Beloit College Fact Book

Home , Beloit College, Lawrence University

BELOIT COLLEGE FACT BOOK

INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH,ASSESSMENT,&PLANNING

SPRING 2018 ii Contents

1 Enrollment 1

2 Student Characteristics 9

3 Student Experience 15

4 Full-Time Faculty 27

5 Staff 37

6 Finance and Operations 43

7 Outcomes 61

8 Alumni and Development 67

A Changes To Fact Book 71

B Comparison School Selection 73

C The Use of Information Gathered for HEDS 75

iii iv CONTENTS Preface

A standard list of 20 schools, including Beloit, is used throughout this Fact Book. These schools were selected as comparison schools because they share similar missions and budget sizes. It would be less meaningful to compare Be- loit with schools that have signiﬁcantly more or less ﬁnancial resources with which to operate, or to compare Beloit with schools that do not share similar values and goals. The process of identifying comparison schools was completed in 2014 and is outlined in further detail in Appendix B. Because faculty and administrators have a shared goal to increase faculty salaries to the median of the Associated Colleges of the Midwest (ACM), and because cost of living is less varied across the midwest than across the United States, we have used ACM schools, rather than our peer schools, on charts of faculty salaries.

This book is conﬁdential and may only be used by current Beloit College trustees, faculty, and staff for planning and management related to advancing the mission of the college. Many of the data in this volume are conﬁdential. Some of data in this volume were compiled by Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) and are subject to its Understandings Regarding the Use of Information Gathered for HEDS, which is printed in Appendix C.

We wish to thank Brandon Diop’17, Ellenor Anderbyrne’05, Hilary Walker’16, Chen Bao’17 and Paul Stanley for their contributions to previous volumes upon which this version is based, and Cynthia Gray, Russ Cannon and previous institutional researchers who compiled Beloit College data for many of the years contained in this volume.

This book was prepared using LATEX with Bookman font.

We hope the material contained in this volume spurs questions and conver- sations among members of the Beloit College community. We’d love to talk with you about the visualizations, provide the graphics to you for use in your own presentations, or hear your suggestions for future editions. If you ﬁnd an error, please let us know so that we can correct it.

Gjergj Ndoci’20, Caleb Nghe’20, Hengchun Mu’20 and Ruth Vater’05

v vi CONTENTS Enrollment

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Fall Enrollment First-Time Full-Time (FTFT) Freshmen Fall Enrollment Admit Rate Yield Rate Draw Rate High School GPA of Freshmen

1 2 CHAPTER 1. ENROLLMENT

Beloit Full-Time Equivalent Fall Enrollment 1,500

1370 1353 1359 1365 1342 1345 1320 1288 1274 1270 1,000 Number of Students 500 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Note: 2017 FTE is from Common Dataset using CDS methodology; prior years are from IPEDS using Fall enrollment derivation Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set

Full-Time Equivalent Fall Enrollment, 2017

Wooster Austin 1218 Knox 1341 Beloit 1365 Kalamazoo 1430 Lawrence 1447 Centre 1449 Ursinus 1495 Wofford 1579 Illinois Wesleyan 1647 Kenyon 1666 Wheaton 1676 Allegheny 1769 Rhodes 1982 DePauw 2144 Hobart William Smith Colleges 2226 Muhlenberg 2308 Dickinson 2358 St Lawrence University 2386 Gettysburg 2403

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Number of Students Source: Common Data Set 3

Beloit Full-Time Freshmen Fall Enrollment 400 392 382

339 335 333 318 323 311 300 300 299 200 Number of Students 100 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set

Full-Time Freshmen Fall Enrollment, 2017

Beloit 323 Austin 332 Lawrence 353 Knox 354 Illinois Wesleyan 378 Centre 401 Ursinus 402 Kalamazoo 449 Wofford 452 Kenyon 453 Allegheny 481 Wheaton 501 Rhodes 513 Muhlenberg 564 DePauw 595 Dickinson 606 Hobart William Smith 634 St Lawrence 698 Gettysburg 721

0 200 400 600 800 Number of Students Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Source: Common Data Set 4 CHAPTER 1. ENROLLMENT

Admit Rate, 2017

Kenyon 34 Gettysburg 46 Wheaton 48 St Lawrence 48 Muhlenberg 48 Dickinson 49 Rhodes 51 Austin 52 Beloit 54 Illinois Wesleyan 61 Hobart William Smith 61 Lawrence 61 DePauw 67 Allegheny 68 Wofford 69 Knox 72 Kalamazoo 73 Centre 76 Ursinus 78

0 20 40 60 80 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Source: Common Data Set

Admit Rate 80 60 Percentage 40 20 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 5

Yield Rate, 2017

Beloit 11 Allegheny 14 Ursinus 15 Knox 15 Lawrence 16 Illinois Wesleyan 17 DePauw 17 Wheaton 17 Kalamazoo 18 Austin 18 Dickinson 21 Wofford 21 Rhodes 21 Centre 21 Hobart William Smith 24 Kenyon 24 St Lawrence 25 Gettysburg 25 Muhlenberg 25

0 5 10 15 20 25 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Source: Common Data Set

Yield Rate 40 30 Percentage 20 10 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 6 CHAPTER 1. ENROLLMENT

Draw Rate, 2017

Ursinus 0.19 Allegheny 0.20 Beloit 0.21 Knox 0.21 Kalamazoo 0.24 DePauw 0.25 Lawrence 0.26 Illinois Wesleyan 0.28 Centre 0.28 Wofford 0.30 Austin 0.34 Wheaton 0.36 Hobart William Smith 0.38 Rhodes 0.42 Dickinson 0.43 St Lawrence 0.51 Muhlenberg 0.52 Gettysburg 0.54 Kenyon 0.71

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Note: Draw Rate = Yield rate / Acceptance rate Source: Common Data Set

Draw Rate 1 .9 .8 .7 .6 .5 Percentage .4 .3 .2 .1 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Note: Draw Rate = Yield rate / Acceptance rate Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 7

Average Freshmen High School GPA, 2017

Beloit 3.29 Muhlenberg 3.31 Ursinus 3.34 Hobart William Smith 3.37 Knox 3.38 Wheaton 3.44 Lawrence 3.45 Allegheny 3.48 Austin 3.54 St Lawrence 3.60 Centre 3.63 Wofford 3.69 Illinois Wesleyan 3.74 DePauw 3.78 Kalamazoo 3.84 Rhodes 3.91 Kenyon 3.94

0 1 2 3 4 Average GPA Note: High school GPA calculation methodologies may vary Note: Data unavailable for Wooster, Dickinson and Gettysburg Source: Common Data Set

Freshmen High School GPA Distribution Fall 2008 to Fall 2017 100 80 60 40 Percentage of Class 20 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3.75-4.00 3.50-3.74 3.25-3.49 3.00-3.24 2.50-2.99 2.00-2.49

Source: Common Data Set 8 CHAPTER 1. ENROLLMENT Student Characteristics

Percent Male Freshmen Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Freshmen Percent Domestic White Students Percent Domestic Minority Students Percent International Students Countries of Origin

9 10 CHAPTER 2. STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Percent of Students who are Male Freshman, 2017

Wheaton 40 Muhlenberg 41 Kalamazoo 42 Rhodes 42 Dickinson 43 Allegheny 44 Illinois Wesleyan 44 Kenyon 44 Wofford 45 St Lawrence 46 Knox 47 Lawrence 47 Beloit 48 Gettysburg 48 Hobart William Smith 49 Ursinus 50 Austin 51 Centre 51 DePauw 51

0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Source: Common Data Set

Percent of Students who are Male Freshman, 2010-2017 55 50 45 40 Percentage 35 30 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 11

Race/Ethnicity Distribution Freshman 2017

Knox Austin Beloit Kalamazoo Lawrence Dickinson Wheaton DePauw Allegheny Illinois Wesleyan Rhodes Kenyon Centre Ursinus Muhlenberg Hobart William Smith Gettysburg St Lawrence Wofford

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage

White Domestic Minority International Unknown

Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Source: Common Data Set

Percent of Students who are Domestic White All students, 2010-2017 90 80 70 60 Percentage 50 40 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 12 CHAPTER 2. STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Percent of Students who are Domestic Minorities Freshman 2017

St Lawrence 12 Hobart William Smith 15 Muhlenberg 16 Gettysburg 16 Centre 18 Wofford 19 Kenyon 19 Dickinson 20 DePauw 21 Illinois Wesleyan 21 Ursinus 21 Lawrence 23 Wheaton 23 Beloit 24 Allegheny 24 Rhodes 24 Kalamazoo 33 Knox 34 Austin 48

0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Source: Common Data Set

Percent of Students who are Domestic Minority All students, 2010-2017 50 40 30 Percentage 20 10

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 13

Percent of Students who are International Freshman 2017

Wofford 2 Ursinus 2 Austin 3 Allegheny 3 Rhodes 4 Muhlenberg 4 Kenyon 6 Hobart William Smith 6 Kalamazoo 6 Gettysburg 7 Centre 7 Illinois Wesleyan 8 St Lawrence 9 DePauw 9 Wheaton 10 Lawrence 11 Dickinson 12 Beloit 15 Knox 17

0 5 10 15 20 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Source: Common Data Set

Percent of Students who are International All students, 2010-2017 20 15 10 Percentage 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 14 CHAPTER 2. STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

International Students' Countries of Origin Fall 2017

China 106 Japan 22 India 16 Viet Nam 11 Nepal 6 South Korea 4 Ghana 4 Bahamas 4 United Kingdom 3 Pakistan 3 Germany 3 Ecuador 3 Australia 3 United Arab Emirates 2 Thailand 2 Switzerland 2 Singapore 2 Hong Kong 2 Canada 2 Bangladesh 2

0 20 40 60 80 100 Count Note: Countries sending at least 2 students shown. Note: Beloit had 224 international students in Fall 2017: 205 degree seeking, 15 exchange students and 3 students completing Honors Terms

Countries of Origin, Degree-Seeking Students 2017

AFGHANISTAN GHANA PAKISTAN ALBANIA HONG KONG RWANDA AUSTRALIA INDIA SERBIA BAHAMAS INDONESIA SOUTH AFRICA BANGLADESH JAPAN SWITZERLAND CAMBODIA SOUTH KOREA THAILAND CANADA MALI UNITED ARAB EMIRATES CHINA MAURITIUS UNITED KINGDOM CONGO MOLDOVA UNITED STATES ECUADOR MYANMAR VIET NAM ETHIOPIA NEPAL GEORGIA PAKISTAN Student Experience

Graduation and Persistence Rates Sophomore Retention Rate Four-Year Graduation Rate Six-Year Graduation Rate Number of FTE Students per Full-Time Faculty vs. Retention Rate Number of FTE Students per Full-Time Staff vs. Retention Rate Number of FTE Students per Full-Time Faculty vs. Six-Year Graduation Rate Number of FTE Students per Full-Time Staff vs. Six-Year Grad- uation Rate Student-to-Faculty Ratio Average Class Size by Department Class Size Under 20 Students Class Size under 30 Students Count of Courses by Class Size

15 16 CHAPTER 3. STUDENT EXPERIENCE Year Class Entering Compiled Spring 2018 by the Office of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Planning May graduation date, based upon the Common Data Set end date of August 31st relevant year. Note: All percentages are calculated using the initial cohort size; graduation rates include August grads for following primary Beloit College Graduation and Persistence Rates 4299 14 8347 88 7323 382 392 17 16 299 15 311 315 13 333 12 332 11 337 10 325 09 08 07 6347 326 325 06 347 05 304 04 311 03 307 02 303 01 302 00 339 99 284 98 291 97 96 95 4300 284 306 94 261 93 250 92 243 91 90 89 Size Cohort Initial C l a i it n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ubrPretNme ecn ubrPretNme ecn ubrPretNme ecn ubrPercent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number 8 .62708 5 .52206 3 .1240.73 0.82 0.86 0.80 244 0.78 271 0.78 270 271 0.71 254 0.79 0.80 272 0.85 0.80 237 0.78 245 265 0.78 267 270 0.64 253 0.72 0.70 271 0.75 0.71 212 0.70 224 233 0.81 0.70 237 240 229 0.82 243 243 0.87 254 0.79 273 0.80 236 0.86 0.78 0.75 249 0.82 0.82 270 0.80 304 251 0.85 0.78 245 272 0.85 0.88 0.77 271 0.86 0.80 0.77 264 254 0.88 0.83 0.77 326 277 268 0.85 0.82 0.81 337 267 251 0.92 0.83 0.75 264 275 249 0.91 0.79 0.79 253 276 280 0.86 0.77 0.73 287 271 229 0.89 0.77 0.70 288 274 245 0.90 0.86 0.69 286 253 223 0.89 0.79 0.72 296 249 212 0.88 0.83 0.67 303 297 208 0.86 0.76 0.70 288 239 244 0.85 0.74 0.73 304 259 190 0.90 0.73 280 232 204 0.87 0.74 276 225 220 0.89 0.71 314 220 0.85 0.76 265 252 0.82 0.76 277 202 0.85 261 222 0.83 248 227 0.79 257 0.85 280 0.81 225 247 244 er2Ya er44yas5 years 4 years Year 4 Year 3 Year 2 Students from initial cohort returning in: 234 .82107 2 .5230.68 203 0.75 224 0.74 221 0.78 Returned in Year 4 or graduated Students from initial cohort graduating in: .507 0.76 0.77 0.84 0.78 0.79 0.71 0.72 0.75 0.70 0.75 0.72 0.83 0.66 0.76 0.68 0.78 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.65 0.69 0.66 0.71 0.72 0.65 0.69 0.67 0.74 0.70 0.67 0.67 0.64 0.67 0.62 0.64 0.65 .606 0.64 0.66 0.66 0.68 0.88 0.71 0.62 0.65 0.64 0.66 0.86 0.69 0.56 0.56 0.52 0.56 0.75 0.57 6 years 17

Sophomore Retention Rate, 2017

Austin 81 Allegheny 81 Beloit 85 Ursinus 85 Hobart William Smith 86 Knox 87 Lawrence 88 Wheaton 88 DePauw 89 Illinois Wesleyan 89 Dickinson 90 Gettysburg 90 Wofford 90 Kalamazoo 90 Muhlenberg 91 Rhodes 91 Centre 91 St Lawrence 92 Kenyon 93

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Source: Common Data Set

Sophomore Retention Rate 100 95 90 85 Percentage 80 75 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median Beloit's 3-year trailing average

Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 18 CHAPTER 3. STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Four-Year Graduation Rate, 2016

Beloit 64 Lawrence 64 Austin 69 Knox 69 Allegheny 70 Wooster 71 Hobart William Smith 72 Kalamazoo 73 Ursinus 73 Illinois Wesleyan 74 Rhodes 76 Wheaton 76 DePauw 78 Wofford 78 Muhlenberg 80 Dickinson 81 St Lawrence 81 Gettysburg 84 Centre 85 Kenyon 89

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage Source: IPEDS

Four-Year Graduation Rate 90 80 70 60 Four-year Graduation Rate 50 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Comparison Schools Beloit Median Beloit's 3-year trailing average

Source: IPEDS 19

Six-Year Graduation Rate, 2017

Austin 68 Allegheny 75 Knox 76 Ursinus 77 Wheaton 78 Illinois Wesleyan 78 Lawrence 80 Wofford 81 Hobart William Smith 81 DePauw 81 Centre 82 Rhodes 83 Dickinson 83 Muhlenberg 83 Gettysburg 84 St Lawrence 85 Beloit 86 Kalamazoo 86 Kenyon 91

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster, Muhlenberg, and Ursinus Source: Common Data Set

Six-Year Graduation Rate 90 85 80 75 Six-year Graduation Rate 70

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median Beloit's 3-year trailing average

Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 20 CHAPTER 3. STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Number of FTE Students per Full-Time Faculty vs. Retention Rate

13 Ursinus Kalamazoo Austin Wofford St LawrenceMuhlenberg Wheaton

12 Illinois Wesleyan KnoxBeloit

Hobart William Smith Centre 11 Allegheny Gettysburg Rhodes

10 Dickinson DePauw

9 Lawrence Kenyon 8 85 90 95 Retention Rate

FTE Students per Full-Time Faculty Fitted values

Note: Retention Rate is the average retention rate of 2015, 2016, and 2017 FTE Students per Full-Time Faculty is for 2016 Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set

Number of FTE Students per Full-Time Staff vs. Retention Rate

7 Muhlenberg AustinAllegheny Ursinus Rhodes

Hobart William WoffordSmith Illinois Wesleyan 6 Beloit Kalamazoo Knox

Wheaton Lawrence

5 CentreDePauw

St Lawrence Gettysburg Kenyon 4 Dickinson 85 90 95 Retention Rate

FTE Students per Full-Time Staff Fitted values

Note: Retention Rate is the average retention rate of 2015, 2016, and 2017 FTE Students per Full-Time Staff is for 2016 Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 21

Number of FTE Students per Full-Time Faculty vs. Six-Year Graduation Rate

13 Ursinus Kalamazoo Austin Wofford MuhlenbergSt Lawrence Wheaton

12 Illinois Wesleyan KnoxBeloit

Hobart William Smith Centre 11 Allegheny Gettysburg Rhodes

10 Dickinson DePauw

9 Lawrence Kenyon 8 50 55 60 Graduation Rate

FTE Students per Full-Time Faculty Fitted values

Note: Six-Year Graduation Rate is the average six-year graduation rate of 2015, 2016, and 2017 FTE Students per Full-Time Faculty is for 2016 Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set

Number of FTE Students per Full-Time Staff vs. Six-Year Graduation Rate

7 Muhlenberg Austin Allegheny Ursinus Rhodes

Hobart WilliamWofford SmithIllinois Wesleyan 6 Beloit Kalamazoo Knox

LawrenceWheaton

5 DePauw Centre

St Lawrence Gettysburg Kenyon 4 Dickinson 50 55 60 Graduation Rate

FTE Students per Full-Time Staff Fitted values

Note: Six-Year Graduation Rate is the average six-year graduation rate of 2015, 2016, and 2017 FTE Students per Full-Time Staff is for 2016 Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 22 CHAPTER 3. STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Student-to-Faculty Ratio, 2017

Lawrence 8 DePauw 9 Dickinson 9 Gettysburg 9 Kenyon 9 Allegheny 10 Centre 10 Hobart William Smith 10 Illinois Wesleyan 10 Muhlenberg 10 Rhodes 10 Wheaton 10 Wofford 10 Austin 11 Beloit 11 Knox 11 St Lawrence 11 Ursinus 11 Kalamazoo 13

0 5 10 15 Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Note: Ratio represents full-time equivalent students to full-time equivalent faculty. Source: Common Data Set

Student Faculty Ratio 15 13 Ratio 11 9

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Note: Beloit's ratio was 10:1, 11:1, 10:1, 12:1, 11:1, 11:1, 10:1, 11:1, 11:1 and 11:1, respectively Source: IPEDS 23

Average Class Size by Course Prefix 2017-18 Academic Year

CPLT 1 GREK 4 ANST 4 TDMS 8 GERM 9 RUSS 10 GEOL 11 LATN 11 JAPN 11 CHIN 11 EDYS 12 MUSI 12 OADI 12 ART 13 RUST 14 FREN 14 MUST 14 COGS 14 SPAN 14 WRIT 15 RLST 15 ENGL 15 HIST 15 MATH 16 ARTH 16 PSYC 16 PHIL 17 ENVS 17 CHEM 17 PHYS 17 HEAL 18 JOUR 18 CLAS 19 CRIS 19 SOCI 19 ANTH 19 BIOL 20 POLS 20 CSCI 22 ECON 25

0 5 10 15 20 25 Average Class Size Note: Methodology is same as ASP Departmental Reports for Tenure Track Planning Source: Beloit College 2017-18 Course Registration Data, as of June 1, 2018 24 CHAPTER 3. STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Class Size Under 20 Students, Fall 2017

Lawrence 81 Knox 77 Dickinson 75 Kenyon 74 Allegheny 73 Illinois Wesleyan 71 DePauw 70 Muhlenberg 70 Gettysburg 69 Rhodes 68 Beloit 68 Hobart William Smith 66 Wofford 65 Wheaton 65 St Lawrence 64 Kalamazoo 63 Austin 62 Centre 61

0 20 40 60 80 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster and Ursinus Source: Common Data Set

Percentage of Class Size Under 20 Students Fall 2011-2017 90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Note: Data unavailable for Wooster and Ursinus Source: U.S. News & World Report; Common Data Set 25

Class Size Under 30 Students, Fall 2017

Wofford 99 DePauw 98 Beloit 98 Muhlenberg 98 Kenyon 97 Knox 96 Rhodes 95 Allegheny 94 St Lawrence 93 Dickinson 93 Gettysburg 93 Illinois Wesleyan 93 Austin 92 Lawrence 92 Hobart William Smith 91 Kalamazoo 91 Centre 90 Wheaton 86

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster and Ursinus Source: Common Data Set

Class Size, Fall 2017

Wheaton Centre Kalamazoo Hobart William Smith Lawrence Austin Illinois Wesleyan Gettysburg Dickinson St Lawrence Allegheny Rhodes Knox Kenyon Muhlenberg Beloit DePauw Wofford

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage

2-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-99

Note: Data unavailable for Wooster and Ursinus Source: Common Data Set 26 CHAPTER 3. STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Count of Courses by Class Size 2017-18 Academic Year 40 30 20 Count of Courses 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Class Size Source: Beloit College 2017-18 Course Registration Data, as of June 1, 2018 Full-Time Faculty

Percent Male Faculty Full-Time Faculty Race/Ethnicity Distribution Percent Domestic White Full-Time Faculty Percent Domestic Minority Full-Time Faculty Percent International Full-Time Faculty Percentage of Full-Time Employees who are Faculty Full Professor Salaries, ACM Schools Associate Professor Salaries, ACM Schools Assistant Professor Salaries, ACM Schools Full-Time Faculty Salaries as a Percent of the ACM Median

Note: All faculty data represents faculty employed on November 1 each year.

27 28 CHAPTER 4. FULL-TIME FACULTY

Percent of Faculty who are Male Full-time Faculty, 2017

Beloit 43 Ursinus 43 Wheaton 45 Kalamazoo 48 St Lawrence 50 Dickinson 50 Muhlenberg 50 Hobart William Smith 51 Allegheny 51 Rhodes 51 Gettysburg 56 Centre 56 Lawrence 56 Kenyon 56 Knox 56 DePauw 57 Wofford 58 Illinois Wesleyan 58 Austin 62

0 20 40 60 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Source: Common Data Set

Percent of Faculty who are Male Full-time Faculty, 2012-2017 70 60 Percentage 50 40 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 29

Full-Time Faculty Race/Ethnicity Distribution, 2016

Knox Wheaton Kenyon Kalamazoo Ursinus DePauw Gettysburg Beloit Dickinson St Lawrence Wooster Rhodes Illinois Wesleyan Allegheny Lawrence Austin Hobart William Smith Muhlenberg Centre Wofford

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage

White Domestic Minority International Unknown

Source: IPEDS

Percentage of Faculty who are Domestic White Full-Time Faculty 100 90 80 Percentage 70 60

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Note: 2017 domestic white also includes domestic faculty of unknown race/ethnicity Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 30 CHAPTER 4. FULL-TIME FACULTY

Percentage of Faculty who are Domestic Minority Full-Time, 2017

Centre 10 Wofford 11 Illinois Wesleyan 14 St Lawrence 14 Knox 15 Rhodes 15 Lawrence 15 Allegheny 16 Dickinson 16 Hobart William Smith 18 Ursinus 19 Beloit 19 Gettysburg 20 Wheaton 20 DePauw 21 Austin 22 Kenyon 27 Kalamazoo 27

0 10 20 30 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster and Muhlenberg Source: Common Data Set

Percentage of Faculy who are Domestic Minority Full-Time Faculty 30 20 Percentage 10 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 31

Percentage of Faculty who are International Full-Time, 2017

DePauw 0 Wofford 0 Austin 1 Wheaton 2 Gettysburg 2 Kenyon 2 Beloit 3 Lawrence 3 Hobart William Smith 3 St Lawrence 3 Illinois Wesleyan 4 Allegheny 4 Rhodes 4 Centre 5 Dickinson 5 Ursinus 6 Knox 6 Kalamazoo 15

0 5 10 15 Percentage Note: International is defined as non-resident aliens. Green card holders and naturalized U.S.citizens are not included here. Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Source: Common Data Set

Percentage of Faculty who are International Full-Time Faculty 15 10 5 Percentage 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Note: International is defined as non-resident aliens. Green card holders and naturalized U.S. citizens are not included here. Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 32 CHAPTER 4. FULL-TIME FACULTY

Percentage of Employees Who are Faculty Full-Time, 2016

Wooster 23 St Lawrence 23 Knox 24 Muhlenberg 24 Dickinson 25 Gettysburg 25 Wheaton 26 Illinois Wesleyan 27 Kalamazoo 27 Ursinus 28 Wofford 28 Centre 29 DePauw 29 Beloit 29 Kenyon 29 Hobart William Smith 29 Lawrence 32 Austin 32 Allegheny 34 Rhodes 37

0 10 20 30 40 Percentage Source: IPEDS

Percentage of Employees Who are Faculty Full-Time 45 40 35 Percentage 30 25

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS 33

Average Full Professor Salaries, 2017 ACM Schools

Monmouth 74,326 Cornell 78,611 Luther 81,321 Ripon 81,652 Coe 81,816 Knox 81,967 Beloit 87,758 Lawrence 90,440 Lake Forest 99,325 St Olaf 99,808 Macalester 124,219 Colorado 135,662 Carleton 135,914 Grinnell 136,755

0 50,000 100000 150000 Salary ($) Source: AAUP Faculty Salary Survey

Average Full Professor Salaries, Inflation Adjusted ACM Schools 140 120 100 80 Salary ($, thousands) 60 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ACM Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS 34 CHAPTER 4. FULL-TIME FACULTY

Average Associate Professor Salaries, 2017 ACM Schools

Cornell 59,632 Knox 63,089 Coe 63,240 Monmouth 63,488 Ripon 64,501 Luther 68,222 Beloit 70,810 Lawrence 74,670 Lake Forest 78,767 St Olaf 80,036 Macalester 91,607 Colorado 100,514 Carleton 101,167 Grinnell 103,492

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100000 Salary ($) Source: AAUP Faculty Salary Survey

Average Associate Professor Salaries, Inflation Adjusted ACM Schools 100 80 60 Salary ($, thousands) 40 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ACM Schools Beloit Median

Note: Inflation adjustment using Bureau of Labor Statistics: CPI-All Urban Consumers Source: IPEDS 35

Average Assistant Professor Salaries, 2017 ACM Schools

Monmouth 51,913 Knox 52,222 Ripon 54,180 Cornell 54,653 Coe 57,087 Luther 58,499 Beloit 60,620 Lawrence 61,866 Lake Forest 64,212 St Olaf 67,037 Macalester 77,684 Colorado 82,680 Carleton 83,697 Grinnell 84,209

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Salary ($) Source: AAUP Faculty Salary Survey

Average Assistant Professor Salaries, Inflation Adjusted ACM Schools 80 70 60 50 Salary ($, thousands) 40 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ACM Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS 36 CHAPTER 4. FULL-TIME FACULTY Staff

Percent Male Staff Staff Race/Ethnicity Distribution Percent Domestic White Staff Percent Domestic Minority Staff Percent International Staff

Note: All staff data represents staff employed on November 1 each year.

37 38 CHAPTER 5. STAFF

Percent of Staff who are Male Full-Time Staff, 2016

Beloit 37 Wheaton 41 Wooster 42 Kalamazoo 42 Kenyon 42 Dickinson 43 Hobart William Smith 43 Ursinus 44 Knox 44 Allegheny 44 Gettysburg 45 Muhlenberg 46 DePauw 46 Centre 48 Rhodes 48 Lawrence 49 St Lawrence 49 Austin 49 Illinois Wesleyan 50 Wofford 54

0 20 40 60 Percentage Source: IPEDS

Percent of Staff who are Male Full-Time Staff, 2011-2016 60 55 50 45 Percentage 40 35 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 year

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS 39

Staff Race/Ethnicity Distribution Full-time Staff, 2016

Rhodes Kalamazoo Knox Wheaton Beloit Kenyon Lawrence Illinois Wesleyan Muhlenberg DePauw Austin Wooster Gettysburg Wofford St Lawrence Dickinson Allegheny Ursinus Hobart William Smith Centre

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage

Domestic White Domestic Minority International Unknown

Source: IPEDS

Percentage of Staff who are Domestic White Full-time Staff 95 90 85 80 Percentage 75 70 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS 40 CHAPTER 5. STAFF

Percentage of Staff who are Domestic Minority Full-time Staff, 2016

St Lawrence 6 Centre 6 Kenyon 8 Ursinus 9 Dickinson 10 Allegheny 10 Hobart William Smith 10 Muhlenberg 11 Wheaton 11 Gettysburg 11 Wooster 12 Lawrence 12 Wofford 12 Knox 13 Illinois Wesleyan 13 Austin 14 DePauw 15 Beloit 17 Kalamazoo 20 Rhodes 27

0 10 20 30 Percentage Source: IPEDS

Percentage of Staff who are Domestic Minority Full-time Staff 30 25 20 15 Percentage 10 5 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS 41

Percentage of Staff who are International Full-time Staff, 2016

Centre0.0 DePauw0.0 Muhlenberg0.0 Wofford0.0 Wheaton 0.2 Austin 0.3 Wooster 0.5 Hobart William Smith 0.5 Kalamazoo 0.8 Beloit 1.1 Gettysburg 1.4 Kenyon 1.5 Dickinson 1.5 Allegheny 1.5 Lawrence 1.9 Ursinus 2.0 St Lawrence 2.2 Rhodes 2.2 Illinois Wesleyan 2.5 Knox 3.4

0 1 2 3 4 Percentage Source: IPEDS

Percentage of Staff who are International Full-time Staff 4 3 2 Percentage 1 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS 42 CHAPTER 5. STAFF Finance and Operations

Sticker Price Average Institutional Aid Received, Freshmen Percentage of Freshmen Receiving Institutional Aid Summary of Freshmen Financial Aid Average Need Met, Freshmen Percentage Whose Need was Fully Met, Freshmen Borrowing, Graduating Seniors Endowment per Full-Time Equivalent Student Debt Coverage Ratio Viability Ratio Financial Net Assets Ratio Number of Full-Time Students vs. Number of Full-Time Faculty Number of Full-Time Students vs. Number of Full-Time Staff Number of Full-Time Students vs. Number of Employees Operating Expenses per Student vs. Number of Full-Time Stu- dents Estimated Revenue per Student Average NTR per Freshman

43 44 CHAPTER 6. FINANCE AND OPERATIONS

Sticker Price of Tuition, Fees, Room, and Board 2018-19

Centre 51 Austin 53 Illinois Wesleyan 54 Knox 56 Wofford 57 Lawrence 58 Rhodes 58 Kalamazoo 58 Beloit 59 Allegheny 60 Wooster 62 Muhlenberg 62 DePauw 63 Kenyon 64 Ursinus 65 Gettysburg 65 Wheaton 66 Hobart William Smith 67 Dickinson 68 St Lawrence 69

0 20 40 60 Price ($, thousands) Source: Institutions' Websites

Sticker Price of Tuition, Fees, Room, and Board Inflation Adjusted 70 65 60 55 50 Price ($, thousands) 45 40 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Note: Inflation adjustment using Bureau of Labor Statistics: CPI-All Urban Consumers Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 45

Average Institutional Aid Received by Freshmen, 2016

Muhlenberg 23 Illinois Wesleyan 23 Centre 25 Lawrence 26 Hobart William Smith 26 Kalamazoo 27 Austin 27 Rhodes 27 DePauw 28 Wofford 28 Wooster 28 Gettysburg 28 Wheaton 29 Knox 29 Beloit 29 Dickinson 30 Allegheny 30 Ursinus 31 St Lawrence 32 Kenyon 36

0 10 20 30 40 Average Amount of Aid ($, thousands) Source: IPEDS

Average Institutional Aid Received by Freshmen, Inflation Adjusted 40 35 30 25 20 15 Average Amount of Aid ($, thousands) 10 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS 46 CHAPTER 6. FINANCE AND OPERATIONS

Percentage of Students Receiving Institutional Aid Freshmen, 2016

Kenyon 62 Dickinson 78 Gettysburg 80 Muhlenberg 90 Hobart William Smith 92 Wofford 92 Rhodes 94 Wheaton 96 Knox 98 Allegheny 99 Beloit 99 Centre 99 Kalamazoo 99 Lawrence 99 Wooster 99 Austin 100 DePauw 100 Illinois Wesleyan 100 St Lawrence 100 Ursinus 100

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage Source: IPEDS

Percentage of Freshmen Receiving Institutional Aid 100 90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS 47

Summary of Financial Need Met Freshman awarded any need-based aid 100 80 60 40 Percentage 20 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year

Students whose need was fully met Average financial need met

Source: Common Data Set

Percentage Awarded Any Financial Aid Freshman, 2017

Kenyon 40 Rhodes 60 Dickinson 62 Wofford 63 Muhlenberg 63 Centre 65 Gettysburg 65 DePauw 65 Hobart William Smith 65 Beloit 67 St Lawrence 68 Wheaton 68 Lawrence 68 Illinois Wesleyan 73 Austin 75 Ursinus 76 Kalamazoo 79 Allegheny 81 Knox 85

0 20 40 60 80 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Source: Common Data Set 48 CHAPTER 6. FINANCE AND OPERATIONS

Average Percent of Need Met Freshman awarded any need-based aid

100 99.2 97.0 95.4 96.0 95.2 95.0 94.9 92.0 93.2 86.7 80 60 Percentage 40 20 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Note: Data unavailable for 2013 Source: Common Data Set

Average Percentage of Need Met Freshman awarded any need-based aid, 2017

Hobart William Smith 79 Ursinus 84 Wofford 86 Muhlenberg 87 Illinois Wesleyan 87 Austin 87 Centre 87 St Lawrence 88 Gettysburg 90 Knox 90 DePauw 91 Allegheny 91 Rhodes 94 Beloit 95 Wheaton 95 Kalamazoo 96 Lawrence 96 Dickinson 99 Kenyon 100

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster Source: Common Data Set 49

Percent of Students Whose Need was Fully Met Freshman awarded any need-based aid

63.2 60

47.1 44.7 40

31.0 28.3 Percentage

23.7 21.7 20 19.1 18.3 17.0 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Note: Data unavailable for 2013 Source: Common Data Set

Percentage of Students whose Need was Fully Met Freshman, 2017

Illinois Wesleyan 15 St Lawrence 15 Austin 16 Muhlenberg 17 Beloit 18 DePauw 21 Allegheny 22 Ursinus 23 Centre 24 Knox 28 Wofford 30 Rhodes 31 Wheaton 37 Kenyon 40 Lawrence 40 Kalamazoo 43 Dickinson 57 Gettysburg 58

0 20 40 60 Percentage Note: Data unavailable for Wooster and Hobart William Smith Source: Common Data Set 50 CHAPTER 6. FINANCE AND OPERATIONS

Percentage of Students Who Borrowed from Any Loan Program Graduating seniors 80

70.0 69.6 68.0 66.0 67.0 66.8 64.8 64.6 60

56.8 40 Percentage 20 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Note: Data unavailable for 2009 and 2010 Source: Common Data Set 51

Average Principal Borrowed, inflation adjusted Graduating Seniors who Borrowed from any Loan Program 40

32.5

30 29.9 30.0 29.9 29.5 29.0 27.8 28.0 27.5 20 10 Borrowed per Student ($, thousands) 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Note: Data unavailable for 2009 and 2010 Note: Inflation adjustment using Bureau of Labor Statistics: CPI-All Urban Consumers Source: Common Data Set

Average Principal Borrowed Graduating Seniors, 2017

Kenyon 22 DePauw 24 Centre 25 Dickinson 26 Beloit 28 Rhodes 28 Knox 31 Gettysburg 31 Kalamazoo 32 Wofford 32 Muhlenberg 32 Lawrence 32 St Lawrence 33 Hobart William Smith 34 Wheaton 35 Illinois Wesleyan 36 Allegheny 39 Ursinus 39

0 10 20 30 40 Borrowed per Student ($, thousands) Note: Data unavailable for Austin,and Wooster Source: Common Data Set 52 CHAPTER 6. FINANCE AND OPERATIONS

Endowment per Full-Time Equivalent Student, 2016

Ursinus 83 Hobart William Smith 83 Muhlenberg 90 Knox 90 Austin 97 Allegheny 98 Wofford 99 Beloit 107 Gettysburg 108 St Lawrence 109 Kenyon 110 Wheaton 117 Wooster 123 Illinois Wesleyan 126 Kalamazoo 137 Rhodes 144 Dickinson 150 Lawrence 178 Centre 203 DePauw 270

0 100 200 300 Endowment per FTE Student ($, thousands) Source: IPEDS

Endowment per Full-Time Equivalent Student, Inflation Adjusted 300 250 200 150 100 50 Endowment per FTE Student ($, thousands) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS 53

Debt Coverage Ratio, 2017

Beloit 2 Ursinus 2 Illinois Wesleyan 2 Wofford 3 Wheaton 3 Centre 4 Kenyon 4 St Lawrence 4 Allegheny 4 Dickinson 5 Rhodes 5 Gettysburg 5 Kalamazoo 6 Hobart William Smith 6 DePauw 6 Lawrence 7 Knox 7 Muhlenberg 7 Wooster 11

0 5 10 Note: Debt coverage ratio is total adjusted change in net assets divided by debt service payments Note: Data unavailable for Austin Source: Audited Financial Statements

Debt Coverage Ratio 20 15 10 5 0

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Note: Debt coverage ratio is total adjusted change in net assets divided by debt service payments Note: Data unavailable for Austin Note: Outliers were removed (Wooster in 2014 and Knox in 2013) Source: Audited Financial Statements 54 CHAPTER 6. FINANCE AND OPERATIONS

Viability Ratio, 2017

Wofford 1 Beloit 1 Kenyon 1 Hobart William Smith 1 Illinois Wesleyan 2 Knox 2 Ursinus 2 Rhodes 2 St Lawrence 2 Gettysburg 2 Centre 2 DePauw 2 Allegheny 3 Lawrence 3 Dickinson 3 Wheaton 3 Muhlenberg 3 Kalamazoo 4 Wooster 12

0 5 10 15 Note: Viability ratio is total expenditures net assets divided by long term debt Note: Data unavailable for Austin Source: Audited Financial Statements

Viability Ratio 10 8 6 4 2 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Note: Viability ratio is total expenditures net assets divided by long term debt Note: Data unavailable for Austin Source: Audited Financial Statements 55

Financial Net Assets Ratio, 2017

Illinois Wesleyan 68 Hobart William Smith 71 Wooster 73 Wofford 75 Muhlenberg 75 Wheaton 78 Ursinus 78 Rhodes 80 Knox 82 Kalamazoo 82 Allegheny 82 Lawrence 83 Gettysburg 83 DePauw 84 St Lawrence 87 Kenyon 88 Centre 91 Dickinson 92 Beloit 92

0 20 40 60 80 100 Note: Financial net assets ratio is total financial net assets divided by total net assets Note: Data unavailable for Austin Source: Audited Financial Statements

Financial Net Assets Ratio 100 90 80 70 60 50 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Note: Financial net assets ratio is total financial net assets divided by total net assets Note: Data unavailable for Austin Source: Audited Financial Statements 56 CHAPTER 6. FINANCE AND OPERATIONS

Number of FTE Students vs. Number of Full-Time Faculty, 2016

2500 St Lawrence Dickinson Muhlenberg Gettysburg Hobart William Smith DePauw

Wooster Rhodes 2000 Allegheny Illinois Wesleyan Kenyon WoffordWheaton Ursinus Lawrence

1500 Kalamazoo Centre KnoxBeloit Austin 1000 100 150 200 250 Full-Time Faculty

FTE Students Fitted values

Source: IPEDS

Number of FTE Students vs. Number of Full-Time Staff, 2016

2500 St Lawrence Dickinson Muhlenberg Gettysburg Hobart William Smith DePauw

Rhodes Wooster

2000 Allegheny Illinois Wesleyan Kenyon Wofford Wheaton Ursinus Lawrence

1500 KalamazooCentre BeloitKnox Austin 1000 200 300 400 500 600 Full-Time Staff

FTE Students Fitted values

Source: IPEDS 57

Number of FTE Students vs. Number of Full-Time Employees, 2016

2500 St Lawrence Dickinson Muhlenberg Gettysburg Hobart William Smith DePauw

Rhodes Wooster

2000 Allegheny Illinois Wesleyan Kenyon WoffordWheaton Ursinus Lawrence

1500 KalamazooCentre BeloitKnox Austin 1000 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Full-Time Employees

FTE Students Fitted values

Source: IPEDS

Operating Expenses vs. Number of Full-Time Students, 2014-2016

2,500 Gettysburg St LawrenceDickinson MuhlenbergHobart William Smith DePauw

Rhodes Wooster Allegheny 2,000 Illinois Wesleyan

Wofford Kenyon Ursinus Wheaton Lawrence Kalamazoo 1,500 Knox Centre Beloit Austin

1,000 40 60 80 100 120 140 3-Year Average Total Operating Expenses ($, millions)

3-year Average Undergraduate Enrollment Fitted values

Note: 3-year averages are shown for both variables; Operating expenses include instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support and auxiliaries Source: IPEDS 58 CHAPTER 6. FINANCE AND OPERATIONS

Estimated Revenue per Student, 2016

Austin 24 Allegheny 29 Ursinus 30 Beloit 32 Kalamazoo 32 IllinoisWesleyan 32 Knox 33 Wheaton 35 Muhlenberg 35 Rhodes 37 Centre 37 HobartWilliamSmith 38 StLawrence 39 Wooster 40 Dickinson 40 Wofford 44 Gettysburg 45 Lawrence 46 Kenyon 48 DePauw 49

0 10 20 30 40 50 Estimated Revenue ($, thousands) Source: IPEDS

Estimated Revenue per Student, Inflation Adjusted 60 50 40 30 Estimated Revenue ($, thousands) 20 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS 59

Average Net Tuition Revenue Freshman, 2017

Knox 14836 Kalamazoo 15305 Allegheny 15824 Centre 16206 Beloit 16360 DePauw University 17032 Lawrence 17071 Wofford 18037 Ursinus 18646 St. Lawrence 21422 Hobart William Smith 24421 Gettysburg 27178 Muhlenberg 27277 Dickinson 28717 Kenyon 33000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Note: Data unavailable for Austin, Illinois Wesleyan, Rhodes, Wooster Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, subject to HEDS Confidentiality

Average Net Tuition Revenue Freshman, 2014-2017 35 30 25 $, thousands 20 15 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS; Common Data Set 60 CHAPTER 6. FINANCE AND OPERATIONS Outcomes

Have At Least One Professor or Staff Person Who Made Me Ex- cited about Learning Have Professors or Staff Who Cared about Me as a person Have a Mentor Who Encouraged Me Have Professors or Staff Challenged Me Have a Sense of Belonging at the College Work on a Project that Takes a Semester or More to Complete Apply Classroom Education to Non-classroom Settings Are Active in Co-curricular Activities and Organizations Meaningfully Engage with People Who are Different from Me

61 62 CHAPTER 7. OUTCOMES

A professor or staff person has made me excited about learning

100 4 3 2 2 8 96 97 98 98 92 80 60 Percentage 40 20 0 1-All Students 2-Senior 3-Junior 4-Sophomore 5-Freshman

Agree Neutral or disagree

Source: 20 Questions on the Student Experience, 2017-18

A professor or staff person cares about me as a person

100 11 8 8 13 14 92 92 89 87 86 80 60 Percentage 40 20 0 1-All Students 2-Senior 3-Junior 4-Sophomore 5-Freshman

Agree Neutral or disagree

Source: 20 Questions on the Student Experience, 2017-18 63

I've had a mentor at Beloit College who has encouraged me to pursue my goals and dreams

100 30 25 26 33 35 80

75 74 70 67 65 60 Percentage 40 20 0 1-All Students 2-Senior 3-Junior 4-Sophomore 5-Freshman

Agree Neutral or disagree

Source: 20 Questions on the Student Experience, 2017-18

A professor or staff person has challenged me

100 4 4 991 4 7 96 96 96 93 80 60 Percentage 40 20 0 1-All Students 2-Senior 3-Junior 4-Sophomore 5-Freshman

Agree Neutral or disagree

Source: 20 Questions on the Student Experience, 2017-18 64 CHAPTER 7. OUTCOMES

I feel a sense of belonging to this campus

100 40 34 42 40 41 80

66 60 60 60 58 59 Percentage 40 20 0 1-All Students 2-Senior 3-Junior 4-Sophomore 5-Freshman

Agree Neutral or disagree

Source: 20 Questions on the Student Experience, 2017-18

I've worked on a project that took a semester or more to complete

100 59 27 50 63 86 80

73 60

50 Percentage 40 41 37 20

14 0 1-All Students 2-Senior 3-Junior 4-Sophomore 5-Freshman

Agree Neutral or disagree

Source: 20 Questions on the Student Experience, 2017-18 65

I've had an internship or job that allowed me to apply what I was learning in the classroom

100 58 28 48 61 86 80

72 60

52 Percentage 40 42 39 20

14 0 1-All Students 2-Senior 3-Junior 4-Sophomore 5-Freshman

Agree Neutral or disagree

Source: 20 Questions on the Student Experience, 2017-18

I've been extremely active in extracurricular activities and organizations in the last year while attending Beloit College

100 43 36 40 42 49 80

60 64 57 60 58 51 Percentage 40 20 0 1-All Students 2-Senior 3-Junior 4-Sophomore 5-Freshman

Agree Neutral or disagree

Source: 20 Questions on the Student Experience, 2017-18 66 CHAPTER 7. OUTCOMES

I've had meaningful & honest discussions about social issues with students whose background or perspectives differ from my own

100 24 21 20 26 26 80 79 80 76 74 74 60 Percentage 40 20 0 1-All Students 2-Senior 3-Junior 4-Sophomore 5-Freshman

Agree Neutral or disagree

Source: 20 Questions on the Student Experience, 2017-18 Alumni and Development

Alumni Giving Rate Private Gifts Received

67 68 CHAPTER 8. ALUMNI AND DEVELOPMENT

Alumni Giving Rate, 2016

Centre 43 Kenyon 37 Rhodes 34 Lawrence 33 Knox 33 Hobart William Smith 29 Kalamazoo 26 Dickinson 26 St Lawrence 25 Wofford 24 Gettysburg 24 DePauw 24 Illinois Wesleyan 23 Allegheny 23 Wooster 21 Wheaton 21 Beloit 21 Ursinus 20 Muhlenberg 19 Austin 19

0 10 20 30 40 Percentage Source: U.S. News & World Report

Alumni Giving Rate 60 50 40 30 Percentage 20 10

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: U.S. News & World Report 69

Private Gifts Received, Inflation Adjusted 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Private Gifts ($, millions) 10 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Comparison Schools Beloit Median

Source: IPEDS 70 CHAPTER 8. ALUMNI AND DEVELOPMENT Changes To Fact Book

Each year, IRAP makes some changes to the Beloit College Factbook. Changes includes additions of new graphs, removal of graphs, and improved notes or ti- tles. Changes might be motivated by the availability of data, the amount of time available to IRAP, and/or feedback from our community.

Chapter 1 changes •Added Draw Rate, a measure of demand for a college. Draw rate is an institution’s yield rate divided by its admit rate. A higher draw rate is better. •Removed ACT scores, due to small and decreasing percentage of students sub- mitting ACT scores.

Chapter 2 changes Removed several graphs, due to time constraints. We hope to include them again next year. •Parents adjusted gross income, freshman •Parents adjusted gross income, all students •Expected family contribution •Difference between ﬁnancial need and ﬁnancial •Students receiving a Pell grant, most recent year •Students receiving a Pell grant, over time

Chapter 3-5 changes •Only minor changes made

Chapter 6 changes •Added: Average Net Tuition Revenue per Freshman •Added: Average Principle Borrowed, Graduating Seniors

Chapter 7-8 changes •Only minor changes made

71 72 APPENDIX A. CHANGES TO FACT BOOK Comparison School Selection

The schools included in this book have the following fundamental features in common: •private, not-for-proﬁt, •baccalaureate college focused on the arts and sciences, •exclusively or almost exclusively serving undergraduates students, •located in the United States, •primarily or very highly residential, and •fewer than 5,000 students.

There are approximately 178 schools that have the aforementioned fundamental features, so the list was further narrowed to those with the following secondary features: •an undergraduate student body size of between 700 and 2,600 undergraduates, •estimated revenue per student of between $25,520 and $38,280, •median SAT score of at least 1150 or standardized test scores not reported, •the percentage of applicants who were admitted was 70% or lower, and •the six-year graduation rate greater than or equal to 70%.

Finally, a few schools were re-added to the list because we knew them well and it can be helpful to have schools with which you are very familiar on the comparison list. We only added schools that shared all fundamental features and all but one secondary feature. Lawrence and Knox were added because they are the schools with which we have a great number of prospective students in common. They had been eliminated by the admissions rate criteria because their admissions rates were 76% and 78%, respectively. We also added DePauw and Kalamazoo back onto the list because their estimated revenue per student was artiﬁcially inﬂated by the receipt of very large one-time gifts and they would have otherwise been included.

73 74 APPENDIX B. COMPARISON SCHOOL SELECTION The Use of Information Gathered for HEDS

The Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) Consortium is a not-for-profit or- ganization of private colleges and universities that assists member institutions in planning, management, institutional research, decision-support, policy analysis, educational evaluation, and assessment by assembling and sharing a mutually agreed-upon and regularly updated set of information, and by providing other services as directed by the Board. HEDS members have an interest in assuring appropriate confidentiality for the data they provide through Consortium activities. They also have a proprietary interest in that information, since they are assuming the internal costs of compiling it and paying the HEDS Office for its collection, analysis, and distribution. HEDS has an interest in assuring that this information is not made available to third parties without appropriate permission and compensation, and HEDS members conduct their activities with the following understandings: Primary HEDS data-sharing activities involve information that is either not available through other public sources or that is shared earlier with the Consor- tium than publicized by third parties. HEDS members agree that they will use these data from other institutions received through HEDS only for their own internal planning and management, and not for external publication. For instance, it is appropriate to use such data in presentations to senior administrators or a board, but not for admissions publications or news releases. Even within the institution, HEDS members shall use discretion in how data for other institutions are used. It is usually appropriate to share data fully with senior administrators and trustees, but it may not be appropriate to provide hard copy to faculty com- mittees, and is almost certainly advisable to share data with students only when institutional identities are masked. Exceptions are data that HEDS may directly download from public sources (such as IPEDS), purchase from third party vendors, or collect from members as third party reports (e.g., NACUBO Endowment; AAUP Faculty Salary). The HEDS representatives at each institution must assure that anyone to whom data are given understands their confidential character and the ground rules governing their use. 75 76 APPENDIX C. THE USE OF INFORMATION GATHERED FOR HEDS

Under the ”fair play” ground rule, a HEDS institution is entitled to receive information from other members only in those areas and for those years for which it has provided comparable information.

While HEDS surveys and reports usually identify data with the institutions from which they came, some HEDS reports will, by request of HEDS members, provide data only in a masked or aggregated form. In those cases, HEDS shall maintain the confidentiality of the institutional data except where specific permission for release is granted by the participating institutions. For unit record data from surveys, confidentiality must be assured for both institutions and in- dividuals.

HEDS explicitly recognizes the value of research and publication in higher education. Accordingly, any HEDS member may undertake and publish studies using HEDS data in professional associations and publications so long as appropriate conﬁdentiality is preserved. At a minimum, participating institutions may not be identiﬁed by name without their permission. Institutions are advised to create comparison groups of three or more institutions instead and report peer information based on a group.

Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium www.hedsconsortium.org