Shaping the Incoming Class Fosters Faculty Engagement Claudia Pinter-Lucke, AVP, Academic Programs Marten denBoer, Provost and Vice President Shanthi Srinivas, AVP, Planning, Policy & Faculty Affairs California State Polytechnic University, Pomona AASCU 2012 Academic Affairs Winter Meeting San Antonio, Texas, February 11, 2012

Transformation  From  Direct admission process  Use of minimum criteria  Sole goal - meeting enrollment FTES targets  To  Finding the “right students” in the “right place” to enhance student success

Enrollment Management Then and Now Then:  Admission based on system-level criteria  All applicants who met criteria were admitted at same time  Programs with high demand could limit admissions (impaction) Automatic process with little engagement

Enrollment Management Then and Now Impaction  Invoked when more applications are received than can be accommodated  Two levels  Campus Impaction  Program Impaction  Higher admission criteria (coursework, GPA, SAT) are applied Additional information may be required

Enrollment Management Then and Now Now:  Campus impacted  14 programs impacted  Non-impacted programs submit suggested enrollment limits  Students admitted in waves in order of admission criteria

Organizational Chart Vice President Student Affairs Provost & Vice President Academic Affairs Colleges AdmissionsRegistrar Departments Associate Vice President Enrollment Management & Services Associate Vice President Academic Programs

Differing Goals  Student Affairs  meeting system and University level goals  Academic Affairs  ensuring program and student success

Role of Student Affairs, Academic Affairs, Colleges and Departments

Enrollment Management as a Vehicle for Faculty Engagement Then:  Faculty’s perception that they must accommodate the students that show up Now:  Faculty’s perception that they have voice in shaping their incoming class

Faculty Engagement  Nature of Engagement  Interviews with Deans, Associate Deans and Department Chairs  Examples

Faculty Engagement  Lessons Learned  Know that asking for voice requires providing feedback and closing the loop  Understand the impact on the program  Ensure that discussions are occurring at the department level  Create ownership and buy-in  Key to success is communication

Ideal Roles and Input Central Academic Affairs LOW Student Affairs HIGH From: Colleges, Departments LOW

Ideal Roles and Input To: Central Academic Affairs HIGH Student Affairs MEDIUM Colleges, Departments MEDIUM

Persistence and Graduation Persistence (1 -> 2) 78%90% Graduation (6 Year) 56%68%

The Future – Changing Roles  Colleges/Departments  From Observation to Voice/Influence  Academic Affairs  From Voice to Decision Making  Student Affairs  From Decision Making to Implementation