## I. Appendix: List of Figures

### A. CRA Enrollment Committee

No Figures

### B. The Phenomenal Growth of CS Majors Since 2006

Figure B.1. Average number of CS majors per unit since 2006.

Figure B.2: Average enrollment by CS majors at large and small academic units (based on number of tenure track faculty). The percentages denote cumulative changes since 2006.

Figure B.3: Cumulative percent of units with the indicated level of growth in CS majors from 2009 to 2014.

Figure B.4: Cumulative percent growth of CS majors and instructional faculty since 2006.

Figure B.5: Average enrollment by CS majors in computing courses at doctoral-granting units from 2005 to 2015. The number in parentheses in each category indicates sample size.

Figure B.6: Average enrollment by CS majors in computing courses at non-doctoral granting units from 2005 to 2015. The number in parentheses in each category indicates sample size.

### C. The Widespread Increase in Nonmajor Enrollment

Figure C.1: Cumulative nonmajor enrollment (red) and major enrollment (blue) in computing courses at doctoral- and non-doctoral granting units from 2005 to 2015. The number in parentheses in each category indicates sample size.

Figure C.2: Average enrollment by nonmajors in computing courses at doctoral- and non-doctoral granting units from 2005 to 2015. The number in parentheses in each category indicates sample size. (a) Doctoral-Granting Units (b) Non-Doctoral Granting Units.

### D. The Mixed News on Diversity and the Enrollment Surge

Figure D.1: Median percentage of female students in the courses surveyed. (a) Doctoral-Granting Units (b) Non-Doctoral Granting Units.

Figure D.2: Median percentage of female students in the courses surveyed in doctoral-granting units: public vs. private. Number in parentheses in each category indicates sample size.

Figure D.3: Number of doctoral-granting units with indicated percentage of women in representative upper-level courses in 2010 and 2015.

Figure D.4: Number of URM students in four representative courses in doctoral-granting units.

Figure D.5: Median percentage of URM students in the courses surveyed (excluding MSIs). (a) Doctoral-Granting Units (b) Non-Doctoral Granting Units.

No percentage increase is shown for non-doctoral upper-level courses because the 2005 median was zero.

### E. The Challenges of the Enrollment Surge for the Unit

Figure E.1: Percentage of doctoral- and non-doctoral granting units experiencing a given level of impact.

Figure E.2: Percentage of units stating whether a given problem or concern exists at their unit due to increasing enrollment. (a) Doctoral-Granting Units (b) Non-Doctoral Granting Units.

Figure E.3: Number of doctoral-granting units reporting levels of increased demand from majors and nonmajors by course level.

### F. Units’ Response to Surging Enrollments

Figure F.1: Enrollment related actions taken by units. (a) Doctoral-Granting Units (b) Non-Doctoral Granting Units.

Figure F.2: Actions taken to manage course size and enrollments. (a) Doctoral-Granting Units (b) Non-Doctoral Granting Units.

Figure F.3: Actions taken to manage teaching resources. (a) Doctoral-Granting Units (b) Non-Doctoral Granting Units.

Figure F.4: Actions taken to manage faculty workloads. (a) Doctoral-Granting Units (b) Non-Doctoral Granting Units.

Figure F.5: Actions taken to manage access to courses or major (a) Doctoral-Granting Units (b) Non-Doctoral Granting Units.

### G. IPEDS Comparisons

Figure G.1: IPEDS Data (CIP 11.0101 & 11.0701)

Figure G.2: IPEDS CS Diversity Data. (a) Doctoral-Granting Units (b) Non-Doctoral Granting Units.

Figure G.3: IPEDS Private vs. Public CS Completions

Figure G.4: Diversity in Public and Private Institutions. (a) Doctoral-Granting Units (b) Non-Doctoral Granting Units.

### H. Appendix: Methodology

No Figures

### I. Appendix: List of Figures

No Figures

### J. Acknowledgements

No Figures