Minnesota Measures

Minnesota Measures 2007 Report on Higher Education Performance “In our knowledge-based economy, Minnesota relies heavily on our higher education institutions to respond to change and keep our state competitive. Every college in Minnesota must play an important role.”

– Governor Tim Pawlenty T A B L

Table of Contents E O F C O N T E N

Executive Summary 4 T S

Introduction 7 College Readiness and Preparation 8 About the Report and the Data 9

Goal One: Improve success of all students, particularly students from groups traditionally underrepresented in higher education. 10 College Participation 11 Retention 12 Degree Completion 13 Achievement Gap 19 Degree Attainment 21

Goal Two: Create a responsive system that produces graduates at all levels who meet the demands of the economy. 22 Degree Production 23 Degree Alignment 24

Goal Three: Increase student learning and improve skill levels of students so they can compete effectively in the global marketplace. 28 Learning Outcomes 29

Goal Four: Contribute to the development of a state economy that is competitive in the global market through research, workforce training and other appropriate means. 30 Research and Discovery 31

Goal Five: Provide access, affordability and choice to all students. 34 Access 35 Net Prices 37 Affordability 39

Next Steps 42

Appendix 44 A. Advisory Participants 45 B. The Process 46 C. Tuition Rates 47 D. Rankings 47 E. Definitions, Terms and Sources 49

Minnesota Measures - February 2007 3 Minnesota Measures A report on higher education performance

Executive Summary

In 2005, Governor Tim Pawlenty and effectiveness. While Minnesota excels the Minnesota Legislature charged the in some areas, more often it performs Minnesota Office of Higher Education at or near the national average on with developing an accountability system indicators important to the state’s to measure the higher education sector’s educational and economic vitality. effectiveness in meeting state goals. Minnesota’s leaders recognized that the The growing international competition knowledge, creativity and intellectual for intellectual capital cannot be ignored. capacity of the state’s people are the Throughout this report, Minnesota is most promising strategic advantage in compared most often with other states a global economy. because such comparisons are readily available. However the true challenge The purpose of this report is to provide to Minnesota’s economy and quality of information that will lead to educational life comes from rapidly developing nations improvement and inform policy discussions including China and India. Long admired relating to higher education. Policymakers, for its higher education excellence, the employers and educators were involved U.S. now finds its leadership position in a process to develop five state goals challenged by efficient, results-driven which serve as the organizing framework schools in countries that are educating for this report.1 more of their citizens to more advanced levels than the U.S.2 The American higher Minnesota cannot rest on past success. education system may no longer be the To compete effectively, the state must best in the world, making the development build on its educational strengths and of international benchmarks an imperative identify and address weaknesses head for global competitiveness.3 on. Among states, Minnesota ranks favorably on several key educational For Minnesota to lead consistently in measures such as high school graduation higher education, the first step is to rates and the percentage of the state’s lead on accountability. Minnesota citizens who possess college degrees. Measures 2007 is the first of a planned These select facts, however, in the series of annual reports. The focus of the absence of a more comprehensive set report will evolve in the future so it can of measures, paint an incomplete picture be an effective state policy tool and an of Minnesota’s higher education agenda for improved focus and quality.

4 Minnesota Office of Higher Education E X E C U T I V E S U M

Improve success of all students, particularly students from groups M A

GOAL ONE R traditionally underrepresented in higher education. Y

Goal one addresses the rates at which When compared nationally, The data suggest Minnesota is not students are pursuing, persisting Minnesota’s college participation as prepared as it should be for the toward and completing their college and graduation rates are favorable, demographic shift occurring in its degrees in Minnesota. The goal though there is considerable room population. As growth occurs almost presumes that the primary role of for improvement. exclusively among young people of colleges and universities, regardless color, the state’s failure to address of unique institutional missions, Most concerning is a consistent gap the achievement gap at all levels is enrolling students who fit the profile between the college participation and of education will constrain future of the institution and helping those degree-earning rates of black, Hispanic growth and opportunity. students learn, develop and move and American Indian students and through their chosen program to their Asian and white counterparts. completion.

Create a responsive system that produces graduates at all levels GOAL TWO who meet the demands of the economy.

An effective higher education sector public benefit to the state’s quality of provide specifics about the number is dynamic and produces graduates life and economy. This goal considers and proportion of degrees awarded with current and relevant skills, the alignment of degrees awarded in science, mathematics, engineering, knowledge and abilities who are with the needs of Minnesota. technology and health care fields. needed and valued in the Minnesota On these measures, Minnesota’s economy. Colleges and universities, On measures of degree production performance is mixed. whether public or private, offer both at all levels, Minnesota is about a private benefit to individuals and a average among states. The data also

Increase student learning and improve skill levels of students GOAL THREE so they can compete effectively in the global marketplace.

Higher education has not made comparisons can be made do not the same progress as K–12 in currently exist. Future indicators for implementing measures to assess this goal may be developed to assess student learning. While student Minnesota student learning based on learning is the essential purpose professional certifications, graduate of higher education, clear indicators program entrance assessments and by which state and international other measures.

Minnesota Measures - February 2007 5 Minnesota Measures A report on higher education performance

Contribute to the development of a state economy that is competitive in the GOAL FOUR global market through research, workforce training and other appropriate means.

Goal four recognizes the important As the state’s only land-grant institution, Providing responsive and customized role academic research and employee the University of Minnesota has a mission of workforce training to employers was also training play in determining the competitive academic research and contributes in ways identified as an objective for the state. position of the state in the global economy. that warrant separate measurements. The However, standard benchmarks are not While employers perform a substantial available studies suggest that the University yet available for comparing Minnesota’s amount of research and conduct of Minnesota must expand its research effectiveness on this indicator. workforce training for their employees, capacity and funding significantly to achieve so too do the state’s public institutions its aspiration to be considered among the of higher education. top research institutions in the world.

GOAL FIVE Provide access, affordability and choice to all students.

The cost of attending college continues students attending public and private comparable affordability measures to rise, requiring a greater financial institutions. Goal five presumes that all from state to state or other nations. commitment from students and their Minnesotans who stand to benefit from These indicators illustrate the growing families in order to pursue and complete higher education should be reasonably financial expectations placed on students a college degree. Minnesota supports able to access and afford it. and their families and offer educators the values of access, affordability and and policy-makers ways of looking at choice in higher education through The measures in this goal provide the real impact of tuition and fee development of a large public system information on student enrollment, increases on students. of colleges and universities and a need- net price, borrowing and financial based financial aid program that serves expectations. It is difficult to ascertain

The charge to the Minnesota Office of Higher Education was to provide useful information on the performance of the higher education sector. Minnesota Measures is a work in progress, with next steps identified on page 42 of this report. It is up to state and educational leaders to provide the vision, identify priorities and set targets needed to move Minnesota forward.

6 Minnesota Office of Higher Education E X E C U T I V E S U M M

Introduction A R

Minnesota is home to more than 150 inform policy decisions relating to Y -

public and private higher education higher education. The report will I N

institutions serving more than 350,000 be a dynamic tool updated annually T students enrolled in credit courses and widely available. It is not intended R O

each year. The state’s colleges and to be used by prospective students D universities offer students a broad in selecting a college. U C

range of options, from short-term T I certificate programs to baccalaureate The Office of Higher Education O degree programs to graduate and consulted with the National Center N professional programs. for Higher Education Management Systems in developing this The University of Minnesota, accountability system for Minnesota. the Minnesota State Colleges and NCHEMS applied its expertise and Universities System and many private experience with similar accountability institutions have strategic plans and efforts in other states to this project. metrics to gauge their progress toward Policymakers, students, employers management goals. This report reflects and educators were involved in a a first statewide effort to assess the process to develop state goals and performance, effectiveness and supporting indicators, which serve productivity of Minnesota’s diverse as the organizational framework higher education sector as a whole. for this report.5 A list of participants is contained in the appendix. The statewide purpose of higher education can sometimes be The report will evolve as new methods supplanted by individual institutional of assessment and comparison become interests, according to a Blue Ribbon available. Taken individually, each commission report by the National indicator provides a limited perspective. Conference of State Legislatures. A Taken together and assessed over better strategy involves all institutions a period of years, the indicators can working toward a common provide a meaningful measure of statewide agenda.4 Minnesota’s progress and position relative to other states and countries The purpose of this report is to in critical areas. provide information that will lead to educational improvement and The full Minnesota Measures 2007 report, and project updates are available online at www.ohe.state.mn.us.

Minnesota Measures - February 2007 7 Minnesota Measures A report on higher education performance

College Readiness and Preparation

One of the most reliable predictors of important knowledge and skills in Increasingly, collaborative efforts student participation and success in college high school compared with their Asian between the higher education sector is the academic preparation of students and white counterparts. and K–12 schools are improving the in high school. The effectiveness of the college-readiness levels of high school higher education sector depends, in part, • Thirty-six percent of public high school graduates. Examples include: on the preparation of new students who graduates entering Minnesota’s public enter the state’s colleges and universities colleges and universities required one • More than 7,000 high school juniors directly out of high school. Students or more developmental courses.7 and seniors enroll annually at no who complete more rigorous courses in Minnesota’s public community and charge in courses offered at core academic subjects in high school technical colleges, in particular, are Minnesota’s public and private tend to score consistently higher on geared to help students prepare for colleges and universities through standardized tests and college entrance college-level work with remedial a program called Post-Secondary assessments. These students are more likely courses. Colleges and universities with Enrollment Options. The program to participate and succeed in college. the least selective admissions processes offers students an opportunity to admit students who are generally less experience college-level work while The challenges facing the Minnesota K–12 prepared than students at more earning college credit. system are great, and Minnesota’s K–12 selective colleges and universities. outcomes are mixed.

• Minnesota students who took the ACT posted the highest average score in the country in 2005. However, only MMCA-CA-IIII MCA-IIMCA-II 29 percent of students who took the 10t10thhGGradradeeRReadingeading 2006 2006 test met national college readiness 1111thth Grade Grade Ma Mathth 2006 2006 benchmarks in all four subject areas: English, reading, math and science.6 100%100% 100%100% Significantly lower average ACT scores were posted for black, Hispanic and

American Indian students than for 3030 white and Asian students. 7070

4646 • The Minnesota Comprehensive 50%50% 5454 50%50% Assessments–Series II (MCA-IIs), are 5959 6262 tests that measure student progress 6767 4141 6767 toward Minnesota’s academic standards 3838 3333 3333 7676 and meet federal requirements. 2424 Reading and mathematics tests are 9090 9090 given to students in grades 3–8, 10 9696 1010 1010 4 4 and 11. The 2006 test results for tenth 0%0% 0%0% k c c k c c e n e n i i c k c i i c k c e n t e n t i i c f i i c f i t i a t a i f c i n f c i i and eleventh-graders indicate that n i a i a i i n a i n h a i h c l c r a a l r h a d a h d c l c r a l r d a d a a e p e B n p B n a W a W e p e B n I p B n I W s W d P s d I P I i s i d P s d P i i n / n n / n n / n n H / n H a a H a H a l a l n a a n a l n c l n c

Minnesota high school students lack s s i c a i c a I s I i i s a r i i a r I i I r i r s s e e s s e e A A A m A m m m A A A important knowledge and skills in A mathematics and reading. Test results indicate black, Hispanic and American MeetsMeets or or exceeds exceeds standards standards MeetsMeets or or exceeds exceeds standards standards Indian students were lacking in DoesDoes not not or or partially partially meets meets standards standards DoesDoes not not or or partially partially meets meets standards standards

SourcSource: Minnee: Minnesotsota Dea Deparpartmetment ontf EofducEducatioation; n; SourcSource: Minnee: Minnesotsota Dea Deparpartmetment ontf EofducEducatioation; n; AssAssessmenessment MtCA-MCA-II, 2006II, 2006 AssAssessmenessment MtCA-MCA-II, 2006II, 2006

8 Minnesota Office of Higher Education I N T R O D U C T I O N

• By working with an accredited learn about preparing, planning school graduation standards are college or university, more than and paying for college and changing. There is a renewed 100 Minnesota high schools offer explore their career interests. emphasis on core subjects and more their students college-level courses rigor for all students. Minnesota’s through concurrent enrollment. • Emerging collaborations at the future depends on a strong state level, through the P-16 Council education system, and the K–12 • Many colleges and universities and the Governor’s Education experience is the essential building have joined forces with local high Cabinet, hold potential for new block for a lifetime of learning. schools to provide early college partnerships and greater alignment. awareness services and programs to students from groups traditionally Challenges faced by the K–12 “Minnesota high school underrepresented in college. system have implications for higher Through such programs, students education. In Minnesota, the high students lack important knowledge and skills in mathematics and reading.”

About the Report and the Data

The Office of Higher Education these results probably fall within an Finally, some of the indicators are examined many approaches to acceptable margin of error of the based on sample data, which means identify relevant and fair indicators actual result. Further, since the goal the data reflect estimates and are in Minnesota Measures. Where was to look at the relative position subject to a margin of error. The available and appropriate, the data of Minnesota compared with other Office of Higher Education has were disaggregated to identify states, using the same computation evaluated these margins for the opportunities and concerns specific over a period of years for each state data reported and they are within to groups traditionally under- provided a reasonable basis for the acceptable range for estimates. represented in higher education. comparison. Traditional measures Margin of error is not reported for When possible, national and such as graduation rates are not indicators in this report. international comparisons were perfect, but they provide a common included. Some indicators were basis for comparison at both the selected primarily because they state and institutional level. offered a national or international Definitions, Terms and Sources comparison. Some of the chosen measures may listed in the report are described differ quantitatively from measures in Appendix E. The Office of Higher Education described in other reports (such as favored population data over Measuring Up 2000, produced by samples and estimates when the National Center for Public Policy such data were available. and Higher Education). To the extent information was available about In some cases, data from different alternative methodologies, the Office sources were used in a single indicator. of Higher Education compared While such computations don’t reflect various approaches and refined the situation with absolute accuracy, some of the methods.

Minnesota Measures - February 2007 9 Improve success of all students, particularly students from 1groups traditionally underrepresented in higher education. Success takes many forms and must be considered from multiple perspectives. Typical measures such as college participation, retention, graduation and degree attainment were included in this goal. Together, these and other indicators begin to paint a picture of how students thrive and persist in their college of choice. Where possible, the success of students of color was compared with white students. The impact of transfer was also addressed.

In general, and not surprisingly, students attending more highly selective institutions fared better on success measures than those with open admissions policies. Still, the overall results for this goal across multiple indicators were less than impressive for Minnesota. Further, the data highlight consistent gaps between the success of students of color and their white counterparts.

10 Minnesota Office of Higher Education GOAL ONE le lab not avai 47.6% 65.3% 41.3% 11 led in l information was Enro es Graduat 2000 2002 2004 2,000) did not pursue college in the 2,000) did not pursue verage since 2000. While this indicator verage since 2000. -state enrollment because the innesota: 2 Minnesota’s year following graduation. rate has been college participation than the national consistently higher a college-going reveals much about it does not behavior in Minnesota, do not graduate include students who who delay college from high school or and American enrollment. Black, Hispanic Indian graduates are participating in college at significantly lower rates at Minnesota institutions than their white and Asian counterparts. -of School gh clude out d in Minnesota institutions) le l ta Hi d (or Compare M Compare es enro uat wns above do not in f Minneso grad ol o reakdo -state enrollment. .7% h sch -of Percent o Percent sota hig uates

l Minne Grad

nesota (Al (an additional 17.6% enroll in other states) Black n nd the effectiveness of college awareness of college nd the effectiveness

ol Note: The racial and ethnic b This table includes out Minnesota MeasuresMinnesota - February 2007 Of the approximately 65,000 high school graduates in 2004, about one-thir High school graduation is a critical juncture High school graduation rate at which recent for young people. The immediately enter high school graduates of overall college can be an indication behavior college readiness, college-going a rates also reflectprograms. Participation the in effectiveness higher education sector’s new students from recruiting and serving and socio-economic a range of cultural backgrounds. College Participation College What 1A: Indicator of percentage high school Minnesota graduates enroll postsecondary in graduation? following year in the education o

rtunity

Sch ersities by Race/Ethnicity 2004

tion Oppo

High d Univ cent .6% 65.3% ndary Educa leges an l tes of Re ta Co Higher Education enrollment database for Mi Source: Post-Seco n Ra ce of ce .9% 64 atio Minneso icip ipation rate tic Minnesota Offi par ota .0% College Part ic 33 ment of Education and the nicity. nicity. Total Minnes Total Hispan by race or eth Source: Minnesota Depart Minnesota 63 f-state enrollment. out-o or c Islander 54

.6% Pacifi condary Enrollment Statistics f Asian or .8% 55.3% enrollment; National Postse .5% 56 .1% National Average 56 American Indian 34 .8% color 44 nts of 48.1% ude Total st Total D) 68 Best State (S White .9% cipation rate te parti In-sta -Best State (NY) 67 Second Retention Indicator 1B: What percentage of first-year, first-time, full-time students enrolled at Minnesota colleges were enrolled at the same institution the following year?

Retention is an indication of college Minnesota Detail: Compare Minnesota: 2004 readiness, student success and the 2004 Retention by Institution Retention Rates at Two-Year Colleges capacity of institutions to consistently Type at Four-Year Institutions recruit and enroll students who fit their Minnesota Rate 56.9% institutional profile. If a student returns State Universities 72.5% Top 10 New Economy States 62.6% for the second year of full-time study at a college, he or she has an excellent University of Minnesota 82.6% National Rate 59.2% chance of graduating four to six years Minnesota Private Colleges Best State (VT) 72.9% 84.4% later.8 The majority of students who (not-for-profi t) Second-Best State (WY) 70.4% withdraw from college do so between Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System the first and second year. There are costs Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System to both institutions and individuals when students leave. For institutions, failing Four-Year Institutions: to retain students results in lower tuition public and some private four-year Studies show that first-to-second revenue, potential loss of faculty and institutions have agreed to accept the year retention rates are considered increased recruitment costs. For students, Transfer Curriculum, in whole or in part, a reasonable predictor of a student’s attendance at multiple institutions may as fulfilling their general education likelihood of persisting to degree 10 have a negative effect on their ability requirements. While the Transfer completion. In Minnesota, 78 percent Curriculum has clarified and simplified to attain a degree within six years.9 of first-time, full-time students at four-year the transfer process for many students, colleges and universities returned to the it may also have a negative impact on Compare Minnesota: 2004 Retention same college for a second academic year, retention rates at two-year colleges Rates at Four-Year Institutions which is on par with the national rate. with strong transfer missions. Minnesota’s private, not-for-profit four-year Minnesota 78.3% institutions ranked sixth among groups Still, retention rates are widely accepted Top 10 New Economy States 83.2% of similar institutions for all states. In 60 as one measure of student persistence and percent of states, retention rates at private, low retention rates may indicate that National Rate 79.4% not-for-profit four-year colleges were some students at an institution have Best State (CA) 85.8% better than those at public four-year not found the right fit. Second-Best state (MA) 85.0% institutions. Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Data and methodology: Two-Year Institutions: Weighted averages from the Integrated The story behind retention rates at Postsecondary Education Data System two-year colleges is less clear because were used. The denominator for the the rates do not reflect the reasons a first-to-second year retention computation student might not return to college, was the number of first-time, full-time particularly at institutions with transfer undergraduates in a year. The numerator missions. For example, some students in the was the number from that group who Twin Cities metropolitan area are enrolled return for a second year at that same in more than one institution concurrently. institution, including students that switch from full- to part-time status. In Minnesota, students can now Students who complete short certificate complete all or part of a package of or diploma programs that take less than general education credits called the one year to complete were counted as Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. All retained, according to the data source.

12 Minnesota Office of Higher Education G O A L O N E

Degree Completion | I Indicator 1C: What was the graduation rate for students attending Minnesota four-year m p r

colleges and universities? o v e

t Degree completion at four-year Compare Minnesota: h e institutions is a clear measure of student Graduation Rates at Four-Year Institutions 2004 s and institutional success. For students u c attending Minnesota’s public and Graduation Rates c e private four-year institutions, degree s

Four-year Six-year s

completion is most often the goal. o

Minnesota Four-Year Colleges 35.8% 57.1% f a

Graduation rates vary greatly l

Public Colleges 22.8% 48.9% l among institutions, but are higher s Private Colleges 55.4% 67.7% t at institutions with more selective u d admissions criteria and those that Top 10 New Economy States 39.4% 57.9% e n serve predominately traditional National Average 28.5% 48.6% t students who are able to enroll s full-time. Part-time students are Best State* 48.1% 63.9% excluded from this measure. Second-Best State* 48.0% 63.7% *The state with the best four-year graduation rate was Massachusetts, and the second best state was Delaware. The state with the best six-year graduation rate was Delaware, and the second best state was Massachusetts. Data and methodology: Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System The graduation rate is a standard used nationally, measuring the number of graduates who enrolled years earlier. The six-year graduation “Average graduation rates as first-time, full-time undergraduates rate is the standard used in national at the institution four and six years publications. This report also includes for students of color were earlier. These numbers were compared the four-year rate to provide additional consistently below the state’s against the total number of students context and information. who were enrolled as first-time, overall graduation rates.” full-time undergraduates four and six

Minnesota Graduation Rates at Four-Year Institutions by Race/Ethnicity (2004)

70% Graduated 60% within four years 50% Graduated within six years 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Black Native Asian Hispanic White American

Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System D e g r e e

C o R m e t p e l n e t t i i o o n n Minnesota Measures - February 2007 13 Degree Completion 1C continued

Minnesota Detail: 2004 Retention and Graduation Rates for Minnesota’s Four-Year Colleges and Universities

First- to Graduation Rates second-year Institution Retention Four-year Six-year Augsburg College, Minneapolis 81% 35% 55% Bemidji State University, Bemidji 70% 24% 42% Bethany Lutheran College, Mankato 70% 52% 73% Bethel University, Arden Hills 85% 62% 73% Carleton College, Northfi eld 96% 87% 90% College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph 88% 76% 82% College of St. Catherine, St. Paul 82% NA 59% College of St. Scholastica, Duluth 83% 59% 67% Concordia College, Moorhead 78% 59% 65% Concordia University, St Paul 68% 27% 39% Crown College, St. Bonifacius 70% 29% 55% Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter 91% 69% 71% Hamline University, St. Paul 80% 65% 71% Macalester College, St. Paul 93% 73% 81% Metropolitan State University, Minneapolis and St. Paul 62% 18% 33% Minneapolis College of Art and Design 91% NA 71% Minnesota State University, Mankato 78% 19% 48% Minnesota State University Moorhead 66% 14% 41% Northwestern College, Roseville 79% 41% 57% St. Cloud State University 72% 14% 43% St. Johns University, Collegeville 91% 74% 82% St. Mary’s University, Winona 75% 49% 58% St. Olaf College, Northfi eld 94% 79% 84% Southwest Minnesota State University, Marshall71% 21% 49% University of Minnesota, Crookston 44% 26% 37% University of Minnesota, Duluth 76% 21% 46% University of Minnesota, Morris 84% 38% 52% University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 86% 29% 56% University of St. Thomas, St. Paul 85% 54% 71% Winona State University, Winona 73% 25% 51% Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. These data represent only fi rst-time, full-time undergraduate students who remained at a single institution from one year to the next.

Note: Some institutions serve high percentages of adult, non-traditional students who tend to enroll in college part-time, leading to lower completion rates over four or six years. For example, 74 percent of undergraduate students attending Metropolitan State University are 25 or older, and just 34 percent of students are attending full-time.

14 Minnesota Office of Higher Education G O A L O N E

Degree Completion | I Indicator 1D: What were the three-year graduation rates at Minnesota’s two-year colleges? m p r o v

The three-year graduation rate Compare Minnesota: e indicates how many full-time students t Graduation Rates at Two-Year Colleges 2004 h who enroll at two-year colleges stay e to complete a certificate, diploma or s Three-Year u associate’s degree within three years. Graduation Rates c c e

Minnesota 35.8% s The graduation rate at two-year s colleges should be considered one Top 10 New Economy States 26.1% o f measure of success among many. a

National Average 32.4% l Community colleges serve as important l Best State (SD) 65.7% s t

stepping stones for enrollment at u four-year institutions. Many students Second-best State (WY) 55.9% d e attending two-year institutions transfer Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System n t to four-year institutions before s completing a degree, diploma or certificate. Inconsistencies across Still others serve students in both Data and methodology: states in how community colleges types of programs equally. The The graduation rate was computed serve students make national graduation rate alone is a limited by taking the number of graduates comparisons difficult. outcome measure for two-year who enrolled as first-time, full-time colleges, particularly those with a undergraduates at the institution Some Minnesota two-year colleges transfer preparation mission. As the three years earlier. This number was offer primarily technical and career table on the following page illustrates, compared against the total number programs, while others are in general, two-year colleges with of students enrolled as first-time predominately transfer institutions high transfer-out rates have lower undergraduates three years earlier that prepare students to enter graduation rates. and a proportion was derived. baccalaureate degree programs. Students who complete degrees, diplomas and certificates that take one year or less to complete were Minnesota Detail: Graduation and Transfer-out Rates considered completers for the for Two-Year Institutions by Race/Ethnicity (2004) purpose of this measure.

70% Transfer-out 60% Three-year “Students of color were 50% Graduation Rates slightly more likely to transfer 40% 30% from a two-year college than 20% white students.” 10% 0% Black Native Asian Hispanic White American

Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System D e g r e e

C o m p l e t i o n Minnesota Measures - February 2007 15 Degree Completion 1D continued

Minnesota Detail: 2004 Transfer, Retention and Three-Year Graduation Rates at Two-Year Colleges

First-to-second Three-year Institution Year Retention Graduation Rate Transfer-out Rate Academy College NA 41% NA Alexandria Technical College 71% 57% 12% Anoka Technical College 62% 43% 14% Anoka-Ramsey Community College 47% 13% 43% Brown College 68% 64% 22% Central Lakes College 56% 41% 19% Century College 55% 17% 28% Dakota County Technical College 64% 44% 10% Duluth Business University, Inc. 78% 58% NA Dunwoody College of Technology 74% 54% NA Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College 54% 17% 22% Globe College 92% 51% 2% Hennepin Technical College 62% 36% 15% Hibbing Community College 55% 36% 24% High-Tech Institute of Minnesota 65% 50% NA Inver Hills Community College 50% 8% 37% Itasca Community College 56% 37% 21% Lake Superior College 56% 21% 22% Leech Lake Tribal College 53% 15% NA Mesabi Range Community & Technical College 49% 50% 15% Minneapolis Community & Technical College 52% 16% 24% Minnesota State College-Southeast Technical 68% 42% 12% Minnesota State Community & Technical College 58% 39% 18% Minnesota West Community & Technical College 63% 51% 14% Normandale Community College 49% 12% 38% North Hennepin Community College 57% 18% 31% Northland Community & Technical College 53% 43% 19% Northwest Technical College 61% 40% 16% Pine Technical College 65% 24% 23% Rainy River Community College 44% 26% 34% Rasmussen College, Minnetonka 82% 57% NA Rasmussen College, St. Cloud 74% 57% NA Ridgewater College59% 48% 18% Riverland Community College 61% 44% 14% Rochester Community and Technical College 58% 27% 20% Saint Cloud Technical College 65% 52% 11% Saint Paul College 62% 44% 11% South Central College 60% 46% 12% Vermilion Community College 51% 28% 39% Data source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Note: Data for the table were based on 2004 graduation and retention numbers. The transfer-out rates were computed as the proportion of the cohort (fi rst-year, full-time students) who entered three years prior.

16 Minnesota Office of Higher Education G O A L O N E | I Minnesota Detail: Transfer Patterns Fall 2005 m p r Transferred From Transferred To o v e

Community t

State & Technical University Private Private h e

University College of Minnesota Career School College s

State University u

407 1,038 190 129 57 c c

Community & Technical College 2,479 3,094 763 286 485 e s University of Minnesota 316 660 87 43 129 s o f

Private Career School 45 101 6 118 44 a l l

Private College 328 509 187 39 137 s t Minnesota institution not specifi ed 42 94 4 3 13 u d e

Out of State 1,521 1,859 710 328 501 n t Institution not specifi ed 225 986 813 2,874 1,795 s Total 5,364 8,344 2,761 3,820 3,163 Source: Offi ce of Higher Education: Student Enrollment Record Database 2005 Note: This table includes only student transfers into Minnesota institutions in Fall 2005. It does not refl ect a full year of transfer activity.

Transfer Students: However, some transfers may be good reasons for such moves, Students who transfer out of one less productive than others. While research shows that these transfer institution to attend another have transferring from a two-year college patterns may reduce the probability a negative effect on graduation and to a four-year college is considered that a student will complete his retention rates for the institution, a desired path for many, some transfer or her academic goal within a but may still be successful students activity warrants further study. In 2005, reasonable amount of time.11 and degree completers. The table more than 2,000 students, transferred above shows transfer patterns into a community and technical from various institution types into college from a Minnesota four-year Minnesota postsecondary institutions. institution. While there are often

Retention, Transfer and Graduation Patterns for MnSCU Two-year Colleges - Fall 2002 Cohort e

g 100%

a Graduated t 85% Transferred n 70% Retained e

c This chart shows average retention, graduation

r 55% and transfer data for the group of new students e 40% that enrolled in MnSCU public two-year colleges

P in fall 2002. The chart includes full- and part-time 25% students over a period of three years following their first semester. 10% 0% D

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth e

term term term term term term g r e

Semester Source: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Research and Planning 2006 e

C o m p l e t i o n Minnesota Measures - February 2007 17 Degree Completion Indicator 1E: What was the proportion of degree completers to students enrolled at four-year and two-year institutions each year?

Because the graduation rates in the Compare Minnesota: Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded as a Proportion of previous indicator do not include part- Total Undergraduate Headcount Enrollment at Four-Year Institutions time students, this indicator provides an alternative measure of how efficiently students move through their programs 2001 2002 2003 2004 to degree completion. The proportion of Minnesota 13.6% 14.2% 14.6% 15.2% degree completers to student enrollment Top 10 New Economy States 14.8% 14.7% 15.1% 15.4% considers the number of degrees earned by full- or part-time students as a ratio of the National Average 15.2% 15.2% 15.4% 15.7% total headcount enrollment for the year. Best state (WA) 19.7% Second-best State (CA) 19.5% In 2004, approximately 15 percent of all students enrolled in Minnesota’s four-year Source: Integrated Postsecondary Enrollment Data System institutions completed bachelor’s degrees.

Compare Minnesota: Certifi cate, Diploma and Associate Degrees Awarded as a Proportion of Total Headcount Enrollment at Two-Year Colleges “About 14 percent of all students enrolled at Minnesota two-year 2001 2002 2003 2004 Minnesota 11.1% 11.2% 12.0% 13.8% colleges completed a certificate Top 10 New Economy States 5.7% 6.0% 6.6% 7.2% program, diploma, or associate National Average 7.2% 7.4% 7.8% 8.3% degree in 2004.” Best State (SD) 25.6% Second Best State (ND) 17.5% Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

Reasons why Minnesota students may Minnesota has improved slightly on this not have completed degrees at higher measure since 2001. The proportion of rates may include: graduates to total headcount enrollment has increased for both four-year • Students enrolled part time to allow institutions and two-year colleges. more time for work • Students are unprepared for college-level Data sources and methodology: work requiring more remedial courses The graduate rates on page 15 show • Students changed programs midway the rate at which a cohort of students through their education, or pursued entered an institution and persisted programs requiring more than two through graduation. This measure or four years of study of completion looks at the proportion • Students did not understand of graduates each year to the total graduation requirements headcount enrollment, which includes • Students transferred out before both full- and part-time students. completing a degree

18 Minnesota Office of Higher Education G O A L O N E

Achievement Gap | I Indicator 1F: Were students of color completing programs at the same rate as their white coun- m p r

terparts? Were students of color pursuing and completing degrees in high-demand STEM and o v health care fields at rates comparable to their white counterparts? e

t h e

Minnesota’s changing demographics of color observed in Indicator 1A, The table shows that while students s u

reflect dramatic increases among the first step was to consider overall of color were enrolling in Minnesota’s c c communities of color, with little enrollment and degree production at two-year institutions at rates about e s

or no growth projected for whites. the bachelor’s degree level and below. equal to their proportion of the s

As these shifts occur, the state has state’s population (Minnesota’s o f

a vested interest in seeing students Students of color are not minority population age 18 to a l in all racial and ethnic groups persist progressing to degree completion 44 comprised approximately l s

and complete degrees at rates that at the same rates as white students. 13.8 percent of the state’s total t u

are nationally competitive with This conclusion is supported by population in 2004), not all groups d and comparable to their white other indicators as broken down e were completing credentials at this n t

counterparts. Given the relatively by race and ethnicity, including the same rate. Exactly why this was true s low participation rates (at least at graduation rate data and transfer-out is a subject for further research. Minnesota schools) of the students data outlined earlier in goal one.

Minnesota Detail: Enrollment and Degree Completion Data by Race/Ethnicity – 2004

Two-year institutions Four-year institutions Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of All Proportion of All Bachelor’s Race/ethnicity Total Enrollment Credentials Awarded Total Enrollment Degrees Awarded Black 6.8% 4.7% 2.7% 2.0% Native American 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% Asian 3.4% 2.9% 3.9% 3.3% Hispanic 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% Students of Color 12.7% 9.9% 8.7% 7.1% White 71.0% 73.8% 72.0% 80.3% Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Data from 2004 was chosen because this is the latest year that adjudicated data is available for both enrollment and degree completions. Note: The percentages will not add up to 100% vertically, as data on foreign students and those for whom race was unreported have been left out. D e A g c r h e i e e

v C e o m m e p n l t e G t i o a p n Minnesota Measures - February 2007 19 Achievement Gap 1F continued

Another significant measure of success Minnesota Detail: Completion of Degrees in Critical Fields 2004 for underrepresented groups is the extent to which they are participating in critical high-wage fields such as science, Health Care Field technology, engineering and mathematics Associate Bachelor’s (or STEM) and health care fields. Certifi cates/Diplomas Degrees Degrees Students of Color 40.0% 21.2% 1.0% As STEM fields become increasingly important to Minnesota’s global White 30.6% 21.2% 5.0% competitiveness, and national studies show that enrollment in these high-wage STEM Disciplines 12 fields has been declining , the state has Associate Bachelor’s a growing interest in seeing more students Certifi cates/Diplomas Degrees Degrees in all racial and ethnic groups complete STEM programs. The same is true for Students of Color 7.4% 18.4% 23.1% health care. White 6.4% 13.1% 16.6% Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System The percentages shown in the following table are the number of credentials earned in each of the critical fields small changes in the number of degree especially in the health fields. This data as a proportion of the total credentials recipients can cause dramatic variations only tells a partial story, and further earned at each level by each group from year to year. The data used were research will be required. (certificate/diploma, associate degree, and for 2004 to maintain consistency with bachelor’s degree). the preceding table for this indicator.

Note that the data shown for students Of some cause for concern was the higher of color was aggregated. The numbers percentages of awards granted to students of students in individual racial and ethnic of color at the lower levels (certificates, groups were relatively small; as such, diplomas and associate degrees),

20 Minnesota Office of Higher Education G O A L O N E

Degree Attainment | I Indicator 1G: What proportion of young adults possess a postsecondary degree? m p r o

Degree attainment is another measure Compare Minnesota: Proportion of Population v e of student and institutional success. Age 25–34 Holding an Associate Degree or Higher t This indicator provides an important h e

perspective on higher education s results. The measure may be affected 2002 2003 2004 u c c

by migration patterns of young adults U.S. Data e who may or may not have attended s Minnesota (Second-Best State) 46.8% 48.2% 48.7% s college in Minnesota. o

Top 10 New Economy States 41.2% 41.5% 42.5% f a l Minnesota performed well on this National Average 37.1% 37.6% 38.4% l measure when compared nationally, s t

Best State (MA) 56.3% u

ranking second in the country on the d percentage of young adults (25–34) International Data e n who hold an associate degree or t Canada 53.0% 60.0% s higher. Minnesota ranked eighth in the nation on the percentage with Japan 52.0% 54.0% a bachelor’s degree or higher. This Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (international data). American Community indicator supports Minnesota’s claim Survey (US data) of having a well-educated workforce. Compare Minnesota: Proportion of Population Age 25–34 Holding a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

2002 2003 2004 Minnesota 35.9% 37.7% 36.3% Top 10 New Economy States 33.9% 34.2% 34.8% National Average 29.4% 29.7% 30.3% Best State (MA) 48.6% Second-Best State (CT) 40.7% Source: American Community Survey D A e g c h r e i e e v

A e t m t a e i n n t m G e a n p t Minnesota Measures - February 2007 21 Create a responsive system that produces graduates 2at all levels who meet the demands of the economy. This goal places an emphasis on degree completion overall and in fields identified as critical to the state’s economy.

An educated citizenry can be the foundation for a strong and competitive workforce. Higher education at all levels is embracing its role in preparing students both for a lifetime of engaged citizenship and productive work. In terms of overall degree production per capita, Minnesota has been consistently above average at every award level and ranks twelfth per capita nationwide. The analysis of degree production in health and STEM fields is incomplete, and must be based upon a study of shortages and opportunities for graduates in STEM and health fields. The Office of Higher Education will begin to address this in its 2008 report.

22 Minnesota Office of Higher Education GOAL TWO 05 05 0 0 er 23 04 2 04 2 0 0 nd Old ear grees rees 03 2 03 2 0 0 le 20 a or’s De ral Deg Year 02 2 02 2 0 0 sland setts Docto Bachel owa 01 2 achu 01 2 Rhode I 0 0 st: I ass st: Utah 1,000 Peop 02 02 0 0 2nd Be 0 est: 0 2nd Be 2 2 B Best: M

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 6 4 2 0 2

16 14 1 10

s e e r g e D f o r e b m u N s e e r g e D f o r e b m u N programs. Doctoral degree productionprograms. Doctoral For every degreeremained nearly flat. near the type, Minnesota performed national average. Data and methodology: Data as a ratio of degrees This measure is stated per 1,000 people produced at each level An age of or older. in the state age 20 20 was chosen because it is the standard earliest age at which an individual can earn a postsecondary credential. ded Per war 05 05 0 0 s A Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (degree production) American Community Survey (population) and the 04 2 04 2 rees 0 0 mas egree As more and rees Year Y es 13 03 2 03 2 0 0 a: D na , Diplo Deg ’s Year ng my Stat ate 02 2 02 2 0 0 st: Arizo ming State cono age setts Master and Associate Deg rfor ming St ver CertiÞcates 2nd Be est: Wyomi 01 2 01 2 B 0 rfor 0 sachu ota st Pe s st: New York nes 02 02 0 2nd Be 0 Best Pe 2nd Be Top 10 New E National A Min 0 20 Best: Ma 2

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 8 6 4 2 0 0

re Minnesot Compare

16 14 12 1

s e e r g e D f o r e b m u N d e d r a w A r e b m u N oney and contribute more to the economy oney and contribute In the five-year period from 2000 through In the five-year period higher 2005, the state of Minnesota’s education sector increased the number of degrees produced per 1,000 adults for associate, baccalaureate and master’s more jobs require postsecondary education of people and training, the proportion to increase to with degrees will need meet the demand. Minnesota MeasuresMinnesota - February 2007 Adults with college degrees earn more Adults with college m degrees. that those without Degree Production Degree many 2A: How Indicator degrees atyear each awarded were all levels 20 and older? age population per 1,000 Degree Alignment Indicator 2B: Of all degrees awarded, what percentage were awarded in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields?

As noted in the terms and definitions direct contributions of higher education “At the baccalaureate section of this report, STEM fields to the Minnesota economy. Migration include agriculture, computer science, of adults with degrees in these areas and graduate levels, pursuit engineering, engineering technology, will have an impact on Minnesota’s of degrees in STEM disciplines mathematics, environmental science, economy as well. biological sciences, and physical sciences has remained flat since 2000.” (chemistry and physics). Minnesota institutions do not excel in awarding STEM-related degrees at any Degrees in science, technology, engineering level. At the baccalaureate and graduate and mathematics are considered valuable levels, pursuit of degrees in STEM in the new economy. The proportion of disciplines has remained flat since 2000. STEM degrees produced as a share of all degrees is a straightforward measure of

Awards in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, as a Proportion of All Degrees

30%30% 30% Best: South Dakota Best: Montana Best Performing State 2nd Best: North Dakota 2nd Best: Wyoming 25% 25% 2nd Best Performing State Top 10 New Economy States t t 20% 20% n n National Average e e c c r r 15% e e 15% Minnesota P P

10% 10%

5% CertiÞcates, Diplomas 5% and Associate Degrees Bachelor’s Degrees 0% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Year

80% 80% Best: Wyoming 70% 2nd Best: Montana 70%

60% 60% Best: Arkansas 50% 50% 2nd Best: New Hampshire

40% 40%

30% 30%

20% 20% t t n n e e 10% 10% c c r r Master’s Degrees Doctoral Degrees e e P P 0% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Year Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

24 Minnesota Office of Higher Education G O A L T W O

|

Awards per Capita, STEM Fields (Per 1,000 Population) C r e a t e

a 2.5

2.5 r CertiÞcates, Diplomas Bachelor’s Degrees e s

and Associate Degrees p

2.0 2 o n s s e i d e v r e g d e r 1.5 1.5e a D

w s f o A

y r r e e s b b t m m

1 e u u 1.0 N N m

t h 0.5

0.5 a t

Best: Alabama Best: Utah p

2nd Best: North Dakota 2nd Best: South Dakota r 0.0 0 o 20002001 2002 2003 2004 2005 d 20002001 2002 2003 2004 2005 u

Year Year c e s g 0.9 0.9 r Doctoral Degrees a

Master’s Degrees d 0.8 0.8 u a

0.7 t s s 0.7 e e e e e s r r g g 0.6 e e 0.6 D D

f f o o

r r 0.5 0.5 e e b b m m Best: Massachusetts u u 0.4 0.4 N N 2nd Best: Rhode Island 0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 Best: Massachusetts 0.1 2nd Best: Maryland 0 0 20002001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20002001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Year

Best Performing State 2nd Best Performing State Top 10 New Economy States National Average Minnesota Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and the American Community Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau for Population Data D e g r e e

A l i g n m e n t Minnesota Measures - February 2007 25 Degree Alignment Indicator 2C: Of all degrees awarded at each level, what percentage were produced in health care and related fields?

As the population of the state ages, Among states, Minnesota was not a strong The migration of adult degree holders the need for qualified workers in health producer of graduates in health care. in these areas will have an impact on fields is expected to continue to increase. Among all levels of programs, Minnesota Minnesota’s economy as well. Degrees in health fields are considered produced associate degree graduates in valuable to the growth of the economy. health care programs at a rate slightly “Among states, Minnesota The proportion of degrees awarded is higher than the national average. Given a straightforward measure of the state’s the projections for this field, the state was not a strong producer continued success in this area. may need to increase its capacity. of graduates in health care.”

Awards in Health Fields, as a Proportion of All Degrees

50% 50% Best: Wisconsin 45% 45% Bachelor’s Degrees Best Performing State 2nd Best: Colorado 40% 2nd Best Performing State 40% Best: North Dakota e e g g 35% 35% 2nd Best: South Dakota Top 10 New Economy States a a t t n n 30% 30% National Average e e c c r r 25% 25% Minnesota e e P P 20% 20%

15% 15%

10% CertiÞcates, Diplomas 10% and Associate Degrees 5% 5%

0% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Year

80% 80% Master’s Degrees 70% 70% Best: Nebraska 60% 60% Doctoral Degrees 2nd Best: Maine 50% 50%

40% 40%

30% 30%

20% 20% e e g g 10% 10% Best: Maine a a t t 2nd Best: Nebraska n n e e 0% 0% c c r r 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 e e P P Year Year Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

26 Minnesota Office of Higher Education G O A L T W O

|

Awards per Capita, Health Fields (Per 1,000 Population) C r e a t e

a 3.5 3.5

r

Best: Colorado Best: North Dakota e 2nd Best: Wisconsin 2nd Best: South Dakota s

3 3 p o n s d e

2.5 2.5 s e e r d i r g v a e e D w

f

A 2 2

o r

s r e e y b

b Bachelor’s Degrees m s m u 1.5 1.5 t u N e N m 1 1

t h

0.5 CertiÞcates, Diplomas 0.5 a and Associate Degrees t p

0 0 r o

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 d Year Year u c e s 0.7

0.7 g r a

0.6 0.6 d u a

0.5 t s s 0.5 e e e e e s r r g g e e 0.4 D D 0.4

Best: Nebraska f f Best: Nebraska o o

2nd Best: Iowa r r 2nd Best: Massachusetts e e b b 0.3 0.3 m m u u N N 0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1 Master’s Degrees Doctoral Degrees 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Year

Best Performing State 2nd Best Performing State Top 10 New Economy States National Average Minnesota Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and the American Community Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau for Population Data D e g r e e

A l i g n m e n t Minnesota Measures - February 2007 27 Increase student learning and improve skill levels of students so 3they can compete effectively in the global marketplace.

28 Minnesota Office of Higher Education GOAL THREE 29 eviewing ofessional ess over time will ogr ecommendations of egional accrediting bodies such egional accrediting R e, graduate and pr 14 eport. the National Commission on the Future the National Commission recommended of Higher Education institutions measure that postsecondary outcomes. Learningand report learning focus of that outcomes were a central r as the North Central Association have called as the North Central assessments to be part for more learning by institutions. of the self-study executed of Higher Education The Minnesota Office will explore this issue with public and private institutions in the coming year, looking at the r the national commission, and r proposed assessments of adult literacy, licensur school exams and specially administered tests of general intellectual skills. measurements indicating Value-added how students pr be considered. ning y of Education in 2006, etar fective teaching and learning is central or Higher Education Management Systems or Higher Education Minnesota MeasuresMinnesota - February 2007 Many institutions and systems in Minnesota have begun to explore ways to assess and demonstrate student lear Ef to to all levels of education. In its report the U.S. Secr In its report to the Minnesota Office Minnesota Office In its report to the the National Center of Higher Education, f Minnesota include recommended that learning. The center a goal on student that few consistent also acknowledged learning are in place measures of student Assessing learning for higher education. is more complex in postsecondary education of levels different than in K–12 due to college preparation by incoming students and varying student goals. in higher education. Learning Outcomes Learning no indicators were There this for goal or nationally statewide because indicatorscomparable student on do not learning currently exist. Contribute to the development of a state economy that is competitive in the global market through research, workforce 4training and other appropriate means. A strong academic research component is beneficial to institutions, students and the state’s economy. The University of Minnesota-Twin Cities leads academic research for the state with a well-established research mission. While other four-year institutions engage faculty and students in limited academic and applied research, the University of Minnesota is clearly the lead research institution. Through research, the University engages its faculty in their respective disciplines, attracts research dollars to the state, provides enrichment opportunities for students and a format for innovation and invention leading to a positive economic impact for the state.

Minnesota ranks within the top third nationally in terms of the total share of federally-funded academic research. The University of Minnesota and the state have a vested interest in seeing the state’s rank and reputation improve in this area. The University of Minnesota’s strategic plan adopted in 2006 establishes research as a priority.

In its proposal to the Office of Higher Education, the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems included in this goal measures of workforce training. However, meaningful and comparable data relative to workforce training is less available than anticipated. Workforce training is identified as an item for study and development in the 2008 report. NCHEMS also proposed numerous background indicators under this goal that together would create a picture of the quality of life and socio-economic status of the state’s citizens. These indicators were removed since it was not clear how higher education can be held directly accountable on measures such as infant mortality rates, voter participation and charitable giving.

30 Minnesota Office of Higher Education GOAL FOUR ures, Fiscal e by a 31 e part of the d Rank ork ar ch and Development Expendit ch institutions. The average esear c Resear e included all institutions of higher emi nia and New Y ous r cad rocess and less directly as the money rocess and less directly nd more importantly, this research can nd more importantly, ervices that can create new industries. ervices that can create Data and methodology: Data The measur education and the Mayo Clinic. Minnesota’s data are dominated by the University of Minnesota since few other universities in Minnesota obtain significant funds for sponsored research. The source of the data is the National Science Foundation, the federal agency given the responsibility by Congress to monitor research and development activity This in all economic sectors in the country. indicator included research funded by the federal government, business and industries and non-profit foundations. It excluded research funded by states or institutions. income directly through the researchincome directly through p Second, economy. moves through the a techniques and lead to new products, s eighteenth in its Minnesota ranked research share of national academic translate into research dollars, which can share of 1.8 percent Minnesota’s activity. was well below the two top states, California significantly are which of both and New York, to larger than Minnesota and are home numer for the Top 10 New Economy States also 10 New Economy States for the Top exceeded the Minnesota figur significant amount, in large part because Califor New Economy group of states. mic Research Share an Share mic Research ces Statistics, A 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ta: Acade centage ovides a good ovides jobs and inneso Division of Science Resour ease of one per ce Foundation, ch over time pr Compare M Compare ien nal Sc esear tio f academic research to the competitive f academic research ew products and processes. However, ew products and processes. Source: Na indication of the state’s position and direction. and position indication of the state’s dollars research of Slight changes in the share to a state. For can make a big difference example, an incr Minnesota MeasuresMinnesota - February 2007 The federal government, through agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Defense, provides billions of dollars annually for research. Much of this money is spent on university two campuses. These research funds have the significant impacts on the economy of state. First, the spending pr While Minnesota cannot expect to reach the research activity levels of California or due to its size, the percent share New York of total r point in the share would bring in another $300 million to the state. The competitive nature of winning sponsored research funds task. There may be makes this a difficult policies that could help Minnesota increase its share of the funding. This indicator recognizes the contribution This indicator recognizes o in the global position of Minnesota business sector produces a The economy. of research to develop substantial amount n such as higher education institutions, and related the University of Minnesota including the non-profit organizations in unique ways Mayo Clinic, contribute that should be separately measured. Research and Discovery and Research What 4A: Indicator was Minnesota’s in its position relative national share of academic research? sota 7%8% 1. 1.8% 1. 9% 1.8% Minne Percent Share 1. .1% 13.3% 13.4% hare es’ s stat .4% 13.3% 13 Top Top 06-323 National Rank 18 19 18 17 18 Year 2004 NSF Year California 13 1% 8.0% 7. 9% 8.1% 8.1% .3% New York 8. 3% 4.3% 4. 2% 4.% 4 onomy States 4. Top 10 New Ec Top Research and Discovery Indicator 4B: How does the University of Minnesota compare to other flagship research institutions?

The competition for sponsored research Ranking of Top Public and Private U.S. Research Universities 2005 dollars among institutions with similar scope and mission around the country # of and the world is intense. A publicly Sector Institution Top 25 Rankings established goal of the Board of Regents Private Massachusetts Institute of Technology 9 of the University of Minnesota is to be among the top three public research Private Stanford University 9 universities in the world. Private University of Pennsylvania 9 Private Columbia University 8 The University of Florida’s annual report on America’s top research universities first Private Harvard University 8 defines the field of top research universities Private Johns Hopkins University 8 as those receiving more than $20 million Private Duke University 8 in annual federal research dollars and Public University of California – Berkeley 8 ranking within the top 25 on at least one of the nine measures listed below. Public University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 8 Private Yale University 7 • Research dollars Public University of Washington – Seattle 7 • Federal research dollars • Size of endowments Private Washington University in St. Louis 7 • Annual giving to the institution Public University of California - Los Angeles 7 • Membership to the National Academies Private University of Southern California 7 • Number of faculty awards • Number of doctorates granted Public University of Minnesota - Twin Cities 6 • Number of post doctorates appointed Public University of Wisconsin – Madison 6 • The average SAT scores of entering Public University of California - San Francisco 6 freshmen Source: University of Florida Report, America’s Research Universities Seventy institutions met the criteria and were included in the ranking of top research institutions in the country.15 The University of Florida’s analysis internationally among the top 100 (The Center’s online resource provides evaluated institutions within the United research institutions. comprehensive data on more than 600 States and did not establish international • A re-analysis of the Shanghai ranking institutions.) comparisons. Other organizations using different criteria performed by rank higher education institutions the Institute Jozef Stefan, Ljubljana, From there, researchers ranked institutions on an international basis. Because the Slovenia ranked the University based on how many times the institution methodologies of these other rankings of Minnesota 33rd internationally. ranked among the top 25 percent on have not been completely investigated, • London Times Higher Education these measures. The top institutions they are not fully presented in this report. Supplement ranked the University earned nine points. This approach led to of Minnesota 187th out of 200 a group ranking based on the total top Comparison to other countries is important internationally, and 25 finishes, not an individual rank for given the aspirations of the University • Newsweek ranked the University each institution. of Minnesota leadership to improve the of Minnesota 30th internationally. University’s standing and reputation on The University of Minnesota ranked among research and discovery internationally. the top 17 research universities in the country. The three measures where the Other reports: University of Minnesota did not score in • Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai the top 25 percent were the two faculty Jiao Tong University in China ranked measures and student SAT scores. the University of Minnesota 32nd

32 Minnesota Office of Higher Education G O A L F O U R

Research and Discovery

|

Indicator 4C: What were the total expenditures on research and development as a proportion C o of gross state product? n t r i b

While the previous indicator Research as a share of output in of a state’s economy. For example, u t measured academic research Minnesota has grown between 1999 New Mexico has the highest share e

t dollars, this indicator measures total and 2003, although not as strongly of gross state product both because o expenditures on research in the state as New Mexico and Massachusetts. its economy is small and two large t h from all sources, including business. There has been a significant increase federal laboratories are located there. e

Total research expenditures for the in business spending as well. Yet d e state are larger, by a factor of 10, Minnesota was still well below Data and methodology: v e than spending on academic research the average for the Top 10 New l As with Indicator 4A, the data o alone. This gauge provides a context Economy States. As the experience in p

are from the National Science m for the academic research measure. Massachusetts indicates, this ratio can

Foundation. In order to scale the e Research in business and industry grow significantly over a short period measure across states, the indicator n t is more closely aligned with finished of time. Minnesota’s rank has also was based on gross state product. o products produced by corporations. improved from 1999 to 2003. This f

Without this scaling, states such a

But many of these products may is due in part to increases in academic as California and New York would s t have their roots in basic research research both at the University of easily dominate this measure.16 a t performed at an earlier stage at a Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic. e university. Total academic research e c spending in 2003 in Minnesota was This indicator can be distorted by o n

$548 million. Total research spending facts of history that have nothing o from all sources was $5.8 billion. to do with the strength or growth m y

Compare Minnesota: Research Expenditures as a Proportion of Gross State Product

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Minnesota 2.3% 2.3% 2.6% 2.6% 2.8% Rank 19 17 16 14 15 Top 10 New Economy States 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.6% National Average 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.5% 2.6% Best State (NM) 6.7% 6.1% 7.7% 8.9% 8.7% Second-best State (MA) 4.8% 4.7% 5.2% 5.0% 5.3% Source: National Science Foundation R e s e a r c h

a n d

D i s c o v e r y Minnesota Measures - February 2007 33 5Provide access, affordability and choice for all students. Choice and access abound in Minnesota. With more than 150 postsecondary institutions in the state offering a wide variety of programs at all levels, students have many choices. A range of admissions policies and the availability of online courses from both public and private institutions further enhance access and opportunity.

Choice and access are limited by two factors: academic preparation and affordability. Academic preparation – or college readiness – as outlined in the introduction of this report is an issue of growing concern. Lack of academic preparation rivals affordability as a barrier to college access.

While some institutions are responding to student needs with remedial and developmental courses for under-prepared students, this is not the most viable long-term solution or the best use of state resources. Today public systems and private college associations have been increasingly engaged in public policy work to improve high school rigor and college readiness.

College affordability is a complex issue for which there is no single perfect measure and comparisons nationally and internationally are difficult. Affordability is a function of college prices, the student’s college and program choice, family and student income, assets and financial aid. This goal included student enrollment as a proxy for access and illustrates the changing financial expectations placed on students and their families. Limited trend data on net prices and student borrowing point to fewer affordable options for students at a time when attaining some form of higher education is critical for success in life and work.

Future study on institutional aid and relative price and affordability across states and nations will be pursued in the 2008 report.

34 Minnesota Office of Higher Education GOAL FIVE ta) . da (U.S rvey 35 y Su n Communit merica a), A l dat tion of tion of ge age were enrolled in enrolled were age ge olled in college becomes both e l atlege about rate the same nationa l l o o nter “Minnesotans of traditional c c as the rest of the country.” e enr comparison to other states and countries. comparison to other measure This is the most comprehensive available for of postsecondary participation benchmarks. which there are international college age were Minnesotans of traditional about the same rate enrolled in college at at 34.1 percent. as the rest of the country significantly higher Some states had a people enrolled of young proportion in college. As higher education becomes more important for individuals seeking potential well-paying jobs that offer for advancement, increasing the share of traditional-age young people who ar an economic and social imperative. ta: Propor .6% 48.3% ment (i elop ev inneso tion 18–24 y Education eration and D .1% ting ipa Compare M Compare urvey. ic ta: Propor .3% conomic Coop tsecondar nity S ountries 2002 2003 h interna- hic inneso lds Part g C .0% tion – 2004 r w ation for E r o g in Pos aniz e is instructive for purposes of American Commu -yea .4% atin e: .8% 33.4% Compare M Compare o 24 Top Performin Top o which individuals are taking advantage o which individuals - t .3% Data source: Org Data sourc Minnesota MeasuresMinnesota - February 2007 of higher education opportunities. This of higher education one view of college measure provides college participation for traditional-age on this performance students. The state’s be 100 percent because measure will never individuals would there are reasons why in college. However, choose to not enroll this measur One way to measure access and One way to measure is to consider the extent affordability t Access What 5A: Indicator percent of 24, were 18 to age residents, Minnesota in postsecondaryenrolled education? Particip

3, the most recent year fo

of 18 tsecondary Educa

Minnesota 34

Republic of Korea 47

in Pos -year-olds -year-olds Best State (RI) 40 onomy States 37 -best State (ND) 40 o 24 chart shows data for 200 U.S. Data Second 18- t ational Top 10 New Ec Top and the intern National Average 34 .2% 37.2% rom 2004 he top is f GreeceBelgiumSpainFinlandMinnesota 32.9% 37.2% 30 29.8% 31.3% 33.1% 40.3% 31.2% 30.3% hart at t Note: The c onomy States 36 Top 10 New Ec Top le. lab tional data is avai National Average 33.0% 33.5% Access Indicator 5B: What percent of adults age 25-44 were enrolled in postsecondary education?

More and more working adults are This measure offers one way of looking Participating in postsecondary education finding value in returning to college to at college engagement and access among after age 25 is typically an indicator of complete or supplement their education. working adults. Minnesota had 12.3 one of four things: This indicator considers the extent to percent of its adults 25 to 34 enrolled which adults took advantage of higher in college, which was just slightly above • An individual has only a high school education opportunities, which can be the national average. Among a broader education and is choosing to pursue a reflection of several conditions, age category of 25 to 44-year-old adults, or complete a certificate, diploma, including access. The true value of this 8.2 percent were enrolled. or degree; indicator is in its trend direction and in • An individual has decided to change comparisons to other states. careers and is going back to school for training; • An individual has decided to pursue Compare Minnesota: Proportion of Working-Age graduate level work; or People Participating in Postsecondary Education 2004 • Workforce training.

Approximately seven percent of all Age 25–34 Age 25–44 adults 25- to 44-years old enrolled in Minnesota 12.3% 8.2% college in Minnesota had only a high school diploma. This means the majority Top 10 New Economy States 12.4% 8.7% of the people in this group were National Average 11.8% 8.3% pursuing additional training beyond Best State (NM) 12.4% their original college degree, completing a second undergraduate degree or Second-best State (UT) 11.2% pursuing graduate school. Source: American Community Survey

36 Minnesota Office of Higher Education G O A L F I V E

Net Prices | P

Indicator 5C: What were Minnesota families expected to pay for higher education as a percent r o v of their income? i d e

c An important aspect of affordability Minnesota offers its residents expectation of a family's contribution h o i

for lower- and middle-income attending Minnesota institutions a to the cost of higher education for c e

families is the amount they are grant, based on financial need. As part their child is to connect the assigned f expected to pay toward the education of the calculation used in determining family share under the State Grant o r

of their dependent children. One eligibility for Minnesota State program to a family’s income. The a l way to evaluate affordability across Grant awards, the price of college table below shows the assigned family l s all institution types and income attendance is assigned to three parties: responsibility as determined in the t u levels is to look at the relative price the students, the family and the program divided by adjusted gross d e

as a share of income. taxpayer. One way to assess the state’s income. This ratio is shown for the n t s

Minnesota Detail: Assigned Family Expectation by the Three Lowest Income Groups 1986 to 2004

Private Four-Year Private Two-Year University MnSCU MnSCU Top Income Not-For-Profi t For-Profi t of Minnesota Four-Year Two-Year Lowest 20 Percent Income 1986 $14,000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1989 16,003 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1992 16,713 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1995 19,070 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1998 21,600 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 2001 24,000 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 2004 24,780 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% Second Lowest Percent Income 1986 $24,100 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 1989 28,000 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 1992 29,674 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 1995 32,985 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 1998 37,692 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 2001 41,127 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 2004 43,400 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% Middle Income Group 1986 $35,120 8.4% 7.6% 5.9% 5.5% 5.0% 1989 40,800 7.1% 7.1% 6.1% 5.2% 4.8% 1992 44,000 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 1995 48,985 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.6% 5.9% 1998 56,020 8.7% 8.7% 7.5% 6.1% 5.5% 2001 62,500 10.9% 9.8% 8.6% 7.2% 6.5% 2004 65,832 10.6% 9.3% 9.7% 7.6% 6.6% Source: Minnesota Offi ce of Higher Education About the table: The table shows the effective assessment rate for the lowest three of fi ve income categories (or quintiles), ranging from zero to $66,000. The assessment rate is determined by taking the expected contribution divided by adjusted gross income. The column labeled N e

“top income” is the top income for that group for the year shown. For example, the top of the lowest group in 1986 was $14,000. This grew t A to $24,780 by 2004, but this still was defi ned as the lowest income group. The expected contribution rates are constant across sectors for the P c r c

fi rst two income groups but diverge for the middle group. The tuition and fee maximums set in state law were the cause of the divergence. i e c e s s s Minnesota Measures - February 2007 37 Net Prices 5C continued three lowest (of five) income groups In general, the share of family income The data reflect that, in calculating (or quintiles). For instance, the top income expected to be applied toward the cost eligibility for financial aid, the state of of the families in the lowest 20 percent of higher education has increased since Minnesota expects greater contribution or quintile was $14,000 in 1986 and grew 1992 for Minnesota families in all three from middle-income families as a share to $24,780 by 2004. The ratios in the income groups shown. This means the of income than from other income columns under the institution types effective cost of higher education has categories. indicate the assigned family responsibility increased. For instance, for students in determined at these income levels divided the second lowest income group who by the income. For example, a family attend public two-year colleges, the “This means the effective in the second-lowest income group with rate increased from 3.8 percent to six a student attending the University of percent. The state expected most of the cost of higher education

Minnesota wase expected to pay 3.8 percent gains in personal income to be used to has increased.” of its income fort college costs in 1986. This pay for higher education. expectation grewa to six percent by 2004. R

n o i

t Financial Expectations Placed on Families u b i r t 12% n

o Middle Income Group: 10%

C Private Four Year

8% Private Two Year d

e University of Minnesota

t 6% MnSCU Four Year c

e 4% MnSCU Two Year p

x 2% Second Lowest Income Group E 0% Lowest Income Group

1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004

Years

Note: The contribution rates for each sector were the same for the first two lowest income groups. This changes for the middle income group. Source: Office of Higher Education Research, State Grant Data Base

The chart above illustrates changes in expectations placed on families over time, among different income groups. It also shows the different financial expectations based on the type of institution chosen by students.

38 Minnesota Office of Higher Education G O A L F I V E

Affordability | P

Indicator 5D: What were the net tuition and fee prices for students? r o v i d

The price of attendance including students in the two lowest income all grants and scholarships, these e

students had a net tuition of $2,600, c tuition and fees at Minnesota categories received the deepest h institutions varied greatly for discounts on tuition and fees. which is substantially less than the o i net tuition for students in the other c students after state grants, federal Minnesota’s net tuition is lower than e

grants and institutional aid are that of the Top 10 New Economy quintiles. Students in the middle f o subtracted. This measure shows States. See current tuition and fee income quintile had nearly identical r

average tuition and fees of $7,500, a aggregate direct costs for tuition rates and rankings in Appendix C. l l and fees, minus grants. but their net tuition was $4,800. s t

Students from families with incomes u d

Students in every income category less than $33,000 faced average tuition e received some grant aid; however, and fees of $7,500. After subtracting n t s

Tuition and Required Fees for Minnesota Undergraduate Dependent Students Attending Full Time by Income, 2003-04

$25,000 Average Tuition and Fees Minus Grants e

c Average Tuition and Required Fees

n $20,000 a d n e

t $15,000 t A

f $11,100

o $9,500

$9,400 $10,000 $8,500 e $7,500 $7,500 c

i $6,400 r $4,800 P $5,000 $3,900 $2,600

0 < $33,000 $33,000 - $54,000 - $75,000 - $106,000+ $53,999 $74,999 $105,999

Family Income of Dependent Students

Source: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics in the 2003-04 academic year. Tuition and required fees reflect an average charged to all students in each income group. Income quintiles were derived from U.S. Census data for 2004. A f f N o e r d t a P b r i i c l i e t y s Minnesota Measures - February 2007 39 Affordability 5D continued

Net Tuition and Fees in the U.S., Minnesota and New Economy States for Undergraduate Dependent Students Attending Full Time by Income, 2003-04

$12,000 Minnesota Average Net Tuition New Economy States Average Net Tuition $10,300 $10,000 National Average Net Tuition $9,500

$8,500 s $8,100 e

e $8,000 F

d

n $6,400 $6,400 $6,400 a $6,000 n $5,300 o $5,200 i

t $4,800 i

u $4,300

T $3,900 $4,000 $3,600

$2,600 $2,700

$2,000

$0 < $33,000 $33,000 - $53,999 $54,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $105,999 $106,000+

Family Income of Dependent Students

Source: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

Data and methodology: The price of attendance is an average for all students attending any public or private not-for-profit college or university by income category (including those who received grant or scholarship aid as well as those who did not). The price is for students who are dependent on their parents financially and who attended full time for the full academic year. This chart does not include living and miscellaneous expenses beyond tuition and fees. Current tuition data is available in Appendix C. This is the most recent data that combines net price with income.

40 Minnesota Office of Higher Education G O A L F I V E

Affordability | P

Indicator 5E: To what extent were Minnesota students borrowing to finance their education? r o v i d

The educational debt of college The chart below shows that the borrowing larger amounts than e

average cumulative amount borrowed students attending public institutions. c graduates is a cause for growing h concern. As the price of attendance by graduating seniors at four-year Student borrowing trends have closely o i colleges in the U.S. was $19,200. matched other consumer debt trends c increases, student borrowing levels e

can provide one perspective on The average debt at graduation in Minnesota and the United States. f o affordability. If students believe for students at two-year colleges Borrowing is higher in states with r

was $8,700. higher personal incomes, such as a they are unable to complete a l l

four-year college education without Minnesota, and tends to increase s t incurring significant debt, there are More Minnesota students are as interest rates decline. Even so, u borrowing, and those who borrow, the increase in student borrowing d negative implications for the state e and the economy. In addition, large borrow greater amounts than the could have long-term implications n t debts may affect the career choices national average. Those attending for student choices and behavior. s of some students. private four-year institutions are

Cumulative Borrowing Patterns for the 2003-2004 Academic Year, by Sector

National Average Minnesota Average Percent Who Borrowed Nationally Percent Who Borrowed in Minnesota d e w

$30,000 90% o r

80% r 76% o t 75% 80% n $25,000 73% B

u 70%

66% o

o 62% $20,000 52% 60% h m

$22,046 $25,253 W

A

50% t

$15,000 n

$19,202 $20,321 $17,279 $17,328 40% e

29% c $10,000 30% r e

$8,700 $9,600 20% P $5,000 10%

$0 0% Public 2-year Total 4-year Public 4-year Private not-for-profit 4-year Sector Source: National Post-Secondary Student Aid Study 2003-04 Borrowing amounts reflect averages for students who borrowed. A f f o r d a b i l i t y Minnesota Measures - February 2007 41 Minnesota Measures A report on higher education performance

Next Steps

Minnesota Measures provides Affordability: information on the performance and Additional perspectives on price, engagement of Minnesota’s higher financial aid and financial access education sector as a whole. While the will be considered. report provides a valuable new perspective, much work remains to be done before conclusions can be drawn in certain areas. The value of degree completion: In the process of developing this report, Viewpoints differ17 on the economic several issues were identified for further return to students and the state from study that will provide a more complete college attendance that does not lead and conclusive picture of Minnesota’s to a degree, certificate or diploma. progress on the five goals identified. Nationally accepted measures of retention Following are items to be explored and graduation rates were presented in for the next report: this report to provide a perspective on productivity and effectiveness. However International comparisons: these measures do not fully recognize the growing number of non-traditional Comparisons across countries were and part-time students who engage in made where possible and appropriate coursework or job training without throughout the report; however, such ever completing a degree. Methods comparisons were often unattainable of evaluating and identifying this due to a lack of comparable data. At activity will be considered. a time when Minnesota’s economic and educational competitors are worldwide, such comparisons are central to the state’s Workforce development capacity to sharpen its strategic edge. benchmarks: Unfortunately, reasonable comparisons While Minnesota’s colleges and cannot be made easily or consistently across universities have increased their countries and diverse cultures. The Office offerings dramatically in the area of Higher Education will further develop of workforce development and training, its ability to compare Minnesota with there is no recognized benchmark for countries that have similar characteristics. presenting nationally-comparable data on the quality, alignment and scope of Development of a core workforce training being performed by comparison group: the higher education sector. This topic, and development of comparable To provide an additional level of relevant measures will be explored further. comparison, the Office of Higher Education will develop a grouping of comparable states against which to measure Minnesota’s Job placement and higher education effectiveness. employer satisfaction data: Job placement and employer satisfaction Student learning assessment: is missing from this report because no Although student learning was identified measures were readily available. The as an essential goal in Minnesota’s Minnesota State Colleges and Universities accountability framework, currently there and many individual institutions may are few ways to broadly assess student collect this information; however, learning across institutions, systems, states statewide measures may be needed. and nations. Discussions on the need for student learning outcomes are occurring The Office of Higher Education has nationally on this issue and Minnesota begun work on these issues. and the Office of Higher Education must be engaged.

42 Minnesota Office of Higher Education N E X T

S T E P S

Endnotes

1 See Appendix C, Description of the Process for developing Minnesota’s 9 Ibid. first Higher Education Accountability Report 10The Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. More information at 2 A Test of Leadership, Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, www.mntransfer.org/mntc/mntc.html A Report by the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 2006, a bipartisan commission appointed by U.S. Secretary of Education, 11National Center for Education Statistics. The Road Less Traveled. Margaret Spellings. Students who Enroll in Multiple Institutions. 2005 www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports.html 12NASA Web site: www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/postsec 3 Ibid. ondary/features/F_Corporate_Recruitment_Initiative.html; Developing the STEM Education Pipeline, ACT report, 2006 4 Transforming Higher Education: National Imperative – State Responsibility, Recommendations of the National Council of State 13U.S. Census Bureau, earnings and educational attainment. Legislatures Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education, p. 1 14A Test of Leadership, Charting the Future of Higher Education, A 5 See Appendices A and B. report by the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 2006. www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports.html 6 The 2006 ACT report for Minnesota correlates rigorous curriculum with higher ACT scores. Based on its national research, ACT has 15The University of Florida’s online Center of American Research determined minimum scores needed in each subject area to have University Data provides a comprehensive set of data on more than a 50 percent chance of obtaining a B or higher or about a 75 percent 600 institutions. thecenter.ufl.edu/research_data.html chance of obtaining a C or higher in corresponding credit-bearing college courses. 16Like all scaling approaches, using Gross State Product presents problems. However given the important link between the level of 7 Data was collected from the 2002 Getting Prepared report produced research that occurs in a state and the size of the state economy, by the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Office of Research this measure puts the information in an appropriate context. and Planning, in collaboration with the University of Minnesota. Specific student data is shared with school districts. 17 Learning and Earning in the Middle, Part I: National Studies of Pre-Baccalaureate Education, Economics of Education Review. 8 What Works in Student Retention, ACT 2004, Appendix 1 21 (2002) 299-321, W. Norton Grubb. School of Education, University of California, Berkeley. www.elsevier.com/locate/econedurev/

Minnesota Measures - February 2007 43 Minnesota Measures A report on higher education performance

Appendix A Advisory Participants 2005–2006

Name Institution/Organization Name Institution/Organization

Rod Henry Bemidji State University Kerry Fine Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Sonia Cordero Chicano-Latino Affairs Council Laura King Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Victoria Ford Citizens League James McCormick Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Sean Kershaw Citizens League Leslie Mercer Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Roger Banks Council on Black Minnesotans Anita Neumann Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Jeanne Herrmann Globe College Craig Schoenecker Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Tim McDonald Hamline University Kathleen Vellenga Minnesota State Higher Education Services Council Tom Kosel Herzing College Roland Barden Minnesota State University Moorhead Barb Sykora House Higher Education Finance Committee J.J. Jouppi Minnesota State University Student Association Michael Valleau House Higher Education Finance Committee Hal Kimball Minnesota State University Student Association Kathleen Novak House Research Tom Holman Morning Foundation Valerie Halverson Pace IBM Corporate Community Relations Peter Ewell National Center for Higher Education Management Systems Nancy Black Inter Faculty Organization Dennis Jones National Center for Higher Education Management Systems Russ Stanton Inter Faculty Organization Aims McGuinness National Center for Higher Education Management Systems Cheryl Frank Inver Hills Community College Pat Callan National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education Michele Ernst ITT Technical Institute Ray Anschel Normandale Community College Randy Morris McGrann Shea Anderson Camival Straughn & Lamb Jenny Glumack Office of the Governor Larry Isaak Midwestern Higher Education Compact Don Sudor Rochester community representative Charles Kyte Minnesota Association of School Administrators Jeffrey Highland St. Mary’s University of Minnesota Jim Bartholomew Minnesota Business Partnership Elona Street-Stewart St. Paul Public Schools — Board of Education Charlie Weaver Minnesota Business Partnership Paul Lingenfelter State Higher Education Executive Officers Bill Blazar Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Rich Howard University of Minnesota Stacia Smith Minnesota Chamber of Commerce John Kellogg University of Minnesota Daniel Bittman Minnesota Department of Education Donna Peterson University of Minnesota Mary Ann Nelson Minnesota Department of Education Joe Shultz University of Minnesota Alice Seagren Minnesota Department of Education Alfred Sullivan University of Minnesota Cristine Leavitt Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Peter Zetterberg University of Minnesota Libby Starling Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development John Ziegenhagen University of Minnesota Kyle Uphoff Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Paul Anton Wilder Research Center Peter Lindstrom Minnesota High Tech Association Kate Rubin Minnesota High Tech Association Jennifer Godinez Minnesota Minority Education Partnership, Inc. Carlos Mariani-Rosa Minnesota Minority Education Partnership, Inc. Alexandra Djurovich Minnesota Office of Higher Education Ginny Dodds Minnesota Office of Higher Education Regional Meeting Attendees Mary Lou Dresbach Minnesota Office of Higher Education Tim Geraghty Minnesota Office of Higher Education Tricia Grimes Minnesota Office of Higher Education Name Institution/Organization Susan Heegaard Minnesota Office of Higher Education Emily Kissane Minnesota Office of Higher Education Kevin Kopischke Alexandria Technical College Cheryl Maplethorpe Minnesota Office of Higher Education Aaron Benike Alvin E. Benike, Inc. Mark Misukanis Minnesota Office of Higher Education Roger Giroux Anoka-Hennepin Schools George Roedler Minnesota Office of Higher Education Rick Thoni Augsburg College David B. Laird, Jr. Minnesota Private College Council James Hess Bemidji District Doug Shapiro Minnesota Private College Council Jon Quistgaard Bemidji Station University/Northwest Technical College Michael Wilhelmi Minnesota Private College Council Dave Sunderman Benco Electric Jeff Myhre Minnesota School of Business Ron Younge Bethany Lutheran College Sally Mickelson Minnesota School of Business/Globe College Wade Fauth Blandin Foundation Tarryl Clark Minnesota Senate Higher Education Budget Division Bruce Stender Blandin Foundation Amy Koch Minnesota Senate Higher Education Budget Division Michael Offerman Capella University Sandra Pappas Minnesota Senate Higher Education Budget Division Joseph Opatz Central Lakes College David Tomassoni Minnesota Senate Higher Education Budget Division David Martin Chamber of Commerce, Fargo/Moorhead Claire Robling Minnesota Senate Higher Education Budget Division Janet Lestock College of Business Graduate Programs, University of St. Thomas Dennis Albrecht Minnesota Senate Staff Ann Marie Biermaier College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University Ed Cook Minnesota Senate Staff Cal Mosley College of St. Catherine Maja Weidmann Minnesota Senate Staff Del Case College of St. Scholastica Greg Mulcahy Minnesota State College Faculty Association Brian Dalton College of St. Scholastica Larry Oveson Minnesota State College Faculty Association Patrick Flattery College of St. Scholastica Nicki Bottko Minnesota State College Student Association Larry Goodwin College of St. Scholastica Patrick Christner Minnesota State College Student Association Steve Lyons College of St. Scholastica Candi Walz Minnesota State College Student Association Pamela Jolicoeur Concordia College, Moorhead Susan Anderson Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Jane Williams Concordia College, Moorhead John Asmussen Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Bill Luce Crossroads College

44 Minnesota Office of Higher Education A P P E N D I X

Name Institution/Organization Name Institution/Organization

Ronald E. Thomas Dakota County Technical College Joe Sertich Northeast Higher Education District Rex Hein Duluth Public Schools Charles Giammona Northwest Technical College Rich Wagner Dunwoody College of Technology Amy Caucutt Olmsted County Offices Larry Anderson Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College Greg Lea Pemstar, Inc. Brian Walters Greater Fargo Moorhead Economic Development Corporation Glen Cerny Pioneer Public Television Alison Good Greater Rochester Area University Committee Kevin Molloy Radisson Eric Eliason Gustavus Adolphus College Wayne Merrill Rainy River Community College Mariangela Maguire Gustavus Adolphus College Betty Strehlow Ridgewater College, Willmar Campus James Peterson Gustavus Adolphus College Kim Norton Rochester Ronald Kraft Hennepin Technical College, Brooklyn Park Campus Don Sudor Rochester Thomas Kosel Herzing College John Wade Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce Mike Flaten Hibbing Community College Don Supalla Rochester Community and Technical College Ken Simberg Hibbing Community College Jerry Williams Rochester Public Schools Duane Northagen Hibbing Economic Development Tiffany Hansen RSM McGladrey, Inc. Cheryl Frank Inver Hills Community College Cap O’Rourke Senate Education Committee Sandy Layman Iron Range Resources Sandra Pappas Senate Higher Education Budget Division Mike Johnson Itasca Community College David Danahar Southwest Minnesota State University Barbara McDonald Itasca Community College Jay Trusty Southwest Regional Development Commission Larry Young Joint Economic Development Commission Tom Moore St. Cloud Area Economic Development Partners Gary Kruchowski Lake Superior College Sharon Cogdill St. Cloud State University Lisa Larson Lake Superior College David DeGroote St. Cloud State University May Golden Marathon Multimedia Christine Imbra St. Cloud State University Tracy Veglahn Marshall Area Chamber of Commerce Bernie Oman St. Cloud State University Jery Lobland Mayo Clinic Michael Pesch St. Cloud State University Kathleen Meyerle Mayo Clinic Legal Department Mitchell Rubinstein St. Cloud State University William Gullickson, Jr. McLaughlin Gormley King Co. Michael Spitzer St. Cloud State University Tina Royer Mesabi Range Community College Carolyn Ruth Williams St. Cloud State University Peter Bell Metropolitan Council Jonathan Parker St. Cloud Technical College Thomas Cook Metropolitan State University Connie Christenson St. Louis County Community Development Authority Harold Hamilton Micro Control Company Steve Raukar St. Louis County Courthouse Sharon Jensen Minnesota Business Partnership Josh Breyfogle Student Advisory Committee Stacia Smith Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Tom Klas Tapemark Company Mary Ann Nelson Minnesota Department of Education Gordon Crow The Schwan Food Company Libby Starling Minnesota Dept. of Employment & Economic Development David Paskach The Schwan Food Company Rick Caligiuri Minnesota Dept. of Employment & Economic Development Laurie Johnson University of Minnesota Heather Rand Minnesota Dept. of Employment & Economic Development John Ziegenhagen University of Minnesota Kate Rubin Minnesota High Tech Association Jim Clausen University of Minnesota Institute of Technology Alumni Society Thomas Huntley Minnesota House of Representatives Paul Deputy University of Minnesota, Duluth Tina Liebling Minnesota House of Representatives Greg Fox University of Minnesota, Duluth Frank Moe Minnesota House of Representatives Linda Krug University of Minnesota, Duluth Marty Seifert Minnesota House of Representatives Robert Krumwiede University of Minnesota, Duluth Tony Sertich Minnesota House of Representatives Vince Magnuson University of Minnesota, Duluth Vicki Sandberg Minnesota Mechanical Contractors Association Jim Riehl University of Minnesota, Duluth Carlos Mariani-Rosa Minnesota Minority Education Partnership, Inc. Richard Ziegler University of Minnesota, Duluth Michael Wilhelmi Minnesota Private College Council David Carl University of Minnesota, Rochester Jeanne Herrmann Minnesota School of Business Sue Collins Vermilion Community College Dennis Albrecht Minnesota Senate Staff Dennis Siemer V-Tek Incorporated James McCormick Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Christine J. Barajas Winona State University – Rochester Center Craig Schoenecker Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Tené Wells Woman Venture Carrie Ruud Minnesota State Senate Roland Barden Minnesota State University Moorhead Richard Davenport Minnesota State University, Mankato Joan Roca Minnesota State University, Mankato Walter Wolff Minnesota State University, Mankato Wayne Pletcher Minnesota Technology, Inc. Ronald Wood Minnesota West Community and Technical College Robert Hoffman MnSCU Board of Trustees Mike Gramse MRG Tool & Die Brian Tohal New Ulm Economic Evelopment Ted Gillett Nielson Foundation Leo Christenson Normandale Community College Katherine Hiyane-Brown Normandale Community College Jon Marshall Normandale Community College

Minnesota Measures - February 2007 45 Minnesota Measures A report on higher education performance

Appendix B The Process

May 2005: The Minnesota Legislature and Governor Pawlenty charged the Office of Higher Education with developing a performance accountability report for higher education.

August 2005: The Minnesota Office of Higher Education contracted with the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (www.nchems.org) to aid the agency in developing appropriate state goals and indicators for Minnesota.

August 2005: The Office of Higher Education convened a group of educators, policy-makers, employers and higher education administrators to hear about accountability programs in other states and review available data about Minnesota’s relative strengths and weaknesses.

November 2005: The agency convened the statewide group of stakeholders again to begin discussing goals and indicators for Minnesota.

January 2006: The agency and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems convened 20 separate meetings across the state with employers and educators to discuss and gather input on regional concerns and higher education needs. Participants included employers, educators and college leaders from across Minnesota.

March 2006: The agency convened the statewide group of stakeholders again to review proposed goals and indicators.

June 2006: NCHEMS delivered its final report of recommendations for development of a higher education accountability system in Minnesota to the Office of Higher Education.

September 2006: The Office of Higher Education met with the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities and the Minnesota Private College Council individually to review specific concerns relating to the recommended indicators.

February 2007: The Office of Higher Education produced the first higher education accountability report.

46 Minnesota Office of Higher Education A P P E N D I X

Appendix C Tuition Rates

Compare Minnesota: Full-Year Tuition and Fees for a Full-Time Student 2005-2006

Minnesota Data Lowest 2nd Lowest Highest 2nd Highest National Out Institution Type Tuition Tuition Tuition Tuition Average Tuition Rank*** Of Flagship $2,874 WY $3,094 FL $11,508 PA $10,748 VT $6,135 $8,622 8th 50 institution* Public Four-year** $2,028 HI $2,284 NV $8,818 PA $8,518 NJ $4,843 $6,550 7th 50 Private Four-year, $8,490 HI $8,569 ND $24,133 MA $22,353 RI $16,643 $18,704 10th 49 not-for-profi t Public Two-year $726 CA $1,037 LA $5,689 NH $5,505 PA $2,721 $4,061 7th 50 Private Four-year, $9,450 WY $9,810 SD $16,733 UT $16,567 AZ $13,034 $13,994 14th 43 for-profi t Private Two-year, $7,452 KS $8,251 IA $31,540 AR $17,889 MA $11,976 $17,458 3rd 43 for-profi t * As reported by individual states to the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board for the 2005-2006 academic year. **This is the average of all public four-year institutions in each of the states, excluding the fl agship institutions. For Minnesota, the average tuition at the seven state universities was $5,596; for the three remaining University of Minnesota campuses it was $8,777, yielding an overall average of $6,550. ***Rankings are based on the tuition being sorted in descending (highest to lowest) order; thus Minnesota has among the highest tuition rates in the country for most institution types. Data source: Integrated Postsecondary Enrollment Data System, 2005-2006 academic year

Appendix D Rankings

Postsecondary Enrollment Indicators by Age Group

Minnesota Indicator Rank 2004 Proportion of 18-24 year-olds enrolled in postsecondary education 18th Proportion of 25-34 year-olds enrolled in postsecondary education 19th Proportion of 25-34 year-olds holding a postsecondary credential 2nd Proportion of 25-34 year-olds with Bachelor’s Degree or better 8th Proportion of 25-44 year-olds Enrolled in postsecondary education 23rd Source: American Community Survey

Minnesota Measures - February 2007 47 Minnesota Measures A report on higher education performance

Appendix D Continued Rankings

Degrees Earned per 1,000 People

Minnesota Rank Indicator 2004 2005 Certifi cates, diplomas, and associate’s degrees earned 10th 11th Bachelor’s degrees earned 16th 16th Master’s degrees earned 10th 7th Doctoral degrees earned 6th 8th Total degrees earned 9th 7th Certifi cates, diplomas, and associate degrees in health fi elds earned 8th 7th Bachelor’s degrees in health fi elds earned 28th 17th Master’s degrees in health fi elds earned 11th 13th Doctoral degrees in health fi elds earned 15th 13th Total degrees earned in health fi elds 13th 8th Certifi cates, diplomas, and associate degrees in STEM fi elds earned 7th 21st Bachelor’s degrees in STEM fi elds earned 18th 15th Master’s degrees in STEM fi elds earned 17th 17th Doctoral degrees in STEM fi elds earned 26th 17th Total degrees earned in STEM fi elds 20th 16th Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

Rates and Ratios

Minnesota Indicator Rank 2004 Bachelor’s degrees awarded as a proportion of total headcount enrollment 26th Associate degrees awarded as a proportion of total headcount enrollment 17th Associate degrees and certifi cates awarded as a proportion of total headcount enrollment 5th First to second year retention at two-year colleges 21st First to second year retention at four-year colleges 10th Four-year graduation rate (four-year colleges) 19th Six-year graduation rate (four-year colleges) 22nd Three-year graduation rate (two-year colleges) 22nd Participation rate (high school graduates directly to college) 5th Source: Integrated Postsecondary Enrollment Data System

48 Minnesota Office of Higher Education A P P E N D I X

Proportions of Degrees Earned in Critical Fields

Rank Indicator 2004 2005 Proportion of certifi cates, diplomas, and associate degrees in health fi elds 15th 13th Proportion of bachelor’s degrees in health fi elds 37th 40th Proportion of master’s degrees in health fi elds 32nd 36th Proportion of doctoral/professional degrees in health fi elds 27th 36th Proportion of certifi cates, diplomas, and associate degrees in STEM fi elds 34th 35th Proportion of bachelor’s degrees in STEM fi elds 27th 17th Proportion of master’s degrees in STEM fi elds 42nd 47th Proportion of doctoral degrees in STEM fi elds 39th 34th Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

Appendix E Definitions and Terms in the Report

Institutions: state, and their students are generally included in this report. These are Four-year institutions: For purposes eligible to receive state and federal schools with a specific expertise of this report, four-year institutions financial aid. Some colleges are church such as cosmetology, truck driving, were all postsecondary institutions in affiliated; others are independent. massage therapy or pet grooming. Minnesota that offer bachelor’s degrees There were many different classifications as their primary undergraduate degree. within the private college sector: Predominantly Online Providers: Specific data on online providers were Two-year institutions: For purposes • Not-for-profit, four-year institutions: omitted from this report; however, of this report, two-year institutions These schools have a tax-exempt data for some Minnesota-based were all postsecondary institutions in status and are typically church providers were included in some Minnesota that offer associate degrees affiliated. Examples are St. Olaf of the statewide measures. as their primary undergraduate degree. College, Macalester College and Augsburg College. New Economy States: University of Minnesota: References For many of the indicators in this • Not-for-profit, two-year institutions: to the University of Minnesota included report, Minnesota’s position was At the time of this report, Dunwoody the state’s land grant campus in the compared against the average for College of Technology was the Twin Cities and its comprehensive the top 10 “New Economy” states. only institution in this category. regional institutions in Duluth, Morris These are 10 states that received and Crookston. the highest aggregate ranking from • For-profit, two-year institutions: the Progressive Policy Institute, a These for-profit schools award Minnesota State Colleges and non-profit research and education primarily associate degrees. Universities: This state-supported organization, on 21 key indicators Examples are Brown College system comprises seven state of economic progress. These states and Rasmussen College. universities and 30 community and are believed by the Institute to be technical colleges across Minnesota. well positioned to succeed in the • Private career schools that do not new economy. The 10 states are offer associate degrees as their Private colleges: These institutions Washington, California, Colorado, primary program type are not were licensed or registered by the Connecticut, Delaware,

Minnesota Measures - February 2007 49 Minnesota Measures A report on higher education performance

Appendix E continued Definitions and Terms in the Report

Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, engineering, engineering technology, Per capita: New Jersey and Virginia. Minnesota biological science, mathematics and physical This means of measuring outputs in ranked thirteenth. The New Economy sciences (including chemistry and physics). relation to the population. For example, index was last updated in 2002. the number of health care degrees Student descriptions: produced per 1,000 residents age 20 and Best-performing states: Assessing the situations of students by race older were reported as a way to compare For several of the indicators, Minnesota’s and ethnicity was sometimes limited due states with vastly different populations. performance was compared to the best to constraints of data collection systems. and second best performing states. In Existing data do not recognize the breadth Averages: cases where trends over time were being of diversity that exists within communities Wherever possible, average rates of evaluated, the best states were identified of color. Since most indicators draw data groups of states were computed using for the most recent year and the trend from the Integrated Postsecondary all available data rather than taking shows their history. In cases where trend Education Data System, that system’s an average of the rates. analysis was not shown, the best state terms were used throughout the report was selected for each specific year shown. (black, Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian and white). STEM fields: STEM stands for Science, Technology, International students described Engineering, and Mathematics. The in this report were non-resident aliens acronym was first used by the National who were residents of countries other Science Foundation to describe the types than the United States and who were of programs eligible for certain grant studying at colleges and universities for programs. For the purposes of this the sole purpose of completing a higher document, STEM fields include agriculture, education degree. Other sources environmental science, computer science, sometimes refer to these students as foreign nationals or non-resident aliens.

Sources

Integrated Postsecondary and multi-year estimates of population areas where multilateral agreement is Education Data System (IPEDS): and housing characteristics and produces necessary for individual countries to This source is cited throughout the report data for small areas. make progress in a global economy. and refers to the national enrollment statistics for higher education maintained Organization for Economic Cooperation Office of Higher Education Student by the U.S. Department of Education’s and Development (OECD): Enrollment Record Database: National Center for Education Statistics. This is a group of 30 countries committed The Office of Higher Education’s student to democratic government and the market enrollment record database contains American Community Survey (ACS): economy. The organization provides a unit records for students enrolled The American Community Survey is a setting where governments can compare during the fall term in Minnesota’s continuous demographic survey conducted policy experiences, seek answers to common public and private postsecondary by the Census Bureau that will eventually problems, identify best practices and education institutions. Institutions are provide accurate and up-to-date profiles coordinate domestic and international asked to provide unit records for of America's communities every year. policies. The organization is committed students enrolled on the tenth day of Questionnaires are mailed to a sample of to improving policy and produces fall term, or the institution’s official fall addresses to obtain information about internationally-agreed upon assessment reporting date. Institutions without households. The survey produces annual instruments and recommendations in distinct academic terms are asked to

50 Minnesota Office of Higher Education A P P E N D I X

Sources continued provide enrollments using the National Science Foundation: random sample of undergraduate, three-month period July 15 through This is the branch of the federal graduate and first professional October 15 as a proxy for tenth-day government that collects information students attending postsecondary fall data. Institutions eligible to on research and development across institutions. The study’s purpose participate in a Minnesota-funded the United States. It is recognized by is to provide information about how student financial aid program are higher education institutions and students and their families pay for required to report their student research agencies as the primary education and to assess certain enrollment data. and official source of this data. characteristics of students enrolled in postsecondary education. Minnesota Department of National Postsecondary Education: Student Aid Study: Post-Secondary Education This agency oversees statewide The National Postsecondary Student Opportunity: testing in pre-kindergarten through Aid Survey was a national survey of Headed by research analyst Tom high school. The Minnesota students conducted by the National Mortenson, Post-Secondary Education Comprehensive Assessment Series II Center for Education Statistics at the Opportunity is an organization (or MCA II) are statewide tests that U.S. Department of Education. The based in Oskaloosa, Iowa, providing measure student progress. most recent year for which data were nationwide research and perspective collected was 2004. The study provides on a range of college access topics. a nationally-representative stratified

About the Minnesota Office of Higher Education

The Minnesota Office of Higher Education is a Authors cabinet-level state agency providing students with financial aid programs and information to help them Mark Misukanis, Ph.D. gain access to postsecondary education. The agency Director of Fiscal Policy and Research serves as the state’s clearinghouse for data, research and analysis on postsecondary enrollment, financial Office of Higher Education aid, finance and trends. [email protected]

Jim Bohy, Ed.D. Acknowledgements Associate Director of Higher Education Accountability Office of Higher Education The Office of Higher Education thanks the Minnesota [email protected] State Colleges and Universities, the University of Minnesota, the Minnesota Private College Council and the Minnesota Career College Association for their participation and assistance in this process.

This document can be made available in alternate formats for people with disabilities.

Minnesota Measures - February 2007 51 How to Contact Us

For more information on our programs and services, please contact us at:

Printed on recycled paper.