Transcript 2006 Enrollment Retreat July 24, 2006 Setting The Stage Melanie McClellan Agenda 8:30-9:30 9:30-9:45 9:45-10:00 10:00-12:00 12:00-1:00 Setting the Stage Break Using Data & Narratives to make decisions Students and Programs Lunch.

2006 Enrollment Retreat
July 24, 2006
Setting The Stage
Melanie McClellan
Agenda
8:30-9:30
9:30-9:45
9:45-10:00
10:00-12:00
12:00-1:00
Setting the Stage
Break
Using Data & Narratives
to make decisions
Students and Programs
Lunch
Agenda
1:00-2:00
2:00-2:15
2:15-3:00
3:00-4:00
4:00-4:30
Attracting New Students and
Changing the Student Profile
Break
Enrollment Projections
Reflections and Discussions
Concluding Comments
Strategic Enrollment Structure
Strategic Enrollment
Executive Committee
Strategic Enrollment Council
Research and
Information
Recruitment &
Marketing
Policy,
Practices, and
Procedures
First-Year
Experience
Academic
Advising
Task Forces
Communication
Core Seat
Demand
Distance
Learning
Transfer
Students
Second
Year Exper.
Graduate
Enrollment
Satellite
Campuses
Resources
Strategic Enrollment Council
• Some Accomplishments
– Student Email Policy
– Advising Web Site (development)
• Collection of information on departmental practices for an Advising
Handbook
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Foundations of Excellence
Changes in New Student Orientation
Transitions Orientation
Orientation Common Reading
Research on Academic Standing, Withdraw and Retake Policy
Recruitment and Marketing plan
Advising Action Plan
Using Data & Narrative to
Make Decisions
Tim Hynes
Current Students and
Programs
Scot Lingrell
Julie Bartley
Sandra Stone
1252
more
UGs
enrolled
than in
Fall 2000
Undergraduate Enrollment
9000
8045
7224
8000
8279
8346
7663
+411
7116
1515
7000
1613
1698
1548
1492
1340
1287
1283
6000
1447
1362
1086
+406
1200
5000
SR
JR
4000
1423
1502
1662
1613
1652
1750
+327
SO
Cont FR
New FR
3000
1494
1671
1559
1571
1524
1597
1602
1568
1637
1740
1719
1656
2000
1000
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
+108
New Student Profile
• Enrollment (Fall 2005)
– 56% of applicants accepted (60% in 2004)
– 68% accepts enrolled (56% in 2004)
– 1656 FT/FT Freshmen Enrolled (1719 in 2004)
– 571 Transfers Enrolled (655 in 2004)
– 74 Joint/Academy (67 in 2004)
– 30 Transient (25 in 2004)
– 61 Learning Support (138 in 2004)
New Student Profile
All New Freshmen, not just FT/FT
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2005 Cohort
60% women
24% African Amer.
87% on HOPE
72% Residential
12.7% Greek
30% in FYRST
18% in UWG 1101
21.5% on Probation after
first term
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2004 Cohort
58% women
25% African Amer.
81% on HOPE
72% Residential
13.2% Greek
37% in FYRST
8% in UWG 1101
25% on Probation after
first term
Changing Admission Standards
• Affect on Enrollment
• Affect on Student Success
Admission Standard Change Dynamic
New FT/FT Freshmen
2000
Number of New Freshmen
1800
1600
1400
1200
Valdosta
1000
Georgia College
West Georgia
800
Adm ission
Standard
Change
600
400
200
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Fall
Admission Standard Change
Total Undergrad
Number of Undergrad Students
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
Valdosta
5000
Georgia College
4000
West Georgia
3000
Adm ission
Standard
Change
2000
1000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Fall
New Student Profile
Mean SAT Scors of FT/FT Entering Freshmen (FT/FT)
530
520
510
500
490
480
470
460
450
Fall
96
Fall
97
Fall
98
Fall
99
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
SAT Verbal
487
488
482
484
498
505
509
512
507
520
SAT Math
477
479
477
474
491
499
505
505
498
511
New Student Profile
Mean GPA (FT/FT)
3.02
3.01
3
2.99
2.98
2.97
2.96
2.95
Mean GPA
Fall 2003
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
2.97
2.97
3.01
College Board Information
New Student Profile
Probation Comparison
450
400
Number of Students
350
411
24.5%
416
25.4%
333
300
21.5%
250
221
200
206
179
150
100
97
100
85
50
0
Prob after Fall
Prob after Spring
Dismissed/Suspended
2003
2004
2005
411
416
333
97
100
85
221
206
179
First Year Success and Beyond
• How is success measured?
• “The numbers”
First Year Success and Beyond
• Other measures?
First Year Success and Beyond
• Other measures?
• May be more difficult to quantify
• Often the immediate driving forces of a
program
– Faculty/staff engagement
– Big-picture goals
First, the easy stuff…
Retention (1st – 2nd Year)
• Fall 2000 through Fall 2005 cohorts
– Greeks:
• 81% vs. 69% non-Greek ( 0.001)
– FYRST:
• 76% vs. 68% non-FYRST ( 0.001)
– Learning Communities:
• 76% vs. 70% non-LC ( 0.001)
– UWG 1101
• 70% vs. 70% non-UWG1101 (not significant)
Retention
• Overall, retention rates for LCs are higher
than non-LC, but highly variable across LCs
(1999-2003)
– Pre-Health: 81%
– Pre-Engineering: 74%
– Pre-Nursing: 69%
– Making Decisions: 77%
Retention – Know Your Population
• Pre-Health LC
– 81%
• Pre-Engineering LC
– 74%
• Pre-Nursing LC
– 69%
• Pre-Health non-LC
– 70%
• Pre-Engineering non-LC
– 67%
• Pre-Nursing non-LC
– 69%
• Making Decisions LC • Undecided non-LC
– 77%
– 67%
Grade Point Averages
• Fall 2000 through Fall 2005 cohorts
– Greeks:
• Cumulative GPA 2.49 vs. 2.25 for non-Greeks ( 0.001)
– FYRST:
• 1st semester GPA 2.34 vs. 2.27 ( 0.001)
• Despite lower HS GPA (2.92 vs. 3.00;  0.001)
– LC:
• Cumulative GPA 2.46 vs. 2.27 for non-LC ( 0.001)
– UWG 1101 (2003-2005):
• First-term GPA 2.37 vs. 2.28 for non-UWG (not significant)
• Cumulative GPA 2.89 vs. 2.98 for non-UWG (not significant)
GPA – Know Your Students
Pre-Health LC vs. Pre-Health non-LC
• F02 Cohort
– Year 1: 2.56 vs 2.06
– Year 2: 2.77 vs. 2.57
– Year 3: 2.85 vs. 2.65
• F03 Cohort
– Year 1: 2.56 vs. 2.30
– Year 2: 3.01 vs. 2.64
• F04 Cohort
– Year 1: 2.16 vs. 2.20
GPA – Know Your Students
Making Decisions LC vs. Undecided non-LC
• F02 Cohort
– Year 1: 2.57 vs. 2.27
– Year 2: 2.52 vs. 2.73
– Year 3: 2.75 vs. 2.79
• F03 Cohort
– Year 1: 2.11 vs. 2.27
– Year 2: 2.61 vs. 2.68
• F04 Cohort
– Year 1: 2.35 vs. 2.33
So now we have some
questions to ask
What works, what doesn’t,
and why?
Interesting Questions Arise
• Possible interpretations?
Interesting Questions Arise
• Possible interpretations?
– Making Decisions students are retained at a
higher rate than non-LC undecided students
despite lower GPAs
– Connection to college?
– Initial preparedness?
• MD students have a lower GPA and freshman
index than the comparison group
• Can we take action?
Academic Standing
• UWG 1101 students:
– 22% on probation after first semester
– 26% of non-UWG 1101 on probation
–  = 0.001
• Even though GPAs are similar, it looks like
the lower end has fewer students.
– Engagement in college?
– UWG 1101 as “safety net”?
Graduation
• Fall 2000 through Fall 2002 Cohorts
– Greeks have a 9% higher graduation rate
than Non-Greeks ( 0.001)
– FYRST students have a 5% higher graduation
rate ( 0.001)
– Learning Communities have a 3% lower
graduation rate ( 0.02)
Graduation
• What works [ultimately], and for whom?
• Speculation about Greek students
Graduation
• What works [ultimately], and for whom?
• Speculation about Greek students
– Peer support during progression is important
– As close friends move closer to graduation,
“borderline” students make better decisions
about progression.
• Does this mean everyone should be Greek?
– Not necessarily, but perhaps other progression
programs can use similar techniques
Graduation
• What works [ultimately], and for whom?
• Fall 2001 cohort for LCs
– Pre-Engineering LC has a 4% 4-year
graduation rate (1 student graduated)
– Non-LC group had no students graduate
– Success or failure?
– Pre-Engineering students comprise 21% of
LC students, but only 2% of the non-LC
cohort.
Graduation – Pre-Health
Cohort
1998
4-year
LC:non
20:10
5-year
LC:non
35:26
6-year
LC:non
35:29
1999
20:6
40:23
40:28
2000
15:11
31:23
2001
25:9
>6-year
LC:non
35:31
Graduation – Making Decisions
Cohort
1997
4-year
LC:non
0:8
5-year
LC:non
19:24
6-year
LC:non
24:30
>6-year
LC:non
29:36
1998
0:5
17:20
20:26
21:28
1999
12:6
31:23
46:29
2000
0:9
25:26
2001
13:13
Challenge
• Use data to begin asking the “hard”
questions
– What works and what doesn’t work for our
students? Which of our students
– What should we continue doing, stop doing,
or change?
– Program-level improvement
– Expectation to produce university-level
improvement
Qualitative Data
• Beyond anecdotes….
– Patterns in student responses
– May identify successful and unsuccessful
strategies
– Can address questions not easily tackled with
quantitative data
Student Experience
Qualitative Data
• Questionnaires administered during Spring registration
• Assess student perceptions of Learning Communities
Questions:
• Describe how your concept of a Learning Community has
changed since first day of class.
• Describe any benefits of being in the Learning Community.
• Describe any negative outcomes of being in the Learning
Community.
• Describe how being in a Learning Community has or has
not affected your academic work.
Positive Experiences
Social Support/Friendship
Typical Responses
• My concept of a Learning Community has changed
because I find myself actually wanting to be involved in
my community. I actually look forward to seeing them
and working with them as a team.
• I like the learning community because you get close to
your classmates and are able to form study groups.
• You have smaller classes which is good for
student/teacher relationships and you always have
people to study with.
• There’s a constant reminder system…we keep each
other in check as far as assignments and readings go.
Positive Experiences
Academics
• The Learning Community has helped because we
discuss our assignments and work together to succeed.
• It has helped my work because I have so many
resources to ask for help.
• By having same professors they tend to get to know you
better. They seem to care more.
Negative Experiences
Group Conflict
• Everyone can get tired of each other.
• Can be stuck with people who you don’t like for the entire day.
• It is too close knit. Everyone knows everyone’s business.
Meeting Others
• The only negative outcome of the LC is that we are so isolated with
ourselves. It’s hard enough being a freshman and getting to know
other people around campus without being isolated.
Class Flexibility
• You have a limited amount of choices when signing up for classes.
Qualitative Data - Patterns
• All comments about academics were
positive
• Similar comments about social structure in
both positive and negative categories
– Get to know classmates well… too well?
Where are we?
Are we doing it right?
YES
NO
NO
Is it the right thing to do?
YES
Adapted from V. Borden, 2006, presentation to
Summer Institute on First-Year Assessment
Common Data, Common Language?
• Traditional measures are externally set
– Advantage: benchmarking, consistency
– Disadvantage: may not show us [internally] what’s most
important to us and our mission
• Work with the data we have
– But recognize diversity by refining measures as
appropriate
• Set policy at the appropriate scale
– University-level
– Program-level
• Focus on management, rather than solutions
Lunch
Guess the Institution
Georgia Southern
Mercer
Valdosta
West Georgia
Kennesaw
Guess the Institution
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Kennesaw
Mercer
Valdosta
Georgia Southern
West Georgia
Bonus: Valdosta
Attracting New Students
&
Changing the Student
Profile
Bobby Johnson
Scot Lingrell
Attracting New Students
• Market Share and Competition
• How are decisions about Recruitment
made?
• Tools for recruiting
Competition
Market Share: Feeder HSs
Deciding Where to Recruit
County
Bartow
Carroll
Clayton
Cobb
Coweta
DeKalb
Douglas
Fayette
Floyd
Fulton
Gwinnett
Haralson
Henry
Paulding
Polk
Barrow
Catoosa
Cherokee
Forsyth
Gordon
Hall
Jackson
Newton
Pickens
Rockdale
Spalding
Troup
Walker
Walton
Whitfield
GEORGIA
Census 2000
Population
76,019
87,268
236,517
607,751
89,215
665,865
92,174
91,263
90,565
816,006
588,448
25,690
119,341
81,678
38,127
46,144
53,282
141,903
98,407
44,104
139,277
41,589
62,001
22,983
70,111
58,417
58,779
61,053
60,687
83,525
8,186,453
2010 Population
Projections
104,071
120,536
308,321
775,877
126,639
663,345
119,235
121,156
94,889
820,384
820,960
30,005
211,828
138,073
43,140
65,763
66,690
214,144
181,961
54,259
184,185
58,540
104,223
35,542
82,028
63,017
63,904
66,966
92,404
95,602
9,592,370
Increase
37%
38%
30%
28%
42%
0%
29%
33%
5%
1%
40%
17%
77%
69%
13%
43%
25%
51%
85%
23%
32%
41%
68%
55%
17%
8%
9%
10%
52%
14%
17%
UWG Top 15 Counties
Average
Ave. w/o
inc.<10%
31%
38%
Other Counties w/Growth Potential
Average
27%
Enrollment of High Ability Students
Test Scores and GPA
Enrollment of High Ability Students
• Must differentiate
– Excellent Academic Programs
– New Academic Programs
– Scholarships for new students
– Statewide/National/International acclaim
– Niche programs
– Unparalleled Service
– Excellent Amenities
– Honors College
Recruitment
• To increase profile, we need to attract
more high ability students while not losing
our base
• Dual actions of continuing to serve our
current markets AND open up new and
developing markets
• Seek opportunities to use efficiency
savings to develop new markets or focus
on specific, more costly targeted student
markets
Projecting Undergraduate
Enrollment
Scot Lingrell
1252
more
UGs
enrolled
than in
Fall 2000
Undergraduate Enrollment
9000
8045
7224
8000
8279
8346
7663
+411
7116
1515
7000
1613
1698
1548
1492
1340
1287
1283
6000
1447
1362
1086
+406
1200
5000
SR
JR
4000
1423
1502
1662
1613
1652
1750
+327
SO
Cont FR
New FR
3000
1494
1671
1559
1571
1524
1597
1602
1568
1637
1740
1719
1656
2000
1000
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
+108
Projections
• The most accurate projection models are
based on Trend Data
• Trend Data projection is based on
previous intervention
• Difficult to predict the effect of current
initiatives (guaranteed tuition, RPG, etc.)
– The Asterisk
• May understand the trend, but cannot
adjust quickly
Projections
• Why project Enrollment?
– Planning (Courses, Intervention, Resources)
– Revenue
• Example:
– 10% Increase in Enrollment (Freshmen)
Projections
• 170 students
– 122 Resident Students (72%) x $8622/yr =
• $1,051,884 (Tuition, Fees, Room & Board
minimum plans)
– 48 Commuter Students x $3460/yr =
• $166,080 (Tuition and Fees)
– Does not count State Subsidy, books, parking
fines, late registration fees, transcript fees,
application fees, etc.
• Year 1: $1.2 Million
• Costs of increasing Enrollment
– Subsidy “lags” enrollment increases
– Need additional sections/instructors
• 170 students = 7 0r 8 sections of many Core
Courses
– Need additional freshman rooms in residence
halls
– Need additional academic and non-academic
first year services
Projections
• Complexity
– Cannot just project new class—only 19.8% of UG
Enrollment
– Other New Students (Transfers/Joint/ Transient) bring
it up to 28%
– Continuing Students are 71%+ of Overall UG
Enrollment
– Different actions/policies affect different classes
differently
– What affects progression?
– Progression vs. Retention vs Stalling
Projections
• Tools to project Enrollment
– HS Grad Population Estimates
– Market Share and Transfer Trends
– UWG Graduation Numbers/Rates
• Spring 2006—33 more than 2005 (5.5% increase)
• Summer 2006—72 more than 2005 (32.1%
increase)
– Continuing Student Trends/Retention Rates
Projections
First-Time Freshman Projections
Estimated GA High School Graduation and UWG Market Share
Projection
Year
HS Grads
Low
Mid
High
Actual
0.023
0.024
0.0245
1993
64310
1479
1543
1576
1331
1994
56356
1296
1353
1381
1322
1995
56660
1303
1360
1388
1434
1996
56271
1294
1351
1379
1231
1997
58996
1357
1416
1445
1219
1998
58525
1346
1405
1434
1685
1999
59227
1362
1421
1451
1636
2000
62563
1439
1502
1533
1661
2001
62499
1437
1500
1531
1568
2002
65983
1518
1584
1617
1637
2003
67900
1562
1630
1664
1691
2004
69720
1604
1673
1708
1719
2005
71640
1648
1719
1755
1656
2006
71860
1653
1725
1761
2007
74920
1723
1798
1836
2008
77760
1788
1866
1905
2009
78750
1811
1890
1929
2010
78260
1800
1878
1917
2011
79120
1820
1899
1938
2012
78260
1800
1878
1917
2013
78300
1801
1879
1918
2014
77760
1788
1866
1905
Source: US Dept. of Ed, NCES Common Core Data (2003)
Percent
2.07%
2.35%
2.53%
2.19%
2.07%
2.88%
2.76%
2.65%
2.51%
2.48%
2.49%
2.47%
2.31%
Projection
2006 Prediction New Jnt Joint
New FR FR
FRT
5yrAve
70
25
1725
1416
Low
50
19
1725
1350
High
77
30
1725
1471
JR
5yrAve
Low
High
#
#
#
JRT
1373
1293
1407
SR
186
186
186
SRT
1681
1630
1751
42
42
42
SO
165
165
165
SOT
1478
1406
1548
New Trans Trans
New Other
Other
23
6
10
15
3
6
30
11
15
Projection from .024 share of GA HS graduates
Projection from average of past 5 years
Actual Highs and Lows from previous 5 years, and 5 year average
RAW RETURN
ConFR
FR/SO SO/JR
JR/SR
2005
0.44
1.08
0.90
1.26
2004
0.43
1.09
0.90
1.27
2003
0.41
1.04
0.88
1.23
2002
0.44
0.99
0.89
1.26
2001
0.45
0.99
0.83
1.32
5yr ave
0.43
1.04
0.88
1.27
189
189
189
18
8
25
Total UG
8408
8087
8672
New Ave
New Low
New High
2410
2378
2429
Cont Ave
Cont Low
Cont High
5998
5709
6243
Percent of NEW students as part of total
2005 28.07%
2004 29.45%
2003 30.79%
2002 30.08%
2001 29.78%
2000 31.45%
18-Jul-06
Monthly Projection
(with updated data)
Fall 05
July 05
actual
apps
New Freshman
1656
Freshman apps
5197
Freshman accs
2843
New transfers
Transfer apps
Transfer accs
577
Returning ugs
6003
Other**
150
TOTALS
8386
equals
yield
formula
July 06
apps
Fall 06
projection Accepts
Apps
0.318645
0.582483
5600
2850
1784
1660
4
1561 0.369635
885 0.651977
1617
881
598
574
-3
4993 0.831751
5155
6198
195
150
best
guess
calc
best
guess
change
128
best guess
projection
66
1722
9
586
195
6198
0
150
66
21
9
195
150
150
346
8732
494
8880
Increase/Decrease
** = Includes new and continuing Joint Enrolled, Transients, and Other
8656
3.22%
Enrollment Comparison (term)
Enrollment Comparison (Final)
Fall 2004-Fall 2005
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
Joint Enrl Freshman
94
3316
1719
156
Tot
1875
1441
Joint Enrl Freshman
93
3258
1656
179
Tot
1835
1423
Soph
1652
New FR
New TR
NEW
Cont FR
Senior
1613
181 New TR
229 New TR
49 New TR
1471 Cont FR
1319 Cont FR
1564 Cont FR
Soph
1750
New FR
New TR
NEW
Cont FR
Junior
1548
Junior
1492
Senior
1689
193 New TR
163 New TR
42 New TR
1557 Cont FR
1329 Cont FR
1647 Cont FR
Trans
25
Total UG
8248
41
Total UG
8323
Trans
Difference (+/-)
Joint Enrl Freshman
-1.06%
-1.75%
-3.66%
14.74%
Tot
-2.13%
-1.25%
Soph
5.93%
New FR
New TR
NEW
Cont FR
Junior
-3.62%
Senior
4.71%
6.63% New TR
-28.82% New TR
-14.29% New TR
5.85% Cont FR
0.76% Cont FR
5.31% Cont FR
Trans
64.00%
Reflections and Discussion
Melanie McClellan
Sandra Stone
Reflections and Discussion
• How does today’s information apply to my area
of responsibility?
• How might I use resources differently?
• What management decisions do I need to
make?
• With what other units do I need to collaborate?
• On what do I need to focus?
• What other questions do we need to consider?
• What conversations does the institution need to
have?
Top Three Things
• Enrollment and Program planning for offcampus centers (unique)
• Planning for upper division course
enrollment and implications across
departments
• Staffing implications of increasing
enrollment (non-faculty)
• Start working on Fall 07
courses/staffing/etc. NOW
• Define globally—UWG First-year
experience and communicate it widely
• Do enrollment retreat for graduate
enrollment.
• Focus on identity/image—develop
messages to create a more
serious/prestigious image—at least more
specific
• Earlier career/major selection planning to
be coordinated with advising. How this
might affect course offerings.
• Programs at Off campus center
• UWG Identity—mostly off campus and
how campus culture change
• Specialization—destination school for key
programs/niche programs?
• University wide coordination of academic
advising programs
• Develop a peer support initiative in each
academic program relates to pre-majors
• Devise a marketing plan for residence
halls as to the value of living on campus
• Summer Strategy—in current culture, how do we
develop an enrollment/services strategy for
Summer
– Revenue
– Core Courses
– Strategic
• Fou r big areas:
– Resource planning and anticipation…
• Summer Strategy
– Communication (image/marketing)
• Internally search for shared beliefs
• Consistent Communication “Tracking the Wolf?” Newsletter
• Each Audience information for them
– Expand on concept of EM (grad, distance, satellite)
– Institutional Policy and Practice with EM implications
• Special opportunity for Distance Learning?
• Describe the institutional culture of UWG?
– Students do stuff here
– Close collaboration with Faculty
– Our students have busy lives, fragmented?
– Friendliness, interactive colleagues, excellent
quality, positive college town,
– Wider range of students can do here vs. other
like institutions—more opportunity
• More chances to excel here than any other like
institution
• We connect students to success
• Success of the institution is linked to the
success of the students