Nice try, but I believe that the actual growth (non-duplicated enrollment) grew by 92 students...92 students out of approximately 15,000 enrolled is a .61% increase. We aren't even getting our share of the growth generated by the increased population from 1982-1986 (when most of our students were born). Assuming average annual population growth for that period of .91%, our inccrease in enrollment should have been on the order of 130+ students this year...just to keep up with population growth. That's not including the fact that more students are going to college now, recruiting efforts are up, etc.

Try to sell your pro-Thames bulls**t elsewhere, troll.

population data taken from NPG.org

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Dave the Demographer
"Try to sell your pro-Thames bulls**t elsewhere, troll."

---

I'm not a troll, Dave. I'm one of you. I was just calling your attention to a statement in an article you might have missed this morning. I've been hearing those sorts of enrollment increase statements around here each year for many years. It's like WOLF WOLF. I've became immune to those statements several years ago.

Dr. Paul was responding to a specific ACE report. The SH Washington reporter had a set of preliminary tables -- I don't think the report is in general circulation yet -- and was distributing it earlier this week to solicit comments. I don't have the tables in front of me at the moment, but they purported to show college participation rates in the general population by race/ethnicity. (I had some problems with the rates that were shown, until I figured out that they included not just current students but also people who had ever enrolled in college.) Whatever...

Joe's reponse was quite appropriate, although we can argue the "significance" of enrollment increases ad nauseum. I have had several interesting conversations with a particular sociologist who is quite familiar with USM's enrollment trends & he has told me that USM is in fact quite effective in attracting African-American students. I think this is a good thing for USM & a good thing for Mississippi.

I'll bet that the difference between USM's enrollment in 1993 & its enrollment in 2005 is significant

USM has had increases in its minority enrollment that exceed "expected" levels.

USM as a whole has had growth over the past 12 years as well, though recent, touted growth numbers are dubious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Funny Numbers
"Can nobody answer my specific question? Did or did not USM have a significant enrollment increase for about 12 years running? That's the question. Maybe nobody has access to those figures."

---

The enrollment data can be found in the 2003-2004 Fact Book at http://www.usm.edu/ir/factbooksite.htm. See pages 36-37 for 10-year charts. To take only the Hattiesburg campus, white enrollment peaked in 1997 and has wavered at a couple hundred fewer students since then. Black enrollment has climbed steadily since 1994, the earliest year listed in the charts. The racial mix has also shifted. In 1994, the white/black mix was 79.4%/16.9%. In 2003, it was 70.4%/25.1%.

The combined Hattiesburg and Gulf Coast enrollment rose by about 1500 students from 13,046 in 1994 to 14,576 in 1997, then growth slowed. It took another six years to match the previous three years of growth: from 1997 to 2003 enrollment rose by about 1500 more students, to 15,919.

What is "significant" is up to you.

The best place to look for these data is the IHL site. For the 5 year changes go to:
http://www.ihl.state.ms.us/research/profile05.pdf
Specifically page 19 of the pdf doc (labeled as page 15) for headcount data system wide (USM's growth was 7.1%; MSU was ~ static; UM grew by 25%).
Minority population changes are given on page 30 (26 label):
USM +28% black; MSU +70%; UM +33%
None of these numbers factor by main canmpus/gulf coast campus.