ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Measuring Up 2006: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Rhode Island
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2006-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Postsecondary Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change,College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Time to Degree,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Comparative Education,Foreign Countries

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2006&quot; is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Rhode Island include: (1) Despite improvement, Rhode Island's performance in preparing students to succeed in college remains low when compared with other states. This year Rhode Island receives a C+ in preparation; (2) Rhode Island has consistently excelled in enrolling students in higher education. This year Rhode Island receives an A in participation; (3) Rhode Island has lost ground in providing affordable higher education. Rhode Island, along with many other states this year, receives an F in affordability; (4) Rhode Island has improved on its already excellent performance in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Rhode Island receives an A in completion; (5) Rhode Island is one of only two states to see a decline in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Rhode Island earns a B in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Rhode Island receives an &quot;Incomplete&quot; in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For &quot;Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED493360.]
Predicting 6-Year Graduation and High-Achieving and At-Risk Students
Author: Rogulkin, Dmitri
Date: 2011-05-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Grade Point Average,Graduation Rate,Academic Persistence,At Risk Students,College Students,Dropouts,Academic Achievement,Predictor Variables,Predictive Measurement,Student Characteristics,Time to Degree,Academic Support Services,College Preparation,Minority Group Students,Dropout Rate

The second year of college can be as important as the first year but far fewer studies have been conducted on second-year students. About 12% of students leave California State University - Fresno during or after their second year. In this report, we examined second year students to find the differences between those who graduate and those who leave. A decision tree data mining model was used to identify factors that predict students' graduation. A clustering model was used to classify 5 groups of students by multiple characteristics including their graduation rate (which ranges from 99% for one group to 14% for another). The findings showed that staying on track, which was defined as reaching sophomore level no later than the end of the third semester, and cumulative GPA after the first year were the most influential factors in predicting six-year graduation. Potential interventions that may benefit certain groups were suggested. (Contains 5 notes, 3 tables, and 1 figure.)
Fresno State Students Enrolled in Multiple Higher Education Institutions
Author: Rogulkin, Dmitri
Date: 2009-08-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Graduation Rate,College Students,Academic Persistence,College Transfer Students,Dual Enrollment,Transfer Rates (College),Cohort Analysis,Longitudinal Studies,Remedial Instruction,Time to Degree,Dropout Rate,Grade Point Average,Correlation

According to the national studies (Bahr, 2009; Peter, 2006; McCormick, 2003) the proportion of college students attending multiple institutions during their undergraduate career is growing. In this report, we examined the extent of concurrent and back-and-forth enrollment, characteristics of students who attended multiple institutions, the type of colleges where they enrolled, and whether &quot;swirling&quot; and &quot;double-dipping&quot; had any impact on the retention and graduation of those students at California State University - Fresno. Data included first-time, full-time freshman cohorts from fall 2002 to fall 2007. Enrollment in other higher education institutions was tracked using the National Student Clearinghouse. The findings of the study showed that students who attend multiple institutions are more likely to need English and/or Math remediation and they have lower average GPAs at graduation. Those students are also more likely to drop-out of Fresno State, as well as to take more time to graduate. (Contains 3 tables.)
Too &quot;Fresh&quot; or Too Smart? Freshmen Taking on Upper-Division Courses. IRAP Brief
Author: Rogulkin, Dmitri
Date: 2009-04-30
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: College Students,Grades (Scholastic),Academic Achievement,Course Selection (Students),Advanced Courses,Academic Persistence,Comparative Analysis,Time to Degree,Graduation Rate,College Freshmen,College Preparation,Predictor Variables

When students take courses out of sequence, it can have a detrimental effect on both teaching and learning. At California State University-Fresno, we see a considerable number of freshmen taking upper division classes and an even larger number of upper-division students taking lower level classes. The purpose of this study was to examine academic preparation and performance of freshmen taking upper-division classes and the effect of inverted course-taking on students' retention and graduation.  Grades earned by freshmen in upper-division courses were compared to grades of other students in the same classes. Results show that those freshmen who take and pass upper-division courses during their first year complete their degree in four years at higher rates. Those first-time freshmen who are failing the upper-division courses tend to be less prepared for college and are likely to be retained and graduate at considerably lower rates. First-year freshmen also tend to earn lower grades in those courses compared to upper-division students. (Contains 3 tables.)
Measuring Up 2006: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Arizona
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2006-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change,College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Postsecondary Education,Time to Degree,Comparative Education,Foreign Countries

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2006&quot; is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Arizona include: (1) Despite improvement, Arizona continues to struggle in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Arizona receives a D in preparation; (2) Although the proportion of students enrolling in higher education has declined, Arizona's performance remains high when compared with other states. Arizona earns a B+ in participation this year; (3) Arizona has lost considerable ground in making higher education affordable. This year Arizona receives an F in affordability; (4) Arizona has made substantial gains in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. Arizona receives a B in completion this year; (5) Arizona has realized a substantial increase in the benefits it receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Arizona earns a B+ in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Arizona receives an &quot;Incomplete&quot; in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For &quot;Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED493360.]
Measuring Up 2006: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Kentucky
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2006-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change,College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Postsecondary Education,Time to Degree,Comparative Education,Foreign Countries

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2006&quot; is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Kentucky include: (1) Despite substantial improvement, Kentucky continues to lag many other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Kentucky receives a C- in preparation;  (2) Kentucky has shown improvement in enrolling students in higher education. This year Kentucky receives a B- in participation; (3) Kentucky has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. This year Kentucky receives an F in affordability; (4) Kentucky has shown little improvement in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. Kentucky receives a C+ in completion this year; (5) Despite notable gains, Kentucky lags many other states in realizing the benefits that come from having a more highly educated population. Kentucky earns a C+ in benefits this year; and (6) Kentucky is among nine states that receive a &quot;Plus&quot; in Learning because data were sufficient to compare at least two of the three Learning categories in the state results described in this paper. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 2 figures.) [For &quot;Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED493360.]
Measuring Up 2006: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Missouri
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2006-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Time to Degree,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Comparative Education,Foreign Countries,Higher Education,Postsecondary Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2006&quot; is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Missouri include: (1) Missouri has made gains in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Missouri receives a C in preparation; (2) Missouri continues its consistently good performance in the number of students enrolling in higher education. Missouri continues that performance this year, earning a B in participation; (3) Missouri has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Missouri receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Missouri has shown substantial improvement in the proportion of students earning their certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Missouri receives a B+ in completion; (5) Missouri has made substantial gains in the benefits the state receives from having a highly educated population. This year Missouri earns an A in benefits; and (6) Missouri is among nine states that receive a &quot;Plus&quot; in Learning because data were sufficient to compare at least two of the three Learning categories in the state results described in this paper. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 1 figure.) [For &quot;Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED493360.]
Measuring Up 2006: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Minnesota
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2006-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Time to Degree,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Comparative Education,Foreign Countries,Higher Education,Postsecondary Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2006&quot; is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Minnesota include: (1) Minnesota has shown improvement in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Minnesota receives a B in preparation; (2) Minnesota continues to excel in enrolling students in higher education. This year Minnesota receives an A in participation; (3) Minnesota has made no notable progress in making higher education affordable. Minnesota earns a D in affordability this year; (4) Minnesota has shown substantial improvement in the proportion of students earning their certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Minnesota receives an A in completion; (5) Minnesota has made gains in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Minnesota earns a B+ in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Minnesota receives an &quot;Incomplete&quot; in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For &quot;Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED493360.]
Measuring Up 2006: The State Report Card on Higher Education. Maryland
Author: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Date: 2006-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: College Preparation,Enrollment,Access to Education,Paying for College,Student Costs,Academic Persistence,Time to Degree,Graduation Rate,Educational Attainment,Outcomes of Education,Education Work Relationship,Economic Impact,Academic Achievement,Achievement Rating,Educational Indicators,Educational Assessment,Comparative Education,Foreign Countries,Higher Education,Postsecondary Education,Comparative Analysis,Performance Factors,Educational Improvement,Educational Change

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. &quot;Measuring Up 2006&quot; is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Maryland include: (1) Maryland has shown improvement in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Maryland earns an A- in preparation; (2) Maryland continues its strong performance in enrolling students in higher education. This year Maryland earns an A in participation; (3) Maryland has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Maryland receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Maryland has seen a substantial improvement in the proportion of students who earn their certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Maryland receives a B in completion; (5) Maryland has realized substantial gains in the benefits received from having a more highly educated population. This year Maryland earns an A in benefits; and (6) Maryland is among nine states that receive a &quot;Plus&quot; in Learning because data were sufficient to compare at least two of the three Learning categories in the state results described in this paper. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 1 figure.) [For &quot;Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education,&quot; see ED493360.]