Graduation and Retention Rates

Employment Rates

Assessment

Graduation and Retention Rates

Back to top

Freshman Graduation Rates

Michigan Campus
  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Initial Cohort 405 481 489 386 435 490 503 449 440 338 359
4-Year 36% 38% 31% 39% 32% 35% 40% 41% 40% 42% 46%
5-Year 48% 47% 43% 51% 47% 51% 51% 51% 52% 54% 56%
6-Year 51% 50% 44% 54% 50% 53% 54% 54% 56% 57% 60%
Back to top

Retention Rates

Freshman Retention Rates - Fall to Fall
  2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Michigan 74% 74% 77% 80% 78% 76% 82% 78% 79%

 

All Residential Campus Students Retention Rates - Fall to Fall
  2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Michigan 73% 76% 77% 81% 79% 80% 82% 79% 81%


Persistence Outlook by Cohort
Cohort 6 Year
Award Rate
8 Year
Award Rate
Still Enrolled Year
at your institution after 8 years
Did not receive an award and subsequently enrolled at another institution
Full-time, First time at any college (Freshmen) 54% 56% 0% 6%
Part-time, First time at any college (Freshmen) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Full-time, Transfer Students 82% 82% 0% 7%
Part-time, Transfer Students 57% 58% 0% 20%
Back to top

DeVos Graduate School - Graduation Rates

Graduate Student Graduation Rates
Status Fall 2010 Cohort Fall 2011 Cohort Fall 2012 Cohort
Number of students starting in cohort 176 194 170
Number of students graduating with cohort 136 152 130
Calculated Graduation Year* 2013 2014 2014
Percentage of students who graduated from cohort in which they started and within 150% of the expected completion time* 77% 78% 76%
*The number of students who earned their degrees within 150 percent of the expected completion time, divided by the number of students who began pursuing a degree with that cohort.

Figures based on data pulled June, 2016
Note: Historical data for the Florida and Texas Operations available by request.


Employment Rates

Back to top
Employment Rates by Undergraduate Major - 2013-2015 6-Month Post Graduate Survey
Undergraduate Major %
Accounting 80%
Advertising & Marketing 89%
Aftermarket Management 90%
Automotive Marketing & Management 79%
Computer Information Management 100%
Economics 80%
Entertainment, Sport & Promotion Management 98%
Entrepreneurship 100%
Fashion Marketing & Management 90%
Finance 96%
Hospitality Management 100%
International Business 72%
Management 80%
Management Information Systems 100%
Marketing 90%
Operations & Supply Chain Management 100%
Stated as the percentage of students who responded and reported being employed in their field of study.

Employment Rates - Graduate Student

Work status
Employed/Working for Someone Else 100%
Spring 2013 Cohort Graduates

 

Number of years of work experience
1 - 4 years 6%
5 - 9 years 13%
10 - 14 years 19%
15+ years 63%
Spring 2013 Cohort Graduates

 

In which industry are you currently employed?
Education 20%
Energy/Utilities 7%
Finance/Accounting 7%
Healthcare 13%
Nonprofit/Government 13%
Manufacturing 13%
Information Technology 7%
Other 20%
Spring 2013 Cohort Graduates

Assessment

Back to top

Northwood University Assessment Summary

Latest Update: 4 February, 2015

1. Purpose

This document provides a high-level overview of the Northwood University assessment system and summary data illustrating end of program performance by students.

2. Background and Context

The assessment system objectives are to:

  • Provide evidence of students achieving program learning outcomes
  • Enable data-informed decisions that improve student learning
  • Meet the current and emerging needs of accreditation agencies
  • Enable external comparisons / benchmarking across institutions
  • Achieve ongoing partnership with shared accountability between faculty and administration
  • Document and publish results and provide easy access for faculty and staff
  • Compliment effort directed at understanding students’ achievement of “Course Outcomes” as outlined in course syllabi.

The system applies to all operating units and programs and refers to the planning, data collection, analysis, and improvement planning associated with assessing student learning outcomes related to academic programs (or Majors).

The key components of the NU Assessment System are represented below.

Assessment

The system is adapted from the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program.  Each component is vital to the overall effectiveness of the system. Without defining the Approach the assessment plans are unclear; therefore, implementation is unclear. Who should collect what data? When and how should they do it? Without Deployment of the plans there is no data; therefore, no basis for performing analysis and to Learn from the Results. Without sharing the results Improvement plans cannot be created and hence programs, and the system as a whole, will not be improved.


Back to top

Common Professional Components Assessment

Each undergraduate and graduate program has detailed assessment plans. Common to all of these is the use of a comprehensive exam which assesses students’ knowledge and skills in a broad variety of core business disciplines such as accounting, finance, management, strategic planning and integration, information management systems, and marketing.

The exam is undertaken by students towards the end of their program and data is compared with students at other institutions.

Back to top

Undergraduate Common Professional Component Overall Scores

Undergraduate Common Professional Components Assessment

Undergraduate Summary Data

The above chart compares:

  • The overall CPC scores for Northwood students (blue bar) with the overall scores for other US institutions (blue line).
  • The Leadership topic scores for Northwood students (red bar)  with the scores for other US institutions (red line).
  • The Global Business topic scores for Northwood students (green bar) with the scores for other US institutions (green line).
Metric Spring
2012
Summer
2012
Fall
2012
Spring
2013
Summer
2013
Fall
2013
Spring
2014
Summer
2014
Overall CPC Target 52.5 52.5 52.5 52.5 52.9 52.9 52.9 46.5
Comparative 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52
NU Score 50.1 49.3 50.2 48.6 52.3 51.6 52.9 55
Global Business Topic Target 54.9 54.9 54.9 54.9 55.9 55.9 55.9 56.2
Comparative 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57
NU Score 54.9 54.6 55.6 54.6 56.7 56.7 56.3 54.1
Leadership Topic Target 52.5 52.5 52.5 52.5 51.3 51.3 51.3 48.3
Comparative 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
NU Score 50.5 49.9 48 48.5 51.6 50.9 52.9 57.2

The Common Professional Components (CPC) exam is an undergraduate student assessment, and is administered in the capstone Management 4800 classs.

Comparatives are scores from non-Northwood student aggregates, and they serve as a benchmark for Northwood student comparsion.
Targets are set by Northwood based on benchmarking, and historical and projected outcomes.
Score is the overall score of all Northwood University respondents, and is compared to the Target and Comparative scores.

The Overall outcome demonstrates foundational knowledge of functional areas of business.
Overall target for Northwood students is ≥ 52%

The Global Business outcome demonstrates acumen applied to the global business environment.
Global target for Northwood students is ≥ 59%

The Leadership outcome demonstrates effective leadership and interpersonal skills.
Leadership target for Northwood students is ≥ 51%

The overall score for Northwood Students is comparable to students at other US institutions and has trended upwards over the last few cycles. The scores for Leadership and Global Dimensions of Business reflect similar trends and both compare well with other US institutions.

Note: Score differences of 1-2 % are not statistically different.

Back to top

Graduate Summary Data

The following chart shows Northwood CPC overall scores (blue) compared with results for other institutions in the US (red).

Graduate Common Professional Component Overall Scores

Assessment

Northwood students perform better than those at other US institutions.

Improvement Planning

Data shown earlier in conjunction with that for other assessment measures is evaluated at least annually to identify program enhancements that will improve student learning outcomes as well as continuously improved the effectiveness of the assessment system as a whole. For example, assessment data is used when conducting Program Reviews which are a formal and comprehensive process for ensuring the ongoing relevance and quality of our academic programs.