Online Education Statistics (IPEDS Enrollment Trend)

If you are looking for online program offered by United States' public colleges, please use this online search tool/application to find colleges offering them.

With higher education continuing to be considered the footstep to reaching personal economic sufficiency, the demand for postsecondary education continues to grow. With the growing demands, governments, states, private companies, and institutions were working hard to capitalize and meet the demands. Distance education, with its nature, overcome several traditional higher education limitations.

Basic statistics of the distance education in United States were published in the 'Digest of Education Statistics' by National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The most recent summary table published can be found here.

The table presents national level data with sector break down using the preliminary 2016 IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) data published back in Feb. 2018. The table shows two years (2015 and 2016) of data, which are of limited use in showing the trends.

The purpose of this article is to fill the gaps and present some trend data using the 'data master' data system developed by the author. Information about the data system can be found at the ITTidbit, the Youtube, and the Vimeo.

For this article, I will be dealing with the National level data only as opposed to State level data, which will be dealt with in separate articles. The data presented here would be an enhancement to the basic statistics published by NCES in terms of the years of coverage, the break down of categories, and the revision of the data. The data used are revisions published by IPEDS as of Oct. 24, 2018.

The general observations of the data are:

1. For degree-seeking students (include graduate students), which is the majority of undergraduates, the fraction of students taking online classes continue to grow.
2. For 4-year schools, public and private not-for-profit schools, the number of students taking online classes are continue to grow.
3. For 4-year degree seeking, private for-profit schools show high degree use of distance education - 65-80% vs. 15-30% for public and private not-for profit schools.

DC+50States of US; 4-year Inst.; Undergraduate Total; Any Online Course;

  Head Count : (4-year; Under)

The chart above presents the enrollment headcount for undergraduate students that taking any online course in 4-year institutions located in the DC or the 50 states of United States. The blue line represents the public 4-year institutions while the orange line represents the private not-for-profit 4-year institutions. The green line represents the private for profit 4-year institutions.

  Percent of Undergraduate Enrollment : (4-year; Under)

Head count is important, but it does not tell the whole story. Percent of total enrollment provides a different level of details. As shown in this above chart, the private for-profit institution (green line) actually utilized the distance education to higher degree while the public 4-year institution (blue line) comes next even though it has more students as shown in previous chart.

DC+50States of US; 4-year Inst.; Undergraduate Degree Seeking; Any Online Course;

  Head Count : (4-year; Under; Degree Seeking)

The chart above presents the enrollment headcount for undergraduate degree seeking students that taking any online course in 4-year institutions located in the DC or the 50 states of United States. The blue line represents the public 4-year institutions while the orange line represents the private not-for-profit 4-year institutions. The green line represents the private for profit 4-year institutions.

  Percent of Undergraduate Degree Seeking Student : (4-year)

DC+50States of US; 4-year Inst.; Undergraduate non-Degree Seeking; Any Online Course;

  Head Count : (4-year; Under; non-degree seeking)

  Percent of Undergraduate non-Degree Seeking students: (4-year)

DC+50States of US; 4-year Inst.; Graduate; Any Online Course;

  Head Count : (4-year; Graduate students)

The chart above presents the enrollment headcount for graduate students that taking any online course in 4-year institutions located in the DC or the 50 states of United States. The blue line represents the public 4-year institutions while the orange line represents the private not-for-profit 4-year institutions. The green line represents the private for profit 4-year institutions.

  Percent of Graduate enrollment : (4-year)

DC+50States of US; 2-year Inst.; enroll total; Any Online Course;

  Head Count : (2-year; enroll total)

The chart above presents the enrollment headcount for undergraduate students that taking any online course in 2-year institutions located in the DC or the 50 states of United States. The blue line represents the public 2-year institutions while the orange line represents the private not-for-profit 2-year institutions. The green line represents the private for profit 2-year institutions. One thing stand out in this chart is that the public 2-year institutions have much more students than that of private 2-year institutions.

   Percent of enrollment total : (2-year)

DC+50States of US; 2-year Inst.; degree seeking; Any Online Course;

  Head Count : (2-year; degree seeking)

Again, comparing with previous chart, it shows that majority undergraduate students are degree seeking students. For data concerning non-degree seeking students, please see the following section.

   Percent of degree seeking students : (2-year)

   
DC+50States of US; 2-year Inst.; non-degree seeking; Any Online Course;

  Head Count : (2-year; non-degree seeking)

   Percent of non-degree seeking students : (2-year)

 
=============

Data published by NCES Digest of Education Statistics:

• Compare with private, public institution show less (%) distance students. Also less (%) exclusive distance students.
• Compare with graduate, undergraduate show less (%) exclusive students but more none-exclusive students.
• For profits shows much more exclusive students (4-year) - I assuming 2-year of smaller scale and not enthusiasm about distance ed.
• 2 year, in general, more exclusive.
• public has more in-state than out-of-state; private, the reverse is true. 

Data in general show the growing trend on distance/on-line education.
For public institution, because of the mission of educate state residents, public institution, in general, enrolls state residence and, therefore, less students from out of state and less students taking distance education courses from out of state.

It, however, can be a strategy move for public institution to accept out of state students if the capacity is allowed and to recover the cost of development.

It is also interested to see if it is possible to relate fields distribution to the number of students taking online courses since, likely, some fields are more suitable for online presentation.

From policy point of view, it may not be easy to make arguments with simple head count distribution since there are many factors in deciding what is an appropriate % of online courses.

Distance education, by definition, allow students to take courses away from the campus and, in that way, reduces spaces requirement. On the other hand, the requirement for staff's time may not reduced - staff will be transferred to work on tutorial duties. In a sense, you increase the quality in liue of reduce cost.

Serve the public - student body - the whole state.
How privates contributes.

Institution size - related to distance ed. - Serve each other institution.


 here

Educational Attainment and State Income - ACS PUMS

Original Article

Summary goes here!

Educational Attainment is a measure that often used to gauge the intellectual power of a region. As a nation, it was concerned that the United State could fall behind in global economic competition and this caused various movement and initiatives try to increase the number of college graduates in the United States. While working on other projects, the author suspects the linkage between educational attainment and a state's income. This is the author's first attempt in linking a state's per capita income to the educational attainment of the state.

This article using the American Community Survey's PUMS data released by US Census Bureau to compare the educational attainment of each state. The advantage of the PUMS data is its ability to produce statistic results that is not directly available from pre-prepared tables offered by Census' website. In our case, we are interested in the educational attainment of adult population with age between 22 and 64 years old in each state.

For ranking, we will rank states with several educational attainment configurations.  See the following tables for detail.

As to the relation between per capita income and educational attainment, I will just show three quick charts at this point - it deserves closer analysis later.
* The per capita income data obtained from List of U.S. states by income on Feb. 2, 2018. The income data is derived from 2014-10 ACS data. * In general, per capita income concerns people of age 15 or older which isn't really match the age range we used in calculating the educational attainment. But assuming that the income contributed from age 15 to 22 are limited and that the adding of age 65 to 99 do change the fact much (say, the retirement income of graduate degree holder still higher than that of bachelor degree holder), the result could still be representative. A finer investigation of the situation will follow.  

For Bachelor-and-above degree holder

For Graduate degree holder

For Doctor and Professional degree holder

Of these three charts, the District of Columbia (the right most point) shows a very high income when comparing to other states. All of the three charts show high correlation values of 0.91, 0.86, and 0.79 respectively. Without District of Columbia, it brings these correlation coefficients closer. This basically reflect the fact that in two of these charts, the District of Columbia is out of line with other states. Observing the charts carefully, you can conclude that at District of Columbia, there are higher percent of master, doctor and professionals degree holders and that is why the income is high. However, these degree holders did not contribute, proportionately, as much as those in other states.
* Correlation is also done for associate degree and above and it shows lower correlation values than that of bachelor and above with or without District of Columbia.

==========
Ranking states by percent of bachelor-and-above degree holder

Stt Nm	2010 Rank	2011 Rank	2015 Rank	2016 Rank	2010 %	2011 %	2015 %	2016 %
District of Columbia	1	1	1	1	52.5%	53.2%	57.4%	58.3%
Massachusetts	2	2	2	2	41.6%	41.7%	43.0%	43.7%
Connecticut	3	3	3	3	37.5%	37.8%	39.3%	39.8%
New Jersey	4	4	4	4	37.3%	37.4%	38.9%	39.5%
Maryland	5	5	5	5	37.2%	37.3%	38.7%	39.0%
Colorado	6	6	6	6	36.5%	36.7%	37.9%	38.3%
Virginia	7	7	7	7	35.4%	35.7%	37.4%	37.9%
Vermont	8	8	8	10	34.8%	35.5%	36.6%	36.1%
New York	9	10	9	8	34.5%	34.8%	36.2%	36.6%
New Hampshire	10	9	10	9	34.5%	34.8%	36.1%	36.6%
Minnesota	11	11	11	11	33.5%	33.7%	35.4%	35.6%
Rhode Island	12	12	13	13	32.6%	32.9%	33.2%	33.8%
Illinois	13	13	12	12	32.6%	32.8%	34.2%	34.7%
Washington	14	14	14	14	31.2%	31.3%	32.6%	33.3%
Kansas	15	15	15	16	31.1%	31.2%	31.9%	32.3%
North Dakota	16	18	22	22	30.3%	29.7%	29.9%	30.3%
California	17	16	18	19	30.1%	30.1%	31.0%	31.5%
Hawaii	18	17	19	18	30.1%	29.9%	30.9%	31.5%
Nebraska	19	19	16	15	29.8%	29.7%	31.7%	32.4%
Oregon	20	20	21	21	29.3%	29.4%	30.4%	31.1%
Pennsylvania	21	21	17	17	29.3%	29.4%	31.0%	31.7%
Delaware	22	23	20	20	28.9%	28.5%	30.8%	31.4%
Montana	23	22	28	29	28.8%	29.2%	28.7%	28.9%
Utah	24	24	23	24	28.7%	28.4%	29.5%	29.9%
Georgia	25	25	26	27	28.0%	28.2%	29.1%	29.6%
Wisconsin	26	27	25	23	27.6%	27.6%	29.3%	29.9%
Maine	27	26	24	26	27.6%	28.0%	29.5%	29.7%
Iowa	28	28	29	28	27.4%	27.4%	28.7%	29.2%
North Carolina	29	29	27	25	27.3%	27.4%	29.1%	29.8%
South Dakota	30	31	32	31	27.2%	27.3%	27.7%	28.5%
Missouri	31	30	30	30	27.0%	27.3%	28.5%	28.8%
Michigan	32	32	31	32	26.7%	26.7%	27.9%	28.3%
Florida	33	33	35	35	26.6%	26.4%	27.3%	27.7%
Alaska	34	34	36	36	26.4%	26.2%	27.0%	27.5%
Arizona	35	37	37	37	26.1%	25.8%	26.7%	27.1%
Texas	36	36	34	34	26.0%	26.2%	27.4%	27.9%
Ohio	37	35	33	33	26.0%	26.2%	27.4%	28.0%
South Carolina	38	39	39	38	24.8%	24.7%	25.8%	26.6%
New Mexico	39	40	43	43	24.7%	24.4%	24.6%	24.8%
Idaho	40	38	41	42	24.7%	25.0%	25.3%	25.5%
Indiana	41	41	42	41	24.1%	24.2%	25.3%	25.9%
Tennessee	42	43	38	39	24.0%	24.1%	26.0%	26.5%
Wyoming	43	42	40	40	23.6%	24.2%	25.7%	25.9%
Oklahoma	44	44	44	44	23.3%	23.4%	24.5%	24.7%
Alabama	45	45	45	45	22.9%	22.9%	23.9%	24.4%
Kentucky	46	46	46	46	21.8%	21.7%	23.2%	23.7%
Nevada	47	47	48	48	21.6%	21.6%	22.0%	22.2%
Louisiana	48	48	47	47	21.5%	21.6%	22.8%	23.2%
Mississippi	49	50	50	51	20.1%	20.1%	20.6%	20.8%
Arkansas	50	49	49	49	20.1%	20.4%	21.8%	22.1%
West Virginia	51	51	51	50	18.8%	19.2%	20.5%	20.9%

==========
Ranking states by percent of graduate degree holder

Stt Nm	2010 Rank	2011 Rank	2015 Rank	2016 Rank	2010 %	2011 %	2015 %	2016 %
District of Columbia	1	1	1	1	26.5%	26.7%	29.8%	30.6%
Massachusetts	2	2	2	2	16.4%	16.5%	17.3%	17.6%
Maryland	3	3	3	3	15.6%	15.6%	16.4%	16.6%
Connecticut	4	4	4	4	15.2%	15.4%	16.0%	16.2%
Virginia	5	5	5	5	13.7%	13.8%	14.8%	15.1%
New York	6	6	6	6	13.7%	13.8%	14.3%	14.4%
New Jersey	7	7	7	7	13.2%	13.2%	13.7%	14.0%
Vermont	8	8	9	9	12.3%	12.5%	12.7%	12.8%
Colorado	9	9	8	8	12.0%	12.1%	12.7%	13.0%
Rhode Island	10	11	12	12	11.7%	11.8%	12.0%	12.2%
New Hampshire	11	10	10	10	11.6%	11.9%	12.6%	12.6%
Illinois	12	12	11	11	11.4%	11.4%	12.1%	12.3%
Delaware	13	13	13	13	10.9%	10.7%	11.4%	11.6%
Washington	14	14	15	15	10.4%	10.5%	11.0%	11.2%
Pennsylvania	15	15	14	14	10.3%	10.4%	11.1%	11.3%
California	16	16	17	19	10.2%	10.2%	10.6%	10.8%
Minnesota	17	17	16	16	10.0%	10.1%	10.9%	11.0%
Oregon	18	18	18	17	9.9%	10.0%	10.5%	10.8%
New Mexico	19	20	21	21	9.8%	9.7%	9.9%	10.0%
Kansas	20	19	19	18	9.8%	9.9%	10.5%	10.8%
Michigan	21	22	23	22	9.4%	9.5%	9.8%	10.0%
Georgia	22	21	20	20	9.4%	9.5%	10.1%	10.4%
Hawaii	23	24	26	26	9.4%	9.3%	9.4%	9.6%
Missouri	24	23	22	23	9.3%	9.4%	9.9%	9.9%
Ohio	25	26	25	27	8.9%	9.0%	9.4%	9.6%
Alaska	26	25	24	28	8.8%	9.1%	9.5%	9.4%
Maine	27	27	29	30	8.8%	9.0%	9.2%	9.3%
Arizona	28	29	32	31	8.8%	8.6%	9.0%	9.2%
Utah	29	31	30	29	8.6%	8.5%	9.0%	9.3%
Nebraska	30	32	28	24	8.6%	8.5%	9.3%	9.7%
Wisconsin	31	28	31	32	8.6%	8.7%	9.0%	9.1%
Florida	32	30	33	33	8.6%	8.6%	8.9%	9.0%
North Carolina	33	33	27	25	8.4%	8.5%	9.4%	9.7%
Kentucky	34	35	34	34	8.2%	8.1%	8.8%	8.9%
Montana	35	34	37	39	8.2%	8.3%	8.5%	8.5%
South Carolina	36	37	39	37	8.1%	8.0%	8.4%	8.7%
Texas	37	36	36	36	8.0%	8.1%	8.6%	8.8%
Tennessee	38	38	35	35	7.8%	7.9%	8.7%	8.8%
Indiana	39	40	42	42	7.8%	7.7%	8.0%	8.1%
Iowa	40	39	38	38	7.7%	7.8%	8.4%	8.6%
Alabama	41	41	41	40	7.6%	7.7%	8.1%	8.3%
Wyoming	42	42	40	41	7.4%	7.6%	8.1%	8.2%
South Dakota	43	44	48	45	7.2%	7.1%	7.0%	7.4%
Idaho	44	43	43	44	7.1%	7.3%	7.5%	7.6%
North Dakota	45	47	46	47	6.9%	6.8%	7.2%	7.3%
Oklahoma	46	45	45	46	6.9%	6.9%	7.3%	7.4%
West Virginia	47	46	44	43	6.8%	6.8%	7.4%	7.7%
Nevada	48	48	51	51	6.8%	6.7%	6.9%	6.9%
Mississippi	49	49	50	50	6.6%	6.6%	6.9%	7.1%
Louisiana	50	50	49	48	6.5%	6.4%	7.0%	7.2%
Arkansas	51	51	47	49	6.2%	6.3%	7.0%	7.1%

* Data in the table are labeled with the data release year. For example, the '2016' actually cover the data collected between 2012 and 2016. The value is to be interpreted as the average between those years.

Observing the above table, it shows every single state listed, including District of Columbia, is making progresses in improving its educational attainment level. Ranking with the percent difference between the first and last available educational attainment level, it shows that District of Columbia leading the improvement with a change of 4.14% followed by Virginia, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Nebraska. Rounding up the top ten, here comes the Maryland, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Minnesota.
============
Ranking states by percent of Doctor or Professional degree holder

Stt Nm	2010 Rank	2011 Rank	2015 Rank	2016 Rank	2010 %	2011 %	2015 %	2016 %
District of Columbia	1	1	1	1	10.9%	10.8%	11.0%	11.2%
Maryland	2	2	3	3	4.9%	4.9%	4.9%	4.9%
Massachusetts	3	3	2	2	4.8%	4.8%	5.0%	5.1%
Connecticut	4	4	4	4	4.1%	4.2%	4.3%	4.3%
New York	5	5	5	6	3.8%	3.8%	3.9%	3.9%
Virginia	6	6	6	7	3.6%	3.6%	3.8%	3.8%
New Jersey	7	7	7	8	3.6%	3.6%	3.7%	3.7%
Vermont	8	9	8	5	3.3%	3.3%	3.6%	3.9%
California	9	8	10	10	3.3%	3.3%	3.3%	3.4%
Rhode Island	10	10	9	9	3.2%	3.2%	3.4%	3.6%
Hawaii	11	15	18	17	3.2%	3.0%	3.0%	3.1%
Colorado	12	11	11	11	3.1%	3.1%	3.3%	3.3%
Pennsylvania	13	14	14	14	3.1%	3.0%	3.1%	3.2%
Delaware	14	16	15	15	3.1%	3.0%	3.1%	3.1%
Oregon	15	13	16	16	3.1%	3.1%	3.0%	3.1%
Illinois	16	12	13	13	3.1%	3.1%	3.2%	3.2%
New Mexico	17	18	22	22	3.0%	3.0%	2.8%	2.8%
Washington	18	17	17	18	3.0%	3.0%	3.0%	3.0%
Minnesota	19	19	12	12	3.0%	3.0%	3.2%	3.3%
New Hampshire	20	20	19	20	2.8%	2.8%	3.0%	2.9%
Nebraska	21	23	26	23	2.7%	2.6%	2.7%	2.7%
Florida	22	22	25	26	2.7%	2.6%	2.7%	2.7%
Georgia	23	21	21	19	2.7%	2.7%	2.9%	3.0%
Kansas	24	25	24	24	2.6%	2.6%	2.7%	2.7%
Alaska	25	24	20	21	2.6%	2.6%	2.9%	2.8%
Missouri	26	26	27	27	2.5%	2.6%	2.6%	2.6%
Utah	27	30	31	31	2.5%	2.4%	2.5%	2.6%
Montana	28	27	37	30	2.5%	2.6%	2.4%	2.6%
Michigan	29	28	32	33	2.5%	2.5%	2.5%	2.5%
Ohio	30	29	33	35	2.4%	2.4%	2.5%	2.5%
Arizona	31	36	36	36	2.4%	2.3%	2.4%	2.5%
Wisconsin	32	35	38	37	2.4%	2.4%	2.4%	2.5%
Iowa	33	33	28	28	2.4%	2.4%	2.6%	2.6%
North Carolina	34	34	30	29	2.4%	2.4%	2.5%	2.6%
Maine	35	31	23	25	2.4%	2.4%	2.7%	2.7%
Tennessee	36	32	29	34	2.4%	2.4%	2.5%	2.5%
Kentucky	37	38	35	38	2.3%	2.3%	2.4%	2.5%
Texas	38	39	40	39	2.3%	2.3%	2.3%	2.3%
Idaho	39	37	41	41	2.3%	2.3%	2.2%	2.3%
South Dakota	40	40	47	42	2.2%	2.2%	2.0%	2.3%
Indiana	41	43	44	45	2.2%	2.1%	2.1%	2.1%
Louisiana	42	44	42	40	2.2%	2.1%	2.2%	2.3%
Wyoming	43	41	34	32	2.1%	2.2%	2.5%	2.5%
North Dakota	44	42	39	44	2.1%	2.1%	2.3%	2.2%
South Carolina	45	47	46	46	2.1%	2.1%	2.1%	2.1%
Alabama	46	46	43	43	2.1%	2.1%	2.2%	2.2%
Nevada	47	45	48	49	2.1%	2.1%	2.0%	2.0%
Oklahoma	48	50	45	47	2.0%	2.0%	2.1%	2.1%
Mississippi	49	49	51	51	2.0%	2.0%	1.9%	1.9%
West Virginia	50	48	49	48	1.9%	2.0%	2.0%	2.0%
Arkansas	51	51	50	50	1.8%	1.7%	1.9%	1.9%

============