage of 

entering class who are first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, 

and the distribution of selected institution characteristics: 2003–04 ............................... 8 

2 Distribution of students attending 2-year institutions by selected institutional 

characteristics: 2003–04................................................................................................... 10 

3 Number of 2-year institutions, the percentage distribution by degree-granting status, 

and the percentage offering selected programs of study and services, by type of 2-year 

institution: 2003–04 ......................................................................................................... 14 

4 Percentage full time, and percentage distribution of full-time and part-time employees 

at 2-year institutions: 2002–03......................................................................................... 16 

5 Distribution of all full-time instructional staff at 2-year institutions, by gender and 

race/ethnicity: 2002–03.................................................................................................... 17 

6 Distribution of full-time faculty by rank at degree-granting 2-year institutions: 

2002–03............................................................................................................................ 18 

7 Average salary (equated to 9-month contracts) of full-time instructional faculty at 

degree-granting 2-year institutions: 2002–03 .................................................................. 19 

8 Distribution of students attending 2-year institutions, by demographic and enrollment 

characteristics: 2003–04................................................................................................... 22 

9 Distribution of average tuition charges for the academic year for full-time 

undergraduates: 2003–04 ................................................................................................. 26 

10 Average tuition and fees, price of attendance, percentage of students applying for aid, 

percentage receiving Pell grants, Stafford loans, institutional aid, state aid and private 

(alternative) loans, and the average amounts received for full-time, full-year students 

at 2-year institutions: 2003–04......................................................................................... 27 

 
List of Tables 

xx 

Table Page 

11 Average tuition, expected family contribution (EFC), total price of attendance and net 

price for full-time, full-year students attending 2-year institutions: 2003–04 ................ 30 

12 Student transfer and persistence outcomes among students who started at 2-year 

institutions in 1995–96, 6 years later ............................................................................... 34 

13 Distribution of award completions at 2-year institutions by gender, race/ethnicity and 

status as a low-income serving institution: 2002–03 ....................................................... 36 

Appendix B 

B1 Response rates for IPEDS collections, survey components, and selected variables 

for institutions in the study universe, by 2-year classification: 2003–04....................... B-3 

B2 Standard errors for table 8: Distribution of students attending 2-year institutions, by 

demographic and enrollment characteristics: 2003–04................................................ B-12 

B3 Classification universe................................................................................................. B-21 

B4 Number and distribution of 12-month enrollment and degree completions in the 

study universe, by type of 2-year institution: 2002–03 ................................................ B-22 

B5 Final universe of public 2-year institutions compared to excluded public 2-year 

institutions: 2002–03.................................................................................................... B-22 

B6 Final universe of not-for-profit 2-year institutions compared to excluded 

not-for-profit 2-year institutions: 2002–03 .................................................................. B-23 

B7 Final universe of for-profit 2-year institutions compared to excluded for-profit 

2-year institutions: 2002–03......................................................................................... B-23 
xxi 

List of Figures 

Figure Page

A Distribution of awards completed at 2-year institutions: 2002–03 .................................. iv 

B Distribution of dependency status of students attending 2-year institutions, by 

institutional type: 2003–04 .............................................................................................. vii 

C Percentage of students who applied for federal aid, received a Pell grant, or received 

a Stafford loan, by 2-year institution classification: 2003–04 ......................................... ix 

D Average net prices faced by students at 2-year institutions, by institutional type: 

2003–04............................................................................................................................ x 

E Average unmet need faced by students at 2-year institutions, by institutional type: 

2003–04............................................................................................................................ xi 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
1 

Introduction 

Two-year institutions, including community colleges and career schools, have become 

increasingly important in American higher education since the 1940s. In 2003–04, 43 percent of 

all undergraduates were enrolled at 2-year institutions (Horn and Nevill 2006). The Department 

of Education defines 2-year institutions as postsecondary institutions that offer programs of at 

least 2 but less than 4 years duration. This definition includes occupational and vocational 

schools with programs of at least 1,800 hours, and academic institutions with programs of less 

than 4 years but does not include bachelor’s degree-granting institutions where the baccalaureate 

program can be completed in 3 years. Two-year colleges exist in the public, private not-forprofit, and private for-profit sectors and include many types of institutions with various and 

unique histories. 

Public 2-year institutions, known as community colleges, date back more than 100 years. 

Community colleges originally focused on liberal arts education, and later on job training in 

response to overwhelming unemployment during the Great Depression. Today, community 

colleges maintain a number of objectives, including training citizens for work in their local 

communities, offering basic education services for students, and providing a venue for civic 

group activities. While each community college has a unique mission, these institutions generally 

share common goals of serving communities with open access policies, offering comprehensive 

education, providing service specific to community needs, focusing on teaching, and providing a 

venue for lifelong learning (AACC 2006a, 2006b). 

Private not-for-profit 2-year institutions include junior colleges as well as schools 

specializing in particular areas, such as technology, design, music, or the dramatic arts. Like 

community colleges, junior colleges have a long history of providing greater access to higher 

education that peaked in the 1940s and commonly emphasized teaching and preparing students 

for baccalaureate studies (Williams 1989). Conversely, for-profit 2-year institutions―also known 

as proprietary or career schools―historically focused exclusively on workforce preparation, 

although many have broadened their scope to include general education in recent years. Like 

most schools, these institutions experienced rapid growth as a result of the general increase in 

postsecondary education participation following World War II (Lee 1996) and were formally 

recognized as part of the postsecondary system in the 1972 Education Amendments (Naylor 

1987). 
Introduction 

2 

Many classification systems for 2-year institutions have been developed since that time and 

use a wide array of characteristics and perspectives to differentiate between 2-year institutions. 

Some classifications use institutional characteristics―such as institutional control, geography, 

and enrollment size―to distinguish among 2-year colleges (Katsinas 2003; Cohen 2003). Others 

use an outcomes-based approach, classifying institutions based on curricular focus (Schuyler 

2003; Shaman and Zemesky 2003). Still others use a combination of student characteristics and 

outcomes to determine a classification scheme. For example, Adelman (2005) used transcript 

data from high school graduates to develop “portraits” of populations who attend community 

colleges and to identify groups of students who were likely to persist. Building on the Adelman 

model, a recent study created a taxonomy called the “Community College Track,” which 

classifies students by their relative commitment to completing their respective degree programs 

(Horn and Nevill 2006). Most recently, the well-known Carnegie Classification released a new 

classification that allows researchers to distinguish between degree-granting 2-year schools in 

multiple ways, including size, location, control, and whether the institution has one or multiple 

campuses.1 

However, these classification systems generally could not be applied to all 2-year 

institutions, or easily adjusted in subsequent years. Therefore, a classification system for 2-year 

institutions was developed by Phipps, Shedd, and Merisotis (2001) that employed the statistical 

method of cluster analysis to identify groups of similar 2-year institutions based on a number of 

variables available on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). IPEDS is 

the most comprehensive source of institutional data and is collected annually. Cluster analysis is 

a multivariate statistical procedure that attempts to mathematically form “clusters” or groups of 

relatively homogenous entities, based on measures of similarity with respect to specific variables, 

while maximizing the differences between groups.2 For the original study, a focus group of 

experts in the field—researchers, association leaders, and policy analysts—selected twenty 

potential variables that were both policy relevant and appropriate to be included in the cluster 

analysis procedure. These variables were analyzed using the cluster analysis procedure to suggest 

the variables that were most useful in producing distinctive groups of institutions. The variables 

for institutional control (public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit), enrollment size, 

and percentage of awards in specific degree or certificate programs were selected to create seven 

distinguishable categories by which to classify 2-year institutions: small publics; medium-sized 

 

1 See http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/. 

2 For more discussion of the cluster analysis method, see appendix B. 
Introduction 

3 

publics; large publics; allied health not-for-profits; other not-for-profits; degree-granting forprofits; and other for-profits.3

This report looks more carefully at the institutional categories developed from IPEDS by 

Phipps, Shedd, and Merisotis (2001) to examine how the groups differ in a number of new areas. 

In addition to the 2-year classification, the report occasionally examines the subgroup of 2-year 

institutions that have high proportions of low-income students, given that many 2-year 

institutions primarily serve this group of students. These institutions are identified as those at 

which more than 50 percent of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking students received 

federal grant aid.4 While not an exact measure of the composition of the student body, this 

identifies 2-year institutions that enroll high proportions of students from economically 

disadvantaged backgrounds and allows for additional institutional comparisons. These 

comparisons are included only in the areas in which interesting differences were observed. 

Data sources and methodology 

This report uses data from three data sources. Institutional characteristics were obtained 

from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 2003 collection year (IPEDS:2003), 

newly available online through the Data Analysis System (DAS).5 IPEDS collects data from all 

primary providers of postsecondary education and can be used to describe trends in 

postsecondary education at the institution, state, and national levels.6

 This report used variables 

from the Completions, Employee by Assigned Position, Enrollment, Faculty Salary, Fall Staff, 

Institutional Characteristics, and Student Financial Aid components. For this report, the 

classification variable for 2-year institutions was created and added to the IPEDS:2003 DAS. 

In addition, data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study undergraduate sample 

for 2003–2004 (NPSAS:2004) and the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS:1996/2001) 

study were used to explore student characteristics and outcomes. For both datasets, the 2-year 

classification variable was created in IPEDS and merged into the respective online DAS. 

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) is a comprehensive nationwide 

study designed to determine how students and their families pay for postsecondary education and 

to describe some demographic and other characteristics of those enrolled. The study is based on a 

 

3 The original classification used different category titles. For a crosswalk to the original classification groups, please see 

appendix B. 

4 See appendix B for more details. 

5 Please refer to appendix B for more information about the DAS. 

6 For more information on IPEDS, see http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/AboutIPEDS.asp. 
Introduction 

4 

nationally representative sample of students in postsecondary education institutions, including 

undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students. 

The Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study is designed specifically 

to collect data related to persistence in and completion of postsecondary education programs; 

relationships between work and education efforts; and the effect of postsecondary education on 

the lives of individuals. The current BPS Longitudinal Study is made up of people who first 

entered postsecondary education in the 1995-96 academic year. These students were part of the 

NPSAS sample and were interviewed two additional times throughout their education and into 

the work force. The last interview took place in 2001. 

The analysis of NPSAS:2004 and BPS:96/98/01 data analysis uses standard t-tests to 

determine statistical significance of differences between estimates, and all differences reported in 

the text are statistically significant at the p < .05 level. 

Classification universe 

The institutional universe for the classification used in this report includes Title IV 

institutions that are located in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. All institutions within 

the 2-year sector, including those that are non-degree-granting, were classified if they awarded at 

least five degrees or certificates in the study year. Less than 2-year institutions were excluded. 

The final universe of classifiable 2-year institutions consisted of 1,948 schools, or 89 percent of 

Title IV 2-year institutions located in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.7 They 

represented approximately 99 percent of the total 12-month unduplicated headcount enrollment 

at 2-year schools. 

Degrees and certificates at 2-year institutions 

IPEDS distinguishes between awards that are certificates and those that are associate’s 

degrees. While associate’s degree programs require 2 years of full-time equivalent college 

coursework, certificate programs, which tend to be trade specific or technical, can vary. 

Generally, sub-baccalaureate certificate programs are differentiated by the number of full-time 

equivalent academic years required to complete the program and are separated into three 

categories: less than 1-year, 1-year, and 2- but less than 4-years.8 For ease of language, 2- but less 

than 4-year certificates are referred to as simply 2-year certificates for the remainder of this 

 

7 Eight percent awarded less than five 2-year certificates or degrees. The remaining 3 percent either had missing data or were not 

active. 

8 For more information of certificates, please see the IPEDS glossary, located online at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/. 
Introduction 

5 

report. Moreover, with the exception of the discussion on program offerings, the analysis 

combined certificates that are less than 2-years in duration into a single category. 

Definitions of the 2-year classification categories 

As noted, the 2-year classification system is based on many variables, including 

institutional sector, enrollment and the type of credentials awarded. The seven categories are 

defined below:9

• Small public institutions are those with an unduplicated headcount of less than 2,000 

students. These institutions tend to confer awards and degrees primarily in job and 

career skills development and to focus on overall workforce development for the 

communities that they serve. 

• Medium-sized public institutions are those with an unduplicated headcount of 2,000 – 

9,999 students. These institutions tend to confer awards and degrees that target job and 

career skills development and to offer academic programs with some component of 

general education that can facilitate transfer to 4-year institutions. 

• Large public institutions are those with unduplicated headcount of at least 10,000 

students. These institutions tend to be in urban locations, to confer awards and degrees 

that target job and career skills development, and to offer academic programs with 

some component of general education that can facilitate transfer to 4-year institutions. 

• Allied health not-for-profit institutions are not-for-profit institutions that grant almost 

all of their awards in allied health programs. These institutions tend to be small in 

enrollment and to have an exclusive focus on allied health training, including nursing. 

• Other not-for-profit institutions are those that tend to confer awards and degrees 

targeting job and career skills development, but may grant a smaller proportion of their 

awards in allied health programs. These institutions also tend to offer academic 

programs with some component of general education that can facilitate transfer to 4-

year institutions. 

• For-profit degree-granting institutions are those that offer an associate’s degree 

program—although many also offer certificates—that target job and career skills 

development. Many of these institutions offer academic programs with some 

component of general education that can facilitate transfer to 4-year institutions. 

• Other for-profit institutions are those that grant all of their awards as certificates. These 

institutions provide specialized training, usually in a single job category or area. 

 

9 The original classification (Phipps, Shedd, and Merisotis 2001) used different category titles. For a crosswalk to the original 

classification groups, please see appendix B. 
Introduction 

6 

Goal and organization of the report 

The goal of this report is to build upon the original classification report and identify 

additional ways in which the seven categories of 2-year institutions differ from one another. To 

this end, the analysis asked the following questions: 

• How do the categories differ in terms of institutional resources (what they can offer 

students)? 

• What types of students do 2-year institutions serve and how does this differ by 

category? 

• How do these categories differ in terms of affordability? 

• How do measures of student success differ among categories? 

In order to illustrate how the various types of 2-year institutions differ, the report first 

presents brief profiles for each classification type that add to the findings presented in the 

original study. The second part of the analysis attempts to answer the study questions by focusing 

on four broad topic areas and highlighting the key differences that set a particular institutional 

type apart. The areas examined include institutional resources (degrees and services offered, 

staff, faculty, expenditure and revenue patterns); student characteristics (demographic 

background, educational activities and patterns); institutional affordability (tuition, prices of 

attendance, financial aid, need and unmet need); and measures of student success (expectations, 

transfer, persistence, degree completions). 
7 

Institutional Profiles 

In addition to the classification criteria, the following profiles briefly outline other 

important characteristics of the seven types of 2-year schools in order to provide context for the 

findings outlined later in this report. These profiles are compiled from tables 1 and 2. 

Small public institutions 

Small public 2-year schools were likely to be located in towns (52 percent) and in the 

Southeast region of the country (51 percent). The average 12-month unduplicated headcount at 

small public institutions in 2003–04 was 978 students and on average about half of the entering 

class in fall 2003 were first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking students. More than half of 

these institutions offered in-state tuition that was less than $2,000 and the majority had more than 

50 percent of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking students receiving federal grant aid10

(hereafter referred to as “a high proportion of low-income students”). In 2002–03, 62 percent of 

the academic awards granted by small public institutions were less than 2-year certificates. 

Medium-sized public institutions 

Like small publics, medium-sized public 2-year schools were likely to be located in towns 

(43 percent) and were concentrated in the Southeast (37 percent). Over 2003–04, an average of 

5,105 students were enrolled at medium-sized publics, and on average 42 percent of the entering 

class in fall 2003 were first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking students. More than threequarters of these institutions reported in-state tuition charges between $1,000 and $3,499. Like 

large public institutions, the majority of awards (57 percent) granted at medium-sized publics in 

2002–03 were associate’s degrees. 

Large public institutions 

Large public 2-year schools were most likely to be located in suburban or urban areas (38 

and 55 percent, respectively) and were most frequently found in the Far West region of the 

country (36 percent). In 2003–04, they enrolled an average of 21,271 students, and on average, 

 

10 See appendix B for more details. 
Institutional Profiles 

8 

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Institutional characteristics public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

 Number of institutions 219 565 326 107 107 416 208

12-month unduplicated headcount 978 5,105 21,271 136 657 765 249

Percentage of entering class who are 

 full-time first-time degree/certificate-

 seeking undergraduates 52.5 42.4 29.1 59.9 60.4 75.9 79.0

Awards granted, 2002–03

Less than 2-year certificate 62.4 41.8 32.4 15.9 43.1 41.2 52.0

2-year certificates 5.5 1.6 0.9 58.3 8.5 0.4 48.0

Associate’s degrees 32.1 56.5 66.7 25.8 48.4 58.4 †

Average in-state tuition for full-time 

 undergraduates at public 

 institutions, 2003–04

Less than $1000 25.3 17.0 31.4 † † † †

$1,000–$1,999 33.7 34.6 26.2 † † † †

$2,000–$3,499 31.6 40.0 24.6 † † † †

$3,500 or more 8.9 8.4 16.6 † † † †

Average tuition for full-time undergraduates

 at private institutions, 2003–04

Less than $2,000 † † † 10.8 2.1 0.0 †

$2,000–$4,999 † † † 30.1 16.0 1.3 †

$5,000–$9,999 † † † 48.4 45.7 52.6 †

$10,000 or more † † † 10.8 36.2 46.1 †

Urbanicity

Urban 18.3 27.7 54.9 65.7 57.3 63.9 55.1

Suburban 13.5 19.9 38.0 18.1 24.2 28.2 21.9

Town 51.7 42.8 5.3 15.2 8.7 7.2 21.4

Rural 15.9 9.2 1.9 1.0 9.7 0.5 1.5

Unknown 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

See notes at end of table.

Table 1.—selected institution characteristics: 2003–04

Table 1.—Number of institutions, average 12-month unduplicated headcount, percentage of entering class 

Number

Percentage distribution

Average

Table 1.—who are first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, and the distribution of 
Institutional Profiles 

9 

29 percent of the entering class in fall 2003 were first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 

students. Sixty-seven percent of the awards granted at large public institutions in 2002–03 were 

associate’s degrees. Large public institutions reported a wide range of in-state tuition charges. 

While one-third reported in-state tuition that was less than $1,000, 17 percent of large publics 

reported charging over $3,500. However, it is important to note that 91 (28 percent) of the 326 

large public schools are located in California, an extensive state-wide system that offers low 

tuition. This may impact the findings for this group of institutions. 

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Institutional characteristics public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

Geographic region

New England CT ME MA NH RI VT 1.4 6.0 1.2 8.4 6.5 2.6 1.9

Mid East DE DC MD NJ NY PA 6.4 8.5 10.7 43.9 36.4 24.0 8.2

Great Lakes IL IN MI OH WI 5.0 13.8 18.1 20.6 9.3 18.8 16.8

Plains IA KS MN MO NE ND SD 13.7 12.2 4.9 11.2 9.3 7.7 17.3

Southeast AL AR FL GA KY LA MS 

 NC SC TN VA WV 50.7 36.6 12.9 12.1 15.0 20.7 22.1

Southwest AZ NM OK TX 11.4 11.2 13.8 0.9 4.7 9.4 3.8

Rocky Mountains CO ID MT UT WY 7.3 2.8 2.8 1.9 1.9 5.3 9.6

Far West AK CA HI NV OR WA 4.1 8.8 35.6 0.9 16.8 11.5 20.2

Accreditation

Regional accrediting agency 65.8 94.3 100.0 3.7 58.9 10.6 0.5

State accrediting or approval agency 54.3 66.2 62.3 78.5 56.1 72.4 53.1

National or specialized accrediting 59.4 77.3 77.6 95.3 56.1 95.0 99.0

Low income serving institution1

No 44.4 65.7 85.5 69.1 49.5 23.8 33.2

Yes 54.6 34.3 14.5 22.3 50.5 76.0 65.3

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Four for-profit institutions that offer degree programs awarded fewer 

than five degrees in the classification year and were therefore classified as other for-profits. Tuition is for institutions that 

report by academic year; program year tuitions are not included. Average tuition was not presented for other for-profit institutions 

because most of these institutions report tuition for their largest program rather than tuition for the academic year.

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

Table 1.—Number of institutions, average 12-month unduplicated headcount, percentage of entering class 

Table 1.—selected institution characteristics: 2003–04—Continued

1 Low-income serving institutions are those at which 50 percent or more of first-time, full-time degree- or certificate-seeking 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Table 1.—who are first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, and the distribution of 

† Not applicable.

students received federal grant aid in 2003–04.
Institutional Profiles 

10 

Allied health not-for-profit institutions 

As defined, these institutions awarded almost all of their degrees or certificates in allied 

health areas. This category therefore includes a number of nursing and other schools that focus 

on health professions. About two-thirds of allied health not-for-profit 2-year schools were 

concentrated in urban areas, and 65 percent were located in the Mid East and Great Lakes regions 

of the country. In 2003–04, an average of 136 students was enrolled at these institutions, and on 

average, 60 percent of the entering class in fall 2003 were full-time, first-time degree/certificateseeking students. Eighty-nine percent of allied health not-for-profit institutions reported tuition 

that was less than $10,000 and 22 percent had high proportions of low-income students. In terms 

of degrees and awards, almost three-fifths of the awards granted by allied health institutions in 

2002–03 were 2-year certificates. 

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Student characteristics public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

NPSAS institution was low-income serving1

No 63.5 67.2 83.8 85.7 32.5 12.8 45.9

Yes 36.5 32.8 16.2 14.3 67.5 87.2 54.1

Undergraduate degree program

Certificate 15.3 9.3 4.2 56.4 8.2 18.0 66.8

Associate’s degree 73.9 72.7 71.6 35.9 83.2 76.1 17.4

Bachelor’s degree 0.1 4.8 3.4 0.8 2.8 0.7 3.5

Not in a degree program or other 10.7 13.2 20.8 6.8 5.8 5.2 12.3

Associate’s degree type

AA, AS, general education or transfer 77.9 64.3 72.1 46.1 56.8 27.5 18.0

AAS, occupational or transfer program 22.1 35.7 27.9 53.9 43.2 72.5 82.0

1

 Low-income serving institutions are those at which 50 percent or more of first-time, full-time degree- or certificate-seeking 

students received federal grant aid in 2003–04.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Although other for-profits by definition did not grant any associate’s 

degrees in the study year, four offered those programs and therefore students may be enrolled in them.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey 

(NPSAS:2004).

Table 2.—2003–04

Table 2.—Distribution of students attending 2-year institutions by selected institutional characteristics: 
Institutional Profiles 

11 

Other not-for-profit institutions 

Other not-for-profit 2-year schools, such as barber and cosmetology schools, were 

concentrated in suburban and urban areas (24 and 57 percent, respectively), and more than onethird were located in the Mid East region of the country. In 2003–04, these institutions enrolled 

an average of 657 students, and on average, 60 percent of the entering class in fall 2003 were 

first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking students. Over 80 percent of these schools 

reported tuition charges in 2003–04 that were more $5,000 and over half of them had high 

proportions of low-income students. Almost half of the awards granted by other not-for-profits in 

2002–03 were associate’s degrees, and 43 percent were less than 2-year certificates. 

Degree-granting for-profit institutions 

Degree-granting for-profit 2-year schools were concentrated in urban areas (64 percent) and 

were likely to be located in the Mid East (24 percent), Great Lakes (19 percent) and Southeast 

(21 percent) regions of the country. In 2003–04, these institutions enrolled an average of 765 

students, and on average, 76 percent of the entering class in fall 2003 were first-time, full-time, 

degree/certificate-seeking students. Almost all of these schools reported tuition charges in 2003–

04 that were more $5,000, and three-quarters of them had high proportions of low-income 

students. Seventy-three percent of students enrolled in an associate’s degree program at degreegranting for-profits institutions were enrolled an occupational or technical program. In 2003–04, 

58 percent of the awards granted by degree-granting for-profits were associate’s degrees, and 41 

percent were less than 2-year certificates. 

Other for-profit institutions 

Other for-profit 2-year schools were concentrated in urban areas (55 percent), although just 

over 20 percent were located in both suburban areas and towns. These institutions were located 

throughout the country, although they were slightly more concentrated in the Southeast and Far 

West regions. In 2003–04, these institutions enrolled an average of 249 students, and on average, 

79 percent of the entering class in fall 2003 were first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking 

students. Sixty-five percent of these schools had high proportions of low-income students. Fiftytwo percent of the awards granted by other not-for-profits were less than 2-year certificates, and 

48 percent were 2-year certificates. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
13 

Differential Patterns of Institutional Offerings and Resources 

The programs and services offered by institutions often play an important role in student 

access, choice of institution, and success. Institutional resources—such as full-time staff, faculty 

and faculty salaries—impact the services and programs that schools offer to students. 

Degree and certificate programs offered 

Two-year institutions offer a wide variety of programs of study in the form of associate’s 

degrees and certificates. A clear difference exists between institutions offering only 2-year 

certificates and those that offer associate’s degrees in addition to certificates (table 3). Over 80 

percent of public schools, other not-for-profits and degree-granting for-profits offered associate’s 

programs, while over 80 percent of allied health not-for-profits and other for-profits offered 2-

year certificate programs.11 While 90 percent of large public institutions (and 83 percent of 

medium-sized publics) offered less than 1-year certificate programs, half of for-profit 

institutions, and few allied health not-for-profit institutions, offered this type of certificate 

program. 

Student services available 

Many institutions have on-campus services that help students with various aspects of their 

academic career. These can include academic counseling, career counseling, employment 

services for current students, placement services for graduating students, remedial courses, and 

other services. However, institutions differ in the services available to students (table 3). The 

majority of 2-year institutions in all classification categories reported offering academic/career 

counseling services. Public institutions were more likely to offer remedial services than the 

private institutions. In particular, large public institutions tended to offer the widest variety of 

student resources compared to other public as well as private institutions. About 83 percent 

offered day care and 82 percent offered cooperative (work-study) programs. Unlike other not-forprofits, allied health not-for-profit institutions were less likely to offer remedial services and 

placement services for students. Similarly, a low proportion of for-profit institutions offered 

remedial services (39 percent for degree-granting, 13 percent for other for-profit). Most of these 

 

11 By definition, other for-profit institutions granted fewer than five associate’s degrees in the classification year. 
Differential Patterns of Institutional Offerings and Resources 

14 

institutions offered career counseling and job placement (for degree-granting for-profits, 87 

percent and 99 percent, respectively), and all institutions in the other for-profit category also 

offered distance learning opportunities in addition to placement services (compared to 18 percent 

of degree-granting for-profits).

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Institutional characteristics public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

 Number of institutions 219 565 326 107 107 416 208

Degree-granting status

Degree-granting 81.7 98.6 100.0 21.5 82.2 100.0 1.9

Nondegree-granting, primarily 

 postsecondary 18.3 1.4 # 78.5 17.8 # 98.1

Less than one year certificate 67.1 82.7 89.9 3.7 34.6 50.0 53.8

One but less than 2-year certificate 85.8 97.0 98.8 10.3 56.1 70.9 61.5

Two but less than 4-year certificate 49.8 31.7 36.2 80.4 25.2 10.1 99.5

Associate’s degree 81.7 98.6 100.0 21.5 82.2 100.0 1.9

Remedial services 95.4 100.0 100.0 46.7 73.8 38.9 12.6

Academic/career counseling services 99.5 100.0 100.0 89.7 90.7 87.3 83.1

Employment services for current students 68.9 92.4 96.9 51.4 66.4 88.7 39.1

Placement services for completers 78.1 88.0 89.6 39.3 66.4 99.0 82.1

On-campus day care for students’ children 19.6 50.4 82.8 19.6 6.5 2.4 1.0

Accelerated programs 9.6 22.8 46.9 11.4 10.4 8.3 1.0

Cooperative (work-study) program 59.4 64.8 81.6 3.8 17.0 17.8 2.0

Distance learning opportunities 66.2 95.9 98.5 5.7 17.9 18.3 100.0

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: By definition, other for-profit institutions do not grant associate’s degrees. While 2 percent (4) of other for-profit 

Number

Percentage distribution

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

institutions offered an associate’s degree program, they awarded only certificates in the classification year.

Table 3.—Number of 2-year institutions, the percentage distribution by degree-granting status, and the 

Percentage offering programs of study, 2003–04

Percentage offering services, 2003–04

Table 3.—2003–04

Table 3.—percentage offering selected programs of study and services, by type of 2-year institution:
Differential Patterns of Institutional Offerings and Resources 

15 

Institutional staff 

All 2-year institutions have a workforce composed of instructional, administrative/ 

managerial, professional support, secretarial, and support staff. However, the percentage 

distribution of staff across these categories differed by type of 2-year institution. The percentage 

of employees that were full time ranged from 76 percent at other for-profit institutions to 47 

percent at large public institutions (table 4). Full-time instructional faculty comprised 63 percent 

of all full-time staff at allied health not-for-profits, more than any other institutional category. 

The percentage of total full-time staff that was executive/administrative and managerial ranged 

from 8 percent at large publics to 19 percent at other for-profit institutions. All three types of 

public institutions had a higher proportion of full-time staff that were clerical and secretarial, as 

well as service and maintenance, than other 2-year institutions. Among public schools, small 

publics had a higher proportion of professional support staff (24 percent) than other public 

institutions. The majority of part-time staff at all types of 2-year institutions was comprised of 

instructional faculty (73 percent to 78 percent). 

Faculty composition 

An important segment of the workforce at 2-year institutions is instructional, i.e., the 

faculty. There are some significant differences in the status, demographics, and salary of faculty 

by type of 2-year institution (table 5). A majority of full-time faculty (93 percent) at allied health 

not-for-profits were women, while a majority of full-time faculty at both types of for-profit 

institutions was men (59 and 66 percent). Across all other classification categories, the 

differences between the proportions of male and female full-time faculty were smaller. 

Compared to other public schools, a higher proportion of faculty at large public institutions were 

Hispanic (6 percent) or Asian/Pacific Islander (4 percent). Across all institutional categories, 

other for-profits had the highest proportions of full-time faculty who were Black, non-Hispanic 

(11 percent) and Hispanic (7 percent). 

Faculty rank and salaries at degree-granting institutions12

Across all degree-granting 2-year institutions, the largest proportion of full-time faculty 

was instructors (34 to 81 percent), followed by faculty who had no rank (table 6). It is important 

to keep in mind that some 2-year institutions do not use a faculty ranking system. Public 

institutions had the largest proportion of full-time faculty who had no academic rank, ranging 

 

12 The IPEDS faculty survey is limited to degree-granting institutions. By definition, other for-profit institutions do not grant

degrees and are therefore not included in this portion of the analysis. 
Differential Patterns of Institutional Offerings and Resources 

16 

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Employees public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

Public service/instruction/research 45.2 33.8 30.4 68.1 45.6 48.3 68.3

Executive/administrative and managerial 97.0 96.4 96.5 95.3 95.8 97.4 94.5

Other professional (support services) 85.0 72.0 72.9 78.3 84.9 89.0 92.5

Technical/para-professional 74.0 60.9 68.9 87.8 79.8 70.8 90.0

Clerical and secretarial 80.2 66.2 60.2 69.6 66.2 76.8 68.4

Skilled crafts 73.1 79.2 85.3 100.0 87.6 66.2 37.5

Service/maintenance 78.1 70.8 78.9 35.7 63.2 56.7 59.6

 All employees 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Full-time 65.4 49.7 46.8 71.7 62.5 66.0 76.4

Part-time 34.6 50.3 53.2 28.3 37.5 34.0 23.6

 Total full-time employees 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Full-time public service/instruction/research 31.6 39.1 38.6 63.5 36.8 37.6 48.8

Executive/administrative and managerial 8.9 9.2 7.9 12.7 17.2 18.3 19.2

Other professional (support services) 23.7 16.4 11.6 8.7 21.7 25.6 19.0

Technical/para-professional 8.2 7.4 11.7 3.0 3.6 3.3 3.4

Clerical and secretarial 16.4 17.7 19.3 11.4 11.7 11.7 7.3

Skilled crafts 1.6 1.5 1.9 0.1 1.5 0.2 0.3

Service/maintenance 9.7 8.7 9.0 0.7 7.5 3.3 2.0

 Total part-time employees 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Part-time public service/instruction/research 72.3 75.8 77.7 75.4 73.2 78.3 73.5

Executive/administrative and managerial 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.6 1.3 0.9 3.7

Other professional (support services) 7.9 6.3 3.8 6.1 6.4 6.2 5.0

Technical/para-professional 5.4 4.7 4.6 1.1 1.5 2.6 1.2

Clerical and secretarial 7.6 8.9 11.2 12.6 10.0 6.9 11.0

Skilled crafts 1.1 0.4 0.3 # 0.4 0.2 1.4

Service/maintenance 5.1 3.5 2.1 3.2 7.2 4.9 4.3

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Aggregate calculation performed on sum totals within each classification 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

Table 4.—Percentage full-time, and percentage distribution of full-time and part-time employees at 2-year 

category. Combines degree granting and non-degree granting institution responses.

Percentage distribution

Percentage full time

Table 4.—institutions: 2002–03
Differential Patterns of Institutional Offerings and Resources 

17 

from 22 to 31 percent. Faculty at small public institutions were less likely (5 percent) to be full 

professors than faculty at other public institutions. At large public institutions that serve lowincome students, faculty were more likely to be ranked as professors (assistant, associate, or full) 

than faculty at all large publics.

Full-time faculty of any rank at large public institutions received a higher average salary 

than their counterparts at small and medium-sized public institutions, ranging from $40,089 to 

$66,665 (table 7).13 Lecturers at allied health not-for-profits earned more, on average, than 

lecturers at any other type of institution ($51,547). In addition, on average, full-time faculty at 

allied health not-for-profits received higher salaries than their counterparts at other not-for-profit 

institutions. Full-time faculty at for-profit degree-granting institutions received the lowest 

average salaries of any faculty, ranging from $22,622 to $34,507. 

 

13 This may be due to the disproportionate representation of large public institutions from California or their greater likelihood to 

be located in urban areas, as noted above. 

Table 5.—Distribution of all full-time instructional staff at 2-year institutions, by gender and race/ethnicity:

Table 5.—2002–03

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Full-time instructional staff public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

 All full-time instructional staff 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

Men 51.5 48.4 49.0 7.0 54.0 58.7 66.1

Women 48.5 51.6 51.0 93.0 46.0 41.3 33.9

Race

White, non-Hispanic 86.3 88.2 79.8 92.7 85.8 81.0 78.7

Black, non-Hispanic 7.3 5.4 7.3 4.9 4.8 8.6 11.2

Hispanic 1.7 2.4 6.4 1.2 1.6 4.9 7.3

Asian or Pacific Islander 1.3 2.2 4.3 1.0 2.9 3.1 1.7

American Indian/Alaska Native 2.0 0.7 0.7 0.1 2.9 0.4 0.4

Race/ethncity unknown 1.2 0.9 0.8 # 1.9 1.7 0.7

Nonresident alien 0.2 0.2 0.7 # 0.1 0.3 #

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Calcuations performed on the aggregate 2-year classification level. 

Results for allied health not-for-profit institutions and other for-profit institutions should be interpreted with caution as only 57 allied 

health not-for-profit institutions out of 107 (53 percent) and 57 other for-profits out of 208 (27 percent) responded to the Fall Staff 

survey. 

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 
Differential Patterns of Institutional Offerings and Resources 

18 

Table 6.—Distribution of full-time faculty by rank at degree-granting 2-year institutions: 2002–03

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Full-time faculty public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

All full time faculty 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 †

Professor 5.0 12.9 13.6 1.7 7.3 3.8 †

Associate professor 6.0 10.1 8.8 11.8 10.6 1.3 †

Assistant professor 7.9 10.7 9.8 10.9 13.1 0.7 †

Instructor 53.7 34.4 45.4 50.8 50.6 81.3 †

Lecturer 1.5 1.0 0.8 10.5 0.8 0.7 †

No academic rank 25.9 30.9 21.7 14.3 17.5 12.2 †

Low-income serving institutions1 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‡ 100.0 100.0 †

Professor 3.5 11.1 17.0 ‡ 5.8 1.9 †

Associate professor 4.2 9.9 10.5 ‡ 6.1 0.3 †

Assistant professor 5.4 9.4 15.0 ‡ 9.1 0.4 †

Instructor 58.3 35.5 40.9 ‡ 61.9 85.3 †

Lecturer 1.3 1.7 3.5 ‡ 1.2 0.4 †

No academic rank 27.2 32.4 13.1 ‡ 15.9 11.8 †

and were therefore classified as other for-profits. Data for those schools were not included in this table. Results for allied health 

not-for-profit institutions should be interpreted with caution as only 22 allied health not-for-profit institutions (21 percent) were 

degree-granting.

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Calculations performed on the aggregate 2-year classification level. 

Full-time faculty by rank is only available for degree-granting institutions; therefore, by definition, most other for-profit institutions

did not have data. Four for-profit institutions that offer degree programs awarded fewer than five degrees in the classification year 

† Not applicable.

‡ Reporting standards not met.

students received federal grant aid in 2003–04.

1

 Low-income serving institutions are those at which 50 percent or more of first-time, full-time degree- or certificate-seeking 
Differential Patterns of Institutional Offerings and Resources 

19 

Table 7.—Average annual salary (equated to 9-month contracts) of full-time instructional faculty at 

Table 7.—degree-granting 2-year institutions: 2002–03

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Full-time faculty public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

All institutions

All faculty $39,059 $45,148 $57,198 $44,961 $33,563 $29,340 †

Professors 54,832 56,918 66,665 60,352 41,021 32,829 †

Associate professors 46,912 48,519 56,429 49,638 37,778 31,687 †

Assistant professors 39,747 42,125 48,428 39,129 34,628 34,507 †

Instructors 35,219 39,694 53,127 43,413 31,064 29,276 †

Lecturer 34,245 38,353 40,089 51,547 35,552 22,622 †

No academic rank 41,496 43,078 48,881 43,587 33,995 27,366 †

Low income serving institution1

All faculty $38,174 $42,565 $55,412 ‡ $30,575 $28,686 †

Professors 52,930 53,203 73,986 ‡ 33,274 36,597 †

Associate professors 44,151 46,131 61,720 ‡ 32,636 32,171 †

Assistant professors 38,951 40,335 52,907 ‡ 30,279 31,373 †

Instructors 35,373 37,474 45,839 ‡ 30,146 28,693 †

Lecturer 35,083 37,618 42,621 ‡ 34,686 20,572 †

No academic rank 39,968 42,354 49,325 ‡ 31,071 27,121 †

degrees in the classification year and were therefore classified as other for-profits. Data for those schools were not included in 

this table. Results for allied health not-for-profit institutions should be interpreted with caution as only 22 allied health not-for-profit 

institutions (21 percent) were degree-granting.

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

NOTE: Average annual salary amounts have been adjusted to account for the multiple contract lengths and subsequent variations

in annual salaries (equated 9-month contract). Average salary data is available for degree-granting institutions only; therefore, by 

definition, most other for-profit institutions did not have data. Four for-profit institutions that offer degree programs awarded fewer 

† Not applicable.

‡ Reporting standards not met.

students received federal grant aid in 2003–04.

1

 Low-income serving institutions are those at which 50 percent or more of first-time, full-time degree- or certificate-seeking 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
21 

Differential Characteristics of Students 

Examining the characteristics of students attending various types of 2-year institutions adds 

to understanding about the types of students served by these schools as well as the institutional 

mission. In addition, examining student characteristics helps illuminate trends found in financial 

aid receipt and student outcomes. While the previous section was based on a universe of 

institutions, this section is based on information from a sample survey, and all differences were 

tested to assure that they are statistically significant. 

Gender, race/ethnicity and age 

While more women attended most types of 2-year institutions than men (with the exception 

of degree-granting for-profits) (table 8), allied health not-for-profits were particularly likely to 

have a high proportion of women (86 percent) compared with most 2-year institutions (except 

other for-profits). In addition, students at allied health not-for-profit schools were more likely to 

be between the ages of 30 and 39 than those at all other 2-year institutions. 

Large public institutions, other not-for-profits and degree-granting for-profit institutions 

show higher proportions of Hispanic students (19, 20 and 18 percent, respectively) than small 

and medium publics as well as allied health not-for-profit institutions. In addition, a higher 

proportion of students enrolled at large publics were Asian (9 percent) compared to all other 

institutions except other not-for-profits. 

Across all categories, the gender and racial composition of the student body often differed 

from that of the full-time faculty as reported in table 5. For example, at other for-profits, women 

comprised 76 percent of students but 34 percent of full-time faculty. At large public institutions, 

19 percent of students were Hispanic while 6 percent of full-time faculty was Hispanic. At 

degree-granting for-profit institutions, 25 percent of students were Black, compared to 9 percent 

of the full-time faculty. Other institutions exhibited similar differences between student and 

faculty composition. 
Differential Characteristics of Students 

22 

Table 8.—Distribution of students attending 2-year institutions, by demographic and enrollment 

Table 7.—characteristics: 2003–04

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Student characteristics public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

 All students 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender

Men 41.9 38.1 41.9 14.2 40.5 42.5 24.0

Women 58.2 61.9 58.1 85.8 59.6 57.5 76.0

Age as of 12/31/03

Less than 20 years old 31.3 20.5 19.5 6.8 25.3 14.4 25.9

20–29 36.2 44.1 47.1 48.4 49.6 54.1 56.7

30–39 13.7 17.7 17.1 33.5 15.7 20.0 10.8

40–49 13.0 11.8 11.1 10.6 7.4 8.2 5.9

50 or older 5.8 5.8 5.3 0.7 2.0 3.3 0.8

Race/ethnicity

White 82.9 70.7 56.4 82.2 48.5 54.0 60.7

Black 9.7 19.4 14.3 13.5 19.2 25.3 17.9

Hispanic 5.4 7.0 19.1 1.9 20.3 17.6 18.1

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.9 2.3 9.0 2.3 6.1 2.6 2.5

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.1 0.6 1.3 0.0 5.9 0.6 0.8

Dependency status

Dependent 45.1 39.2 39.6 20.7 46.4 24.8 41.6

Independent without dependents 18.2 22.1 27.9 31.6 21.3 26.9 20.8

Independent with dependents 36.6 38.7 32.6 47.7 32.3 48.4 37.6

Dependent income (family)

Less than $25,000 16.9 20.0 21.3 9.8 24.5 37.0 24.7

$25,000–$49,999 31.8 28.3 25.3 24.2 24.9 34.8 26.7

$50,000–$79,999 25.1 25.8 25.9 38.5 25.9 17.4 22.9

$80,000 or more 26.3 25.9 27.5 27.5 24.7 10.8 25.7

Independent income

Less than $15,000 30.0 31.2 29.1 14.0 43.5 43.5 54.2

$15,000–$29,999 23.9 24.7 23.3 30.7 27.6 33.1 28.1

$30,000–$49,999 21.7 19.6 20.0 25.5 11.9 14.9 11.1

$50,000 or more 24.5 24.6 27.7 29.8 17.0 8.6 6.6

Attendance intensity (all schools)

Exclusively full-time 45.7 38.4 27.0 52.0 61.9 72.1 80.7

Exclusively part-time 38.5 45.6 57.8 25.1 26.1 18.7 12.6

Mixed full-time and part-time 15.8 16.0 15.2 23.0 12.0 9.2 6.7

See notes at end of table.
Differential Characteristics of Students 

23 

Dependency status, housing and income 

The percentage of students who were dependent students ranged from 21 percent at allied 

health not-for-profits to 46 percent at other not-for-profit institutions. At allied health not-forprofits and for-profit degree-granting institutions, 48 percent of all students were independent 

supporting at least one dependent such as a child. In addition, more students in all categories 

lived off campus than on campus or with their parents, although students attending medium and 

large public institutions were more likely than students at private institutions to live with their 

parents.14 Compared to other classification categories, a high proportion of students at other notfor-profit institutions lived on campus (20 percent).15 

Degree-granting for-profit institutions had the highest proportion of dependent students 

with family incomes of less than $25,000 (37 percent) compared to all other classification 

categories except other for-profit institutions.16 Similarly, both types of for-profit institutions as 

well as other not-for-profits had higher proportions of independent students with incomes that 

were less than $15,000 (between 44 and 54 percent) compared to public and allied health not-forprofits. 

 

14 The observed difference for small 2-year public institutions was not statistically significant. 

15 The observed difference between other not-for-profits and other for-profits was not statistically significant. 

16 The observed difference between other not-for-profits and other for-profits was not statistically significant. 

Table 8.—Distribution of students attending 2-year institutions, by demographic and enrollment 

Table 7.—characteristics: 2003–04—Continued

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Student characteristics public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

Housing

On campus 5.7 2.4 1.2 4.7 19.7 3.1 6.4

Off campus 61.1 63.7 64.8 80.1 57.2 75.0 70.1

Living with parents 33.2 33.8 34.0 15.2 23.1 21.9 23.5

Work intensity while enrolled (excludes work-study/assistantship)

No job 25.6 21.4 21.1 20.7 31.6 25.9 34.0

Part-time 38.0 39.6 38.0 52.1 36.1 31.8 34.7

Full-time 36.4 38.9 40.9 27.2 32.3 42.3 31.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey 

(NPSAS:2004).

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Differential Characteristics of Students 

24 

Attendance status and work 

Students attending for-profit institutions were more likely to attend exclusively full-time 

(72 and 81 percent, respectively) than students attending any type of public institution. Further, 

students attending small public institutions were more likely to attend full-time than students at 

large public schools (46 percent compared to 27 percent). While about half of students attending 

allied health not-for-profits attended full-time, these students also were more likely to work parttime (52 percent) than students at all other 2-year schools. 
25 

Differential Patterns of Institutional Affordability 

The cost of attending postsecondary education is paramount in the minds of students, 

especially low-income students. Financial aid programs play a critical role in the ability of 

students, and in particular lower-income students, to pay for college. However, student financial 

aid in the form of loans and grants comes from many sources, including the federal government, 

institutions, states, and private organizations. Thus, examining both costs and financial aid by 

source and type is key to understanding students’ ability to pay for school and how this differs 

among the seven institutional groups. The following tables show tuition and fees, net prices, and 

financial need for the various categories of 2-year institutions. While tuition charges and total prices 

of attendance varied dramatically among institutional sectors, the final range of prices after 

accounting for all financial aid was less broad. As in the previous section, this section is based on 

information from a sample survey, and all differences were tested to assure that they are 

statistically significant 

Tuition and price of attendance 

At public institutions, published (“sticker price”) tuition charges often differ for in-district, 

in-state and out-of-state students, while private institutions generally do not differentiate in this 

way.17 For example, 36 percent of large publics reported in-district tuition that was less than 

$1,000, compared to 28 percent and 20 percent of small and medium-sized publics (table 9). This 

likely reflects the fact 28 percent of large public institutions are located in California, a statewide system that primarily charges fees, rather than tuition, for state residents. 

Overall, students at public institutions tend to face lower average tuition and fees and prices 

of attendance than students at private institutions (table 10).18 Average tuition and fee charges for 

students ranged from $1,906 at large publics to $11,183 at degree-granting for-profits. Similarly, 

average prices of attendance—which includes room and board expenses as well as tuition and 

fees—for students ranged from $10,412 (again at large publics) to $20,418 (again at degreegranting for-profits). Students at allied health not-for-profits faced significantly lower average 

 

17 Tuition charges reported by institutions represent the average tuition charged by institutions to full-time students for the 

academic year. 

18 Note that these prices take student attendance patterns into account. 
Differential Patterns of Institutional Affordability 

26 

tuition and fees ($5,196) and price of attendance ($15,061) than students at all other private 

institutions, although these charges were still higher than the average prices faced by students 

attending public institutions. 

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Average tuition public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

Average in-district tuition for full-time 

 undergraduates at public institutions,

 2003–04

Less than $1000 27.9 19.8 35.7 † † † †

$1,000–$1,999 34.7 40.5 42.2 † † † †

$2,000–$3,499 31.1 37.7 20.6 † † † †

$3,500 or more 5.8 2.0 0.3 † † † †

Average in-state tuition for full-time 

 undergraduates at public institutions,

 2003–04

Less than $1000 25.3 17.0 31.4 † † † †

$1,000–$1,999 33.7 34.6 26.2 † † † †

$2,000–$3,499 31.6 40.0 24.6 † † † †

$3,500 or more 8.9 8.4 16.6 † † † †

Average out-of-state tuition for full-time 

 undergraduates at public institutions,

 2003–04

Less than $1000 19.5 1.6 1.5 † † † †

$1,000–$1,999 12.6 11.8 2.5 † † † †

$2,000–$3,499 20.0 16.1 12.9 † † † †

$3,500 or more 47.4 70.5 81.8 † † † †

Average tuition for full-time undergraduates 

 at private institutions, 2003–04

Less than $2,000 † † † 10.8 2.1 # †

$2,000–$4,999 † † † 30.1 16.0 1.3 †

$5,000–$9,999 † † † 48.4 45.7 52.6 †

$10,000 or more † † † 10.8 36.2 46.1 †

report tuition for their largest program rather than tuition for the academic year.

# Rounds to zero.

Table 9.—Distribution of average tuition charges for the academic year for full-time undergraduates: 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

† Not applicable.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Tuition is for institutions that report by academic year; program year 

Table 9.—2003–04

tuitions are not included. Average tuition was not presented for other for-profit institutions because most of these institutions 
Differential Patterns of Institutional Affordability

27 

Percent

Average 

amount Percent

Average 

amount

Small public $2,557 $11,267 82.7 66.9 41.6 $2,992 33.2 $4,060

Medium-sized public 2,149 10,451 84.2 70.1 40.6 3,160 28.0 3,572

Large public 1,906 10,412 71.5 58.4 28.1 3,110 21.3 4,496

Allied health not-for-profit 5,196 15,061 94.5 77.6 27.7 3,032 49.0 5,492Other not-for-profit 9,051 18,079 92.8 86.2 46.2 3,307 55.1 4,791Degree granting for-profit 11,183 20,418 98.8 97.8 71.9 3,273 91.2 5,915

Other for-profit 9,955 19,550 88.2 85.0 62.2 3,081 71.7 5,122

Percent

Average 

amount Percent

Average 

amount Percent

Average 

amount Percent

Average 

amount

Small public 13.2 $5,970 30.0 $1,751 23.4 $1,590 2.1 ‡

Medium-sized public 9.9 5,244 16.4 2,251 22.4 1,412 4.2 3,780

Large public 8.6 6,455 11.1 1,519 15.8 1,406 3.0 3,946

Allied health not-for-profit 21.9 ‡ 25.1 3,744 18.6 ‡ 8.9 ‡

Other not-for-profit 29.8 6,097 43.5 4,251 33.8 2,994 9.2 4,582

Degree granting for-profit 76.3 6,444 8.9 5,556 21.3 3,574 18.1 6,339

Other for-profit 46.1 6,511 14.2 5,278 3.6 ‡ 8.4 ‡

Average 

price of 

attendance

Average 

tuition and 

fees

Private (alternative) loans

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003-04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS:2004).

State aid (any)

2-year institutions

‡ Reporting standards not met.

Both subsidized and 

unsubsidized Stafford loans Institutional aid (any)

Table 10.

NOTE: Average estimates do not include zeroes. Students receiving any institutional or state aid primarily received grants, although a small portion (no more than 10 percent) of aid was from other sources.

—Average tuition and fees, price of attendance, percentage of students applying for aid, percentage receiving Pell grants, Stafford

Percentage

who applied 

for any aid

Percentage 

who applied 

for federal 

aid

Federal Pell grant Stafford loan (any)

Table 10.—loans, institutional aid, state aid and private (alternative) loans, and the average amounts received for full-time, full-year students at Table 10.—2-year institutions: 2003–042-year institutions
Differential Patterns of Institutional Affordability 

28 

Financial aid receipt 

Given the trends in tuition and price outlined above, the patterns of student financial aid 

receipt were not surprising; that is, students at private institutions tend to apply for and receive 

financial aid at higher rates than their counterparts at public institutions. However, some unique 

findings emerged for 2-year institutions that go beyond sector differences (table 10). 

In particular, students attending degree-granting for-profits differed from their counterparts 

at all other institutions (except other for-profits)—they were more likely to apply for federal 

financial aid (98 percent), receive Pell grants (72 percent), and receive Stafford loans (91 

percent). In addition, the average loan amounts ($5,915) were higher for these students than for 

students at all public institutions and other not-for-profits. Students at degree-granting for-profits 

were also more likely than students at all other types of institutions except other for-profits to 

receive both types of Stafford loans (subsidized and unsubsidized loans) (76 percent), and they 

were more likely than students at public institutions to receive private (alternative) loans. 

Moreover, while the proportion of students at degree-granting for-profit institutions who received 

state aid (21 percent) did not differ significantly from the proportions of students at public 

institutions receiving state aid (16 to 23 percent), students attending the former received higher 

average amounts of state aid than students at the latter ($3,574 compared to $1,406, $1,412 and 

$1,590, respectively). 

Examining the other categories of 2-year institutions revealed fewer findings, although 

students attending large public institutions were less likely to apply for any type of financial aid 

(72 percent) or federal aid (58 percent) compared to students attending most other 2-year 

institutions.19 Students attending large public institutions were also less likely to receive either 

federal grants or federal loans (28 percent and 21 percent, respectively) than those at mediumsized public institutions,20 while students at small public institutions were more likely to receive 

institutional aid (30 percent) than students at large publics. Students at other not-for-profits were 

more likely to receive institutional aid (44 percent) than students at medium and large publics as 

well as those at degree-granting for-profit institutions. Furthermore, the average amount of 

institutional aid that students at other not-for profits received ($4,251), was more than the 

amounts received by students attending public institutions. 

 

19 The observed difference between students attending small and large public institutions was not statistically significant. The 

impact of the California community college system on the “large public” category may be particularly relevant here, as a number

of students likely face such low sticker prices of attendance that they do not apply for financial aid. 

20 The observed difference between students attending small and large public institutions was not statistically significant. 
Differential Patterns of Institutional Affordability 

29 

Net price of attendance and unmet need 

While separate examinations of total price of attendance and financial aid receipt are useful 

in any discussion of affordability, it is important to also examine the “net prices” faced by 

students. Net prices reflect the total price of attending an institution after taking into account 

financial aid that a student may receive. While grants represent clear price reductions to the 

student, loans must be paid back by the student and therefore the perceptions of net prices are 

more complex. Therefore, it is instructive to examine net prices after only grants, as well as net 

prices that take into account all financial aid, including loans. 

Further, an assessment of affordability should take into account the financial need of 

students, which can be measured by the difference between a student’s Expected Family 

Contribution (EFC) and the total price of attendance. A student’s EFC represents the amount the 

student/parents are expected to contribute toward the price of attending college, and is calculated 

for the purposes of financial aid application, based on a formula that considers such factors as 

income, family size, and number of family members enrolled in college. The EFC attempts to 

measure a student’s relative ability to pay for college in order to assist in allocating financial aid. 

Thus, “unmet need” reflects the remaining amount that is not covered by either the 

student/parents or financial aid—that is, the net price minus the amount that the student and/or 

family are expected to contribute. As with net prices, since grants do not need to be repaid while 

loans do, multiple unmet need amounts are calculated that account for various combinations of 

financial aid. 

There are differences in financial need, net prices, and unmet need among the categories of 

2-year institutions (table 11). For example, students at degree-granting for-profit institutions 

reported lower average EFCs ($3,588) and higher average levels of need ($17,352) than students 

at most other 2-year schools.21 This likely reflects the relatively high proportion of low-income 

students attending those institutions. The combination of higher average tuition prices at these 

institutions and the patterns of aid received by students leads to net prices that differ according to 

the type of aid: 

• When accounting for only grants (net price 1, i.e., the total price of attendance minus 

grant aid received), students at degree-granting for-profit institutions faced higher net 

prices ($16,589) than students attending other 2-year schools except other for-profits. 

Students also had more unmet need ($13,564) than students at other 2-year institutions 

except other for-profits. 

 

21 Average EFCs did not differ significantly from those at small publics and other not-for-profits, and need did not significantly 

differ from other not-for-profits. 
Differential Patterns of Institutional Affordability 

30 

• When loans were taken into account (net price 2), there was no statistical difference 

between the net price faced by students at degree-granting for-profits and the net prices 

faced by students at other 2-year schools. However, students had higher levels of 

average unmet need ($6,436) than students at public and allied health not-for-profit 

institutions. In other words, although students at degree-granting for-profit institutions 

generally faced net prices (after all aid) that did not differ from those faced by students 

at other 2-year schools, on average they had higher levels of unmet need. 

Allied health not-for-profit institutions have a different pattern of net prices and unmet 

need. As mentioned previously, students attending these institutions had average tuition and 

prices of attendance that were lower than those faced by students at other private institutions but 

higher than the average amounts reported by students at public institutions. These differences are 

reflected in the net prices and unmet need: 

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Institutional prices and need public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

Tuition and fees $2,557 $2,149 $1,906 $5,196 $9,051 $11,183 $9,955

Price of attendance 11,267 10,451 10,412 15,061 18,079 20,418 19,550

Expected Family Contribution 

 (EFC composite) 7,044 7,049 8,739 7,979 7,409 3,588 5,305

Need (total price of attendance minus EFC) 7,216 6,222 5,862 8,871 12,540 17,352 15,662

Net price 1 (total price of attendance minus

 all grants) 9,007 8,277 8,965 11,700 13,337 16,589 16,036

Net price 2 (total price of attendance minus

 all aid) 6,978 6,851 7,907 7,905 9,066 8,786 10,603

Unmet need 1 (total price of attendance 

 minus EFC minus all grants) 5,101 4,219 4,516 5,541 8,199 13,564 12,225

Unmet need 2 (total price of attendance

 minus EFC minus total aid) 3,354 3,140 3,695 3,437 5,056 6,436 7,453

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey 

(NPSAS:2004).

NOTE: All estimates of the average include zeros. Price of attendance is the student budget adjusted for attendance.

Table 11.—Average tuition, expected family contribution (EFC), total price of attendance and net price for

Table 11.—for full-time, full-year students attending 2-year institutions: 2003–04
Differential Patterns of Institutional Affordability 

31 

• After taking only grant aid into account, students at these institutions faced an average 

net price after grants (net price 1) that was higher than those at medium and large 

public institutions but lower than those at for-profit institutions. Similarly, unmet need 

after taking into account total grant aid (unmet need 1) ($5,541) was higher than that 

faced by students at medium and large public institutions but lower than that found at 

other non-public schools. 

• No differences were detected in net prices when all aid was considered. In addition, 

students at allied health not-for-profits faced an average unmet need ($3,437) that did 

not significantly differ from that reported by students at public institutions. However, it 

was significantly less than the average unmet need faced by students at for-profit 

institutions. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
33 

Differential Patterns of Student Progression 

Students’ expectations regarding educational attainment, their persistence through college, 

and the actual degrees they achieve are markers along students’ paths into and through college, 

and can vary across institutional types. In addition, transfer rates (that is, the number of students 

who switch institutions and use credit hours earned at the first school towards a credential at the 

second) also vary, and on first glance seem to correlate with the different institutional missions 

outlined in the introduction of this analysis. From an institutional perspective, examining degree 

completions by gender and race/ethnicity reveals the various types of institutions at which 

particular groups of students are succeeding. 

Expectations and student transfer 

Most students who enter a postsecondary program of study do so with the stated intention 

of earning a degree or certificate (table 12). Indeed, in 1996 students at all institutional categories 

for which there were data22 more often reported that they expected to attain a bachelor’s degree 

(56 percent to 86 percent) than any other degree goal. Students who first enrolled at large public 

institutions were most likely to expect that they would earn a bachelor’s degree or higher (86 

percent). While a majority of students at other not-for-profits and degree-granting for-profit 

institutions reported that they intended to earn a bachelor’s degree, students at these institutions 

were more likely than students at large publics to indicate that an associate’s degree was the 

highest degree they ever expected (22 and 23 percent compared to 8 percent). 

While enrolled in college, many students transfer between 2-year schools or to 4-year 

institutions. Between 1995–96 and 2001, between 40 and 48 percent of first-time beginning 

students at all public institutions as well as other not-for-profits transferred at least once. 

Students who first attended degree-granting for-profit institutions were less likely to transfer to 

another institution (21 percent) than medium and large publics and other not-for-profit 

institutions. For degree-granting for-profits, the majority of transfers were to 2-year or less-than2-year institutions, while for large public institutions, the majority (64 percent) of those who 

transferred went to 4-year institutions. 

 

22 For students who first started at allied health not-for-profits and other for-profit institutions, there were too few cases to meet 

reporting standards. 
Differential Patterns of Student Progression 

34 

Degree and certificate completions 

When examining cumulative persistence after six years (table 12), the proportion of 

students who attained any type of degree (bachelor’s or associate’s) or certificate ranged from 34 

percent among students who began at large publics to 58 percent among students who started at 

other not-for-profits. As table 3 has already indicated, however, there are distinct differences 

among the seven types of 2-year institutions in terms of the degrees and awards offered; that is, 

allied health not-for-profit institutions and other for-profits tend to offer certificate programs 

while the remaining institutions primarily offer associate’s degree programs. 

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Persistence outcomes public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

 All institutions 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Highest degree ever expected, 1996

Bachelor’s degree or higher 56.3 71.6 85.6 ‡ 71.9 61.3 ‡

Associate’s degree 17.4 13.7 8.2 ‡ 22.1 22.9 ‡

Certificate 19.9 7.1 3.0 ‡ 3.8 13.6 ‡

Less than 4-years, no degree or certificate 6.4 7.7 3.2 ‡ 2.3 2.2 ‡

Cumulative persistence outcome, 2000–01

Attained a degree (BA or AA), or certificate 45.0 37.5 33.8 ‡ 57.8 54.2 ‡

Still enrolled 13.7 15.2 19.0 ‡ 8.6 4.3 ‡

Never attained, not enrolled 41.3 47.3 47.2 ‡ 33.6 41.5 ‡

Ever transferred, 2001

Never transferred 56.4 60.1 58.1 ‡ 52.5 79.5 ‡

One or more 43.6 39.9 41.9 ‡ 47.5 20.5 ‡

Type of transfer (institutional level), 2001

2-year to 4-year 59.3 52.6 63.8 ‡ 53.9 27.5 ‡

2-year to 2-year or less 40.7 47.4 36.2 ‡ 46.2 72.5 ‡

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Beginning Postsecondary Students, 1995–96 

(BPS:1996/98/01).

‡ Reporting standards not met.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Percent

Table 12.—Student transfer and persistence outcomes among students who started at 2-year institutions in

Table 12.—1995–96, 6 years later
Differential Patterns of Student Progression 

35 

Consistent with the trends observed in program offerings, the majority (58 percent) of 

awards completed at allied health not-for-profits were 2-year certificates, while almost all awards 

at other not-for-profits were less than 2-year certificates or associate’s degrees (table 13). 

Conversely, at medium and large public institutions as well as degree-granting for-profits, 

associate’s degrees comprised the majority of awards granted. However, although the bulk of 

small public schools offered associate’s degree programs, 62 percent of the academic awards 

granted by these institutions were less than 2-year certificates. 

Degree and certificate completions by gender and race/ethnicity 

Since a majority of students attending all types of 2-year institutions were women, one 

would expect to find that women completed more than half of awards granted by 2-year 

institutions. This generally held true for less than 2-year certificates as well as for associate’s 

degrees.23 For example, at allied health not-for-profits, women completed 78 percent of less than 

2-year certificates and 88 percent of associate’s degrees. However, the proportion of men and 

women receiving 2-year certificates varied by institutional type. The majority of 2-year 

certificates were granted to men at small and medium-sized public institutions, as well as at 

degree-granting for-profit institutions (59, 60, and 63 percent). Conversely, more than half of 2-

year certificates were granted to women at large publics, both types of not-for-profit institutions 

(89 and 53 percent), and other for-profit institutions (54 percent). 

There were also differences by race/ethnicity. For example, 13 percent of associate’s degree 

awards at large public institutions went to Hispanic students, compared to 3 percent at small 

publics (table 13). At allied health not-for-profit institutions, 28 percent of associate’s degrees 

were awarded to Black, non-Hispanic students. At large publics, 20 percent of 2-year certificates 

went to Hispanic students, compared to less than 10 percent at all other institution categories. 

Degree and certificate completions at low-income serving schools 

Across the seven institutional types, some degrees or certificates were more likely to be 

awarded by low-income serving schools. For example, the majority of less than 2-year 

certificates granted by for-profit institutions (both degree-granting and other) was awarded at 

low-income serving institutions (78 percent and 68 percent). Similarly, within degree-granting 

for-profit institutions, 2-year certificates were most likely to be granted by those that served lowincome students (96 percent). Among small public institutions, those that were low-income 

 

23 Fifty-one percent of associate’s degrees at other not-for-profit institutions were awarded to men. 
Differential Patterns of Student Progression 

36 

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Award completions public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

 All awards, 2002–03 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Less than 2-year certificate 62.4 41.8 32.4 15.9 43.1 41.2 52.0

2-year certificates 5.5 1.6 0.9 58.3 8.5 0.4 48.0

Associate’s degrees 32.1 56.5 66.7 25.8 48.4 58.4 †

Less than 2-year certificates

Gender

Men 47.5 46.6 45.9 21.6 44.2 34.7 40.7

Women 52.5 53.4 54.1 78.4 55.8 65.3 59.3

Race/ethnicity

White non-Hispanic 66.4 68.9 56.9 56.9 62.0 51.2 51.1

Black non-Hispanic 23.3 20.1 12.1 11.5 3.4 21.1 19.7

Hispanic 5.7 5.2 14.4 2.8 2.5 16.3 12.5

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.9 1.0 1.2 0.4 1.9 1.2 0.9

Asian or Pacific Islander 1.3 2.1 7.4 2.0 4.2 4.0 5.4

Race/ethnicity unknown 1.4 2.5 6.1 24.5 20.1 5.7 10.2

Non-resident alien 0.1 0.3 1.9 1.9 5.9 0.4 0.2

Low income serving institution1

No 58.4 70.2 85.4 88.3 87.2 22.4 32.3

Yes 41.6 29.8 14.6 11.7 12.8 77.6 67.7

2-year certificates

Gender

Men 58.6 59.9 44.2 11.0 46.7 63.4 46.1

Women 41.4 40.1 55.8 89.0 53.3 36.6 53.9

Race/ethnicity

White non-Hispanic 77.0 69.1 52.1 79.2 62.6 65.7 64.8

Black non-Hispanic 12.2 18.7 9.6 11.9 10.6 21.5 9.2

Hispanic 5.5 3.8 20.1 2.8 3.6 8.1 8.6

American Indian/Alaska Native 2.9 0.5 0.9 0.1 1.5 1.0 1.0

Asian or Pacific Islander 1.4 2.3 10.8 1.8 14.8 2.9 3.4

Race/ethnicity unknown 1.1 5.4 4.0 3.2 2.7 0.3 12.4

Non-resident alien # 0.1 2.5 0.9 4.2 0.5 0.6

Low income serving institution1

No 39.8 81.5 98.1 78.6 66.9 4.2 44.7

Yes 60.2 18.5 1.9 21.4 33.1 95.8 55.3

Table 13.—Distribution of award completions at 2-year institutions by gender, race/ethnicity and status as a 

Table 13.—low-income serving institution: 2002–03

See notes at end of table.
Differential Patterns of Student Progression 

37 

serving granted 60 percent of 2-year certificates although table 2 indicated that only 36 percent of 

students enrolled at small publics attended low-income serving schools. Finally, the majority of 

associate’s degrees granted by small publics, other not-for-profits and degree-granting for-profits 

were also granted by institutions that served low-income students (51, 58, and 68 percent 

respectively). 

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Award completions public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

Associate’s degrees

Gender

Men 39.9 36.8 37.8 12.1 51.3 49.8 †

Women 60.1 63.2 62.2 87.9 48.7 50.2 †

Race/ethnicity

White non-Hispanic 75.7 78.3 61.9 64.1 47.1 59.2 †

Black non-Hispanic 13.5 9.0 10.7 27.8 9.3 15.8 †

Hispanic 2.7 5.0 12.5 3.8 9.6 13.1 †

American Indian/Alaska Native 4.0 1.3 0.9 0.4 2.4 0.7 †

Asian or Pacific Islander 1.5 2.5 6.8 3.0 15.6 4.0 †

Race/ethnicity unknown 1.9 2.7 4.0 0.7 13.8 6.1 †

Non-resident alien 0.6 1.1 3.2 0.2 2.2 1.0 †

Low income serving institution1

No 48.8 70.5 86.2 86.1 41.6 31.7 †

Yes 51.2 29.5 13.8 13.9 58.4 68.3 †

# Rounds to zero.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

1

 Low-income serving institutions are those at which 50 percent or more of first-time, full-time degree or certificate-seeking

† Not applicable.

Table 13.—Distribution of award completions at 2-year institutions by gender, race/ethnicity and status as a 

Table 13.—low-income serving institution: 2002–03—Continued

students received federal grant aid in 2003–04. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. By definition, other for-profit institutions do not award associate’s 

sum to 100 percent.

degrees. Calculations performed on the aggregate 2-year classification level. Certificate and degree completions for institutions 

that did not report grant aid receipt data were excluded when calculating rates for low-income serving institutions so that columns 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
39 

Conclusion 

This report examined the ways in which 2-year institutions differ based on a recently 

developed 2-year classification system. The report has illustrated variations among 2-year 

schools in terms of institutional and student characteristics, institutional resources, costs and 

financial aid, completions, and persistence. Many of these differences reflect sector differences, 

such as a higher proportion of revenues from state funding and sometimes local funding among 

public institutions, or higher average tuition, rates of financial aid receipt and average need 

amounts among students at private schools. Other differences reflect varying institutional 

missions, such as the availability of certain on-campus services or student transfer rates. Despite 

these trends, however, the report also illustrates that the classification system distinguishes 

between postsecondary institutions within the same sector. These differing characteristics of 2-

year schools may impact the decisions that students make regarding their postsecondary 

education. 

Among public institutions, small and large institutions differed in key areas. Large public 

schools tended to offer lower tuition and more services and to be located in urban areas. Students 

attending these schools tended to be more racially diverse and to be enrolled part-time. In 

addition, more students at large schools reported that they planned to earn a bachelor’s degree 

and more were still enrolled after 6 years. On the other hand, small public institutions tended to 

charge slightly higher tuition, to be rural, and to be located in the Southeast. Their students were 

more likely to be low-income, to attend full-time, and to attain a degree or certificate within 6 

years. 

For-profit schools appear quite similar to one another with the exception of the types of 

credentials offered and completed, which reflect the classification itself. In most other aspects—

such as tuition, location, student characteristics, and student financial aid—these institutions 

exhibited few differences. 

Other not-for-profits appeared to be similar to for-profits, but slightly more traditional than 

for-profit schools. A high proportion offered remedial services compared to other private schools 

(both for-profit and allied health not-for-profit schools), and they focused on associate’s degrees 

rather than certificates. In addition, more students at these schools lived on-campus, pursued 

associate’s degrees, and received both institutional and state aid compared to students at forprofit institutions. 
Conclusion 

40 

Allied health not-for-profit institutions differed from other not-for-profit institutions—and 

the other institutions in the classification system—in terms of the programs offered, funding 

streams, student characteristics, student costs and the types of awards granted. These schools, 

which include many nursing colleges, appeared to be between public institutions and other 

private schools in terms of affordability and financial aid. Unlike other students in the private 

sectors, the students at allied health schools tended to have higher incomes and the ability to 

cover more of their tuition costs. Moreover, students at allied health institutions were unique in 

that they were more likely to be older, independent with dependents, and female than their 

counterparts at other 2-year schools. 

This analysis confirms what other studies have shown. Both public 2-year institutions and 

for-profit institutions enroll relatively high proportions of dependent and independent students 

from low-income families and who fell within the Pell eligible threshold. The proportion of 

students from low-income families is larger at private institutions—particularly degree-granting 

for-profits—compared to students at public institutions, and students at private for-profit 

institutions are more likely to receive Pell Grants. However, public 2-year institutions, which are 

less expensive than private institutions, enroll a substantially greater number of students from 

low-income families. 
41 

References 

Adelman, C. (2005). Moving Into Town—and Moving On: The Community College in the Lives 

of Traditional-Age Students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 

Aldenderfer, M.S., and Blashfield, R.K. (1984). Cluster Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 

Publications, Inc. 

American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). (2006a). Community College Mission. 

Retrieved March 13, 2006, from 

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutCommunityColleges/

HistoricalInformation/PasttoPresent/Mission.htm. 

American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). (2006b). Community Colleges Past and 

Present. Retrieved March 13, 2006, from 

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutCommunityColleges/

HistoricalInformation/PasttoPresent/Past_to_Present.htm. 

Cohen, A.M. (2003, Summer). College Size as the Major Discriminator. New Directions for 

Community Colleges, 122: 39–46. 

Cominole, M., Siegel, P., Dudley, K., Roe, D., and Gilligan, T. (2006). 2004 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04) Full Scale Methodology Report (NCES 2006-

180). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

Horn, L. (2006). Placing College Graduation Rates in Context: How 4-Year College Graduation 

Rates Vary With Selectivity and the Size of Low-Income Enrollment (NCES 2007-161). U.S. 

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

Horn, L., and Nevill, S. (2006). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education 

Institutions: 2003–04: With a Special Analysis of Community College Students (NCES 2006-

184). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 
References

42 

Katsinas, S.G. (2003, Summer). 2-Year College Classifications Based on Institutional Control, 

Geography, Governance, and Size. New Directions for Community Colleges, 122: 17–28. 

Kaufman, S. (2004). Using the Bootstrap in a Two-Stage Design When Some Second-Stage 

Strata Have Only One Unit Allocated. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 

Section on Survey Research Methods. 

Knapp, L.G., Kelly-Reid, J.E., Whitmore, R.W., Cong, J., Levine, B., Berzofsky, M., and 

Broyles, S.G. (2005a). Postsecondary Institutions in the United States: Fall 2004 and 

Degrees and Other Awards Conferred: 2003–04 (NCES 2005-182). U.S. Department of 

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

Knapp, L.G., Kelly-Reid, J.E., Whitmore, R.W., Huh, S., Levine, B., Berzofsky, M., and Broyles, 

S.G. (2005b). Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2003; Graduation Rates 1997 & 

2000 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2003 (NCES 2005-177). U.S. 

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

Knapp, L.G., Kelly-Reid, J.E., Whitmore, R.W., Levine, B., Huh, S., and Broyles, S.G. (2006). 

Employees in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2004, and Salaries of Full-Time Instructional 

Faculty, 2004–05 (NCES 2006-187). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Lee, L. (1996). Community Colleges and Proprietary Schools. ERIC Digest. Los Angeles, CA: 

ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ERIC ED400003) 

Naylor, M. (1987). Articulation Between Secondary or Postsecondary Vocational Education 

Programs and Proprietary Schools. ERIC Digest. Columbus OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on 

Adult Career and Vocational Education. (ERIC ED282095) 

Phipps, R.A., Shedd, J.M., and Merisotis, J.P. (2001). A Classification System for 2-Year 

Postsecondary Institutions (NCES 2001-167). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

RTI International. (2004). SUDAAN User’s Manual, Release 9.0. Research Triangle Park, NC: 

Author. 

Schuyler, G. (2003, Summer). A Curriculum-Based Classification System for Community 

Colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 122: 29–38. 
 References 

43 

Shaman, S.M., and Zemsky, R. (2003, Summer). On Markets and Other Matters: A Price Model 

for Public 2-Year Colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 122: 63–76. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). A Note from the 

Chief Statistician, no. 2. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). NCES Statistical 

Standards (NCES 2003-601). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved March 2, 2005, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003601.pdf. 

Williams, D.N. (1989). The Survival of Private Junior Colleges. ERIC Digest. Los Angeles, CA: 

ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges. (ERIC ED32722) 

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. 

Wine, J.S., Whitmore, R.W., Heuer, R.E., Biber, M., and Pratt, D.J. (2000). Beginning 

Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study First Follow-Up 1996–98 (BPS:96/98) 

Methodology Report (NCES 2000-157). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
A-1 

Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

This appendix describes the IPEDS:2003, NPSAS:2004 and BPS:96/98/01 data used in this 

report. The items were taken directly from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Data 

Analysis System (DAS). The DAS is a web-based NCES analysis tool that generates tables from 

the data available in IPEDS:2003, NPSAS:2004 and BPS:96/98/01. (See appendix B for a 

description of the DAS.) In the index below, the variables are organized by each data source and 

then listed in the order in which they are discussed in the text. The glossary presents variables 

and terms in alphabetical order by variable name (displayed in capital letters to the right of the 

label below). In the IPEDS DAS, some variables are “qualified” by another; that is, they must be 

filtered by another variable before meaningful data can be extracted. For example, the total 

number of degree completions must be qualified by the type of degree completed (note that “all 

degrees” may be selected).

Glossary Index 

INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS (IPEDS:2003) 

2-year institution classification ............. TWOYRCAT 

12-month unduplicated headcount 

(undergraduate), 2002–03.................. ENRUNDUP 

Current year GRS cohort as a percent of entering 

class.....................................................PGRCOHRT 

Region, 2002–03..........................................OBEREG 

Degree of urbanicity, 2002–03 .................... LOCALE 

Percentage receiving federal grant aid .......FGRNT_P 

Degree granting status ........................... DEGGRANT 

Less than 1-year certificate .......................... LEVEL1 

One but less than 2-year certificate .............. LEVEL2 

Associate’s degree ....................................... LEVEL3 

Two but less than 4-year certificate ............. LEVEL4 

Remedial services ......................................STUSRV1 

Academic/career counseling service ..........STUSRV2 

Employment service for students ...............STUSRV3 

Placement service for completers ..............STUSRV4 

On-campus child care for students’ 

children ..................................................STUSRV8 

Accelerated programs ....................................... SLO1 

Cooperative (work-study) program ................... SLO2 

Distance learning opportunities ........................ SLO3 

Total employees ...........................................EAPTOT 

Primary function .....................................EAPRECTP 

Primary function, occupational activity, 

degree granting institutions ................ SABDTYPE 

Primary function, occupational activity, 

non-degree granting institutions ..........SCNLEVEL 

Total men ....................................................STAFF15 

Total women ...............................................STAFF16 

Total Nonresident, alien ..............................STAFF17 

Total Black, non-Hispanic ..........................STAFF18 

Total American Indian/Alaska native .........STAFF19 

Total Asian/Pacific Islander ........................STAFF20 

Total Hispanic ............................................STAFF21 

Total White, non-Hispanic...........................STAFF22 

Total Race/ethnicity unknown ....................STAFF23 

Grand total ..................................................STAFF24 

Number of full-time instructional faculty.. EMPCNTT 

Academic rank...............................................ARANK 

Contract length....................................... CONTRACT 

Average salary of full-time instructional 

faculty ....................................................AVESALT 

In-district average tuition for full-time 

undergraduate students...........................TUITION1 

In-state average tuition for full-time 

undergraduate students...........................TUITION2 

Award level...............................................AWLEVEL 

Classification of instructional program.......CIPCODE 
Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms

A-2 

Degree completions, men............................CRACE15 

Degree completions, women.......................CRACE16 

Degree completions, non-resident alien......CRACE17 

Degree completions, Black, non-Hispanic..CRACE18 

Degree completions, American Indian/ 

Alaskan Native........................................CRACE19 

Degree completions, Asian/ 

Pacific Islander .......................................CRACE20 

Degree completions, Hispanic ....................CRACE21 

Degree completions, White, non-Hispanic .CRACE22 

Degree completions, race/ 

ethnicity unknown...................................CRACE23 

Degree completions, grand total .................CRACE24 

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS (NPSAS:2004) 

2-year classification .............................. TWOYRCAT 

Gender ........................................................GENDER 

Age as of 12/31/99...............................................AGE 

Race/ethnicity (with multiple)........................... RACE 

Percentage of students receiving federal 

grant aid at NPSAS institution ................FGRNT_P 

Undergraduate degree program .....................UGDEG 

Associate degree type ............................. UGDEGAA 

Dependency status ..................................... DEPEND2 

Income of dependent student’s parents......... DEPINC 

Income of independent students and 

spouses.................................................. INDEPINC 

Attendance intensity (all schools) ...........ATTNPTRN 

Housing....................................................LOCALRES 

Work intensity while enrolled (exclude 

work-study/assistantship) ..........................JOBENR 

Attendance pattern.................................. ATTNSTAT 

Tuition and fees .........................................TUITION2 

Student budget (attendance adjusted) ..... BUDGETAJ 

Applied any aid..............................................AIDAPP 

Applied for federal aid.................................. FEDAPP 

Federal Pell grant.......................................PELLAMT 

Stafford total subsidized and 

unsubsidized........................................ STAFFAMT 

Stafford loan types received .................... STAFTYPE 

Institutional aid total.................................. INSTAMT 

State aid total ..........................................STATEAMT 

Private (alternative) loans ........................PRIVLOAN 

Expected Family Contribution (EFC composite)..EFC 

Student budget minus all federal grants ......NETCST2 

Student budget minus all grants ..................NETCST3 

Student budget minus all aid.......................NETCST1 

Student budget minus EFC ........................... SNEED1 

Student budget minus EFC minus all grants . SNEED5 

Student budget minus EFC minus all aid ...... SNEED2 

STUDENT OUTCOMES (BPS:96/98/01) 

Highest degree ever expected, 1996 ....... EPHDEGY1 

Cumulative persistence outcome, 

2000–01 .............................................. PROUTYX6 

Number of transfers as of 2001..................ENTRN2B 

Transfer institutions by level, 2001 ..........ITTRLV2B 

2-year classification .............................. TWOYRCAT 

First institution - state location ................... INSTATE 
 Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable 

A-3 

Age as of 12/31/03 (NPSAS:2004) AGE 

Students age as of 12/31/03. Continuous variable lumped into the following categories: 

 Less than 20 

 20 to 29 years old 

 30 to 39 years old 

 40 to 49 years old 

 Over 50 years old 

Applied any aid (NPSAS:2004) AIDAPP 

Student applied for any aid, 2003–04 

 Yes 

 No 

Academic rank (IPEDS:2003) ARANK 

The number of full-time faculty by rank, qualified by gender. Rank is usually assigned by institution. This variable is 

also used as a qualifier for EMPCNTT (see variable definition). 

 All full-time faculty total 

 Professor 

 Associate professor 

 Assistance professor 

 Instructor 

 Lecturer 

No academic rank 

Attendance intensity (all schools) (NPSAS:2004) ATTNPTRN 

Student’s attendance intensity at all institutions attended in 2003–2004 academic year. For all months enrolled from 

July 2003 through June 2004, indicates whether the student was always enrolled full-time, part-time, or mixed fulltime and part-time when enrolled. 

 Exclusively full-time 

 Exclusively part-time 

 Mixed full-time and part-time 

Attendance pattern (NPSAS:2004) ATTNSTAT 

Student’s attendance pattern at all institutions attended during the 2003–2004 academic year. Students are 

considered to have enrolled for a full year if they were enrolled 9 or more months during the NPSAS year. Months 

did not have to be contiguous or at the same institution, and students did not have to be enrolled for a full month in 

order to be considered enrolled for that month. The first two categories of this variables were used as a filter for all 

tuition and financial aid variables in NPSAS:2004. 

Full-time/full year, 1 institution 

Full-time/full year, more than 1 institution 

Full-time/part year 

Part-time/full year, 1 institution 

Part-time/full year, more than 1 institution 

Part-time/part year 
Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable

A-4 

Average salary of full-time instructional faculty (IPEDS:2003) AVESALT 

Average salary of full-time instructional faculty for men and women combined. Refers to instruction/research staff 

employed full time (as defined by the institution) whose major regular assignment is instruction, including those with 

released time for research. This group includes faculty designated as “primarily instruction” and “instruction, 

combined with research and public service.” Qualified by ARANK and CONTRACT (see variable definitions). 

Award level (IPEDS:2003) AWLEVEL 

Levels at which degrees/awards were completed. This is a qualifier for all CRACE variables (see variable 

definitions). 

 Award of less than 1 academic year 

 Award of at least 1 but less than 2 academic years 

 Award of at least 2 but less than 4 academic years 

 Associate’s degree 

Award or diploma; more than 2-year but less than 4-year 

Bachelor’s degree 

Post-baccalaureate certificate 

Master’s degree 

Post-master’s certificate 

Doctoral degree 

First-professional degree 

The first two categories were combined into one—award of less than 2 academic years. The analysis also used the 

categories of award of at least two but less than 4 academic years (renamed 2-year certificates), and associate’s 

degree. 

Student budget (attendance adjusted) (NPSAS:2004) BUDGETAJ 

Price of attendance or total student budget (attendance adjusted) at NPSAS institution during 2003–2004 academic 

year. For students who attended one institution only. Equal to the sum of tuition and fees plus total non-tuition 

expenses. 

Classification of instructional program (IPEDS:2003) CIPCODE 

Classification of instructional Program (CIP) code. A six-digit code in the form xx.xxxx that identifies instructional 

program specialties within educational institutions. 

Contract length (IPEDS:2003) CONTRACT 

The contracted teaching period of faculty 9/10 month (employed for 2 semesters, 3 quarters, 2 trimesters, 2 4-month 

sessions, or the equivalent) or 11/12 month (the entire year). This is a qualifier for EMPCNTT and AVESALT (see 

variable definitions). 

Equated 9-month contract. Equated 9-month contracts adjusts for faculty members who are on 11-or 12-

month appointments to approximate a nine-month period 

Degree completions, grand total men (IPEDS:2003) CRACE15 

Total number of degrees completed by men in 2003, qualified by award level (AWLEVEL). 
 Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable 

A-5 

Degree completions, grand total women (IPEDS:2003) CRACE16 

Total number of degrees completed by women in 2003, qualified by award level (AWLEVEL). 

Degree completions, grand total non-resident alien (IPEDS:2003) CRACE17 

Total number of degrees completed by non-resident aliens in 2003, qualified by award level (AWLEVEL). 

Degree completions, grand total Black, non-Hispanic (IPEDS:2003) CRACE18 

Total number of degrees completed by Black, non-Hispanics in 2003, qualified by award level (AWLEVEL). 

Degree completions, grant total American Indian/Alaskan Native (IPEDS:2003) CRACE19 

Total number of degrees completed by American Indian/Alaskan Natives in 2003, qualified by award level 

(AWLEVEL). 

Degree completions, grand total Asian/Pacific Islander (IPEDS:2003) CRACE20 

Total number of degrees completed by Asian/Pacific Islanders in 2003, qualified by award level (AWLEVEL). 

Degree completions, Hispanic (IPEDS:2003) CRACE21 

Total number of degrees completed by Hispanics in 2003, qualified by award level (AWLEVEL). 

Degree completions, White, non-Hispanic (IPEDS:2003) CRACE22 

Total number of degrees completed by White, non-Hispanics in 2003, qualified by award level (AWLEVEL). 

Degree completions, race/ethnicity unknown (IPEDS:2003) CRACE23 

Total number of degrees completed by students whose race/ethnicity was unknown in 2003, qualified by 

award level (AWLEVEL). 

Degree completions, grand total (IPEDS:2003) CRACE24 

Total number of degrees completed in 2003, qualified by award level (AWLEVEL). 

Degree granting (IPEDS:2003) DEGGRANT 

 Degree granting 

Non-degree granting, primarily postsecondary 

 Non-degree granting, not primarily postsecondary 
Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable

A-6 

Dependency status (NPSAS:2004) DEPEND2 

Student’s dependency status for federal financial aid need analysis purposes during 2003–2004 academic year. 

 Dependent 

 Independent without dependents 

 Independent with dependents 

Income of dependent students’ parents (NPSAS:2004) DEPINC

Dependent students’ parents total income for 2002. Continuous variables lumped into the following categories: 

 Less than $25,000 

 $25,000 to $49,999 

 $50,000 to $79,999 

 More than $80,000 

Primary function (IPEDS:2003) EAPRECTP 

Primary function of employees. This is a qualifier for EAPTOT (see variable definition). 

 Full time public service/instruction/research 

 Executive/administrative and managerial 

 Other professional (support services) 

 Technical/para-professional 

 Clerical and secretarial 

 Skilled crafts 

 Service/maintenance 

Total employees (IPEDS:2003) EAPTOT 

Total number of employees on the institution’s payroll as of November 1 of the reporting year. Qualified by 

EAPRECTP (see variable definition). 

Expected Family Contribution (EFC composite) (NPSAS:2004) EFC 

Composite estimate of the federal Expected Family Contribution used in need analysis. 

Number of full-time instructional faculty, total (IPEDS:2003) EMPCNTT 

Number of full-time instructional faculty for men and women combined. Instruction/research staff employed full 

time (as defined by the institution) whose major regular assignment is instruction, including those with released time 

for research. For the Faculty Salaries survey, this group includes faculty designated as “primarily instruction” and 

“instruction, combined with research and public service.” Qualified by ARANK and CONTRACT (see separate 

definitions). 
 Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable 

A-7 

12-month unduplicated headcount: 2002–03 (IPEDS:2003) ENRUNDUP

Indicates how many individuals the institution served over a 12-month period (the unduplicated headcount). 

Unduplicated count is the sum of students enrolled for credit with each student counted only once during the 

reporting period, regardless of when the student enrolled. Credit is an instructional activity (course or program) that 

can be applied by a recipient toward the requirements for a degree, diploma, certificate, or other formal award. 

Number of transfers as of 2001 (BPS:96/98/01) ENTRN2B 

Number of transfers between institutions as of June 2001. A transfer occurs when the respondent leaves one 

institution (the origin) and enrolls at another institution (the destination) for 4 or more months. The date of 

transferring is defined as the first month the respondents were enrolled at destination institution after they left the 

origin institution. Lumped into the following categories: 

Never transferred 

 One or more 

Highest degree ever expected, 1996 (BPS:96/98/01) EPHDEGY1 

Highest degree a student ever expects to earn, asked in 1996. 

Bachelor’s degree or higher 

 Associate’s degree 

 Certificate 

 Less than 4-years, no degree or certificate 

Applied for federal aid (NPSAS:2004) FEDAPP 

Indicates whether the student applied for federal financial aid for the 2003–2004 academic year. 

Percentage receiving federal grant aid (IPEDS:2003) FGRNT_P 

Percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates receiving federal grants at the NPSAS 

institution, during the entire academic year (for institutions reporting on a fall cohort) or during the entire 12-month 

period (for institutions reporting on a full year cohort). Federal grants include those provided by federal agencies 

such as the U.S. Department of Education, such Title IV Pell Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity 

Grants (SEOGs). Also includes need-based and merit-based educational assistance funds and training vouchers 

provided from other federal agencies and/or federally sponsored educational benefits programs, including the 

Veteran’s Administration, Department of Labor, and other federal agencies. 

Percentage of students receiving federal grant aid at NPSAS institution (NPSAS:2004) FGRNT_P 

Percentage of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates receiving federal grants at the NPSAS 

institution, during the entire academic year (for institutions reporting on a fall cohort) or during the entire 12-month 

period (for institutions reporting on a full year cohort). Federal grants include those provided by federal agencies 

such as the U.S. Department of Education, such Title IV Pell Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity 

Grants (SEOGs). Also includes need-based and merit-based educational assistance funds and training vouchers 

provided from other federal agencies and/or federally sponsored educational benefits programs, including the 

Veteran’s Administration, Department of Labor, and other federal agencies. 
Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable

A-8 

Gender (NPSAS:2004) GENDER 

Student’s gender. 

 Male 

 Female 

Income of independent students and spouses (NPSAS:2004) INDEPINC

Independent student’s total income for 2002, including income of the spouse. See DEPINC for a note on income. 

Continuous variable, lumped into the following categories: 

 Less than $15,000 

 $15,000 to $29,999 

 $30,000 to $49,999 

 More than $50,000 

Institutional aid total (NPSAS:2004) INSTAMT 

Total amount of institutional aid received during 2003–2004 academic year. Equal to the sum of institutional grants 

and fellowships, institutional loans, institution-sponsored work-study, and graduate student assistantships. 

First institution - state location (BPS:96/98/01) INSTATE 

State in which the first institution attended by the student was located. Used as a filter variable for BPS estimates 

(limited to Washington, DC and the 50 states). 

Transfer institutions by level, 2001 (BPS:96/98/01) ITTRLV2B 

Level of the first (origin) and the second (destination) institutions attended as of 2001. The following categories were 

used: 

 2-year to 4-year 

 2-year to 2-year or less 

Work intensity while enrolled (exclude work-study/assistantship) (NPSAS:2004) JOBENR 

Intensity of work (excluding work-study/assistantship/traineeship) while enrolled during 2003–2004 academic year. 

Full-time is defined as 35 or more hours per week, and part-time is any amount less than 35 hours. 

Less than 1-year certificate (IPEDS:2003) LEVEL1 

Whether the institution offers an organized program of study at the postsecondary level that is completed in less than 

1 full-time equivalent academic year (less than 30 credit hours or 900 contact hours). 

 Yes 

 No 
 Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable 

A-9 

One but less than 2-year certificate (IPEDS:2003) LEVEL2 

Whether the institution offers an organized program of study at the postsecondary level that is completed in at least 1 

but less than 2 full-time equivalent academic years (at least 30 but less than 60 credit hours or at least 900 but less 

than 1,800 contact hours). 

 Yes 

 No 

Associate’s degree (IPEDS:2003) LEVEL3 

Whether the institution offers associate’s degree awards, an award that normally requires at least 2 but less than 4 

years of full-time equivalent college work (60 credit hours or 1,800 contact hours). 

 Yes 

 No 

Two but less than 4-year certificate (IPEDS:2003) LEVEL4 

Whether the institution offers an organized program of study at the postsecondary level that is completed in at least 2 

but less than 4 full-time equivalent academic years (at least 60 but less than 120 credit hours or at least 1,800 but less 

than 3,600 contact hours). 

 Yes 

 No 

Degree of urbanicity, 2002–03 (IPEDS:2003) LOCALE 

A code to indicate the degree of urbanization of the institution’s locale. Large City: A central city of a CMSA or 

MSA with the city having a population greater than or equal to 250,000. Mid-size City: A central city of a CMSA or 

MSA, with the city having a population less than 250,000. Urban Fringe of Large City: Any incorporated place, 

CDP, or non-place territory within a CMSA or MSA of a Large City and defined as urban by the Census Bureau. 

Urban Fringe of Mid-size City: Any incorporated place, CDP, or non-place territory within a CMSA or MSA of a 

Large City of a Mid-size City and defined as urban by the Census Bureau Large Town: An incorporated place or 

CDP with a population greater than or equal to 25,000 and located outside a CMSA or MSA. Small Town: An 

incorporated place or CDP with a population less than 25,000 and greater than or equal to 2,500 and located outside 

a CMSA or MSA. Rural: Any incorporated place, CDP, or non-place territory designated as rural by the Census 

Bureau. Lumped into the following categories:

 Urban 

 Suburban 

 Small Town 

 Rural 

Housing (NPSAS:2004) LOCALRES 

Student’s housing status at the NPSAS sample institution during 2003–2004 academic year. 

 On campus 

 Off campus 

 Living with parents 
Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable

A-10 

Student budget minus all aid (NPSAS:2004) NETCST1 

Net total price of attendance after all financial aid. Equal to the total student budget minus total aid. It represents the 

estimated “out-of-pocket” expense to students remaining after all financial aid is received in academic year 2003–

2004. Students who attended more than one institution were excluded. 

Student budget minus all federal grants (NPSAS:2004) NETCST2 

Net total price after all federal grants for 2003–2004 academic year. Equal to total student budget minus federal 

grants. Students who attended more than one institution were skipped. 

Student budget minus all grants (NPSAS:2004) NETCST3 

Net total price after all grants for the 2003–2004 academic year. Equal to total student budget minus total grants. 

Region, 2002–03 (IPEDS:2003) OBEREG 

Geographic region 

 New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) 

 Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA) 

 Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) 

 Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 

 South (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC) 

 Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX) 

 Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY) 

 Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA) 

Federal Pell grant (NPSAS:2004) PELLAMT 

Total amount of federal Pell grants received at all institutions attended during 2003–2004 academic year. Pell grants 

are need-based grants awarded to undergraduates who have not yet received a bachelor’s degree and students in 

teaching certificate programs. The amount of a Pell grant depends on the EFC, price of attendance, and attendance 

status (full-time or part-time, full-year or part-year). In 2003–2004 academic year the maximum Pell grant 

amount was $4,050. 

Current year GRS cohort as a percent of entering class (IPEDS:2003) PGRCOHRT

The GRS cohort as a percent of the total entering class. The GRS cohort represents students who are full-time firsttime degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates and enrolled for credit. A full-time student is enrolled for 12 or more 

semester credits, or 12 or more quarter credits, or 24 or more contact hours a week each term. A first-time student is 

one attending any institution for the first time at the undergraduate level and includes students enrolled in academic 

or occupational programs and includes students enrolled in the fall term who attended college for the first time in the 

prior summer term. Credit is instructional activity (course or program) that can be applied by a recipient toward the 

requirements for a degree, diploma, certificate, or other formal award. 
 Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable 

A-11 

Private (alternative) loans (NPSAS:2004) PRIVLOAN

Indicates the amount of alternative commercial or private loans received by students in 2003–2004 academic year. 

Examples of such loans are personal loans secured through financial institutions or lenders like TERI or Sallie Mae. 

Does not include loans from family or friends. 

Cumulative persistence outcome, 2000-01 (BPS:96/98/01) PROUTYX6 

Cumulative outcome of enrollment at the end of academic year 2000–01. An academic year is defined as months 

from July of first year through June of next year, inclusive. Bachelor’s degree overwrites associate’s degree and 

certificate, and associate’s degree overwrites certificate. e.g., if a respondent attained a certificate during 1995–96, 

and attained a bachelor’s degree in 1998–99, the cumulative persistence at the end of 2001 will be a bachelor’s 

degree. If the respondents had any enrollment during Feb through June of 2001, they were “still enrolled.” Lumped 

into the following categories: 

 Attained bachelor’s degree, associate’s degree, or certificate 

 Still enrolled 

 Never attained, not enrolled 

Race/ethnicity (with multiple) (NPSAS:2004) RACE 

Student’s race-ethnicity with Hispanic or Latino origin as a separate category. Students reporting multiple 

races/ethnicities were excluded. 

 White 

 Black 

 Hispanic or Latino 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 

Primary function, occupational activity, degree granting institutions (IPEDS:2003) SABDTYPE 

Description of staff by primary function and occupation, full- or part-time at degree granting institutions. Primary 

occupational activity reflects the principal activity of a staff member as determined by the institution. If an individual 

participates in two or more activities, the primary activity is normally determined by the amount of time spent in each 

activity. 

 Full time, faculty (instruction/research/public service) total 

Primary function, occupational activity, non-degree granting institutions (IPEDS:2003) SCNLEVEL 

Type of full- or part-time staff by primary occupation at non-degree granting institutions. Primary occupational 

activity reflects the principal activity of a staff member as determined by the institution. If an individual participates 

in two or more activities, the primary activity is normally determined by the amount of time spent in each activity. 

 Full time, faculty (instruction/research/public service) 
Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable

A-12 

Accelerated programs (IPEDS:2003) SLO1 

Institution offers the option to complete a college program of study in fewer than the usual number of years, most 

often by attending summer sessions and carrying extra courses during the regular academic term. 

 Yes 

 No 

Cooperative (work-study) program (IPEDS:2003) SLO2 

Institution offers a program that provides for alternate class attendance and employment in business, industry, or 

government. 

 Yes 

 No 

Distance learning opportunities (IPEDS:2003) SLO3 

Institution offers an option for earning course credit at off-campus locations via cable television, internet, satellite 

classes, videotapes, correspondence courses, or other means. 

 Yes 

 No 

Student budget minus EFC (NPSAS:2004) SNEED1 

The student’s total need for need-based financial aid. Equal to total student budget minus the federal expected family 

contribution. 

Student budget minus EFC minus all aid (NPSAS:2004) SNEED2 

The remaining need after all financial aid (need-based and non-need- based) received. Equal to the total student 

budget minus expected family contribution and total aid. 

Student budget minus EFC minus all grants (NPSAS:2004) SNEED5 

The remaining need after all grant aid. Equal to the total student budget minus expected family contribution, and 

minus total grants. 

Total men (IPEDS:2003) STAFF15 

Total number of staff who are men. Qualified by SABDTYPE for degree-granting institutions and SCNLEVEL for 

non-degree-granting institutions (see separate definitions). 

Total women (IPEDS:2003) STAFF16 

Total number of staff who are women. Qualified by SABDTYPE for degree-granting institutions and SCNLEVEL 

for non-degree-granting institutions (see separate definition). 
 Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable 

A-13 

Total Nonresident, alien (IPEDS:2003) STAFF17 

Total number of staff who are nonresident, alien. Qualified by SABDTYPE for degree-granting institutions and 

SCNLEVEL for non-degree granting institutions (see separate definitions). 

Total Black, non-Hispanic (IPEDS:2003) STAFF18 

Total number of staff who are Black, non-Hispanic. Qualified by SABDTYPE for degree-granting institutions and 

SCNLEVEL for non-degree granting institutions (see separate definitions). 

Total American Indian/Alaska native (IPEDS:2003) STAFF19 

Total number of staff who are American Indian/Alaska native. Qualified by SABDTYPE for degree-granting 

institutions and SCNLEVEL for non-degree granting institutions (see separate definitions). 

Total Asian/Pacific Islander (IPEDS:2003) STAFF20 

Total number of staff who are Asian/Pacific Islander. Qualified by SABDTYPE for degree-granting institutions and 

SCNLEVEL for non-degree granting institutions (see separate definitions). 

Total Hispanic (IPEDS:2003) STAFF21 

Total number of staff who are Hispanic. Qualified by SABDTYPE for degree-granting institutions and SCNLEVEL 

for non-degree granting institutions (see separate definitions). 

Total White, non-Hispanic (IPEDS:2003) STAFF22 

Total number of staff who are White, non-Hispanic. Qualified by SABDTYPE for degree-granting institutions and 

SCNLEVEL for non-degree granting institutions (see separate definitions). 

Total Race/ethnicity unknown (IPEDS:2003) STAFF23 

Total number of staff whose race/ethnicity is unknown. Qualified by SABDTYPE for degree granting institutions 

and SCNLEVEL for non-degree granting institutions (see separate definitions). 

Grand total (IPEDS:2003) STAFF24 

Total number of staff. Qualified by SABDTYPE for degree-granting institutions and SCNLEVEL for non-degree 

granting institutions (see separate definitions). 

Stafford total subsidized and unsubsidized (NPSAS:2004) STAFFAMT 

Total amount of federal Stafford loans (subsidized, unsubsidized, Direct, and FFELP) received at all institutions 

attended during 2003–2004 academic year; including loans borrowed to attend schools other than the NPSAS sample 

school. Annual loan limits for Stafford loans vary by class level and dependency status. 
Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable

A-14 

Stafford loan types received (NPSAS:2004) STAFTYPE 

This variable indicates the combination of subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans received at all institutions 

attended during 2003–2004 academic year. 

 No Stafford loans 

 Subsidized only 

 Both subsidized and unsubsidized 

 Unsubsidized only 

State aid total (NPSAS:2004) STATEAMT 

Total amount of state aid received during 2003–2004 academic year. Equal to the sum of state grants, state loans, 

state-sponsored work-study, and vocational rehabilitation and job training grants, including federal Workforce 

Investment Act funds. 

Remedial services (IPEDS:2003) STUSRV1 

Institution offers instructional activities designed for students deficient in the general competencies necessary for a 

regular postsecondary curriculum and educational setting. 

 Yes 

 No 

Academic/career counseling service (IPEDS:2003) STUSRV2 

Institution offers activities designed to assist students in making plans and decisions related to their education, 

career, or personal development. 

 Yes 

 No 

Employment service for students (IPEDS:2003) STUSRV3 

Institution offers activities intended to assist students in obtaining part-time employment as a means of defraying part 

of the cost of their education. 

 Yes 

 No 

Placement service for completers (IPEDS:2003) STUSRV4 

Institution offers assistance for students in evaluating their career alternatives as well as in obtaining full-time 

employment upon leaving the institution. 

 Yes 

 No 
 Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable 

A-15 

On-campus child care for students’ children (IPEDS:2003) STUSRV8 

Institution offers a student service designed to provide appropriate care and protection of infants, preschool, and 

school-age children so their parents can participate in postsecondary education programs. 

 Yes 

 No 

In-district average tuition for full-time undergraduate students (IPEDS:2003) TUITION1 

The tuition charged by the institution for the full academic year 2003–04 to those undergraduate students residing in 

the locality in which they attend school. This may be a lower rate than in-state tuition if offered by the institution. 

Estimated for public institutions only. Values were grouped into the following categories: 

 Less than $1,000 

 $1,000–$1,999 

 $2,000–$3,499 

 More than $3,5000 

In-state average tuition for full-time undergraduate students (IPEDS:2003) TUITION2 

The tuition charged by the institution for the full academic year 2003–04 to those students who meet the state’s or 

institution’s residency requirements. Estimated for both public and private institutions. Values were grouped into the 

following categories: 

 Public institutions 

 Less than $1,000 

 $1,000–$1,999 

 $2,000–$3,499 

 More than $3,5000 

 Private institutions 

 Less than $2,000 

 $2,000–$4,999 

 $5,000–$9,999 

 More than $10,000 

Tuition and fees (NPSAS:2004) TUITION2 

Average tuition and fees at the sampled NPSAS institution for students who attended only one institution during 

2003–2004 academic year. 

 

2-year institution classification (IPEDS:2003) TWOYRCAT 

See the definitions outlined in appendix B. 

 Small public 2-year institutions 

Medium-sized public 2-year institutions 

Large public 2-year institutions 

Allied health not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

Other not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

Degree granting for-profit 2-year institutions 

Other for-profit 2-year institutions 
Appendix A—Glossary of Variables and Terms 

DAS Variable

A-16 

2-year college classification (NPSAS:2004) TWOYRCAT 

Merged in from IPEDS 2003. See definitions outlined in appendix B. 

 Small public 2-year institutions 

Medium-sized public 2-year institutions 

Large public 2-year institutions 

Allied health not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

Other not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

Degree granting for-profit 2-year institutions 

Other for-profit 2-year institutions 

2-year college classification (BPS:96/98/01) TWOYRCAT 

Merged in from IPEDS 2003. See definitions outlined in appendix B. 

 Small public 2-year institutions 

Medium-sized public 2-year institutions 

Large public 2-year institutions 

Allied health not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

Other not-for-profit 2-year institutions 

Degree granting for-profit 2-year institutions 

Other for-profit 2-year institutions 

Undergraduate degree program (NPSAS:2004) UGDEG 

Undergraduate student’s degree program during the 2003–2004 academic year. 

 Certificate 

 Associate’s degree 

 Bachelor’s degree 

 No undergraduate degree 

Associate degree type (NPSAS:2004) UGDEGAA 

Student’s associate’s degree type during 2003–2004 academic year. For student who is working on an associate’s 

degree (UGDEG=2). 

 Not working on an associate’s degree 

 AA, AS, general education or transfer 

 AAS, occupational or technical program 
B-1 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

This report used data from three data sources. Institutional characteristics were obtained 

from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 2003 collection year (IPEDS:2003), 

newly available online through the Data Analysis System (DAS). IPEDS collects data from all 

primary providers of postsecondary education and can be used to describe trends in 

postsecondary education at the institution, state, and national levels.1

 This report used variables 

from the Completions, Employee by Assigned Position, Enrollment, Faculty Salary, Fall Staff, 

Institutional Characteristics, and Student Financial Aid components. 

In addition, data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study undergraduate sample 

for 2003–2004 (NPSAS:2004), and the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS:1996/2001) 

study were used to explore student characteristics and outcomes. For both datasets, the 2-year 

classification variable was created in IPEDS and merged into the respective online DAS by 

matching the institutional identification numbers. 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is a comprehensive census 

of about 10,000 institutions whose primary purpose is to provide postsecondary education. 

Postsecondary education is defined within IPEDS as the provision of formal instructional 

programs whose curriculum is designed primarily for students who have completed the 

requirements for a high school diploma or its equivalent. This includes academic, vocational, and 

continuing professional education programs but excludes institutions that offer only avocational 

(leisure) and adult basic education programs. IPEDS collects data from postsecondary institutions 

in the United States (50 states and the District of Columbia) and other jurisdictions, such as 

Puerto Rico.

Participation in IPEDS is a requirement for the institutions that participate in Title IV

federal student financial aid programs such as Pell Grants or Stafford Loans during the academic 

year. Title IV institutions include traditional colleges and universities, 2-year institutions, and 

for-profit degree- and non-degree-granting institutions (such as schools of cosmetology), among 

others. About 6,700 institutions are designated as Title IV participants for these institutions. 

 

1 http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/AboutIPEDS.asp. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

B-2 

For this report, data was drawn from several components of the survey, including the 

following: 

• Institutional Characteristics (IC): includes institutional control or affiliation; levels of 

degrees and awards offered; and types of programs. 

• Enrollment (EF): includes information about full- and part-time enrollment by 

racial/ethnic category and gender for undergraduates, first-professional, and graduate 

students. 

• Fall Staff: collects the numbers of full- and part-time institutional staff, number of fulltime and part-time faculty by race/ethnicity and gender, contract length, salary class 

intervals, number of other persons employed full time and part time by race/ethnicity 

and gender, primary occupational activity, salary class intervals, counts of full-time 

faculty by academic rank, and new hires by primary occupational activity, both by 

race/ethnicity and gender. 

• Completions: includes counts of recognized degree completions in postsecondary 

education programs by level (associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, doctor’s, and firstprofessional) and on other formal awards by length of program, by race/ethnicity and 

gender of recipient, and by field of study, which is identified by 6-digit Classification 

of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes. 

• Salaries: includes the number of full-time instructional faculty by rank, gender, and 

length of contract; total salary outlay; and fringe benefits information, and number of 

full-time instructional faculty covered by these benefits. 

• Employees by Assigned Position: includes employee headcount by full- and part-time 

status, and by faculty and tenure status (if applicable). 

IPEDS also provides data on financial aid, finance, and graduation rates. Detailed 

information about IPEDS is available at the National Center for Education Statistics Web site 

(http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/), including variable descriptions, data collection screens, and 

descriptions of the web-based data collection system. 

For this report, the universe of institutions was drawn from the 2002–03 Institutional 

Characteristics component, part of the 2003 collection cycle. The variable response rates 

provided in table B1 for those variables were calculated as those cases in which data were 

reported. 

The Enrollment data, Graduation Rates data, and Student Financial Aid data are all subject 

to imputation for nonresponse—both total (institutional) nonresponse and partial (item) 

nonresponse. For specific imputation methods please see Knapp et al. (2005a, 2005b, 2006). 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-3 

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Institutional characteristics public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

Completions 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.5

Employees by assigned position 99.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5

Enrollment 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 100.0 99.0

Faculty salary1 99.4 99.8 99.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 †

Fall staff2 98.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 †

Finance 99.1 99.6 100.0 99.1 99.1 99.5 98.6

Institutional characteristics 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5

Student financial aid 99.5 99.8 100.0 97.9 99.1 100.0 99.0

12-month unduplicated headcount 

 (undergraduate), 2002–03 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 99.8 98.6

First-time, full-time degree/certificate

 seeking students as a percent

 of entering class 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Percentage receiving federal grant aid 99.5 100.0 100.0 97.7 99.0 99.8 99.0

Total employees 99.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0

Staff grand total2 96.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.5 †

Number of full-time instructional faculty1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 †

Average salary of full-time instructional

 faculty1 99.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 †

Average tuition for full-time 

 undergraduate students3 99.5 100.0 98.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Degree completions, grand total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

† Not applicable.

1

 This survey component or variable is collected for degree-granting institutions only. Therefore, the response rate reflects only 

degree-granting institutions in any given classification category.

2

 This survey component or variable is collected separately for degree-granting and nondegree-granting institutions. 

In this table, the response rate reflects only degree-granting institutions with 15 staff or more (those that are required to report). 3

 This survey component or variable is collected separately for institutions reporting by academic year and program year. 

In this table, the response rate reflects only institutions reporting tuition by academic year. For public institutions, it reflects 

in-state tuition.

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Table B1.—Response rates for IPEDS collections, survey components, and selected variables for 

Table B1.—institutions in the study universe, by 2-year classification: 2003–04

Survey response rates

Variable response rates
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

B-4 

Data Perturbation and Confidentiality 

Four laws cover protection of the confidentiality of individually identifiable information 

collected by NCES—the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended; the E-Government Act of 2002; the 

Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002; and the USA Patriot Act of 2001. Therefore, 

Under law, public use data collected and distributed by the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) may be used only for statistical purposes and may not be 

disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other purpose except as required by law. 

Any effort to determine the identity of any reported case by public-use data users is 

prohibited by law. Violations are subject to Class E felony charges of a fine up to 

$250,000 and/or a prison term up to 5 years. 

In order to preserve individuals’ confidentiality, data in the Graduation Rates, Salaries, Fall 

Staff, and Student Financial Aid (SFA) data files were subject to perturbation. All data in this 

report are based on the perturbed data and the data included in the Data Analysis System (DAS) 

as well as the Peer Analysis Tool (PAS) are perturbed (see Knapp et al. 2005a, 2005b, 2006). 

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) was first implemented by NCES 

during the 1986–87 academic year to meet the need for national-level data about significant 

financial aid issues. Since 1987, NPSAS has been conducted every 3 to 4 years, with the most 

recent implementation during the 2003–04 academic year. NPSAS:04 was conducted as the 

student component of the National Study of Faculty and Students (NSoFaS). 

NPSAS surveys aided and unaided students at all levels of postsecondary education 

(undergraduate, graduate, and professional) and is the only periodic, nationally representative 

survey of students regarding financial aid. There is no other single national database that contains 

student-level records for students receiving aid from all of the numerous and disparate programs 

funded by the federal government, the states, postsecondary institutions, employers, and private 

organizations. The NPSAS studies reflect the changes made in government guidelines for 

financial aid eligibility and availability, and provide measures of the impact of those changes. 

The NPSAS studies also provide information about the current operation of financial aid for 

postsecondary students. 

The fundamental purpose of NPSAS is to create a dataset that brings together information 

about a variety of aid programs for a large sample of undergraduate, graduate, and firstprofessional students. NPSAS provides the data for comprehensive descriptions of the 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-5 

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. It also includes data on tuition 

and price of attendance, the various types of financial aid received, and the net price of 

attendance after aid. NPSAS provides research and policy analysts with data to address basic 

issues about postsecondary affordability and the effectiveness of the existing financial aid 

programs. Information for NPSAS:04 was obtained from several sources, including student 

records, student interviews, and U.S. Department of Education databases.2

Alternating NPSAS surveys also provide base-year data on a subset of students who 

become the sample for Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study with a follow-up 

survey 2 years later (for example, BPS:04/06 was based on NPSAS:04, with a future follow up 

due in 2009). A section of the NPSAS student interview focuses on describing the experience of 

these students in their first year of postsecondary education. Also, for the first time, NPSAS:04 

includes representative samples of undergraduate students for 12 states that explicitly expressed 

interest and support for such state-level data. 

Sample Design 

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 United States Department 

of Education making them eligible for the federal student aid programs (Title IV institutions). 

Eligible students could not be concurrently enrolled in high school and could not be enrolled 

solely in a GED or other high school completion program. 

The institution sampling frame for NPSAS:04 was constructed from the 2000–01 IPEDS 

Institutional Characteristics (IC) files. The institutions on the sampling frame were partitioned 

into 58 institutional strata based on institutional control, highest level of offering, and Carnegie 

classification. NPSAS:04 also includes state-representative undergraduate student samples for 

three types of institutions (public 4-year, public 2-year, and not-for-profit 4-year) in 12 states.3

For further information on the NPSAS sample, see Cominole et al. (2006). 

 

2 See http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas/index.asp. 

3 These 12 states were selected by NCES from those expressing interest. The 12 states were categorized into three groups based 

on population size: four small states (Connecticut, Delaware, Nebraska, Oregon), four medium-size states (Georgia, Indiana, 

Minnesota, Tennessee), and four large states (California, Illinois, New York, Texas). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

B-6 

Perturbation 

To protect the confidentiality of NCES data that contain information about specific 

individuals, NPSAS:04 data were subject to perturbation procedures to minimize disclosure risk. 

Perturbation procedures, which have been approved by the NCES Disclosure Review Board, 

preserve the central tendency estimates, but may result in slight increases in nonsampling errors. 

Imputation 

All variables with missing data used in this report as well as those included in the related 

Data Analysis System (DAS) release have been imputed. The imputation procedures employed a 

two-step process. In the first step, the matching criteria and imputation classes that were used to 

stratify the dataset were identified such that all imputation was processed independently within 

each class. In the second step, the weighted sequential hot deck process was implemented,4

whereby missing data were replaced with valid data from donor records that match the recipients 

with respect to the matching criteria. For more information about the imputation process, see 

Cominole et al. (2006). 

Weighting 

All estimates in this report are weighted to represent the target population. The weights 

compensate for the unequal probability of selection of institutions and students in the NPSAS 

sample. The weights also adjust for multiplicity at the institution and student levels,5 unknown 

student eligibility, nonresponse, and poststratification. The institution weight is computed and 

then used as a component of the student weight. 

 

4 The term “hot deck” refers to the fact that the set of potential donors changes for each recipient. In contrast, “cold deck” 

imputation defines one static set of donors for all recipients. In all such imputation schemes the selection of the donor from the 

entire deck is a random process. 

5 It was determined after institution sample selection that in some cases, either 1) an institution had merged with another 

institution, or 2) student enrollment lists for two or more campuses were submitted as one combined student list. In these 

instances, the institution weights were adjusted for the joint probability of selection. Likewise, students who attended more than 

one institution during the NPSAS year also had multiple chances of selection. If it was determined from any source (the student

interview, or the student loan files (Pell or Stafford) that a student had attended more than one institution, the student’s weight 

was adjusted to account for multiple chances of selection.
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-7 

Quality of Estimates 

Unit Response Rates and Bias Analysis 

The bias in an estimated mean based on respondents, R y , is the difference between this 

mean and the target parameter, π, i.e., the mean that would be estimated if a complete census of 

the target population was conducted and everyone responded. This bias can be expressed as 

follows: 

B( ) y

–R = y–R – π

The estimated mean based on nonrespondents, NR y , can be computed if data for the 

particular variable are available for most of the nonrespondents from another source (e.g., 

institution information from IPEDS). The true target parameter, π, can be estimated for these 

variables as follows: 

ˆ ( ) 1 R NR π ηη =− + y y

where η is the weighted unit (or item) nonresponse rate. For the variables that are from the 

frame, rather than from the sample, π can be estimated without sampling error. The bias can then 

be estimated as follows: 

( ) ˆ ˆ By y R R = −π

or equivalently: 

( ) ( ) ˆ

By y y R RN = − η R . 

This formula shows that the estimate of the nonresponse bias is the difference between the 

mean for respondents and nonrespondents multiplied by the weighted nonresponse rate. The 

following summarizes institution-level, student-level, and item-level bias analyses (more 

information can be found in Cominole et al., 2006). 

Institution-Level Bias Analysis 

Of the 1,630 eligible sample institutions, 1,360 were respondents (83.5 unweighted percent 

and 80.0 weighted percent). The institution weighted response rate is also below 85 percent for 

six of the nine types of institutions. The weighted response rates by type of institution range from 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

B-8 

70.3 percent for public 4-year nondoctorate institutions to 92.6 percent for not-for-profit lessthan-4-year institutions (see Cominole et al. 2006 for more information). 

A nonresponse bias analysis was conducted for all institutions and for the six types of 

institutions with a weighted response rate below 85 percent (U.S. Department of Education 

2003). The nonresponse bias was estimated for variables known (i.e., non-missing) for most 

respondents and nonrespondents, using extensive data available for all institutions from IPEDS. 

The institution weighting adjustments eliminated some, but not all, bias. For all institutions, 

public less-than-2-year institutions, and public 2-year institutions, 5.6 percent, 6.3 percent, and 

6.8 percent, respectively, of the variable categories before weighting adjustments were 

significantly biased. After weighting adjustments, no significant bias remained for the variables 

analyzed. For the other types of institutions, the percentage of variable categories with significant 

bias decreased after weight adjustments. Significant bias was reduced for the variables known for 

most respondents and nonrespondents, which are considered to be some of the more analytically 

important variables and are correlated with many of the other variables. These variables include 

region, institution total enrollment, CPS match, Federal Pell Grant recipient, Stafford loan 

recipient, Federal Pell Grant amount and Stafford loan amount. 

Student-Level Bias Analysis 

Of the 101,000 eligible sample students, the unweighted response rate was 89.8 percent, 

and the weighted response rate was 91.0 percent. The student weighted response rate is above 85 

percent for all types of institutions with the exception of public 2-year institutions. The weighted 

response rates by type of institution range from 83.9 percent for public 2-year institutions to 96.9 

percent for not-for-profit 4-year nondoctoral institutions (see Cominole et al. 2006 for more 

information). 

A nonresponse bias analysis was conducted only for students from public 2-year 

institutions, for variables known for most respondents and nonrespondents. These variables are 

included on the DAS: region; institution total enrollment; CPS match (yes/no); Federal Pell 

Grant recipient (yes/no); Stafford loan recipient (yes/no); Federal Pell Grant amount; Stafford 

loan amount; percent part-time fall enrollment; and in-state tuition. These institution-level data 

were available from IPEDS. 

The student weighting adjustments eliminated some, but not all, bias for students in public 

2-year institutions. Significant bias was reduced from 35.4 to 29.2 percent for the variables 

known for most respondents and nonrespondents, which are considered to be some of the more 

analytically important variables and are correlated with many of the other variables. However, 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-9 

significant bias still remains because there were small numbers of nonrespondents in public 2-

year institutions applying for and receiving federal aid. Although there was considerable 

reduction in bias due to weighting adjustments, nonresponse bias remains in nearly 30 percent of 

the variables after weighting adjustments. All significant bias was eliminated for the non-aid 

variables (i.e., region, institution total enrollment, percent part-time fall enrollment, and in-state 

tuition). Detailed results of the student nonresponse bias analysis for selected variables (including 

Pell grants, Stafford loans, and tuition) for public 2-year institutions in California, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Minnesota, and New York are available in appendix K of the NPSAS:2004 

methodology report (Cominole et al. 2006). Because this report focuses on 2-year institutions, the 

lower student response rate for public 2-year institutions and the remaining bias for students in 

these institutions should be kept in mind, especially when considering aid variables. 

Item-Level Bias Analysis 

When item response rates were less than 85 percent, a nonresponse bias analysis was 

conducted. Item response rates (RRI) are calculated as the ratio of the number of respondents for 

whom an in-scope response was obtained (Ix

 for item x) to the number of respondents who are 

asked to answer that item. The number asked to answer an item is the number of unit level 

respondents (I) minus the number of respondents with a valid skip item for item x (Vx

). When an 

abbreviated questionnaire is used to convert refusals, the eliminated questions are treated as item 

nonresponse” (U.S. Department of Education 2003). 

RRIx

 = Ix / (I – Vx) 

A student is defined to be an item respondent for an analytic variable if that student has 

data for that variable from any source, including logical imputation. A nonresponse bias analysis 

was conducted for variables with response rates below 85 percent. A set of variables known for 

both respondents and nonrespondents were used for the item-level bias analysis and tested 

(adjusting for multiple comparisons) to determine if the bias was significant at the 5 percent 

level. The NPSAS:04 Methodology Report provides a more detailed description of items with 

response rates below 85 percent (Cominole et al. 2006). In this report, several variables with 

response rates below 85 percent were used, including: dependent parent income (DEPINC), 

worked while enrolled (JOBENR), housing (LOCALRES), and attendance status (ATTNSTAT).

A byproduct of the imputation (described in the imputation section of this appendix) is the 

reduction or elimination of item-level nonresponse bias. Imputation reduces or eliminates 

nonresponse bias by replacing missing data with statistically plausible values. The effectiveness 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

B-10 

of imputation implemented to reduce item nonresponse bias is presented in the methodology 

report. All variables used in this report were fully imputed; therefore, there is no missing data. 

Standard Errors 

To facilitate computation of standard errors for both linear and nonlinear statistics, a vector 

of bootstrap sample weights has been added to the analysis file. These weights are zero for units 

not selected in a particular bootstrap sample; weights for other units are inflated for the bootstrap 

subsampling. The initial analytic weights for the complete sample are also included for the 

purposes of computing the desired estimates. The vector of replicate weights allows for 

computing additional estimates for the sole purpose of estimating a variance. Assuming B sets of 

replicate weights, the variance of any estimate,θ

ˆ, can be estimated by replicating the estimation 

procedure for each replicate and computing a simple variance of the replicate estimates; i.e., 

B

Var

B

b

b

2

1

)ˆˆ (

)ˆ (

θθ

θ

−

=

∑−

•

where • θ b

ˆ is the estimate based on the b-th replicate weight (where b = 1 to the number of 

replicates) and B is the total number of sets of replicate weights. Once the replicate weights are 

provided, this estimate can be produced by most survey software packages (e.g., SUDAAN [RTI 

International 2004]). 

The replicate weights were produced using a methodology and computer software 

developed by Kaufman (2004). This methodology allows for finite population correction factors 

at two stages of sampling. The NPSAS application of the method incorporated the finite 

population correction factor at the first stage only where sampling fractions were generally high. 

At the second stage, where the sampling fraction was generally low, the finite population 

correction factor was set to 1.00. 

Cautions for Analysts 

Multiple institutions. Students who attended more than one institution during the 2003–04 

academic year (about 7 percent of undergraduates students) are coded in a separate category 

(“more than one institution”) for institution type, institution control, and attendance pattern. 

Although included in the “totals” in this report, due to confounding tuition and fees and 

attendance patterns, students who attended multiple institutions were excluded in the estimates 

by institution type, tuition and fees categories, and attendance pattern in this report. 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-11 

Sources of error. The estimates in this report are subject to sampling and nonsampling 

errors. Nonsampling errors are due to a number of sources, including but not limited to, 

nonresponse, coding and data entry errors, misspecification of composite variables, and 

inaccurate imputations. In a study like NPSAS there are multiple sources of data for some 

variables (CPS, CADE, Student Interview, etc.) and reporting differences can occur in each. Data 

swapping and other forms of perturbation, implemented in order to protect respondent 

confidentiality, can lead to inconsistencies as well. 

Sampling errors exist in all sample-based datasets, including NPSAS. Estimates calculated 

from a sample will differ from estimates calculated from other samples even if all the samples 

used the same sample design and methods. For similar reasons, estimates of average aid amounts 

based on the NPSAS sample will probably differ from specific program amounts reported by the 

department’s program offices. 

The standard error (described earlier) is a measure of the precision of the estimate. In this 

tabulation, each estimate’s standard error was calculated using bootstrap replication procedures 

and can be produced using the NPSAS:04 Data Analysis System (DAS) software. Standard errors 

for table 6 are presented in table B2. All differences reported in the selected findings were 

significant at the .05 level. 

NCES recommends that readers not try to produce their own estimates such as the 

percentage of all students receiving aid or the numbers of undergraduates enrolled in the fall who 

received any aid, federal aid, state aid, etc., by combining estimates in this tabulation with the 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) fall 2003 enrollment numbers. The 

IPEDS enrollment data include some students not eligible for NPSAS (e.g., those enrolled in 

U.S. Service Academies, or those taking college courses while enrolled in high school). 

Additional information on the NPSAS:04 sample is presented in the sample design section of this 

appendix and will also be described in the forthcoming methodology report. 

Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study 

The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) is based on a sample of 

students who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time in a specific academic year. 

Two BPS surveys have been conducted thus far, one that followed students who first began their 

postsecondary education in 1989–90 (BPS:90/94) and a second followed students who began in 

1995–96 (BPS:96/98/01). Unlike other NCES longitudinal surveys that follow age-specific 

cohorts of secondary school students, the BPS sample includes nontraditional students who have 

delayed their postsecondary education due to financial need or family responsibilities, or other 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

B-12 

Table B2.—Standard errors for table 8: Distribution of students attending 2-year institutions, by 

Table B2.—demographic and enrollment characteristics: 2003–04

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Student characteristics public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

Gender

Men 5.50 0.91 0.65 4.00 5.21 6.18 14.00

Women 5.50 0.91 0.65 4.00 5.21 6.18 14.00

Age as of 12/31/03

Less than 20 years old 7.00 1.15 0.57 2.22 5.66 2.44 7.70

20–29 5.39 1.19 0.70 4.75 3.83 1.79 5.34

30–39 2.31 0.77 0.48 5.51 4.07 2.29 4.44

40–49 1.97 0.62 0.43 3.98 2.47 1.34 2.89

50 or older 1.45 0.54 0.29 0.54 1.05 0.71 0.49

Race/ethnicity

White 6.08 3.02 1.64 6.52 7.23 4.14 14.27

Black 4.70 2.58 0.96 5.92 4.64 5.58 9.52

Hispanic 2.10 1.27 1.33 1.11 5.18 5.07 6.58

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.61 0.28 0.69 1.47 3.63 1.00 1.67

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.59 0.16 0.18 † 6.03 0.28 0.78

Dependency status

Dependent 7.06 1.53 0.88 5.85 6.97 3.26 9.21

Independent without dependents 2.82 0.88 0.59 4.84 2.89 2.83 4.1

Independent with dependents 4.78 1.04 0.73 3.34 6.18 4.71 9.6

Dependent income (family)

Less than $25,000 5.98 1.39 0.78 10.52 3.66 4.71 10.49

$25,000–$49,999 2.57 1.23 0.90 10.23 5.36 3.42 2.35

$50,000–$79,999 2.50 1.06 0.82 5.17 5.08 1.91 2.61

$80,000 or more 7.70 1.62 1.21 10.03 5.70 2.49 9.50

Independent income

Less than $15,000 2.63 1.33 0.89 5.33 4.87 2.30 8.67

$15,000–$29,999 3.18 0.91 0.59 6.66 3.66 2.93 6.49

$30,000–$49,999 2.00 0.74 0.68 5.67 2.85 1.81 2.57

$50,000 or more 3.95 1.62 0.93 6.75 3.65 1.39 2.72

Attendance intensity (all schools)

Exclusively full-time 7.72 1.88 1.05 13.69 5.16 4.02 4.36

Exclusively part-time 5.85 1.70 1.04 9.19 5.34 4.15 4.21

Mixed full-time and part-time 2.35 0.91 0.76 6.18 2.47 1.67 4.12

See notes at end of table.
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-13 

reasons. Students who began their postsecondary studies before the base year of the study, or 

who stopped out, and then returned to their studies in the base year were not included, nor were 

students who were still enrolled in high school. 

BPS:96/98/01 is based on a sample of students who were enrolled in postsecondary 

education for the first time in 1995–96 and participated in the 1995–96 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96). This BPS study began with a sample of approximately 12,000 

students who were identified in NPSAS:96 as having entered postsecondary education for the 

first time in 1995–96. 

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. This response rate includes those who were nonrespondents in 1996; among 

the NPSAS:96 respondents the response rate was 85.9 percent (Wine et al. 2000). The second 

follow-up of the BPS cohort (BPS:96/98/01) was conducted in 2001, 6 years following college 

entry. All respondents to the first follow-up, as well as a subsample of nonrespondents in 1998, 

were eligible to be interviewed. Over 9,100 students were located and interviewed. The weighted 

response rate was 83.6 percent overall, but was somewhat higher among respondents to both the 

1996 and the 1998 interviews (87.4 percent). The weight used for the analysis of data from the 

BPS:96/98/01 was WTD00, which includes students who responded to both the first and last 

follow-up surveys (Wine et al. 2002). 

Table B2.—Standard errors for table 8: Distribution of students attending 2-year institutions, by 

Table B2.—demographic and enrollment characteristics: 2003–04—Continued

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Student characteristics public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

Housing

On campus 2.13 0.56 0.18 1.89 5.75 1.69 3.85

Off campus 6.04 1.62 0.93 5.03 6.38 3.4 5.18

Living with parents 6.68 1.55 0.94 3.91 4.43 3.05 3.78

Work intensity while enrolled (excludes work-study/assistantship)

No job 3.20 0.60 0.46 3.51 4.18 1.55 8.18

Part-time 3.85 1.25 0.63 5.23 3.03 1.65 5.40

Full-time 2.41 1.08 0.63 6.29 4.82 1.90 5.62

† Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey 

(NPSAS:2004).
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

B-14 

The BPS survey data underwent several data quality evaluations, which included both 

online data editing procedures and post-data collection editing. For more information, see Wine 

et al. (2002). 

Bias Analysis 

Nonresponse among cohort members causes bias in survey estimates when the outcomes of 

respondents and nonrespondents are shown to be different. A bias analysis was conducted on the 

2001 BPS:96/01 survey results to determine if any variables were significantly biased due to 

nonresponse. Considerable information was known from the 1996 and 1998 surveys for 

nonrespondents to the 2001 interviews, and nonresponse bias could be estimated using variables 

with this known information. Weight adjustments were applied to the BPS:96/01 sample to 

reduce any bias found due to unit nonresponse. After the weight adjustments, some variables 

were found to reflect zero bias, and for the remaining variables the bias did not differ 

significantly from zero. This analysis was performed on variables found on the frame where the 

true value is known for both respondents and nonrespondents. For other variables collected in the 

survey, where data is available only for respondents, it is not known whether the weight 

adjustments completely eliminate bias. 

Item Response Bias 

All the variables used in this report and defined in appendix A had item response rates 

above 85 percent. Therefore, a bias analysis for individual survey items was not necessary.

Data Analysis System

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the Data Analysis Systems 

(DAS) the IPEDS:2003 surveys as well as for the NPSAS:2004 undergraduate survey and the 

BPS:96/98/01 longitudinal study. The DAS software makes it possible for users to specify and 

generate their own tables. With the DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables presented 

in this report. 

For IPEDS:2003 data, the DAS provides the information for those institutions who 

responded as well as the number of respondents by institutional sector. For NPSAS:2004 and 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-15 

BPS:96/98/01 estimates, the DAS calculates proper standard errors6 and weighted sample sizes in 

addition to the table estimates. For example, table B2 contains standard errors that correspond to 

estimates in table 6 in the report. The DAS prints the message “low n” instead of the estimate 

when the number of valid cases is too small to produce a reliable estimate (fewer than 30 cases). 

All standard errors for estimates presented in this report can be viewed at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/tables_listings/200xxx.asp. 

Each DAS can be accessed electronically at http://nces.ed.gov/DAS. For more information 

about the Data Analysis System or the data in this report, contact: 

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 

Universe estimates 

For the IPEDS portion of the study, the statistics are estimates derived from a population. 

In using a census of an entire population there is not a risk of sampling error, but there is still the 

possibility of nonsampling error. Nonsampling error can be attributed to a number of sources: 

inability to obtain complete information about all institutions in the sample (some institutions did 

not participate, or 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, and imputing 

missing data. 

To take into account nonsampling error and its potential effect on descriptions of 

differences within the population, it is helpful to set criteria for the “meaningful size” of such 

differences. All of the differences in this section have been found to be meaningful based upon 

the following criteria: 

 

6 The NPSAS 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 the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor 

series method. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

B-16 

• For percentage distributions, 5 percentage point difference. 

• For differences between the seven classification categories, a 5 percentage point 

difference or a $200 difference. 

These thresholds were selected after examining the data in order to find a range that would 

capture differences of interest. The criteria are not definitive, however, and it is possible 

observed differences were valid but below the cutoff set for the criterion. 

Survey estimates and differences between means 

For the NPSAS and BPS sections of this analysis, the statistics are derived from samples of 

undergraduates. The estimates in this report are subject to sampling and nonsampling errors. As 

outlined above, nonsampling errors are due to a number of sources, including but not limited to, 

nonresponse, coding and data entry errors, misspecification of composite variables, and 

inaccurate imputations. Sampling errors occur because observations are made only on samples of 

students, not entire populations. Estimates calculated from a sample will differ from estimates 

calculated from other samples even if all the samples used the same sample design and methods. 

Moreover, in a study like NPSAS there are multiple sources of data for some variables (CPS, 

CADE, Student Interview, etc.) and reporting differences can occur in each. Data swapping and 

other forms of perturbation, implemented in order to protect respondent confidentiality, can lead 

to inconsistencies as well. To account for the possibility of these errors, all of the findings 

reported in these sections were tested for significance using a two-tailed t-test; reported 

differences were significant at the .05 level. The Bonferroni adjustment was used when analyzing 

differences among distributions where more than one possible comparison existed. 

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. 

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error,7 or significance 

level. The significance levels were 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. Student’s t values may be computed to 

test the difference between estimates with the following formula:

2

2

2

1

21

sese

EE

t

+

− =

 

7 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. 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-17 

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 =

E -E

se + se - 2(r)se se

1 2

1

2

2

2

1 2

where r is the correlation between the two estimates (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). 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:

t =

2

sub

2

tot

2

sub

sub tot

sese p2 se

EE

−+

−

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup (U.S. Department of 

Education, 1993). The estimates, standard errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the 

DAS. 

There are hazards in reporting 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 reporting statistical tests is the possibility that one can report a “false 

positive” or Type I error. In the case of a t statistic, this false positive would result when a 

difference measured with a particular sample showed a statistically significant difference when 

there is no difference in the underlying population. Statistical tests are designed to control this 

type of error, denoted by alpha. The alpha level of .05 selected for findings in this report 

indicates that a difference of a certain magnitude or larger would be produced no more than one 

time out of twenty when there was no actual difference in the quantities in the underlying 

population. When we test hypotheses that show t values at the .05 level or smaller, we treat this 

finding as rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two quantities. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

B-18 

Analysis Universe and Key Variables 

This report uses the classification system for 2-year institutions developed by Phipps, 

Shedd, and Merisotis (2001) that employed cluster analysis and a number of variables available 

on IPEDS to identify groups of similar 2-year institutions. 

Cluster Analysis Method 

“Cluster analysis” is the generic name for a variety of procedures that can be used to create 

a classification. These multivariate statistical procedures attempt to mathematically form 

“clusters” or groups of relatively homogenous entities based on measures of similarity and/or 

difference with respect to specific variables. Though many methods exist, hierarchical and Kmeans (iterative) cluster analysis are the most widely used. The hierarchical clustering method, 

however, is not as appropriate for a large number of cases, as the results become unwieldy. In 

Phipps, Shedd, and Merisotis (2001), because of the large number of cases, K-means was the 

method used.8 

The K-means procedure begins by creating an aggregate mean—combining all variables 

included in the analysis—for each case (i.e., for each institution) and then temporary estimates of 

the cluster means.9 Initial clusters are then formed by assigning each case to the cluster with the 

mean/center closest to its own, and then the cluster center is recalculated. An iterative process is 

used to find the final cluster centers, and at each step cases are grouped into the cluster with the 

closest center, and the cluster centers are recalculated. This process continues until no further 

changes are made in the centers or until a maximum number of iterations is reached. 

K-means cluster analysis requires the specification of the number of clusters to be formed. 

Often the “natural” or optimal number of clusters is not known; therefore methods have been 

developed to help determine this number. The most common procedure is to run a subset of cases 

in hierarchical cluster analysis and look for “jumps” in the fusion coefficient—the numerical 

value at which various cases merge to form a cluster. A “jump” in the fusion coefficient suggests 

that two relatively dissimilar clusters have been merged; thus, the number of clusters prior to the 

merger is the most probable solution. Another appropriate strategy is to try several different 

analyses (for example, requesting three, four, and five clusters) in a search for the most 

appropriate solution. Either way a judgment about the number of clusters must be made; 

unfortunately, there is no single test that reveals the exact number of clusters that should be 

 

8 For more detail about the procedures used in Phipps, Shedd, and Merisotis (2001), see the original report. 

9 The values of the first k cases in the data file are used as temporary estimates of the k cluster means, where k is the number of 

clusters that are to be formed. The number of clusters to be formed is specified by the user. SPSS Inc., SPSS Base 10.0 

Applications Guide, SPSS Inc.: 1999. 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-19 

generated (Aldenderfer and Blashfield 1984). Phipps, Shedd, and Merisotis (2001) used both 

methods to help guide the K-means cluster analysis. Hierarchical analysis was used to find an 

appropriate range for the number of clusters, and those cluster numbers within the range were all 

tried in the analysis to determine which was the most appropriate. 

A K-means analysis produces the distance each case is from its cluster center as well as an 

ANOVA table. The size of the “F” statistic—the ratio of the between-cluster mean square and 

the within-cluster mean square—is used for identifying variables that drive the clustering and 

those that differ little across clusters. In cluster analysis, the “F” statistic is not used to test 

significant differences between groups, but rather provides information about each variable’s 

contribution to the separation of the groups; once the driving variables have been identified, they 

can be used to create meaningful categories. 

The choice of variables to be included in the cluster analysis is one of the most critical steps 

in the process. Because the analysis uses an aggregate mean, each variable that is included in the 

analysis affects the clustering results—this is one of the reasons why the choice of variables is 

crucial. Ideally, variables should be chosen within the context of a theory used to support the 

classification and serve as the basis for the choice of variables to be used. Phipps, Shedd, and 

Merisotis (2001) used a combination of a review of the literature, a focus group of experts, and 

preliminary analysis of descriptive statistics in order to choose appropriate variables. After 

cluster analysis was performed, a post-analysis of the “driver” variables—those with the highest 

“F” statistics—was conducted. From the post-analysis, the “best” variable(s) was determined and 

then used to separate the institutions into the different categories of the classification system. 

Consistent with standard cluster analysis procedure, once the variable(s) for classification were 

identified, the entire cluster analysis process was then conducted within the subgroups formed.10 

The results of the cluster analysis by Phipps, Shedd, and Merisotis (2001) revealed that the 

variables for institutional control (public, not-for-profit, and for-profit), enrollment size, and 

percentage of awards in specific degree or certificate programs created seven distinguishable 

categories by which to classify 2-year institutions These categories are defined below 

(parentheses contain the category titles used in the original study, which have been modified for 

this report): 

• Small publics (formerly called community development and career institutions) are 

those with an unduplicated headcount of less than 2,000 students. These institutions 

tend to confer awards and degrees primarily in job and career skills development and 

to focus on overall workforce development for the communities that they serve. 

 

10 Please see the original report for more details. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

B-20 

• Medium-sized public (formerly called community connector institutions) are those 

with an unduplicated headcount of 2,000–9,999 students. These institutions tend to 

confer awards and degrees that target job and career skills development, and to offer 

academic programs with some component of general education that can facilitate 

transfer to 4-year institutions. 

• Large publics (formerly called community mega-connectors) are those with 

unduplicated headcount of at least 10,000 students. These institutions tend to be in 

urban locations, to confer awards and degrees that target job and career skills 

development, and to offer academic programs with some component of general 

education that can facilitate transfer to 4-year institutions. 

• Allied health not-for-profit institutions are not-for-profit institutions that grant almost 

all of their awards in allied health programs. These institutions tend to be small in 

enrollment and to have an exclusive focus on allied health training. 

• Other not-for-profit institutions (formerly called connector institutions) are those that 

tend to confer awards and degrees targeting job and career skills development, but may 

grant a smaller proportion of their awards in allied health programs. These institutions 

tend to offer academic programs with some component of general education that can 

facilitate transfer to 4-year institutions. 

• For-profit degree-granting institutions (formerly called certificate institutions) are 

those that offer an associate’s degree program―although many also offer 

certificates―that target job and career skills development. Many of these institutions 

offer academic programs with some component of general education that can facilitate 

transfer to 4-year institutions. 

• Other for-profit institutions (formerly called career connector institutions) are those 

that grant all of their awards as certificates. These institutions provide specialized 

training, usually in a single job category or area. 

For this report, institutions were classified into the categories outlined above using the 

IPEDS Institutional Characteristics, Completions, and Enrollment Surveys for the 2002–03 

survey year. 

Analysis universe 

The IPEDS analysis universe generated for this analysis included 1,948 2-year institutions 

among the 2,271 2-year institutions in the IPEDS 2003 collection year. The following criteria 

were used to select comparable institutions for analysis: 

• Institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia eligible to receive Title IV 

funding. 

• Postsecondary institutions within the 2-year sector that offered programs of at least 2 

but less than 4 years’ duration. 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-21 

• Institutions that awarded at least five associate’s degrees or 2-year certificates in the 

study year; less than 2-year schools were excluded. 

• Schools that reported the data necessary to classify them (such as enrollment or 

completions data). 

In 2002–03, IPEDS contained 2,271 2-year institutions. Of these, 277 did not meet the 

other universe criteria and 46 did not have the necessary information to classify them (table B3). 

The final universe of classifiable 2-year institutions consisted of 1,948 2-year schools (86 

percent) and represented approximately 99 percent of the total 12-month unduplicated headcount 

enrollment within the 2-year sector. 

Of the study universe, large public institutions enrolled the majority of 12-month 

unduplicated headcount students, 66 percent, followed by medium-sized public institutions at 28 

percent (table B4). Large public institutions also awarded the majority of associate’s degrees that 

were awarded by 2-year institutions in 2002–03. Together, large and medium-sized public 

institutions awarded the majority of less than 2-year certificates as well. However, degreegranting for-profits awarded 12 percent of less than 2-year certificates and 11 percent of 

associate’s degrees, and other for-profits awarded 41 percent of 2-year certificates. 

In order to examine differences between the final universe and the institutions that were 

excluded as a result of the selection and classification criteria, a bias analysis was performed for 

each institutional sector (tables B5 to B7). 

Percentage

2-year institutions Number of total

All 2-year institutions 2,271 100.0

Institutions not eligible for Title IV funding 67 3.0

Institutions not located in the 50 States or DC 26 1.1

Institutions not active in 2003 3 0.1

Institutions granted fewer than five 2-year awards in 2002–03 181 8.0

Institutions with missing data 46 2.0

Total classifiable institutions 1,948 85.8

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Table B3.—Classification universe
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

B-22 

Allied 

Medium- health Other Degree

Small sized Large not- not- granting Other

Institutional characteristics public public public for-profit for-profit for-profit for-profit

12-month unduplicated enrollment

Number of students 214,489 2,883,015 6,926,233 14,516 69,623 317,820 51,483

Percentage of the total 2.0% 27.5% 66.1% 0.1% 0.7% 3.0% 0.5%

Less than 2-year certificates

Number 24,608 121,024 133,223 689 9,747 38,968 11,323

Percentage of total 7.2% 35.6% 39.2% 0.2% 2.9% 11.5% 3.3%

2-year certificates

Number 2,162 4,751 3,188 2,488 1,920 382 10,435

Percentage of total 8.5% 18.8% 12.6% 9.8% 7.6% 1.5% 41.2%

Associate’s degrees

Number 12,656 163,554 275,263 1,117 10,962 55,153 0

Percentage of total 2.4% 31.5% 53.1% 0.2% 2.1% 10.6% 0.0%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

Table B4.—by type of 2-year institution: 2002–03 

Table B4.—Number and distribution of 12-month enrollment and degree completions in the study universe, 

Final Excluded 

Public 2-year institutions universe N institutions N

Average percentage of entering class that are first-time, full-time 

degree/certificate seeking students, Fall 2003 40.5 1,106 57.2 55

Average 12-month unduplicated headcount (undergraduate), 2002–03 9,039 1,110 1,019 56

Average in-state tuition for full-time undergraduate students, 2003–04 $1,998 1,063 $1,881 52

Average percentage of students receiving federal grant aid, 2002–03 42.5 1,095 63.6 50

Average percentage of instructional staff that are full-time, 2002–03 41.4 1,100 68.6 56

Average salary of full-time instructional faculty, equated 9-month contract1

$47,889 1,049 $29,868 25 1

 This survey component or variable is collected for degree-granting institutions only. 

NOTE: Excluded institutions did not meet the criteria for the study universe: eligible for Title IV funding; located in the 50 states or 

DC; active in 2003; granted at least five 2-year awards in 2002–03; and having the data necessary to classify them. This analysis

was conducted through the online Data Analysis Sytem, which does not recode or impute for missing data. Therefore, the number

of institutions presented differs for variables measured, depending on how many institutions were missing data for that variable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

Table B5.—Final universe of public 2-year institutions compared to excluded public 2-year institutions: 

Table B5.—2002–03
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

B-23 

For example, excluded public 2-year institutions reported average tuition charges of $1,881 

while included institutions reported charges of $1,998. However, excluded institutions appeared 

smaller than included institutions in terms of average enrollment (1,019 and 9,039, respectively). 

In addition, excluded public 2-year institutions had higher average proportions of first-time 

Final Excluded 

Not-for-profit 2-year institutions universe N institutions N

Average percentage of entering class that are first-time, full-time 

degree/certificate seeking students, Fall 2003 60.2 196 74.2 23

Average 12-month unduplicated headcount (undergraduate), 2002–03 395 213 297 26

Average in-state tuition for full-time undergraduate students, 2003–04 $7,291 186 $5,096 34

Average percentage of students receiving federal grant aid, 2002–03 46.5 183 67.8 9

Average percentage of instructional staff that are full-time, 2002–03 65.6 203 † 26

Average salary of full-time instructional faculty, equated 9-month contract1

$35,951 105 $21,077 9

† Not applicable.

1

 This survey component or variable is collected for degree-granting institutions only. 

NOTE: Excluded institutions did not meet the criteria for the study universe: eligible for Title IV funding; located in the 50 states or 

DC; active in 2003; granted at least five 2-year awards in 2002–03; and having the data necessary to classify them. This analysis

was conducted through the online Data Analysis Sytem, which does not recode or impute for missing data. Therefore, the number

of institutions presented differs for variables measured, depending on how many institutions were missing data for that variable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

Table B6.—Final universe of not-for-profit 2-year institutions compared to excluded not-for-profit 2-year 

Table B5.—institutions: 2002–03

Final Excluded 

For-profit 2-year institutions universe N institutions N

Average percentage of entering class that are first-time, full-time 

degree/certificate seeking students, Fall 2003 77.0 612 74.9 153

Average 12-month unduplicated headcount (undergraduate), 2002–03 593 622 342 155

Average in-state tuition for full-time undergraduate students, 2003–04 $10,640 335 $9,152 79

Average percentage of students receiving federal grant aid, 2002–03 62.9 608 65.7 142

Average percentage of instructional staff that are full-time, 2002–03 59.5 593 63.3 149

Average salary of full-time instructional faculty, equated 9-month contract1 $29,269 365 $25,440 62 1

 This survey component or variable is collected for degree-granting institutions only.

NOTE: Excluded institutions did not meet the criteria for the study universe: eligible for Title IV funding; located in the 50 states or 

DC; active in 2003; granted at least five 2-year awards in 2002–03; and having the data necessary to classify them. This analysis

was conducted through the online Data Analysis Sytem, which does not recode or impute for missing data. Therefore, the number

of institutions presented differs for variables measured, depending on how many institutions were missing data for that variable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS:2003).

Table B7.—Final universe of for-profit 2-year institutions compared to excluded for-profit 2-year 

Table B5.—institutions: 2002–03
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

B-24 

beginning students, students receiving federal grants, and full-time instruction staff. Finally, 

average faculty salaries appeared lower. 

Included and excluded not-for-profit 2-year institutions enrolled an average of 395 and 297 

students, respectively. Excluded institutions reported lower tuition charges ($5,096) than not-forprofit institutions that were included in the final universe ($7,291). In addition, excluded not-forprofit institutions had higher average proportions of first-time beginning students and students 

receiving federal grant aid. Average faculty salaries were higher for not-for-profit institutions that 

were included in the final universe. 

Excluded for-profit 2-year institutions did not differ substantially from the for-profit 

institutions included in the final universe. For example, on average, excluded for-profits reported 

that 75 percent of the entering class were first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking students, 

while included for-profit institutions reported on average that 77 percent of the entering class 

were first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking students. The average percentage of students 

receiving grant aid, and average percentage of instructional faculty that was full-time did not 

differ. However, average tuition charges were higher at included institutions ($10,640) then at 

excluded institutions ($9,152). Moreover, included for-profits had more students enrolled (593 

students compared to 392) than excluded institutions. 

Schools with high proportions of low-income students 

Schools with high proportions of low-income students were identified as those at which 50 

percent or more of the first-time full-time degree/certificate-seeking students received federal 

Pell grants. A recent NCES report used federal Pell grant data to identify low-income serving 

institutions at which more than one-third of the total student body receives a federal Pell grant. 

The definition used here differs as those data are not available publicly, although the basic 

premise remains the same (Horn 2006).