Residence Life Annual Assessment Reportirpe-reports.colostate.edu/pdf/ResearchBriefs/Residence...May 2018 Residence Life Report 4 Demographic and Academic Characteristics This section

May 2018 Residence Life Report 1

Residence Life Annual Assessment Report

This biannual report provides information on the demographics and success levels of three different groups of

students (Residence Life students in a learning community, Residence Life students not in a learning community,

and commuter students). The first section of this report provides demographic and academic characteristics of

students by their housing status, analyzing data between halls and also within halls over a five year span. The

second section of this report examines student success data by housing status. Student success metrics include

freshman retention, third year persistence, third year persistence by second fall housing status, first year

cumulative GPA, first year academic standing, first year credit completion, and four year graduation.

Executive Summary

Over a quarter of Residence Life students (27%), were in a learning community in Fall 2016, an increase of 2.5

percentage points since 2012. Looking at the Fall 2016 cohort, Residence Life students in a learning community

outperformed Residence Life students not in a learning community and student commuters in all student

success metrics except for four year graduation rates. This finding is consistent with previous cohort trends and

supportive of previous report findings. Specifically, Residence Life students in a learning community compared

to both students not in in a learning community and commuter students had significantly more positive

outcomes when examining freshman retention, third year persistence, 30 credits completed at the end of their

first year, and good academic standing at the end of their first year. Further, Residence Life students in a

learning community had significantly higher first year CSU GPAs compared to those not in a learning

community; however, their average GPA did not significantly differ from commuters. Residence Life students

not in a learning community had significantly lower third year persistence rates, but significantly higher rates of

good academic standing when compared to commuter students.

The largest achievement gap between these three groups was for first year completed credits. Residence Life

students in a learning community had a 10.5 percentage point advantage to those not in a learning community

and a 17.6 percentage point advantage compared to commuter students. Additionally, Residence Life students

in a learning community had particularly more favorable outcomes than the other two groups in freshman

retention, third fall persistence, and first year GPA.

Contrary to the trends for other student success metrics, Residence Life students not in a learning community

had the highest four year graduation rate compared to the other two groups. Four year graduation rate is the

only metric in which Residence Life students not in a learning community had superior rates compared to

Residence Life students in a learning community. Residence Life students not in a learning community in the Fall

2016 cohort also had more favorable outcomes than commuter students when examining freshman retention,

academic standing, and credit completion. Commuters had more favorable outcomes than Residence Life

students not in a learning community for third year persistence and first year GPA.


Compared to previous years, and in alignment with overall CSU averages, there were generally less favorable

student success metrics among all three groups for the Fall 2016 cohort when examining freshman retention,

good academic standing, and whether students completed thirty credits in the first year.

Demographic and academic characteristics varied by hall and, to a lesser extent, by cohort. Overall, the

percentage of first generation students and Pell recipients in Fall 2016 decreased from Fall 2012, while the

percentage of racially minoritized students increased. Braiden Hall had the highest percentage of first

generation, racially minoritized, and Pell recipients compared to all other halls, while, generally, Academic

Village halls typically had the lowest percentages in those areas.

Methodology

The population for this report includes undergraduate students entering CSU in a fall term for the first time as

full-time students (defined as a cohort) 1. For the first section of this report (demographics and academic

characteristics), this includes both first-time students and transfer students; however, for the second section of

this report, student success metrics, only first-time students are included. The focus of this report is on the Fall

2016 cohort, but Fall 2012-2015 cohorts are also included for a five year comparison of trends. Fall cohorts were

adjusted to also include summer starts. Spring starts are excluded.

For the purpose of this report, a student’s housing and learning community status is defined at census of their

first fall term. Please note Apartment Life is included in Residence Life and broken out as a hall when

appropriate. Also, for CSU’s newest set of residence halls, Laurel Village-Alpine and Laurel Village-Pinon, Fall

2014 cohort is used for comparison data instead of Fall 2012 data as marked.

The second section of this report compares student success metrics by housing and learning community status.

The following three groups are compared (see Table 1 for population counts):

Group 1-Residence Life (LC): Entering students living in the Residence Halls as part of a learning

community

Group 2-Residence Life (no LC): Entering students living in the Residence Hallas outside of a learning

community

Group 3- Commuter: Commuter students are defined by Residence Life as a new freshmen who do not

live in the residence halls.

1 This report includes entering students only. Previous Residence Life reports included all students in the residence halls regardless of their number of years at CSU; therefore, numbers will differ when comparing this report to past years.


Table 1. Entering student counts by group and cohort

Residence Life

(LC) Residence Life

(no LC) Commuter

FA12 1,409 3,068 1,282

FA13 1,409 3,116 1,228

FA14 1,559 2,849 1,213

FA15 1,643 3,239 1,337

FA16 1,751 3,370 1,329 Note: 82% of commuters in Fall 2016 were transfer students, while only 4% of Residence Life (LC) and 11% of Residence Life (no LC) were transfer students.

Figure 1. All entering student counts by housing type and cohort

*For this report, Fall 2014 cohort was used instead of Fall 2012 cohort.

Figure 1 shows student counts over time by housing type. For more detailed student population counts by

cohort and hall, see Appendix A.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Student Counts

FA12 FA16


Demographic and Academic Characteristics

This section includes data for all Fall 2016 entering full-time undergraduates (new and transfer). The Fall 2012

cohort is included for a comparison group within the hall. The average CSU percentage for Fall 2012 and Fall

2016 are also added to the figures for reference. Please see Appendix A for specific percentages and for Fall

2013-2015 data.

Transfer Students

Figure 2. Percent of entering transfer students by housing type and cohort

Twenty-four percent of all entering students in Fall 2016 were transfer students. The majority of commuters

were transfer students (82%), while only 9% of Residence Life were transfer students (up from 5% in Fall 2012).

The majority of all transfer students (83%) were either commuters or in Apartment Life. Within Residence Life,

almost all of Apartment Life (95%) were transfer students. Over a third (36%) of students in Academic Village-

Aspen and 16% each in Allison Hall and Laurel Village-Alpine were also transfer students.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Transfer Students

FA12 FA16 CSU FA12 CSU FA16


Learning Community

Figure 3. Percent of students who are in a Learning Community in their first fall by housing type

Over a quarter of CSU students (27%), were in a learning community in Fall 2016, an increase of 2.5 percentage

points (PP) since 2012.

While Academic Village-Engineering, Academic Village-Honors, and Laurel Village-Pinon are learning community

halls (99-100%), Braiden Hall (89%) and Laurel Village-Alpine (77%) are also overwhelmingly populated with

students in a learning community. Ingersoll Hall decreased in the percentage of students in a learning

community by 76 percentage points since 2012 and Corbett Hall, Edwards Hall, and Parmelee Hall decreased by

12, 12, and 11 percentage points respectively. Conversely, Allison Hall increased in the percentage of students in

a learning community from 2012 to 2016 by 15 percentage points and Academic Village-Aspen increased by 13

percentage points.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Learning Community



First Generation Status

Figure 4. Percent of first generation students by housing type

About a quarter of CSU undergraduates identified as first generation in Fall 2016, compared to 28% in Fall 2012.

Twenty-three percent of students in Residence Life identified as first generation compared to 32% of commuter

students (down from 26% and 35% in 2012 respectively). Almost three-fourths (73%) of first generation students

at CSU in FA16 were a part of Residence Life.

Among students in Residence Life, 28% of students in a learning community their first term were first

generation, while only 20% of students in Residence Life not in a learning community their first term were first

generation.

Braiden Hall had a considerably higher rate of first generation students than other halls -- half of the students

identify as first generation. Braiden Hall was also one of the few halls to increase their first generation numbers,

while the majority decreased in numbers. Academic Village-Honors (12%) and Edwards Hall (15%) had the

lowest number of first generation students.

Apartment Life increased in their number of first generation students from 7% in 2012 to 24% in 2016 (over a 17

percentage point difference). It should be noted that 89% of entering Fall 2012 students in Apartment Life were

international students, while only 36% were international in Fall 2016. This explains some of the gap here and in

other demographic comparisons. Corbett Hall, Edwards Hall, and Newsome Hall all had the largest decrease in

the number of first generation students (9.3, 8.3, and 8.3 PP respectively).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

First Generation Students



Pell Grant Recipient Status

Figure 5. Percent of students who were Pell Recipients their first term at CSU by housing type

The number of CSU students who were Pell recipients their first term decreased by two and a half percentage

points from Fall 2012 (24.9%) to Fall 2016 (22.4%). Similarly, 21% of students in Residence Life were Pell

recipients compared to 23% in 2012. However, this decrease was not reflected in all the residence halls.

Academic Village-Aspen had a 4.1 percentage point increase and Laurel Village-Alpine and Laurel Village-Pinon

increased by 2.5 percentage points from 2012 to 2016. The number of students in Apartment Life who were Pell

recipients showed a notably large increase from Fall 2012 to Fall 2016 (15.7 percentage point increase). Again,

note the large difference is most likely attributable to the high percentage of international students in

Apartment Life in 2012 who are not eligible for Pell. Duward Hall, Allison Hall, and Academic Village-Honors had

the largest decrease, at least 6.4 percentage points, in their percentage of Pell recipients from 2012.

Similar to First Generation status, Fall 2016 Pell recipients were overrepresented in Braiden Hall (42.5%). Pell

recipients were also well represented in Ingersoll Hall (27%) and Apartment Life (24%).

Consistent with Fall 2012, Pell recipients in the Fall 2016 cohort had higher representation among the commuter

population (29%) compared to the students in Residence Life (21%).

Among the students in Residence Life, 24% of students in a learning community their first term were Pell

recipients, while only 19% of students in Residence Life not in a learning community their first term, were Pell

recipients.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

Pell Recipients



Racially Minoritized Status

Figure 6. Percent of racially minoritized students by housing type

Unlike First Generation and Pell recipient status, the percentage of racially minoritized students increased by

five percentage points from Fall 2012 (19%) to Fall 2016 (24%) and there were more racially minoritized

students in Residence Life (25%) than in the commuter population (20%).

Braiden Hall once again had the highest representation of racially minoritized students. Over half (56%) of the

students were from a minority race/ethnicity. Laurel Village-Pinon (29%) and Ingersoll (26%) were the only other

halls above the CSU Fall 2016 average (24%), while Academic Village-Honors (18%), Academic Village-

Engineering (15%), and Apartment Life (14%) were well below the average.

While Apartment Life had the lowest percentage of racially minoritized students, it has actually increased the

most, along with Braiden Hall, since 2012 (12 PP increase). Since international students are considered not

racially minoritized, this increase in Apartment Life is most likely attributable to the high percentage of students

in Fall 2012 who are international students. Academic Village-Honors and Academic Village-Engineering also had

the lowest representation of racially minoritized students, yet had one of the largest increases since Fall 2012 (7

and 8 percentage point increases respectively). Despite an overall average Residence Life increase of five

percentage points, there were low levels of change from 2012 for Westfall Hall (1%) and a decrease for Corbett

and Laurel Village-Alpine Hall (3 and 2 PP respectively).

Among students in Residence Life, 33% of students in a learning community their first term were of a

minoritized race/ethnicity, while only 21% of students in Residence Life not in a learning community their first

term were of a minoritized race/ethnicity.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Racially Minoritized Students



Colorado Residency

Figure 7. Percent of nonresident students by housing type

Over a third of entering students (34%) at CSU were not Colorado residents (up 8 percentage points from 2012).

Commuters were underrepresented (26%) in nonresident students, while Residence Life was overrepresented

(36%). Among Residence Life students, 34% of students in a learning community were not residents while 36%

of students not in a learning community were nonresidents.

Most likely related to the high number of transfer students, Apartment Life had the most nonresidents in Fall

2016 (57%), but had a giant decrease, 35 percentage points, since 2012 (92%), most likely due to the high

percentage of international students The only other decrease in nonresidents was in Laurel Village-Alpine (2

percentage point decrease from 2012 to 2016). Parmelee Hall, Academic Village-Aspen, and Westfall Hall (19,

15, and 15 percentage point increases respectively) all had the largest increases in nonresidents from 2012 to

2016.

Besides Apartment Life, the halls with the most nonresidents include Westfall Hall (43% nonresidents),

Academic Village-Aspen (42% nonresidents), Parmelee Hall (42% nonresidents), and Ingersoll Hall (41%

nonresidents). Conversely, less than a quarter of students were nonresidents in Allison Hall (28%), Academic

Village-Engineering (26%) and Braiden Hall (24%)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Nonresident Students



Gender

Figure 8. Percent of Female Students by housing type

Overall, 54% of all CSU students, 45% of commuters, and 56% of Residence Life were female in Fall 2016. These

numbers were comparable to Fall 2012 numbers. Among Residence Life students, 58% of students in learning

communities were female compared to 55% of students not in learning communities.

Over 90% of students living in Laurel Village-Alpine Hall were female. This increased by 40 percentage points

from 2012. Academic Village Honors also was female dominated (70%). On the other hand, only 28% of students

in Academic Village-Engineering were female.

Over half of students in Apartment Life (52%) were female in Fall 2016, which decreased 15 percentage points

from 2012. Laurel Village-Pinon and Allison Hall also had a decrease since 2012 (10 percentage point decrease

each).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Female Students



STEM Majors

Figure 9. Percent of students who had a major in a STEM field their first fall at CSU by housing type

On average, 39% of entering CSU students in 2016 had a cohort major in a STEM field (up 5 PP from 2012). This

is similar to student commuters (38%) and Residence Life (39%); however, while Residence Life increased the

percentage of students with STEM majors by four percentage points, commuters increased by seven percentage

points since Fall 2012. Among Residence Life, 52% of those in a learning community had a STEM major, while

only 33% of those not in a learning community had a STEM major.

Academic Village-Engineering had the most students with STEM majors. Also, Laurel Village-Pinon (80%), Laurel

Village-Alpine (64%) and Academic Village-Honors (62%) had a high percentage of STEM majors. Conversely,

Corbett Hall (24%), Braiden Hall (26%), and Parmelee Hall (27%) had an underrepresentation of STEM majors.

Although most of the halls had an increase in STEM majors from 2012 (Summit Hall, Durward Hall, and Westfall

Hall increased by 14, 12, and 9 PP respectively), Ingersoll Hall had a massive decrease (35 PP) and Academic

Village-Honors and Academic Village-Aspen decreased 8 and 5 percentage points respectively.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

STEM Majors



Greek Life

Figure 10. Percent of students who were in Greek life at the end of their first fall by housing type2

Eleven percent of students at CSU participated in Greek Life by the end of their first term. This varies largely by

whether students were in Residence Life (12%, up from 9% in Fall 2013) or commuted (4%, up from 3% in Fall

2013). Among Residence Life, 9% of students in learning communities were in Greek Life, while 14% of students

not in learning communities were part of Greek Life.

Corbett Hall had the highest percentage of students in Greek Life (19%); however, Academic Village-Aspen

(15%), Newsom Hall (15%), Durward Hall (15%), Westfall Hall (13%), and Laurel Village-Alpine (13%) were also

well represented. Apartment Life (5%), Braiden Hall (9%), Academic Village-Honors (9%), Academic Village-

Engineering (9%), and Laurel Village-Pinon (9%) all had lower percentages of students in Greek Life.

Since Fall 2013, the largest increase in Greek Life by hall was in Academic Village-Aspen and Allison Hall (9 and 7

percentage point increase respectively). Greek Life increased in all the halls except for Laurel Village-Pinon (2

percentage point decrease).

Index

CSU’s average Index in Fall 2016 is 113.22 (down from 114.26 for Fall 2012). Residence Life has a significantly

higher index (mean = 115) compared to commuter students (mean = 100.13, p < .01). The index has not changed

from Fall 2012 for Residence Life, but decreased by 10 points for commuters.

The highest index scores were in Academic Village-Honors, Academic Village-Engineering, and Aspen (means =

132, 126, and 121 respectively). Apartment Life had the lowest Index within Residence Life (mean=101) along

with Braiden Hall (mean=109) and Westfall Hall (mean=112). See Appendix A for index scores by hall and year.

2 Data for Greek Life is unavailable for 2012; therefore, for Greek Life, Fall 2013 cohort data were used for comparison.

0%

20%

40% Greek Life



Student Success Metrics

This section includes data for all full-time, first-time undergraduates. Unlike the section above, transfer students

were excluded from the following student success metrics. Three groups are compared for the past five entering

cohorts (Fall 2012-Fall 2016): Residence Life students not in a learning community (LC, n =7,529 (FA12-FA16)),

Residence Life students not in a learning community (No LC, n = 14,307)), and Commuter students (n=1,072).

The analyses focus on Fall 2016 data and utilize previous cohorts for comparison (Fall 2016: LC = 1,680 students,

No LC = 3,003, Commuter = 234). Please see Appendix B for detailed student success metrics by hall and cohort

year.

Freshman Retention

Figure 11. Percent of freshman who were retained to their second fall

Overall, 83.7% of Fall 2016 freshmen were retained to their second fall. Residence Life students in a learning

community had a significantly higher freshman retention rate (87%) compared to Residence Life students not in

a learning community (82.3%) and commuter students (80%) (p < .01). There were no significant differences

between Residence Life students not in a learning community and commuter students or Residence Life

students in aggregate compared to commuter students.

Residence Life students in a learning community consistently had the highest retention rate across the years;

however, this current year was the lowest rate among the past five years. Within Residence Life, those students

in a learning community had a 4.6 percentage point higher retention rate than those students not in a learning

community. Students in Residence Life not in a learning community had a two percentage point higher retention

rate than commuter students. This is similar to the trend in Fall 2012; however, it differs from the last two years

where commuter students had a higher retention rate (FA13) or there was a negligible difference (FA14).

89.8%87.9% 88.8% 88.8%

86.9%85.2% 85.3% 85.4% 84.8%82.3%82.5% 80.9%

85.2%86.8%

79.9%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FA12 FA13 FA14 FA15 FA16

Freshman Retention to Second Fall

Residence Life (LC) Residence Life (No LC) Commuter


Persistence to Third Fall by First Fall Housing Status

Figure 12. Percent of students who persisted to their third fall by where they lived their first fall

In alignment with freshman retention, Fall 2015 Residence Life students in a learning community consistently

had the highest persistence to third fall over the years with 81.3% of entering students continuing to their third

fall. This is above the CSU average for Fall 2015 (77.6%). Within Residence Life, students in a learning community

had a significantly higher third year persistence rate (5.7 PP) than those not in a learning community, while

commuter students had a significantly higher rate than Residence Life students not in a learning community (1.9

PP) (p<.05). Residence Life students did not significantly differ from commuter students in their third year

persistence rates when compared in aggregate. Fall 2015 is the only year commuters had a higher third year

persistence rate than Residence Life students not in a learning community.

81.6% 80.9% 81.1% 81.3%77.4% 76.4% 76.7% 75.6%75.9% 75.3% 76.2% 77.5%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FA12 FA13 FA14 FA15

Third Fall Persistence



Persistence to Third Fall by Second Fall Housing Status

Among Residence Life students in a learning community their first fall, 17.9% of students lived in residence halls

their second fall term, while 8.9% of Residence Life students not in a learning community lived in residence halls

their second fall term. Less than 1% of first fall commuter students lived in residence halls their second fall.

Figure 13 examines only those students who had already persisted to second fall. The analysis examines their

second fall housing status in relation to whether they persist to their third fall. In Fall 2016, the majority of

students were commuters (88.2%) their second fall, while 9.3% were in residence Life and not in a learning

community and only 2.5% lived in the Residence Halls and were in a learning community.

Figure 13. Percent of students who persisted to their third fall by where they lived their second fall

The vast majority of Fall 2015 students who persisted to second fall and were a part of both Residence Life and a

learning community their second fall persisted to their third fall (n = 78, 90.7%). This is just slightly higher rate

than the average third year persistence rate at CSU (89.1%). Those students in Residence Life who were not in a

learning community (n = 683) had just a 1.8 percentage point lower persistence rate and commuters (n = 2,871)

had a 1.6 percentage point lower rate. There were no significant differences by group in Fall 2015; however,

there are larger gaps in previous years particularly due to Residence Life students in a learning community their

second fall having a higher persistence rate in previous years.

96.2% 92.2%97.3%

90.7%90.0% 88.7% 86.8% 88.9%89.8% 89.7% 89.6% 89.1%

50%60%70%80%90%

100%

FA12 FA13 FA14 FA15

Third Fall Persistence by Second Fall Housing Status



Academic Standing

This student success metric can be defined as students who are on good academic standing (determined by grade point average) at the end of their first year as opposed to those on probation or who left the university.

Figure 14. Percent of students in good academic standing at the end of their first year

Among all entering Fall 2016 students, 85% of Residence Life students in a learning community were in good

standing academically by the end of the first semester (CSU average = 83%). In 2016, Residence Life students in a

learning community had significantly higher rates than Residence Life students not in a learning community (2.7

PP higher) and commuter students (4.9 PP higher); while, Residence Life students not in a learning community

had a significantly higher average good academic standing rate compared to commuter students (2.2 PP higher)

(p < .05). The trend is consistent throughout the years with the exception of Fall 2015 where commuter students

had a higher rate (1.9 PP) in good academic standing compared to students in Residence Life not in a learning

community.

86.9% 85.6%88.0% 88.0%

85.2%83.3% 85.3% 84.2% 84.0% 82.5%80.7%

82.0% 81.5%85.9%

80.3%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Good Academic Standing



First Year Grade Point Average (GPA)

Figure 15. Students’ average cumulative CSU GPA at end of their first year

Examining only those students who were retained to the end of their first spring, students in the Fall 2016

cohort had an average CSU GPA of 2.96 at the end of their first spring. Both Residence Life students in a learning

community and commuter students had above average CSU GPAs, while students in Residence Life not in a

learning community had an GPA below the university’s average. Looking at the end of Fall 2016 students’ first

year, there was only a .01 grade point difference in cumulative GPA between Residence Life students in a

learning community and commuter students; however, both groups had a significantly higher average GPA than

Residence Life students not in a learning community (.13 PP difference, p < .01 and .12 PP difference, p = .05).

This trend holds true across the years.

3.00 2.99 3.03 3.09 3.04

2.88 2.88 2.91 2.89 2.913.00 2.98 2.98

3.03 3.03

2.5

3.0

3.5


Average CSU GPA



Credit Hour Completion

Figure 16. Percent of students who completed 30 credit hours in their first year

Similar to GPA, this metric only examined those students who were retained to the end of their first spring. In

Fall 2016, half of the entering Residence Life students in a learning community completed 30 credits at the end

of their first year, which was substantially higher than the CSU average (42.9%) and significantly higher than

Residence Life students not in a learning community and commuter students (10.7 and 17.6 PP respectively,

p<.05). Also, in aggregate, all entering Residence Life students in Fall 2016 had significantly higher rates of

completing 30 credits their first year compared to commutes (p<.01).

Although not a significant difference, Fall 2016 Residence Life students not in a learning community had a 6.8

percentage point advantage compared to commuters. This is much higher than the 1 percentage point

difference seen in 2015, largely due to the decrease in the percentage of commuter students, the lowest it has

been in five years, who completed 30 credits.

49.7%

55.2%51.0%

53.4%50.3%

40.0%43.0%

41.0% 40.3% 39.5%41.9%

38.3%36.8%

39.3%

32.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


30 Credits at the End of First Year



Four Year Graduation

Figure 17. Percent of students who graduated in four years

Although there were no significant differences by group, Residence Life students (Fall 2013) not in a learning

community had the highest four year graduation rate (45.3%) among the three groups by .7 of a percentage

point and was above the CSU average four year graduation rate (44.8%). Commuter students had the lowest

four year graduation rate (5.6 percentage point lower). Fall 2013 cohort had comparable four year graduation

rates by group to Fall 2012.

Conclusion

For the majority of student success metrics examined in Fall 2016, students in Residence Life outperformed the

commuter population. Within Residence Life, students in a learning community had significantly higher success

outcomes than students not in a learning community for all metrics except four year graduation. Residence Life

students not in a learning community significantly outperformed commuter students in all student success

metrics except third year persistence and first year GPA. This was particularly apparent looking at whether

students completed 30 credits their first year. The between group trends have stayed fairly consistent through

the years.

44.4% 44.6%45.4% 45.3%

41.7%39.7%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

FA12 FA13

Four Year Graduation



Appendix

A. Demographics and Student Characteristics by Hall and Term

#

Cohort

Learning

Community

Cohort

Pell RM

Cohort

Resident

Cohort

STEM First Gen Female Transfer

Greek

Life Index

AV - Aspen 531 35.0% 18.1% 19.4% 67.8% 46.5% 21.7% 47.5% 16.8% 7.3% 120.74

FA12 135 30.4% 16.3% 19.3% 73.3% 50.4% 20.7% 53.3% 6.7% 121.38

FA13 137 24.1% 10.2% 13.9% 73.7% 47.4% 17.5% 48.2% 10.2% 6.6% 121.41

FA14 86 41.9% 24.4% 23.3% 73.3% 40.7% 25.6% 32.6% 1.2% 0.0% 120.56

FA15 80 45.0% 25.0% 20.0% 53.8% 46.3% 25.0% 41.3% 40.0% 7.5% 118.46

FA16 93 43.0% 20.4% 23.7% 58.1% 45.2% 22.6% 57.0% 35.5% 15.1% 120.66

AV-Engineering 1145 97.4% 11.8% 13.2% 74.2% 97.6% 16.5% 27.2% 0.5% 8.5% 123.88

FA12 230 99.1% 11.3% 7.4% 80.0% 99.1% 18.7% 26.1% 0.4% 122.82

FA13 232 100.0% 9.1% 11.6% 72.4% 98.3% 15.1% 27.2% 0.0% 8.2% 123.68

FA14 222 92.3% 14.9% 15.3% 73.9% 95.5% 18.0% 26.6% 0.0% 9.0% 123.21

FA15 228 96.1% 14.0% 16.7% 70.6% 96.9% 14.5% 28.1% 1.8% 7.5% 123.37

FA16 233 99.1% 9.9% 15.0% 74.2% 98.3% 16.3% 27.9% 0.4% 9.4% 126.26

AV-Honors 782 99.2% 9.6% 14.8% 65.7% 62.1% 13.0% 70.5% 0.0% 9.1% 133.25

FA12 159 98.7% 16.4% 11.3% 68.6% 61.6% 17.0% 70.4% 0.0% 133.75

FA13 157 99.4% 5.7% 13.4% 67.5% 68.2% 13.4% 69.4% 0.0% 7.6% 133.71

FA14 159 100.0% 10.1% 15.1% 62.3% 54.7% 11.3% 71.7% 0.0% 6.9% 133.29

FA15 155 98.1% 7.1% 16.1% 65.2% 72.3% 11.6% 70.3% 0.0% 13.5% 132.63

FA16 152 100.0% 8.6% 18.4% 65.1% 53.9% 11.8% 70.4% 0.0% 8.6% 132.82

Allison 1724 8.6% 19.4% 17.4% 72.2% 27.7% 20.8% 53.0% 9.6% 9.7% 112.60

FA12 346 0.0% 22.3% 15.9% 77.2% 24.3% 24.0% 59.2% 0.6% 111.53

FA13 349 0.0% 21.2% 15.8% 73.9% 27.5% 23.5% 57.9% 0.9% 6.0% 113.39

FA14 339 13.0% 18.9% 18.9% 70.8% 30.4% 18.6% 48.7% 14.5% 10.0% 112.45

FA15 343 15.2% 18.7% 17.2% 67.1% 28.6% 21.3% 49.6% 16.6% 9.3% 112.29

FA16 347 15.3% 15.9% 19.3% 71.8% 28.0% 16.7% 49.6% 15.9% 13.3% 113.32

Apt. Life 531 0.2% 15.3% 7.9% 22.6% 27.9% 20.0% 60.3% 95.7% 2.7% 103.47

FA12 87 0.0% 8.0% 2.3% 8.0% 34.5% 6.9% 66.7% 94.3% 112.40

FA13 101 1.0% 6.9% 3.0% 5.9% 26.7% 8.9% 60.4% 98.0% 2.0% 108.60

FA14 53 0.0% 15.1% 7.5% 15.1% 13.2% 28.3% 75.5% 100.0% 0.0% 108.33

FA15 96 0.0% 13.5% 5.2% 16.7% 16.7% 30.2% 63.5% 93.8% 0.0% 107.70

FA16 194 0.0% 23.7% 14.4% 42.8% 35.1% 24.2% 51.5% 94.8% 5.2% 101.11

Braiden 2074 84.3% 40.2% 46.4% 74.4% 25.1% 44.2% 59.7% 11.6% 7.7% 110.52

FA12 175 77.1% 45.7% 44.0% 76.6% 22.3% 46.9% 62.9% 22.9% 112.50

FA13 470 82.1% 42.1% 44.0% 73.6% 21.5% 39.4% 61.5% 15.1% 6.4% 111.34

FA14 486 82.7% 38.9% 43.0% 74.5% 25.9% 42.0% 57.6% 9.1% 7.0% 111.02

FA15 477 86.4% 35.2% 43.6% 72.5% 27.5% 45.1% 60.2% 8.8% 8.6% 110.24

FA16 466 88.6% 42.5% 56.0% 76.4% 26.4% 49.6% 58.6% 9.2% 8.8% 108.84

Corbett 3935 14.3% 17.2% 19.3% 75.1% 23.4% 24.2% 58.2% 1.2% 16.5% 112.07

FA12 789 31.8% 21.5% 24.6% 75.8% 20.3% 29.9% 61.1% 0.3% 112.11

FA13 781 5.0% 17.7% 16.6% 79.0% 24.8% 22.8% 58.1% 1.0% 13.6% 112.12

FA14 759 6.9% 15.7% 19.0% 76.3% 21.5% 22.8% 58.1% 3.3% 16.1% 111.59

FA15 806 8.1% 15.1% 15.1% 75.2% 25.9% 24.8% 56.6% 1.0% 17.9% 111.18

FA16 800 19.6% 15.8% 21.3% 69.4% 24.1% 20.6% 57.1% 0.8% 18.5% 113.32


#

Cohort

Learning

Community

Cohort

Pell RM

Cohort

Resident

Cohort


Greek

Life Index

Durward 1715 7.9% 22.5% 21.5% 66.3% 26.9% 25.5% 52.8% 1.2% 12.9% 112.44

FA12 392 6.9% 26.8% 20.4% 68.6% 20.7% 27.8% 52.3% 2.0% 111.14

FA13 324 7.7% 22.5% 22.8% 68.8% 25.3% 24.4% 50.6% 2.5% 11.1% 111.73

FA14 335 7.2% 21.2% 18.8% 66.6% 26.3% 25.7% 51.0% 0.3% 10.1% 112.50

FA15 321 10.9% 22.1% 21.5% 63.6% 30.8% 27.4% 53.9% 1.2% 15.9% 112.80

FA16 343 7.0% 19.2% 24.2% 63.6% 32.4% 22.2% 56.0% 0.0% 14.6% 114.18

Edwards 1757 41.3% 20.4% 18.0% 62.6% 48.7% 21.1% 57.0% 1.0% 8.5% 119.30

FA12 358 46.4% 20.9% 14.8% 66.5% 49.2% 23.7% 57.8% 1.1% 119.36

FA13 350 45.7% 19.1% 20.9% 61.4% 47.7% 22.9% 57.4% 1.1% 6.0% 118.37

FA14 347 48.7% 23.9% 15.3% 60.8% 46.7% 23.1% 55.9% 0.9% 11.5% 119.18

FA15 339 30.7% 17.1% 18.0% 63.4% 49.6% 20.6% 55.8% 0.6% 6.8% 119.37

FA16 363 34.7% 20.7% 20.9% 60.9% 50.1% 15.4% 58.1% 1.1% 9.6% 120.18

Ingersoll 1342 51.6% 25.3% 23.2% 59.8% 46.1% 25.5% 55.2% 2.3% 8.1% 114.26

FA12 332 92.5% 26.5% 24.1% 64.2% 67.2% 28.0% 57.5% 2.7% 115.45

FA13 299 87.6% 26.8% 23.4% 62.5% 59.9% 29.4% 46.5% 1.7% 5.4% 115.51

FA15 364 17.9% 22.0% 19.0% 54.1% 28.6% 23.6% 55.8% 3.8% 9.1% 112.61

FA16 347 16.7% 26.5% 26.8% 59.1% 32.3% 21.6% 59.9% 0.9% 9.5% 113.79

LV- Alpine 421 70.8% 17.3% 19.7% 66.0% 67.0% 23.5% 67.2% 13.3% 10.5% 114.98

FA14 137 54.0% 17.5% 22.6% 65.0% 63.5% 27.0% 51.1% 5.8% 8.0% 113.98

FA15 139 81.3% 14.4% 15.8% 66.9% 73.4% 22.3% 58.3% 18.0% 10.1% 116.27

FA16 145 76.6% 20.0% 20.7% 66.2% 64.1% 21.4% 91.0% 15.9% 13.1% 114.68

LV - Pinon 729 99.7% 20.3% 26.3% 62.4% 81.9% 21.9% 59.3% 3.2% 10.0% 118.27

FA14 261 99.6% 18.8% 21.1% 65.9% 79.7% 21.1% 64.4% 1.5% 10.7% 117.47

FA15 233 99.6% 21.0% 29.2% 59.7% 82.0% 23.6% 58.8% 6.0% 10.7% 118.85

FA16 235 100.0% 21.3% 29.4% 61.3% 84.3% 21.3% 54.0% 2.1% 8.5% 118.60

Newsom 1581 0.1% 22.7% 20.5% 67.0% 32.4% 24.0% 54.0% 3.5% 10.9% 113.48

FA12 302 0.3% 21.9% 16.9% 73.5% 28.5% 25.5% 57.3% 4.0% 113.75

FA13 296 0.3% 25.0% 19.6% 69.6% 32.4% 24.7% 58.4% 5.7% 9.5% 113.41

FA14 306 0.0% 22.2% 18.0% 68.0% 35.9% 23.2% 58.2% 3.3% 10.1% 114.29

FA15 329 0.0% 28.3% 24.6% 63.8% 34.0% 30.1% 48.0% 4.3% 8.8% 112.51

FA16 348 0.0% 16.7% 22.7% 61.2% 31.0% 17.2% 49.4% 0.6% 14.7% 113.51

Parmelee 1939 23.1% 18.9% 20.9% 69.8% 23.7% 22.9% 55.1% 7.7% 13.0% 113.39

FA12 414 15.7% 24.4% 20.3% 77.3% 23.2% 26.1% 53.4% 7.5% 113.22

FA13 404 20.0% 16.3% 16.1% 73.3% 21.5% 21.0% 59.2% 6.7% 11.4% 113.53

FA14 370 24.1% 15.9% 19.5% 70.5% 24.6% 19.7% 55.1% 7.8% 13.2% 114.40

FA15 366 29.8% 18.6% 23.0% 69.1% 22.1% 26.0% 54.6% 8.2% 16.1% 112.78

FA16 385 26.8% 18.7% 26.2% 57.9% 27.0% 21.8% 53.0% 8.6% 11.7% 113.02

Summit 1905 10.8% 17.8% 17.3% 71.8% 38.7% 23.4% 55.4% 6.5% 8.6% 113.85

FA12 390 7.9% 18.5% 16.4% 74.1% 30.8% 23.6% 54.4% 2.1% 114.61

FA13 385 8.3% 15.3% 15.6% 75.8% 41.0% 22.3% 53.0% 6.0% 5.7% 113.85

FA14 393 11.5% 18.8% 13.7% 75.8% 37.9% 21.9% 53.7% 5.9% 9.9% 112.92

FA15 364 13.5% 16.8% 17.6% 67.0% 39.8% 24.2% 57.4% 7.1% 9.1% 113.11

FA16 373 12.9% 19.6% 23.3% 65.4% 44.5% 24.9% 58.7% 11.8% 9.9% 114.78


#

Cohort

Learning

Community

Cohort

Pell RM

Cohort

Resident

Cohort


Greek

Life Index

Westfall 1302 0.1% 23.5% 23.0% 66.4% 26.1% 25.4% 51.5% 3.2% 11.0% 111.55

FA12 368 0.0% 25.3% 21.5% 72.6% 21.2% 25.8% 54.6% 1.4% 110.38

FA13 240 0.4% 26.7% 23.3% 72.1% 26.7% 25.4% 47.5% 6.3% 9.6% 112.15

FA14 155 0.0% 21.3% 23.2% 59.4% 27.1% 24.5% 59.4% 0.6% 10.3% 113.68

FA15 242 0.0% 23.1% 25.2% 66.9% 27.3% 29.8% 38.8% 7.9% 10.3% 110.34

FA16 297 0.0% 20.2% 22.6% 57.2% 30.3% 21.9% 57.2% 0.7% 13.1% 112.43

Commuters 6389 0.3% 30.5% 17.1% 77.5% 35.4% 33.2% 46.3% 83.2% 4.1% 105.48

FA12 1282 0.2% 33.1% 16.0% 82.1% 31.0% 35.0% 46.9% 82.2% 110.03

FA13 1228 1.1% 32.2% 17.5% 80.8% 34.9% 34.3% 45.8% 84.2% 2.9% 109.67

FA14 1213 0.1% 30.4% 16.4% 76.2% 37.2% 30.8% 45.8% 84.4% 4.3% 109.84

FA15 1337 0.0% 27.8% 16.1% 75.2% 36.3% 34.1% 47.5% 83.0% 5.2% 99.96

FA16 1329 0.0% 29.3% 19.6% 73.6% 37.6% 31.8% 45.3% 82.4% 4.0% 100.13

CSU Total 29802 26.1% 23.0% 20.7% 70.3% 37.0% 26.4% 53.2% 23.1% 9.3% 113.63

FA12 5759 24.5% 24.9% 18.8% 74.1% 34.1% 28.0% 54.0% 22.0% 114.26

FA13 5753 24.7% 23.3% 19.7% 72.8% 36.2% 26.2% 52.8% 23.1% 7.4% 114.29

FA14 5621 27.8% 22.8% 19.9% 71.0% 37.7% 25.5% 52.9% 22.7% 9.3% 114.28

FA15 6219 26.4% 21.8% 20.4% 68.0% 38.2% 27.8% 52.4% 24.0% 10.0% 112.30

FA16 6450 27.1% 22.4% 24.1% 66.4% 38.7% 24.7% 53.7% 23.8% 10.5% 113.22


B. Student Success Metrics by Hall and Term

#

Freshman

Retention

Third Fall

Persistence

First Fall

CSU GPA

Good

Standing

First Fall

Comp. 30

Credits First

year

4 Year

Graduation

Academic Village - Aspen 442 89.1% 82.2% 3.19 92.6% 59.3% 56.6%

FA12 126 93.7% 87.3% 3.26 91.7% 63.5% 57.9%

FA13 123 91.1% 86.2% 3.31 97.5% 59.3% 55.3%

FA14 85 82.4% 72.9% 2.96 89.7% 48.2%

FA15 48 89.6% 75.0% 3.09 90.9% 60.4%

FA16 60 85.0% 3.23 89.3% 65.0%

Academic Village - Engineering 1139 91.0% 84.2% 2.95 87.8% 55.9% 26.9%

FA12 229 93.9% 86.0% 2.84 85.2% 47.6% 27.9%

FA13 232 91.8% 83.6% 3.01 81.1% 59.1% 25.9%

FA14 222 87.8% 82.0% 2.92 90.1% 56.3%

FA15 224 92.9% 85.3% 2.97 92.1% 58.0%

FA16 232 88.4% 2.97 90.9% 58.6%

Academic Village - Honors 782 94.9% 91.4% 3.67 99.5% 79.7% 75.3%

FA12 159 95.0% 92.5% 3.72 100.0% 76.7% 78.0%

FA13 157 95.5% 93.0% 3.65 98.7% 83.4% 72.6%

FA14 159 94.3% 92.5% 3.62 98.7% 79.9%

FA15 155 92.9% 87.7% 3.60 100.0% 77.4%

FA16 152 96.7% 3.74 100.0% 80.9%

Allison Hall 1558 85.2% 76.6% 2.84 89.7% 39.4% 44.5%

FA12 344 83.7% 74.1% 2.77 85.0% 35.2% 42.7%

FA13 346 86.4% 77.7% 2.86 90.8% 37.3% 46.2%

FA14 290 83.8% 74.8% 2.78 91.5% 41.4%

FA15 286 86.7% 80.1% 2.92 90.5% 43.0%

FA16 292 85.3% 2.89 91.2% 41.4%

Apartment Life 23 65.2% 69.2% 2.92 76.2% 21.7% 28.6%

FA12 5 100.0% 80.0% 3.13 60.0% 40.0% 40.0%

FA13 2 50.0% 50.0% 3.79 100.0% 50.0% 0.0%

FA15 6 66.7% 66.7% 2.83 83.3% 0.0%

FA16 10 50.0% 2.68 75.0% 20.0%

Braiden Hall 1834 87.4% 78.3% 2.97 91.9% 37.0% 44.2%

FA12 135 88.9% 77.8% 3.04 90.5% 37.0% 44.4%

FA13 399 86.0% 79.4% 3.04 93.8% 38.8% 44.1%

FA14 442 87.1% 76.5% 2.92 90.0% 35.7%

FA15 435 90.3% 79.3% 3.02 93.5% 39.8%

FA16 423 85.3% 2.90 90.9% 33.6%

Corbett Hall 3886 86.4% 80.1% 2.91 92.0% 38.0% 48.7%

FA12 787 86.8% 79.8% 2.93 93.1% 38.6% 49.3%

FA13 773 85.8% 79.0% 2.88 91.8% 40.6% 48.0%

FA14 734 86.6% 80.5% 2.90 92.3% 38.1%

FA15 798 88.3% 81.1% 2.90 92.3% 37.1%

FA16 794 84.3% 2.93 90.5% 35.5%


#

Freshman

Retention

Third Fall

persistence

First Fall

CSU GPA

Good

Standing

First Fall

Comp. 30

Credits First

year

4 Year

Graduation

Durward Hall 1694 84.2% 75.2% 2.76 89.9% 35.4% 39.3%

FA12 384 84.1% 75.3% 2.74 91.2% 31.3% 39.6%

FA13 316 81.0% 71.5% 2.70 89.9% 37.7% 38.9%

FA14 334 88.0% 78.1% 2.76 87.9% 35.0%

FA15 317 87.1% 75.7% 2.77 89.6% 36.9%

FA16 343 81.0% 2.85 90.6% 36.7%

Edwards Hall 1740 87.2% 78.3% 2.97 89.5% 49.4% 42.3%

FA12 354 88.1% 79.9% 2.93 91.0% 46.0% 41.0%

FA13 346 89.6% 77.2% 2.90 87.9% 49.1% 43.6%

FA14 344 86.9% 77.6% 2.91 89.9% 47.1%

FA15 337 85.5% 78.6% 3.05 89.1% 54.6%

FA16 359 86.1% 74.1% 3.07 89.4% 50.1%

Ingersoll Hall 1311 81.8% 2.74 86.2% 35.8% 37.0%

FA12 323 86.1% 73.4% 2.75 87.1% 33.1% 37.2%

FA13 294 81.6% 72.8% 2.78 82.7% 40.8% 36.7%

FA15 350 83.1% 76.0% 2.80 89.3% 38.9%

FA16 344 76.7% 2.63 85.1% 30.8%

Laurel Vil lage - Alpine 365 82.2% 71.6% 2.85 89.7% 35.9%

FA14 129 86.0% 71.3% 2.73 85.7% 32.6%

FA15 114 81.6% 71.9% 2.90 91.3% 42.1%

FA16 122 78.7% 2.94 92.7% 33.6%

Laurel Vil lage - Pinon 706 85.3% 76.1% 2.90 88.6% 41.8%

FA14 257 86.4% 77.4% 2.94 91.4% 45.9%

FA15 219 83.1% 74.4% 2.88 88.3% 42.0%

FA16 230 86.1% 2.88 85.8% 37.0%

Newsom Hall 1526 84.9% 76.3% 2.82 87.3% 38.3% 46.2%

FA12 290 89.3% 81.7% 2.95 90.2% 43.1% 46.6%

FA13 279 86.4% 77.8% 2.80 88.4% 39.1% 45.9%

FA14 296 85.5% 74.0% 2.84 88.7% 43.2%

FA15 315 81.6% 72.1% 2.74 83.8% 33.7%

FA16 346 82.7% 2.77 85.9% 33.8%

Parmelee Hall 1789 86.0% 79.2% 2.99 92.2% 44.4% 47.5%

FA12 383 85.6% 77.0% 2.92 91.6% 37.6% 44.4%

FA13 377 85.4% 78.0% 3.05 94.5% 50.1% 50.7%

FA14 341 84.8% 80.4% 3.03 92.5% 45.5%

FA15 336 87.8% 81.8% 2.99 90.9% 45.2%

FA16 352 86.4% 2.96 91.6% 43.8%

Summit Hall 1781 85.2% 77.5% 2.92 90.8% 40.6% 49.2%

FA12 382 85.1% 81.7% 2.98 91.2% 41.9% 50.5%

FA13 362 87.3% 77.6% 2.87 90.9% 41.7% 47.8%

FA14 370 87.3% 78.4% 2.89 90.2% 37.6%

FA15 338 81.4% 71.6% 2.89 90.9% 36.4%

FA16 329 84.5% 2.97 90.6% 45.6%


#

Freshman

Retention

Third Fall

persistence

First Fall

CSU GPA

Good

Standing

First Fall

Comp. 30

Credits First

year

4 Year

Graduation

Westfall Hall 1260 80.2% 69.3% 2.71 86.6% 32.2% 39.5%

FA12 363 80.7% 71.9% 2.61 87.0% 32.2% 41.0%

FA13 225 79.1% 67.1% 2.71 86.9% 38.2% 36.9%

FA14 154 85.1% 74.0% 2.80 83.9% 29.2%

FA15 223 79.8% 64.1% 2.72 89.3% 31.4%

FA16 295 78.0% 2.79 85.3% 29.8%

No Housing 1072 83.0% 76.3% 2.94 89.7% 34.6% 40.8%

FA12 228 82.5% 75.9% 2.97 87.6% 38.6% 41.7%

FA13 194 80.9% 75.3% 2.92 90.9% 34.5% 39.7%

FA14 189 85.2% 76.2% 2.94 88.5% 33.9%

FA15 227 86.8% 77.5% 2.96 92.4% 36.6%

FA16 234 79.9% 2.90 89.1% 29.5%

CSU Total 22908 85.7% 78.0% 2.92 90.3% 41.6% 44.9%

FA12 4492 86.5% 78.7% 2.91 90.2% 40.3% 44.8%

FA13 4425 85.9% 77.7% 2.92 90.4% 44.1% 44.9%

FA14 4346 86.6% 78.2% 2.91 90.4% 41.9%

FA15 4728 86.2% 77.6% 2.92 90.8% 41.9%

FA16 4917 83.7% 2.92 89.6% 39.9%

Documents

Residence Life Annual Assessment Reportirpe-reports.colostate.edu/pdf/ResearchBriefs/Residence...May 2018 Residence Life Report 4 Demographic and Academic Characteristics This section