1. Toward a Comprehensive Enrollment Model Panel Don Hossler David Kalsbeek George Kuh Jim McCoy, moderator CERPP Conference: Defining Enrollment in the 21 st Century Los Angeles, CA August 4-6,2008

2. Outline  Introduction – Jim McCoy  Panel Comments  Don Hossler  David Kalsbeek  George Kuh  Q&A

3. We Are Grappling With….  What policies and practices do institutions enact to try to enhance student persistence?  How committed are institutions to student persistence and graduation? 3

4. Is There Some Beef?  Mixed evidence of institutional emphasis on persistence?  Little evidence that institutions are systematically studying patterns of persistence and success on their own campuses 4

5. Retention Coordinator and Institutional Retention Committee  59.1% report having an administrator charged with tracking and improving retention & persistence  Mean FTE reported for this position was.29  Only 42.9% of all campuses have an administrator who has the authority to implement policies or programs related to student persistence.  Only 25.4% of all campuses have an administrator who has independent authority to fund policies or initiatives.  43.1% of these report that retention coordinator has some or a great deal of authority to fund new initiatives  73.9% have a retention committee

6. The Analog Imagine an enrollment organization with no policy making authority or budget for the offices of admissions and financial aid. 6

7. Policies for Faculty Interaction & Early Warning  58.1% report they collect mid- term grade information for first- year students However…  52.9% report they do not flag specific courses with high percentages of Ds, Fs, or Withdrawals  61.0% report average class size for courses primarily taken by 1 st year students is between 1-30 students However…  69.2% report that incentives for full-time faculty to teach first- year classes were non-existent or small Early Warning Faculty Interaction Practices 7

8. Academic Advising  82.6% require first-year students to meet with an academic advisor every term  70.0% report that incentives for full-time faculty to serve as academic advisors were non-existent or small  57.1% estimate that more than three-quarters of their first-year students were advised by full-time faculty  28.4% estimate that more than three-quarters of first-year students were advised by professional advisors Advising Practices Advising Roles 8

9. An Intriguing Finding  Institutions with retention rates are doing more ……….but still not much 9

10. Next Steps  Seeking funding to administer national survey to 2- and 4-year institutions every 2-3 years.  Develop benchmarking indicators for peer groups of institutions  Large sample to explore the relationship between efforts, policies, and persistence and graduation. 10

11. Dave’s Top Ten List Why We Fail to Effectively Mobilize Retention Strategy #1 Assuming Attributes are Achievements #2 Perseveration on Persistence #3 Obsession with Outliers #4 Socialism of Strategy #5 Obfuscation of Outcomes © David H. Kalsbeek, all rights reserved

12. The 4 Ps TM of Retention Strategy  Profile  Progress  Process  Promise © David H. Kalsbeek, all rights reserved

13. George’s Gripes & Lamentations The Student Success Industry and Why Colleges and Universities Buy Their Products and Service © David H. Kalsbeek, all rights reserved

14.  Why do institutions typically ignore the research about “what matters” and “what works” and instead pay for re- packaged material and advice?  NPEC Student Success Symposium  AAC&U LEAP 14 Outsourcing Student Success

15. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Student Success Symposium Kuh, G.D., et al. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(5). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Commissioned papers at:http://nces.ed.gov/npec/papers.asp

16. Association of American Colleges and Universities

17. Narrow Learning is Not Enough — The Essential Learning Outcomes Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical & Natural World  Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical & Natural World  Intellectual and Practical Skills  Personal and Social Responsibility  “Deep”/Integrative Learning

18. Employers On Accountability Challenge – December 2007 – Hart Research for Supervised internship/community-based project 83% 79% 60% 56% 32% Senior project (e.g., thesis, project) Essay tests Electronic portfolio & faculty assessments Multiple-choice tests Evidence of College Graduates Skills/Knowledge Very effectiveFairly effective

19. High Impact Activities  First-Year Seminars and Experiences  First-Year Seminars and Experiences  Common Intellectual Experiences  Learning Communities  Writing-Intensive Courses  Collaborative Assignments and Projects  “Science as Science Is Done”; Undergraduate Research  Diversity/Global Learning  Service Learning, Community-Based Learning  Internships  Capstone Courses and Projects

20. Effects of Participating in High-Impact Practices on Student Engagement

21. Effects of Participating in High-Impact Practices on Deep/Integrative Learning and Gains

22. It’s more complicated than this…  Many of the effects of college are “conditional”  Some are compensatory

26. Invest time and effort Invest time and effort Interact with faculty and peers about substantive matters Interact with faculty and peers about substantive matters Experience diversity Experience diversity Get more frequent feedback Get more frequent feedback Reflect & integrate learning Reflect & integrate learning Discover relevance of learning through real-world applications Discover relevance of learning through real-world applications 26 High Impact Activities Increase Odds Students Will:

27.  Make it possible for every student to do at least one “high-impact” experience in the first year and another later linked to the major  Make it possible for every student to do at least one “high-impact” experience in the first year and another later linked to the major 27 If We Could Do One Thing…

28.  Why do institutions typically ignore the research about “what matters” and “what works” and instead pay for re-packaged material and advice?  Does a desire for “risk reduction” trump demonstrated expertise?  Why are we reluctant to internally share the information we do have?  What keeps us from moving from “facts to action?” 28 Outsourcing Student Success

29.  Researchers focus on esoteric topics and use quasi-indecipherable prose  Institutional leaders attend to the crisis de jour.  Governing boards uninformed about what matters to student success  Policy makers who fail to hold institutions accountable for student success  Campus cultures resistant to innovation 29 Some Answers

30.  What must colleges and universities do to become better at organizational learning?  Do we need guidelines for something akin to a “seal of approval” to help institutions determine the legitimacy of student success vendors?  What might be the role of the USC Center for Enrollment, Research, Policy and Practice in answering these and related questions? 30 More Questions

31.  Best Practices in Enrollment Management  IPI (Institutional Paralysis Index): ratio of data-informed actions to overall changes in policies and practices  BPI (Best Practices Index): ratio of policies and practices consistent with BPEMs  CERPP Rankings of IPIs and BPIs 31 Some Ideas for CERPP

32. Last Word Last Word  We cannot change the lineage of our students.  Campus cultures do not change easily or willingly.  But we can counter both by using promising policies and practices more consistently throughout the institution to increase the odds that students will succeed.  Do we have the will to do so?

33. Toward a Comprehensive Enrollment Model Panel Don Hossler David Kalsbeek George Kuh Jim McCoy, moderator CERPP Conference: Defining Enrollment in the 21 st Century Los Angeles, CA August 4-6,2008