Page 1 of 81
Data Brief: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Key Takeaways
SUNY was founded on the principles of equity and inclusion to serve those who had been turned
away from private institutions for reasons of race, ethnicity and/or religion.
SUNY’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policy, adopted by the SUNY Trustees in September 2015, is
designed to build on existing efforts SUNY‐wide to meet ambitious goals in this area.
As this brief comes just nine months after the policy’s adoption and one year since the first data brief
was done, there are few significant changes to report. However, there are some new analyses
contained herein related to program of study, the new student information survey, and more.
SUNY’s available data set is becoming more complete and comprehensive with respect to
race/ethnicity. Data on gender identity and sexual orientation are limited. Information on students
with disabilities is limited.
As a percent of SUNY’s total enrollment, URM (under‐represented minority) enrollment has grown
from 14.7% to 24.8% in the past ten years.
At the state‐operated campuses, URM enrollment is up 5% from last year (2014), while URM
enrollment at SUNY community colleges has remained constant.
Hispanic graduates from NYS public high schools increased 15% between 2009‐10 and 2014‐15.
During this period the number of Hispanic high school graduates increased from 32,360 to 37,223.
Due to this change, Hispanic public high school graduates represented 20% of the total graduates in
2014‐15, up from 17% in 2009‐10.
URM retention rates have shown steady improvement over the time period examined, increasing
from 61.5% to 65.3%. URM students have the lowest first‐year retention rates SUNY wide, lagging the
rates for White students by approximately 7 percentage points.
The trend in employees at SUNY identifying as URM has shown an incremental increase over the
period from Fall 2007 to Fall 2015 (11.9% to 12.6%).
Overall at SUNY, nearly one out of every twenty students is reported as having some type of
disability.
System‐wide, the percent of students in the selected cohorts reported as receiving Pell has remained
relatively steady at about 40‐41% overall. More than half of URM students are reported as having
received a Pell grant in Fall 2015 (53.1%).
Although the percentage of overall enrollment remains relatively unchanged, SUNY decreased its
active military duty enrollment by seven students when compared to Fall 2014.
In comparison with Fall 2013, there have been only very slight changes in the racial/ethnic
distribution of all SUNY campus employees.
Annual Series: June 2016‐V2
Page 2 of 81
A. Introduction
A commitment to diversity and equity was a primary driver toward SUNY’s founding in 1948. The SUNY
system came to be, in large part, to serve those who had been turned away from private institutions
for reasons of race, ethnicity and/or religion.1 SUNY’s statutory mission statement specifically states
that SUNY’s educational services will be provided with the “broadest possible access, fully
representative of all segments of the population…”
This data brief is the second in an annual series to report on SUNY’s progress in meeting its diversity
and inclusion goals. Notably, this report comes nine months after the unanimous adoption of a
sweeping, system‐wide, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policy by the SUNY Trustees (Resolution No.
2015‐53). The policy is grounded in SUNY’s historical commitment to diversity and equity, and was
created as a means to build on existing efforts to significantly move the dial with respect to diversity,
equity and inclusion across the System.
It is a policy that was championed by SUNY’s senior leadership, SUNY Board Chairman H. Carl McCall
and SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher. Chancellor Zimpher empaneled a System‐wide Diversity Task
Force which was co‐chaired by Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Alexander Cartwright and System
Vice Chancellor and CDO Carlos Medina.
SUNY’s diversity policy sets a clear goal:
SUNY aspires to be the most inclusive State university system in the country. We will
achieve this goal by: striving to ensure that the student population we serve and the
administrative staff and faculty we employ are representative of the diversity of our
state; recognizing the value of international experiences and interactions; and
eliminating achievement gaps for minority and low income students. We will develop
strategic diversity and inclusion action plans for system administration and at each
campus that tangibly demonstrate SUNY’s commitment to the principles of inclusive
excellence, wherein an institution only achieves excellence when it is inclusive. SUNY
will identify diversity, equity and inclusion as essential aspects of system and campus
planning and as indispensable characteristics of academic excellence and the ongoing
experience of every member of the SUNY community.
The policy broadly defines diversity to include race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender,
gender identity and expression, age, socioeconomic status, status as a veteran, status as an individual
with a disability, students undergoing transition (such as transfer, stop‐out, international student
acclimation), and first‐generation students.
Importantly, the policy not only applies to all SUNY campuses, but also SUNY’s Albany, New York
headquarters (System Administration). Highlights of campus and System responsibilities detailed in the
policy include:
A Chief Diversity Officer for every campus and System Administration.
- Each campus CDO will:
Work as a senior member of the campus administration, reporting directly to the
president or provost;
1 Clark, J, Leslie W., O’Brien K. (2010). SUNY at Sixty. SUNY Press.
Page 3 of 81
Work collaboratively with offices across campus including but not limited to, the offices of academic affairs, human resources, enrollment management, and admissions;
elevate inclusiveness and implement best practices related to diversity, equity and inclusion in such areas as the recruitment and retention of students and senior administrators, faculty and staff hires; and
Serve as part of a system‐wide network of CDOs to support SUNY's overall diversity goals.
Each campus and SUNY System Administration will develop comprehensive strategic
diversity and inclusion plans.
- Campus plans will address student recruitment, retention, and completion strategies;
administrative, faculty, and staff recruitment and retention strategies; cultural
competency programming and an evaluation/assessment component.
- System’s plan will build on existing efforts and include an administrative and staff
recruitment and retention strategy; cultural competency programming; and an
evaluation/assessment component.
- Both campuses and System will use leadership search firms that have demonstrated
that they value diversity.
In addition, System Administration has the following responsibilities:
- Planning for a new initiative focused on the challenges associated with hiring couples
who both work in higher education.
- Planning for a new initiative that will pilot a faculty mentoring program.
- Preparing customized cultural competency training for SUNY and campus staff.
- Reporting annually on policy progress that is tied to the leadership evaluation process.
- Convening faculty researchers in the areas of diversity, equity and inclusion will support
the SUNY Chief Diversity Officer network and evaluate the policy for effectiveness and
continuous improvement.
In addition to providing an overview of available data related to diversity, this data brief will highlight
SUNY’s progress to date toward policy implementation (see Section B below).
At the same time that it adopted the policy, the SUNY Trustees also approved the System‐wide
administration of a new data collection tool that will provide every student who registers at a SUNY
campus with an opportunity to voluntarily self‐identify in the following areas:
Sexual orientation. Students will be able to select one of seven options (straight, gay, lesbian,
bisexual, pansexual, queer, questioning or unsure) or write‐in an orientation not identified;
Gender identity. Within the same tool, students will be able to select one of seven options
(man, woman, trans man, trans woman, genderqueer/gender‐fluid, questioning or unsure) or
write‐in an identity; and
Page 4 of 81
Additional status, such as being a first‐generation college student, active military or veteran,
whether they will work on and/or off campus, and if they have requested services from the
campus office of disabilities.
Key to SUNY’s efforts to be inclusive, students will have the opportunity to update this data each
semester; and SUNY will be able to review retention and completion patterns for students who self‐
identify by campus, by sector, and across SUNY to inform student support services.
This data brief will include a review of available baseline responses collected from the first
administration of the survey tool (see Section I below).
It is important to note that the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policy builds on a number of existing
successful diversity and inclusion efforts across the University, including:
Creation of the Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (ODEI) in 2007. The head of the office. Dr.
Carlos Medina, serves as the System Chief Diversity Officer. ODEI has grown to administer a
series of state‐funded scholarship and grant program and play a leadership role in fostering
diversity and inclusion across the System:
‐ Empire State Diversity Honors Scholarship Program;
‐ Explorations in Diversity and Academic Excellence Initiative;
‐ Faculty Diversity Program;
‐ Graduate Diversity Fellowship Program;
‐ Native American Initiative;
‐ Doctoral Diversity Fellowships in STEM Initiative;
‐ Diversity Abroad Honors Scholarship Program; and
‐ Diverse Scholars Research Awards.
In addition, ODEI staff serve as an ongoing resource to campuses and are frequently called
upon for their counsel.
The Office sponsors conferences and events, including the Diversity in STEM conference and
the Model Senate Project. The Office has a regular newsletter to foster the sharing of best
practices and in 2014, ODEI assumed oversight for the Office of Minority and Women‐Owned
Business Enterprise working not only to meet related requirements but also to foster a link to
system‐wide diversity efforts.
A detailed report on the work of ODEI will be presented to the Trustees in the fall.
Extensive programming on many campuses to support diversity and inclusion goals,
incorporation of inclusive excellence in the curriculum, and on several campuses, existing Chief
Diversity Officers, Offices of Diversity and Inclusion, and prominence of diversity in campus
strategic plans.
Page 5 of 81
SUNY’s system‐wide strategic plan, the Power of SUNY ‐ 2010 and Beyond, specifically
addresses diversity. Each of the plan’s six big ideas includes a Diversity Counts statement. The
statements describe how progress toward goals and objectives in that area will be grounded in
a commitment to diversity.
In November 2013, SUNY Board of Trustees’ Chairman H. Carl McCall requested a report on the
diversity of campus leaders and across System Administration. The report, given by SUNY Vice
Chancellor for Human Resources Curtis Lloyd, described gains in gender equity under
Chancellor Zimpher’s leadership and an increase in the inclusion of under‐represented
minorities on campuses and at system administration. However, both Chancellor Zimpher and
Chairman McCall recognized that more progress was needed.
In January 2013, Chancellor Zimpher called for the creation of a System‐wide Task Force on
Diversity.
The SUNY Excels Performance Improvement Framework, adopted in 2014, includes diversity as
a specific metric in the category of access. In addition, diversity metrics were added for each of
the remaining categories of the program: completion, success, inquiry and engagement.
In March 2014, Chancellor Zimpher initiated the first‐ever SUNY System sponsored leadership
workshop focused on diversity. The week‐long summer program worked with individuals in
early leadership roles on campuses to develop the skills and expertise necessary for them to
become ambassadors for diversity.
In November 2014, the System‐wide SUNY Diversity Task Force was launched. The Task Force
was given the bold charge of identifying system‐wide policies that would advance SUNY’s
diversity goals in four key areas: structure (which includes detail on the qualifications and
portfolio of campus chief diversity officers); student recruitment and retention; faculty
recruitment and retention; and climate. The initial recommendations of the Diversity Task
Force resulted in the policy adopted by the SUNY Trustees in January.
In 2015 and again in 2016, at the urging of Assembly Speaker Carl E. Heastie, the 2015‐16 State
budget included increased investment in both the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) in
place at 43 SUNY campuses and the Educational Opportunity Centers (EOCs) administered by
SUNY (10 EOCs and two counseling centers). EOP and EOC are access programs for
academically and economically disadvantaged students. Educational Opportunity Programs
admit students to SUNY campuses who demonstrate the ability to succeed in college but who
might not be admitted. EOCs offer academic preparedness programs, life skills programs and
vocational training programs. This support is noted here because the majority of students
currently served by both programs have self‐identified as under‐represented minorities.
As will be seen in this data brief, as a result of these efforts and the work of campuses, SUNY has made
progress in increasing racial diversity among enrolled students; however, significant gaps with respect
to retention and graduation remain between under‐represented minorities (URM) and their White and
Asian counterparts. The gap is particularly significant for Hispanic students, the segment of the
population projected to grow the fastest through 2020. There also remains a significant achievement
gap between economically disadvantaged students and their counterparts.
Page 6 of 81
SUNY’s work in strengthening the education pipeline, particularly for academically and economically
disadvantaged students, is critical to ensuring that students come to SUNY better prepared and
become part of the pool of educated adults that can become SUNY faculty and staff. However,
initiatives for current students to enhance success are also urgently needed and are being addressed
as part of the broader completion agenda under the SUNY Excels framework.
SUNY has seen little progress in increasing diversity among faculty and staff and moderate progress in
increasing diversity among leadership at campuses and System Administration. Relevant to increasing
employee diversity is the available pool of educated adults in the New York State as described in this
data brief. According to U.S. census data, White citizens are overrepresented among those who have
obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher in New York State, while Hispanic and Black citizens are
underrepresented among bachelor’s degree or higher recipients. These data have multiple implications
for SUNY, including: the need to go the extra mile to ensure that candidate pools are diverse through
targeted outreach in New York and expanding search pools beyond New York State; and importantly,
working to serve this adult population.
B. Progress to Date on Policy Implementation
Key action to date includes:
In‐depth panel discussion on responding to campus crises, student marches and protests, and
student, faculty and staff concerns at a meeting of all campus presidents.
When the Board adopted a Diversity and Inclusion policy in September 2015, it was regarded
as a historic moment for SUNY. At the time, both the System and campuses recognized that
there was much hard work ahead with respect to implementation. What was not anticipated
was that the national dialogue on race relations would escalate so significantly. In the weeks
and months following policy adoption, SUNY System CDO Medina and his staff were dispatched
to campuses to provide assistance. As a result of that work, an in‐depth panel discussion was
conducted on responding to campus crises at a meeting of all campus presidents.
Investments in human capital to support policy implementation.
The Assistant Director of Policy Implementation will report to the System CDO and have
responsibility for logistics, planning, and working with the Provost’s Office on communication.
The NYC‐based Director of Student Recruitment will focus on the recruitment of under‐
represented and academically and economically disadvantaged students in support of policy
goals. This is a shared appointment between the offices of ODEI, EOP and Enrollment
Marketing.
Notably, to better align with the policy and in recognition of exemplary performance, System
CDO Medina was promoted to the position of Vice Chancellor, and now carries the title Vice
Chancellor and Chief Diversity Officer. This elevation underscores System’s recognition that to
be most effective, the CDO has to be part of the organization’s leadership team.
Page 7 of 81
Campuses have met the first deadline of the policy, submitting to the Chancellor their plans
for appointing a CDO by September 1, 2017.
The plans underwent an iterative review to ensure alignment with the policy. Several
institutions already had a CDO and they have revised that individual’s job description to align
with the policy. Others have engaged in careful planning efforts and launched searches for a
CDO, sharing job descriptions and advertising plans in their report. Two pilot efforts to share a
CDO by community colleges were approved.
Development of a comprehensive resource guide to help campuses in the development of
their required strategic diversity and inclusion plans.
Given the work that done in exploring national best practices, it
was clear that campus diversity and inclusion plans were key to
policy implementation. The plans will be updated annually as
part of the Performance Improvement Plan process and
progress toward plan completion will be linked to the
presidential review process. The Guide emphasizes the
importance of collaborative plan development and provides a
potential format/model for campus plans:
- A Campus Diversity & Inclusion Vision/Mission Statement
- Current Campus Diversity & Inclusiveness Assessment – A
candid analysis of where each campus is based on data and
existing initiative effectiveness.
- Annual and Multi‐Year Goals – Setting long‐ and short‐term goals.
- Strategic Diversity Action Plan and Implementation Strategies – Detailed strategies to meet
goals.
- Assessment and Evaluation – Initially provide current benchmarks and projected outcomes
in as much detail as needed reflecting the work of departments, divisions or programs in
the college. Going forward, analyze the success or limitations the campus experienced in
implementing its diversity plan and identify adjustments to improve future performance
and goal attainment.
- Summative Statement.
The guide also includes: countless sample goals and strategies that align with the policy; links
to sample plans from other states; relevant resolutions from the UFS and Student Assembly;
and System’s commitment to help.
Page 8 of 81
Day‐long workshop in Albany organized by Vice Chancellor and CDO Medina to assist
campuses in developing their strategic diversity and inclusion plans.
Attracting 100 participants from 50 campuses, it
was clear that campuses have taken this charge
seriously. SUNY Trustee and President of the
University Faculty Senate, Dr. Peter Knuepfer
was also in attendance.
Three representatives from the National
Association of Diversity Officers in Higher
Education (NADOHE) provided guidance and
insight into the challenges of creating a strong
strategic diversity plan in higher education: Dr.
Archie W. Ervin, NADOHE President and Vice President for Institute Diversity at Georgia Tech;
Dr. Benjamin D. Reese, immediate Past President of NADOHE and Vice President for
Institutional Equity at Duke University; and Ms. Paulette Granberry‐Russell, NADOHE Board
Member and Senior Advisor to the President for Diversity and Director, Office for Inclusion and
Intercultural Initiatives at Michigan State University.
Notably, all three NADOHE representative cited SUNY’s policy as a national exemplar.
In addition to presentations from the three NADOHE representatives, CDO Medina and Provost
Cartwright, the workshop featured roundtable discussions on identifying student recruitment
strategies, facilitating faculty and staff retention and mentoring, and envisioning change to
build campus climate and promote institutional commitments to inclusion through a mission
statement. A number of strategies were identified in each area as a result:
Campus climate and vision:
- Integrating concepts of inclusive excellence into the curriculum and building faculty
competency in the areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
- Effective training for upper level‐management to understand the role of the CDO positon.
- Inclusion of the President, community, and student leaders to close gaps caused by race,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
- Commitment of staff and faculty to meet regularly to monitor and improve campus
climate.
- The importance of institutional diversity as part of the mission and vison of the educational
institution and the preparation of students to interact in a diverse society.
- Providing faculty the tools to prepare students by engaging in difficult topics.
- Efficient and effective use of climate assessments, surveys, and exit interviews.
Student recruitment:
- Facilitating multicultural weekends on campus for prospective students living in urban
areas and on reservations.
- Increasing outreach for students in K‐12 programs.
Page 9 of 81
- Ensuring community involvement to raise the comfort level of both students and
community residents.
- Employing interns/fellows specifically focused on diversity to work with students.
- Reviewing and improving communication used to describe student populations in an effort
to reduce alienation of students.
- Participating in seminars to gain knowledge on race and policing.
- Developing opportunities diversity classes and a diversified academic curriculum.
- Aligning admissions with enrollment to determine the gap between admissions and
acceptance.
- Considering questions of housing and employment for disadvantaged students.
- Encouraging public engagement for students through recognition and possible credit
bearing incentives.
- Training faculty to recognize and focus on student needs.
Faculty and staff retention and mentoring:
- The importance of identifying effective advertising measures for diverse candidates.
- The significance of a mentoring program for new faculty.
- Identifying the necessary resources to implement policy changes.
- Utilizing Deans and Department Chairs to create ground‐up cultural change.
- Providing diverse student populations opportunities as future faculty and staff.
- Reflecting intentionality in the recruitment of faculty and staff through sororities,
fraternities and professional organizations.
- Mentoring staff and faculty in an effort to sustain the network on campus and retain
personnel.
- Determining challenges related to failed searches for diverse staff and faculty.
- Creating a database for faculty in the area to use as a potential recruitment resources or
candidate referral.
- Cluster hiring so that a diverse candidate is not a “solo” in a particular department.
- Screening for cultural competencies during the recruitment process, including, a diversity
statement in the application or requiring a candidate to describe their own concept of
diversity.
- Ensuring that search committee members are prepared through cultural competency
training before searches begin.
- Repurposing search committee to play a more active role as recruitment committee to
actively recruit and identify potential candidates.
Campus and System diversity and inclusion plans are due on November 1, 2016.
Page 10 of 81
The Diversity Advisory Board called for in the policy has been empaneled. This group will serve
in an ongoing advisory role and may recommended additional policy.
The working group to develop the System Administration diversity and inclusion plan has been
empaneled and work begun.
C. About this Data Brief
This report does not intentionally address SUNY’s compliance with Affirmative Action or Title IX
requirements or related case law, though its content may be relevant to both. Rather, this brief
reviews:
1) Available data regarding SUNY student enrollment, retention, graduation, and/or available
supports and services pertaining to:
- Race/ethnicity;
- Disability;
- Socio‐economic status;
- Veteran and military;
- Sexual orientation.
2) Available data regarding the diversity of SUNY campus administrators, faculty, and staff;
3) Available data regarding the diversity of SUNY System Administration staff; and
4) Projected New York State trends.
This information is designed to allow the reader to make informed observations with respect to SUNY’s
progress in meeting its commitment to diversity as expressed in the 2015 Diversity, Equity and
Inclusion policy, Power of SUNY Strategic Plan, SUNY Excels, and the Presidential Review Process.
Data Availability and Usage Notes
SUNY, state, and national data in this report come from multiple sources: SIRIS (SUNY Institutional
Research Information System) data submissions; SUNY System’s Human Resources Management
System (HRMS); the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) in their federally mandated IPEDS
surveys; the New York State Education Department; Western Interstate Commission for Higher
Education (WICHE); and the U.S. Census Bureau.
At the System level, the student survey and the State Operated Campus Student Opinion Survey are
the first efforts to collect information on sexual orientation and gender identity. Both of these data
collection tools are voluntary. SUNY relies on the New York State Education Department for reporting
on Students with Disabilities due to legal determinations that are now being revisited.
The most readily available data is that on race/ethnicity, but here too there are important reader
notes:
At the federal level, the reporting of ‘Two or More Races’ was phased in for student enrollment
and employees between IPEDS collection years 2008‐09 and 2010‐11.
Page 11 of 81
In federal IPEDS data, international students and employees have their own race/ethnicity
category, which is reported to IPEDS as Non‐Resident Alien. International and Non‐Resident
Alien are used interchangeably in this document.
There is frequently interest in looking at under‐represented minorities (URM) in particular and
combined into one group. When this is done, the group consists of Black or African American,
Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,
and Two or More Races.
While a minority group, Asians are not currently considered to be under‐represented. Hence,
they are excluded from the URM grouping, as are Non‐Resident Aliens, Unknowns, and Whites.
- There are some instances in this brief where the individual race/ethnicity categories are
shown separately and/or where other breakdowns are shown for clarity or to be
comparable with data from other sources. Where this is done, it is specifically noted.
As in past data briefs, receipt of a federal Pell grant will be used as a proxy for economically
disadvantaged when discussing socio‐economic status.
The veteran and military data shared in this report for SUNY students is taken from the detailed unit‐
record SIRIS submissions as reported by each campus. The Office of Enrollment Management and
Student Success at System Administration collects comparable information in aggregate form via a
survey, the results of which may be seen elsewhere and may not match exactly with what is shown in
this brief.
Page 12 of 81
D. New York State Population
As SUNY largely draws from New York State for its students and to a slightly lesser degree for its faculty
and staff, the diversity of the state is relevant to the review of SUNY’s diversity goals.
Figure 1. New York State’s Changing Racial/Ethnic Demographics
New York Statewide Demographics
Population Estimate 2005‐2009
Percent of Total
Population Estimate 2010‐2014
Percent of Total
Percent Change
White 11,721,101 60.3% 11,220,383 57.3% ‐4.3%
Asian 1,309,561 6.7% 1,511,457 7.7% 15.4%
Black 2,839,299 14.6% 2,824,566 14.4% ‐0.5%
Hispanic 3,172,353 16.3% 3,559,644 18.2% 12.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native 47,250 0.2% 47,213 0.2% ‐0.1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 3,933 0.0% 4,700 0.0% 19.5%
Some Other Race 101,699 0.5% 96,258 0.5% ‐5.4%
Two or More Races 228,700 1.2% 330,109 1.7% 44.3%
Total 19,423,896 100.0% 19,594,330 100.0% 0.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005‐2009 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010‐2014 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates2
Figure 1 shows the overall statewide racial/ethnic demographics for New York State and its change
from the 2005‐09 census estimates to the 2010‐14 census estimates. Last year’s diversity data brief
included a comparison using 3‐year estimates from 2006‐2008 and 2011‐2013 (to avoid overlap),
whereas this year’s brief includes data from the 5‐year estimates for increased statistical reliability.
Key Observations
The size of the New York State population remained fairly stable from 2005‐09 and the 2010‐14
census estimates, growing just slightly from a total population of 19,423,896 to 19,594,330,
less than a 1% increase.
2 “The American Community Survey (ACS) will provide all states and communities that have at least 65,000 residents with single‐year estimates of demographic, housing, social, and economic characteristics—a boon to government agencies that need to budget and plan for public services like transportation, medical care, and schools. For geographic areas with smaller populations, the ACS samples too few households to provide reliable single‐year estimates. For these communities, several years of data will be pooled together to create reliable 3‐year or 5‐year estimates. Single‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year estimates from the ACS are all “period” estimates that represent data collected over a period of time (as opposed to “point‐in‐time” estimates, such as the decennial census, that approximate the characteristics of an area on a specific date). While a single‐year estimate includes information collected over a 12‐month period, a 3‐year estimate represents data collected over a 36‐month period, and a 5‐year estimate includes data collected over a 60‐month period. The primary advantage of using multiyear estimates is the increased statistical reliability of the data for less populated areas and small population subgroups.” ‐‐ Census Bureau, U. S. (2008). A compass for understanding and using American Community Survey data: What general data users need to know.
Page 13 of 81
Over that same time period, however, New York has seen significant changes in population
demographics:
- Most notably, the state saw a 12.2% increase in those identifying as Hispanic. Hispanic
citizens grew from making up 16.3% of the total New York population to making up 18.2%
of the total population.
- The Asian population saw a 15.4% increase but still makes up only 7.7% of New York’s
population.
- The Black population remained relatively stable at just over 14% of the total population.
- The White population decreased as a share of the total population, falling from 60.3% to
57.3%.
Compared to the 2011‐2013 3‐year estimates from last year’s data brief, the Asian population
has had the most significant increase in population (13,501) and increase in their percentage of
the statewide population (2.0%). The Hispanic percentage of the statewide population
increased 1.1% compared to last year. Whites had the sharpest decline in population (10,493)
but the White percentage of total population only decreased 0.1%.
New York State High School Graduates
The demographic profile of New York State public high school graduates is changing. Over the last five
years, New York State high school graduates are more diverse, which is significant to SUNY’s diversity
goals.
Figure 2. Percent of Population Identifying as Under‐Represented Minority*
* Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander, Two or More Races
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: June 3, 2016
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010‐2014 American Community Survey 5‐ year estimates
Page 14 of 81
Figure 2 a map of the United States showing the percent within the state identifying as under‐represented minority based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2010‐14 American Community Survey 5‐year estimates.
The figure is inserted to provide a perspective on how NYS compares with other states. As shown, NYS, along with New Jersey, is one of the more diverse states within the Northeast region.
Figure 3. NYS Public High School Graduate Racial/Ethnic Demographic Profile
Figure 3 shows the change in race/ethnicity of NYS public high school graduates between the school
years 2009‐10 and 2014‐15. In the June 2015 Diversity data brief, similar data was presented, but the
source was from Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Knocking at the
College Door, Projections of High School Graduates, New York State Profile, December 2012. Due to
the official 2014‐15 figures now being available through NYS’s Education Department (presented as
projections in the last data brief), this data brief includes official figures from NYSED rather than
projections from WICHE.
Key Observations
While absolute figures are not shown on the graph, the total number of graduates from NYS
public high schools decreased from 189,178 to 184,251 between 2009‐10 and 2014‐15.
Hispanic graduates from NYS public high schools increased 15% between 2009‐10 and 2014‐15.
During this period the number of Hispanic high school graduates increased from 32,360 to
37,223. Due to this change, Hispanic public high school graduates represented 20% of the total
graduates in 2014‐15, up from 17% in 2009‐10.
The number of Asian/Pacific Islander graduates from NYS public high schools rose by 16%
between 2009‐10 and 2014‐15. The number of graduates during this period increased from
57%52%
17%20%
18% 17%
8% 10%
1% 1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2009‐2010 2014‐2015
White non‐Hispanic
Hispanic Black non‐Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 12, 2016 Source: New York State Education Department
Page 15 of 81
15,214 to 17,575. Asian/Pacific Islander graduates represented 10% of total graduates in 2014‐
15 (up from 8% in 2009‐2010).
White and black non‐Hispanic graduates from public high schools decreased between 2008‐09
and 2014‐15. Total white graduates decreased 11% while black graduates decreased 5% during
this period. Representationally, white graduates decreased 5 percentage points during the time
periods examined, while black graduates decreased 1 percentage point.
New York State School District Enrollment
The first set of maps below shows total public school district enrollment by percent URM during 2005‐
06 and 2014‐15. The second set of maps show URM enrollment at SUNY campuses for Fall 2005 and
Fall 2014. This is not meant to be a direct correlation but rather a picture at two points in time for the
State and SUNY. Note that this analysis does not include international students.
Page 16 of 81
Figures 4 ‐ 7. Change in Under‐Represented Minority (URM) Distribution of New York State Public
School District Enrollments vs. Change in Under‐represented Minority (URM) SUNY Enrollment
Figure 4. 2005‐06 URM Enrollment by NYS Public School District
Figure 5. 2014‐2015 URM Enrollment by NYS Public School District
Page 17 of 81
Figure 6. Fall 2006 URM Enrollment by Campus
Figure 7. Fall 2015 URM Enrollment by Campus
Source of Figures 5 and 6: NYSED Office of Information and Reporting Services Source of Figures 7 and 8: Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 21, 2016 :: SUNY Data Warehouse
Key Observations
Over the past ten years, the percentage of URM enrolled in New York State Public School
districts has increased in many districts. Geographically, these increases tend to be centered
on the I‐90 corridor and the mid‐Hudson Valley.
Page 18 of 81
Higher percentages of URM in the far north and western regions reflect the location of Native
American reservations.
The percentage of URM students at many SUNY campuses has mirrored these demographic
trends. Many, but not all, campuses in the mid‐Hudson Valley and I‐90 corridor have increased
their percentage of URM students over this time period.
Importantly, some campuses have increased their share of URM in spite of being located in a
geographic area with fewer URM school district enrollments. Examples include SUNY Potsdam
and SUNY Canton.
Taken all together, the preceding figures suggest:
There is opportunity for SUNY campuses to increase URM student enrollment even if the
surrounding community has not seen URM growth.
SUNY campuses should plan now to respond to projected increases in URM enrollment and
related student supports, particularly for Hispanic students.
Educational Attainment of Adult New Yorkers by Race/Ethnicity
In addition to looking at the high school age population, SUNY must also look to the demographics of
non‐traditional age New Yorkers as a source of prospective students, faculty and staff.
Figure 8. Distribution of Educational Attainment by Race Ethnicity of New Yorkers 25 Years and Older
Figure 8 illustrates the distribution of racial/ethnic distribution within multiple levels of educational
attainment for NYS adult residents as well as the overall statewide distribution. Each educational
attainment category totals 100%.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Distribution of Those WithBachelor's Or Higher
Distribution of Those WithSome College or
Associate's
Distribution of Those WithHigh School Credentials
Distribution of Those WithLess Than High School
Credential
Distribution of NYSPopulation 25 Years +
White
Asian
Black
Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Two or More Races
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 18, 2016 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates 2010‐2014
Page 19 of 81
Key Observations
Individuals identifying as White are overrepresented in attaining higher levels of education
such as a bachelor’s degree. They make up 59.7% of the total statewide population 25 years
and over but make up 70.3% of those holding a bachelor’s degree or higher. Compared to last
year, Whites make up 0.6% less of the statewide population and 0.5% less of the population
holding a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Individuals identifying as Asian are also overrepresented among those with a bachelor’s degree
or higher. While only making up 7.8% of the general population 25 and over, Asians make up
10.6% of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher. Of interest is that Asians are
underrepresented among those with some college or an associate’s degree making up only
4.7% of this group. The Asian statewide population increased 0.2% since last year while the
Asian percentage of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher remained flat.
Individuals identifying as Hispanic are overrepresented among those with less than a high
school education. Hispanics make up 15.8% of New York’s 25 and older population; however,
they represent 35.6 % of the population with less than a high school diploma. Of note, the
Hispanic percentage of the total statewide population increased more than any other group
within the last year (0.3%); however, the Hispanic percentage of the statewide population
without a high school diploma increased 0.4%
Individuals identifying as Hispanic make up only 7.8% of those with a bachelor’s degree or
higher, but this number increased 0.1% over the last year.
Individuals identifying as Black are also underrepresented among those with bachelor’s
degrees or higher. While making up 14.5% of the 25 and older population (up 0.1% since last
year), Blacks only make up 9.3% of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher (up 0.1% since last
year).
Page 20 of 81
E. Student Data: Race/Ethnicity
Figures 9, 10a, and 10b. SUNY Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2005, Fall 2014, and Fall 2015
American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.5%
Asian, 4.4%Black or African American, 8.5%
Hispanic/Latino, 5.8%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 0.0%
International, 3.7%
Two or more race,
0.0%
Unknown, 9.7%
White, 67.4%
Figure 9. Fall 2005
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: June 5 2016
American Indian or Alaska
Native, 0.4%
Asian, 5.3%Black or African American, 10.3%
Hispanic/Latino, 10.8%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 0.1%International, 5.1%
Two or more race,
2.1%Unknown, 6.3%
White, 59.6%
Figure 10a Fall 2014
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: June 5 2016
American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.4%
Asian, 5.6%
Black or African American, 10.6%
Hispanic/Latino, 11.5%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 0.1%
International, 5.2%
Two or more race, 2.2%
Unknown, 6.4%
White, 58.0%
Figure 10b. Fall 2015
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: June 5, 2016
Page 21 of 81
Figures 9, 10a, and 10b illustrate the detailed race/ethnicity distribution of SUNY’s total student body
in Fall 2005, Fall 2014, and Fall 2015 as it is reported to the federal government. Note that as discussed
in Section C of this brief, international students have their own distinct category.
Key Observations
The proportion of White students decreased by 9.4 percentage points between Fall 2005 and
Fall 2015, falling from 67.4% of all enrolled students to 58.0%. This percentage is also down
from 59.6% in Fall 2014.
The proportion of Asian student enrollment increased 1.2 percentage points over the ten year
period and 0.3 percentage points since last year.
Of the URM population:
As a percent of SUNY’s total enrollment, URM enrollment has grown from 14.7% in Fall 2005 to
24.8% in 2015, reflecting a 10.1 percentage point increase over this ten year period. And from
our last diversity data brief, URM enrollment is up 1 percentage point up from 23.8% in 2014.
The proportion of Black or African American students increased by 2.1 percentage points since
Fall 2005 and 0.3 percentage points since last year.
The proportion of Hispanic/Latino students increased 0.7 percentage points since last year and
increased 5.7 percentage points over the ten year span.
Noting that the starting point was 0% in Fall 2005, the proportion of students who identified as
Two or More Races remained at roughly 2% for both Fall 2014 and Fall 2015.
The proportion American Indian/Alaska Native students at SUNY has remained low, at 0 .5% in
Fall 2005 and 0.4% in Fall 2015. Also, SUNY enrolls so few Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander students that their percentage rounds to 0% in Fall 2005 and just 0.1% in Fall 2015.
The proportion of those not reporting their race/ethnicity, (i.e. the “Unknowns”) decreased
from 9.7% to 6.4% between Fall 2005 and Fall 2015, providing more complete data for planning
and decision‐making. Although this is a vast improvement, the proportion of those not
reporting their race/ethnicity increased 0.1 percentage point since last year.
Page 22 of 81
Figure 11. Trends in Minority and International Enrollment, Fall 2005 – Fall 2015
To provide a different visual perspective, Figure 11 shows total URM, Asian, and International
enrollment for the years illustrated in Figures 9 and 10b and each year in between. Figure 12 (below)
shows the percentage point differences in URM enrollment between Fall 2006 and Fall 2015 by
campus.
14.7% 15.1% 15.4% 16.1% 16.7%17.8%
19.8%21.4%
22.4%23.8%
24.8%
4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 4.6% 4.9% 5.1% 5.3% 5.6%
3.7% 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.5% 4.8% 5.1% 5.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Fall2005
Fall2006
Fall2007
Fall2008
Fall2009
Fall2010
Fall2011
Fall2012
Fall2013
Fall2014
Fall2015
URM
Asian
International
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: June 25, 2016
Page 23 of 81
Figure 12. Percentage Point Differences in URM Enrollment by Campus, Fall 2006 vs. Fall 2015
# % # % # %
SUNY Total 417,575 63,166 15.1% 454,839 108,035 23.8% 442,940 109,764 24.8% 9.7
State Operated Total 208,516 26,312 12.6% 221,027 45,684 20.7% 219,942 47,958 21.8% 9.2
Doctoral Degree Granting 97,723 11,720 12.0% 105,408 18,298 17.4% 105,998 19,236 18.1% 6.2
Albany 17,434 2,483 14.2% 17,273 4,632 26.8% 17,178 4,994 29.1% 14.8
Alfred‐Ceramics 773 24 3.1% 645 57 8.8% 627 55 8.8% 5.7
Binghamton 14,373 1,579 11.0% 16,695 2,632 15.8% 16,913 2,673 15.8% 4.8
Buffalo Univ 27,823 2,519 9.1% 29,995 3,795 12.7% 29,808 4,045 13.6% 4.5
Cornell Stat 6,995 761 10.9% 7,667 1,636 21.3% 7,590 1,682 22.2% 11.3
Downstate Medical 1,609 533 33.1% 1,865 547 29.3% 1,858 546 29.4% ‐3.7
Envir Sci & Forestry 2,069 77 3.7% 2,200 159 7.2% 2,222 174 7.8% 4.1
Optometry 302 14 4.6% 363 37 10.2% 383 33 8.6% 4.0
SUNY Poly 2,587 200 7.7% 2,738 386 14.1% 2,779 387 13.9% 6.2
Stony Brook 22,522 3,432 15.2% 24,451 4,223 17.3% 25,160 4,453 17.7% 2.5
Upstate Medical 1,236 98 7.9% 1,516 194 12.8% 1,480 194 13.1% 5.2
Comprehensive Colleges 89,059 11,209 12.6% 89,442 20,733 23.2% 87,764 21,793 24.8% 12.2
Brockport 8,312 752 9.0% 8,106 1,352 16.7% 8,161 1,449 17.8% 8.7
Buffalo State 11,220 1,871 16.7% 11,083 3,940 35.5% 10,330 4,246 41.1% 24.4
Cortland 6,995 501 7.2% 6,958 1,161 16.7% 6,926 1,251 18.1% 10.9
Empire State 12,038 2,305 19.1% 11,952 3,339 27.9% 11,878 3,403 28.6% 9.5
Fredonia 5,406 270 5.0% 5,215 705 13.5% 4,842 714 14.7% 9.8
Geneseo 5,530 296 5.4% 5,625 690 12.3% 5,676 743 13.1% 7.7
New Paltz 7,699 1,158 15.0% 7,692 1,638 21.3% 7,751 1,776 22.9% 7.9
Old Westbury 3,450 1,533 44.4% 4,504 2,399 53.3% 4,353 2,307 53.0% 8.6
Oneonta 5,786 435 7.5% 6,101 916 15.0% 6,119 984 16.1% 8.6
Oswego 8,183 633 7.7% 8,034 1,364 17.0% 7,937 1,518 19.1% 11.4
Plattsburgh 6,217 548 8.8% 5,968 1,036 17.4% 5,718 1,084 19.0% 10.1
Potsdam 4,332 229 5.3% 3,979 841 21.1% 3,904 992 25.4% 20.1
Purchase 3,891 678 17.4% 4,225 1,352 32.0% 4,169 1,326 31.8% 14.4
Technology Colleges 21,734 3,383 15.6% 26,177 6,653 25.4% 26,180 6,929 26.5% 10.9
Alfred State 3,201 291 9.1% 3,661 636 17.4% 3,699 746 20.2% 11.1
Canton 2,584 336 13.0% 3,282 836 25.5% 3,140 856 27.3% 14.3
Cobleskil l 2,508 278 11.1% 2,535 607 23.9% 2,441 640 26.2% 15.1
Delhi 2,572 493 19.2% 3,596 1,144 31.8% 3,452 1,072 31.1% 11.9
Farmingdale 6,256 1,246 19.9% 8,394 2,410 28.7% 8,648 2,531 29.3% 9.4
Maritime 1,316 214 16.3% 1,799 222 12.3% 1,860 309 16.6% 0.4
Morrisvi lle 3,297 525 15.9% 2,910 798 27.4% 2,940 775 26.4% 10.4
Community Colleges 209,059 36,854 17.6% 233,812 62,351 26.7% 222,998 61,806 27.7% 10.1
Adirondack 3,604 87 2.4% 4,247 357 8.4% 3,993 366 9.2% 6.8
Broome 6,282 334 5.3% 5,944 478 8.0% 5,926 584 9.9% 4.5
Cayuga County 3,869 153 4.0% 4,290 455 10.6% 4,184 449 10.7% 6.8
Clinton 2,170 124 5.7% 1,870 149 8.0% 1,862 149 8.0% 2.3
Columbia‐Greene 1,770 147 8.3% 2,043 367 18.0% 1,781 321 18.0% 9.7
Corning 4,693 172 3.7% 4,520 401 8.9% 3,972 377 9.5% 5.8
Dutchess 7,928 1,424 18.0% 9,905 3,111 31.4% 9,546 3,031 31.8% 13.8
Erie 13,012 2,842 21.8% 12,733 3,227 25.3% 12,022 2,609 21.7% ‐0.1
Fashion Institute 10,010 1,910 19.1% 9,764 2,887 29.6% 9,565 2,790 29.2% 10.1
Finger Lakes 5,150 254 4.9% 6,793 802 11.8% 6,755 646 9.6% 4.6
Fulton‐Montgomery 2,157 200 9.3% 2,589 540 20.9% 2,551 531 20.8% 11.5
Genesee 6,503 261 4.0% 6,883 854 12.4% 6,521 847 13.0% 9.0
Herkimer County 3,354 379 11.3% 3,259 420 12.9% 3,020 519 17.2% 5.9
Hudson Valley 11,952 1,343 11.2% 12,177 2,185 17.9% 11,796 2,300 19.5% 8.3
Jamestown 3,711 192 5.2% 5,065 627 12.4% 4,826 654 13.6% 8.4
Jefferson 3,245 315 9.7% 3,880 785 20.2% 3,748 819 21.9% 12.1
Mohawk Valley 5,890 549 9.3% 7,149 1,175 16.4% 6,675 1,090 16.3% 7.0
Monroe 17,110 3,726 21.8% 15,335 5,079 33.1% 14,586 4,803 32.9% 11.2
Nassau 21,229 6,883 32.4% 22,374 10,304 46.1% 21,558 10,384 48.2% 15.7
Niagara County 5,932 524 8.8% 6,478 1,058 16.3% 6,116 1,088 17.8% 9.0
North Country 1,636 70 4.3% 1,962 118 6.0% 1,883 156 8.3% 4.0
Onondaga 9,393 1,036 11.0% 12,271 2,620 21.4% 11,886 2,553 21.5% 10.4
Orange County 6,523 1,459 22.4% 6,951 2,653 38.2% 6,982 2,716 38.9% 16.5
Rockland 6,171 1,969 31.9% 7,521 2,939 39.1% 7,180 2,902 40.4% 8.5
Schenectady County 4,411 552 12.5% 6,497 1,526 23.5% 6,126 1,444 23.6% 11.1
Suffolk County 21,859 4,401 20.1% 26,600 7,079 26.6% 26,829 8,116 30.3% 10.1
Sull ivan County 1,613 396 24.6% 1,643 654 39.8% 1,592 639 40.1% 15.6
Tompkins Cortland 3,009 298 9.9% 5,559 1,061 19.1% 5,939 1,101 18.5% 8.6
Ulster County 3,294 310 9.4% 3,594 738 20.5% 3,468 709 20.4% 11.0
Westchester 11,579 4,544 39.2% 13,916 7,702 55.3% 12,966 7,391 57.0% 17.8
Percentage
Point
Difference
Between Fall
2015 and
Fall 2006
Fall 2014
Total
Enrollment
Fall 2014 URMFall 2006 URM Fall 2015 URMFall 2015
Total
Enrollment
Fall 2006
Total
Enrollment
Sector/Campus
Page 24 of 81
Figure 13. Race/Ethnicity Over Time at SUNY and 10‐Year Changes by Sector and Student Level
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics::June 5, 2016 Source: SUNY Student Data Warehouse
Ethnicity Groups Fall 2005 Fall 2007 Fall 2009 Fall 2011 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015
414,165 427,398 461,447 468,006 459,550 454,839 442,940 ‐2.6% 6.9%
Asian 18,428 19,172 20,628 21,651 23,577 24,226 24,975 3.1% 35.5%
International 15,471 17,710 18,772 19,408 22,030 23,074 22,881 ‐0.8% 47.9%
URM 60,923 65,851 77,094 92,636 102,809 108,035 109,764 1.6% 80.2%
Unknown 40,004 46,220 55,092 40,412 29,980 28,459 28,453 0.0% ‐28.9%
White 279,339 278,445 289,861 293,899 281,154 271,045 256,867 ‐5.2% ‐8.0%
373,629 386,818 419,886 427,402 418,917 414,304 402,722 ‐2.8% 7.8%
Asian 16,342 16,987 18,246 19,193 20,929 21,592 22,264 3.1% 36.2%
International 8,960 10,672 11,727 12,162 13,055 13,562 13,899 2.5% 55.1%
URM 57,613 62,473 73,663 88,971 98,714 103,606 105,119 1.5% 82.5%
Unknown 36,627 42,480 51,189 35,859 26,854 25,679 25,913 0.9% ‐29.3%
White 254,087 254,206 265,061 271,217 259,365 249,865 235,527 ‐5.7% ‐7.3%
40,536 40,580 41,561 40,604 40,633 40,535 40,218 ‐0.8% ‐0.8%
Asian 2,086 2,185 2,382 2,458 2,648 2,634 2,711 2.9% 30.0%
International 6,511 7,038 7,045 7,246 8,975 9,512 8,982 ‐5.6% 38.0%
URM 3,310 3,378 3,431 3,665 4,095 4,429 4,645 4.9% 40.3%
Unknown 3,377 3,740 3,903 4,553 3,126 2,780 2,540 ‐8.6% ‐24.8%
White 25,252 24,239 24,800 22,682 21,789 21,180 21,340 0.8% ‐15.5%
205,795 213,269 222,204 220,339 219,759 221,027 219,942 ‐0.5% 6.9%
Asian 12,113 12,604 13,334 14,415 15,915 16,439 16,921 2.9% 39.7%
International 12,052 14,136 15,425 15,989 18,679 19,900 19,597 ‐1.5% 62.6%
URM 24,983 27,267 29,648 36,110 41,869 45,684 47,958 5.0% 92.0%
Unknown 23,426 26,283 29,803 20,222 11,700 10,061 9,102 ‐9.5% ‐61.1%
White 133,221 132,979 133,994 133,603 131,596 128,943 126,364 ‐2.0% ‐5.1%
165,441 172,891 180,849 179,935 179,315 180,689 179,903 ‐0.4% 8.7%
Asian 10,037 10,427 10,959 11,979 13,282 13,819 14,224 2.9% 41.7%
International 5,560 7,143 8,419 8,780 9,737 10,427 10,656 2.2% 91.7%
URM 21,680 23,897 26,232 32,468 37,804 41,284 43,342 5.0% 99.9%
Unknown 20,153 22,643 26,016 15,691 8,610 7,302 6,573 ‐10.0% ‐67.4%
White 108,011 108,781 109,223 111,017 109,882 107,857 105,108 ‐2.5% ‐2.7%
40,354 40,378 41,355 40,404 40,444 40,338 40,039 ‐0.7% ‐0.8%
Asian 2,076 2,177 2,375 2,436 2,633 2,620 2,697 2.9% 29.9%
International 6,492 6,993 7,006 7,209 8,942 9,473 8,941 ‐5.6% 37.7%
URM 3,303 3,370 3,416 3,642 4,065 4,400 4,616 4.9% 39.8%
Unknown 3,273 3,640 3,787 4,531 3,090 2,759 2,529 ‐8.3% ‐22.7%
White 25,210 24,198 24,771 22,586 21,714 21,086 21,256 0.8% ‐15.7%
208,370 214,129 239,243 247,667 239,791 233,812 222,998 ‐4.6% 7.0%
Asian 6,315 6,568 7,294 7,236 7,662 7,787 8,054 3.4% 27.5%
International 3,419 3,574 3,347 3,419 3,351 3,174 3,284 3.5% ‐3.9%
URM 35,940 38,584 47,446 56,526 60,940 62,351 61,806 ‐0.9% 72.0%
Unknown 16,578 19,937 25,289 20,190 18,280 18,398 19,351 5.2% 16.7%
White 146,118 145,466 155,867 160,296 149,558 142,102 130,503 ‐8.2% ‐10.7%
208,188 213,927 239,037 247,467 239,602 233,615 222,819 ‐4.6% 7.0%
Asian 6,305 6,560 7,287 7,214 7,647 7,773 8,040 3.4% 27.5%
International 3,400 3,529 3,308 3,382 3,318 3,135 3,243 3.4% ‐4.6%
URM 35,933 38,576 47,431 56,503 60,910 62,322 61,777 ‐0.9% 71.9%
Unknown 16,474 19,837 25,173 20,168 18,244 18,377 19,340 5.2% 17.4%
White 146,076 145,425 155,838 160,200 149,483 142,008 130,419 ‐8.2% ‐10.7%
182 202 206 200 189 197 179 ‐9.1% ‐1.6%
Asian 10 8 7 22 15 14 14 0.0% 40.0%
International 19 45 39 37 33 39 41 5.1% 115.8%
URM 7 8 15 23 30 29 29 0.0% 314.3%
Unknown 104 100 116 22 36 21 11 ‐47.6% ‐89.4%
White 42 41 29 96 75 94 84 ‐10.6% 100.0%
Undergraduate
Graduate
Percent
Change
(2014 to
2015)
Undergraduate
Graduate
Community Colleges
Undergraduate
Graduate
State Operated
SUNY University Race / Ethnicity URM Headcount 2005 to 2015SUNY Total / State
Operated/ CC (UG/
Grad)Home Insitution Student Count
Ten Year
Percent
Change
(2005 to
2015)SUNY All Campuses
Page 25 of 81
Figure 13 provides an every‐other‐year look at how the race/ethnicity breakdowns have changed over time both system‐wide and by major sector (i.e. state‐operated and community colleges) and student level. In this table, all of the individual under‐represented minority (URM) categories have been combined into a singular URM category.
Key Observations
The state‐operated institutions have had significant 10‐year increases in the number of both URM and international students enrolled—increases of 92.0% and 62.6%, respectively, and a 5.0% URM increase from last year, 2014. These increases are compared to an overall student enrollment increase of 6.9% from 2005‐2015.
While the state operated overall undergraduate enrollment increased 8.7% in the last ten years the URM student population increased 100% from over 21K to over 43K students.
The community colleges experienced a 72.0% increase of URM students over that same time period, while they saw a decrease of 3.9% for international students. Note, however, that the number of international students is relatively small at the community colleges (1.5% of the total enrollment in Fall 2015).
While the state‐operated campuses have been reporting markedly fewer students with unknown race/ethnicity (down 61.1%); almost 24,500 in 2004 to just over 9,000 in 2015, a decrease of unknown reporting of 9.5% since last year’s briefing. The community colleges have been reporting markedly more students with unknown race/ethnicity (up 16.7%, at 19,351 in 2015). Yet, this is a vast improvement from the last reported 10‐year period (2004‐14) at 38.2% unknown. System Administration has been working with campuses in an attempt to reverse this trend and has been making progress, noting that this issue in general has become a topic of national conversation.
Figure 14. URM Enrollment at SUNY State‐Op Institutions vs. Public 4‐Year Schools by State, Fall 2014
Figure 14 looks specifically at URM enrollment at SUNY’s state‐operated institutions compared to
public 4‐year and above institutions across the nation by state, as reported on the IPEDS Fall 2014
Enrollment Survey.
50.1%
33.9%
20.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
DC
NM
CUNY TX FL HI
MS
CA
NV
MD
GA NY
LA NC
OK NJ
AZ
AL IL AK
TN DE
VA
AR SC
WA
CO CT
SUNY RI
MA
OR
MI
PA KS IN
MO
OH ID KY
UT
NE
SD WI
MN
WV
ND
WY
MT IA VT
ME
NH
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016 Source: 2014 IPEDS Fall Enrollment Survey
Page 26 of 81
Key Observations
Despite the overall increase in URM enrollment at SUNY, the state‐operated institutions
perform moderately with respect to their public peers.
The percentage of enrolled URM students at 4‐year institutions ranges from 70% for
Washington D.C. to 6% for New Hampshire.
At 50.1%, New York’s CUNY system has the third largest percent of URM enrollment in the
country.
When all Public 4‐Year Institutions in New York State are looked at as a whole (i.e. SUNY and
CUNY combined), the state has the highest percentage of URM enrollment of the Northeastern
States at 33.9%.
At 20.7% of total enrollment, just over half of U.S. states exceed SUNY in terms of URM
students.
Connecticut and New Jersey report a larger percentage of URM enrollment than SUNY. SUNY’s
percentage of URM enrollment is greater than that of Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire.
Figure 15. URM Enrollment at SUNY Community Colleges vs. National Public 2‐Year Schools by State, Fall 2014
Figure 15 looks specifically at URM enrollment at SUNY’s community colleges compared to public 2‐year institutions across the nation by state, as reported on the IPEDS Fall 2014 Enrollment Survey.
Key Observations
The percentage of enrolled URM students at 2‐year colleges ranges from 68.5% for CUNY to 7% for New Hampshire.
When all NYS public 2‐year institutions are looked at as a whole, New York is slightly behind New Jersey as far as Northern States (39.5% and 40.8% respectively).
68.5%
39.5%
26.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
CUNY
AK
NM CA TX HI
GA LA FL
MD
MS
AZ
CT NJ
NY
SC IL DE
NC
VA
MA RI
OK
AL
NV
AR
CO PA
SUNY
MI
MT KS
MN
OH TN IN UT
WA
OR
MO NE ID WI
ND KY IA
WY
SD VT
WV
ME
NH
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016 Source: 2014 IPEDS Fall Enrollment Survey
Page 27 of 81
SUNY’s community college percent of URM enrollment in Fall 2014 is 26.7%, with a little more than half of the public 2‐year institutions grouped by state reporting a greater value.
At the two‐year level, CUNY, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all have higher percentages of URM Students than SUNY’s community colleges.
Figure 16. Percent Minority and International Students at SUNY State‐Operated Institutions, Fall 2015
64.5%
54.1%
53.9%
53.0%
48.0%
47.8%
46.4%
46.4%
45.7%
45.3%
44.5%
39.1%
38.4%
38.0%
37.9%
35.6%
35.4%
34.2%
33.2%
32.1%
30.6%
30.3%
29.5%
28.9%
28.4%
27.9%
27.4%
25.4%
24.6%
23.5%
22.9%
21.7%
20.9%
20.0%
19.8%
19.4%
19.3%
17.8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Old Westbury
Stony Brook
Downstate Medical
Optometry
Research Centers
Cornell Stat
Doctoral Degree Granting
Buffalo Univ
Buffalo State
Albany
Binghamton
Farmingdale
State Operated
Other Research/Doctoral
Purchase
SUNY Total
Empire State
Delhi
New Paltz
Technology Colleges
Comprehensive Colleges
Canton
Morrisville
Cobleskill
Potsdam
Upstate Medical
Plattsburgh
Maritime
SUNY Poly
Oswego
Alfred State
Geneseo
Brockport
Cortland
Alfred‐Ceramics
Fredonia
Oneonta
Envir Sci & Forestry% URM % Asian % International
* URM includes Black or African‐American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Native Hawaiin or Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research Source: SUNY Data
Page 28 of 81
Figure 16 provides a snapshot for Fall 2015 of each state‐operated institution’s minority and
international diversity. Data is displayed as a stacked bar showing the percentage of URM students,
followed by the percentage of Asian students, and then the percentage of international students. The
aggregate percentage is displayed at the end of each bar. The White and Unknown categories are not
displayed.
Key Observations
Aggregate diversity ranges from a high percentage of 64.4% at Old Westbury to a low of 17.8%
at Environmental Science and Forestry, a range of 46.6 percentage points. For reference, the
system‐wide aggregate is 35.6%, and the state‐operated aggregate is 38.4%.
Racial diversity within campuses does not change materially on a year‐to‐year basis, yet over
time strides are being made to increase diversity at our campuses, as evident in this year’s
overall SUNY percentage being 1.4 percentage points higher than last years’ 34.2%.
Race/ethnicity diversity is not uniform across campuses. In looking at the ten state‐operated
campuses with the highest levels of aggregate diversity, for example, there are some campuses
with low percentages of URM students and higher Asian and international enrollments and
other campuses with a more balanced student mix.
As an example of URM diversity within campuses, in the doctoral sector, URM enrollment,
specifically, ranges from 29.4% at Downstate to 7.8% at ESF. In the comprehensive sector,
URM enrollment ranges from 53.0% at Old Westbury to 13.1% at Geneseo. In the technology
sector, URM enrollment ranges from 31.1% at Delhi to 16.6% at Maritime.
As a whole, the technology and comprehensive college sectors enroll lower numbers of
minority students with Old Westbury, Buffalo State, Purchase, Farmingdale, and Delhi as
notable exceptions.
Page 29 of 81
Figure 17. Percent Minority and International Students at SUNY Community Colleges, Fall 2015
Figure 17 provides a snapshot for Fall 2015 of each community college institution’s minority and
international diversity. Data is displayed as a stacked bar showing the percentage of URM students,
followed by the percentage of Asian students, and then the percentage of international students. The
aggregate percentage is displayed at the end of each bar. The White and Unknown categories are not
displayed.
62.2%
56.0%
52.8%
46.3%
42.5%
42.3%
38.0%
35.6%
35.6%
34.0%
32.8%
31.3%
30.4%
27.9%
25.8%
25.4%
24.5%
24.1%
22.5%
22.2%
22.1%
20.8%
19.1%
16.1%
15.0%
13.7%
12.2%
11.7%
10.6%
10.2%
10.2%
10.0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Westchester
Nassau
Fashion Institute
Rockland
Sullivan County
Orange County
Monroe
Dutchess
SUNY Total
Suffolk County
Community Colleges
Tompkins Cortland
Schenectady County
Fulton‐Montgomery
Hudson Valley
Erie
Onondaga
Jefferson
Ulster County
Mohawk Valley
Herkimer County
Columbia‐Greene
Niagara County
Genesee
Jamestown
Broome
Cayuga County
Clinton
Corning
Finger Lakes
Adirondack
North Country% URM % Asian % International
* URM includes Black or African‐American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Native Hawaiin or Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research Source: SUNY Data Warehouse
Page 30 of 81
Key Observations
Aggregate diversity ranges from a high percentage of 57.0% at Westchester to a low of 8.0% at
Clinton, a range of 49.0 percentage points. For reference, the system‐wide aggregate is 35.6%,
and the community college aggregate is 32.8%.
Nearly all of the diversity seen at the community colleges comes from the enrollment of URM
students, with notably smaller enrollments of Asian and international students.
Further, consistent with the fact that community colleges primarily serve students in their local
areas, the campuses with the most diversity are those located downstate and in major NYS
metropolitan areas. Conversely, those with the least race/ethnicity diversity are those located
in rural regions of the state.
Figure 18. State‐Operated Enrollment by Major Grouping and Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2015
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics:: May 25, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse
Figure 18 shows the distribution of Major Grouping enrollment at the state‐operated institutions by
race/ethnicity. To obtain the Major Groupings, the individual detailed majors were collapsed in the
primary groupings classification developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and
Statistics Canada. See Appendix B for a crosswalk from the 2‐digit CIP codes to the primary major
groupings used in this analysis. Note that this figure combines students enrolled at all degree levels in
the Major Groupings. The racial/ethnic distribution may vary by degree level within the Major
Groupings.
For additional informational purposes, the enrollment for each grouping is listed by that grouping’s
label on the vertical axis.
See Appendix B for enrollment distributions by major at the CIP2 level, race/ethnicity, and sector.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Agriculture, natural resources and conservation, 3300
Education, 10372
Mathematics, computer and information sciences, 4754
Architecture, engineering, and related technologies, 8982
Health and related fields, 16042
Physical and life sciences and technologies, 12576
Business, management and public administration, 20425
Visual and performing arts, and communications…
Social and behavioral sciences and law, 19761
Humanities, 7482
Unknown/Non‐Matriculated/Major not Chosen, 12552
Misc. multidisciplinary studies, 674
Personal, protective and transportation services, 3604
URM White Asian International Unknown
Page 31 of 81
Key Observations
Figure 18 shows that URM students have lower representation in the STEM‐related, business,
and arts groupings than in the humanities and social sciences groupings.
International students have notably high representation in the architecture and engineering
and the math and computer science groupings.
This graph also illustrates the disproportionate enrollment of white students in the education
and in the agricultural / natural resources groupings.
Figure 19: Community College Enrollment by Major Grouping and Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2015
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 25, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse
Figure 19 shows the distribution of Major Grouping enrollment at the community colleges by
race/ethnicity. To obtain the Major Groupings, the individual detailed majors were collapsed in the
primary groupings classification developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and
Statistics Canada. See Appendix A for a crosswalk from the 2‐digit CIP codes to the primary major
groupings used in this analysis. Note that this figure combines students enrolled at all degree levels in
the Major Groupings. The racial/ethnic distribution may vary by degree level within the Major
Groupings.
For additional informational purposes, the enrollment for each grouping is listed by that grouping’s
label on the vertical axis. See Appendix B for enrollment distributions by major at the CIP2 level,
race/ethnicity, and sector.
Key Observations
Here again, URM students have lower representation in the STEM‐related groupings than in
the humanities and social sciences groupings.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Agriculture, natural resources and conservation, 983
Unknown/Non‐Matriculated/Major not Chosen, 53201
Architecture, engineering, and related technologies, 9508
Education, 314
Health and related fields, 17121
Mathematics, computer and information sciences, 6104
Physical and life sciences and technologies, 611
Visual and performing arts, and comm. technologies, 9826
Business, management and public administration, 28225
Personal, protective and transportation services, 13612
Humanities, 76460
Social and behavioral sciences and law, 7033
URM White Asian International Unknown
Page 32 of 81
This graph also illustrates the clear disproportionate enrollment of white students in the
agricultural / natural resources grouping, but not as strong of a disproportionate enrollment in
the education grouping as seen with the state‐operated campuses.
Figure 20. SUNY‐wide Retention Rate Trends of First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate and Baccalaureate Degree Seeking Students for Select Race/Ethnicity Groups, Fall 2010 ‐ Fall 2014 Cohorts
Figure 20 shows a five year trend of first year retention rates for first‐time, full‐time associate and baccalaureate degree seeking students, focusing on students who identify as Asian, white, or an under‐represented minority group.
Key Observations
First‐year retention rates are highest for first‐time, full‐time Asian students, with rates consistently at approximately 85% over the five year period.
The retention rate for white students over the past five years has shown a steady increase from 68.9% to 72.2%.
URM students have the lowest first‐year retention rates, lagging the rates for white students by approximately 7 percentage points. Their retention rates have shown, however, steady improvement over the time period examined, increasing from 61.5% to 65.3%.
85.4% 84.8% 85.9% 85.1% 84.5%
68.9% 69.5% 70.5% 70.6% 72.2%
61.5% 61.8% 63.2% 65.0% 65.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Asian
White
URM
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Researchand Data Analytics : : May 25, 2016 Source: SUNY Student Data Warehouse
Page 33 of 81
Figure 21. Retention of First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate and Baccalaureate Degree Seeking Students for Select Race/Ethnicity Groups, Fall 2014 Cohorts – SUNY Overall, State‐Operated Institutions, and Community Colleges
Figure 21 shows first year retention rates for first‐time, full‐time associate and baccalaureate degree seeking students in the Fall 2014 cohort for SUNY‐wide, state‐operated and community college sectors. Similar to Figure 20 above, the focus is on students who identify as Asian, white, or an under‐represented minority group.
Key Observations
State‐operated campuses have the highest first‐year retention rates for each racial/ethnic
group shown.
At the state‐operated institutions, Asian students have the highest rate at 88%. URM students have the lowest retention rate at 78%, but the gap between URM and white students is just 3 percentage points (78% vs. 81%, respectively).
At community colleges, Asian students again have the highest retention rate, at 75%. The gap between URM students and white students is over twice what it is at the state‐operated campuses, however, at 7 percentage points (58% vs. 65%, respectively).
71%
85%
65%
72%
81%
88%
78%81%
63%
75%
58%
65%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Overall Asian URM White
SUNY‐wide State‐Operated Institutions Community Colleges
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 25, 2016 Source: SUNY DataWarehouse
Page 34 of 81
Figure 22. Retention of First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate and Baccalaureate Degree Seeking Students for Select Race/Ethnic Groups, Fall 2014 Cohorts – SUNY State‐Operated Sectors
Figure 22 shows first‐year retention rates for first‐time, full‐time associate and baccalaureate degree seeking students in the Fall 2014 cohort for the state‐operated sectors. Similar to Figures 20 and 21 above, the focus is on students who identify as Asian, white, or an under‐represented minority group.
Key Observations
First‐year retention rates are highest in the doctoral sector for all racial/ethnic groups shown.
First‐year retention rates are highest for Asian students in the doctoral and technology sectors, but not in the comprehensive sector, where whites have a higher rate (81% and 79%, respectively).
The doctoral institutions show a difference of just one percentage point between the URM and white groups (88% and 87%, respectively).
The comprehensive colleges show a difference of 4 percentage points between the URM and white groups (77% vs. 81%, respectively).
The widest gap between URM and white students is at the technology colleges at 8 percentage points (63% vs. 71%, respectively).
88%91%
88% 87%
80% 79%77%
81%
69%
85%
63%
71%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Overall Asian URM White
Doctoral Institutions Comprehensive Colleges Technology Colleges
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 25, 2016 Source: SUNY DataWarehouse
Page 35 of 81
Figure 23. Comparison of 1‐Year and 2‐ Year Retention Rates for First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate
Degree Seeking Students, URM vs. Non‐URM, Entering Cohorts Fall 2012 and Fall 2013
Figure 23 illustrates the gap in first‐ and second‐year retention for first‐time, full‐time baccalaureate
degree seeking students who identify as URM and those who do not. Students entering in Fall 2012
who were still enrolled in Fall 2013 and Fall 2014, as well as students entering in Fall 2013 who were
still enrolled in Fall 2014 and Fall 2015, are shown on either side of the chart. For this chart, students
whose race/ethnicity is unknown or who are non‐resident aliens (i.e. international) are excluded.
Key Observations
Overall, first‐ and second‐year retention rates for first‐time, full‐time baccalaureate degree
seeking student who are non‐URM are approximately 84.5% and 76.5%, respectively, for the
two cohort years shown.
Both first‐and second‐year retention rates show an increasing gap between non‐URM and URM
students between the two cohort years. This increasing gap is attributable to the retention
rates decreasing between the two years for URM students while they stayed steady or slightly
increased for non‐URM students.
Closing gaps in achievement and persistence must be a high priority.
83.7%73.9%
82.9%73.0%
0.7%
2.4%
1.7%
3.7%
84.4%
76.3%
84.6%
76.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate StudentsFall 2012 Entering Cohort
First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate StudentsFall 2013 Entering Cohort
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: June 7, 2016 Source: SUNY Student Data Warehouse
*Note that International/Unknown are excluded from this chart.
Top number = Non‐URM
Middle number = gap
Bottom number = URM
Page 36 of 81
Figure 24. Comparison of 1‐Year Retention Rates for First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree Seeking
Students, URM vs. Non‐URM, Entering Cohorts Fall 2013 and Fall 2014
Figure 24 illustrates the gap in first‐year retention for first‐time, full‐time associate degree seeking
students who identify as URM and those who do not. Students entering in Fall 2013 who were still
enrolled in Fall 2014, as well as students entering in Fall 2014 who were still enrolled in Fall 2015, are
shown on either side of the chart. For this chart, students whose race/ethnicity is unknown or who are
non‐resident aliens (i.e. international) are excluded.
Key Observations
First‐year retention rates for first‐time, full‐time associate degree seeking student who are non‐URM increased from 63.9% to 65.5% between the two cohort years examined.
The first‐retention rates for URM students stay essentially the same between the two cohort years, 57.6% for the Fall 2013 cohort and 57.7% for the Fall 2014 cohort.
The aforementioned observations result in an increase in the gap between URM and non‐URM first‐year retention rates between the two cohort years, from 6.3 to 7.8 percentage points.
57.6% 57.7%
6.3% 7.8%
63.9% 65.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree StudentsFall 2013 Entering Cohort
First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree StudentsFall 2014 Entering Cohort
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: June 7, 2016 Source: SUNY Student Data Warehouse
*Note that International/Unknown are excluded from this chart.
Top number = Non‐URM
Middle number = gap
Bottom number = URM
Page 37 of 81
Figure 25. Six‐Year Graduation Rates by Select Race/Ethnicities for SUNY Baccalaureate Students
Figure 25 examines the differences in traditional six‐year graduation rates (i.e. those who graduated from their initial college of entry within six years) for the race/ethnicity categories of White, Asian, and URM over the past five years. Students included in the cohorts are those who were first‐time, full‐time and enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program. For reference, the corresponding overall six‐year graduation rates for all students in the cohort are included at the top of the chart.
Key Observations
While the most recent six‐year graduation rate for each group is higher than the rate from four years prior, the differences between the groups remained relatively constant, with the exception of the past year which saw a slight increase in the difference between the rate for URM students and both Asian and White students.
For each of the five years examined, Asian students have the highest six‐year graduation rates (70‐73.5%) as compared to White students (65‐67%) and URM students (56‐58%).
65.7% 65.5% 65.0% 66.0% 67.1%70.2% 71.0%
69.5% 69.4%
73.5%
57.5% 58.2%56.2%
57.9% 58.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fall 2005 as of Fall 2011 Fall 2006 as of Fall 2012 Fall 2007 as of Fall 2013 Fall 2008 as of Fall 2014 Fall 2009 as of Fall 2015
White Asian URM
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 27, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse
6‐Year Systemwide Graduation Rates for All Baccalaureate Students in Cohort:64.7% 64.9% 63.9% 65.0% 66.2%
Page 38 of 81
Figure 26. Four‐Year Graduation Rates by Select Race/Ethnicities for SUNY Associate Degree Students
Figure 26 examines the differences in traditional four‐year graduation rates (i.e. those who graduated from their initial college of entry within four years) for the select race/ethnicity categories of White, Asian, and URM over the past five years. Students included in the cohorts are those who were first‐time, full‐time and enrolled in an associate’s degree program. For reference, the corresponding overall four‐year graduation rates for all students in the cohort are included at the top of the chart.
Key Observations
For White students over this five‐year period, the four‐year graduation rate has changed (increased) by three percentage points. Asian students’ rates have experienced some fluctuations but have been steadily increasing over the past three years. And the URM students’ four‐year graduation rates have been steadily increasing each of the past five years, going from 17.6% to 20.8%.
At the associate level, for each of the five years examined, White students have the highest 4‐year graduation rates (31‐34%) as compared to Asian students (28‐34%) and URM students (18‐21%).
There is a clear achievement gap of approximately 13 percentage points between URM students and their White and Asian peers.
These data underscore the need for recent commitments SUNY has made to remedial support efforts, such as Quantway‐Statway and early‐alert systems such as Starfish and EAB (Education Advisory Board).
31.0% 31.5% 31.7% 31.8%34.1%
30.6%28.2%
31.0% 31.6%33.8%
17.6% 18.3% 19.1% 19.9% 20.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fall 2007 as of Fall 2011 Fall 2008 as of Fall 2012 Fall 2009 as of Fall 2013 Fall 2010 as of Fall 2014 Fall 2011 as of Fall 2015
White Asian URM
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 27, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse
4‐Year Systemwide Graduation Rates for All Associate Degree Students in Cohort:28.1% 28.3% 28.5% 28.5% 30.1%
Page 39 of 81
Access to Success Initiative Taking Student Success to Scale
As presented in the January 2015 (student success) and June 2015 (diversity) data briefs, Access to
Success (A2S) was a partnership initiative between the Education Trust and the National Association of
System Heads (NASH). SUNY was one of twenty‐two public higher education systems participating in
the initiative, all of whom had pledged to cut the college‐going and graduation gaps for low‐income
and minority students in half by 2015.
Generally speaking, the A2S initiative saw notable improvements in its “access” component, thereby
seeing more Pell recipient and under‐represented minority (URM) enrollments and graduates, but fell
short in regards to its “success” component, especially in reducing the gap between Pell and non‐Pell
graduation rates and between URM and non‐URM graduation rates.
Building on what was learned from the A2S effort, NASH has embarked on a new initiative, Taking
Student Success to Scale. To date, twenty‐two higher education systems have committed to adopting
and scaling proven student success interventions, which include
Guided Pathways Using Predictive Analytics (Tennessee Board of Regents) ‐ to provide the
ability to map interventions to specific student needs.
Redesigning the Math Pathway (State University of New York) – the Quantway/Statway
method of mathematics instruction.
High Impact Practices for All Students (California State University) ‐ which makes high
engagement learning experiences such as undergraduate research and community‐based
learning part of every student’s pathway—another element in the “playbook” of interventions.
As a founding member and leader of this initiative, SUNY is absolutely committed to leveraging
evidence‐based practice to facilitate continuous improvement. Key features of this initiative include:
Common definitions of success, built on existing metrics;
Flexibility in implementation approaches, to accommodate the diversity of campuses and
student populations;
Networked improvement communities of both system and campus representatives;
Discussions informed by data, which focus on sharing best practices and collectively identifying
and overcoming barriers;
Significant system leadership support; and
Strong interest from a substantive number of campuses in each system, accounting for
variability in system size and institutional diversity.
The effort, which focuses on systemness and improvement science, calls for “at Least 350,000 More
College Graduates in 10 Years,” (NASH Press Release, December 4, 2014).
In both the September 2013 and January 2015 data briefs, we shared A2S graduation rates for first‐
time students in a program by URM status. As a general recap for the first‐time baccalaureate
students, SUNY’s six‐year graduation rates exceeded the rates for the aggregate of all A2S participating
public higher education systems for both URM and non‐URM students. In addition, the completion
Page 40 of 81
gap between URM and non‐URM students at SUNY improved over time and was narrower than that
for the aggregate of all A2S participating public higher education systems. And as a general recap for
the first‐time associate degree students, with the exception of one cohort year examined, SUNY's four‐
year graduation rates for both URM students and non‐URM students exceeded the rates for the
aggregate of all public higher education systems participating in A2S. However, unlike the
baccalaureate cohorts, the gaps between the URM and non‐URM completion rates for the associate
degree cohorts were slightly wider than the A2S Systems Aggregate gaps, consistently running 1 to 2
percentage points wider.
While Systems benchmarking data is no longer available for graduation rates of URM vs. non‐URM
students, we can still examine this data for SUNY students and do so below.
Figure 27: Six‐Year Graduation Rates for First‐time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate Students, URM Students
Compared to Non‐URM Students
Figure 27 illustrates the graduation rates of URM students vs. non‐URM students for the cohort of first‐
time, full‐time baccalaureate degree students examined in the last Student Success data brief (i.e. Fall 2008
as of Fall 2014) along with the graduation rates for the next cohort (i.e. Fall 2009 as of Fall 2015).
The chart shows the URM and non‐URM graduation rates in black text and the gap between the two in
white text.
Key Observations
Compared to the Fall 2008 cohort, the graduation rate for the Fall 2011 baccalaureate degree
graduation rate for URM and non‐URM students has increased for all time periods examined;
however, there is an increasing gap between URM and non‐URM graduation rates.
38.2%
54.3% 57.9%
39.3%
55.0% 58.0%
11.7%
10.0%8.6%
12.1%
10.8%9.8%
50.0%
64.3%66.4%
51.4%
65.8%67.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate StudentsFall 2008 Cohort as of 2014
First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate StudentsFall 2009 Cohort as of 2015
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: May 26, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Repository Tables
*Note that International/Unknown are excluded from this chart.
Top number =
Non‐URM
Middlenumber =
gap
Bottom number = URM
Page 41 of 81
The 4‐year graduation rate gap for the Fall 2009 baccalaureate degree cohort is 12.1 percentage
points (up from 11.7 for the Fall 2008 cohort).
The most current gap increases to 10.8 percentage points (up from 10.0) for the 5‐year graduation
rate and 9.8 percentage points (up from 8.6) for the 6‐year graduation rate.
Figure 28: Four‐Year Graduation Rates for First‐time, Full‐Time Associate Degree Students, URM
Students Compared to Non‐URM Students
Figure 28 illustrates the graduation rates of URM students vs. non‐URM students for the cohort of first‐
time, full‐time associate degree students examined in the last Student Success data brief (i.e. Fall 2010 as of
Fall 2014) along with the graduation rates for the next cohort (i.e. Fall 2011 as of Fall 2015).
The chart shows the URM and Non‐URM graduation rates in black text and the gap between the two in
white text.
Key Observations
Compared to the Fall 2010 cohort, the Fall 2011 associate degree cohort had higher graduation
rates for every time period examined for both URM and non‐URM recipients.
For the associate degree cohorts, URM students graduated at a notably lower rate than their non‐
URM peers and this gap has increased for all time periods examined.
The gap for the 2‐year associate degree Fall 2011 cohort is 9.9 percentage points, and that gap
increases to 13.4 percentage points by the 4‐year mark.
5.5%15.2%
19.9%
5.9%15.9%
20.8%9.2%
12.2%12.3%
9.9%
13.2%13.4%
14.7%
27.5%32.2%
15.7%
29.1%34.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree StudentsFall 2010 Cohort as of 2014
First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree StudentsFall 2011 Cohort as of 2015
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: May 26, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Repository Tables
*Note that International/Unknown are excluded from this chart.
Top
number =
Non‐URM
Middlenumber =
gap
Bottom number =
URM
Page 42 of 81
F. Student Data: Disabilities
As discussed in Section C, System Administration does not store unit‐record data on student
disabilities. The aggregate data below represents what was reported by the individual campuses to the
New York State Education Department on the NYSED 2H‐2 survey, Enrollment of College Students with
Disabilities. Fall 2014 is the latest available data.
Figure 29. Unduplicated Counts of Students with Disabilities, Fall 2012 and Fall 2014
Key Observations
• Overall at SUNY, nearly one out of every twenty students is reported as having some type of
disability.
• The number of students SUNY‐wide reporting a disability decreased 0.5 percentage points
between Fall 2012 and Fall 2014, from 5.1% to 4.6%.
• State‐operated campuses showed a decrease of 0.6 percentage points, from 4.3% in Fall 2012 to
3.7% in Fall 2014.
• Community colleges showed a decrease of 0.3 percentage points, from 5.7% in Fall 2012 to 5.4% in
Fall 2014.
SUNY Sectors
Distinct
Students
with a
Disability
Fall 2012
Total
Enrollment
% with a
Disability
Distinct
Students
with a
Disability
Fall 2014
Total
Enrollment
% with a
Disability
SUNY‐wide 23,363 461,816 5.06% 20,166 442,940 4.55%
State‐Operated Institutions 9,482 218,809 4.33% 8,211 219,942 3.73%
Community Colleges 13,881 243,007 5.71% 11,955 222,998 5.36%
Fall 2012 Fall 2014
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics Source: NYSED 2H‐2 Surveys 2012‐2014
Page 43 of 81
Figure 30. Student Self‐Reported Disabilities by Category ‐ Duplicated Counts, Fall 2012 ‐2014
Key Observations
The total number of students with disabilities at SUNY increased 7.2% between Fall 2012 and
Fall 2014, with the state‐operated campuses seeing an increase of 16.7% and the community
colleges seeing an increase of 1.5%.
Total students self‐reporting disabilities at State Operated campuses increased 16.7%, whereas
this student population at community colleges held steady at 1.5% from 2012 ‐ 2014.
The majority of students with a disability report that it is related to their learning ability 46.6%
and 43.9% SUNY wide for 2012 & 2014.
SUNY has seen a large increase in the number of reported neurological disabilities, up 19.3%
(from 4,372 to 5,215) between 2012 and 2014, with most of that increase taking place at the
state‐operated campuses.
Mobility wheelchair bound students and acoustically impaired students are in decline across
SUNY, yet visually impaired students are increasing, though the actual numbers of these groups
remain quite low.
SUNY- wide
State- Operated Institution
Community Colleges
SUNY- wide
State- Operated Institution
Community Colleges
SUNY- wide
State- Operated Institution
Community Colleges
All Disabilities 29,025 10,790 18,235 31,105 12,593 18,512 7.2% 16.7% 1.5%
Learning Disability 13,527 4,557 8,970 13,669 4,901 8,768 1.0% 7.5% -2.3%
Mobility Impaired Total 571 265 306 573 272 301 0.4% 2.6% -1.6%Wheelchair Assisted 198 84 114 160 59 101 -19.2% -29.8% -11.4%
Other Assistive Device 77 40 37 86 41 45 11.7% 2.5% 21.6%
Mob.Impaired/no Assistive Device 296 141 155 327 172 155 10.5% 22.0% 0.0%
Visually Impaired Total 572 186 386 576 228 348 0.7% 22.6% -9.8%Legally Blind 140 79 61 168 104 64 20.0% 31.6% 4.9%
Other Visually Impaired 432 107 325 408 124 284 -5.6% 15.9% -12.6%
Acoustically Impaired Total 542 177 365 518 166 352 -4.4% -6.2% -3.6%Legally Deaf 156 55 101 123 38 85 -21.2% -30.9% -15.8%
Other Acoustically Impaired 386 122 264 395 128 267 2.3% 4.9% 1.1%
Neurological Disability 4,372 1,632 2,740 5,215 2,256 2,959 19.3% 38.2% 8.0%
Other Health Impairments Total 10,012 4,238 5,774 11,127 5,042 6,085 11.1% 19.0% 5.4%Mental Health Impairment 5,090 2,226 2,864 5,662 2,490 3,172 11.2% 11.9% 10.8%
Speech Impairment 334 74 260 416 94 322 24.6% 27.0% 23.8%
Traumatic Brain Injury 338 128 210 425 190 235 25.7% 48.4% 11.9%
Orthopedic Impairment 505 159 346 619 219 400 22.6% 37.7% 15.6%
Alcohol/substance Abuse 431 170 261 244 146 98 -43.4% -14.1% -62.5%
Other Health Impairments 3,314 1,481 1,833 3,761 1,903 1,858 13.5% 28.5% 1.4%
All Disabilities 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (x) (x) (x)
Learning Disability 46.6% 42.2% 49.2% 43.9% 38.9% 47.4% -5.7% -7.8% -3.7%
Visually Impaired Total 2.0% 1.7% 2.1% 1.9% 1.8% 1.9% -6.0% 5.0% -11.2%
Acoustically Impaired Total 1.9% 1.6% 2.0% 1.7% 1.3% 1.9% -10.8% -19.6% -5.0%
Neurological Disability 15.1% 15.1% 15.0% 16.8% 17.9% 16.0% 11.3% 18.4% 6.4%
Other Health Impairments Total 34.5% 39.3% 31.7% 35.8% 40.0% 32.9% 3.7% 1.9% 3.8%
Disability
Note: campuses Cortland; Maritime; SUNY Poly; Cornell; Plattsburg;Jamestow n; Genesee; FIT; Suffolk used 2013 reported data. Excluded from this table are Buffalo HSC; Fredonia; Morrisville; Onoenta; North Country CC.Source: NYSED Survey 2H-2 2012-2014 data as repoted by the campuses.
Fall 2012 Fall 2014 Percent change 2012-2014
Page 44 of 81
Notably, reported students with alcohol/substance abuse have been in a steep decline SUNY‐
wide, at a negative 43.4%.
G. Student Data: Socio‐Economic
As indicated in Section C, this report will use the receipt of a federal Pell grant as a proxy for
economically disadvantaged when examining socio‐economic status. In the future, the Office of
Institutional Research anticipates being able to look at socio‐economic status in more detail, by way of
family income ranges obtained from data on the SIRIS Financial Aid submissions.
Figure 31. Percent Pell Recipients of All Undergraduates at Public Institutions, Academic Year 2013‐14
Total undergraduate enrollment reported on the IPEDS Student Financial Aid Survey includes students
who are full‐time, part‐time, degree‐seeking, and non‐degree seeking and all IPEDS race/ethnicity
categories (including non‐resident aliens). Figure 31 represents the percentages of these students who
received a Pell grant.
Key Observations
Among 4‐year Public Institutions, SUNY’s percent of Pell recipients is comparable to the
National Public rate, 36.1% vs. 35.7%. CUNY’s percent of Pell recipients exceeds both by
approximately 13 percentage points.
36.1% 36.9%
48.7%
57.3%
35.7% 37.9%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
4‐Year 2 Year
SUNY CUNY National Publics (except NYS)
SUNY System Administration,Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 27, 2016 Source: IPEDS 2013‐‐14 Student Financial Aid Survey
Page 45 of 81
SUNY’s percent of Pell recipients at its 2‐year institutions is 1 percentage point lower than the
National Public rate. Again, CUNY’s percent of Pell recipients exceeds the rates for both
National Publics and SUNY, here by almost 20 percentage points.
Figure 32. Percent Pell Recipients by Sector, Fall 2013‐ Fall 2015
Figure 32 displays the Pell recipients for the past three years by sector as a proportion of all
undergraduate students reported enrolled in a program and not non‐resident aliens. This selection is
used since only undergraduate students enrolled in a program and who are U.S. Residents are typically
eligible to apply for the Pell grant.
Key Observations
System‐wide, the percent of students in the selected cohorts reported as receiving Pell has
remained relatively steady at about 40‐41% overall.
More students enrolled at community colleges are reported as receiving Pell than at the state‐
operated institutions. For Fall 2015, those percentages were 42.8% and 37.0%, respectively.
Within the state‐operated sector, students enrolled at the technology colleges are most likely
to be receiving Pell (43.8% in Fall 2015), followed by those at the comprehensive colleges
(37.2%), followed by those at the doctoral institutions (34.3%).
Yes % Yes Yes % Yes Yes % Yes
350,234 141,109 40.3% 343,678 140,930 41.0% 334,239 133,363 39.9%
165,189 59,553 36.1% 166,108 61,512 37.0% 165,672 61,298 37.0%
62,023 19,979 32.2% 64,464 21,824 33.9% 64,857 22,233 34.3%
77,610 28,074 36.2% 77,319 28,766 37.2% 76,570 28,446 37.2%
25,556 11,500 45.0% 24,325 10,922 44.9% 24,245 10,619 43.8%
185,045 81,556 44.1% 177,570 79,418 44.7% 168,567 72,065 42.8%
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse (Student)
In a program,
U.S. Resident
Cohort
Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015
Pell Recipient
Grand Total
State Operated Total
Doctoral Degree Granting
In a program,
U.S. Resident
Cohort
Pell RecipientIn a program,
U.S. Resident
Cohort
Pell Recipient
Comprehensive Colleges Total
Technology Colleges Total
Community Colleges Total
Page 46 of 81
Figures 33 and 34. Percent Pell Recipients by Campus, Fall 2015
Figures 33 and 34 illustrate how the percent of Pell recipients varies across campuses.
Key Observations
The percent of Pell recipients reported by the state‐operated institutions spans from a high of
58.6% at Morrisville to a low of 18.3% at Cornell statutory colleges, a range of 40.3 percentage
points.
For the state‐operated institutions, four of SUNY’s technology colleges serve the highest
percentage of Pell recipients (Morrisville, Canton, Cobleskill, and Alfred State).
For the community colleges, the percent of Pell recipients spans from a high of 65.2% at
Mohawk Valley to a low of 28.6% at Rockland, a range of 36.6 percentage points.
Along with Hudson Valley, community colleges with the lowest percentages of Pell recipients
are those located downstate (Rockland, Orange, Suffolk, FIT, Dutchess, Nassau, Westchester,
Ulster).
The observations noted above are consistent with the ones noted last year, for Fall 2014.
58.6%
58.2%
51.6%
51.5%
48.9%
46.5%
46.4%
43.8%
43.8%
42.8%
40.6%
39.9%
38.2%
37.5%
37.3%
37.2%
37.1%
37.0%
36.6%
36.0%
35.2%
34.3%
34.1%
32.0%
31.0%
29.6%
29.5%
28.9%
28.2%
28.2%
27.7%
24.6%
23.6%
23.6%
20.4%
18.3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Morrisville
Canton
Cobleskill
Alfred State
Buffalo State
Delhi
Old Westbury
Potsdam
Technology Colleges
Albany
Brockport
Oswego
Fredonia
SUNY Poly
Plattsburgh
Comprehensive Colleges
Empire State
State Operated
Buffalo Univ
Research Centers
Stony Brook
Doctoral Degree Granting
Purchase
New Paltz
Farmingdale
Oneonta
Binghamton
Cortland
Upstate Medical
Alfred‐Ceramics
Envir Sci & Forestry
Other Research/Doctoral
Downstate Medical
Geneseo
Maritime
Cornell Stat
SUNY System Admin Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse (Student)
65.2%
63.9%
60.5%
58.9%
58.5%
56.4%
56.3%
56.1%
55.8%
55.8%
55.7%
53.8%
53.8%
52.7%
52.3%
51.8%
48.4%
45.7%
45.2%
44.0%
43.1%
42.8%
42.6%
39.5%
37.5%
37.3%
34.1%
32.9%
30.3%
29.1%
28.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mohawk Valley
Herkimer County
North Country
Genesee
Jamestown
Cayuga County
Clinton
Tompkins Cortland
Fulton‐Montgomery
Jefferson
Schenectady County
Broome
Finger Lakes
Corning
Sullivan County
Niagara County
Onondaga *
Columbia‐Greene
Monroe
Adirondack
Erie
Community Colleges
Ulster County
Nassau
Westchester
Hudson Valley
Dutchess
Fashion Institute
Suffolk County
Orange County
Rockland
SUNY System Admin Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse (Student)
Page 47 of 81
Figure 35: Percent of Each Race/Ethnicity Category Receiving Pell, Fall 2015
Figure 35 shows the breakdown of Pell recipient by race/ethnic category. Like in Figures 32 ‐ 34, this
table is limited to students who would ordinarily be eligible to apply for a Pell grant, i.e. undergraduate
students who are U.S. citizens and enrolled in a program.
Key Observations
System‐wide, more than half of URM students are reported as having received a Pell grant in
Fall 2015 (53.1%). This is significantly greater than the percentage of White students receiving
Pell (30.7%).
#Yes % Yes
334,239 129,515 38.7%
White 200,104 61,381 30.7%
Asian 20,086 10,032 49.9%
97,702 51,843 53.1%
American Indian or Alaska Native 1,445 713 49.3%
Black or African American 41,816 24,342 58.2%
Hispanic/Latino 45,394 22,683 50.0%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 526 229 43.5%
Two or more race 8,521 3,876 45.5%
Unknown 16,347 6,259 38.3%
State Operated Total 165,672 61,298 37.0%
White 102,885 28,083 27.3%
Asian 14,042 7,361 52.4%
42,695 24,026 56.3%
American Indian or Alaska Native 521 293 56.2%
Black or African American 17,934 11,174 62.3%
Hispanic/Latino 19,557 10,539 53.9%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 208 88 42.3%
Two or more race 4,475 1,932 43.2%
Unknown 6,050 1,828 30.2%
Community Colleges Total 168,567 68,217 40.5%
White 97,219 33,298 34.3%
Asian 6,044 2,671 44.2%
55,007 27,817 50.6%
American Indian or Alaska Native 924 420 45.5%
Black or African American 23,882 13,168 55.1%
Hispanic/Latino 25,837 12,144 47.0%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 318 141 44.3%
Two or more race 4,046 1,944 48.0%
Unknown 10,297 4,431 43.0%
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016
Source: SUNY Data Warehouse (Enrollment)
Under ‐represented (URM) Total
Fall 2015
Pell Recipients
SUNY Total
Under ‐represented (URM) Total
Under ‐represented (URM) Total
Eligible to
Apply
Page 48 of 81
The Black/African American population in state‐operated colleges, in particular, has the highest
percentage of Pell recipients, with over 6 out of 10 (62.3%) undergraduates in a program
receiving the grant.
At the state‐operated institutions, the percent of Asians and URMs receiving Pell grants is
higher than the percentages at the system‐wide level. However, the percentage of Whites
receiving the grant is lower than the system‐wide value (by 11.5 percentage points).
At the community colleges, the percent of URM students receiving Pell remains approximately
50.6%, lower than the percentage at the system‐wide level. The Asian percentage is 44.2%,
and the White percentage is 34.3%.
Figure 36: Graduation Rates of Pell Recipients vs. Non‐Pell Recipients
* Pell information was not available for the cohorts examined for Cornell, Stony Brook, Maritime, and FIT, and those campuses are therefore not included in this analysis.
Figure 36 illustrates the most recent completion rates of Pell recipients vs. non‐Pell recipients for a
cohort of first‐time, full‐time baccalaureate students and for a cohort of first‐time, full‐time associate
degree students.
39.8%
53.5%56.1%
66.7%
58.7%
68.8%
9.3%
17.0%20.6%
30.5%
25.3%
35.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate Students First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree Students
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: May 24, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Repository Tables
Graduation Rates of Pell Recipients vs. Non‐Pell Recipients *, Fall 2009 Cohort of First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate Students
and Fall 2011 Cohort of First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree Students
* Note that Cornell, Stony Brook, Maritime, and FIT are excluded from this chart.
Page 49 of 81
Key Observations
For both the baccalaureate and associate degree cohorts, for every time period examined, Pell
recipient students graduated at a markedly lower rate than their non‐Pell recipient peers.
At the baccalaureate level, the 4‐year gap is 13.7 percentage points, and that gap decreases
slightly to 10.1 percentage points by the 6‐year mark.
At the associate level, the 2‐year gap is 7.7 percentage points, and that gap increases to 10.5
percentage points by the 4‐year mark.
SUNY is addressing this challenge, in part, through the Access to Success and Taking Student
Success to Scale initiatives, discussed earlier with Figures 23 and 24. In addition, SUNY’s
current Completion Agenda aims to also make significant strides in this area by way of
increasing the effectiveness of remediation, financial literacy and other key levers.
H. Student Data: Military and Veteran Status
Figure 37. Statewide Population by Veteran Status
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010‐2014 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates2
Figure 37 shows the number of veterans estimated in New York State by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Key Observations
Veterans make up 5.7% of New York State’s population. This is down 0.3% from the estimates
presented last year. SUNY’s enrollment consists of 1.4% students with reported veteran status.
Veterans, therefore, could conceivably be considered an under‐represented demographic
among SUNY enrollees. However, before making such a conclusion, it is useful to consider the
age distribution of the state’s veterans (see Figure 38 below).
Population
EstimatePercentage
Veteran 868,764 5.7%
Non Veteran 14,429,518 94.3%
Total 15,298,282 100.0%
Veteran Status in New York
Page 50 of 81
Figure 38. Age Distribution of Veterans in New York
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010‐2014 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates
Figure 38 shows the number and percent of New York State veterans by age category.
Key Observations
While Figure 37 shows that veterans make up 5.7% of New York’s population, they are predominantly older New Yorkers, with 52.4% of veterans being of age 65 years and older.
Only 7.0% of the state’s veterans are within the 18‐34 year old age group. Another 20.7% are between the ages of 35 and 54 years.
Increasing veteran enrollment at SUNY would involve recruiting more non‐traditionally aged students.
Figure 39. Active Military and Veteran Enrollment by Sector, Fall 2015
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse
Figure 39 shows the number of active military duty students and the number of veterans reported as
being enrolled at SUNY in Fall 2015. It also shows how those students are distributed across the
sectors compared to how the overall enrollment is distributed across the sectors.
Age GroupPopulation Estimate
Percentage
18 to 34 years 60,878 7.0%
35 to 54 years 180,037 20.7%
55 to 64 years 173,241 19.9%
65 to 74 years 203,741 23.5%
75 years and over 250,867 28.9%
Total 868,764 100.0%
Age Distribution of Veterans in New York
Fall 2015
Total
Enrollment
% Total
Enrollment
by Sector
Active
Military
Duty
% Active
Military
Duty
Veteran % Veteran
SUNY Systemwide 442,940 100.0% 676 100.0% 6,082 100.0%
State‐Operated Institution 219,942 49.7% 347 51.3% 2,267 37.3%
Doctoral Degree Granting 105,998 23.9% 57 8.4% 736 12.1%
Comprehensive Colleges 87,764 19.8% 267 39.5% 1,133 18.6%
Technology Colleges 26,180 5.9% 23 3.4% 398 6.5%
Community Colleges 222,998 50.3% 329 48.7% 3,815 62.7%
Page 51 of 81
Key Observations
In Fall 2015, 676 active military duty students are reported as being enrolled at SUNY, which
amounts to .2% of SUNY’s total enrollment. Although the percentage of overall enrollment
remains relatively unchanged, SUNY decreased its active military duty enrollment by seven
students when compared to Fall 2014.
In Fall 2015, a greater proportion of active military duty students attend state‐operated
institutions (51.3% compared to 48.7% at community colleges). In Fall 2014, active duty
students were divided approximately equally between state‐operated institutions and
community colleges (49.9% and 50.1%, respectively).
• Within the state‐operated sector, comprehensive colleges report having 39.5% of the system’s
total number of active military students, compared to having 19.8% of SUNY’s overall
enrollment. Much of this is attributed to Empire State College, which alone has 26.6% of
SUNY’s overall active military enrollment and 51.9% of the active military enrollment at state‐
operated institutions. Empire State has significant online offerings and according to its website
offers pre‐application advising and unofficial review of military transcripts at no charge as well
as credit for college‐level learning gained through military training, standardized exams, and
other life experiences.
• Similarly, the majority of active military enrollment at the community colleges can also be
attributed to one institution in that sector, Jefferson Community College. Jefferson has 34.8%
of SUNY’s overall active military enrollment and 74.5% of the community colleges’ active
military enrollment. Jefferson is a member of Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) and
operates the Fort Drum Army Continuing Education Program (ACES), which includes
maintaining full‐time academic advisors located on‐base at nearby Fort Drum.
In Fall 2015, 6,082 veterans were reported as being enrolled at SUNY, which amounts to 1.4%
of SUNY’s total enrollment. Compared to Fall 2014, veteran enrollment in Fall 2015 was down
4.5%.
Unlike the active military duty students, veterans are much more likely to be enrolled at
community colleges rather than state‐operated institutions (62.7% vs. 37.3%, respectively). In
2014, there was a 3% greater disparity between the veteran enrollment percentage at
community colleges compared to state operated institutions.
Page 52 of 81
Figures 40 and 41. Active Military and Veteran Enrollment by Award Level, Fall 2015
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics Source: SUNY Data Warehouse
Figures 40 and 41 illustrate at what program levels active military duty personnel and veterans are
enrolled at SUNY.
Key Observations
Although the vast majority of active military duty students are enrolled in undergraduate
programs or not enrolled in any program (96.1% combined), a growing percentage are
enrolling in doctoral and master degree programs. In Fall 2015, 3.8% of active duty personnel
were enrolled in graduate programs compared to only 2.1% in Fall 2014. Compared to Fall
2014, active military student enrollment remained relatively stable, declining by only seven
students.
Page 53 of 81
For veterans, 60% are enrolled in an associate degree program, and approximately 29% are
enrolled in a baccalaureate program. Though the numbers are very small, veterans are found
at every level of study at SUNY, including the doctoral and first professional. Compared to Fall
2014, there has been a very slight movement from associate degree programs and
undergraduate certificates to baccalaureate and graduate degree programs.
I. Student Data: Gender Identify & Sexual Orientation
SUNY has very recently begun to collect data related to student gender identity and sexual orientation.
Student Opinion Survey
In the Spring 2012 administration of SUNY’s long‐running Student Opinion Survey (SOS) at state‐
operated campuses, students were asked to answer two questions on prejudice based on sexual
orientation and gender identity:
On average, students agree that “acts of prejudice based on sexual orientation are rare” on
campus (mean rating = 3.85 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating Strongly Disagree and 5
indicating Strongly Agree).
On average, students agree that “acts of prejudice based on gender identity are rare” on
campus (mean rating = 3.86 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating Strongly Disagree and 5
indicating Strongly Agree).
And then in the Spring 2015 administration of the survey, students had the opportunity for the first
time to identify as LGBT as one of the background questions of the survey. To the question, “Do you
identify as LGBT?”, 5.8% responded “Yes”, 69.1% responded “No”, 7.3% “Prefer Not to Answer”, and
17.8% did not respond (left blank).
The responses on the Spring 2015 SOS to the same two questions asked in the Spring 2012 version
resulted in similar overall ratings. Between students who identified as LGBT and those who don’t,
however, there are differences.
On average, students agree that “acts of prejudice based on sexual orientation are rare” on
campus (mean rating = 3.83 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5). For those students who identified as LGBT, the average rating on this question was 3.67, and for those who did not identify as LGBT, the
average was 3.86.
On average, students agree that “acts of prejudice based on gender identity are rare” on
campus (mean rating = 3.82 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5). For those students who identified as LGBT, the average rating on this question was 3.51, and for those who did not identify as LGBT, the
average was 3.86.
The most recently available data for the SOS at Community Colleges (Spring 2013) did not include any
specific questions regarding prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Spring
2016 version of the survey did; however, the data is not yet available for analysis.
Student Information Survey
Page 54 of 81
In late Fall 2015, as part of the registration process for Spring 2016 classes and as an initiative spear‐
headed by the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees. While over 40 institutions
administered the survey, thirty‐two SUNY campuses had valid results from the first administration of
the Student Information Survey, which included questions on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The results are listed below in Figure 42.
Figure 42. Student Information Survey: Frequency Counts of Sexual Orientation, Spring 2016
Sector Student Count % of Students
State Operated Campuses 1
91,553
Doctoral Degree Granting 36,136 100%
Straight (heterosexual) 19,199 53.1%
Gay 412 1.1%
Lesbian 183 0.5%
Bisexual 689 1.9%
Pansexual 170 0.5%
Queer 130 0.4%
Questioning or unsure 198 0.5%
I prefer not to respond. 12,348 34.2%
An orientation not listed 120 0.3%
Not Reported 2,687 7.4%
Comprehensive Colleges 34,164 100%
Straight (heterosexual) 24,410 71.4%
Gay 476 1.4%
Lesbian 278 0.8%
Bisexual 1,071 3.1%
Pansexual 369 1.1%
Queer 243 0.7%
Questioning or unsure 257 0.8%
I prefer not to respond. 3,901 11.4%
An orientation not listed 295 0.9%
Not Reported 2,864 8.4%
Technology Colleges 21,253 100%
Straight (heterosexual) 16,289 76.6%
Gay 154 0.7%
Lesbian 148 0.7%
Bisexual 351 1.7%
Pansexual 130 0.6%
Queer 50 0.2%
Questioning or unsure 78 0.4%
I prefer not to respond. 3,029 14.3%
An orientation not listed 217 1.0%
Not Reported 807 3.8%
Community Colleges 2
32,618 100.0%
Straight (heterosexual) 14,415 44.2%
Gay 186 0.6%
Lesbian 185 0.6%
Bisexual 498 1.5%
Pansexual 179 0.5%
Queer 39 0.1%
Questioning or unsure 75 0.2%
I prefer not to respond. 16,234 49.8%
An orientation not listed 217 0.7%
Not Reported 590 1.8%Footnotes:
1 Based on 19 State Operated Campuses; 5 Doctoral, 8 Comprehensive, 6 Technology
2 Based on 13 Community College Campuses
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 27, 2016
Page 55 of 81
Key Observations
If the responses of “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Pansexual, Queer, and Questioning or unsure” are
combined, the total percentage of this aggregate group of students is highest in the Comprehensive
sector at 7.9%, similar in the Doctoral and Technology sectors at 4.9% and 4.3% respectively, and
lowest at the Community Colleges at 3.3%.
There are a significant number of responses which were either “I prefer not to respond” or not
reported (left blank). This is seen most in the Community College sector (51.6%), less in the
Doctoral sector (41.6%), and still almost one in five in the Comprehensive and Technology sectors,
(19.8% and 18.0% respectively).
Students had the opportunity to write in an orientation not listed; 181 students reported as
Asexual.
Page 56 of 81
Figure 43. Student Information Survey: Frequency Counts of Gender Identity, Spring 2016
Key Observations
If the responses of “Trans man/woman, Gender queer/Gender‐fluid, and Questioning or
unsure” are combined, the total percentage of this aggregate group of students is highest in
the Comprehensive sector at 1.2%, followed by the Technology sector at 0.8% and lowest in
the Doctoral sector at 0.5% and Community Colleges at 0.5%.
Sector Student Count % of Students
State Operated Campuses 1
91,553
Doctoral Degree Institutions 36,136 100.0%
Man 9,912 27.4%
Woman 11,603 32.1%
Trans man 26 0.1%
Trans woman 23 0.1%
Gender queer/Gender‐fluid 106 0.3%
Questioning or unsure 39 0.1%
A gender identity not listed 49 0.1%
I prefer not to respond 11,701 32.4%
Not Reported 2,677 7.4%
Comprehensive Colleges 34,164 100.0%
Man 11,700 34.2%
Woman 16,283 47.7%
Trans man 48 0.1%
Trans woman 35 0.1%
Gender queer/Gender‐fluid 220 0.6%
Questioning or unsure 99 0.3%
A gender identity not listed 201 0.6%
I prefer not to respond 2,714 7.9%
Not Reported 2,864 8.4%
Technology Colleges 21,253 100.0%
Man 9,632 45.3%
Woman 8,212 38.6%
Trans man 26 0.1%
Trans woman 31 0.1%
Gender queer/Gender‐fluid 73 0.3%
Questioning or unsure 36 0.2%
A gender identity not listed 187 0.9%
I prefer not to respond 2,249 10.6%
Not Reported 807 3.8%
Community Colleges 32,618 100.0%
Man 6,472 19.8%
Woman 9,993 30.6%
Trans man 29 0.1%
Trans woman 14 0.0%
Gender queer/Gender‐fluid 86 0.3%
Questioning or unsure 32 0.1%
A gender identity not listed 120 0.4%
I prefer not to respond 15,280 46.8%
Not Reported 592 1.8%Footnotes:
1 Based on 19 State Operated Campuses; 5 Doctoral, 8 Comprehensive, 6 Technology
2 Based on 13 Community College Campuses
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 27, 2016
Page 57 of 81
There are a significant number of responses which were either “I prefer not to respond” or not
reported (left blank). This is seen most in the Community College sector (48.7%), less in the
Doctoral sector (39.8%), and lowest in the Comprehensive and Technology sectors, (16.3% and
14.4%, respectively).
Students had the opportunity to report a gender not listed. The only response reported by
more than five students was Non‐Binary.
Campus Climate Assessment Policy
In October 2014, the SUNY Trustees unanimously voted to adopt a system‐wide, uniform set of sexual
assault prevention and response practices at SUNY campuses. Part of that effort was to include
development of a new climate survey to address at least the following:
• Student and employee knowledge about:
- The Title IX Coordinator’s role;
- Campus policies and procedures addressing sexual assault;
- How and where to report sexual violence as a victim/survivor or witness;
- The availability of resources on and off campus, such as counseling, health, academic
assistance;
- The prevalence of victimization and perpetration of sexual assault, domestic violence,
dating violence, and stalking on and off campus during a set time period (for example, the
last two years);
- Bystander attitudes and behavior; and
- Whether victims/survivors reported to the College/University and/or police, and reasons
why they did or did not report.
Members of SUNY’s Diversity Task Force were part of the working group that developed the surveys.
In May 2016, SUNY signed a contract with Campus Labs to design and facilitate the implementation of
the survey. A pilot administration with several campuses is scheduled for Fall 2016 and full
administration by all campuses is scheduled for March 2017. Information yielded may be able to
support SUNY’s diversity goals.
Page 58 of 81
J. Campus Employee Data: Gender
Figure 44. SUNY Campus Employees by Sector, Employee Category, and Gender, Fall 2015
Figure 44 shows the distribution of all SUNY campus employees, full and part‐time, by sector, general
occupational grouping, and gender as reported on the 2015 IPEDS Human Resources Survey.
Key Observations
System‐wide, more women are employed than men at SUNY institutions. Overall, the
percentage of female employees is 55.4%, with minimal difference between state‐operated
campuses and community colleges (55.1% and 56.1%, respectively).
Looking at the employee classification categories, women tend to have greater representation
in professional non‐faculty positions (62.2%) than in faculty positions (48.6%). Women hold
under half of the faculty positions at state‐operated campuses (45.7%) and just over half
(52.6%) at the community colleges.
No notable changes were observed this year as compared to fall 2014.
Total women
No. % No. %
All Campuses 89,497 39,938 44.6% 49,559 55.4%
Faculty 33,683 17,319 51.4% 16,364 48.6%
Professional (Non‐faculty) 30,683 11,592 37.8% 19,091 62.2%
Other (Non‐faculty) 19,581 8,281 42.3% 11,300 57.7%
Graduate Assistants 5,550 2,746 49.5% 2,804 50.5%
State Operated/Funded Campuses 63,515 28,527 44.9% 34,988 55.1%
Faculty 19,540 10,616 54.3% 8,924 45.7%
Professional (Non‐faculty) 24,005 8,978 37.4% 15,027 62.6%
Other (Non‐faculty) 14,420 6,187 42.9% 8,233 57.1%
Graduate Assistants 5,550 2,746 49.5% 2,804 50.5%
Community Colleges 25,982 11,411 43.9% 14,571 56.1%
Faculty 14,143 6,703 47.4% 7,440 52.6%
Professional (Non‐faculty) 6,678 2,614 39.1% 4,064 60.9%
Other (Non‐faculty) 5,161 2,094 40.6% 3,067 59.4%
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : May 17, 2016
Source: IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey
Sector and Employee Category
All Campus
Employees
Gender
Total men
Page 59 of 81
K. Campus Employee Data: Race/Ethnicity
Figure 45a. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of All SUNY Campus Employees, Fall 2013
Figure 45a shows the race/ethnicity distribution of all SUNY campus employees, full and part‐time, as reported on the 2013 IPEDS Human Resources Survey and in the June 2015 Diversity data brief. The under‐represented minority percentage includes employees identifying as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or Two or More Races.
77.2%
4.7%
12.4%7.5%
4.0%0.3% 0.1% 0.5%
4.1%1.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 18, 2015 Source: IPEDS Human Resources Survey
Page 60 of 81
Figure 45b. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of All SUNY Campus Employees, Fall 2015
Figure 45b shows the race/ethnicity distribution of all SUNY campus employees, full and part‐time, as
reported on the 2015 IPEDS Human Resources Survey. The under‐represented minority percentage
includes employees identifying as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or
Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or Two or More Races.
Key Observations
According to the most recent complete data available from IPEDS (Fall 2015), across all SUNY
campuses, approximately 77% of the total employees (i.e. faculty and non‐faculty) are White.
Under‐represented minorities (URM) make up the second largest group at 12.6%, followed by
Asians at 4.9%, and then Non‐resident Aliens at 3.7%.
Of the racial/ethnic groups included in the under‐represented minority percentage, the largest
representation is Black and African Americans, 7.6% of all employees, followed by Hispanic or
Latinos at 4.2% of all employees.
In comparison with Fall 2013 data (Figure 45a), there have been only very slight changes in the
racial/ethnic distribution of all SUNY campus employees.
77.0%
4.9%
12.6%
7.6%4.2%
0.3% 0.1% 0.5%3.7% 1.8%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
SUNYSystem Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : May 17, 2016 Source: IPEDS2015 Human Resources Survey
Page 61 of 81
Figure 46. Trends in Minority and International Employees at SUNY Institutions, Fall 2005 – Fall 2015
Figure 46 shows the trend in the percentage of URM, Asian, and International (i.e. non‐resident alien)
employees at SUNY campuses from Fall 2005 to Fall 2015 as reported on IPEDS Human Resources
Surveys 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015. Note that institutions are required to report the
race/ethnicity of employees on the IPEDS HR Survey on an every‐other‐year basis.
Key Observations
The trend in employees identifying as URM has shown an incremental increase over the period
from Fall 2007 to Fall 2015 (11.9% to 12.6%).
The percent of employees identifying as Asian has increased more than a percentage point
over the period from Fall 2005 to Fall 2015 (3.7% to 4.9%).
International (non‐resident alien) employee percentages during this period have shown
fluctuation in the range of 3.7% to 4.9%.
11.9% 11.8% 11.9% 12.1% 12.4% 12.6%
3.7% 3.8%
4.1%
4.5%
4.7% 4.9%4.0%
4.5%
3.8%
4.9%
4.1%3.7%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Fall 2005 Fall 2007 Fall 2009 Fall 2011 Fall 2013 Fall 2015
URM
Asian
International
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics: : May 17, 2016 Source: IPEDS Human Resources Surveys
Page 62 of 81
Figure 47. Percent Minority and International Employees by State‐Operated Institution, Fall 2015
Figure 47 provides a snapshot for Fall 2015 of each state‐operated institution’s race/ethnicity diversity
of total employees. Data is displayed as a stacked bar showing the percentage of URM employees,
followed by the percentage of Asian employees, and then the percentage of non‐resident alien
employees. At the end of each bar, the aggregate percentage is shown. The White and Unknown
categories are not displayed.
Key Observations
For SUNY employees at the state‐operated institutions, the aggregate race/ethnicity diversity
ranges from a high percentage of 73.6% at Downstate to a low of 5.2% at Delhi and Alfred
State, a range of 68.4 percentage points. For reference, the system‐wide aggregate is 21.2%,
and the state‐operated aggregate is 24.6%.
73.6%
51.1%
34.8%
31.2%
29.7%
29.6%
28.4%
25.3%
24.6%
24.1%
23.3%
21.3%
21.2%
20.9%
20.1%
19.6%
18.1%
18.0%
14.7%
14.4%
14.4%
12.6%
12.6%
11.2%
10.7%
10.5%
10.3%
9.9%
9.1%
8.3%
8.0%
6.7%
6.6%
6.5%
5.2%
5.2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Downstate
Optometry
Old Westbury
Stony Brook
Maritime
Doctoral Institutions
Purchase
Albany
State Operated/Funded
Binghamton
Buffalo Univ.
Cornell Statutory
SUNY Total
Farmingdale
Upstate
SUNY Poly
Buffalo College
New Paltz
Env. Sci. & Forestry
Brockport
Comprehensive Colleges
Technology Colleges
Empire State
Geneseo
Oswego
Fredonia
Oneonta
Alfred Ceramics
Plattsburgh
Canton
Potsdam
Cortland
Morrisville
Cobleskill
Alfred
Delhi
% URM % Asian % Non‐Resident Alien
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 18, 2016 Source: IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey
Page 63 of 81
Optometry also has a notably high percentage of race/ethnicity diversity of 51.1%.
Much of the employee diversity for Downstate is attributable to the combination of their large
number of medical staff and their location in NYC.
There is a clear pattern of the state‐operated institutions located downstate having higher
percentages of minority and international employees than those institutions located in more
rural parts of the state.
Figure 48. Percent Minority and International Employees by Community College, Fall 2015
25.5%
22.8%
22.4%
21.2%
20.0%
19.0%
18.3%
14.6%
13.9%
12.8%
12.3%
10.9%
10.7%
8.8%
8.6%
8.2%
7.6%
7.4%
6.6%
6.1%
5.9%
5.3%
4.7%
4.5%
4.4%
4.1%
3.8%
2.9%
1.1%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Rockland
Westchester
Orange County
SUNY Total
Fashion Inst.
Nassau
Monroe
Dutchess
Schenectady
Community Colleges
Suffolk County
Erie
Onondaga
Mohawk Valley
Sullivan County
Broome
Niagara County
Tompkins‐Cortland
Ulster County
Jefferson
Corning
Genesee
Hudson Valley
Adirondack
Columbia‐Greene
Fulton‐Montgomery
Finger Lakes
Jamestown
Clinton
Cayuga County
Herkimer
North Country
% URM % Asian % Non‐Resident Alien
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 18, 2016 Source: IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey
Page 64 of 81
Figure 48 provides a snapshot for Fall 2015 of each community college’s race/ethnicity diversity of
total employees. Data is displayed as a stacked bar showing the percentage of URM employees,
followed by the percentage of Asian employees, and then the percentage of non‐resident alien
employees. At the end of each bar, the aggregate percentage is shown. The White and Unknown
categories are not displayed.
Key Observations
For SUNY employees at the community colleges, the aggregate race/ethnicity diversity ranges
from a high percentage of 25.5% at Rockland to a low of 0% at North Country, a range of 25.5
percentage points. For reference, the system‐wide aggregate is 21.2%, and the community
college aggregate is 12.8%.
As seen in Figure 47 for state‐operated employees and also in Figure 17 for student enrollment
at the community colleges, there is a clear pattern of the community colleges located
downstate having higher percentages of minority and international employees than those
located in more rural parts of the state.
A Focus on Full‐Time Employees
When one considers employment status of faculty vs. non‐faculty, full‐time vs. part‐time, and
occupational category, it is important to recognize that the applicant pool naturally varies
considerably.
Figure 49a. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Full‐Time SUNY Campus Faculty, Fall 2013
Figure 49a shows the race/ethnicity distribution of full‐time faculty for all SUNY campuses combined and separately for state‐operated campuses and community colleges, as reported in the June 2015 Diversity data brief. Note again that URM indicates under‐represented minorities and includes Black or
Page 65 of 81
African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races.
Figure 49b. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Full‐Time SUNY Campus Faculty, Fall 2015
Figure 49b shows the most current race/ethnicity distribution of full‐time faculty for all SUNY
campuses combined and separately for state‐operated campuses and community colleges. Note again
that URM indicates under‐represented minorities and includes Black or African American, Hispanic or
Latino, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Two or More
Races.
Key Observations
For all SUNY campuses, the percentage of full‐time minority faculty is 17.1%, with those
identifying as Asian comprising 9.4% of that total and those identifying as under‐represented
minority comprising the remaining 7.7%.
The number of full‐time faculty at state‐operated campuses is about three times the number at
community colleges (11,739 vs. 4,152, respectively). The distribution by race/ethnicity of full‐
time faculty members at SUNY, therefore, is heavily weighted towards the state‐operated
percentages.
The community colleges’ full‐time faculty are less diverse overall than at the state‐operated
campuses, with the percent identifying as minority at 10.7% vs. 19.5%, respectively. Note that
community colleges have fewer full‐time faculty identifying as Asian, fewer international
faculty, and more unknowns.
In comparing Fall 2015 (Figure 43b) with Fall 2013 (Figure 43a), while the percentage of non‐
white full‐time faculty has increased slightly, except for Asians, no percentage has increased
greater than 0.5%.
77.8%
9.4% 7.7%4.0%
1.1%
74.9%
11.7%7.8%
5.3%0.3%
86.0%
3.0%7.7%
0.3%3.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Campuses ‐ FT Faculty State Operated/Funded ‐ FT Faculty Community Colleges ‐ FT Faculty
SUNYSystem Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : May 18,2016 Source: IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey
Page 66 of 81
Figure 50a. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Full‐Time SUNY Campus Professionals, Fall 2013
Figure 50a shows the race/ethnicity distribution of full‐time professional employees for all SUNY
campuses combined and separately for state‐operated campuses and community colleges, as reported
in the June 2015 Diversity data brief. Professional Employees include those in occupational categories:
Management, Business/Finance, Computer Science, Library, Student and Academic Affairs, etc. Note
again that URM indicates under‐represented minorities and includes Black or African American,
Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and
Two or More Races.
Figure 50b. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Full‐Time SUNY Campus Professionals, Fall 2015
75.9%
6.2%
15.5%
1.7% 0.8%
75.0%
6.9%
15.9%
2.0% 0.2%
80.5%
2.6%
13.3%
0.0%3.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Campuses ‐ FT Professionals State Operated/Funded ‐ FT Professionals Community Colleges ‐ FT Professionals
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : May 18,2016 Source: IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey
Page 67 of 81
Figure 50b shows the most current race/ethnicity distribution of full‐time professional employees for
all SUNY campuses combined and separately for state‐operated campuses and community colleges.
Professional Employees include those in occupational categories: Management, Business/Finance,
Computer Science, Library, Student and Academic Affairs, etc. Note again that URM indicates under‐
represented minorities and includes Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or
Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races.
Key Observations
For all SUNY campuses, the percentage of full‐time minority professional employees is 21.7%,
with those identifying as Asian comprising 6.2% and those identifying as URM comprising
15.5% of that total.
The number of full‐time professional employees at state‐operated campuses is over five times
the number at community colleges (20,443 vs. 3,960, respectively). So again, the distribution
by race/ethnicity of full‐time professional employees at SUNY, therefore, is heavily weighted
towards the state‐operated percentages.
As with full‐time faculty, the community colleges’ full‐time professionals are less diverse than
at the state‐operated campuses, with the percent identifying as minority at 15.9% vs. 22.8%,
respectively. There are fewer full‐time professionals identifying as Asian or as URM in this
sector at this level.
In comparing Fall 2015 (Figure 50b) with Fall 2013 (Figure 50a), the racial/ethnic diversity of
full‐time professional staff, no significant change is noted.
Figure 51. URM Full‐Time Faculty at SUNY State‐Operated Institutions vs. National Public 4‐Year
Institutions, Fall 2013
Figure 51 looks specifically at URM full‐time faculty at SUNY’s state‐operated campuses compared to
public 4‐year institutions across the nation, grouped by state, as reported on the IPEDS Fall 2013
Human Resources Survey and downloaded from the IPEDS Data Center. More current information is
not yet available, and this figure is being included in this updated data brief as reference.
18.3%
7.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DC
NM MS
CUNY FL TX LA AL
NC
DE
MD
GA HI IL TN SC AZ
AR
NV
VA NJ
OK
CA CT
AK
MI
KY
WA
OH IN
MO CO KS
SUNY
MA
PA
MN RI
WI
IA NE
OR
WV VT
SD UT
ND
NH ID MT
WY
ME
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics::May 18, 2015 Source: 2013 IPEDS Human Resources Survey
Does not include Alfred Ceramics, Cornell Statutory or hospital employees at Downstate or Upstate.
Page 68 of 81
Key Observations
The District of Columbia, which has only one public institution, has over twice the percentage
of URM full‐time faculty as the next highest percentage state.
The states with the highest percentages tend to be the states in which the general population
is also more diverse (see Appendix F). SUNY’s state‐operated Fall 2013 value is 7.6%.
States in the Northeast having higher percentages than SUNY of URM full‐time faculty at their
4‐year institutions include New Jersey and Connecticut.
Figure 52: URM Full‐Time Faculty: SUNY Community Colleges vs. National Public 2‐Year Institutions,
Fall 2013
Figure 52 shows URM full‐time faculty at SUNY’s community colleges compared to public 2‐year
institutions nationally by state, as reported on the IPEDS Fall 2013 Human Resources Survey. More
current information is not yet available, and this figure is being included in this updated data brief as
reference.
Key Observations
CUNY’s community colleges have the highest percentage of URM full‐time faculty at 27.3%,
whereas SUNY’s community college Fall 2013 value is 7.2%.
As with the 4‐year institutions, the states with the highest percentages tend to be the states in
which the general population is also more diverse (see Appendix F). States in the Northeast
having higher percentages than SUNY of URM full‐time faculty at their 2‐year institutions
include New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.
27.3%
7.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CUNY
LA GA TX
NM CA AL FL MT AZ
MD HI
SC OK NJ
MS
NC
AK IL VA
TN CT
MA
PA
MI
MO IN DE
OH
WA
OR
AR
SUNY
CO
NV
UT
WI
KS
KY
MN
ND NE RI
ID IA
WY
WV
ME
SD NH
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics::May 18, 2015 Source: 2013 IPEDS Human Resources Survey
Page 69 of 81
Figure 53: URM Full‐Time Professionals at SUNY State‐Operated Institutions vs. National Public 4‐Year Institutions, Fall 2013
Figure 53 shows URM full‐time professional employees at SUNY’s state‐operated institutions compared
to public 4‐year institutions across the nation, grouped by state, as reported on the IPEDS Fall 2013
Human Resources Survey. More current information is not yet available, and this figure is being
included in this updated data brief as reference.
Key Observations
The District of Columbia, again, shows a percentage of URM full‐time professionals twice that
of the next highest percentage state.
CUNY has the second highest percentage, at 39.7%, whereas SUNY’s state‐operated Fall 2013
value is 11.0%.
As with the full‐time faculty, the states with the highest percentages tend to be the states in
which the general population is also more diverse. (See Appendix F.)
39.7%
11.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DC
CUNY
NM TX
MD FL MS LA NJ
GA
CA
NV
NC IL DE AL
AZ
SC AR HI
TN VA
AK
OK CT
MI
CO PA
SUNY
OH
WA KY
KS
MA RI
MO IN SD WV
OR
UT
MN ID WI
WY
ND VT
NE IA
MT
NH
ME
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics::May 18, 2015 Source: 2013 IPEDS Human Resources Survey
Does not include Alfred Ceramics, Cornell Statutory or hospital employees at Downstate , Stony Brook or Upstate.
Page 70 of 81
Figure 54: URM Full‐Time Professionals at SUNY Community Colleges Institutions vs. National Public
2‐Year Institutions, Fall 2013
Figure 54 looks specifically at URM full‐time professional employees at SUNY’s community colleges
compared to public 2‐year institutions across the nation, grouped by state, as reported on the IPEDS
Fall 2013 Human Resources Survey and downloaded from the IPEDS Data Center. More current
information is not yet available, and this figure is being included in this updated data brief as
reference.
Key Observations
CUNY’s community colleges have the highest percentage of URM full‐time professionals at
52.3%.
SUNY’s community college Fall 2013 value is 12.9%.
And once again, the states with the highest percentages tend to be the states in which the
general population is also more diverse (Appendix C).
L. SUNY Campus Management and Leadership: Gender & Race/Ethnicity
Figure 55. Full‐time Campus Employees in Management Occupations by Gender, Fall 2015
52.3%
12.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CUNY
NM LA TX MT FL AL
SC GA
CA AZ
NJ
MD VA
AK
MS
CO IL NC HI
DE
CT
MI
NV
OK
TN MA IN RI
PA
OH AR
ND
MO SD
SUNY
UT KY
OR
WA
WI
KS
WV
MN NE ID IA
WY
NH
ME
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics::May 18, 2015 Source: 2013 IPEDS Human Resources Survey
Sector % Men % Women
All SUNY Campuses 44.5% 55.5%
State Operated/Funded 45.2% 54.8%
Community Colleges 42.8% 57.2%
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics
Source: IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey
Page 71 of 81
Figure 56: Full‐time Campus Employees in Management Occupations by Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2015
Figures 55 and 56 show the gender and race/ethnicity distribution of employees in the Management occupational category as reported on the IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey.
Key Observations
Female representation in Management occupations in both the state‐operated and community college sectors is above 50%.
System‐wide, 83.3% of Management occupation employees are White, 3.1% are Asian, and 12.6% are URM.
Minority representation at all SUNY campuses in Management occupations is led by Black or African Americans at 8.8%, followed by Asians and Hispanic or Latinos at 3.1%.
Figures 57 and 58. Executive Leadership by Gender and Race/Ethnicity, as of May 2016
Figure 57 Total Male Female
State‐Operated Institutions:
Presidents 29 18 11
Provosts / VPs for Academic Affairs 27 16 11
VPs for Business and Finance 29 20 9
Community Colleges:
Presidents 30 18 12
Figure 58 Total White Asian Hispanic Black NativeAmerican
State‐Operated Institutions:
Presidents 29 23 1 0 5
Provosts / VPs for Academic Affairs 27 25 0 0 2
VPs for Business and Finance 29 27 0 0 1 1
Community Colleges:
Presidents 30 26 0 0 4 SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics
Source for Figure 51 and 52 state‐operated data: SUNY Human Resources System
Source for Figure 51 and 52 community college data: SUNY System Administration Office of Education Pipeline and Community Colleges
Figures 57 and 58 show the executive leadership at SUNY campuses by gender and race/ethnicity,
respectively. State‐operated campuses are part of SUNY’s HRMS (Human Resources Management
System) and hence, in addition to presidents, it is possible to ascertain information specifically for
Provosts/VPs for Academic Affairs and VPs for Business and Finance.
Sector White Asian URMBlack/African
American
Hispanic/
Latino
American
Indian/
Alaska Native
Native
Hawaiian/
Other Pacific
Islander
Two or MoreNon‐resident
AlienUnknown
All SUNY Campuses 83.3% 3.1% 12.6% 8.8% 3.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.8%
State Operated/Funded 83.2% 3.6% 12.7% 9.2% 3.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%
Community Colleges 83.6% 1.8% 12.3% 7.6% 3.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.8% 0.0% 2.3%
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics
Source: IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey
Percentage by Race/Ethnicity
Page 72 of 81
Cornell and Ceramics are not included since they do not participate in SUNY’s HRMS, hence a total of
29 state‐operated presidents are represented in these tables rather than 31. The count for state‐
operated Provosts / VPs for Academic Affairs is less than the number for presidents and VPs for
Business and Finance due to current provost vacancies at Farmingdale and Upstate HSC.
Key Observations
At both the state‐operated institutions and the community colleges, nearly two‐thirds of the
current presidents are male. At the state‐operated institutions compared to last year, the
number of male presidents decreased by two and the number of female presidents increased
by two. At the community colleges, the number of male presidents decreased by one and the
number of female presidents increased by one.
At the state‐operated campuses, 59.2% (16 of 27) of the current Provosts /VPs for Academic
Affairs and 69.0% (20 of 29) of the current VPs for Business and Finance are male.
From the more detailed human resources data available for the state‐operated institutions,
92.3% (24 out of 26) of the Provosts / VPs for Academic Affairs are white, and 96.4% (27 out of
28) of the VPs for Business and Finance are white.
M. SUNY System Administration Employee Data: Race/Ethnicity
Figure 59. System Administration Employees by Race/Ethnicity, as of May 2016
EEO6 Classification Total White Asian Black Hispanic Native
American
Multi‐
Racial
Grand Total 530 427 81.0% 17 3.3% 53 10.0% 27 5.1% 1 0.002% 5 0.009%
Executive/Administ
rative/Managerial 133 106 80.0% 3 2.2% 15 11.3% 8 6.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.008%
Professional
(Non‐Faculty) 262 211 81.0% 13 5.0% 23 8.8% 11 4.2% 1 0.004% 3 0.012%
Other
(Non‐Faculty) 132 109 83.0% 1 0.008% 14 10.6% 7 5.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.008%
Faculty 3 1 34.0% 0 0.0% 1 34.0% 1 33.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics Source: SUNY Human Resources System
Figure 59 shows the most current (as of May 2016 payroll) race/ethnicity distribution of System
Administration employees by occupational classification.
Key Observations
Twenty percent of the total Executive, Administrative, and Managerial staff are of minority
race/ethnicity. For comparative purposes, this represents an increase from 18% in May 2013.
Of the total System Administration staff, 19.0% are a minority race/ethnicity. It was 16% in
May 2015.
There are 103 minority employees, as compared to 87 in May 2015. Of the 103 minority
employees, 53 identify as black and 27 identify as Hispanic.
Page 73 of 81
Currently, there are 8 employees at the Vice Chancellor and Associate Vice Chancellor/
Associate Vice Provost level who are of minority race/ethnicity.
N. SUNY System Administration Employee Data: Gender, Veteran, Disability
Figure 60. System Administration Employees by Various Diversity Attributes, as of May 2016
EEO6 Classification Total Female Veteran Disabled
Grand Total 530 289 55.0% 15 2.8% 9 1.7%
Executive/Administrative/Managerial 133 79 59.4% 4 3.0% 2 1.5%
Professional (Non Faculty) 262 127 48.5% 6 2.3% 7 2.7%
Other (Non Faculty) 132 82 62.1% 5 3.8% 0 0.0%
Faculty 3 1 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics Source: SUNY Human Resources Management System (HRMS)
Key Observations
Overall and in the Executive/Administrative/Managerial and Other (Non‐Faculty) occupational
classifications, more than half of the System Administration employees are female.
2.8% of the System Administration staff are recorded as having veteran status, with the largest
percentage (3.8%) being in the Other (Non‐Faculty) occupational classification, which includes
Secretarial/Clerical, Technical/Paraprofessional, Skilled Crafts, and Service/Maintenance.
Under 2% (9 employees out of 530) are recorded as having a disability, with 2 of those
employees being Executive/Administrative/Managerial and 7 Professional (Non‐Faculty).
Page 74 of 81
O. The Critically Important Pipeline: Race/Ethnicity
The diversity of faculty is impacted by the pool of available candidates seeking employment in
academia. In order to get a sense of potential applicants we now take a look at the diversity of
doctoral degree candidates nationally.
Figure 61. Doctoral Degrees1 Conferred by Discipline and Race/Ethnicity, Academic Year July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014
Figure 61 lists Doctoral Degrees conferred at U.S. Postsecondary Institutions (public, private non‐profit and
private for profit) by general discipline categories and race/ethnicity as reported on the IPEDS 2014
Completions Survey. Most disciplines listed reflect specific CIP Codes, but some related CIP Codes have been
combined for summary purposes. The data represent about 970 institutions. Most doctoral degrees are
granted by public institutions (50%) and private non‐profit institutions (46%), with a small amount granted by
private for profit institutions (4%).
Key Observations
For all doctoral degrees granted, 15.0% (26,877 of 179,544) were awarded to recipients who
identified as Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Pacific
Islander/Native Hawaiian or Two or More Races, grouped as under‐represented minority (URM).
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
All Doctorates 179,544 102,400 57.0% 17,525 9.8% 26,877 15.0% 21,269 11.8% 11473 6.4%
Biological Sciences 8,425 4,194 49.8% 656 7.8% 812 9.6% 2,296 27.3% 467 5.5%
Computer Science 1,990 581 29.2% 111 5.6% 106 5.3% 1,063 53.4% 129 6.5%
Engineering 10,182 2,943 28.9% 648 6.4% 514 5.0% 5,697 56.0% 380 3.7%
Mathematics 1,879 712 37.9% 80 4.3% 81 4.3% 919 48.9% 87 4.6%
Physical Sciences 5,839 2,502 42.8% 254 4.4% 369 6.3% 2,414 41.3% 300 5.1%
Law 44,832 28,841 64.3% 3,032 6.8% 8,737 19.5% 1,194 2.7% 3028 6.8%
Health Services 45,003 28,092 62.4% 6,616 14.7% 5,760 12.8% 1,854 4.1% 2681 6.0%
Medicine (MD & DO) 22,871 13,327 58.3% 4,500 19.7% 3,264 14.3% 273 1.2% 1507 6.6%
Business 3,110 1,239 39.8% 165 5.3% 683 22.0% 671 21.6% 352 11.3%
Education 11,012 6,325 57.4% 355 3.2% 2,970 27.0% 596 5.4% 766 7.0%
Human Services 1,053 510 48.4% 35 3.3% 270 25.6% 142 13.5% 96 9.1%
Humanities 7,247 4,247 58.6% 297 4.1% 784 10.8% 1,311 18.1% 608 8.4%
Psychology 6,815 4,325 63.5% 339 5.0% 1,321 19.4% 353 5.2% 477 7.0%
Social Sciences 3,697 1,743 47.1% 175 4.7% 358 9.7% 1,161 31.4% 260 7.0%
Theology 2,286 1,201 52.5% 133 5.8% 481 21.0% 325 14.2% 146 6.4%
All Other Disciplines 3
3,303 1,618 49.0% 129 3.9% 367 11.1% 1,000 30.3% 189 5.7%
Footnotes :
1 Includes Research/Scholarship, Profess ional Practice and Other Doctoral Degrees
2 Includes Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Paci fi c Is lander/Native Hawai ian, Two or More Races
3 Includes Degrees in Agricul ture, Architecture, Criminal Justice, Environmental Science, Human Sciences , Leisure Studies , Library Science and Multi Discipl inary Fields of Study.
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : June 1, 2016 Source: IPEDS 2014 Completions Survey
Race/Ethnicity
Doctorates by Discipline
Non Resident Alien UnknownTotal
White Asian URM 2
Page 75 of 81
The percentage of URM Doctoral graduates varies considerably by discipline.
Figure 62. Doctoral Degrees1 Conferred at SUNY Institutions by Discipline and Race/Ethnicity, Academic Year July 1,
2013 to June 30, 2014
Figure 62 lists doctoral degrees conferred at SUNY Institutions by general discipline categories and
race/ethnicity. Most disciplines listed reflect specific CIP Codes, but some related CIP Codes have been
combined for summary purposes.
Key Observations
For all SUNY doctoral degrees granted, 8.4% (228 of 2,713) were awarded to recipients who
identified as Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Pacific
Islander/Native Hawaiian or Two or More Races, grouped as under‐represented minority
(URM). As with the prior figure, the percentage of URM Doctoral graduates varies
considerably by discipline.
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
All SUNY Doctorates 2,713 1,320 48.7% 335 12.3% 228 8.4% 535 19.7% 295 10.9%
Biological Sciences 225 95 42.2% 14 6.2% 13 5.8% 83 36.9% 20 8.9%
Computer Science 56 9 16.1% 0.0% 0 0.0% 44 78.6% 3 5.4%
Engineering 156 31 19.9% 7 4.5% 7 4.5% 101 64.7% 10 6.4%
Mathmatics 58 11 19.0% 3 5.2% 1 1.7% 40 69.0% 3 5.2%
Physical Sciences 114 42 36.8% 1 0.9% 7 6.1% 58 50.9% 6 5.3%
Law 197 136 69.0% 11 5.6% 15 7.6% 12 6.1% 23 11.7%
Health Services 684 393 57.5% 124 18.1% 49 7.2% 41 6.0% 77 11.3%
Medicine 627 276 44.0% 155 24.7% 93 14.8% 11 1.8% 92 14.7%
Business 25 12 48.0% 2 8.0% 0 0.0% 9 36.0% 2 8.0%
Education 69 40 58.0% 0.0% 9 13.0% 13 18.8% 7 10.1%
Human Services 24 13 54.2% 0.0% 1 4.2% 6 25.0% 4 16.7%
Humanities 221 117 52.9% 10 4.5% 16 7.2% 49 22.2% 29 13.1%
Psychology 77 54 70.1% 3 3.9% 3 3.9% 11 14.3% 6 7.8%
Social Sciences 109 56 51.4% 3 2.8% 8 7.3% 34 31.2% 8 7.3%
All Other Disciplines 3
74 36 48.6% 2 2.7% 6 8.1% 25 33.8% 5 6.8%
Footnotes :
1 Includes Research/Scholarship, Profess ional Practice and Other Doctoral Degrees
2 Includes Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Paci fi c Is lander/Native Hawai ian, Two or More Races
3 Includes Degrees in Agriculture, Crimina l Jus tice, Environmental Science, Human Sciences and Multi Discipl inary Fields of Study.
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : June 1, 2016 Source: SUNY Student Data Warehouse
Non Resident Alien Unknown
Race/Ethnicity
Doctorates by DisciplineTotal
White Asian URM 2
Page 76 of 81
Figure 63. Doctoral Degrees 1 Conferred at All Postsecondary Institutions and at SUNY Institutions as to STEM 2/Non‐STEM Discipline and Race/Ethnicity, Academic Year July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014
Footnotes:
1 Includes Research/Scholarship, Professional Practice and Other Doctoral Degrees
2 STEM as designated in list from US Dept of Homeland Security/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Updated May 2012)
3 Includes Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, Two or More Races
Source: SUNY Student Data Warehouse and IPEDS 2014 Completions Survey
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : June 1, 2016
Figure 63 examines another way to categorize the field of study of doctoral degree recipients by
grouping the CIP Codes of those degrees conferred as STEM or non‐STEM fields. The above figures
compare the race/ethnicity of doctoral degree graduates in STEM fields with those in non‐STEM fields
at all postsecondary institutions and at SUNY institutions.
Key Observations
Not shown in this figure but for reference purposes, of all doctoral degrees granted, only 17.3%
(31,124) were granted in STEM fields. At SUNY, 25.8% (701) of doctoral degrees were granted
in STEM fields.
In STEM disciplines, most doctoral degrees are earned by Non‐Resident Alien students both
generally and at SUNY institutions. Only 6.8% generally and 6.4% at SUNY of STEM field
doctoral degrees graduates identify as URM.
42.8%
39.3%
6.8%
6.1%
4.9%
60.8%
16.7%
10.5%
6.7%
5.4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Non Resident Alien
White
URM
Asian
Unknown
White
URM
Asian
Unknown
Non Resident Alien
STEMDisciplines
Non STEM Disciplines
All Postsecondary Institutions
51.4%
33.4%
6.4%
4.7%
4.1%
53.9%
15.2%
12.4%
9.7%
8.8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Non Resident Alien
White
URM
Asian
Unknown
White
URM
Asian
Unknown
Non Resident Alien
STEMDisciplines
Non STEM Disciplines
SUNY Institutions
Page 77 of 81
In non‐STEM disciplines, most doctoral degrees are earned by White students both generally
and at SUNY institutions. URM doctoral degree graduates represent 16.7% of all non‐STEM
graduates generally and 15.2% of non‐STEM doctorates at SUNY.
Figure 64. Estimated Percentage of Research Doctorates Expected to be Employed in Academia (Numbers Based on Responses of Doctorate Recipients with Definite Postgraduate Employment Commitments, Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2014)
Figure 64 presents the estimated Percentage of Research Doctorates expected to be employed in
Academia. The number is estimated based on responses of Doctorate Recipients with Definite
Postgraduate Employment Commitments, Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2014
The Survey of Earned Doctorates includes responses from research doctorate recipients only. In this
survey, doctoral students who have a definite postgraduate commitment of employment are asked in
which sector they have accepted employment. From the 2014 survey, 27% (14,802 of 54,070) of the
survey respondent indicated they had a definite employment commitment. Almost half responded
that they intended to be employed in academia.
If one assumes that the percentages, which were provided for all doctorates with commitments, holds
for all survey respondents, an approximation of the number of doctorate students going into academia
can be obtained. In the table provided, the percent of survey respondents by race/ethnicity group
who indicated they had a definite commitment in academia was applied to the race/ethnicity
breakdown for all survey respondents.
Total 1
White Asian Total URM 2
Temporary
Visa Holders
Other race
or race not
reported
Ethnicity Not
Reported
Research Doctorate Recipients 54,070 24,824 2,883 5,342 15,852 272 684
Percent from Sample of
Research Doctorates with
Definite Postgraduate
Commitments for Employment
in Academia
49.3% 55.2% 39.1% 54.3% 3 33.3% 38.4% 53.3%
Estimated ‐ Seeking Academic
Employment26,657 13,703 1,127 2,901 5,279 104 365
1 ‐ 4,213 Doctorate Recipients with no race/ethnicity or citizenship status provided so summation of categories will not equal total.
2 ‐ Includes Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Two or More Races
3 ‐ Calculated based on URM categories summation.
Source:
TABLE 22. Doctorate recipients , by ci tizenship status , ethnici ty, race, and subfield of s tudy: 2014
TABLE 47. Employment sector of doctorate recipients with defini te postgraduation commitments for employment in the United States , by sex,
ci tizenship status , ethnici ty, and race: Selected years , 1994–2014
Race/Ethnicity
Page 78 of 81
Based on this approximation, about 2,901 doctoral candidates who identify as URM will be or would
like to be employed in academia. There are approximately 5,000 degree granting institutions (2 year
and above) institutions which report to IPEDS. This includes public, private non‐profit, and private
profit institutions. Recognizing that the candidate’s discipline would have to match the needs of the
institution, there would potentially be only one URM doctorate level graduate for every one or two
institutions in 2014.
Page 79 of 81
Appendix A CIP to Primary Groupings Crosswalk
Primary groupings Constituent CIP series and subseries
Education 13. Education
10. Communications technologies/technicians and support services
50. Visual and performing arts
16. Aboriginal and foreign languages, literatures and linguistics
23. English language and literature/letters
24. Liberal arts and sciences, general studies and humanities
30.13 Medieval and renaissance studies
30.21 Holocaust and related studies
30.22 Classical and ancient studies
30.29 Maritime studies
38. Philosophy and religious studies
39. Theology and religious vocations
54. History
55. French language and literature/letters
05. Area, ethnic, cultural, gender, and group studies
09. Communication, journalism and related programs
19. Family and consumer sciences/human sciences
22. Legal professions and studies
30.05 Peace studies and conflict resolution
30.10 Biopsychology
30.11 Gerontology
30.14 Museology/museum studies
30.15 Science, technology and society
30.17 Behavioural sciences
30.20 International/global studies
30.23 Intercultural/multicultural and diversity studies
30.25 Cognitive science
30.26 Cultural studies/critical theory and analysis
30.28 Dispute resolution
30.31 Human computer interaction
30.33 Sustainability studies
42. Psychology
45. Social sciences
30.16 Accounting and computer science
44. Public administration and social service professions
52. Business, management, marketing and related support services
26. Biological and biomedical sciences
30.01 Biological and physical sciences
30.18 Natural sciences
30.19 Nutrition sciences
30.27 Human biology
30.32 Marine sciences
40. Physical sciences
41. Science technologies/technicians
11. Computer and information sciences and support services
25. Library science
27. Mathematics and statistics
30.06 Systems science and theory
30.08 Mathematics and computer science
30.30 Computational science
04. Architecture and related services
14. Engineering
15. Engineering technologies and engineering‐related fields
30.12 Historic preservation and conservation
46. Construction trades
47. Mechanic and repair technologies/technicians
48. Precision production
01. Agriculture, agriculture operations and related sciences
03. Natural resources and conservation
31. Parks, recreation, leisure and fitness studies
51. Health professions and related programs
60. Dental, medical and veterinary residency programs
12. Personal and culinary services
28. Military science, leadership and operational art
29. Military technologies and applied sciences
43. Security and protective services
49. Transportation and materials moving
Miscellaneous multidisciplinary studies 30.99 Multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary studies, other
Mathematics, computer and information sciences
Architecture, engineering, and related technologies
Agriculture, natural resources and conservation
Health and related fields
Personal, protective and transportation services
Visual and performing arts, and communications technologies
Humanities
Social and behavioural sciences and law
Business, management and public administration
Physical and life sciences and technologies
Page 80 of 81
Appendix B: Enrollment by Major (CIP2) and Race/ethnicity, Fall 2015
Page 81 of 81
Appendix C
Percent of Population Identifying as Under‐represented Minority* * Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Two or More Races
SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: June 3, 2016
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010‐2014 American Community Survey 5‐ year estimates
34.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 18, 2015 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009‐2013 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates5
Top Related