2006 Enrollment Retreat

July 24, 2006

Setting The Stage

Melanie McClellan

Agenda

8:30-9:30 Setting the Stage

9:30-9:45 Break

9:45-10:00 Using Data & Narratives to make decisions

10:00-12:00 Students and Programs

12:00-1:00 Lunch

Agenda

1:00-2:00 Attracting New Students and Changing the Student Profile

2:00-2:15 Break

2:15-3:00 Enrollment Projections

3:00-4:00 Reflections and Discussions

4:00-4:30 Concluding Comments

Strategic Enrollment Structure

Strategic Enrollment Executive Committee

Strategic Enrollment Council

Research and Information

Recruitment &Marketing

First-YearExperience

Core Seat Demand

AcademicAdvising

Communication

Transfer Students

SecondYear Exper.

Distance Learning

SatelliteCampuses

GraduateEnrollment

Policy, Practices, and

Procedures

Task Forces

Resources

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

Using Data & Narrative to Make Decisions

Tim Hynes

Current Students and Programs

Scot LingrellJulie Bartley

Sandra Stone

1671

1494

1423

1086

1287

1568

1559

1502

1200

1283

1637

1571

1613

1362

1340

1740

1524

1662

1447

1515

1719

1597

1652

1548

1613

1656

1602

1750

1492

1698

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Year

Undergraduate Enrollment

SR

JR

SO

Cont FR

New FR

7116

72247663

80458279 8346

+108

+327

+406

+411

1252 more UGs enrolled than in Fall 2000

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)

New Student ProfileAll 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

Changing Admission Standards

• Affect on Enrollment

• Affect on Student Success

Admission Standard Change DynamicNew FT/FT Freshmen

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fall

Nu

mb

er o

f N

ew F

resh

men

Valdosta

Georgia College

West Georgia

Admission Standard Change

Admission Standard ChangeTotal Undergrad

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Fall

Nu

mb

er o

f U

nd

erg

rad

Stu

den

ts

Valdosta

Georgia College

West Georgia

Admission Standard Change

New Student ProfileMean SAT Scors of FT/FT Entering Freshmen (FT/FT)

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

SAT Verbal 487 488 482 484 498 505 509 512 507 520

SAT Math 477 479 477 474 491 499 505 505 498 511

Fall 96

Fall 97

Fall 98

Fall 99

Fall 2000

Fall 2001

Fall 2002

Fall 2003

Fall 2004

Fall 2005

New Student Profile

Mean GPA (FT/FT)

2.95

2.96

2.97

2.98

2.99

3

3.01

3.02

Mean GPA 2.97 2.97 3.01

Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005

College Board Information

New Student ProfileProbation Comparison

411 416

333

97 100 85

221 206179

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

den

ts

Prob after Fall 411 416 333

Prob after Spring 97 100 85

Dismissed/Suspended 221 206 179

2003 2004 2005

24.5% 25.4%

21.5%

First Year Success and Beyond

• How is success measured?

• “The numbers”

First Year Success and Beyond

• Other measures?

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

First, the easy stuff…

Retention (1st – 2nd 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)

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%

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%

Grade Point Averages

• Fall 2000 through Fall 2005 cohorts– Greeks:

• Cumulative GPA 2.49 vs. 2.25 for non-Greeks ( 0.001)

– FYRST:• 1st 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)

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

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

So now we have some questions to ask

What works, what doesn’t, and why?

Interesting Questions Arise

• Possible interpretations?

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?

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”?

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)

Graduation

• What works [ultimately], and for whom?

• Speculation about Greek students

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

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.

Graduation – Pre-HealthCohort 4-year

LC:non

5-year

LC:non

6-year

LC:non

>6-year

LC:non

1998 20:10 35:26 35:29 35:31

1999 20:6 40:23 40:28

2000 15:11 31:23

2001 25:9

Graduation – Making DecisionsCohort 4-year

LC:non

5-year

LC:non

6-year

LC:non

>6-year

LC:non

1997 0:8 19:24 24:30 29:36

1998 0:5 17:20 20:26 21:28

1999 12:6 31:23 46:29

2000 0:9 25:26

2001 13:13

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

Qualitative Data

• Beyond anecdotes….– Patterns in student responses– May identify successful and unsuccessful

strategies– Can address questions not easily tackled with

quantitative data

Student ExperienceQualitative 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.

Positive ExperiencesSocial 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.

Positive ExperiencesAcademics

• 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.

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.

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?

Where are we?Is

it t

he r

ight

thi

ng t

o do

?

YE

SYES

Are we doing it right?

NON

O

Adapted from V. Borden, 2006, presentation to Summer Institute on First-Year Assessment

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

Lunch

Guess the Institution

Georgia Southern

Mercer

Valdosta

West Georgia

Kennesaw

Guess the Institution

1. Kennesaw

2. Mercer

3. Valdosta

4. Georgia Southern

5. West Georgia

6. Bonus: Valdosta

Attracting New Students &

Changing the Student Profile

Bobby JohnsonScot Lingrell

Attracting New Students

• Market Share and Competition

• How are decisions about Recruitment made?

• Tools for recruiting

Competition

Market Share: Feeder HSs

Deciding Where to RecruitCounty

Census 2000 Population

2010 Population Projections Increase

Bartow 76,019 104,071 37%Carroll 87,268 120,536 38%Clayton 236,517 308,321 30%Cobb 607,751 775,877 28%Coweta 89,215 126,639 42%DeKalb 665,865 663,345 0%Douglas 92,174 119,235 29% Average 31%Fayette 91,263 121,156 33% Ave. w/o 38%Floyd 90,565 94,889 5% inc.<10%Fulton 816,006 820,384 1%Gwinnett 588,448 820,960 40%Haralson 25,690 30,005 17%Henry 119,341 211,828 77%Paulding 81,678 138,073 69%Polk 38,127 43,140 13%Barrow 46,144 65,763 43%Catoosa 53,282 66,690 25%Cherokee 141,903 214,144 51%Forsyth 98,407 181,961 85% Average 27%Gordon 44,104 54,259 23%Hall 139,277 184,185 32%Jackson 41,589 58,540 41%Newton 62,001 104,223 68%Pickens 22,983 35,542 55%Rockdale 70,111 82,028 17%Spalding 58,417 63,017 8%Troup 58,779 63,904 9%Walker 61,053 66,966 10%Walton 60,687 92,404 52%Whitfield 83,525 95,602 14%GEORGIA 8,186,453 9,592,370 17%

Other Counties w/Growth Potential

UWG Top 15 Counties

Enrollment of High Ability Students

Competition (C

osts)

Test Scores and GPA

Yield

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

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

Projecting Undergraduate Enrollment

Scot Lingrell

1671

1494

1423

1086

1287

1568

1559

1502

1200

1283

1637

1571

1613

1362

1340

1740

1524

1662

1447

1515

1719

1597

1652

1548

1613

1656

1602

1750

1492

1698

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Year

Undergraduate Enrollment

SR

JR

SO

Cont FR

New FR

7116

72247663

80458279 8346

+108

+327

+406

+411

1252 more UGs enrolled than in Fall 2000

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

Projections

• Why project Enrollment?– Planning (Courses, Intervention, Resources)– Revenue

• Example:– 10% Increase in Enrollment (Freshmen)

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

• 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

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

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

ProjectionsFirst-Time Freshman ProjectionsEstimated GA High School Graduation and UWG Market Share

Year HS Grads Low Mid High Actual Percent0.023 0.024 0.0245

1993 64310 1479 1543 1576 1331 2.07%1994 56356 1296 1353 1381 1322 2.35%1995 56660 1303 1360 1388 1434 2.53%1996 56271 1294 1351 1379 1231 2.19%1997 58996 1357 1416 1445 1219 2.07%1998 58525 1346 1405 1434 1685 2.88%1999 59227 1362 1421 1451 1636 2.76%2000 62563 1439 1502 1533 1661 2.65%2001 62499 1437 1500 1531 1568 2.51%2002 65983 1518 1584 1617 1637 2.48%2003 67900 1562 1630 1664 1691 2.49%2004 69720 1604 1673 1708 1719 2.47%2005 71640 1648 1719 1755 1656 2.31%2006 71860 1653 1725 17612007 74920 1723 1798 18362008 77760 1788 1866 19052009 78750 1811 1890 19292010 78260 1800 1878 19172011 79120 1820 1899 19382012 78260 1800 1878 19172013 78300 1801 1879 19182014 77760 1788 1866 1905

Source: US Dept. of Ed, NCES Common Core Data (2003)

Projection

Projection

2006 Prediction New Jnt Joint New FR FR FRT SO SOT5yrAve 70 25 1725 1416 165 1478 189Low 50 19 1725 1350 165 1406 189High 77 30 1725 1471 165 1548 189

JR JRT SR SRT New Trans Trans New OtherOther Total UG5yrAve 1373 186 1681 42 23 6 10 18 8408Low 1293 186 1630 42 15 3 6 8 8087High 1407 186 1751 42 30 11 15 25 8672

# Projection from .024 share of GA HS graduates New Ave 2410# Projection from average of past 5 years New Low 2378# Actual Highs and Lows from previous 5 years, and 5 year average New High 2429

Cont Ave 5998Cont Low 5709Cont High 6243

Percent of NEW students as part of total2005 28.07%2004 29.45%2003 30.79%2002 30.08%2001 29.78%2000 31.45%

RAW RETURN ConFR FR/SO SO/JR JR/SR2005 0.44 1.08 0.90 1.262004 0.43 1.09 0.90 1.272003 0.41 1.04 0.88 1.232002 0.44 0.99 0.89 1.262001 0.45 0.99 0.83 1.32

5yr ave 0.43 1.04 0.88 1.27

Monthly Projection (with updated data)

18-Jul-06

Fall 05 actual

July 05 apps

equals yield formula

July 06 apps

Fall 06 projection Accepts Apps

best guess calc

best guess change

best guess projection

New Freshman 1656 Freshman apps 5197 0.318645 5600 1784 128 66 1722 Freshman accs 2843 0.582483 2850 1660 4 66

New transfers 577 Transfer apps 1561 0.369635 1617 598 21 9 586 Transfer accs 885 0.651977 881 574 -3 9

Returning ugs 6003 4993 0.831751 5155 6198 195 195195 6198

Other** 150 150 150 150 0 150

346 494TOTALS 8386 8732 8880 8656

Increase/Decrease 3.22%** = Includes new and continuing Joint Enrolled, Transients, and Other

Enrollment Comparison (term)Enrollment Comparison (Final)Fall 2004-Fall 2005

Joint Enrl Freshman Soph Junior Senior Trans Total UGFall 2004 94 3316 1652 1548 1613 25 8248

1719 New FR156 New TR 181 New TR 229 New TR 49 New TR

Tot 1875 NEW1441 Cont FR 1471 Cont FR 1319 Cont FR 1564 Cont FR

Joint Enrl Freshman Soph Junior Senior Trans Total UGFall 2005 93 3258 1750 1492 1689 41 8323

1656 New FR179 New TR 193 New TR 163 New TR 42 New TR

Tot 1835 NEW1423 Cont FR 1557 Cont FR 1329 Cont FR 1647 Cont FR

Difference (+/-)Joint Enrl Freshman Soph Junior Senior Trans

-1.06% -1.75% 5.93% -3.62% 4.71% 64.00%-3.66% New FR14.74% New TR 6.63% New TR -28.82% New TR -14.29% New TR

Tot -2.13% NEW-1.25% Cont FR 5.85% Cont FR 0.76% Cont FR 5.31% Cont FR

Reflections and Discussion

Melanie McClellan Sandra Stone

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?

• 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

• 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.

• 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

• 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

• 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

• We connect students to success

• Success of the institution is linked to the success of the students