Minority-Serving Higher Education Institutions: Analysis of Selected Institutional and Student Characteristics

CRS Report for Congress
Minority-Serving Higher Education Institutions:
Analysis of Selected Institutional and
Student Characteristics
November 16, 2004
Charmaine Mercer
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
James B. Stedman
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Minority-Serving Higher Education Institutions:
Analysis of Selected Institutional and
Student Characteristics
Summary
Federal education policy recognizes different groups of minority-serving
institutions (MSIs) of higher education and targets financial resources to them. As
the Congress considers the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA), it
will be deliberating on programs directing aid to MSIs. In this report, selected
characteristics of five MSI groups are analyzed. This analysis helps to address
several questions relevant to federal policymaking. These include how MSIs are
defined, the role they play in educating minority students, the diversity within and
among MSIs, their geographic distribution, and the racial, ethnic, and income
characteristics of their students. This report will be updated as warranted by major
legislative or other relevant developments.
For the purposes of this analysis MSIs include all Title IV eligible institutions
that are in at least one of the following groups: majority-minority institutions
(MMIs) — institutions where minority enrollment exceeds 50% of total enrollment;
historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) — institutions eligible for HEA,
Title III, Part B; Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) — institutions where full-time
undergraduate enrollment is at least 25% Hispanic; tribal colleges and universities
(TCUs) — institutions eligible for HEA, Title III, Section 316; and Alaska Native
and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions (ANNHIs) — current recipients of HEA aid
targeted to these institutions (undergraduate enrollment is at least 20% Alaska Native
or 10% Native Hawaiian). Some institutions are in more than one MSI group.
Certain institutional and student characteristics are shared by many MSIs, yet
there is substantial diversity among these institutions. A significant portion of MSIs
in the aggregate are two-year public institutions (41%). Yet, nearly all HBCUs are
four-year institutions (87%). Most MSIs are small, often enrolling fewer than 1,000
students; yet 10% of HSIs enroll 20,000 or more students. MSIs are located
primarily in the southern and coastal states, many in areas with high concentrations
of particular racial/ethnic groups. Though most states have MSIs, a few have none.
The total students in each group of MSIs differs markedly — some 13,000
undergraduates are in ANNHIs, but over 2 million are in MMIs. Students in MSIs
are predominantly from minority backgrounds — ranging from about 60% to over
80% of undergraduate enrollment. MSIs play an important role in educating minority
students, often accounting for large shares of students from different minority groups
(MSIs in the aggregate enroll 61% of all Hispanic undergraduates). Nevertheless,
with the exception of Hispanic students, the majority of students from individual
minority groups do not attend MSIs. Large percentages of students at some MSIs are
low income.
MSIs account for significant shares of all undergraduate degrees awarded to
minorities, particularly for Hispanics (HSIs award more than 40% of Hispanic
Bachelors degrees). The relative distribution of fields in which these degrees are
awarded does not differ for most MSIs from that of all undergraduate degrees.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Informing Federal Policy........................................1
Defining the Groups............................................2
Majority-Minority Institutions................................3
Historically Black Colleges and Universities....................3
Hispanic-Serving Institutions.................................4
Tribal Colleges and Universities..............................4
Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions...........4
Minority-Serving Institutions.................................5
Postsecondary Education Institutions..........................5
Data ........................................................5
Characteristics of MSIs.............................................6
Institutional Characteristics......................................6
Type and Control..........................................6
Highest Degree Awarded....................................7
Enrollment Size...........................................8
Location .................................................8
Student Characteristics.........................................12
Race and Ethnicity........................................12
Economic Status of Students................................14
Undergraduate Degrees Awarded................................16
Conclusion ......................................................21
List of Figures
Figure 1. Geographic Distribution of MSIs..............................9
Figure 2. Geographic Distribution of MMIs............................10
Figure 3. Geographic Distribution of HBCUs..........................10
Figure 4. Geographic Distribution of HSIs.............................11
Figure 5. Geographic Distribution of TCUs............................11
Figure 6. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Academic Field Within
MMIs, 2001-2002............................................18
Figure 7. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Academic Field Within
HBCUs, 2001-2002...........................................18
Figure 8. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Academic Field Within
HSIs, 2001-2002.............................................19
Figure 9. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Field Within ANNHIs,
2001-2002 ..................................................19
Figure 10. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Field Within TCUs,
2001-2002 ..................................................20
Figure 11. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Academic Field Within
MSIs, 2001-2002.............................................20
Figure 12. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Field Within
“Universe” of Institutions, 2001-2002.............................21

List of Tables
Table 1. Groups of Institutions by Type and Control......................6
Table 2. Highest Degree Awarded....................................7
Table 3. Distribution of MSIs by Enrollment Size, Fall 2001...............8
Table 4. MSI Undergraduate Enrollment, Fall 2001......................12
Table 5. Number and Percentage of Undergraduates by Institutional
Group and Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2001.............................13
Table 6. Share of All Minority Undergraduates in MSIs, Fall 2001..........14
Table 7. Share of Undergraduate Enrollment Receiving Pell Grants,
2001-2002 ..................................................15
Table 8. Undergraduate Degrees Awarded by MSIs, 2001-2002............16
Table 9. Share of All Minority Undergraduate Degrees Awarded by
Different Groups of MSIs, 2001-2002.............................17

Minority-Serving Higher Education
Institutions: Analysis of Selected
Institutional and Student Characteristics
Introduction
Federal education policy recognizes different groups of minority¹-serving
institutions (MSIs) of higher education and targets financial resources to them.² As
the Congress considers the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA), it
will be deliberating on key programs directing aid to these institutions.³ A better
understanding of the diversity and range of attributes of the various groups of
institutions that are often collectively described as MSIs may assist in this federal
policymaking process.
This report analyzes selected characteristics of the institutions and students
making up five separate MSI groups of institutions — majority-minority institutions
(MMIs), historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-serving
institutions (HSIs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions
(ANNHIs), and tribal colleges and universities (TCUs). The definition of each of
these groups of institutions is provided below. Data on MSIs in the aggregate are
also analyzed.
Informing Federal Policy
The MSIs analyzed here are tied directly to current federal programs and
provisions (see following section). This analysis will help address a number of basic
background questions relevant to federal policymaking for MSIs. Among these
questions are the following:

¹ For the purposes of this analysis, minority means any individual belonging to any of the
following groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black (not
of Hispanic origin), and Hispanic.
² For additional information regarding federal funding for minority-serving institutions see
CRS Report RL32396, Federal Funding for Minority-Serving Institutions of Higher
Education, by Charmaine Jackson.
³ Relevant HEA programs include Institutional Aid (Title III), Developing Institutions (Title
V), and Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (Title III). These are all
administered by the Department of Education. Among relevant programs administered
outside of the Department of Education are the Educational Partnership Program with
Minority Serving Institutions (Department of Commerce), and the Minority University
Research and Education Program (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).

^!How are MSIs defined and what are the implications of those
definitions?
^!What role do MSIs play in educating minority students, particularly
with regard to number and proportion of minority students served?
^!How different or similar are the several groups of MSIs? How do
they differ within groups, across groups, and from postsecondary
education institutions in general?
^!How many and what types of degrees do MSIs award? Do they
award the full range of postsecondary degrees?
^!How widely distributed are MSIs across the country? Are there
states with no direct ties to MSIs?
^!What are the racial, ethnic, and income characteristics of students
served by these schools?
The answers that emerge from this analysis may assist in deliberation on federal
policies and support for these institutions primarily because they help paint a more
complete picture of the MSIs. Consider, for example, the two primary and different
ways in which the federal government has defined MSIs — by the historical role they
have played in educating minority populations (e.g., HBCUs) or by the current
composition of their student body (e.g., HSIs). These two approaches may have
some effect on the reach of these MSIs among all minority students. It may not be
surprising that HSIs, identified by the current level of their Hispanic enrollment,
serve a majority of all Hispanic undergraduates. In contrast, as shown in this
analysis, a majority of all other minority undergraduates are being educated outside
of the MSIs.
As another example, it may be important for policy purposes to understand that,
while the MSIs share some common characteristics (e.g., most are two-year
institutions), there is significant diversity within and across MSI groups (e.g., over
80% of HBCUs are four-year institutions). Policymaking premised solely on basic
similarities among all MSIs may be less effective than efforts that also recognize
diversity across these institutions.
Finally, there are limitations to the present analysis with regard to federal
policymaking. This report addresses selected characteristics of the MSIs. It is
beyond its scope to address a wider range of issues that are potentially relevant to
federal policymaking. Possible issues include the effectiveness of MSIs in educating
minority students, the impact of federal support on these institutions, and the
education of minority students in general.
Defining the Groups
This section defines the groups of minority-serving institutions that are included
in the analyses presented in this report. Although the groups of MSIs are distinct,
membership is not exclusive. As a result, a single institution can be classified in
more than one group. To a large extent, all MSI groupings were constructed based
upon definitions found in the HEA, specifically Titles III and V. As a result, all of
the institutions examined in this report (MSIs and a comparison group of institutions)
are degree-granting, two-year and four-year institutions that are either public or
private, non-profit. Proprietary institutions are not eligible to participate in HEA

Title III and V and, hence, none could be considered to be MSIs for this analysis.⁴
They are also excluded from the comparison group of schools (see below) to allow
for a more accurate comparison with MSIs. The MSIs and the institutions included
in the comparison group are limited further to those that also meet the eligibility
criteria for participation in the student aid programs under Title IV of the HEA.⁵
Majority-Minority Institutions. MMIs are identified by the percentage of
an institution’s student body that can be identified as a racial or ethnic minority.
Specifically, MMIs are those institutions whose enrollment of a single minority or
a combination of minorities exceeds 50% of the total student enrollment. This
follows the HEA’s Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program
(MSEIP) definition for minority-serving institution.⁶ For the purposes of this
analysis, each institution’s minority enrollment percentage was calculated by dividing
the reported racial/ethnic minority student population by the total student enrollment,
resulting in 474 institutions being defined as MMIs.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Institutions are classified
as HBCUs if they are eligible to receive a grant under Title III, Part B of the HEA.
To qualify for a grant under Title III, Part B of the HEA an institution must have been
established prior to 1964 and have as its principal mission the education of African
Americans. This is an historical designation, not one predicated on the current racial
composition of the institutions. As a result, several HBCUs are majority white in
terms of enrollment. There are 102 institutions classified as HBCUs for this
anal ys i s .⁷

⁴ For additional information regarding Title III eligible institutions, see CRS Report
RL31647, Reauthorization of Title III and Title V of the Higher Education Act: Issues for^th
the 108 Congress, by Charmaine Jackson.
⁵ This additional requirement, which is not specified in Title III or Title V, is intended to
limit institutions to those meeting a broader array of eligibility requirements that are shared
across these HEA titles (e.g., being accredited). This has a very small impact on only some
MSI groups and on the comparison group. To be eligible for Title IV student assistance, a
postsecondary institution must: be licensed or otherwise legally authorized to provide
postsecondary education in the state in which it is located; be accredited by an agency
recognized for that purpose by the Secretary of Education; and be deemed eligible and
certified to participate in federal student aid programs by the Department of Education. For
additional information on institutional eligibility for Title IV student aid, see CRS Report
RL31926, Institutional Eligibility for Participation in Title IV Student Aid Programs Under
the Higher Education Act: Background and Issues, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
⁶ Unlike the MSEIP, the definition of MMI used in this analysis includes Asian Americans;
MSEIP does not include Asian Americans in its definition of minority students.
⁷ Using the Title III, Part B eligibility criteria to select institutions for inclusion in the HBCU
category produces a group that is slightly different from some other listings of HBCUs.
Specifically, both Mary Holmes College (MS) and Morris Brown College (GA) are
ineligible to receive Title III aid due to their loss of accreditation, thus they are excluded
from this analysis. In addition, Title III, Part B, Section 326 provides grants to 18 selected
institutions based on their contribution to certain professional fields. Charles Drew
University of Medicine and Science (CA) is included in this analysis because it is one of the

18 designated institutions, although not always included in listings of HBCUs. Finally,

(continued...)

Hispanic-Serving Institutions. HSIs analyzed in this research are intended
to approximate the definition of an eligible HSI appearing in Title V of the HEA.
The ones included here were identified by the Department of Education (ED) in its
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for FY2001-FY2002. An
institution received this designation if at least 25% of its full time, undergraduate
student enrollment is Hispanic. There are 237 institutions identified as HSIs for this⁸
analysis.
Tribal Colleges and Universities. The TCUs selected for inclusion in this
analysis are the institutions that are eligible for grants under Title III, Part A Section
316 of the HEA. Section 316 defines TCUs as institutions identified by Section 2 of
the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C.
1801) or those that are included in the Equity in Educational Land Grant Status Act
of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301).⁹ For this report, there are 30 institutions¹⁰ identified as
TCUs.
Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions. The
institutions included in this group currently receive a grant under Title III, Part A,
Section 317. An institution is eligible for a grant under this section if at least 20%¹¹
of its undergraduate students are Alaska Native or 10% are Native Hawaiian. There
are eight institutions defined as ANNHIs for this analysis.

⁷ (...continued)
although Hinds Community College (MS) is included in this analysis, the enrollment figures
are not limited to the Utica Campus, which is the designated HBCU. Hinds reports
enrollment figures to the Department of Education for all six of its campuses collectively.
The total student enrollment, as well as the racial/ethnic composition of the entire
community college was included in this analysis.
⁸ The full range of HSI eligibility requirements for Title V, Part A (Hispanic-Serving
Institutions) of the HEA cannot be applied due to data limitations. To qualify as an HSI for
the purposes of Title V, an institution must have at least 25% full time, Hispanic
undergraduate student enrollment, and not less than 50% of its Hispanic student population
must be low income. These latter data are not available. In addition, eligible institutions
must have low educational and general expenditures (E&G), a requisite enrollment of needy
students, be legally authorized within its respective state to award Bachelors degrees or be
a community college, and be accredited by a nationally or state recognized accrediting
agency (Title V, Part A, Section 502).
⁹ Designated TCUs must also satisfy the needy student requirement and have low E&G, as
described in the previous reference for HSIs (HEA, Title III, Part A, Section 312 (b)).
¹⁰ This analysis includes institutions that meet the definition of eligibility for Title III,
Section 316, have complete data available in IPEDS for 2001-2002, are identified in IPEDS
as a tribal college or university, and are Title IV-eligible. Of note, Si Tanka University
consists of two campuses: Si Tanka Huron University-Eagle Butte Campus and Si Tanka
University Huron-Huron Campus. Only the former campus is identified in IPEDS as a TCU
and only data for that campus are included in this analysis.
¹¹ In addition to the percentage requirement, these institutions must also satisfy the eligibility
requirements of the HEA, Title III, Part A, Section 312 (b). The currently funded ANNHIs
make up this category because the requisite data on racial group membership to determine
the full range of eligible institutions are not available.

Minority-Serving Institutions. For the purposes of this analysis, MSIs
include all Title IV eligible institutions that belong to at least one of the groups of
institutions under analysis in this report: majority-minority institutions; historically
black colleges and universities; Hispanic-serving institutions; tribal colleges and
universities or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions. An
institution can be in more than one MSI group. For example, an HBCU can also be
an MMI because its undergraduate student population may be greater than 50%
minority. There are 550 institutions classified as MSIs for this analysis.
Postsecondary Education Institutions. For the purposes of comparing
the characteristics of the different groups of MSIs, a “universe” of postsecondary
education institutions (PSEIs) was created. The universe is defined as all Title IV
eligible, two-year and four-year, public and private, non-profit postsecondary
education institutions. The type and control of the MSIs, as noted earlier, dictated
the attributes of the comparison group. Thus, institutions that are not eligible for
Title IV, exclusively award less than an Associates degree, or are proprietary, are not
included in the analysis. The analysis was limited to institutions with these
characteristics to allow for an accurate comparison between groups. There are 3,407
postsecondary education institutions included in this analysis. This “universe” of
postsecondary institutions also includes any institution that is included in any of the
MSI categories previously outlined.
Data
The data presented in this report are derived primarily from IPEDS. IPEDS is
a series of surveys of postsecondary education institutions that gather information on
such variables as location, institutional control, types of degrees awarded, the number
and minority status of enrolled students, and the number of degrees awarded by field.
Institutions participating in the HEA Title IV student aid programs are required to
complete the series of surveys annually.
The IPEDS data used for this analysis come from surveys of this universe of
postsecondary education institutions, and are not derived from survey samples.¹²
Nevertheless, some of the data reported in IPEDS have been imputed by ED to
compensate for missing or erroneous data. Thus, all values presented in this report
should be interpreted as estimates. The data on institutional characteristics, including
student enrollment, are for fall 2001, while that for degrees completed apply to
academic year 2001-2002.
The race/ethnicity categories used in this analysis are derived from IPEDS.
Currently, IPEDS uses five basic racial/ethnicity categories: American Indian or
Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black (not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic,
and White (not of Hispanic origin). These categories do not disaggregate data for
American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, separately. As a result,
the student data presented in this report may differ somewhat from the institutional

¹² These data were downloaded from ED’s Peer Analysis System and can be found at
[http://nces.ed.gov/ipedspas/].

categories. For example, the exact number of Pacific Islanders cannot be ascertained
from the IPEDS data because IPEDS data group Pacific Islanders and Asians.
The economic status of undergraduate students enrolled at these institutions was
determined using ED data on the number of Pell Grant recipients in postsecondary
education institutions at any point during the award year 2001-2002.¹³
Characteristics of MSIs
In the following sections, this report analyzes selected institutional
characteristics of MSIs — location, size, and highest degree offered — and selected
data for students attending MSIs — racial and ethnic group membership of students,
income status of students, and degrees awarded. Generally, for each variable, MSIs
are compared among themselves and to the selected “universe” of Title IV PSEIs
described earlier.
Institutional Characteristics
MSIs differ among themselves, and often with PSEIs in general, with regard to
their location, size, and highest degree offered. As is explored below, some of the
differences are substantial. At the same time, some attributes characterize the
majority of MSIs.
Type and Control. A significant portion of the MSIs are two-year public
institutions (40.5%). Most notably, 53.3% of TCUs are two-year public institutions,
as are nearly half of all HSIs (46.8%). In contrast, nearly half (47.1%) of all HBCUs
are four-year private, non-profit institutions and another 40.2% are four-year public
schools. Information on institutional type and control is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Groups of Institutions by Type and Control
^Fou^r^-year^T^w^o-year
^Inst^it^ut^io^na^l^Fou^r^-year^priv^a^t^{e, no}^n-^T^w^o-year^priv^a^t^{e, no}^n-
^grou^p^public^pro^f^it^public^pro^f^it
^MMI^s^18.9%^32.1%^38.4%^10.5%
^HB^CUs^40.2%^47.1%^10.7%^1.9%
^HS^I^s^19.8%^27%^46.8%^6.3%
^T^CUs^16.7%^3.3%^53.3%^26.7%
^ANNHIs^37.5%^12.5%^50.0%^0%

¹³ These unpublished data were provided by ED’s Office of Postsecondary Education. For
information on the Pell Grant program, see CRS Report for Congress RL31668, Federal
Pell Grant Program of the Higher Education Act: Background and Reauthorization, by
James B. Stedman. As is discussed below, receipt of Pell Grants is a proxy for students’
economic status.

^Fou^r^-year^T^w^o-year
^Inst^it^ut^io^na^l^Fou^r^-year^priv^a^t^{e, no}^n-^T^w^o-year^priv^a^t^{e, no}^n-
^grou^p^public^pro^f^it^public^pro^f^it
^MS^I^s^20.3%^30.0%^40.5%^9.0%
^Tit^l^e^{IV P}^S^EIs*^18.7%^45.8%^31.7%^3.8%
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
^No^tes:^T^h^{is tab}^l^{e sh}^o^u^ld^b^e^r^ead^{as f}^o^llo^w^s^{: T}^h^{e f}ⁱ^r^s^{t r}^o^w^o^fⁿ^u^m^er^ic^d^a^ta^sh^o^w^s^th^at^an^estim^ated
^{18.9% of}^M^M^I^s^a^r^e^fo^ur^-^y^{ear pu}^{blic in}^s^titu^tion^s^{. A}^{ll percen}^tag^e^s^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add to 100% du}^{e to}
^r^o^undⁱ^ng.
^*^Ex^clu^d^{es p}^r^o^p^r^ietar^yⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^.
Highest Degree Awarded. Analysis of MSIs by highest degree awarded
reveals that, with the exception of HBCUs and ANNHIs, MSIs are more likely to
award only undergraduate degrees. This is particularly true for TCUs, 80% of these
institutions solely award an Associates degree (Table 2). In contrast, over a quarter¹⁴
(27%) of all HBCUs offer either a first professional degree and/or a doctorate as
their highest degree.
Table 2. Highest Degree Awarded
^BA^MA
^Inst^it^u-^Firs^t^an^d^an^d^D^o^ctoral
^ton^a^l^pro^f^.^fi^rs^t^fi^rs^t^a^{nd f}ⁱ^rst
^grou^p^A^A^B^A^M^A^D^octoral^on^l^y**^pro^f^.^pro^f^.^pro^f^.
^MMI^s^48.9%^19.4%^17.3%^{5.9 %}¹^.0%^.^4%^2.1%^4.8%
^HB^CUs^12.7%^37.2%^22.5%^12.7%^.9%^.^9%^2.9%^9.8%
^HS^I^s^53.1%^12.2%^19.8%^7.6%^0%^.4%¹^.6%⁵^.1%
^T^CUs^80.0%^10.0%^10.0%^0%^0%^0%^0%^0%
^ANNHIs^50.0%^12.5%^12.5%^12.5%^0%^0%^0%^12.5%
^MS^I^s^49.6%^17.6%^17.8%^6.0%^.9%^.^5%^2.2%^5.3%
^Tit^l^e^IV^35.5%^17.3%^23.6%^7.5%^1.1%^{.6 %}³^.6%^10.4%
^P^S^EIs*
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^d^a^{ta f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
^No^tes:^T^h^{is tab}^l^e^sh^o^u^ld^b^e^r^ead^as^f^o^llo^w^s^:^T^h^{e f}ⁱ^r^s^{t r}^o^w^o^fⁿ^u^m^er^{ic d}^a^{ta sh}^o^w^{s th}^{at an}^estim^ated
^48.9%^of^MMIs^aw^{ard n}^o^deg^r^{ee h}ⁱ^g^h^e^{r th}^an^an^A^s^s^o^ciates^deg^r^{ee. A}^{ll percen}^tag^e^s^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add}^to
^100%^du^{e t}^o^rouⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.

¹⁴ Examples of a first professional degree are: Masters of Business of Administration
(MBA) or Juris Doctorate (JD).

^*^Ex^clu^d^{es p}^r^o^p^r^ietar^yⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^.
^*^*^IP^{EDS m}^a^k^e^s^{a dis}^tin^ction^betw^een^academ^{ic an}^{d f}ⁱ^rs^{t prof}^es^sⁱ^on^{al deg}^r^ees^.^T^h^e^academ^ic^deg^r^ees
⁽^e^.g^{., A}^A^an^d^B^A⁾^ar^{e h}ⁱ^er^ar^ch^ically^o^r^d^e^r^e^d^,^w^ith^th^{e d}^o^c^t^o^r^a^t^e^b^eⁱⁿ^g^th^{e h}ⁱ^g^h^e^{st. I}ⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^th^at
^aw^{ard prof}^es^sⁱ^on^{al deg}^r^ees^{are iden}^tif^{ied s}^e^parately^{, an}^d^by^academ^{ic deg}^r^{ee th}^ey^mⁱ^g^h^t^als^o^aw^ard.
^T^h^{e d}^e^g^r^{ee categ}^o^r^{ies ar}^{e ex}^clu^s^iv^{e, a sin}^g^l^{e in}^stitu^tioⁿ^can^oⁿ^ly^b^e^co^uⁿ^t^ed^oⁿ^ce.
Enrollment Size. Most MSIs are small, enrolling fewer than 5,000 students.
Further, a significant portion have fewer than 1,000 students (35.1%). For example,
as illustrated by Table 3, 90% of TCUs enroll fewer than 1,000 students. But there
are some exceptions among the MSI groups. For example, 9.7% of HSIs enroll
20,000 or more students, a higher percentage than for the full population of
comparable Title IV postsecondary institutions (4.4%).
Table 3. Distribution of MSIs by Enrollment Size, Fall 2001
^10,000-
^Inst^it^ut^io^na^l^0-999^1000-4999^5000-9999^19,999^20,000+
^grou^p^St^udent^s^St^udent^s^St^udent^s^St^udent^s^St^udent^s
^MMI^s^38.4%^31.8%^14.5%^9.9%^5.2%
^HB^CUs^32.3%^48.0%^17.6%^1.9%^0%
^HS^I^s^19.8%^31.2%^21.1%^18.4%^9.7%
^T^CUs^90.0%^10.0%^0%^0%^0%
^ANNHIs^37.5%^25.0%^25.0%^12.5%^0%
^MS^I^s^35.1%^32.5%^15.6%^11.1%^5.6%
^Tit^l^e^IV^30.7%^42.5%^13.5%^8.7%^4.4%
^P^S^EIs*
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S}^.^Departm^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
^No^te:^T^h^is^{table s}^h^ou^{ld be read as}^f^o^llow^s^{: T}^h^{e f}ⁱ^rs^{t row}^ofⁿ^u^m^{eric data s}^h^ow^s^t^h^{at an}^es^tim^ated
^38.4%^of^MMIs^en^rol^l^f^e^w^e^{r t}^h^an^{1,000 s}^t^u^d^en^t^s^{. A}^l^l^percen^t^a^g^e^s^m^a^yⁿ^o^t^{add t}^o^100%^du^{e t}^o
^r^o^undⁱ^ng.
^*^Ex^clu^d^{es p}^r^o^p^r^ietar^yⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^.
Location.¹⁵ MSIs are primarily located in southern and coastal parts of the
country, though nearly all states have one or more MSIs.¹⁶ It is important to note that
eight states have no MSIs — Idaho, Nevada, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island,
Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming (see Figure 1).

¹⁵ A map illustrating the geographic distribution for ANNHIs is not included because these
institutions are solely located in Alaska and Hawaii.
¹⁶ The District of Columbia is not visible on these maps. However, there are four
institutions in the District of Columbia classified as MMIs, two of which are also HBCUs.

The different MSI groups are often located in the areas of the country where
there are concentrations of citizens from the respective racial/ethnic group. This
pattern can be observed, for example, among HSIs. There are a large concentration
of Hispanics in the southern and western states, and, as shown in Figure 4, a majority
of HSIs are located in the southern and western regions of the country. The ways in
which MSIs are defined may influence this distribution. In contrast to the HSIs,
HBCUs, for example, are designated on an historical basis (founded prior to 1964
with a principal mission of educating African Americans), and are not necessarily
located in places that today have large concentrations of African Americans.
Figure 1. Geographic Distribution of MSIs
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Depa}^rtm^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.

Figure 2. Geographic Distribution of MMIs
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Servⁱ^{ce, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
Figure 3. Geographic Distribution of HBCUs
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.

Figure 4. Geographic Distribution of HSIs
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d o}ⁿ^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
Figure 5. Geographic Distribution of TCUs
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^t^h^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.

Student Characteristics
What are some of the socioeconomic characteristics of the students enrolled in
minority-serving institutions and how do they differ from all postsecondary students?
The following analysis focuses on students’ race and ethnicity, and their economic
status. It begins with an overview of the total number of undergraduates in MSIs.
In 2001, the aggregate number of students in all of the MSIs analyzed in this
report was over 2.8 million (2.6 million of whom were undergraduates). The total
number of students enrolled in each group of MSIs varied significantly. Some, such
as the TCUs, enrolled few students, while others, such as the HSIs, had substantially
higher numbers of students and accounted for significant percentages of all
postsecondary education enrollment. Table 4 shows that undergraduate enrollment
at MSIs ranged from almost 14,000 (TCUs) to over 2 million students (MMIs).
Variation in the MSIs’ percentage share of undergraduate enrollment at comparable
Title IV postsecondary institutions was from 0.1% (TCUs) to 16.0% (MMIs). MSIs
in the aggregate accounted for 19.6% of total undergraduate enrollment.
Table 4. MSI Undergraduate Enrollment, Fall 2001
^E^s^ti^m^a^ted^s^h^{are of al}^l
^{undergraduate enrollm}^ent
^Estⁱ^m^a^t^e^{d underg}^ra^dua^t^eⁱⁿ^com^p^arab^l^e^Tⁱ^tl^{e I}^V
^Inst^it^ut^io^na^{l g}^r^o^u^p^enrollm^ent^inst^it^ut^io^ns
^MMI^s^2,150,799^16.0%
^HB^CUs^260,466^1.9%
^HS^I^s^1,674,652^12.5%
^T^CUs^13,800^0.1%
^ANNHIs^31,957^0.2%
^MS^I^s^2,623,641^19.6%
^Tit^l^e^{IV P}^S^EIs*^13,414,552^100.0%
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
^No^te:^T^h^{is tab}^l^{e sh}^o^u^ld^b^e^r^ead^as^f^o^llo^w^s^:^T^h^e^fⁱ^r^s^t^r^o^w^o^fⁿ^u^m^er^ic^d^a^ta^sh^o^w^{s th}^{at MMI}^{s en}^r^o^lled
^an^es^tⁱ^m^at^{ed 2,150,799 u}ⁿ^d^erg^r^adu^a^t^e^sⁱⁿ^{2001, or an}^es^tⁱ^m^at^{ed 16.0%}^of^al^l^uⁿ^d^erg^r^adu^a^t^e^s^.
^*^Ex^clu^d^{es p}^r^o^p^r^ietar^yⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^.
Race and Ethnicity. Not surprisingly, the enrollment in each of the groups
of MSIs is largely minority. In 2001, the portion of undergraduate enrollment in each
of the MSI groups that was minority ranged from 58.3% (ANNHIs) to 84.1%
(HBCUs and TCUs). In MSIs in the aggregate, 67.1% of undergraduate enrollment
was minority. In general, the predominant cohort of minority students within each
MSI group reflected the specific minority focus of that institutional sector (e.g.,
HBCU undergraduate enrollment was 80.9% black). In MMIs, there were two
predominant racial/ethnic cohorts — Hispanic students (34.7% of MMI

undergraduate enrollment) and black students (25.0% of MMI undergraduate
enrollment). These data are provided in Table 5.
Table 5. Number and Percentage of Undergraduates by
Institutional Group and Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2001
^To^t^a^l
^Na^tiv^e^under-
^Inst^it^u-^Am^erican/^Asia^n/Pa^-^grad^u^a^te
^ti^on^al^Ala^s^k^a^cific^To^t^a^l^enroll-
^grou^p^B^l^a^ck^Hi^s^p^anⁱ^c^Na^tiv^e^Isla^nde^r^miⁿ^o^rⁱ^t^y^*^meⁿ^t
^Es^tⁱ^m^at^{ed num}^ber^of^under^g^r^aduat^{e s}^t^udent^s
^MMI^s^537,272^745,555^26,303^251,092^1,560,222^2,150,799
^HB^CUs^210,696^6,164⁵²⁷^1,580^218,967^260,466
^HS^I^s^160,750^788,679^14,955^130,875^1,095,259^1,674,652
^T^CUs³⁹¹²⁰^11,414³⁰^11,603^13,800
^ANNHIs⁴³⁰⁶⁶¹^2,023^15,531^18,645^31,957
^MS^I^s^564,542^879,676^35,545^281,070^1,760,833^2,623,641
^Tit^l^e^IV^1,497,382^1,455,203^133,068^802,985^3,888,638^13,414,552
^P^S^EIs*^*
^Es^{timated per}^{centage s}^har^{e w}^{ithin each gr}^{oup of ins}^titutions
^MMI^s^25.0%^34.7%^1.2%^11.7%^72.5%
^HB^CUs^80.9%^2.4%^0.2%^0.6%^84.1%
^HS^I^s^9.6%^47.1%^0.9%^7.8%^65.4%
^T^CUs^0.3%^1.0%^82.7%^0.2%^84.1%
^ANNHIs^1.3%^2.1%^6.3%^48.6%^58.3%
^MS^I^s^21.5%^33.5%^1.4%^10.7%^67.1%
^Tit^l^e^IV^11.2%^10.8%^1.0%^6.0%^29.0%
^P^S^EIs*^*
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
^No^tes:^T^h^is^tab^l^e^sh^o^u^ld^b^e^r^ead^{as f}^o^llo^w^s^{: T}^h^{e f}ⁱ^r^s^{t r}^o^w^w^ithⁿ^u^m^er^{ic d}^a^{ta sh}^o^w^{s th}^{e n}^u^m^b^e^r^s^o^f
^s^t^u^d^en^t^s^en^rol^l^e^{d i}ⁿ^t^h^{e MMIs}^(e.g^{., MMIs}^en^rol^l^e^{d an}^es^tⁱ^m^at^ed^537,272^bl^ack^s^t^u^d^en^t^s^{). T}^h^{e f}ⁱ^rs^t
^row^w^ith^percen^tag^e^v^a^lu^es^s^h^ow^s^th^{e percen}^tag^e^of^uⁿ^d^erg^r^adu^a^tesⁱⁿ^MMIs^w^h^{o are}^m^e^m^b^ers^of^th^e
^desⁱ^gⁿ^a^{ted racial or eth}ⁿⁱ^{c g}^r^ou^{p (e.g}^{., an}^es^tim^{ated 25.0% of}^{MMI u}ⁿ^d^erg^r^adu^a^tes^w^e^{re black}^).
^T^h^{e u}ⁿ^d^erg^r^adu^a^{te en}^rollm^en^{t totals}ⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e n}^oⁿ^-^resⁱ^den^t^al^ien^s^an^{d s}^t^u^d^en^ts^w^h^os^e
^r^{ace/ethnicity}^w^a^{s r}^e^p^o^r^te^d^{as unkno}^wⁿ^.^A^s^a^r^e^s^u^l^t^,^{the d}ⁱ^f^f^e^r^e^{nce b}^e^tw^{een the to}^{tal m}ⁱ^no^r^ity
^percen^tag^e^f^o^{r each}^g^r^ou^{p of}ⁱⁿ^s^titu^tion^s^an^{d 100% does}ⁿ^o^{t equ}^a^{l th}^{e n}^oⁿ^-^mⁱⁿ^o^rit^y^eⁿ^r^o^l^l^m^eⁿ^t
^percen^tag^e^.
^*^Each^en^try^f^o^{r T}^o^{tal Min}^o^rity^is^equ^a^{l to th}^{e s}^u^m^of^th^{e v}^a^lu^esⁱⁿ^th^{at row}^f^o^r^each^of^th^e^precedin^g
^mⁱⁿ^o^ri^t^y^g^r^ou^ps^of^s^t^u^d^en^t^s^.
^**^Ex^clu^d^{es p}^r^o^p^r^ietar^yⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^.

In comparison to their shares of undergraduate students, MSIs in the aggregate
and many of the MSI subgroups of institutions account for disproportionately large
shares of undergraduate minority students. For example, in 2001, MSIs enrolled
19.6% of all undergraduate students (see Table 4), but they enrolled the following
shares of specific cohorts of undergraduate minorities — well over half (60.5%) of
Hispanics, over a third (37.7%) of blacks, more than a third (35.0%) of Asian/Pacific
Islanders, and nearly half (45.3%) of all minority undergraduates (see Table 6).
Among Hispanic undergraduates, MMIs and HSIs enrolled 51.2% and 54.2% of
Hispanic undergraduates, respectively, in fall 2001.¹⁷
Nevertheless, with the exception of Hispanic undergraduates, undergraduate
minority students are predominantly enrolled outside of the MSIs. This is true even
if one considers the total pool of individual institutions that belong to one or more
MSI groups.
Table 6. Share of All Minority Undergraduates in MSIs, Fall 2001
^Na^tiv^e
^Am^erican/
^MS^I^Ala^s^k^a^Asia^n/Pa^cific^To^t^a^l
^grou^p^B^l^a^ck^Hi^s^p^anⁱ^c^Na^tiv^e^Isla^nde^r^miⁿ^o^rⁱ^t^y
^MMI^s^35.9%^51.2%^19.8%^31.3%^40.1%
^HB^CUs^14.1%^0.4%^0.4%^0.2%^5.6%
^HS^I^s^10.7%^54.2%^11.2%^16.3%^28.2%
^T^CUs^l^e^s^s^t^h^an^0.1%^l^e^s^s^t^h^an^0.1%^8.6%^l^e^s^s^t^h^an^0.1%^0.3%
^ANNHIs^l^e^s^s^t^h^an^0.1%^l^e^s^s^t^h^an^0.1%^1.5%^1.9%^0.5%
^MS^I^s^37.7%^60.5%^26.7%^35.0%^45.3%
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
^No^te:^T^hⁱ^s^t^a^bl^{e s}^h^ou^l^d^{be r}^e^a^d^a^s^fo^l^l^o^w^s^:^T^h^{e f}ⁱ^rs^t^row^ofⁿ^u^m^eri^cal^dat^a^s^h^ow^s^t^h^at^bl^ack
^uⁿ^d^er^g^r^ad^u^a^{tes in}^MMI^{s co}ⁿ^s^titu^ted^an^estim^ated³⁵^.⁹^%^o^f^{all b}^l^ack^uⁿ^d^er^g^r^ad^u^a^{tes en}^r^o^lledⁱⁿ^f^a^ll
^2001.
^T^h^e^percen^tag^e^s^f^o^{r each}^mⁱⁿ^o^rity^g^r^ou^{p do n}^o^{t add to th}^{e total m}ⁱⁿ^o^rity^percen^tag^e^.^T^h^e^total
^mⁱⁿ^o^r^ity^p^e^r^cen^tag^e^r^e^p^r^esen^{ts th}^{e sh}^ar^{e o}^f^{all u}ⁿ^d^er^g^r^a^d^u^a^t^e^mⁱⁿ^o^r^ity^stu^d^en^{ts at all T}^{itle I}^V
^co^m^p^ar^ab^{le in}^stitu^tioⁿ^s^.
Economic Status of Students. A substantial percentage of students at
some groups of MSIs are low-income (using Pell Grant receipt as a proxy for low-
income status).¹⁸ Undergraduates in certain MSIs groups are much more likely to

¹⁷ That both of these percentages exceed 50% is due to the relationship among MSI groups
explained earlier. MSIs, though distinct, are not exclusive; institutions do fall into more
than one MSI group.
¹⁸ Most dependent students (in excess of 90%) who receive Pell Grants have family income
of less than $40,000; and over 90% of independent students who receive Pell Grants have
(continued...)

receive Pell Grants — the major federal need-based grant aid for undergraduates —
than are their counterparts in other MSIs or the universe of institutions analyzed in
this report. As shown in Table 7, in 2001-2002, this was particularly true for
HBCUs and TCUs where an estimated 46.8% and 40.9% of undergraduates,
respectively, received Pells. These percentages are more than twice that of Pell
recipients across all PSEIs in the comparison group (18.9% of undergraduates).¹⁹
Table 7. Share of Undergraduate Enrollment Receiving Pell
Grants, 2001-2002
^{Pell recipients}^as^es^tim^a^{ted percentage of}
^{undergraduate enrollm}^{ent in the}
^Inst^it^ut^io^na^{l g}^r^o^u^p^inst^it^ut^io^na^{l g}^r^o^u^p
^MMI^s^21.6%
^HB^CUs^46.8%
^HS^I^s^18.8%
^T^CUs^40.9%
^ANNHIs^12.3%
^MS^I^s^21.6%
^Tit^l^e^{IV P}^S^EIs*^18.9%
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data prov}^{ided by}^th^e^U.S.^Departm^eⁿ^t
^of^Edu^cation^’^s^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^P^o^s^t^s^econ^d^ary^Edu^cation^,^an^{d th}^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^ated
^P^o^s^t^s^econ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
^No^te:^T^hⁱ^s^t^a^bl^{e s}^h^ou^l^d^{be read as}^f^o^l^l^o^w^s^:^T^h^{e f}ⁱ^rs^t^row^of^dat^a^s^h^ow^s^t^h^at^,ⁱⁿ^2001-^{2002, an}
^es^tim^{ated 21.6% of}^uⁿ^d^erg^r^adu^a^tes^en^{rolled in}^MMIs^receiv^e^{d P}^e^{ll Gran}^ts^.
^*^Ex^clu^d^{es p}^r^o^p^r^ietar^yⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^.

¹⁸ (...continued)
family income below $30,000. The financial resources of parents are considered in
determining dependent students’ eligibility for Pell Grants; they are not considered for
independent students. See CRS Report for Congress RL31668, Federal Pell Grant Program
of the Higher Education Act: Background and Reauthorization, by James B. Stedman for
a detailed discussion of how Pell Grant eligibility is determined. As has been noted, the
information presented here is derived from unpublished data provided by ED’s Pell Grant
program office.
¹⁹ The undergraduate enrollment data used in these calculations measure the total number
of undergraduate students enrolled at any juncture throughout the 2001-2002 academic
year, not at a point in time during fall 2001 (as is true with all other enrollment data
presented in this report). Given that Pell Grants are awarded to students throughout the
award year, it is appropriate to compare those counts to full-year enrollment data. The
percentages shown here were derived from two different data sources that may not be
strictly comparable. As a result, these percentages are estimates.

Undergraduate Degrees Awarded
In academic year 2001-2002, with the exception of the TCUs, each of the MSIs
awarded more Bachelors than Associates degrees. Though more than half of the
undergraduate degrees at MMIs and HSIs were Bachelors degrees, both groups of
institutions awarded significant numbers of Associates degrees. Table 8 shows the
number of Associates and Bachelors degrees awarded in 2001-2002 by the different
groups of MSIs.
Table 8. Undergraduate Degrees Awarded by MSIs, 2001-2002
^Iⁿ^s^t^{itutional group}^A^s^s^o^ciat^es^degrees^B^a^chelors^degrees
^MMI^s^87,095^101,796
^HB^CUs^4,082^28,703
^HS^I^s^65,217^77,911
^T^CUs^1,373¹⁵⁹
^ANNHIs^1,201^2,867
^MS^I^s^103,517^135,223
^Tit^l^e^{IV P}^S^EIs*^520,807^1,282,928
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
^No^te:^T^hⁱ^s^t^a^bl^{e s}^h^ou^l^d^{be read as}^f^o^l^l^o^w^s^:^T^h^e^fⁱ^rs^t^row^of^dat^a^s^h^ow^s^t^h^at^,ⁱⁿ^2001-^{2002, MMIs}
^aw^{arded an}^es^tⁱ^m^at^{ed 87,095 A}^s^s^o^ci^at^es^deg^r^ees^an^{d an}^es^tⁱ^m^at^{ed 101,796 Bach}^el^ors^deg^r^ees^.
^*^Ex^clu^d^{es p}^r^o^p^r^ietar^yⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^.
As Table 9 shows, MSIs account for significant portions of the undergraduate
degrees earned by different racial and ethnic groups of students; this is particularly
true for MMIs and HSIs. For example, HSIs accounted for 55.6% of all Associates
degrees awarded to Hispanics and 42.0% of all Hispanic Bachelors degrees. HBCUs
and TCUs accounted for relatively large shares of the undergraduate degrees awarded
to students from a single racial or ethnic group, at one level of degree — HBCUs
accounted for 23.1% of the Bachelor degrees awarded to blacks; TCUs awarded

19.7% of the Associate degrees received by Native American/Alaska Native students.

Table 9. Share of All Minority Undergraduate Degrees Awarded
by Different Groups of MSIs, 2001-2002
^Inst^it^ut^io^na^l^E^s^tim^a^{ted percentage s}^h^{are of all As}^s^o^ciates^degrees^aw^{arded at T}ⁱ^{tle I}^V
^grou^p^inst^it^ut^io^{ns t}^o^st^udent^{s f}^r^o^m^specifⁱ^{ed m}ⁱ^no^rit^y^ba^ck^g^r^o^und
^Na^tiv^e
^Am^erican/^Asia^n/Pa^cific
^M^S^I^grou^p^B^l^a^ck^Hi^s^p^anⁱ^c^Ala^s^k^a^Na^tiv^e^Isla^nde^r
^MMI^s^34.2%^55.0%^31.1%^42.8%
^HB^CUs^4.0%^0.6%^0.2%^0.2%
^HS^I^s^13.0%^55.6%^9.9%^21.0%
^T^CUs^l^e^s^s^t^h^an^0.1%^l^e^s^s^t^h^an^0.1%^19.7%^l^e^s^s^t^h^an^0.1%
^ANNHIs^l^e^s^s^t^h^an^0.1%^0.1%^1.0%^2.5%
^MS^I^s^35.8%^63.4%^36.0%^45.7%
^Inst^it^ut^io^na^l^E^s^tim^a^{ted percentage s}^h^{are of all B}^a^chelors^degrees^aw^{arded at T}ⁱ^{tle I}^V
^grou^p^inst^it^ut^io^{ns t}^o^st^udent^{s f}^r^o^m^specifⁱ^{ed m}ⁱ^no^rit^y^ba^ck^g^r^o^und
^Na^tiv^e
^Am^erican/^Asia^n/Pa^cific
^M^S^I^grou^p^B^l^a^ck^Hi^s^p^anⁱ^c^Ala^s^k^a^Na^tiv^e^Isla^nde^r
^MMI^s^31.9%^37.2%^4.5%^14.4%
^HB^CUs^23.1%^0.2%^0.7%^0.2%
^HS^I^s^5.8%^42.0%^5.1%^6.5%
^T^CUs^0%^0%^1.6%^0%
^ANNHIs^l^e^s^s^t^h^an^0.1%^l^e^s^s^t^h^an^0.1%^0.7%^2.1%
^MS^I^s^33.6%^46.2%^9.3%^18.3%
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^a^l^R^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
^No^te:^T^h^{is tab}^l^{e sh}^o^u^ld^b^e^r^ead^{as f}^o^llo^w^s^{: T}^h^{e f}ⁱ^r^s^t^r^o^w^o^fⁿ^u^m^er^{ical d}^a^{ta sh}^o^w^{s th}^{at MMI}^s
^aw^{arded 34.2%}^of^al^l^A^s^s^o^ci^at^es^deg^r^ees^aw^{arded t}^o^bl^ack^s^t^u^d^en^t^sⁱⁿ^2001-^2002.
There are relatively few major differences between the distribution of academic
fields in which MSIs awarded Bachelors degrees and the distribution for Bachelors²⁰
degrees awarded by PSEIs. The only institutions that appear to have a noticeably
different distribution from the distribution prevailing elsewhere are the TCUs; but,
it is important to stress that the TCU distribution is based on very few Bachelors
degrees. In the aggregate, MSIs are more likely to award Bachelors degrees in the
Arts and Humanities, Business Management, and the Social Sciences than in any
other fields. The following figures depict the distribution of Bachelors degrees by

²⁰ The focus here is on the Bachelors degree level given that this is the predominant
undergraduate degree level in MSIs. Nevertheless, the distribution of Associates degrees
within MSIs also largely mirrors the distribution for all PSEIs.

academic field within each group of MSI institutions, as well as the “universe” of
Title IV participating institutions in the comparison group.
Figure 6. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Academic Field
Within MMIs, 2001-2002
^A^r^ts^&^H^u^m^aⁿⁱ^ti^e^s^V^o^c^a^tⁱ^onal^T^e^c^hni^c^a^l
^S^o^cⁱ^al^S^cⁱ^enc^e
^S^cⁱ^enc^e
^B^u^sⁱ^nes^s^M^anagem^ent
^O^t^her
^M^a^t^h^&^E^ngi^neerⁱⁿ^g
^E^duc^atⁱ^oⁿ^H^eal^t^h^Law
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Servⁱ^{ce, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
Figure 7. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Academic Field
Within HBCUs, 2001-2002
^A^r^ts^&^H^u^m^aⁿⁱ^ti^e^s^V^o^c^a^tⁱ^o^nal^T^e^c^hⁿⁱ^c^a^l
^So^cⁱ^a^l^Scⁱ^eⁿ^c^e
^B^u^sⁱⁿ^e^s^s^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt
^S^cⁱ^enc^e
^Ot^h^e^r
^E^duc^atⁱ^oⁿ^M^a^t^h^&^Eⁿ^gⁱ^ne^erⁱⁿ^g
^He^a^l^t^h^La^w
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.

Figure 8. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Academic Field
Within HSIs, 2001-2002
^V^o^c^a^tⁱ^onal^T^e^c^hni^c^a^l
^A^r^{ts &}^H^u^m^aⁿⁱ^ti^e^s^S^o^cⁱ^al^S^cⁱ^enc^e
^S^cⁱ^enc^e
^Ot^her
^B^u^sⁱ^nes^s^M^anagem^ent
^M^a^t^h^&^E^ngi^neerⁱⁿ^g
^Law
^H^eal^t^h
^E^duc^atⁱ^oⁿ
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^a^t^es^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
Figure 9. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Field Within ANNHIs,
2001-2002
^V^o^c^a^tⁱ^onal^T^e^c^hni^c^a^l
^A^r^{ts &}^H^u^m^aⁿⁱ^ti^e^s^S^o^cⁱ^al^S^cⁱ^enc^e
^S^cⁱ^enc^e
^O^t^her
^B^u^sⁱ^nes^s^M^anagem^ent
^M^a^t^h^&^E^ngi^neerⁱⁿ^g
^E^duc^atⁱ^oⁿ^H^eal^t^h
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^ice,^es^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.

Figure 10. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Field Within TCUs,
2001-2002
^V^o^c^a^tⁱ^on^al^T^e^c^hⁿⁱ^c^a^l
^A^r^{ts &}^H^u^m^aⁿⁱ^ti^e^s^So^cⁱ^a^l^Scⁱ^eⁿ^c^e
^Scⁱ^eⁿ^c^e
^B^u^sⁱ^ne^s^s^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^He^a^l^t^h
^Ed^u^c^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^a^t^es^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
Figure 11. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Academic Field
Within MSIs, 2001-2002
^V^o^c^a^tⁱ^onal^T^e^c^hni^c^a^l
^A^r^{ts &}^H^u^m^aⁿⁱ^ti^e^s
^S^o^cⁱ^al^S^cⁱ^enc^e
^S^cⁱ^enc^e
^B^u^sⁱ^nes^s^M^anagem^ent^Ot^her
^M^a^t^h^&^E^ngi^neerⁱⁿ^g
^Law
^E^duc^atⁱ^oⁿ^H^eal^t^h
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^{onal R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^ates^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.

Figure 12. Distribution of Bachelors Degrees by Field Within
“Universe” of Institutions, 2001-2002
^V^o^c^a^tⁱ^onal^T^e^c^hni^c^a^l
^A^r^{ts &}^H^u^m^aⁿⁱ^ti^e^s^S^o^cⁱ^al^S^cⁱ^enc^e
^S^cⁱ^enc^e
^B^u^sⁱ^nes^s^M^anagem^ent^O^t^her
^M^a^t^h^&^E^ngi^neerⁱⁿ^g
^E^duc^atⁱ^oⁿ^H^eal^t^h^Law
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice, es}^tim^a^t^es^bas^e^{d on}^{data f}^r^om^th^{e U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^of
^Edu^cation^’^s^In^teg^r^{ated P}^o^s^t^s^ecoⁿ^d^ary^Edu^cation^{Data Sy}^s^t^em^.
Conclusion
Minority-serving institutions play a special role in the education of minority and
low-income students. This group of institutions annually receives a significant
amount of federal funding to pursue their educational mission and educate minority
students.
The preceding analysis reveals that there are some institutional and student
characteristics shared by many of the groups of MSIs considered in this report. At
the same time, it shows that there is diversity among these groups of institutions.
Both findings are potentially important for federal policymaking in this area.
In general, MSIs are disproportionately two-year public institutions. Yet, this
attribute does not characterize all MSI groups — nearly all HBCUs are four-year
public or private schools. Most MSIs are likely to be small institutions, often
enrolling fewer than 1,000 students, though some are large, enrolling 20,000 or more
students. MSIs are concentrated in certain regions, with a large majority of the
institutions located in areas where high concentrations of a particular racial/ethnic
group reside. Most states have one or more MSIs within their borders, although
several have none.
Not unexpectedly, students in MSIs are predominantly from minority
backgrounds. The proportion of undergraduates in these schools who come from
minority backgrounds ranges from about 60% to in excess of 80%. MSIs play a
significant role in educating minority students, often accounting for substantial shares
of all postsecondary students from minority backgrounds. Nevertheless, with the
exception of Hispanic students, the majority of undergraduate students from
individual minority groups do not attend MSIs.

Substantial shares of undergraduate enrollment in MSIs are likely to be
composed of low-income students. For some groups of MSIs, this low-income share
of undergraduate enrollment is significantly higher than the comparable share of all
undergraduates at Title IV PSEIs in general. More than 45% of undergraduates at
HBCUs received a Pell Grant compared to 19% of undergraduates at all Title IV
PSEIs analyzed.
As noted, most MSIs primarily award undergraduate degrees as their highest
degree. These degrees represent significant shares of all degrees awarded to minority
undergraduates, particularly for Hispanic degree recipients. The relative distribution
of fields in which these degrees are awarded does not differ for most groups of MSIs
in comparison to the distribution of undergraduate degrees for all Title IV PSEIs
included in this analysis.