Date post: | 17-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | clyde-bryan |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
StartingPointsBuilding on SuccessPurdue University Calumet’sStrategic Plan 2007-2012
Results from past initiatives inform future planning.
Success:Building Enrollmentwith Quality Initiatives
Raised admissions standards Attracted more minority students Increased enrollment overall
Test Scores, One Indicatorof Enrollment Quality
919
917
924
923
924
912910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007
Success:
MinorityEnrollment
Domestic Minority
3093
28212889
2935
2602
2411
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007
Success:
Enrollment byHeadcount and FTE
9303
9128
9222 9302 9607
8863
5777
66446371623960715995
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000
Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007
Total Enrollment (Headcount) Total Enrollment (FTE)
Success:
Retention and Graduation Rate
NOTE: Graduation rate reported reflects the entering cohort six years prior.
60% 62%64%64%64%62%
15.5%
21.0% 21.3% 23.6% 23.0% 24.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006
Retention Graduation
ProgramFall to Fall
Retention*
Honors 95.8%
Best & Brightest Scholarship 80.92%
Student Employment 77.2%
Supplemental Instruction 75.0%
Freshmen Seminars 69.2%
Academic Recovery Program 55.2%
Retention Initiatives2001-2007 Averages
*All undergraduates in program in fall and returning the next fall.
Success:
RetentionInitiatives
Average Fall-to-Fall Retention Rate
General Population 64.10%
Honors Program (1 yr) 95.83%
Best And Brightest Scholarships (3 yrs) 80.92%
Student Employment (5 yrs) 77.22%
Supplemental Instruction (4 yrs) 75.01%
Freshman Seminars (3 yrs) 69.16%
Academic Recovery Program (2 yrs) 55.19%
NOTE: Number of years represent the length of time since program was implemented.
Success:
A New Way to CalculateGraduation Rates
ICHE seeks new approach to graduation rates
“Efficiency” rates focus on graduating students, not students’ time to graduation
Accounts for part-time students and transfers students
Success:
A New Way to CalculateGraduation Rates
Institution4-year average rates: efficiency vs. time-to-
degree
Liberal Arts 96.4 92.0
National Research 90.2 90.5
Masters I, Tier I 75.3
Master I, Tier II 61.2
Master I, Tier III 50.2
Master I, Tier IV 56.2
Master I, Average 60.7 47.7
Success:
New ProgramsBuild Enrollments
BA Human Development & Family Studies (2001) BA Business (2002) AS & BS Computer Graphics Technology (2003) BS Electrical Engineering (2006) BS Mechanical Engineering (2006) BS Civil Engineering (2006) BS Computer Engineering (2006) MS Technology (approved BOT 2007)
8 new degree programs (2001-2007)1 pending degree program
Success:
ExperientialLearning
April 2007: Purdue Calumet’s Faculty Senate approved experiential learningas a graduation requirement. Set quality standards for every experience.
October 2006: Purdue Calumet’s received a $1.7 million U.S. Dept. of Education Title III grant for faculty development and curriculum designin experiential learning.
Success:
Types of Experiential Learning
ServiceLearning
Experiential LearningUnder-
graduateResearch
Practicum
CooperativeEducation
DesignProject
InternshipCultural
Immersion
CampusLifeSuccess:
Economic Development:Supporting Start-up Companies
Purdue Technology Center:14 clients
Lilly Opportunities for Indiana: 94 interns placed in three years$380,000 supports students and companies to grow
Success:
Centers andInstitutesSuccess:
Centers andInstitutes
WATER INSTITUTE
BP Project on quality ofLake Michigan water
Early warning system againstthreats to critical water systems
Success:
Centers andInstitutes
CENTER FOR ENERGY, EFFICIENCYAND TECHNOLOGY
Improve energy utilization Reduce emissions and costs
Success:
Centers andInstitutes
NavOps
Science program for at-riskstudents in the region
HAMMOND URBAN ACADEMY
Urban Science and TechnologyCharter Academy
Success:
The Future:ContinuingChallenges
Faculty Salary as Compared to Peer Mean
-12%
-15%
-16% -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0%
2005
2006
985
967
957
983
943 943
916
976
939933
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
Fall1997
Fall1998
Fall1999
Fall2000
Fall2001
Fall2002
Fall2003
Fall2004
Fall2005
Fall2006
Graduate Enrollment
-6.1%
Faculty salaries far below meanof peer institutions
Purdue Calumet down 12% from mean in 2005; 15% down from mean in 2006
State funding creates systemic problem Need systemic solution
Faculty and Staff SalariesBelow the Peer MeanThe Future:
10-year enrollment decline (6.1%) In ten years, university doubled
the number of degrees awarded Limited number of programs
with few new programs
GraduateEducationThe Future:
RECOMMENDATIONS
Track admissions and retention data Encourage full-time graduate students Conduct regional needs assessment
GraduateEducationThe Future:
RECOMMENDATIONS
Increase financial support to students Offer accelerated programs Increase distance learning and
web-based coursework
GraduateProgramsThe Future:
Our HedgehogWorking Students
Our passion: Graduating
successful students
What we are good at:flexibility and
predictability in learning environment
Support for working student
Our economic driver:serving Northwest
Indiana
Jim Collins, Good to Great
The Future:
Learning aboutWorking Students
Purdue Calumet students who workmore than 27 hours a week risk…
Withdrawing during the semester Taking a semester off And eventually dropping
out of school all together
The Future:
31% of the 21 and younger students worked more than 30 hours a week(Working Student Research, 2005 & 2007)
11% worked more than 40 hours/week
WorkingStudentsThe Future:
WorkingStudents
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
Age Under 21 Age 21-24 Age 25-29 Age 30 and over
The Future:
WorkingStudents
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14M
ed
ian
Cred
it H
ou
rs
Age Under 21 Age 21-24 Age 25-29 Age 30 and over
The Future:
WorkingStudents
What we learn by interviewingworking students…
They have highly structured routines The work to pay bills, but also for
personal independence They do not see work as having a
negative impact on school. (Work is a given)
The Future:
WorkingStudents
THE INSTITUTION’S RESPONSE…
Support students with predictableand flexible learning environment
Be flexible in course deliveryweb-based learning tools
Be predictable in course scheduling to support students’ academic planning
The Future:
Environmental Scanning:Understanding our history and conditions for future planning
Getting our vision “right” seeing clearly where we want to be
Strategic Planninghas StartedThe Future: