Design a site like this with
Get started

60x30TX Program Evaluation


This study used a grounded theory to evaluate the progress and feasibility of the Texas Higher Coordinating Board’s (THECB) 60x30TX program (60x30TX; the program). Through research into the data compiled by THECB, Texas Public University information, and this research helps to determine if the program was implemented as intended and if the main goal is attainable. The following research has found that while the state of Texas has experienced a moderate growth in college enrollment compared to the national average, falls short of the goals and benchmarks set by the THECB. The program, as a whole, focuses on informing students and parents on college and financial options, but fails to provide continued support throughout college. The concluding recommendation is to offer more financial assistance and guidance through university financial aid offices and state-funded mini-grants.

Keywords:  Higher Education, Texas, THECB, 60x30TX, college, public university, Post-Secondary, marketable skills, financial aid

60x30TX Program Evaluation

In the rapidly changing job environment, higher education is becoming more and more important for individuals to succeed and for states to sustain growth. Texas, already an economic powerhouse, wants to ensure that its citizens are getting the skills needed to compete and succeed in the future (Holmes, 2020). The State of Texas, in addition to strengthening its economy, must also address its aging and increasingly migrant population (Hunt, 2016). The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) introduced their solution, the 60x30TX program, in 2015 aimed at encouraging and assisting at least sixty percent of Texans with a higher education degree or certification by the year 2030. The THECB describes their greater goal to “be the highest-achieving states in the country. 60x30TX is a roadmap to help Texas reach that future through higher education”. This is an ambitious goal and I propose to conduct a summative evaluation regarding the program theory. Specifically, the conceptualization, expectations, and logistics of how the program ought to work as well as the feasibility of the State’s goal. The scope of this evaluation will be the progress of the primary goal of the THECB’s four goals: an educated population. The four goals are an educated population, completion, marketable skills, and student debt (Fig. 1). The evaluation will focus on university population trends as well as completion rates as it is a primary driver for the rest of the goals and programs.

The purpose of this study is to identify if the goal of the 60x30TX program is obtainable. Because the program has completed five years out of the fifteen year length of the program, now would be a good time to reassess if the progress displays promising results or if additional intervention is needed. The program must show that the inputs, guidance, and advising by the state results in increased college and certificate enrollment and completion.

Figure 1 – The four goals of 60x30TX.

Since recovery from the 2008 recession, the United States created 11.6 million jobs, the majority of which requires some sort of higher education (Carnevale, 2019). Texas found itself in an elevated position after the recession and now ranks as the 15th largest economy in the world – but with the nature of the new jobs, “Texas can only keep this level of economic prosperity by having a more educated workforce”, the program’s website asserts (2016). Additionally, the site references the “rapid innovation and technological progress” are changing the nature of work in the state and will require “60 percent or more of all new jobs will require some level of higher education” but only 42 percent of young Texans have higher education at the start of the program. Texas Commissioner of Higher Education, Raymund Paredes, explained in 2016 that “we are going to have to innovate – to come up with creative ideas about how to address our needs and achieve our goals”. 

The stakeholders for the program include Texas students, their families, and the communities they live in, but the main focus of the program’s goal is laser-focused on Texas students because, as THECB explains, “when Texas students win, the state wins”. This strategy of supporting students in order to improve state health is a sort of tickle-up support where the state of Texas assists those who need the most assistance with the hopes that they can improve their own communities which, in turn, helps the state at large. Following the same logic, stakeholders would extend to include not only the state of Texas, but the various and diverse industries, companies, and small businesses that power the state. Dr. Peter H. Rossi, et al., describe stakeholders in Evaluation: A systematic approach (2004)  as “individuals, groups, or organizations having significant interest in how well a program functions” in addition to decision-making authority, program administrators, and sponsors (pg. 18). With that inclusive definition, the 60x30TX program makes Texas student’s success the business of the whole state. The program makes the state of Texas a stakeholder. 


The 60x30TX Program began in 2015 and seeks to accomplish its greater goals by 2030. It is safe to say that the program is well into its implementation and is ready to be evaluated to measure how obtainable its goals are. Before observations can be made, a brief overview into how the program is implemented is needed.

The program breaks down the state into ten distinct regions shown in figure 2. The reasons for the split being one size does not fit all, regional target-setting will help to improve the effectiveness of institutional target setting, and it encourages tactical planning to reach statewide goals. The program offers ten unique starter kits to help the universities in each region to understand the position they are in, the goal of the program, and assists them in coming up with their own goals and strategies to achieve those goals. The Coordinating Board and THECB representatives then keep communication open and publish the progress for the region. This progress is reported and regional strategies are fine-tuned into a regional action plan. It is important to note that each region has their own CoordinatingBoard contacts and resources 

Figure 2 – THECB 60x30TX regions. From Texas Higher Education Data (2018). 

which vary widely. Where the introduction and beginning action-steps are uniform, the follow up assistance and communication seem to lack in some regions and strong in others. For the 2019 year-end reports, for example, the Gulf Coast region has a relatively short “submitted regional strategy” and no regional action plan whereas the other regions did have action plans prepared.

  Additionally, higher ed representatives for each region will meet periodically with regional education specialists on tours to advise and guide schools to improve their performance. And while each region’s specific guidance varies slightly, they all follow the same sorts of activities. These include: easing the transfer process between universities, increase support activities (advising, tutoring, peer mentors, etc), expand dual credit offerings, offer more campus tours and FAFSA nights at high schools, promote various conferences, meetings, and other counseling resources. 

These plans also communicate the progress for each region. The plan offers reasons for the progress and offers activities to change any negative trends. For rural regions such as the Northwest and High Plains regions, for example, attributes slow growth to historically low unemployment rates, increased in pay for individuals with just a high school diploma, smaller school districts, high poverty, and a decrease in the number of high school graduates. Metropolitan areas, such as Metroplex and Gulf Coast regions, are attributed to strong economies where there are enough citizens who can readily find good-paying jobs, a strong narrative that questions the need for higher education, and demographic, social, and historical bases that are hard to shift. 

60x30TX program theory can be summed up like in figure 3 below. Inputs, resources, and guidance from the state is directed toward each public university and schools which, in turn, produces short term outcomes. The progress or shortcomings observed are then communicated and refined in the activities and processes. In short, these regions communicate with the state of Texas and it’s THECB regarding the institutional progress, strategies, and what is needed to meet the defined goals of the program. There are a wide-range of suggestions made by the THECB, but they focus around easing of university processes to make enrollment easier, enhanced dual credit programs, more internships, more aid and resources to students as well as more counselling and guidance regarding student post-secondary options.

Figure 3 – 60x30TX Program Theory

Literature Review

There have been articles and other literature that address this program especially in regards to attracting more citizens, Hispanic, African American, and traditionally under privileged regarding higher education. But it is difficult to find an extensive evaluation of the program as a whole and it’s progress at this point. Notably, however, there is extensive research into the importance of post secondary education and its benefits to the state economy as a whole. 

The most material that relates directly to the program has been published at the beginning of the program when the importance of 60x30TX’s goals was clear. As the economy grows, citizens need to hold advanced degrees, marketable goals, and low debt. There is perhaps no better explanation than businessman Woody Hunt’s TedTalk in the fall of 2016. Mr. Hunt provides a foundation for the need of education and how hispanic and african american texans are not obtaining the national average rate of post secondary education attainment. To gain sixty percent of the population with an advanced degree, these Texans more than anything need assistance to meet the socioeconomic barriers to college. Additionally, Mr. Hunt explains how, without intervention, less Texans would continue post-secondary education, income would decrease, and Texas income would decrease by 2030.

There are various pieces published since the program’s inception that focus on the problems in higher education and references the 60x30TX program in regards to possible solutions. For example, issues such as debt-to-income ratios of graduates, is a goal the program wishes to solve. Examining the variation in the student debt-to-income ratio by Dominique Baker (2017) outlined the importance of controlling debt-to-income as well as the impressive commitment to getting more students through college. But Baker also noted that, especially with students of color, the debt-to-ratio is much higher (between 141 and 155 percent higher) than white students and this is attributed to the excessive hour penalties. Other research suggests other issues and more recommendations. Taryn Allen, et al. in The influence of dual credit on Laninx students’ college aspirations and choices (2018) suggests that the dual credit solution offered by the State, while helps, is not sufficient for everyone in their college-going decision. Brook Redmon Dickison looked into the correlation between state appropriations and increases in tuition rates to gain a better understanding of how state funding impacts university tuition. Dickson’s research, Decreased state appropriations and their impact on Texas public four-year higher education institutions tuition rates through deregulated tuition (2019) found that the state budgeting process would benefit from greater transparency between both the institutions and the state as well as a rational approach to tuition payment processes, both good recommendations and considerations if the 60x30TX program desired to further intervention to achieve its goals. 

Other research that bears mentioning is the research that aims at solving the same problems the 60x30TX program seeks to solve. The differences between past post-secondary and present post-secondary experiences need to be addressed. HIllary Hoffower in Nine ways college is different for millennials than it was for previous generations (2018) pinpoints nine issues future college students, and likewise, the THECB, need to consider – mainly, that college is more expensive, more students are attending and thus competing in college, and that courses are more technologically and virtually centered. Rita Karam, et al. in Managing the expansion of graduate education in Texas (2017), examined the 60x30TX strategic plan in depth and recommend that much more institutional and research funding, programs to streamline student enrollment and continuing education, as well as alternative methods of completing post-secondary education is emphasized or increased.

There has been interesting progress made in alternative solutions to the college problem witnessed around the nation. Just last year, states such as Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Oregon have enacted statewide scholarship programs to cover community college tuition. Additionally, numerous candidates for president such as Senator Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, among others, have backed plans that ease the financial burden of postsecondary education (Douglas-Gabriel, 2019). Businessman Andrew Yang, founder of Humanity Forward, has suggested universal basic income to solve the financial barrier seen by most students and this trend seems to have caught on as many politicians ranging from Senator Mitt Romney to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have since recommended putting financial resources directly in the hands of Americans as a way to close wage gaps and overcome financial barriers (Harris, 2020). Higher learning advocate author Ashley Clark completed research suggesting state mini-grants, emergency aid, and institutional debt forgiveness to assist students in completing post-secondary education (2020). Because, as Woodley Hunt noted, the “best correlation to post-secondary success is family wealth” it is clear that the state needs to close this gap to improve traditionally underprivileged students’ completion rates (Hunt, 2016). In short, if 60x30TX wants to meet its goal, student funding like this needs to be considered if traditional means are not working. 

The literature available to date is not focused on the 60x30TX program specifically. Rather, the core of articles written are built around the program offering suggestions and recommendations on how to improve the program. Surely, there will be an increasing amount of pieces written about the program once it nears the end of the program implemented by 2030. At that time, it will be all too clear how the program should have operated, what worked, what did not work, and what needed to have changed to ensure program success.


This evaluation will be an assessment of the program and  program progress and so it will primarily focus on how the program is designed and intended to work. To do so, the research will employ a grounded theory approach by gathering all possible facts and providing an analysis observation of the program trend. Additionally, the research will describe the program theory in detail and then utilize program monitoring to determine the feasibility of the program goal. The result will reveal whether or not the program can obtain its intended purpose in time and with its current resources and if additional intervention is needed on the part of the State and THECB to reach their defined goal.


This evaluation is a mixed method research utilizing the heavily reported quantitative data provided by the state, universities, and federal sources as well as the qualitative observation, analysis, and the unobtrusive observations such as document analysis, progress trends, and ethnography. Additionally, this quasi experiment used a nonrandomized sample. Reason being, the research called for a diverse observation of the different universities across Texas from the different regions defined by the 60x30TX program. Not only are different universities warranted to get an accurate picture of the population, but diverse schools are needed so university population, size, resources, and demographics can be representative. Also, when randomly selecting, it was found that some universities do not have or did not choose to report some or all of the data needed so they had to be replaced by a similar school. A survey was also conducted to measure the attitude and impression of Texas’ goals and abilities to better understand how Texan students feel regarding this topic.

Ideally, the health and progress of the program would be compared to the national progress, other states, and similar state programs. But the scope of this evaluation will be limited to the state of Texas, the selected universities and how the completion numbers changed since the inception of the program. Additional variables will be fall enrollment numbers, completion rate, African American completion, and Hispanic completion numbers. It should also be noted that the State of Texas is not representative of the rest of the country regarding African American and Hispanic citizens, so any comparison to national rates would hold little meaning anyways. Additionally, both the survey and the chosen universities have a relatively small and limited sample size. With more time and resources, all universities would be observed along with what resources they are implementing. The evaluation could then measure which program efforts are working where through regression analysis. 

The sample was limited to ten public universities and included the University of Texas in Austin (UT), the University of Houston (UH), Texas Tech (TT), Texas State University (TS), Sam Houston University(SH), Stephen F Austin State University (SFA), North Texas University (NT), A&M in Corpus Christi (CC), Angelo University (AU), and A&M in College Station (A&M) (Table 1). This wide-range of universities covers the major institutions as well as diversity in demographics, population, resources, and program-defined regions. The variables to observe the programs progress are population and completion rate of the university and their hispanic and african american students. These variables, compared with the national and state-wide data will provide a good picture to judge if the program is making objective progress in their defined goals.

The primary source of data for my assessment lies with the THECB as it has been conducting this program for five years and has amassed detailed information regarding every public university in the State. Additional state and national information was found at the National Center for Educational Statistics. The evaluation is qualitative in nature and will depend on a grounded theory approach to research where information will be gathered by the program itself as well as other studies into the program and its results so far. Considering the many points where the program reaches out to universities and institutions, and interacts with schools and students, the research includes a survey to understand how those involved in the post-secondary process feel about their support, the available resources, and if they are familiar with the 60x30TX program in general.


While the State of Texas and the chosen sample of universities have, in general, experienced a growth in student enrollment from 2016 through 2019, the completion rates have not increased enough to meet the benchmark numbers THECB set. Additionally, when applying the same average annual changes of enrollment and completion, the state of Texas and universities show a modest growth overall, the projected rates of completion do not meet the bar set for the 60x30TX program. The overall goals setforeth by the program cannot be met with the current resources and methods being used at this time.

Firstly, enrollment (Table 2) displays an average net increase of 3,551student growth and a 1.29 percent average annual change for the sample universities, and 65,000 student growth and 1.08 percent average annual change  for the state of Texas. In comparison, national enrollment fell by 1,045,172 students between 2016 and 2019 with an average annual change of -1.37 percent. Even if, as shown below, the program fails to meet its own benchmarks, something could be said for the above-par college performance compared to the national average. Whether or not it is correlated to the program initiatives itself remains to be seen.

Entering college and completing college are two very different challenges and the completion rates provides an informative glance into the progress of the program. The sample universities and the State (Table 3) show a small increase in completion rates from 2016 through 2019. The samples have a net increase of 1,866 students a year, which is about a 2.72 percent average annual change. The State of Texas has a net increase of 6,565 students a year, or a 2.042 percent average annual change. Taking this average annual change, all things remaining equal, the evaluation finds that the benchmarks set are well out of reach for the 60x30TX program. Completion rate needs to be more than double the current rate, approximately 4.265 percent, to reach the 2030 goal of 550,000 Texans completing their degree.

Table 6 – Projected completion rates compared to benchmarks

The same trend is shown for both the African American and Hispanic completion rates. The African American completion rate projection, shows an average annual change of 1.46 percent and, when projected over the next decade, does not show promising figures. While there is an increase in both, the projected rates fall short of the benchmarks expected of 60x30TX by the state. African American completion rates statewide indicate an average annual change of 1.46 percent over the four years since the program’s conception (Table 7). This rate of completion needs to be about four times the current rate, about 5.76 percent, to reach the benchmark set at 2030 which aims for 76,000 Black Texans to complete their degree annually. 

Table 7 – Projected African American completion rates compared to benchmarks

Hispanic Texans show much more progress than the statewide completion or African American completion rates but, again, falls short of the 2030 goal. The State saw an average annual increase of 4.26 percent in completion rates for Hispanic Texans but needs to see almost double those figures to about 8.053 percent annually to obtain the benchmark goal of 285,0000 by 2030 (Table 8).

Table 8 – Projected Hispanic completion rates compared to benchmarks

The results of the survey regarding the impression of Texas higher education likewise reveals telling information. The survey was administered primarily to gather an impression of how students felt regarding the financial and practical advice and support they received while in college or post secondary education. The survey was supported by the free online survey program “Survey Monkey” and distributed to college students through social media and electronic communication. The sample size of respondents is thirty (n=30) and was collected early March 2020 (Appendix A).

Respondents overwhelmingly thought a college degree and/or a trade certification is valuable with 23 respondents thinking both are valuable (76.67 percent), and five thinking a college degree alone is valuable and two thinking a trade certificate alone is valuable. When asked to rate how well the State of Texas performed providence assistance and guidance for post secondary seekers, the respondents average response was 4.9 out of 10 with a skew to a lower rating (Table 9). About half of respondents have reported receiving guidance or counseling from their college and high school during the college process but only 33.33% or ten respondents reported receiving enough guidance in the college process. Additionally, only 46.67% of respondents responded that they had enough financial resources to accomplish their academic goals. When reflecting on if Texas has enough skilled workers to lead the country through 2030 and beyond, only 36.67 responded in the affirmative. And when asked if they have heard of the 60x30TX program, 83.33%, or 25 respondents answered no.

These respondents displayed a general feeling that post secondary education is important and valuable, but most did not feel they received enough guidance or assistance in the college process. The respondents collectively did not think Texas could continue to lead the country with the skilled workers the state has now. And lastly, the respondents did not know what the 60x30TX program was which seems to speak of the little presence the program has with college-going students in Texas.


In the present journey to obtain and completely finish a postsecondary degree, there is a huge obstacle: financial resources. Many have noted that the number one hurddle to compelting a degree is financial barriers (Chute, 2008) (Muhammad, 2018). The financial strain on students is often solved by suggesting community college options which could provide valuable skills at a fraction of the price. Elizabet Mann Levesque found in her report that while underprivileged students enroll in community at a much higher rate, “fewer than 40 percent of community college students earn a certificate or degree within six years of enrollment” (2018). The solution is simple: more resources to support the student through college.

To return to Woodley Hunt’s TedTalk The future of higher education in Texas, one of the biggest takeaways is that college success is dependent on many factors, but the“best correlation to post-secondary success is family wealth”, which is to say, family wealth, economic equality, and financial stability is the key to ensuring not only that students enter college, but stay in college to completion. Many others can attest to this fact. A 2019 Georgetown Study found that family wealth, and not ability, is the biggest predictor of future success. The study found that smart underprivileged students have a lower chance of graduating from college than lower-performing wealthy students (Carnevale, et al, 2019). A long-term study found that “children from the bottom 60 percent of the wealth distribution” had a “statistically insignificant increase” of five percent increases or less of college completion over a decade whereas “children from the next 20 percent of the wealth distribution increased their college completion rates by 8.4 percent” and the children at the top 20 percent saw an increase of 20 percent college completion (Pfeffer, 2018). More worrying still, Pfeffer’s study Growing wealth gaps in education noted that “rising wealth inequality fully accounting for rising wealth gaps in education – would have made predictions about the fate of today’s children” (2018).

Based on the fact that financial security is an enormous factor in college completion, the State should consider investing considerably in financial support, mini-grants, and financial aid to Texas students. There is already the infrastructure to find those in need through the state financial appliation “TASFA”. By identifying underprivileged students in the application process, as well as noting the problem areas through the 60x30TX regional reports, the state could easily target and pay students who are struggling to complete their degree.

Additionally, the program relies on communication between universities, schools, regional representatives, and the state to gather information and pass on guidance and counselling but information available varies from university to university and from region to region indicating that the chain of communication is lost somewhere in between. To address this, it is recommended that the state enforce a basic standard of communication and reporting. Additionally, regression analysis should be run and maintained to identify exactly what works with what variable. This analysis, along with the improved communication, can focus the state’s resources on what is working.


The State of Texas set out to accomplish an impressive and valiant goal of educating Texans to ensure continued prosperity for the State and it’s communities. The State and THECB also sought to target traditionally underprivileged students through informational and resources driven strategies – something most states seem to neglect. And while no one can reasonably fault them for their efforts, it is clear that the resources and strategies they are investing in the program are not enough and will not meet their benchmarks to reach the end goal of thirty percent post secondary educated citizens by 2030.

As observed in the evaluation, the program is leading an information campaign which is attracting many students to enroll in college by showing them their post secondary options. But increasing enrollment is not enough. Students also need resources to complete college. Recently, there has been more and more support for affordable college including free college, increased grants, and other financial aid. Since family wealth has been shown to be the biggest factor in post secondary education success, the State of Texas would benefit from investing far more in micro-grants to ensure these students can continue in college to the end. While some resistance is expected, the end result would be the same as 60x30TX’s program goal: improved state economy, skilled resources, improved communities, and an overall better Texas.


Allen, T.O., Thompson, M.L., & Collins, S. (2018). The influence of dual credit on Latinx students’ college aspirations and choice. Journal of Latinos and Education, DOI: 10.1080/15348431.2018.1510780.

Ayala, E. “Only about half of all Texas students graduate from college within six years” Dallas News. Accessed February 16, 2020 from

Ayala, E. “Only half of Latino college students graduate. What are Texas schools doing to help?” Dallas News. Accessed February 16, 2020 from

Baker, D. (2017). Examining the variation in the student debt-to-income ratio. University of Texas at Austin, Education Research Center. Accessed February 18, 2020 from:

Carnevale, A. P., M. L. Fasules, M.C. Quinn, & K.P. Campbell (2019). Born to win, schooled to lose: Why equally talented students don’t get equal chances to be all they can be. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Washington, D.C.

Chute, E. (2008). “Students face a long list of obstacles on the way to college” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Accessed April 30, 2020 from

Clark, A. (2020). What Works for Today’s Students – Microgrants. Higher Learning Advocates. Accessed February 18, 2020 from:

Dickson, R. B. (2019). Decreased state appropriations and their impact on Texas public four-year higher education institutions tuition rates through deregulated tuition (Unpublished Dissertation). Texas Tech School of Education, Lubbock, TX. 

Di Paolo, T., P. Loraine. (2017). #LEAP Texas. Peer Review, 19(3). Retrieved February 18, 2020 from:

Douglas-Gabriel, D. “It seems like a no-lose idea: free college. But nobody can agree on the details” The Washington Post. Accessed April 26, 2020 from

Harris, A. (2020) “What if Andrew Yang was Right?” The Atlantic. Accessed April 10, 2020 from

 Holmes, F. “6 Reasons why Texas Trumps all other U.S. Economies”. Forbes. Accessed February 13, 2020 from

Hoffower, H. “9 ways college is different for millennials than it was for previous generations”. Business Insider. Accessed April 26, 2020 from

Hunt, W. (2016, October 24). The Future of Higher Education in Texas. Accessed from

Karam, R., C. A. Goldman, D. Basco, & D. Gehlhaus (2017). Managing the expansion of graduate education in Texas. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Levesque, E.M. “Improving community college completion rates by addressing structural and motivational barriers”. The Brookings Institution. Accessed April 30, 2020 from

McNabb, D. E. (2018). Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management (4th ed.) New York, NY: Routledge. 

Muhammad, K.G. (2018). “What’s the biggest challenge for colleges and universities?” The New York Times. Accessed April 30, 2020 from

Pfeffer, F.T. (2018). Growing wealth gaps in education. Demography 55, 1033-1068.

Quintana, C. “More Latino students than ever are trying to get their degree, but it’s fraught and costly”. USA Today. Accessed February 15, 2020 from

Rossi, P.H., M.W. Lipsey, & H.E. Freeman (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Santiago, D.A. & Callan, P. (2010). Ensuring America’s Future: Benchmarking Latino College Completion to meet National Goals: 2010 to 2020. National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Accessed from:

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2015). [Figure 1 – The four goals of 60x30TX]

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2015). Texas Higher Education Strategic Plan: 2015-2030. Retrieved from:

Texas Higher Education Data (2018). [Figure 2 – THECB 60x30TX regions].


Table 1 – Public Texas State Universities – Population and Selected Sample

Note: the decision to make the evaluation a quasi-experiment with nonrandomized samples is because of the large university systems in Texas, the THECB regions, and incomplete data reported by some universities. The evaluation did not call for numerous universities in the same system and did want diverse universities from different parts of Texas – both to ensure a representative sample.

Table 2 – Sample Universities, State, and National Enrollment Data

UniversityPopulation 2016Population 2017Population 2018Population 2019
University of Texas Austin (UT)50,95051,33151,52551,832
University of Houston (UH)43,77945,36646,33646,132
Texas Tech (TT)36,55136,99638,20938,803
Texas State University (TS)38,84938,69438,66138,644
Sam Houston University (SH)20,47720,93821,02521,213
Stephen F Austin State University (SFASU)12,65312,61413,05813,144
North Texas University (NT)37,97938,09438,08739,330
A&M Corpus Christi (CC)12,20212,20211,92911,929
Angelo University (AU)9,47510,36210,24210,568
A&M College Station (A&M)58,51560,43566,18369,367
TOTAL SAMPLE321,430327,032335,255340,962
State-Wide Data1,495,0001,513,0001,540,0001,560,000
National Data19,010,45918,463,67718,196,84617,965,287

Table 3 – Sample Universities and State-wide Completion

UniversityCompletion 2016Completion 2017Completion 2018Completion 2019
University of Texas Austin (UT)13330128341296913083
University of Houston (UH)8,789865294539772
Texas Tech (TT)6885725479318007
Texas State University (TS)7881844384708728
Sam Houston University (SH)4414464247415081
Stephen F Austin State University (SFASU)2679274627312860
North Texas University (NT)8271873690209145
A&M Corpus Christi (CC)2163235523322438
Angelo University (AU)1284148515391654
A&M College Station (A&M)12908140431495415300
Total Sample68604711907414076068
State-Wide Data321,410333,920341,307347,669

Table 4 – Sample University and State-wide African American Competition

University of Texas Austin (UT)575586517575
University of Houston (UH)929851932963
Texas Tech (TT)397451510547
Texas State University (TS)571734772835
Sam Houston University (SH)637691760725
Stephen F Austin State University (SFASU)530543462493
North Texas University (NT)1010103011851134
A&M Corpus Christi (CC)114150127130
Angelo University (AU)97123126130
A&M College Station (A&M)369431498544
Total Sample5229559058896076
State-Wide Data38813410274159441077

Table 5 – Sample University and State-wide Hispanic Competition

UniversityComp_Hispanic2016Comp_Hispanic2017Comp_Hispanic 2018Comp_Hispanic2019
University of Texas Austin (UT)2636258925262655
University of Houston (UH)2322235827062925
Texas Tech (TT)1274150017721844
Texas State University (TS)2303259927702943
Sam Houston University (SH)79092810071149
Stephen F Austin State University (SFASU)320362422456
North Texas University (NT)1529182418792091
A&M Corpus Christi (CC)86299310201106
Angelo University (AU)328382402478
A&M College Station (A&M)2171264628583134
TOTAL SAMPLE14535161811736218781
State-Wide Data103,889111,344115,735121,589

Table 6 – Projected completion rates compared to benchmarks

Completion Rates


Table 7 – Projected African American completion rates compared to benchmarks

Completion Rates – African American


Table 8 – Projected Hispanic completion rates compared to benchmarks


Table 9 – Rating Texas’ performance in providing assistance and/or guidance to postsecondary seekers


NOTE: This question allowed participants to rate on a scale of one to ten with ten being “very good” and one being very bad”. The average rating was 4.9 out of 10.


Appendix A – Post Secondary Questionnaire Survey

Question 1 – What is your education status?

Never attended post high school13.33%
Dropped out00
Completed/Completing College2273.33%
Obtained/obtain Trade Certificate13.33%
Obtained/obtaining Advanced Degree620%

Question 2 – Do you think a college degree or trade certification is valuable to have?

Yes, both2376.67%
No, neither00
Yes, a college degree526.67%
Yes, a trade certificate26.67%

Question 3 – How well do you think the State of Texas does providing assistance and/or guidance for college or certification seekers? 


NOTE: This question allowed participants to rate on a scale of one to ten with ten being “very good” and one being very bad”. The average rating was 4.9 out of 10.

Question 4 – Did you ever receive counseling from your college to help guide your decisions?


Question 5 – Did you ever receive counseling in high school to help make college decisions?


Question 6 – Do you feel you have/had enough guidance in the college process?


Question 7 – Do you feel you have/had enough financial resources to accomplish your academic goals?


Question 8 – Do you think Texas has enough skilled workers to continue leading the country through 2030 and beyond?

Not at all1963.33%

Question 9 – Have you ever heard of the 60x30TX Program?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Powered by

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: