Office of Institutional Research

This summer the Office of Institutional Research took a fresh look at the most current data available on core characteristics for our 45 peers. The analysis we did focused on changes over a two-year period and the results are summarized in this memo.  The actual peer data is appended to this report.

Although national data on universities is gradually becoming more timely as the web is used more effectively, there is still a longer lag than we would like in some of the data elements.  In addition, to be as current as possible, we cannot look at the same two-year window for all data elements.  The collection periods for the different data elements are clearly indicated in the column headers.

This report contains no data on the faculty such as size, diversity, and percent tenured because of a gap in the collection of faculty data. For budgetary reasons IPEDS did not collect detailed faculty data for the fall of 2000, but they resumed collecting it in the fall of 2001. We expect IPEDS to release this data on the web in the next few months.  When it is available, we will compare it with the faculty data for fall 1999.

A similar comment applies to research and graduate student data. Although we have the data for FY 2000, it appears that FY 2000 was a nadir for Lehigh in research expenditures and related activities. The following year Lehigh reported research expenditures to NSF that had increased by 4 million dollars.  Thus it would be more constructive to wait until FY 2001 data is available and use it to gauge the turnaround.

Since there have been discussions about whether or not Lehigh should grow slightly larger, we examined the growth of our peers from the fall of 1998 to the fall of 2000.  The US News data was used because it more accurately represents the size of the traditional freshman classes at Lehigh’s peers and usually does not include students in special part time programs that serve local communities. The latter must be included in the IPEDS data.

Without a doubt there has been growth. The peer set increased its total undergraduate body by roughly 2500 at the rate of 56 students per campus.  Lehigh reported 198 more undergraduates on campus in the fall of 2000 than in the fall of 1998.  The data does include some outliers that might not represent real changes.  When changes (positive and negative) of over 500 are removed, there is still a net growth of roughly 2500 students at a rate of 66 per university.

The data also shows a general increase in selectivity among the peers.  Acceptance rates were down (-5.04%), the percent of first year students in the top 10% of their high school classes was up (1.2%), and the average SAT scores were up (9 points).  Moreover, this appears to be part of a continuing trend among private universities.  For example, a recent HEDS report shows this trend over a longer period of time. Thus becoming more competitive with the top 25 universities in selectivity will require Lehigh not just to increase its selectivity indicators but to beat the average increases of it peers.

The general increase in the average SAT scores of first year students at peer institutions appears to be continuing.  The average increase from the fall of 1998 to the fall of 2000 was almost 9 points with a median of 5 points.  None of the peers had a decrease of more than 15 points, and Lehigh was one of eleven institutions to report an increase of at least 20 points.  Lehigh’s 29-point increase from the fall of 1998 to the fall of 2000 is a good start toward increased selectivity among its peers.

Lehigh did not fare as well in the other two selectivity indicators.  The percent of first year students in the top 10% of their high school classes declined 2% at Lehigh from the fall of 1998 to the fall of 2000.  Since there is a 0.6 correlation between the average SAT scores and the percent of first year students in the top 10% of their high school classes, Lehigh’s decrease is surprising in light of the healthy increase in the average SAT score. 

Although Lehigh’s acceptance rate declined rather sharply by 6% to 46%, it only beat the average decline of the peer set by 1%.  Only two peers reported an increase in their freshman acceptance rate and five reported no change.  When coupled with the above comments on selectivity among Lehigh’s peers, it appears that universities like Lehigh continue to enjoy a strong market demand for the traditional four year residential college experience they offer to the eighteen year old high school graduate.

The median endowment of the 41 peers reporting the market value of their endowment is now a billion dollars and change and the median increase over 2 years was slightly over 200 million dollars, which is more than the smallest five endowments in the peer set.  Lehigh is positioned firmly just below the median in the second quartile and in the company of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, George Washington University, Georgetown University, Carnegie Mellon University, Southern Methodist University, and Wake Forest University.

The average increase for tuition was $2,137 and $621 for room and board, but the average increase in financial aid was only $1,696.  There was also a broad decrease across the peers in the percent of undergraduate with financial aid.  It increased at only 4 schools, remained the same at 5, and decreased at 34.  The average decrease was 4.34%, close to Lehigh’s reported 4% decrease.

Last Update: 07/20/2007