Institutional Variability in Honors Admissions Standards, Program Support Structures, and Student Characteristics, Persistence, and Program Completion.

Cognard-Black, Andrew J. ; Smith, Patricia J. ; Dove, April L. 等

INTRODUCTION

In the autumn of 2014, the National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC) launched the Admissions, Retention, and Completion Survey (ARC) in an attempt to collect for the first time honors program benchmarking data on important admissions, persistence, and completion metrics, data that are already widely used throughout higher education generally. The ARC survey is part of NCHC's ongoing effort to collect such data, which began in 2012 with the first iteration of what has come to be known as the NCHC Census, an omnibus survey asking a wide range of questions about honors administrative practices, curricular offerings, basic staffing, and the characteristics of honors directors and deans. While these surveys do not examine honors relative to the larger institutional contexts within which honors programs are located, the data emerging from the surveys allow us to begin identifying the extent of variation among key features of honors programs. The survey results have special value to the honors administrators who serve the approximately 350,000 honors students enrolled at NCHC member institutions. Results from the 2012-13 survey revealed differences especially between honors colleges and honors programs in terms of faculty and administrative resources and in the delivery of their programs (Scott), but they also revealed a substantial degree of similarity across honors programs and colleges in the provision of specific elements of curricular programming such as undergraduate research and senior-level capstone experiences (Cognard-Black and Savage).

Data resulting from the 2012-13 NCHC survey allowed us to paint a more complete picture of honors nationally, but the final version of that survey did not include any items tapping into honors admissions practices or the measures of persistence and completion that have come to dominate discussions of higher education in the last decade. While limitations and risks are associated with restricting our discussions to measures like four- and six-year graduation rates (Humphreys) or with the very process of deciding what and how to measure and incentivize (Guzy; Portnoy), we have had little data in honors to even start such discussions. The NCHC ARC survey is one of the first large-scale attempts to begin to fill that gap.

Prior research on college admission, retention, and completion has focused on the role that individual differences in socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and gender play in student success as well as student relationships with faculty and peers (Kuh et al.). In addition, student test scores along with high school GPA and class rank are among the factors that researchers most commonly examine to identify reliable predictors of college success. Studies within honors have looked at some of these same factors on an institutional level, and several have attempted to measure the impact of honors participation on student outcomes. For example, Seifert et al. used a longitudinal approach to assess the impact of honors program participation at eighteen institutions and found positive effects on development and critical thinking as well as retention.

Other research examines student persistence beyond the first year to honors program completion and graduation. Savage, Raehsler, and Fiedor completed an empirical study using logit and probit models to examine factors that affect honors completion rates. They found that high school GPA was a better predictor of honors completion than standardized test scores, and their results indicated that a student's major may also influence the likelihood that a student will complete honors requirements (Savage et al.). These results are in line with Smith and Zagurski's findings that high school GPA had the strongest correlation with college GPA, thereby increasing the student's likelihood of continuing to meet program requirements.

These same factors, however, could contribute to overall degree completion and therefore do not provide an understanding of differences between those who complete their honors programs and those who do not. Cosgrove examined the impact of honors program participation on individual student retention and graduation by comparing the honors population to matched high-ability non-honors students and those who started in honors but did not finish. He found that students who completed their honors requirements had higher cumulative college GPAs and a shorter time to degree than their non-honors peers or students who began in honors and did not complete their honors requirements (Cosgrove). Similarly, Keller and Lacy (2013) used a matched-pairs approach comparing honors students with similarly prepared non-honors students, and they found that participation in the honors program increased both the proportion of students who persisted into the sophomore year and the proportion who graduated within six years of matriculation.

Taken together, these studies highlight the ways that student retention, honors program completion, and college graduation figure into questions about programmatic success for honors units, and they also paint a picture of the relationships among honors program participation, student success as measured by retention and completion rates, and the very admission practices that determine which students end up in honors programs to begin with. What is less well known, however, is what is typical among honors programs in rates of persistence and completion, in admission practices, and in features that might improve student success. Even less is known about the extent to which these factors vary depending on the type of institution in which an honors program is housed.

By examining data from the ARC survey for variation across different types of institutional settings, we should be able to identify common practices in honors admissions as well as the national trends in standard measures of student persistence like second-year retention, honors program completion, and graduation rates. We do not attempt to evaluate which, if any, support structures have the greater impact on student success or to examine relationships among admissions standards, support structures, and retention; rather, we report summary statistics on the similarities and differences identified among institutional types and between honors programs and colleges. An additional purpose of our research is to examine the assumption that too much variability in honors from school to school prevents us from identifying generally accepted practices and standards (Cognard-Black and Savage). Access to the summary statistics from our data will not provide information on how each honors program is situated within its institution or how the program offerings compare to what is available on campus, but it will allow honors leaders to see how their own programs compare to what is typical, as revealed by national averages of individual survey items. In addition to admissions practices, data from this survey provide us a closer look at the students whom institutions are admitting, including gender composition and other student demographics, which we hope will allow honors deans and directors to gauge the extent to which their programs differ, if at all, from what is typical in a national sample of honors programs.

METHODS

Data

The NCHC Admissions) Retention) and Completion Survey (ARC) is the second of the three core trend surveys initiated by the National Collegiate Honors Council. The ARC was launched immediately following the 2014 NCHC annual meetings in Denver. The initial invitation to participate went out to the primary contact person at approximately 860 degree-granting NCHC institutional members on November 11, 2014. Seven follow-up reminders were sent over a four-month period between November and March, and the survey was closed at the beginning of April. In January, to encourage greater participation NCHC announced an incentive: vouchers for annual membership dues for two randomly chosen respondents. Approximately 26 percent of member institutions responded to some portion of the survey, and 22 percent followed the survey all the way to the end. While the summary statistics are based on only those institutions responding to the survey, many of the benchmark statistics exist within fairly narrow margins of error (NCHC), and they would seem to be fairly representative, especially within that subset of institutions that is most engaged in NCHC.

While a respectable 22 percent (almost 200) of member institutions responded to ARC and made it to the end of the survey, not all survey participants responded to all questions. For instance, student racial-ethnic composition statistics are based on the responses of only the 52 institutions that provided comprehensive responses to the questions for each of the categories of race-ethnicity recognized by the U.S. Department of Education in its data-gathering efforts. A likely explanation for the level of nonresponse to some items is that not all member honors programs actively and regularly collect the data in question, and some programs were unable to answer even more basic questions about the number of students in their program. Part of the problem with taking a census of program participants stems from the unusual ways some programs operate; some, for instance, do not formally admit students but count as honors students anyone who may have enrolled in a course designated as honors, making it hard to enumerate and track students. This problem can be particularly challenging at two-year institutions, where student populations are sometimes more itinerant than at four-year institutions.

Results from the ARC survey seem to suggest, however, that the problem of identifying honors students arises only in a minority of four-year programs. More common reasons for nonresponse are not keeping student data and not having access to institution-wide sources of data typically located in offices of institutional research and reporting. Finally, nonresponse may in part result from the survey s demands on time and resources.

Response rates are a perennial problem for all survey researchers, including surveys of professionals. The well-established American College President Study, conducted by the Center for Policy Research and Strategy at the American Council on Education, gets responses from only approximately half of college presidents at not-for-profit institutions (ACE CPRS 2-3), a group of people who would seem to be well-positioned within institutions to marshal resources and respond to a major survey from a prominent national organization. While the ARC survey responses are considerably lower than half, 50 percent represents an upper limit that one might reasonably expect outside of those required of colleges and universities by the U.S. Department of Education. In that context, a 22-26 percent response rate represents a fairly strong showing for honors professionals.

Analytic Approach

In order to examine differences in key measures of honors admissions and persistence across organizational structures, we present averages across two key dimensions: Carnegie classification (Indiana University Center on Postsecondary Research), which is widely used and recognized in higher education, and the distinction between honors programs and honors colleges. Respondents self-identified both broad Carnegie classification and program or college organizational structure in early items on the ARC Survey. Measurement details for Carnegie classification, honors organizational structure, and other study variables are presented in the appendix. In the analyses examining differences across Carnegie classification, we used analysis of variance (ANOVA) to identify instances where significant differences among categories existed, and for those items where a significant F test suggested that a difference or differences existed, we also conducted post-hoc tests, i.e., Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) tests, to isolate the group comparisons that contributed to a significant F test. For simplicity, we have not presented the results of post hoc tests in tables, but we use them to inform discussions about where differences are likely to occur between categories of institution. For analyses examining differences across honors organizational form, we use t-tests to identify when there may be differences between honors programs and honors colleges.

RESULTS

In the tables that follow, we present a comparison of means for selected key measures from the ARC. Tables 1-3 present means for selected variables across four broad categories of Carnegie classification: research/doctoral universities (widely referred to as "national universities"), master's universities (or "regional universities"), baccalaureate (or "liberal arts") colleges, and associates colleges (community, technical, and other primarily two-year degree-granting institutions).

The far-right column presents results of the F tests from the analysis of variance. Results indicate a number of statistically meaningful differences within comparisons of a variety of admissions and persistence metrics. However, Tukey HSD post hoc tests revealed that most of those ANOVA results signal differences between two-year colleges and the larger category of four-year institutions. In admissions criteria, associates colleges are less likely to have a separate honors application essay, are likely to have lower reported ACT and GPA cutoffs for acceptance into honors, and generally have lower average ACT scores in the first-year student cohort. Associate's colleges are less likely than four-year schools to have several honors-specific support structures--including honors housing, honors-specific advising, honors internships, honors study abroad programs, and priority registration for honors students--and tend to have lower retention rates: a mean of 68% second-year retention compared to roughly 85% for four-year institutions.

In the three classifications of four-year institutions, however, we witness quite a bit of statistical and substantive similarity in the averages, indicating that while there may be considerable variation from institution to institution, differences in institutional mission, which Carnegie classification is designed to capture, do not appear to explain very much of that variation.

The exceptions to this general pattern of similarity among four-year institutions are the following: (1) research/doctoral universities have more honors students, an average of 972, by a factor of three or more, depending on the institution type (Table 1); (2) first-year honors students at research/doctoral universities have higher average test scores than those at baccalaureate colleges (compare mean ACT and SAT scores of 29.7 and 1,322 at research/doctorate institutions to those at master's and baccalaureate schools) (Table l); (3) master s universities are less likely--by a factor of two or more--than research/doctoral universities to have series of invited lecturers, artists, musicians, and/or poets (Table 2); (4) research/doctoral and master's universities are much more likely to have honors-specific housing options than baccalaureate colleges (87% and 76% compared to 55%) (Table 2); (5) baccalaureate colleges have a lower percentage of men in honors than we see at research/doctoral universities, by about 8 percentage points (Table 1); and (6) baccalaureate colleges have higher overall four-year graduation rates than research/doctoral universities although research/doctoral universities seem to make up lost ground by the sixth year after matriculation (Table 3). While four-year rates of graduation having completed honors requirements also appear to be lower by about 10 percentage points for doctoral universities, that difference is not statistically significant.

Tables 4-6 present analyses for the same set of ARC measures for honors programs and honors colleges. Whereas there were a number of statistically significant findings across Carnegie classification, relatively few items are significantly different in this analysis.

On average, honors colleges are much larger than honors programs, with 2.5 times as many students (852.2) as the typical honors program (342.5) (Table 4). Other than this difference and the finding that colleges are more likely to have a separate required essay as part of the application process, there are no statistically distinguishable differences for any of the measures of admissions practices, admissions criteria, and honors student profiles. Many of the averages for programs and colleges are nearly identical: the typical percentage of males is within 1.5 percentage points for programs and colleges; minimum test scores and other admissions criteria are essentially identical; and first-year average SAT scores are within a fairly trivial 18.5 points of one another.

Table 5 presents a comparison of means for honors requirements and support structures The evidence indicates that honors colleges are much more likely to have a number of support structures, with double-digit advantages over programs in honors tutors (38% vs. 18%), honors ambassadors (59% vs. 32%), honors-specific study abroad offerings (70% vs. 51%), honors housing options (77% vs. 56%), honors-specific advising (97% vs. 83%), and priority course registration for honors students (85% vs. 63%).

However, Table 6 shows that despite their greater likelihood of additional support structures, honors colleges do not appear to have significantly better rates of second-year retention, completion and graduation, or overall graduation. Second-year retention is about 7.1 percentage points higher at colleges, and the rates of graduation with completion of honors requirements within six years are higher by about 10 percentage points. If response rates had been better and sample sizes bigger, these differences might have shown up as significant, but, even with these two possible differences, there seems to be more similarity than difference across programs and colleges in the common measures of admissions, retention, and completion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The results of the present study show that associates colleges have less stringent admission standards, are less likely to have honors-specific support structures, and have lower persistence rates. These findings are consistent with national trends in admissions practices and persistence rates at two-year institutions generally and signal the unique challenges that affect the operation of honors at associates colleges. The tendency for associate's colleges to operate as open-door institutions, for instance, is reflected in the comparison between test scores at associates colleges. Applicants are encouraged to submit high school transcripts, AP scores, and/or SAT and ACT scores during the application process because they help place the student into higher-level courses, but such tests and similar credentials are not required for admission to most community, technical, and other two-year degree institutions. Students with no external placement scores are generally required to take internal placement tests to assess what courses they qualify to take, and many are required to take developmental courses before continuing to courses required for degree programs.

Two-year colleges tend to serve students with a variety of socioeconomic challenges who come to college less prepared out of high school or who are returning to college to learn new vocational skills after many years out of school. These socioeconomic factors produce differences in honors admissions practices, making them less likely than four-year institutions to require an honors-specific application, additional application essays, and minimum test scores. Honors programs at associates colleges typically operate with more relaxed admissions standards in order to best serve the needs of their student body and the economic needs of their local community while at the same time identifying students with the highest academic potential from among the population being served and providing them with enhanced educational experiences that help fulfill that potential.

Additional challenges that associates colleges face include the lack of honors-related support structures and low persistence rates. Associate's colleges are less likely than four-year colleges to offer priority registration, designated campus housing, study abroad programs, or internship opportunities. On-campus housing is rare at two-year institutions since most students commute. Since honors programs at two-year institutions typically receive little if any institutional funding, offering honors-specific study abroad programs and internship opportunities is often infeasible.

The lower persistence rates of honors students at associates colleges compared to four-year institutions may result in part from the fact that many of their students attend not to complete an associate s degree but to earn credits before transferring to a four-year institution; this has a large impact on measures of persistence, especially among students enrolled in honors programs. While such students may well be persisting in their pursuit of a degree, the two-year schools that facilitate such students suffer from artificially lowered persistence rates as they struggle with appropriate ways to track students who transfer to a university. Also, the many socioeconomic challenges that students face, including greater work and home responsibilities than four-year college students usually have, make them more likely to attend intermittently, enrolling one semester and not the next. Future research could help clarify whether honors programs at associate s colleges have higher persistence rates than the colleges in which they are housed.

Results for four-year institutions show much less variation in institutional characteristics than one might expect. We did find that honors programs at research/doctoral universities are larger, and while institutional sizes were not collected in this survey, they are probably also larger, resulting in the higher number of honors students. We also found that honors programs at research/doctoral universities have higher standardized test scores at the time of admission, which again might be consistent with what we know of admission standards at these institutions overall.

Given the economies of scale, research/doctoral universities and associate's colleges are most likely to sponsor invited lecturers, artists, musicians, and poets. More than half of the honors programs at all four-year institutional types offer student mentor programs, study abroad programs, honors housing, and priority registration. The most common type of support across institutional type, including associates colleges, is honors-specific advising.

Few differences between honors programs and colleges appeared among admissions requirements. While honors colleges tended to have larger enrollments and were more likely to have a separate required essay as part of the application process, there were no statistically distinguishable differences for any of the other measures of admissions practices and criteria. The differences in services and opportunities provided to students were more substantial: honors colleges were more likely than programs to have honors tutors, honors ambassadors, honors-specific study abroad opportunities, honors housing options, honors-specific advising, and priority course registration. Despite their greater likelihood of additional support structures, however, honors colleges did not appear to have significantly better second-year retention rates, honors completion and graduation rates, or overall graduation rates. An important area for future research would be a national study of the extent to which retention and completion rates in honors improves on overall institutional rates of retention and completion. By matching NCHC data for honors with institution-level data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System of the U.S. Department of Education, we may gain a better understanding of whether, and how much, honors experience helps to keep students on campus and encourages them toward degree completion. Such information would help paint a clearer picture of the impact that honors programs have on overall student persistence.

REFERENCES

ACE Center for Policy Research and Strategy. 2017. American College President Study: 2017. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Cognard-Black, Andrew J., and Hallie Savage. 2016. "Variability and Similarity in Honors Curricula across Institution Size and Type." Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council 17(1): 93-113.

Cosgrove, John R. 2004. "The Impact of Honors Programs on Undergraduate Academic Performance, Retention, and Graduation." Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council 5(2): 45-53.

Guzy Annmarie. 2013. "The Confidence Game in Honors Admissions and Retention." Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council 14(2): 41-45.

Humphreys, Debra. 2012. "What s Wrong with the Completion Agenda!' Liberal Education 98(l): 8-17. Accessed 1 Sept. 2017. <http://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/whats-wrong-completion-agenda%E2%80%94and-what-we-can-do-about-it>.

Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. ND. "The Carnegie Classification of Institutions." <http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/index.php>,

Keller, Robert R., and Michael G. Lacy. 2013. "Propensity Score Analysis of an Honors Programs Contribution to Students' Retention and Gradation Outcomes." Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council 14(2): 73-84

Kuh, George, John Schuh, and Elizabeth Whitt. 1991. Involving Colleges: Successful Approaches to Fostering Student Learning and Development Outside the Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

National Collegiate Honors Council. ND. "Descriptive Statistics for Selected Variables from the 2014-2015 NCHC Admissions, Retention, and Completion Survey of Member Institutions." <https://cymcdn.com/sites/nchc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/research/ARC_Summary_Table of Selecte.pdf>,

Portnoy Jeffrey A. 2013. "An Honors Koan: Selling Water by the River." Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council 14(2): 47-51.

Savage, Hallie, Rod D. Raehsler, and Joseph Fiedor. 2014 "An Empirical Analysis of Factors Affecting Honors Program Completion Rates." Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council 15(1): 115-28.

Scott, Richard. 2013. "Presidents Column." National Collegiate Honors Council Newsletter Special Edition. Accessed 1 Sept. 2017. <http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/nchc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/research/Scott-2013-Newsletter.pdf>.

Seifert, Tricia A., Ernest T. Pascarella, Nicholas Colangelo, and Susan G. Assouline. 2007. "The Effects of Honors Program Participation on Experiences of Good Practices and Learning Outcomes." Journal of College Student Development 48(1): 57-74.

Smith, Patricia Joanne, and John Thomas Vitus Zagurski. 2013. "Improving Retention and Fit by Honing an Honors Admissions Model." Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council 14(2): 55-71.

Tukey John W. 1949. "Comparing Individual Means in the Analysis of Variance." Biometrics 5(2): 99-114.

The authors may be contacted at

ajcognardblack@smcm.edu.

ANDREW J. COGNARD-BLACK

St. Mary's College of Maryland

PATRICIA J. SMITH

University of Central Arkansas

APRIL L. DOVE

Greenville Technical College TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR HONORS STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS, HONORS ADMISSIONS CRITERIA, AND HONORS STUDENT ADMISSIONS PROFILE, BY BROAD CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Carnegie Classification Item Associate's Baccalaureate Demographics Size of Honors (number 332.2 150.5 of students) (45) (40) Honors Percent Men 38.0 31.5 (students) (24) (31) Honors Admissions Practices & Criteria Have Separate Required 40.0 71.0 Application Essay (%) (40) (35) Have Required Application 8.0 17.0 Writing Sample (%) (40) (35) Have Required Application 20.0 25.0 Interview (%) (41) (36) Minimum ACT for First-Year 24.0 26.8 Student Admission (21) (23) Minimum SAT for First-Year 1,146.4 1,210.0 Student Admission (14) (10) Minimum HS GPA for First-Year 3.36 3.54 Student Admission (27) (27) Honors First-Year Cohort Characteristics First Year Cohort Mean ACT 23.9 28.4 Composite (7) (25) First Year Cohort Mean SAT 1,183.3 1,234.9 Reading + Math (3) (9) First Year Cohort Mean High 3.55 3.82 School GPA (9) (26) FirstYear Cohort Percent in 57.2 73.1 Top 10% of HS Class (5) (11) FirstYear Cohort Percent in 85 95.4 Top 25% of HS Class (4) (11) Carnegie Classification Master's/ Research/ Item Comprehensive Doctoral All Demographics Size of Honors (number 318.3 972.1 451.7 of students) (84) (55) (224) Honors Percent Men 35.9 39.5 36.2 (students) (68) (40) (163) Honors Admissions Practices & Criteria Have Separate Required 67.0 65.0 62.0 Application Essay (%) (70) (46) (191) Have Required Application 21.0 11.0 15.0 Writing Sample (%) (71) (46) (192) Have Required Application 15.0 17.0 19.0 Interview (%) (71) (46) (194) Minimum ACT for First-Year 26.3 27.2 26.1 Student Admission (40) (23) (107) Minimum SAT for First-Year 1,196.0 1,235.7 1,196.0 Student Admission (27) (14) (65) Minimum HS GPA for First-Year 3.46 3.52 3.47 Student Admission (46) (22) (122) Honors First-Year Cohort Characteristics First Year Cohort Mean ACT 28.5 29.7 28.6 Composite (38) (37) (107) First Year Cohort Mean SAT 1,270.9 1,322.3 1,281.3 Reading + Math (26) (24) (62) First Year Cohort Mean High 3.82 3.91 3.83 School GPA (41) (33) (109) FirstYear Cohort Percent in 81.8 76.1 75.8 Top 10% of HS Class (20) (19) (55) FirstYear Cohort Percent in 95.8 94.6 94.5 Top 25% of HS Class (21) (17) (53) Item ANOVA Demographics Size of Honors (number p [less than or equal to] .01 of students) Honors Percent Men p [less than or equal to] .05 (students) Honors Admissions Practices & Criteria Have Separate Required p [less than or equal to] .05 Application Essay (%) Have Required Application NS Writing Sample (%) Have Required Application NS Interview (%) Minimum ACT for First-Year p [less than or equal to] .01 Student Admission Minimum SAT for First-Year NS Student Admission Minimum HS GPA for First-Year p [less than or equal to] .01 Student Admission Honors First-Year Cohort Characteristics First Year Cohort Mean ACT p [less than or equal to] .01 Composite First Year Cohort Mean SAT p [less than or equal to] .01 Reading + Math First Year Cohort Mean High p [less than or equal to] .01 School GPA FirstYear Cohort Percent in NS Top 10% of HS Class FirstYear Cohort Percent in NS Top 25% of HS Class Source: NCHC 2014-2015 Admissions, Retention, and Completion Survey Note: Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of cases with valid data on which a given statistic is based. TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR HONORS REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES, BY BROAD CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Carnegie Classification Master's/ Item Associate's Baccalaureate Comprehensive Have a First-Year Student 16.0 70.0 67.0 Mentor Program (%) (25) (27) (66) Have an Honors Resident 0.0 19.0 35.0 Assistant Program (%) (25) (27) (66) Have Honors Tutors (%) 16.0 15.0 29.0 (25) (27) (66) Have Honors Ambassadors (%) 24.0 33.0 36.0 (25) (27) (66) Have a Student Lecture/ 36.0 30.0 21.0 Performance Series (%) (25) (27) (66) Have a Faculty Lecture/ 48.0 41.0 38.0 Performance Series (%) (25) (27) (66) Have an Invited Lecturer/ 52.0 41.0 30.0 Performer Series (%) (25) (27) (66) Have an Art/Music/Poetry 28.0 26.0 11.0 Series (%) (25) (27) (66) Have a Study Abroad 20.0 63.0 59.0 Program (%) (25) (27) (66) Have an Internship 8.0 41.0 21.0 Program (%) (25) (27) (66) Have Honors Housing (%) 3.0 55.0 76.0 (37) (33) (71) Have an Honors Service 32.0 47.0 37.0 Requirement (%) (38) (34) (71) Have Honors-Specific 74.0 82.0 94.0 Advising (%) (38) (33) (71) Have Priority Registration 43.0 59.0 76.0 for Honors (%) (37) (34) (71) Carnegie Classification Research/ Item Doctoral All Have a First-Year Student 65.0 59.0 Mentor Program (%) (48) (166) Have an Honors Resident 38.0 28.0 Assistant Program (%) (48) (166) Have Honors Tutors (%) 21.0 22.0 (48) (166) Have Honors Ambassadors (%) 50.0 38.0 (48) (166) Have a Student Lecture/ 23.0 25.0 Performance Series (%) (48) (166) Have a Faculty Lecture/ 56.0 45.0 Performance Series (%) (48) (166) Have an Invited Lecturer/ 60.0 44.0 Performer Series (%) (48) (166) Have an Art/Music/Poetry 48.0 27.0 Series (%) (48) (166) Have a Study Abroad 65.0 55.0 Program (%) (48) (166) Have an Internship 35.0 27.0 Program (%) (48) (166) Have Honors Housing (%) 87.0 60.0 (46) (187) Have an Honors Service 31.0 36.0 Requirement (%) (48) (191) Have Honors-Specific 88.0 86.0 Advising (%) (48) (190) Have Priority Registration 79.0 67.0 for Honors (%) (48) (190) Item ANOVA Have a First-Year Student p [less than or equal to] .01 Mentor Program (%) Have an Honors Resident p [less than or equal to] .01 Assistant Program (%) Have Honors Tutors (%) NS Have Honors Ambassadors (%) NS Have a Student Lecture/ NS Performance Series (%) Have a Faculty Lecture/ NS Performance Series (%) Have an Invited Lecturer/ p [less than or equal to] .05 Performer Series (%) Have an Art/Music/Poetry p [less than or equal to] .01 Series (%) Have a Study Abroad p [less than or equal to] .01 Program (%) Have an Internship p [less than or equal to] .05 Program (%) Have Honors Housing (%) p [less than or equal to] .01 Have an Honors Service NS Requirement (%) Have Honors-Specific p [less than or equal to] .05 Advising (%) Have Priority Registration p [less than or equal to] .01 for Honors (%) Source: NCHC 2014-2015 Admissions, Retention, and Completion Survey Note: Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of cases with valid data on which a given statistic is based. TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR HONORS RETENTION, PROGRAM COMPLETION, AND GRADUATION RATES, BY BROAD CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Carnegie Classification Item Associate's (a) Baccalaureate Second-Year Retention Rate (%) 68.7 82.7 (10) (24) GPA Required to Remain in Honors 3.22 3.31 (33) (30) Four-Year Honors Graduation Rate (%) -- 49.4 (15) Six-Year Honors Graduation Rate (%) -- 50.0 (15) Four-Year Graduation Rate (%) -- 82.1 (13) Six-Year Graduation Rate (%) -- 87.0 (10) Carnegie Classification Master's/ Research/Doctoral Item Comprehensive Second-Year Retention Rate (%) 87.6 85.5 (53) (29) GPA Required to Remain in Honors 3.31 3.28 (69) (44) Four-Year Honors Graduation Rate (%) 52.3 40.6 (30) (22) Six-Year Honors Graduation Rate (%) 58.3 50.7 (25) (21) Four-Year Graduation Rate (%) 73.5 63.3 (24) (19) Six-Year Graduation Rate (%) 85.1 83.7 (19) (19) Item All Second-Year Retention Rate (%) 84.4 (116) GPA Required to Remain in Honors 3.29 (176) Four-Year Honors Graduation Rate (%) 47.8 (67) Six-Year Honors Graduation Rate (%) 53.6 (61) Four-Year Graduation Rate (%) 72.0 (56) Six-Year Graduation Rate (%) 85.0 (48) Item ANOVA Second-Year Retention Rate (%) p [less than or equal to] .01 GPA Required to Remain in Honors NS Four-Year Honors Graduation Rate (%) NS Six-Year Honors Graduation Rate (%) NS Four-Year Graduation Rate (%) p [less than or equal to] .05 Six-Year Graduation Rate (%) NS Source: NCHC 2014-2015 Admissions, Retention, and Completion Survey Note: Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of cases with valid data on which a given statistic is based. Four- and six-year graduation rates include both those who completed honors requirements and graduated and those who started in honors but graduated without completing honors requirements. (a) In general, four- and six-year graduation rates are used to describe institutions offering baccalaureate degrees, so such rates are not strictly comparable for associates degree institutions. In addition, associate's degree institutions provided very few data on two- and four-year completion/graduation numbers, and so completion and graduation rates cannot be calculated for those institutions. TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR HONORS STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS, HONORS ADMISSIONS CRITERIA, AND HONORS STUDENT ADMISSIONS PROFILE, BY HONORS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Honors Structure Item Program/ Institute College Demographics 852.2 Size of Honors (number of students) 342.5 (48) (176) 37.4 Honors Percent Men (students) 35.9 (36) (127) Honors Admissions Practices & Criteria 75.0 Have Separate Required Application 58.0 (40) Essay (%) (151) 20.0 Have Required Application Writing 14.0 (40) Sample (%) (152) 20.0 Have Required Application 18.0 (40) Interview (%) (154) 26.2 Minimum ACT for First-Year 26.1 (20) Student Admission (87) 1,195.6 Minimum SAT for First-Year 1,196.1 (9) Student Admission (56) 3.49 Minimum HS GPA for First-Year 3.46 (23) Student Admission (99) Honors First-Year Cohort Characteristics 29.0 First Year Cohort Mean ACT 28.4 (33) Composite (74) 1,293.9 First Year Cohort Mean SAT 1,275.4 (20) Reading + Math (42) 3.85 First Year Cohort Mean High 3.81 (31) School GPA (78) 73.1 First Year Cohort Percent in 77.2 (18) Top 10% of HS Class (37) 94.2 First Year Cohort Percent in 94.7 (18) Top 25% of HS Class (35) Item All Demographics Size of Honors (number of students) 451.7 (224) Honors Percent Men (students) 36.2 (163) Honors Admissions Practices & Criteria Have Separate Required Application 62.0 Essay (%) (191) Have Required Application Writing 15.0 Sample (%) (192) Have Required Application 19.0 Interview (%) (194) Minimum ACT for First-Year 26.1 Student Admission (107) Minimum SAT for First-Year 1,196.0 Student Admission (65) Minimum HS GPA for First-Year 3.47 Student Admission (122) Honors First-Year Cohort Characteristics First Year Cohort Mean ACT 28.6 Composite (107) First Year Cohort Mean SAT 1,281.3 Reading + Math (62) First Year Cohort Mean High 3.83 School GPA (109) First Year Cohort Percent in 75.8 Top 10% of HS Class (55) First Year Cohort Percent in 94.5 Top 25% of HS Class (53) Item t-test Demographics Size of Honors (number of students) p [less than or equal to] .01 Honors Percent Men (students) NS Honors Admissions Practices & Criteria Have Separate Required Application p p [less than or equal to] .05 Essay (%) Have Required Application Writing NS Sample (%) Have Required Application NS Interview (%) Minimum ACT for First-Year NS Student Admission Minimum SAT for First-Year NS Student Admission Minimum HS GPA for First-Year NS Student Admission Honors First-Year Cohort Characteristics First Year Cohort Mean ACT NS Composite First Year Cohort Mean SAT NS Reading + Math First Year Cohort Mean High NS School GPA First Year Cohort Percent in NS Top 10% of HS Class First Year Cohort Percent in NS Top 25% of HS Class Source: NCHC 2014-2015 Admissions, Retention, and Completion Survey Note: Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of cases with valid data on which a given statistic is based. TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR HONORS REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES, BY HONORS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Honors Structure Item Program/ Institute College All Have a First-Year Student 57.0 65.0 59.0 Mentor Program (%) (129) (37) (166) Have an Honors Resident 26.0 32.0 28.0 Assistant Program (%) (129) (37) (166) Have Honors Tutors (%) 18.0 38.0 22.0 (129) (37) (166) Have Honors Ambassadors (%) 32.0 59.0 38.0 (129) (37) (166) Have a Student Lecture/ 26.0 22.0 25.0 Performance Series (%) (129) (37) (166) Have a Faculty Lecture/ 46.0 43.0 45.0 Performance Series (%) (129) (37) (166) Have an Invited Lecturer/ 40.0 57.0 44.0 Performer Series (%) (129) (37) (166) Have an Art/Music/Poetry 23.0 38.0 27.0 Series (%) (129) (37) (166) Have a Study Abroad 51.0 70.0 55.0 Program (%) (129) (37) (166) Have an Internship 23.0 38.0 27.0 Program (%) (129) (37) (166) Have Honors Housing (%) 56.0 77.0 60.0 (148) (39) (187) Have an Honors Service 36.0 35.0 36.0 Requirement (%) (151) (40) (191) Have Honors-Specific 83.0 97.0 86.0 Advising (%) (151) (39) (190) Have Priority Registration 63.0 85.0 67.0 for Honors (%) (150) (40) (190) Item t-test Have a First-Year Student NS Mentor Program (%) Have an Honors Resident NS Assistant Program (%) Have Honors Tutors (%) p [less than or equal to] .05 Have Honors Ambassadors (%) p [less than or equal to] .01 Have a Student Lecture/ NS Performance Series (%) Have a Faculty Lecture/ NS Performance Series (%) Have an Invited Lecturer/ p = .076 Performer Series (%) Have an Art/Music/Poetry NS Series (%) Have a Study Abroad p [less than or equal to] .05 Program (%) Have an Internship p = .107 Program (%) Have Honors Housing (%) p [less than or equal to] .05 Have an Honors Service NS Requirement (%) Have Honors-Specific p [less than or equal to] .01 Advising (%) Have Priority Registration p [less than or equal to] .01 for Honors (%) Source: NCHC 2014-2015 Admissions, Retention, and Completion Survey Note: Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of cases with valid data on which a given statistic is based. TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR HONORS RETENTION, PROGRAM COMPLETION, AND GRADUATION RATES, BY HONORS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Honors Structure Item Program/ Institute College M t-test Second-Year Retention 82.6 89.7 84.4 NS Rate (%) (86) (30) (116) GPA Required to 3.29 3.28 3.29 NS Remain in Honors (139) (37) (176) Four-Year Honors 47.4 48.9 47.8 NS Graduation Rate (%) (47) (20) (67) Six-Year Honors 50.4 60.8 53.6 NS Graduation Rate (%) (42) (19) (61) Four-Year Graduation 73.0 69.3 72.0 NS Rate (%) (41) (15) (56) Six-Year Graduation 83.6 88.0 85.0 NS Rate (%) (33) (15) (48) Source: NCHC 2014-2015 Admissions, Retention, and Completion Survey Note: Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of cases with valid data on which a given statistic is based. Four- and six-year graduation rates include both those who completed honors requirements and graduated and those who started in honors but graduated without completing honors requirements. APPENDIX Description of Study Variables Level of Item Measurement Institutional Characteristics Type of Institution Nominal Honors Organization Type Nominal Demographics Size of Honors Ratio Honors Percent Men Ratio Honors Admissions Practices & Criteria Have Separate Required Nominal Application Essay Have Required Application Nominal Writing Sample Have Required Application Nominal Interview Minimum ACT for First-Year Ratio Student Admission Minimum SAT for First-Year Ratio Student Admission Minimum HS GPA for Ratio First-Year Student Admission Honors First-Year Cohort Characteristics First-Year Cohort Mean Ratio ACT Composite First-Year Cohort Mean Ratio SAT Reading + Math First-Year Cohort Mean Ratio High School GPA First-Year Cohort Percent Ratio in Top 10% of HS Class First-Year Cohort Percent Ratio in Top 25% of HS Class Honors Requirements and Support Structures Have a First-Year Student Nominal Mentor Program? Have an Honors Resident Nominal Assistant Program? Have Honors Tutors? Nominal Have Honors Ambassadors? Nominal Have a Student Nominal Lecture/Performance Series? Have a Faculty Nominal Lecture/Performance Series? Have an Invited Nominal Lecturer/Performer Series? Have an Art/Music/ Nominal Poetry Series? Have a Study Abroad Program? Nominal Have an Internship Program? Nominal Have Honors Housing? Nominal Have an Honors Service Nominal Requirement? Have Honors-Specific Nominal Advising? Have Priority Registration Nominal for Honors? Honors Retention, Program Completion, and Graduation Rates Second-Year Retention Rate Ratio GPA Required to Remain in Honors Ratio Four-Year Honors Graduation Rate Ratio Six-Year Honors Graduation Rate Ratio Four-Year Graduation Rate Ratio Six-Year Graduation Rate Ratio Item Description/Response options Institutional Characteristics Type of Institution (1) Research/Doctoral University; (2) Master's University; (3) Baccalaureate College; (4) Associate's College Honors Organization Type (1) Honors College; (2) Honors Program Demographics Size of Honors Response to a question asking, "How many students were in your honors unit in fall 2013?" Honors Percent Men The percentage of honors students who are men, calculated from separate items asking the number of honors students who are men, women, or transgender Honors Admissions Practices & Criteria Have Separate Required Yes/No response to a question asking, Application Essay "Is there an honors-specific application essay required as part of the admissions procedure?" Have Required Application Yes/No response to a question asking, Writing Sample "Is there a writing sample other than an application essay required as part of the admissions procedure?" Have Required Application Yes/No response to a question asking, Interview "Is there an interview required as part of the admissions procedure?" Minimum ACT for First-Year Response to a question asking, Student Admission "Please indicate the minimum score for each of the tests that you have established as a criterion for admission to honors" and specifying the ACT composite test score Minimum SAT for First-Year Response to a question asking, Student Admission "Please indicate the minimum score for each of the tests that you have established as a criterion for admission to honors" and specifying the combined SAT test score Minimum HS GPA for Response to a question asking, First-Year Student Admission "Please indicate the minimum high school GPA for admission to honors (4.0 scale)." Honors First-Year Cohort Characteristics First-Year Cohort Mean Response to a question asking, "What ACT Composite was the average ACT composite score for first-year honors students in fall 2013?" First-Year Cohort Mean Response to a question asking, "What SAT Reading + Math was the average SAT composite score for first-year honors students in fall 2013?" First-Year Cohort Mean Response to a question asking, "What High School GPA was the average high school GPA for first-year honors students in fall 2013?" First-Year Cohort Percent Response to a question asking, "Of in Top 10% of HS Class the incoming first-year honors students, what percent were in the top tenth (10 percent) of their high school graduating class?" First-Year Cohort Percent Response to a question asking, "Of in Top 25% of HS Class the incoming first-year honors students, what percent were in the top quarter (25 percent) of their high school graduating class?" Honors Requirements and Support Structures Have a First-Year Student Yes/No Mentor Program? Have an Honors Resident Yes/No Assistant Program? Have Honors Tutors? Yes/No Have Honors Ambassadors? Yes/No Have a Student Yes/No Lecture/Performance Series? Have a Faculty Yes/No Lecture/Performance Series? Have an Invited Yes/No Lecturer/Performer Series? Have an Art/Music/ Yes/No Poetry Series? Have a Study Abroad Program? Yes/No Have an Internship Program? Yes/No Have Honors Housing? Yes/No Have an Honors Service Yes/No Requirement? Have Honors-Specific Yes/No Advising? Have Priority Registration Yes/No for Honors? Honors Retention, Program Completion, and Graduation Rates Second-Year Retention Rate Percentage of degree-seeking matriculants entering the institution in fall term as honors students and still enrolled and persisting as honors students in the following fall term GPA Required to Remain in Honors Response to question asking, "What, if any, is the minimum GPA students must maintain to remain in honors?" Four-Year Honors Graduation Rate Percentage of matriculants entering institution as degree-seeking honors first-year students and graduating within four years having completed honors requirements (four-year colleges and universities only) Six-Year Honors Graduation Rate Percentage of matriculants entering institution as degree-seeking honors first-year students and graduating within six years having completed honors requirements (four-year colleges and universities only) Four-Year Graduation Rate Percentage of matriculants entering institution as degree-seeking honors first-year students and graduating within four years without necessarily having completed honors requirements (four-year colleges and universities only) Six-Year Graduation Rate Percentage of matriculants entering institution as degree-seeking honors first-year students and graduating within six years without necessarily having completed honors requirements (four-year colleges and universities only) Note: Items come from the NCHC 2014-2015 Admissions, Retention, and Completion Survey.