In 2013, the new frame institutions enrolled 20,772 SEH graduate students, representing 3.3% of the 653,782 SEH graduate students in the United States in the core and new frame institutions (table 1). Incorporating the new frame institutions in the 2013 GSS results in marginal increases in the overall counts, and the new trend lines roughly parallel the old trend lines (figures 1 and 2).

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering.

Figure 1 Source Data: Excel file

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering.

Figure 2 Source Data: Excel file

The new frame institutions would add 11,243 part-time graduate students and 9,529 full-time graduate students to the 2013 GSS data (table 1). Including these students increases the total number of part-time students by 6.9% and the total number of full-time students by 2.0%. Including the new frame institutions in the 2013 GSS data results in a 0.9 percentage point increase in the proportion of all graduate students enrolled part time.[5] It also adds 3.8% more women and 2.8% men to the SEH graduate student population over the 2013 data. As with the part- and full-time graduate students, the changes in the trend lines for women and men as a result of adding the new frame institutions to the 2013 GSS data are noticeable but relatively small (figures 1 and 2).

The new frame institutions employ relatively few postdocs and NFRs. Thus the inclusion of new frame institutions in the 2013 GSS data would have almost no change on the trend lines for these categories (figure 3). In 2013, there were 1,048 postdocs in new frame institutions, adding only 1.7% more postdocs over the 61,942 in the core institutions (table 1). NFRs in new frame institutions account for 1.5% of the total 22,808 NFRs reported in 2013. Because the new frame institutions will not have much impact on the GSS postdoc or NFR data, this report focuses mainly on graduate students.

NFR = other doctorate-level nonfaculty researcher; Postdoc = Postdoctoral appointees.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering.

Figure 3 Source Data: Excel file

Finally, though the overall impacts are fairly small, core and new frame institutions have some notable differences in their characteristics, as do their respective graduate students, postdocs, and NFRs (figure 4). These distinctions are detailed in the sections that follow.

NFR = other doctorate-level nonfaculty researcher; Postdoc = Postdoctoral appointees.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering.

Figure 4 Source Data: Excel file

COMPARING CORE AND NEW FRAME INSTITUTIONS

Key differences between core and new frame institutions include institutional control, Carnegie Classification, the number and type of GSS-eligible graduate degree programs offered, and the number of graduate students in those programs. The first step in determining the differences between the new frame and core institutions is to look at institutional characteristics and types of units, shown in table 2.

As of 2013, there were 140 new frame institutions, compared to 563 core institutions.[6] Of the new frame institutions, 61.4% were private nonprofit, compared to 38.6% of core institutions. The new frame institutions will lead to a 5.1 percentage point increase in the overall percentage of private nonprofit institutions in the GSS. Whereas 36.2% of core institutions are doctoral research universities, there are no new frame institutions in this category. A majority (63.6%) of new frame institutions are classified as master’s-granting colleges and universities, compared to 40.3% of core institutions.

The mean number of eligible units per institution and the type of units reported by institution also vary substantially between core and new frame institutions. New frame institutions typically have only a few eligible SEH units, and only 1 in 10 units in new frame institutions reports having postdocs or NFRs (table 2). In 2013, the average core institution contained 23.7 eligible units, whereas the average new frame institution contained 3.0 eligible units. Almost all (93.6%) units in new frame institutions enrolled graduate students, but only 9.9% employed postdocs and 8.0% employed NFRs. In comparison, 80.3% of core institutions in 2013 reported graduate students, 44.2% employed postdocs, and 28.0% employed NFRs. These differences indicate that including the new frame institutions in GSS will improve the coverage of smaller research programs and diversify the survey universe.

The types of units found in new frame and core institutions also differ by field. New frame institutions have more units than core institutions in computer sciences (11.3% versus 4.0%) and psychology (11.3% versus 6.2%). The opposite is true for engineering (6.4% versus 14.7%) and health (12.0% versus 19.1%).

GRADUATE STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN GRADUATE DEGREE FIELDS

In 2013, the addition of the new frame institutions would have substantially increased graduate enrollment in multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary studies (11.5%), computer sciences (11.1%), communication (5.9%), psychology (4.7%), and health (4.3%). (See figure 5 and table 3.)[7] Determining the eligibility of students and units in these fields is often challenging because of the professional orientation of many of these degree programs.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering, 2013.

Figure 5 Source Data: Excel file

Almost one-third (30.0%) of graduate students enrolled at new frame institutions in 2013 were enrolled in computer sciences; however, more than half of these students (54.4%) were enrolled in a single degree program at the University of Maryland, University College (UMUC) (table 3 and appendix table B-3). Consequently, this UMUC program, which offers online master's and doctorate degrees, more distinctly influences the GSS estimates than other new frame units.[8] Almost all (98.2%) of the UMUC computer science graduate students were enrolled part time. Compared to students at other frame units and institutions, they were disproportionately U.S. citizens and permanent residents (98.6% versus 84.1%) and black or African American (33.9% versus 13.7%). Overall, the inclusion of the new frame institutions in 2013 would have led to a 0.7 percentage point increase in the proportion of graduate students in computer sciences (table 3).

By contrast, only 5.0% of graduate students in new frame institutions were enrolled in engineering in 2013, compared to 24.2% of students in core institutions. Though the graduate students from new frame institutions in these five fields show larger-than-average increases, their effect on the overall change in these fields is minimal.

GRADUATE STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Graduate students enrolled in new frame and core institutions in 2013 differed by enrollment status, demographic characteristics, and financial support. Larger proportions of graduate students in new frame institutions enrolled part time; were women; U.S. citizens or permanent residents; ethnic or racial minorities; and self-funded their graduate education (tables 4 and 5, figures 6 and 7).[9]

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering, 2013.

Figure 6 Source Data: Excel file

NOTE: Ethnicity and race data are available only for U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering, 2013.

Figure 7 Source Data: Excel file

Enrollment Status

One of the largest differences between core and new frame institutions is enrollment status. Almost three-fourths (74.1%) of graduate students at core institutions were enrolled full time in 2013 (table 4 and figure 6). By contrast, part-time enrollment (54.1%) was more prevalent than full-time enrollment (45.9%) among graduate students in new frame institutions in 2013. Among public new frame institutions, 71.0% of graduate students were enrolled part time (appendix table B-4), a much higher proportion of part-time graduate enrollment than for in all other institution control types (27.1% in public core institutions, 38.4% in private nonprofit new frame institutions, 22.2% in private nonprofit core institutions, and 41.4% in for-profit core institutions).

Sex

In 2013, men were the majority (54.0%) of the GSS-eligible graduate student population in core institutions, whereas women were the majority (53.8%) in new frame institutions (table 4 and figure 6). The proportion of women among graduate students at public core, public new frame, and private nonprofit core institutions was similar (45.1%, 46.4%, and 46.9% women, respectively; see appendix table B-4). The distribution of graduate students by sex was very different among private nonprofit new frame institutions and for-profit core institutions, with women constituting 60.7% and 73.3%, respectively.

In contrast to the core institutions, where more women enrolled part time than men in 2013 (26.9% and 25.1%, respectively), 58.2% of men attended new frame institutions part time as compared to 50.6% of women (table 4). Including new frame institutions will lead to a 0.2 percentage point increase in the proportion of female graduate students in the GSS.

Citizenship

Foreign graduate students are much more prevalent at core institutions than at new frame institutions. In 2013, only 13.6% of the graduate students at new frame institutions had temporary visas, as compared to 31.1% at core institutions (table 4 and figure 6). For-profit core institutions enrolled the highest percentages of U.S. citizens and permanent residents (98.6%), followed by public new frame institutions (93.7%), private nonprofit new frame institutions (79.7%), public core institutions (69.8%), and private nonprofit core institutions (65.2%, see appendix table B-4).

At both core and new frame institutions in 2013 more foreign graduate students than their American peers were men and enrolled full time. However, foreign graduate students who are either female or enrolled part time are more common at new frame institutions (table 4). In 2013, 64.0% of graduate students on temporary visas at core institutions were men; of these foreign male students 88.9% were enrolled full time. At new frame institutions, these percentages were 57.7% and 75.0%, respectively. Unlike their American peers at new frame institutions, a higher proportion of male than female temporary visa holders enrolled full time; 77.9% of male temporary visa holders at new frame institutions enrolled full time as compared to 70.9% of female temporary visa holders, 46.8% of female U.S. citizens and permanent residents, and 34.5% of male U.S. citizens and permanent residents enrolled full time.

As with core institutions in 2013, smaller proportions of women than men attending frame institutions were temporary visa holders (10.6% versus 16.9%, respectively). Including new frame institutions in the 2013 data increases the number of U.S. citizens and permanent residents in the GSS data collection by about 4.1% and results in a 0.6 percentage point decline in the overall proportion of temporary visa holders.

Race and Ethnicity

As compared to graduate students at core institutions, a much higher percentage of students at new frame institutions are underrepresented minorities (table 4 and figure 7). Among U.S. citizens and permanent residents enrolled in SEH graduate programs in 2013, the majority (64.5%) of graduate students at core institutions were white, 8.5% were black or African American, and 8.5% were Hispanic or Latino. In contrast, less than half (48.4%) of the graduate students at new frame institutions in 2013 were white, 19.7% were black or African American, and 13.2% were Hispanic or Latino. Proportionally, new frame institutions enrolled almost twice as many underrepresented minority graduate students than core institutions (33.8 % versus 17.8%, table 4).[10]

At both core and new frame institutions, fewer U.S. citizens and permanent residents from underrepresented minority groups enrolled in SEH graduate programs full time compared to their white peers (table 4). Aggregating across minority groups, 39.0% of underrepresented minorities were enrolled full time at new frame institutions in 2013 as compared to 43.7% of whites at new frame institutions, and to 61.7% of underrepresented minorities and 69.0% of whites at core institutions. Within each racial and ethnic group, larger proportions of women enrolled in new frame institutions attended full time (6.7 percentage points to 25.7 percentage points).

Graduate enrollment by race and ethnicity varies substantially by type of institutional control (appendix table B-4). Slightly more than 4 of 10 (40.2%) U.S. citizens or permanent residents enrolled in SEH graduate programs at for-profit core institutions were black or African American; at public new frame institutions, 26.9% were black or African American. These proportions far exceeded those seen at public core; private nonprofit core; and private nonprofit new frame institutions (7.8%, 7.9%, and 11.8%, respectively). By contrast, Hispanics or Latinos were disproportionately enrolled at private nonprofit new frame institutions (18.7%), Asians at private nonprofit core institutions (10.9%), and whites at public core institutions (67.2%).

Including the new frame institutions would lead to a 6.3% increase in the number of Hispanic or Latino graduate students and a 9.5% increase in the number of black or African American graduate students in the GSS (table 4). Compared to men at new frame institutions, more female students attending these institutions were Hispanic or Latino (12.1% versus 14.0%, respectively) and similar proportions were black or African American (19.9% compared to 19.4%). These data would represent a 0.2 percentage point increase in the proportion of Hispanic or Latino graduate students, a 0.4 percentage point increase in the proportion of black or African American graduate students, a 0.6 percentage point decline in the proportion of white graduate students, and a 0.1 percentage point decline in the proportion of Asian graduate students in the 2013 GSS data.

GRADUATE STUDENT FINANCIAL SUPPORT

Full-time students in new frame institutions funded their graduate education differently than full-time students in core institutions in 2013. More than three-fourths (77.6%) of full-time new frame institution graduate students were primarily self-supported, compared to only 37.7% of full-time graduate students in core institutions (table 5). Self-support among full-time graduate students was more prevalent at private nonprofit new frame institutions (83.3%) than public new frame institutions (64.6%), though the greatest proportion of primarily self-supported graduate students was seen at for-profit core institutions (96.4%, appendix table B-4).

Four times as many full-time graduate students at core institutions than those at new frame institutions were supported primarily by federal funds (16.4% versus 4.3%). Of those receiving federal support, twice as many graduate students at core institutions had research assistantships compared to those at new frame institutions (72.3% versus 31.1%, respectively; see table 5). The primary source of support for graduate students at core institutions in 2013 was institutional funding (40.4%), just under half (45.7%) of these students were supported through teaching assistantships. Among new frame institutions, only 22.3% of the 16.5% of graduate students receiving institutional funding as primary support had teaching assistantships. At both new frame and core institutions, larger percentages of women were self-supported (81.0% of new frame, and 41.2% of core) than men (72.9% of new frame, and 34.8% of core).

Less is known about the funding mechanisms for full-time graduate students in new frame institutions. Almost half (43.8%) of full-time graduate students at new frame institutions were funded primarily through institutional funding mechanisms other than the traditional research assistantships, teaching assistantships, fellowships, and traineeships. By comparison, only 13.0% of full-time students attending core institutions were funded through these other mechanisms. Including the new frame institutions in the 2013 GSS would have led to a 4.2% increase in the number of full-time students who relied primarily on self-support and a 0.8 percentage point change in the proportion of self-supported graduate students.

POSTDOCS AND NONFACULTY RESEARCHERS

The impact of incorporating new frame institutions in the 2013 GSS is much less in the data for postdocs and NFRs than for graduate students. Forty-two units in 15 new frame institutions employed a total of 1,048 postdocs, and 34 units in 14 new frame institutions employed 343 NFRs (tables 2 and 6). Adding new frame institution postdocs would result in a 1.7% increase in the total number of postdocs and a 1.5% increase in the number of NFRs (table 6).

Postdocs at new frame institutions were clustered in the biological sciences. Three-quarters (75.5%) of postdocs at new frame institutions (compared to 31.2% at core institutions) were in the biological sciences (table 6). Adding new frame institution postdocs to the 2013 GSS would lead to a 4.1% increase and a 0.7 percentage point increase in the proportion of postdocs in the biological sciences. Similar to the graduate student enrollment data, substantially fewer new frame postdocs were employed within engineering and health sciences units. Whereas 11.5% of core institution postdocs were in engineering fields and 29.9% were in the health sciences fields, only 2.2% of postdocs at new frame institutions were in these two fields combined.

Among postdocs at new frame institutions who were U.S. citizens and residents, 25.2% were Asian and 8.5% were Hispanic, higher than the 18.4% and 5.0%, respectively, of postdocs working at core institutions. Adding the new frame institutions will result in a 2.2% increase in Hispanic postdocs. In 2013, a larger percentage of new frame institution postdocs were on temporary visas (62.9%) than the postdocs at core institutions (52.3%), which will lead to a 2.0% increase in postdocs on temporary visas.

Primary sources of funding for postdocs in new frame and core institutions are also different. Approximately one-third (36.0%) of postdocs at new frame institutions primarily received other nonfederal funding, a much larger percentage than the 16.9% of core institution postdocs (table 6). Smaller percentages of postdocs at new frame institutions received institutional support than did postdocs at core institutions (9.5% versus 19.8%). Most postdocs in new frame institutions were at private nonprofit institutions (96.4%), compared to 45.3% of postdocs at core institutions.

As with postdocs, NFRs at new frame institutions were clustered in the biological sciences and few were in engineering or health units. Adding the new frame institutions would increase the total number of NFRs in the biological sciences by 4.3%, leading to a 0.8 percentage point increase in the proportion of NFRs in the biological sciences (table 6). The proportion of NFRs in engineering and health would decline by 0.1 and 0.4 percentage points, respectively, because only 3.8% of NFRs at new frame institutions worked in engineering and 2.3% in health sciences (compared to 11.1% and 26.9% of NFRs at core institutions). Finally, 91.5% of NFRs in new frame institutions were at private nonprofit institutions, compared to 38.2% of NFRs in core institutions.

Note

[5] Percentage point (PP) change is the percent distribution of all institutions minus the percent distribution of core institutions. The PP change (rather than the percent change) describes the consequences of adding the new frame institutions in the GSS trend data. For example, part-time graduate students represented 25.9% of the graduate students in the core institutions and 26.8% in the core plus new frame institutions. Thus, adding the new frame institutions will result in a 0.9 PP increase in part-time graduate enrollment in 2013.

[6] In 2013, Rowan University (a new frame institution) acquired the New Jersey School of Osteopathic Medicine previously of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. In doing so, Rowan University became a mix of new frame and core institution. For this analysis, Rowan University is considered a new frame institution, but the students enrolled in the New Jersey School of Osteopathic Medicine are considered part of the core institution. Thus some numbers in this report will not match published figures for the 2013 and 2014 GSS, where Rowan was counted as a core institution.

[7] Appendix tables B-1 and B-2 present detailed estimates of graduate enrollment in computer sciences and multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary studies, respectively.

[8] For details on the UMUC online master's and doctoral degrees, see http://www.umuc.edu/academic-programs/masters-degrees/index.cfm.

[9] More detailed information is available in appendix tables B-4 and B-5. Appendix table B-4 divides the students in core and new frame institutions by the public and private status and nonprofit status of the institutions. Appendix table B-5 examines the student characteristics based on enrollment in core and new frame institutions; appendix tables B-5 and B-6 include estimates of the percentage of each type of student enrolled in new frame institutions, the percentage of core and new frame institution students, and the percentage and percentage point change in the overall estimates as a result of adding new frame institutions.

[10] Underrepresented minorities include blacks, Hispanics, American Indians or Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders.