1. 2006 Enrollment Retreat July 24, 2006

2. Setting The Stage Melanie McClellan

3. Agenda 8:30-9:30 Setting the Stage 9:30-9:45 Break 9:45-10:00Using Data & Narratives to make decisions 10:00-12:00Students and Programs 12:00-1:00Lunch

4. Agenda 1:00-2:00Attracting New Students and Changing the Student Profile 2:00-2:15Break 2:15-3:00Enrollment Projections 3:00-4:00Reflections and Discussions 4:00-4:30Concluding Comments

5. Strategic Enrollment Structure Strategic Enrollment Executive Committee Strategic Enrollment Council Research and Information Recruitment & Marketing First-Year Experience Core Seat Demand Academic Advising Communication Transfer Students Second Year Exper. Distance Learning Satellite Campuses Graduate Enrollment Policy, Practices, and Procedures Task Forces Resources

6. 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

7. Using Data & Narrative to Make Decisions Tim Hynes

8. Current Students and Programs Scot Lingrell Julie Bartley Sandra Stone

9. +108 +327 +406 +411 1252 more UGs enrolled than in Fall 2000

10. 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)

11. 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

12. Changing Admission Standards Affect on Enrollment Affect on Student Success

15. New Student Profile

19. College Board Information

20. New Student Profile 24.5%25.4% 21.5%

21. First Year Success and Beyond How is success measured? “The numbers”

22. First Year Success and Beyond Other measures?

23. 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

24. First, the easy stuff…

25. Retention (1 st – 2 nd 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)

26. 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%

27. Retention – Know Your Population Pre-Health LC –81% Pre-Engineering LC –74% Pre-Nursing LC –69% Making Decisions LC –77% Pre-Health non-LC –70% Pre-Engineering non-LC –67% Pre-Nursing non-LC –69% Undecided non-LC –67%

28. Grade Point Averages Fall 2000 through Fall 2005 cohorts –Greeks: Cumulative GPA 2.49 vs. 2.25 for non-Greeks (  0.001) –FYRST: 1 st 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)

29. 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

30. 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

31. So now we have some questions to ask What works, what doesn’t, and why?

32. Interesting Questions Arise Possible interpretations?

33. 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?

34. 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”?

35. 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)

36. Graduation What works [ultimately], and for whom? Speculation about Greek students

37. 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

38. 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.

39. Graduation – Pre-Health Cohort4-year LC:non 5-year LC:non 6-year LC:non >6-year LC:non 199820:1035:2635:2935:31 199920:640:2340:28 200015:1131:23 200125:9

40. Graduation – Making Decisions Cohort4-year LC:non 5-year LC:non 6-year LC:non >6-year LC:non 19970:819:2424:3029:36 19980:517:2020:2621:28 199912:631:2346:29 20000:925:26 200113:13

41. 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

42. Qualitative Data Beyond anecdotes…. –Patterns in student responses –May identify successful and unsuccessful strategies –Can address questions not easily tackled with quantitative data

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. 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?

48. Where are we? Is it the right thing to do? YES Are we doing it right? NO Adapted from V. Borden, 2006, presentation to Summer Institute on First-Year Assessment

49. 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

50. Lunch

51. Guess the Institution Georgia Southern Mercer Valdosta West Georgia Kennesaw

52. Guess the Institution 1.Kennesaw 2.Mercer 3.Valdosta 4.Georgia Southern 5.West Georgia 6.Bonus: Valdosta

53. Attracting New Students & Changing the Student Profile Bobby Johnson Scot Lingrell

54. Attracting New Students Market Share and Competition How are decisions about Recruitment made? Tools for recruiting

55. Competition

57. Market Share: Feeder HSs

58. Deciding Where to Recruit

60. Enrollment of High Ability Students Competition (Costs) Test Scores and GPA Yield

61. 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

62. 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

63. Projecting Undergraduate Enrollment Scot Lingrell

64. +108 +327 +406 +411 1252 more UGs enrolled than in Fall 2000

65. 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

66. Projections Why project Enrollment? –Planning (Courses, Intervention, Resources) –Revenue Example: –10% Increase in Enrollment (Freshmen)

67. 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

68. 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

69. 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

70. 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

71. Projections

72. Projection

73. Monthly Projection (with updated data)

74. Enrollment Comparison (term)

75. Reflections and Discussion Melanie McClellan Sandra Stone

76. 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?

77. Enrollment and Program planning for off- campus 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 Top Three Things

78. 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.

79. 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

80. 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

81. 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

82. We connect students to success Success of the institution is linked to the success of the students