HCRC Human Capital Research Corporation Evanston, IL The Art and
Design of Enrollment September, 2004 Slide 2 In contrast with
higher education at large or even the subset of private liberal
arts education, art and design programs represent a niche market
which under the broadest possible definition account for less than
6 percent of total baccalaureate level enrollment with AICADs
member institutions holding less than 8 percent of that for a total
national share of approximately 0.5 percent. Within that narrow
segment, AICAD institutions compete with more than 1,000
institutions for a finite annual pool of roughly 90,000 traditional
age prospective students and ultimately for a considerably smaller
fraction of students who possess not only the talent to be
admissible, but the ability and willingness to pay for an
independent art and design education. About the data This report is
a fully revised and updated edition of the materials distributed at
the April 2, 2004 presentation by Human Capital Research at AICADs
annual meeting in Toronto. As with the original report, information
used to support this analysis was derived primarily from public
domain sources, however data sources have been updated and reflect
the most recent issues of the following: Common Data Set (CDS), the
Integrated Postsecondary Education Surveys (IPEDS), Institutional
Fiscal Operation Reports and Application for the Federal Campus
Based Aid Programs (FISAP), The 2000 Census Public Use Microdata
Sample (PUMS) and the Census-BLS Current Population Survey (CPS).
Program Offerings and Primary Providers of Art and Design
Education: 3-13 AICADs Competitive Position vis--vis the Market at
Large: 14-48 Understanding the AICAD Enrollment Funnel: 49-54
Selected Labor Market Aspects for an Art and Design Education:
55-63 The Future Affordability of an AICAD Degree: 64-79 Emergent
Demographics and Implications for Market Geography: 80-89 Preface
This document provides a broad overview of the current market for
postsecondary art and design education and the general market
position of the AICAD member institutions. For purposes of this
analysis, our study has been organized around six areas of inquiry:
2 Slide 3 Program Offerings and Primary Providers of Art and Design
Education Slides 4-15 present an overview of the various degree
programs offered by the AICAD member institutions for the
undergraduate and graduate market at large, based on the IPEDS
Degree Completion Survey for Fiscal 02. Key Observations: In FY02
AICAD schools collectively conferred 5,406 Bachelor degrees across
41 of 51 program areas identified by detailed CIP and Sector. Apart
from AICAD, nationally, 1,329 institutions including 481 publics,
794 independents, and 52 proprietary colleges conferred an
additional 76,442 Bachelor degrees in the 51 program areas. In all,
students aspiring to an Art and Design Related Bachelors Degree can
choose from across more than 1,800 degree programs. At the graduate
level, there is greater concentration of program offerings with
fewer institutional options. For FY02, AICAD schools collectively
conferred 1,406 advanced degrees across 44 of a total 52 program
areas, compared with 18,699 degrees for all other institutions
including 278 publics, 207 non-AICAD independents and 22
proprietary colleges. In fields where 200 or more Bachelor degrees
are conferred, AICAD institutions held a disproportionate market
share in program areas: Commercial and Advertising Art, Fine/Studio
Arts, Architecture, Photography, Industrial Design, Film/Video and
Photographic Arts, Visual and Performing Arts, Design and Visual
Communications, Fine Arts and Art Studies, Interior Design,
Industrial Design, Fashion/Apparel Design, Film/Video and
Photographic Arts, Design and Applied Arts, Painting, and Sculpture
In fields with a minimum of 200 degrees conferred at the graduate
level, AICAD institutions dominant programs include: Fine/Studio
Arts, Photography, Painting, Commercial and Advertising Art, Art
Teacher Education, Other Art Therapy/Therapist. Based on degrees
conferred data, AICAD institutions as a group have substantially
increased their market share at the graduate level since FY95 from
5.8% to 6.9% FY02. At the Baccalaureate level, the market share
trend is mixed, peaking in FY99 at 7.6% with a modest but steady
decline thereafter to 6.6% FY02. Methodological Issues: Because
IPEDS does not distinguish between Fine Arts (BFA or MFA) and
Liberal Arts Degrees, AICADs effective market is considerably
smaller and its relative market share is considerably larger. 3
Slide 4 4 Total Art and Design Related Bachelor Degree Programs by
Detailed CIP Code and Sector: 2001-2002 Academic Year Number of
Bachelor Degree Programs Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY
02 Slide 5 Total Art and Design Related Bachelor Degrees Awarded by
Detailed CIP Code and Sector: 2001-2002 Academic Year 5 Number of
Bachelor Degrees Awarded Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY
02 Slide 6 AICAD Share of Total Art and Design Related Bachelors
Degrees Awarded (41 of a Total 51 Degree Programs Detailed by CIP
and Sector) 6 Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02 Slide 7
Total Art and Design Related Graduate Degree Programs by Detailed
CIP Code and Sector: 2001-2002 Academic Year 7 Number of Graduate
Degree Programs Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02 Slide
8 Total Art and Design Related Graduate Degrees Awarded by Detailed
CIP Code and Sector: 2001-2002 Academic Year 8 Number of Graduate
Degrees Awarded Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02 Slide
9 AICAD Share of Total Art and Design Related Graduate Degrees
Awarded (43 of a Total 52 Degree Programs Detailed by CIP and
Sector) 9 Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02 Slide 10
Eight Year Trend in AICAD Share of Total Art and Design Related
Degrees by Level 10 Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 95
to FY 02 Slide 11 Largest Private Non-Profit Sector Producers of
Bachelor Degrees in Kindred Fields in FY 2002 11 Source: IPEDS
Degree Completion Survey, FY 02 Slide 12 Largest Public Sector
Producers of Bachelor Degrees in Kindred Fields in FY 2002 12
Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02 Slide 13 Largest
Public Sector Producers of Graduate Degrees in Kindred Fields in FY
2002 13 Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02 Slide 14
Largest Private Non-Profit Sector Producers of Graduate Degrees in
Kindred Fields in FY 2002 14 Source: IPEDS Degree Completion
Survey, FY 02 Slide 15 Largest Private For-Profit Sector Producers
of Bachelor and Graduate Degrees in Kindred Fields in FY 2002 15
Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02 Slide 16 16 AICADs
Competitive Position vis--vis the Market at Large Slides 17 to 48
provide an overview of the AICAD institutions and their primary
market competition. Particular attention is paid to key operating
ratios for independent colleges and universities cross-tabulated
against the dimensions of net tuition and academic profile. Key
Observations: Slide 17 shows a scatter plot of all independent
institutions in the Art and Design market by: net tuition per
student, academic profile (which incorporates standardized test
scores, high school GPA, class rank percentile, and freshmen to
sophomore retention) and number of Baccalaureate degrees conferred
in kindred programs. Note that the relative size of each of the
bubbles is proportional to the number of degrees conferred. Based
on a wide range of criteria these two dimensions -net tuition
revenue and student profile- have proven to be highly reliable
indicators of market position. While profile index fails to account
for artistic talent, strength of profile regardless of other
talents remains an important surrogate for gauging a students
options and worth in the education marketplace. Vis--vis all
independents, with the notable exception of the Ivy League and
First-Tier Liberal Arts Colleges, the AICAD institutions as a group
tend to serve students with comparatively higher academic profiles,
and realize comparatively greater net tuition per student than the
market at large. They also generally but with some variance, tend
to maintain larger programs in the art and design disciplines than
the majority of their less specialized institutional counterparts.
Slide 18 provides the identical information to Slide 17 but
includes all public colleges and universities as well. Slide 19
identifies the comparative market position of the AICAD schools
based on net tuition and student profile quintile rankings for all
independent institutions - as shown in the prior two slides. Slide
20 shows the total number of independent institutions in the peer
group sample and slide 21 share of degrees awarded across this peer
group. Our motivation for isolating the AICAD schools by cell in is
twofold: first, to give each member school a sense of its relative
market position (with the important caveat that our two criteria
are not a be-all end-all measure, but rather merely a surrogate);
and second, to help pinpoint an appropriate reference group for
purposes of benchmarking their own operation as presented in the
balance of slides in this section. Note: With the incorporation of
the most recent CDS, IPEDS and FISAP data, and a revised definition
of Market Position which includes a more comprehensive index of
academic profile (described above), the peer analysis section of
this updated report is not directly comparable to the materials
distributed in April, 2004. Slide 17 Net Tuition Relative Market
Position of AICAD Institutions (Orange) and all other Independent
Colleges and Universities (Blue) Offering Bachelor Degrees in
Kindred Fields 17 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release, IPEDS
Institutional Characteristics: FY 03, IPEDS Student Financial Aid
Survey: FY 03, HCRC Custom Tabulation Slide 18 Net Tuition Relative
Market Position of AICAD Institutions (Orange), all other
Independent Colleges and Universities (Blue), and all Public
Institutions (Green) Offering Bachelor Degrees in Kindred Fields 18
Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release, IPEDS Institutional
Characteristics: FY 03, IPEDS Student Financial Aid Survey: FY 03,
HCRC Custom Tabulation Slide 19 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th Quintile
Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20% Memphis College of Art
Columbus College of Art & Design Pacific Northwest College of
Art Atlanta College of Art Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design
Lyme Academy College of Fine Arts Montserrat College of Art The Art
Institute of Boston at Lesley Oregon College of Art & Craft Art
Academy of Cincinnati Maine College of Art Moore College of Art
& Design The University of the Arts College for Creative
Studies School of the Museum of Fine Arts The Cleveland Institute
of Art San Francisco Art Institute School of the Art Institute of
Chicago Minneapolis College of Art and Design Otis College of Art
and Design California College of the Arts Massachusetts College of
Art Kansas City Art Institute Corcoran College of Art and Design
School of Visual Arts Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts
Ringling School of Art and Design California Institute of the Arts
Parsons School of Design, New School University Art Center College
of Design Maryland Institute College of Art Cooper Union Pratt
Institute Laguna College of Art & Design Rhode Island School of
Design AICAD Institutions by Comparative Market Position 19 Source:
Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release, IPEDS Institutional
Characteristics: FY 03, IPEDS Student Financial Aid Survey: FY 03,
HCRC Custom Tabulation Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4
th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and
Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 20 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th
Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20% 486 Independent
Colleges and Universities in the Peer Group Sample by Comparative
Market Position 20 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release
Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20%
Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention)
Slide 21 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd
Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th
Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and
Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Peer Group Share of Art and Design
Related Degrees Awarded by Comparative Market Position 21 Source:
Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Slide 22 The AICAD peer group
norms are based on a sample of 486 independent colleges and
universities with kindred art and design degree offerings that
completed the most recent Common Data Set, IPEDS and FISAP reports.
In all, 24 ratios are presented, organized around three topics:
Enrollment Funnel: Slides 22 to 28 show a series of measures
related to size of applicant pool, admission selectivity, yield,
and entering enrollment. Broadly speaking these various measures of
draw - perhaps with the exception of enrollment yield, all
correlate highly with market position. Naturally, the stronger the
position of the institution the greater its application volume,
geographic market range, and selectivity. Size of operation also
tends to correlate highly with position and potentially contributes
both to economies of scale and market identity. If at the end of
the day we were forced to chose a single benchmark from this set it
would be the simple ratio of applications to matrics (new entering
students). Ultimately it is application volume that enables
institutions to effectively shape its entering class and manage the
difficult tradeoffs between student profile and net tuition. The
Enrollment Funnel Current Family and Institutional Resources
Financial Aid 22 AICAD Peer Group Norms Slide 23 Net Tuition Top
20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20% Median
Applicant for Admission Volume by Comparative Market Position 23
Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Profile Bottom 20% 2 nd
Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic
Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 24 Net Tuition
Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20%
Median Percent of Undergraduates from Out of State by Comparative
Market Position 24 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release
Profile Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top
20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention)
Slide 25 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd
Quintile Bottom 20% Median Freshmen Admit Rate by Comparative
Market Position 25 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release
Profile Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top
20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention)
Slide 26 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd
Quintile Bottom 20% Median Enrollment Yield by Comparative Market
Position 26 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Profile
Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20%
Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention)
Slide 27 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd
Quintile Bottom 20% Median Size of the Entering Freshmen Cohort by
Comparative Market Position 27 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04
Release Profile Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th
Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and
Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 28 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th
Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20% Median Ratio of
Applicants to Matrics by Comparative Market Position 28 Source:
Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Profile Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile
Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation
and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 29 AICAD Peer Group Norms
Family and Institutional Resources: Observations Concerning Gross
and Net Price Slides 30 to 32 show peer group medians for Sticker
Tuition and Fees; Tuition Discount; and Net Tuition Revenue all of
which are highly correlated with market position. As the cost of
attendance has continued to rise at a faster rate than inflation
and family income, all three measures have become a focal point of
government, trustees, families, and college administrators. Despite
years of discussion and deliberation however, it is our contention
that remarkably little is understood either about the price that
students actually pay, or ultimately what stands behind an
institutions discount and net tuition revenue. Essentially, price
is dictated by market position and while many institutions engage
in price manipulation to affect their position, such efforts should
be recognized at best as a short-run strategy. Of the various
factors that contribute to an institutions tuition discount, none
is more influential than the level of demonstrated financial need.
Ironically, we have seen many financial aid offices are called to
task for overspending the aid budget when the underlying issues
come back to application volume and the ability of the institution
to matriculate low- and no-need students who are willing and able
to pay at or near the full cost of attendance. Even in instances
when gapping and preferential packaging result in lower discount,
they are likely to simultaneously contribute to increased deposit
melt, account receivable problems, attrition, loan defaults and
ultimately to a weaker market position. 29 Slide 30 Net Tuition Top
20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20% Median
Fall 03 Sticker Tuition and Fees by Comparative Market Position 30
Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Profile Bottom 20% 2 nd
Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic
Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 31 Net Tuition
Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20%
Median Fall 03 Undergraduate Tuition Discount by Comparative Market
Position 31 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Profile
Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20%
Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention)
Slide 32 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd
Quintile Bottom 20% Profile Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle
Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and
Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Median Fall 03 Undergraduate Net
Tuition Revenue Per Student by Comparative Market Position 32
Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Slide 33 Financial Aid:
Observations Concerning Financial Need and Need Met Slides 34 to 43
highlight differences in the incidence of students applying for
aid, those demonstrating financial need, and in the comparative
quality of aid packages and sources of aid. Few factors point more
clearly to the social hierarchy within higher education than the
disparity in family resources by school market position. This is
reflected both in the overall proportion of students applying for
aid and the proportion of students demonstrating need and hence in
the average need of all students remarkably despite the fact that
the cost of attendance among first and second tier schools is
typically $10,000 to $15,000 above that of lower rated
institutions. At the same time as lower rated schools face a
greater demand for aid, they are less likely to have sufficient
resources to meet full need. As a result, we see a significantly
higher incidence of students with unmet need (gaps) and higher
levels of debt at lower rated institutions factors which ultimately
serve to weaken a schools market position. For middle market
institutions that have successfully managed to raise their student
profile, the disparity in quality of aid packages compared with
first- and second-tier schools almost invariably suggests an uphill
climb as they try and match the financial aid offers of their new
found competition. Coupled with far greater reliance on government
support, rising interest rates, a growing public-private price gap,
little or no endowment, and a limited capacity to realize marginal
income on tuition increases, the fiscal future for dozens of the
nations lower rated independent colleges has become increasingly
tenuous. For middle market institutions that have successfully
managed to raise their student profile, the disparity in quality of
aid packages compared with first- and second-tier schools almost
invariably suggests an uphill climb as they try and match the
need-based offers of their new found competition. At the same time,
because higher profile institutions are less likely to offer merit-
or non-need aid, a number of middle-market schools have managed to
buy their way to a higher profile by focusing on low- and non-needy
students who would otherwise be full-pays at higher rated
institutions. Based on our own financial aid modeling experience we
have estimated as much as a 50 point decrease in SAT scores given
the elimination of merit aid hence our motivation for ranking
schools on the basis of both strength of profile and net tuition.
33 AICAD Peer Group Norms Slide 34 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th
Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20% Median Percent of
Freshmen Applying for Aid by Comparative Market Position 34 Source:
Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle
Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and
Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 35 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th
Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20% Median Percent of
Freshmen Demonstrating Financial Need by Comparative Market
Position 35 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Bottom 20% 2
nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic
Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 36 Net Tuition
Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20%
Median Percent of Freshmen Whose Need is Fully Met by Comparative
Market Position 36 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release
Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20%
Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention)
Slide 37 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd
Quintile Bottom 20% Median Percent of Need Met (for Freshmen
Demonstrating Financial Need) From All Sources of Aid by
Comparative Market Position 37 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04
Release Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top
20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention)
Slide 38 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd
Quintile Bottom 20% Median Percent of Need Met with Grant by
Comparative Market Position 38 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04
Release Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top
20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention)
Slide 39 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd
Quintile Bottom 20% Median Government Share of All Grant Aid
Awarded by Comparative Market Position 39 Source: Common Data Set,
Fiscal 04 Release Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th
Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and
Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 40 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th
Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20% Median Endowment
per FTE Student by Comparative Market Position 40 Source: Common
Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle
Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and
Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 41 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th
Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20% Three Year
Average Perkins Loan Default Rate by Comparative Market Position 41
Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile
Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation
and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 42 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th
Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20% Median Percent of
Non-Needy Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants by Comparative
Market Position 42 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release
Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20%
Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention)
Slide 43 Net Tuition Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd
Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th
Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and
Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Median Percent of Full-Pay Freshmen
by Comparative Market Position 43 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal
04 Release Slide 44 Observations Concerning Retention and
Graduation Rates Slides 45 to 48, the final set of peer slides,
show group medians for freshmen to sophomore retention and
graduation rates. From a return on education investment standpoint,
these slides are among the most important benchmarks because of the
profound relationship between timely graduation and the cost of a
college degree and degree completion and a students earnings after
college. While retention, timely graduation and degree completion
are all highly correlated with an institutions strength of
position, it is crucial to recognize that these measures of
themselves are not a value added measure. Indeed, 71 percent of the
variance in five-year graduation rates among the peer institutions
represented in this analysis is accounted for by strength of
academic profile alone. By implication, the comparatively high
graduation and retention rates observed for a majority of high
profile schools potentially has a much to do with the caliber of
student as the quality of experience they provide. Nonetheless,
there remains a very strong body of statistical evidence suggesting
little or no difference in earnings between a high school graduate
and a college dropout. And from a competitive market standpoint,
timely graduation remains the single most important strategy for
mitigating the price spread between and public and private
institutions. In fact, using even a modest allowance for first year
earnings after college, the cost of a Bachelors degree completed
within four years at a private institution is almost universally
less expensive than it would be at a public given five or more
years to completion. 44 AICAD Peer Group Norms Slide 45 Net Tuition
Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20%
Median Freshmen to Sophomore Retention by Comparative Market
Position 45 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Bottom 20% 2
nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic
Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 46 Net Tuition
Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20%
Median Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate by Comparative Market
Position 46 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Bottom 20% 2
nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic
Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 47 Net Tuition
Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20%
Median Five-Year Cohort Graduation Rate by Comparative Market
Position 47 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Bottom 20% 2
nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic
Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Slide 48 Net Tuition
Top 20% 4 th Quintile Middle Quintile 2 nd Quintile Bottom 20%
Bottom 20% 2 nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4 th Quintile Top 20%
Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention)
Median Six-Year Cohort Graduation Rate by Comparative Market
Position 48 Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release Slide 49
Understanding the AICAD Enrollment Funnel Based on National
Longitudinal Studies Data, College Board, and ACT Test-taker
statistics, there are approximately 480,000 college bound seniors
who have acquired at least some art and design studio experience
during their high school years. Of that number, nearly one in five
will enroll in an art and design program. While the number of new
entering freshmen at any of AICADs institutions is only a fraction
of this pool (AICAD freshmen cohort range from fewer than 20
students up to about 500), in the scheme of enrollment marketing a
potential pool of 90,000 is remarkably small particularly in light
of the number of prospective institutions and program offerings
available. Given the comparatively small size of this prospective
pool, it is highly likely that AICAD institutions as a group share
a very large number of cross-applications. In turn this raises a
number of issues with regard both to long-run market potential and
marketing strategy particularly given the combined direct marketing
costs that these institutions annually incur as a normal part of
their recruitment effort. Looking at recent SAT test-taker data
alone, the proportion of college bound students with an expressed
interest in art and design and the related discipline of
photography has gradually declined but has effectively been offset
by a steadily increasing number of college bound seniors. Slides 50
to 54 show basic enrollment statistics for the AICAD member
institutions. While there is a wide variance across the group as a
whole, the individual school data closely mirrors the patterns
observed in our peer group series and thematically leads us to the
same conclusions voiced earlier concerning the crucial role that
application volume plays in shaping an entering class. 49 Slide 50
Undergraduate Art and Design Enrollment Funnel: 50 Source: College
Board National Profile of College Bound Seniors, ACT National Score
Report, NCES NELS 88 Slide 51 Number and Percent of College-Bound
SAT Test-Takers with Studio Art and Design or, Photography or Film
Coursework or Experience: 1996 to 2004 Art and Design Number Art
and Design Percent Photography or Film Number Photography or Film
Percent 51 Source: College Board National Profile of College Bound
Seniors Slide 52 Enrollment Conversion for AICAD Institutions: Fall
03 (* indicates Fall 02 is the most recent data reported) 52
Source: Common Data Set FY 04 Release, IPEDS Institutional
Characteristics Report FY 03 Slide 53 Admit Rate and Enrollment
Yield for AICAD Institutions: Fall 03 (* indicates Fall 02 is the
most recent data reported) 53 Source: Common Data Set FY 04
Release, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics Report FY 03 Slide 54
Ratio of Applicants to Matrics for AICAD Institutions: Fall 03 (*
indicates Fall 02 is the most recent data reported) 54 Source:
Common Data Set FY 04 Release, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics
Report FY 03 Slide 55 Selected Labor Market Aspects for an Art and
Design Education While students enter college with innumerable
motivations, born out of economic necessity and as a means of
fulfilling their aspirations, it is likely that the greatest
manifestations of their college experience are realized through
participation in the labor force. While that statement could be
made of students in nearly any discipline, art and design students
exhibit a variety of characteristics that in tandem tend to
distinguish them from college graduates at large including: - the
possession of knowledge and competencies particularly well suited
to the information economy - a high incidence of creativity,
innovation, and entrepreneurship - professional career paths that
tend to meander, or require comparatively long gestation periods -
application of talents across a wide range of professions in
kindred and non-kindred industries Slide 56 which shows the leading
occupations associated with AICAD degree programs offers a tangible
illustration of the diversity of talents that art and design
students bring to the labor force. Presented as an occupation
industry matrix slides 57 to 61 provide selected labor force
characteristics for individuals employed in kindred art and design
fields for the New York metropolitan area. 1 In part, our
motivation for presenting this data both by industry and
occupation, is to highlight the extent to which individuals with
similar art and design occupations are employed across a diverse
group of industries. This variance speaks to a broad applicability
of talents. It also suggests that art and design careers are
potentially more resilient, and less vulnerable, to cyclical and
structural changes in the economy than other occupations. Although
the numbers vary considerably across industries and occupations,
art and design disciplines particularly in the professional
services sectors, show a comparatively high incidence of
self-employment. At the same time, and again perhaps indicative of
the non-linear career paths that art and design related
professionals take, the proportion of recent graduates (age 25-34
with a Bachelors degree or higher) employed full-time lags behind
that of more traditional professions. While the incidence of
full-time employment rises with age, this pattern has potentially
important implications with respect to college financing in general
and the assumption of student loans in particular. Finally, while
the incidence of full-time employment among recent graduates is
comparatively low, those who are employed full-time demonstrate
comparable earnings to individuals of similar age and attainment in
other professions. The more interesting question is how these and
the new generation of art and design graduates will fare in the
next decade. 1 - A complete data set is presented in a separate
appendix for the nations largest U.S. cities. 55 Slide 56 Principal
Occupations Associated with AICAD Degrees and Programs ActorsFine
Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, & Illustrators Agents
& Business Managers of Artists, Performers, &
AthletesFurniture Finishers Architects, Except Landscape &
NavalGraphic Designers Architectural & Civil DraftersHistorians
Architectural DraftersInterior Designers Architecture Teachers,
PostsecondaryLandscape Architects ArchivistsManagers Art
DirectorsModel Makers, Wood Art, Drama, & Music Teachers,
PostsecondaryMulti-Media Artists & Animators Artists &
Related Workers, All OtherMuseum Technicians & Conservators
Cabinetmakers & Bench CarpentersMusic Arrangers &
Orchestrators Camera Operators, Television, Video, & Motion
PictureMusic Directors & Composers Caption WritersMusicians
& Singers CartoonistsMusicians, Instrumental
ChoreographersPainters & Illustrators Civil DraftersPainting,
Coating, & Decorating Workers Commercial & Industrial
DesignersPaste-Up Workers Communications Teachers,
PostsecondaryPatternmakers, Wood ComposersPhotographers Copy
WritersPoets & Lyricists Craft ArtistsPrepress Technicians
& Workers Creative WritersProducers & Directors
CuratorsProfessional Photographers DancersProgram Directors
Designers, All OtherPublic Address System & Other Announcers
Directors- Stage, Motion Pictures, Television, & RadioSculptors
Dot EtchersSet & Exhibit Designers EditorsSingers Education
Teachers, PostsecondarySketch Artists Electronic Masking System
OperatorsStrippers Engineering ManagersTalent Directors English
Language & Literature Teachers, PostsecondaryTechnical
Directors/Managers Entertainers & Performers, Sports &
Related Workers, All OtherTextile, Apparel, & Furnishings
Workers Exhibit DesignersUpholsterers Fabric & Apparel
PatternmakersUrban & Regional Planners Fashion
DesignersWoodworkers Film & Video EditorsWriters & Authors
56 Source: Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics
National Occupation Industry Matrix, HCRC Custom Tabulation Slide
57 Education, Human & Civic Services Personal & Business
Services General Retail Retail Florists Other Manufacturing
Electronics & Machinery Apparel/Textile Wood Products
Recreation, Dining & Tourism Arts, Sports & Entertainment
Printing, Publishing &Telecom Entertainment/Media IT,
Scientific Services Architecture / Engineer Services Specialized
Design Services Architects Artists/Designers Performers
Editors/Writers Craftspeople Distribution of Employment in Kindred
Fields by Selected Industry Occupational Cluster: New York 2000
Industry Group Occupation Group 57 Source: Census 2000 PUMS Slide
58 Education, Human & Civic Services Personal & Business
Services General Retail Retail Florists Other Manufacturing
Electronics & Machinery Apparel/Textile Wood Products
Recreation, Dining & Tourism Arts, Sports & Entertainment
Printing, Publishing &Telecom Entertainment/Media IT,
Scientific Services Architecture / Engineer Services Specialized
Design Services Architects Artists/Designers Performers
Editors/Writers Craftspeople Incidence of Self-Employment by
Industry and Occupational Cluster: New York 2000 Industry Group
Occupation Group 58 Source: Census 2000 PUMS Slide 59 Education,
Human & Civic Services Personal & Business Services General
Retail Retail Florists Other Manufacturing Electronics &
Machinery Apparel/Textile Wood Products Recreation, Dining &
Tourism Arts, Sports & Entertainment Printing, Publishing
&Telecom Entertainment/Media IT, Scientific Services
Architecture / Engineer Services Specialized Design Services
Architects Artists/Designers Performers Editors/Writers
Craftspeople Distribution of Persons Age 25-34 with a Bachelors
Degree Employed in Kindred Fields by Industry and Occupational
Cluster: New York 2000 Industry Group Occupation Group 59 Source:
Census 2000 PUMS Slide 60 Education, Human & Civic Services
Personal & Business Services General Retail Retail Florists
Other Manufacturing Electronics & Machinery Apparel/Textile
Wood Products Recreation, Dining & Tourism Arts, Sports &
Entertainment Printing, Publishing &Telecom Entertainment/Media
IT, Scientific Services Architecture / Engineer Services
Specialized Design Services Architects Artists/Designers Performers
Editors/Writers Craftspeople Incidence of Persons Age 25-34 with a
Bachelors Degree Employed Full- time Year-round by Industry and
Occupational Cluster: New York 2000 Industry Group Occupation Group
60 Source: Census 2000 PUMS Slide 61 Education, Human & Civic
Services Personal & Business Services General Retail Retail
Florists Other Manufacturing Electronics & Machinery
Apparel/Textile Wood Products Recreation, Dining & Tourism
Arts, Sports & Entertainment Printing, Publishing &Telecom
Entertainment/Media IT, Scientific Services Architecture / Engineer
Services Specialized Design Services Architects Artists/Designers
Performers Editors/Writers Craftspeople Median Earnings of Persons
Age 25-34 with a Bachelors Degree Employed in Kindred Fields by
Industry and Occupational Cluster: New York 2000 Industry Group
Occupation Group 61 Source: Census 2000 PUMS Slide 62 U.S.
Employment in Selected Kindred and Key Reference Occupations for
2002 and Projected Employment for 2012 62 Source: Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Monthly Labor Review 2/04 Slide 63 Projected Number of
Average Annual Job Openings in Selected Kindred and Key Reference
Occupations: 2002 to 2012 63 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Monthly Labor Review 2/04 Slide 64 The Future Affordability of an
AICAD Degree Slides 65 and 66 show the comparative growth in cost
of attendance, family resources, and financial need from 1987 to
2004. Almost lock-step with time, the cost of attendance for
private higher education has increased at a rate significantly
faster than inflation or family income for well over a decade.
Despite rising costs, enrollment has continued to increase driven
by a combination of factors including rising numbers of high school
graduates, a sustained infusion of grant aid and an ever growing
reliance on family and student debt. Although the vast majority of
institutions continue to make their class evidence of increasing
fiscal stress continues to mount. While AICAD institutions have
tended to move along the same path for example, virtually all
(slide 67), have seen a significant increase in the number of
families applying for aid, a large majority have managed to sustain
a comparatively strong position as indicated by their overall
proportion of full-pays, tuition discount, and net tuition (slides
68 to 71). -Trajectory Model Pricing Scenarios- To help understand
implications of current price trends over the course of the next
decade, we have constructed a trajectory model that allows us to
examine how specified changes in attendance costs, government aid,
and family resources are likely to affect net tuition and student
debt. While our model is a simplification of the pricing dynamics
that institutions and families actually face, it does incorporate
the effect on yield in response to both rising net attendance costs
and competitor price shifts, and it is meant to illustrate the
increasing difficulty that families and institutions alike will
face even under optimistic assumptions. Slides 72 to 77 present
four pricing-aid scenarios including a most probable (Base Case)
scenario; a low-price / high aid (Access) scenario; a high price/
low aid (Perfect Storm) scenario, and a high-price / high aid
(Bull-Market) scenario. While the Bull Market and Perfect Storm
scenarios generate greater net tuition on a per student basis,
under the model assumption of moderate price-elasticity, almost all
of that gain is lost to a decrease in yield. Additionally, the two
high price scenarios result in significantly greater levels of
student debt. In contrast, inflation adjusted student debt under
the Access scenario increases by approximately $8,000 over the
course of the decade compared with a nearly $25,000 increase under
our more aggressive Perfect Storm scenario. Viewed side by side,
these four scenarios epitomize the idea of the tuition aid spiral
and help to demonstrate that -at least for institutions that are
below capacity, more aggressive increases in tuition may ultimately
contribute little or nothing to the bottom line (slide 77). This
does not remain the case however when the model is run to test the
sensitivity to price increases. Under assumptions of lower and then
higher sensitivity to price (slides 78 and 79 respectively) the net
revenue trajectories for the four pricing-aid scenarios are
essentially transposed. 64 Slide 65 Cumulative Change in Attendance
Cost, Tuition, Median EFC and Need for Independent Colleges and
Universities in CPI Adjusted Dollars EFC COA Tuition Financial Need
EFC COA Tuition Financial Need 65 Source: College Board: Trends in
College Pricing FY04, Census, 2003 Current Population Reports P-60,
HCRC Custom Tabulation Slide 66 Cumulative Percent Change in
Attendance Cost, Tuition, Median EFC and Need for Independent
Colleges and Universities in CPI Adjusted Dollars EFC COA Tuition
Financial Need 66 Source: College Board: Trends in College Pricing
FY04, Census, 2003 Current Population Reports P-60, HCRC Custom
Tabulation Slide 67 Dependent Aid Applicants as a Percent of
Undergraduate Enrollment for AICAD Institutions: Fiscal 1993 and
Fiscal 2003 67 Source: DOE, FISOP Reports FY 93 and FY 03, HCRC
Custom Tabulation Slide 68 Estimated Percent Full-Pays Fall 03
AICAD Institutions (* indicates Fall 02 is the most recent data
reported) 68 Source: Common Data Set, FY 04 Release, IPEDS, Student
Financial Aid Survey, FY 03 Slide 69 Estimated Tuition Discount
Fall 03 AICAD Institutions (* indicates Fall 02 is the most recent
data reported) 69 Source: Common Data Set, FY 04 Release, IPEDS,
Student Financial Aid Survey, FY 03 Slide 70 Estimated Aided
Tuition Discount Fall 03 AICAD Institutions (* indicates Fall 02 is
the most recent data reported) 70 Source: Common Data Set, FY 04
Release, IPEDS, Student Financial Aid Survey, FY 03, IPEDS
Institutional Characteristics Report, FY03 Slide 71 Estimated Net
Tuition Fall 03 AICAD Institutions (* indicates Fall 02 is the most
recent data reported) 71 Source: Common Data Set, FY 04 Release,
IPEDS, Student Financial Aid Survey, FY 03, IPEDS Institutional
Characteristics Report, FY03 Slide 72 Comparison of Tuition
Discount Under Four Alternative Pricing-Scenarios 72 Source: HCRC
Trajectory Model Slide 73 Comparison of Average Net Tuition Under
Four Alternative Pricing-Scenarios 73 Source: HCRC Trajectory Model
Slide 74 Comparison of Net Cost of Attendance as Percent of Income
Under Four Alternative Pricing-Scenarios 74 Source: HCRC Trajectory
Model Slide 75 Comparison of Cumulative Debt Under Four Alternative
Pricing-Scenarios 75 Source: HCRC Trajectory Model Slide 76 Number
of New Entering Freshmen Under Four Alternative Pricing-Scenarios
76 Source: HCRC Trajectory Model Slide 77 Comparison of Aggregate
Net Tuition Under Four Alternative Pricing-Scenarios 77 Source:
HCRC Trajectory Model Slide 78 Comparison of Aggregate Net Tuition
Under Four Alternative Pricing-Scenarios - Under the Assumption of
Lower Elasticity - 78 Source: HCRC Trajectory Model.00010 Slide 79
Comparison of Aggregate Net Tuition Under Four Alternative
Pricing-Scenarios - Under Assumption of Higher Elasticity - 79
Source: HCRC Trajectory Model.00015 Slide 80 Emergent Demographics
and Implications for Market Geography Apart from the price and
resource dynamics already discussed, the enrollment and fiscal
future of private higher education will be profoundly shaped by the
changing social-demographic composition of a next generation of
students. To help understand how the mix of students will likely
change over the next decade, we have developed a framework for
cross-classifying families with children based on three key
dimensions: parent marital status, parent education attainment, and
race. In tandem these three characteristics serve as a highly
reliable predictor of family resources as well as the likelihood of
college participation and attainment. By arraying current youth
across these three dimensions it is therefore possible to discern
the extent to which a next generation of students is likely to come
from families with the resources and wherewithal to sustain a
healthy enrollment demand or whether the compositional changes are
likely to further tax an already burgeoning demand on aid. To help
illustrate this construct, slides 80 through 89 present a series of
cross-tabulations comparing basic characteristics across these core
dimensions for the Chicago metropolitan area. Similar slides have
been prepared for the 60 largest U.S. cities and are included in a
separate appendix. Under this segmentation, students in a given
market area are aggregated into a 36 cell matrix that consists of
nine tiers of marital-status and parent attainment and four ethnic
racial groups. A fourth dimension reflecting student age then
allows us to observe the relative growth of each segment. For
Chicago this framework suggests an increasing bifurcation in the
social background of students with disproportionate gains expected
among White Two parent Bachelors and above as well as Hispanic Two
Parent No-College families. While both the base numbers and
comparative growth of segments vary considerably from one market
area to the next, the pronounced disparity in the levels of parent
attainment and marital status drawn sharply across lines of
race/ethnicity are remarkably constant. 80 Slide 81 Number of
Children by Family Status, Parent Education, Age Band, and Race
(cells with an unweighted N of less than 30 have been suppressed)
Chicago Metropolitan Area RACE: Black Hispanic White Asian AGE:
12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 YR of
ENTRY: 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06
2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 Family/ Education Status
Two Parent- Both MA+ Two Parent- MA+/BA Two Parent- Both BA Two
Parent- One BA Two Parent- Some College Two Parent- No College One
Parent- BA One Parent- Some College One Parent- No College 81
Source: Census 2000 PUMS, HCRC Custom Tabulation Slide 82 Within
Race Distribution by Family Status, Parent Education, Age Band, and
Race (cells with an unweighted N of less than 30 have been
suppressed) - Chicago Metropolitan Area RACE: Black Hispanic White
Asian AGE: 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11
0-5 YR of ENTRY: 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18
2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 Family/ Education
Status Two Parent- Both MA+ Two Parent- MA+/BA Two Parent- Both BA
Two Parent- One BA Two Parent- Some College Two Parent- No College
One Parent- BA One Parent- Some College One Parent- No College 82
Source: Census 2000 PUMS, HCRC Custom Tabulation Slide 83 Within
Cohort Distribution by Family Status, Parent Education, Age Band,
and Race (cells with an unweighted N of less than 30 have been
suppressed) - Chicago Metropolitan Area RACE: Black Hispanic White
Asian AGE: 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11
0-5 YR of ENTRY: 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18
2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 Family/ Education
Status Two Parent- Both MA+ Two Parent- MA+/BA Two Parent- Both BA
Two Parent- One BA Two Parent- Some College Two Parent- No College
One Parent- BA One Parent- Some College One Parent- No College 83
Source: Census 2000 PUMS, HCRC Custom Tabulation Slide 84 Median
Family Income by Family Status, Parent Education, Age Band, and
Race (cells with an unweighted N of less than 30 have been
suppressed) - Chicago Metropolitan Area RACE: Black Hispanic White
Asian AGE: 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11
0-5 YR of ENTRY: 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18
2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 Family/ Education
Status Two Parent- Both MA+ Two Parent- MA+/BA Two Parent- Both BA
Two Parent- One BA Two Parent- Some College Two Parent- No College
One Parent- BA One Parent- Some College One Parent- No College 84
Source: Census 2000 PUMS, HCRC Custom Tabulation Slide 85 At or
Below Poverty Threshold by Family Status, Parent Education, Age
Band, and Race (cells with an unweighted N of less than 30 have
been suppressed) - Chicago Metropolitan Area RACE: Black Hispanic
White Asian AGE: 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17
6-11 0-5 YR of ENTRY: 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12
2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 Family/
Education Status Two Parent- Both MA+ Two Parent- MA+/BA Two
Parent- Both BA Two Parent- One BA Two Parent- Some College Two
Parent- No College One Parent- BA One Parent- Some College One
Parent- No College 85 Source: Census 2000 PUMS, HCRC Custom
Tabulation Slide 86 Number of Children by Family Status, Parent
Education, Age Band, and Race (cells with an unweighted N of less
than 30 have been suppressed) Los Angeles Metropolitan Area RACE:
Black Hispanic White Asian AGE: 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17
6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 YR of ENTRY: 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18
2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12
2013-18 Family/ Education Status Two Parent- Both MA+ Two Parent-
MA+/BA Two Parent- Both BA Two Parent- One BA Two Parent- Some
College Two Parent- No College One Parent- BA One Parent- Some
College One Parent- No College 86 Source: Census 2000 PUMS, HCRC
Custom Tabulation Slide 87 Number of Children by Family Status,
Parent Education, Age Band, and Race (cells with an unweighted N of
less than 30 have been suppressed) Boston Metropolitan Area RACE:
Black Hispanic White Asian AGE: 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17
6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 YR of ENTRY: 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18
2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12
2013-18 Family/ Education Status Two Parent- Both MA+ Two Parent-
MA+/BA Two Parent- Both BA Two Parent- One BA Two Parent- Some
College Two Parent- No College One Parent- BA One Parent- Some
College One Parent- No College 87 Source: Census 2000 PUMS, HCRC
Custom Tabulation Slide 88 Number of Children by Family Status,
Parent Education, Age Band, and Race (cells with an unweighted N of
less than 30 have been suppressed) Atlanta Metropolitan Arera RACE:
Black Hispanic White Asian AGE: 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17
6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 YR of ENTRY: 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18
2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12
2013-18 Family/ Education Status Two Parent- Both MA+ Two Parent-
MA+/BA Two Parent- Both BA Two Parent- One BA Two Parent- Some
College Two Parent- No College One Parent- BA One Parent- Some
College One Parent- No College 88 Source: Census 2000 PUMS, HCRC
Custom Tabulation Slide 89 Number of Children by Family Status,
Parent Education, Age Band, and Race (cells with an unweighted N of
less than 30 have been suppressed) New York Metropolitan Area RACE:
Black Hispanic White Asian AGE: 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 12-17
6-11 0-5 12-17 6-11 0-5 YR of ENTRY: 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18
2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12 2013-18 2001-06 2007-12
2013-18 Family/ Education Status Two Parent- Both MA+ Two Parent-
MA+/BA Two Parent- Both BA Two Parent- One BA Two Parent- Some
College Two Parent- No College One Parent- BA One Parent- Some
College One Parent- No College 89 Source: Census 2000 PUMS, HCRC
Custom Tabulation
