4-1-16 Admissions and Enrollment Meeting Notes

In attendance: William Mullen, Jill Dawe, Robert Groven, Ann Impullitti, Joe Underhill, Stacy Freiheit, Jim Trelstad-Porter, Catherine Bishop, Marc McIntosh

Invited but not able to attend: Michael Wentzel, Rebekah Dupont, AaaronGriess, Amy Gort, Rick Ellis

We started by reviewing some summer projects that will be undertaken to support the work for academic year 2016-2017. The first project will look at incoming student academic profile and attempt to correlate this with four, five, and six-year graduation rates. Is there a minimum high school gpa, or ACT score (or combination) where students simply never graduate? Additionally, although we know how well high school gpa and ACT scores correlate to fall-to-fall retention, it would also be helpful to determine how well they correlate to first-year grades. This will help us continue to understand how well ACT scores and high school gpa can predict success at Augsburg.

Additionally, it was discovered that Sedlacek has developed a survey based on his non-cognitive variables, and it had been implemented at other colleges and universities as part of the admissions process. Although the names of the institutions are not published, I will follow up with Sedlacek to find out which institutions have implemented this assessment, find out how it was operationalized, and how well it predicted student success. If we determine that the use of this tool turns out to be valid, I will work to develop a prototype to be shared with the committee, and we will set up a test with either newly enrolled students, or a sample of applied students for fall 2017.
The second discussion was around the decision-making authority of the UC Enrollment Committee. There was some debate about what exactly this committee could approve without AAC, Faculty Senate, and UC counsel, and why. It was pointed out that the UC Enrollment Committee consists of eight faculty members, three of whom are appointed by Faculty Senate, and that the judgment of this group, after undertaking significant time reading and discussing the topics, should be enough to approve policy changes (within reason). Conversely, it was noted that approval of policies by additional academic and faculty committees ensures that enough critical perspectives are heard to safeguard from potential groupthink. There is a balance though between efficiency and oversight, and there are always decisions that happen within departments that either cannot practically be taken to a committee for review, or are so trivial that they would not require the time necessary for review. An approval matrix was developed by Joe Underhill and Dianne Pike which will be reviewed over the summer. This will be used as a guideline for the UC Enrollment Committee to take on the types of decisions that could be made independently, and those that need additional approval.

Jim Trelstad-Porter presented a chart to the committee developed by Kelly Parpovic which shows a comparison of admissions English language requirements for international students attending MPCC schools. William Mullen had provided prior to the meeting a document from TOEFL entitled "Setting the Final Cut Scores". Two things that were apparent from the chart were that scores are not consistent across schools, and that there a range of acceptable mechanisms schools use to determine if a student has satisfied the English language proficiency requirement. It has not been determined yet exactly who may decide regarding any changes Augsburg might make in this area. The committee will reengage this topic early in the fall semester.

Jim mentioned that in the near future it would be good for the committee to look at other country-specific and/or region-specific academic subject exams from prospective international students to consider them for possible transfer credit similar to AP credit. These might include, for example, the British General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) "A" level exam or the German Abitur exam.