150%-time completion
150%-time completion at Universal College of Beauty Inc-Los Angeles 2 rose 103% between 2006 and 2009 (21.6% → 43.9%).
Los Angeles, California. 38 undergraduate students. 1 programs in the federal Field-of-Study dataset.
Short-arc shifts (recent 3-year window), peer outliers, earnings trend breaks, completion drops, enrollment cliffs, and debt-to-earnings warnings — surfaced deterministically from the federal record. Multi-decade shifts are reported separately in the Long Arc section, since 25-year tuition drift isn't really an anomaly.
150%-time completion at Universal College of Beauty Inc-Los Angeles 2 rose 103% between 2006 and 2009 (21.6% → 43.9%).
First-year retention at Universal College of Beauty Inc-Los Angeles 2 rose 62% between 2006 and 2009 (50.0% → 81.2%).
Undergraduate enrollment at Universal College of Beauty Inc-Los Angeles 2 rose 16% between 2006 and 2009 (37 → 43).
Each tile compares this institution to the California median for the same metric. Sub-line shows the comparison value, not an interpretation. Sparklines trace the federally available history.
Treasury tax-record earnings for federally aided students who first enrolled at this institution. Each point is a horizon from the most-recent vintage. Single median per horizon (no p25/p75 publishing).
Federally available history. Coverage varies by metric — IPEDS publishes some series only after 2009 and others only before.
58.4% → 43.9%
54.0% → 81.3%
Each row is one (CIP × credential) program reported by the institution in College Scorecard's Field-of-Study data. Cohort floor is 30 students; below this, federal data is suppressed.
Programs are grouped by 2-digit CIP family. Programs without reported earnings are hidden to keep the list focused.
Picked by Carnegie sector × predominant credential level. These are not rankings — just nearest-neighbour surfaces for comparison.
Median earnings describe what cohorts earned. They do not describe what attending Universal College of Beauty Inc-Los Angeles 2 caused. Selection effects (who admits, who enrolls, who completes) are real. We publish federal data with strict descriptive phrasing — and link the methodology where you can read about the limitations directly.