Strategic Enrollment/Retention Management (SERM) Subcommittee

Meeting of October 21, 2008

The Strategic Enrollment/Retention Management Subcommittee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, October 21, 2008. The meeting was called to order by Gary Seiler, co-chair, at 9:07 a.m. in the Saint Paul Room.

Present: Eustolio Benavides, KaChee Cha (alternate student representative), YeeLeng Hang, Paul Hesterman, Daryl Johnson, Monir Johnson, Ed Mack, Gary Seiler, Jill Wilkie

Absent: Robert Bode, Michelle Broz, John Hendrickson, Bob Heuermann, Rosa Rodríguez

Introductions were made and KaChee Cha was welcomed.

Minutes / The minutes of the September 16, 2008 meeting were distributed for review. No corrections were noted.
Workgroup Reports / Status reports were given by workgroup chairs:
Data / E. Mack reported the group has developed an eight-category framework for making data available on a regular basis via links on the Web. A schedule is also being developed to push key indicators to the Cabinet and other interested individuals on a logical cycle. The framework is in place, next steps are populating the categories and launching the site.
Recruitment / M. Johnson reported the admissions counselors are participating and she has invited R. Heuermann and J. Hendrickson to the initial meeting of the recruitment workgroup. She would also like to have the participation of an academic advisor, or preferably one from each college. G. Seiler offered to have Joe Rockers represent COM.
Retention / P. Hesterman reported that given the lean administrative structure within Student Affairs, he has not yet convened the retention work group, but will do so soon. Retention efforts in other areas of Student Affairs include: DARS unit is fully staffed and is working to meet their performance goals; the cultural coordinators, under the chair of A. Cseter, are working on retention issues; and an implementation team is working on recommendations from the Gateway report. J. Wilkie and R. Bode were appointed to the group.
G. Seiler asked SERM to consider the question of the charge to the recruitment and retention work groups. Consensus was to identify critical issues and top priorities, and design plans to address those issues. Resources will be necessary.
Workgroup Timelines / G. Seiler asked the workgroup chairs for realistic expectations of their efforts through fall term. Responses were as follows:
Data – E. Mack stated that the work group is focusing on getting information for the Cabinet. Next steps will be to populate the data on the website as described above. There is a lot of background data.
Recruitment – M. Johnson indicated that a final report could be drafted by January. G. Seiler asked the group to identify recruitment issues that need to be addressed.
Retention – The group will be convened and asked to review available high-level data and begin identifying issues and strategies. P. Hesterman indicated in the future, he would like to see a program-by-program analysis to identify program-specific strategies.
E. Mack reported that retention data is available on the MnSCU dashboard and is better than we had anticipated; it provides a number of options for analyzing and tracking data. He added that as he looked at the data, it validated what he has been repeating to the cultural coordinators when they ask for retention data: that the numbers are so small as to be meaningless, except for persistence to graduation.
Retention Discussion / G. Seiler noted that SERM has spent considerable time discussing the recruitment aspects of enrollment management, and called for the group to turn its focus to retention. A general discussion of retention ensued, with the following highlights.
Early Intervention Program / The intervention program was identified for funding and activities are under way.
·  Letters will be sent to students who are having difficulty but were not flagged by the early warning system.
·  The group is also looking at other intervention models and has met with I.T.
·  Admissions would like to learn more from this group because of concerns about completion rates of new admits.
Issue of Acceptance into the University Versus Into Programs / Concerns have been expressed that when students are admitted to the institution but not into their chosen program, we lose them to other majors or other institutions.
·  This is a particular problem in programs with additional requirements, such as nursing, social work and urban teacher.
·  While not all these students leave the university, it would be better to catch these students at the admissions stage.
·  The Registrar’s office has improved communication with registered students, but we cannot assume posting information on the web site and in program fact sheets is sufficient.
·  Admissions communicates with students that they need to look at the requirements for their specific programs, but students do not seem to read these messages, so we must do more to inform students of different admissions requirements.
·  Admissions would like to hold joint information meetings with programs that have strict requirements.
·  There has been an expectation that the Admissions Office will have separate practices for each program, which is very difficult.
·  Previously, Admissions did not code student program interests, so there is no historical information on prospect interest.
Integrity of Majors Data / We have previously had problems with the integrity of data about majors and had difficulty distinguishing pre-majors and undeclared students from majors.
·  Enormous progress has been made in resolving this issue and we are in a better position to look at retention of pre-majors.
·  The issue of nursing students and other programs with admission requirements is separable and worth looking at.
·  We have a variety of models in the programs. In social work, for example, students are advised by telephone on whether they are likely to meet the admissions requirements; decisions on students who are close to meeting the requirements are made by the department chair.
Academic Advising / The role of academic advisors in advising students into/out of programs when students are obviously not a good fit was considered.
·  It was noted that advisors see such advising as essential to their role, but the extent of this advising varies.
·  Opportunities for professional development exist.
·  The Career Services office is lacking resources to provide a higher level career exploration opportunity to students who do not fit a particular major.
Completion
Rate of Incoming Students / Concerns were expressed about the completion rate of some transfer students who are admitted based on our 2.0 GPA requirement.
·  Admissions is seeing many transfer applicants who quality for admission based on a 2.0 GPA but who clearly have had academic progress issues at other institutions (low completion rates).
·  M. Johnson urged the adoption of a minimum requirement of a 50 percent completion rate, which would bring us more in line with Financial Aid and academic standing requirements.
Articulation Agreements / The university has hundreds of articulation agreements, many of which are not working as intended.
·  Agreements were worked out between faculty, and then are signed and filed away, making it difficult to track the agreements.
·  Many are not honored because they are outdated and the programs have changed.
·  MnSCU has just implemented a requirement that articulation agreements be reviewed every few years.
·  The agreements need to be available on the web site, and recruiters need to be familiar with the articulation agreements in order to compete with recruiters from the private schools.
·  Admissions would like to know when articulation agreements are being developed so they can help shape certain aspects of agreements
·  uSelect will help potential transfer students see how all their courses will transfer. It was noted, however, that whether courses are accepted as equivalent will depend on whether a student has been accepted into a specific program, and this will require very careful communication in order to explain it properly.
Discussion of Other Topics
Coordination Between Programs and the University / The need for increased coordination at the program level with what is happening at the university level was identified.
·  Admissions would like to participate in joint recruiting fairs, get in the classrooms at community colleges and meet with advisors.
·  The cooperation between Jeanne Cornish and Admissions on outreach to North Hennepin Community College was cited as an example of successful coordination.
Need for Daytime Classes / K. Cha stressed the need for additional daytime classes.
·  College of Management’s daytime classes are full.
·  Day classes are difficult to hire community faculty to teach.
·  Students from our feeder schools are interested in day classes.
·  A student interest survey could be conducted.
·  The expectation was voiced that there will be more opportunities for deans to make decisions on when/whether to open more sections.
Recruiting Suggestions / The following recruitment strategies were suggested:
·  Emphasize to older students that they look at professions or industries where there is a lack of employees.
·  Go to social agencies and offer to speak to those employees who do not have B.A./B.S.s.
·  Connect with employees in industries where the professional requirements have changed.
Summary / Discussions above have highlighted where the university needs to target resources to achieve the 20,000 goal.
·  Some retention problems are the result of too little communication and these should be looked at differently (i.e. different strategies) than retention issues associated with problems such as lack of preparation, difficulty in reading/writing/math, etc.
·  It will require staff and resources to work with the colleges on the articulation of their information.
·  Information should be program-specific.
·  We need a process that tracks students as they are admitted and identifies support necessary to keep students here: advising, academic support, etc.
·  We have an opportunity to build proactive approaches and invest in a growth model.
·  It is important to understand the differences between students (such as the general temperament and expectations of nursing students) and respond accordingly.
·  The Admissions office staff have experience in developing a successful enrollment management process that includes communication with program chairs and advisors, as well as a wait list, but implementation would require additional staffing and the involvement of the programs.
·  These issues must be kept on SERM’s long-term agenda.
Outstanding Action Items / Updates were given on the following outstanding action items:
Student Flow Report – D. Johnson announced this report has been created by I.T. While the report is helpful, most data entry issues are related to division coding (colleges and nursing). Staff from the Registrar’s office recently worked with colleges in a data clean up session. It has been agreed that when students change major, no code changes will be made until the Registrar’s office receives the paperwork, so the changes are documented. There remain 400 records for nursing students that need to be cleaned up, pending a decision on who is to do so. M. Johnson reported that the Data Integrity Subcommittee has identified the need to improve employee training, in order to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
Action Item: M. Johnson was asked to bring a copy of the Student Flow Report to the next SERM meeting.
Admissions Report – M. Johnson reported she has been working with MnSCU to develop these reports. The admission directors met in September and are clamoring for more data than is available through ISRS, particularly on prospects and applicants. She noted admissions have been up this year, but we lose admits during the drop for non-payment. Consensus was that reducing the number of drops for non-payment must be a priority as significant resources are spent on recruiting, admitting and advising new students, but if they are not financially prepared to start, we lose the students anyway.
P. Hesterman noted that drops for nonpayment was also a topic of discussion at the recent Metro Alliance CASAO meeting, but no conclusions were drawn. He added that he would also like to work on this through the Gateway. He reported that he and others just attended a one-stop conference that identified the intersection of student financials (Financial Management Office) and financial aid as a significant source of run-around for students. He stated that Metropolitan State needs better coordination of student accounts, and he will be working with M. Siddiqui on this issue.
Additional concerns were identified as:
·  It is difficult for students to find tuition and payment information on the Web page.
·  It is not clearly explained that the university has multiple drop dates.
·  Students who attend later orientations only have 24 hours to pay tuition.
·  We need to provide better information on tuition payment as we recruit students.
·  There may be confusion between printed materials.
·  There is a legislative mandate to provide students with personal financial management information when they initially register. Metropolitan State is not yet providing this information. At one point, MnSCU had indicated the system would be developing information but we have received nothing to date.
·  Students are taking out large loans to prepare for careers that will never enable them to earn enough to pay the loans back.
·  The noncredit workshop by Financial Aid should be repeated.
Attendance – B. Lacy reported that M. Broz has committed to attend. E. Benavides offered an apology for not attending over the summer, and SERM noted that no apology was necessary as he was off contract.

G. Seiler concluded the meeting by asking the members to review the minutes to be sure we have captured all the points raised in this discussion. There being no further business, the meeting was called to order at 10:47 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Beverly Lacy

Recorder

5