The purpose of this report is to describe the association between summer session enrollment and student success (measured by persistence, graduation, GPA) among first-time, full-time (FTFT) cohorts at CSU between FA19 and FA24. This report is an update of a report published in 2018.

Summary

Overall, over half of new, full-time students from the FA15 through FA24 cohorts) enrolled in summer at least once. Male, first generation, limited income, and racially minoritized students were underrepresented in the summer enrollee group. Limited income students are among the least represented group among summer enrollees, which could suggest financial concerns hinder summer enrollment for students.

Students who enroll in summer session graduated at higher rates than those who did not enroll in summer. For example, students who enrolled in their first summer graduated within four years at rates about 5 percentage points (PP) higher than those who did not; the four-year graduation rate was 54.7% for summer enrollees versus 49.8% for non-summer enrollees. The six-year gradation gap increased to 8 percentage points (77.5% versus 69.2%). For students enrolling in their second summer, the four-, five-, and six-year graduation gaps averaged about 9 PP higher than non-summer enrollees. For, reference, the overall four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates for the FTFT cohorts included in this report was 47.4%, 63.4%, and 66.3%, respectively.

Students on academic probation often successfully utilized summer session to move to good academic standing by the end of their subsequent fall term. Students who had not enrolled in summer, tended to not recover academically until the subsequent spring. Prolonged tenure on academic probation could have financial consequences for students. Limited income students on academic probation may be particularly vulnerable to attrition: the financial barriers to attending summer session as a GPA boosting mechanism may leave them on probation for a period long enough for them to lose aid.

Overall, strategies for increasing access to summer session, especially for under-represented populations, could aid in closing gaps in student success outcomes.

Methodology

The longitudinal nature of summer enrollment makes the comparisons with student success complicated from a methodological standpoint. To control for the fact that summer enrollment requires persistence beyond semesters that have large attrition rates, the association between summer enrollment status and success was measured among students who persisted to the point of having the opportunity to be enrolled in the specified summer. For instance, graduation and persistence rate differences by first summer enrollment status were measured only among students who persisted to the census of the spring semester prior to the stated summer term to ensure that both groups had the opportunity to enroll in their first summer term. Similarly, differences by second summer enrollment status were assessed only among those that persisted to their second spring semester. This was necessary to ensure that the positive associations between summer enrollment and graduation were not primarily explained by the student persisting to a term past their cohort term, which is also strongly associated with success. Because of these methodological adjustments, rates presented in this report do not match the typical cohort CSU rates. Additionally, rates in this bivariate analysis do not account for demographic or academic differences by summer enrollment status.

Demographics

Table 1, below, displays the demographic attributes of students by summer enrollment status. (See Table 6 in the Appendix for the overall profile of each of the cohorts included in this report.) Students that enroll in one or more summers are included in the summer enrollment group. The data is limited to FTFT students that persisted to their first spring semester from the FA15-FA24 cohorts.

Overall, first generation, limited income, racially minoritized, and rural students were less likely to enroll in the summer compared to their peers. Under-representation was largest among limited income students with a 7.6 percentage point (PP) difference in the summer enrollment groups (22.9% enrolled versus 29.6% not enrolled).

Student Success by Summer Enrollment

This section explores associations between summer enrollment and student success. Each student success outcome is addressed in its own section.

Persistence

Table 2 displays persistence rates by first summer enrollment, limited to students that persisted to their first spring semester.

Overall, first summer enrollment was associated with higher second, third, and fourth fall persistence. While persistence from second to third and third to fourth fall tends to decline, students who enrolled in their first summer had persistence rates about 9 PP higher than those who had not enrolled.

Graduation

Table 3 displays the percentage of FTFT students that participated in any summer session and the percentage of four-, five-, and six-year graduates. These data were limited to students in the FA19-FA21 cohorts who persisted to their second fall term and who had the opportunity to participate in at least four summer sessions and graduate in at least four years.

Summer enrollment had a slight positive association with student success. For instance, among students who graduated within 4 years, 65.2% enrolled in a summer session, which is 3.1 PP higher than all students (62.1%). About two-thirds of five- and six-year graduates participated in at least one summer session.

Figure 1 displays the gaps in graduation rates by a specified summer of enrollment in order to assess if the timing of summer enrollment was differentially associated with student success. The PP gap was calculated by subtracting the non-summer enrollment rate from the summer enrollment rate. A negative gap indicated that the summer enrolled group had a lower graduation rate compared to the non-summer group and a positive gap indicated that the summer enrolled group has a higher graduation rate. The rates from which these PP gaps were calculated can be found in Table 4.

Note: Students were limited to those who persisted to the preceding spring semester (e.g., second summer analysis was limited to students that persisted to their second spring semester).

In general, students who enrolled in summer session graduated at higher rates than those who had not enrolled in summer. For example, first summer enrollees graduated within four year at a rate about 5 percentage points (PP) higher than non-enrollees. The six-year gradation gap increased to 8 PP for these students. The association between summer enrollment and graduation was strongest among students who enrolled during their second summer (as they transition to their junior year). The students who enrolled in second summer graduated at a rate about 9 PP higher than those who had not. For students enrolling in their third summer, the gap between summer enrollees and non-summer enrollees decreased from about 6 PP to about 4 PP between the four- and six-year graduation milestones. For, reference the average four- and six-year graduation rates for the FA15-FA21 FTFT cohorts included in this report was 47.4% and 66.3%, respectively.

Tables showing the associations between summer enrollment and graduation by college and student characteristics are provided in the Appendix. Overall, the stronger association between second summer and graduation rate held across most colleges and student subgroups. For example, in the College of Agricultural Sciences (Table 8), a 15 PP difference existed in the four-year gradation rate between second summer enrollees versus non-enrollees. The first summer difference was smaller at about 12 PP, while the third summer difference dropped to about 9 PP. Second summer enrollment resulted in a 10 PP difference in four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates among Latinx/e summer students and non-summer students (Table 24).

Time to Graduation

Time to graduation is a measure of efficiency towards degree among students that graduate. The average terms to graduation represent the average count of terms (including summer and gap terms ) from a student’s cohort term (first term at CSU) to their graduation term. Overall at CSU, the average time to graduation for 2021-22 graduates was 12.4 terms (see Time & Credits to Degree), which is just over four academic years.

Table 5 displays the average terms to graduation by the number of summers enrolled for FTFT students that earned their undergraduate degree from the FA15-FA21 FTFT cohorts.

Overall, the more summers enrolled, the longer it took for students to graduate. For example, graduates that never enrolled in a summer term took just under four academic years to earn their degree (11.4 terms); however, students that enrolled in one, two, or three summer session took just over four academic years to earn their degree (about 12 terms). Students that enrolled in four summers needed almost five years years to earn their degree (14.0 terms).

Grade Point Averages

Figure 2, below, displays the average term GPA for students’ first through fourth fall terms.

On average, term GPA increases each subsequent term, e.g., third fall had a slightly higher average compared to first fall. Additionally, summer term GPA was consistently higher than fall or spring term GPA. For instance, the average first summer term GPA was 3.13 grade points, but the average first spring and first fall GPA was about 3.0 grade points. Accordingly, summer enrollment may have a positive association for increasing individuals’ GPAs, especially if they are on academic probation.

Figure 3 displays the average cumulative GPA by summer enrollment status for students on academic probation in the fall or spring terms prior to summer. Students were grouped by first, second, and third summer enrollment status with cumulative end-of-term GPA displayed for the fall and spring term preceding and subsequent to the summer term of interest.

A consistent pattern emerged when examining the cumulative GPAs of students on academic probation and summer enrollment. For students on academic probation in the fall or spring, enrolling in the summer helped them raise their GPA high enough to be off probation by the end of the following fall. Non-summer enrollees tended not to earn GPAs above 2.0 until the next spring. For example, for students on probation their first fall or spring, first summer enrollees had a second fall GPA of 2.11 compared to 1.97 for non-summer enrollees. By their second spring, first summer enrollees had further raised their cumulative GPA to 2.26 compared to 2.19 for the non-summer enrollees.

Conclusions

Summer enrollment benefited students by supporting their persistence and graduation, especially for students that struggle during the first academic year. Students that enrolled in one or more summer sessions persisted and graduated at higher rates compared to students that had not enrolled during the summer. Additionally, summer enrollment may be an effective strategy for students to move from probation to good academic standing.

First generation, limited income, racially minoritized, and rural students were less likely to enroll in the summer compared to their peers. Under-representation was largest among limited income students, indicating financing may be a barrier to enrollment for students.

Appendix

Cohort Profiles

Cohort information in the tables below are limited to FTFT students that persisted to their first spring semester and will not match previously publish data for these cohort due to this population restriction.

Summer Enrollment Graduation Rates by College

The following tables display the four-, five-, and six-year graduation rated by first, second, and third summer enrollment status for each college. Data are limited to the FA15-FA21 FTFT cohorts to students who persisted to the spring prior to the summer term.

• Table 8: College of Agricultural Sciences

• Table 9: College of Business

• Table 10: College of Health and Human Sciences

• Table 11: College of Liberal Arts

• Table 12: College of Natural Sciences

• Table 13: College of Veterinary Medicine and Biological Sciences

• Table 14: Walter Scott, Jr. College of Engineering

• Table 15: Warner College of Natural Resources

• Table 16: Intra-university

The percentage point (PP) gap was calculated by subtracting the non-summer enrollment rate from the summer enrollment rate. A negative gap indicated that the summer enrolled group had a lower graduation rate compared to the non-summer group and a positive gap indicated that the summer enrolled group has a higher graduation rate.

Summer Enrollment Graduation Rates by Student Characteristics

The following tables display the four-, five-, and six-year graduation rated by first, second, and third summer enrollment status for the subgroups listed below; students may be counted in more than one racial category. Data are limited to the FA15-FA21 FTFT cohorts to students who persisted to the spring prior to the summer term.

• Table 17: First generation

• Table 18: Limited income

• Table 19: Rural

• Table 20: Racially minoritized

• Table 21: Asian

• Table 22: Black or African American

• Table 23: Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

• Table 24: Latinx/e

• Table 25: Native American

• Table 26: White

• Table 27: International

The percentage point (PP) gap was calculated by subtracting the non-summer enrollment rate from the summer enrollment rate. A negative gap indicated that the summer enrolled group had a lower graduation rate compared to the non-summer group and a positive gap indicated that the summer enrolled group has a higher graduation rate.