THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO
Enrollment Management Team Meeting
June 30, 2006Membership:
George Norton, Niki Stutzman, Steve Wilkerson, Ruben Martinez, Gerry Dizinno, Dorothy Flannagan, and Lisa Blazer attended.
Dan Hollas, Sam Gonzales, Donna Nanny and Ysabel Trinidad were not able to attend.
Introductions were made around the table.
Chair Elected:
George Norton
Secretary Appointed: Zenia Trevino, Administrative Services Associate, Admissions — Thanks Zenia for your willingness to support the work of this group.
This year was designated as the year of the plan at the planning retreat. Nine teams were formed and this one is the Enrollment Management (EM) Thematic Team. The purpose of the thematic teams is to drive operations and budget decisions, to align with UT System and Regents goals, and serve as a key component in reaccredidation.
We will:
Assess the status of EM at UTSA
Develop Strategic Goals
Gather Input from Key Constituents
Build a Plan
A draft is due by the end of the fall semester with a report to ELC by the end of May. At some point after this the report is due to UT System.
George Norton and Steve Wilkerson have discussed the need for a close connection between the EM team and the Student Success team that Steve will be leading. Connections to other thematic teams will be facilitated by George's participation in the Strategic Planning Workgroup and any additional connections the EM team wishes to establish.
First Task: Assess where UTSA is currently regarding EM. What do we need to do to move forward?
Discussion: UTSA currently has no enrollment plan and, since current admission criteria establish the university as a nearly open enrollment institution, planning is mostly procedural rather than goal directed.
Goals: We have the current UT System goal by 2016 of approximately 40,000 students. Previous discussion has identified an 85/15 student distribution (undergrad/grad) as the most feasible way to meet that goal.
UTSA also has the stated goal of achieving Tier One research institution status.
Key Ideas: In order to reach the stated goals it is most important to offer an improved undergraduate education to UTSA students. An improved undergraduate education will enhance retention and graduation rates and carry students through progressively higher classifications that garner greater formula funding. This will require coordination with the Student Success thematic group to ensure goals and strategies are developed in EM that support student success. Certainly longitudinal and current accurate data on students and the university will be required to inform this process.
Close attention needs to be paid to the number of doctoral degrees and the amount of sponsored research required for UTSA to reach Tier One status so that progress toward the goal can be monitored. Gerry Dizinno can access this information.
Close attention needs to be paid to the instructional budget per student to identify the current status relative to other institutions and to set goals for UTSA. Gerry Dizinno indicated his ability to access information pertinent to this inquiry.
Undergraduate admission criteria need to be evaluated and values incorporated to the decision matrix for the writing sample test sections that have been added to the ACT and SAT assessments. George Norton is collecting data to track all applicants to UTSA for the fall 2005 class including retention and success information through fall 2006 enrollment that may serve as an initial data source.
Data should be collected on the success of transfer students entering UTSA to facilitate assessment and to inform development of goals and strategies. Gerry Dizinno is working on a report to ACCD that may serve as an initial data source.
Financial aid opportunities for graduate students should be examined in terms of the contribution to graduate student success and in terms of any negative effect a shift to graduate student support might have on undergraduate student success.
In order to improve student access and success simultaneously, recruitment and financial support should focus on highly qualified minority students.
In order to simultaneously maintain student access pathways and improve the academic profile of incoming freshmen, coordinated enrollment programs with area community colleges should be piloted and assessed. Such a program is currently being piloted with Northwest Vista college. George Norton will keep the EM team apprised of the progress and assessment of that program.
Needs: Each of the ideas discussed above and likely the additional ideas to be generated will require data support. Data will suggest the initiatives, drive the development and implementation of goals and strategy, and assess the outcomes. It is the assessment of the EM Team that UTSA does not have the quality of data support normally associated with endeavors of this nature. While the items listed here can be done in the current data environment, they will be necessarily hampered and inefficient by the use of the current student information system (designed primarily to facilitate transactions) as a source of research data.
The EM Team recommends the implementation of a Data Warehouse at UTSA to support the need for data to address the research questions that will likely come from the EM Team and the other thematic teams.
Committee Timeline: The full EM Team expects to meet once a month at minimum with sub-groups meeting as is needed to maintain the following timeline for project milestones:
June 06 |
August 17, 2006Present: Niki Stutzman, Veronica Ramirez, Lisa Blazer, Gerry Dizinno, Ruben Martinez, Daniel Hollas, Joe DeCristoforo, Sam Gonzales, Marianne Lewis, George Norton Absent: Dorothy Flannagan, represented by Veronica Ramirez Agenda Item: EM Cohort Discussion: The group discussed the variables that should be included in an EM study cohort, how that data should be collected, and what value it would have for UTSA in developing an EM plan. Conclusions: Gerry Dizinno stated he has enrollment cohort information tracking back five years that can be used effectively to inform an Enrollment Management study appropriate to our needs. Using the Admissions Criteria Matrix, and the cohort data, it is possible to construct various "what if" scenarios with different admission criteria to examine impact on enrollment, impact on retention and graduation, appropriate financial aid packaging strategy. Given an identified goal to reach in terms of enrollment number, we can then build a plan to reach the goal based on different student profiles. Further analysis based on feeder high schools and transfer institutions can inform the appropriate student recruitment strategy to reach the goal. Action items: Gerry Dizinno's office is starting work on development of the EM Cohort. Agenda Item: During the previous meeting, Ruben Martinez asked to see data comparing UTSA to other institutions in terms of instructional expenses per FTE student. Discussion: Gerry Dizinno provided the requested information for discussion. The observation was made that UT Arlington is a good school to draw comparisons with because they are at the next level above UTSA in terms of their status as a Doctoral Intensive institution. Instructional expenses per FTE student at UT Arlington are $4,837 where UT San Antonio spends $3,876. Academic Support expenses per FTE student at UT Arlington are $920 where UT San Antonio spends $718. Student Services expenses per FTE student at UT Arlington stand at $760 which is slightly higher than UT San Antonio's $744. Conclusions: The conclusion was reached in the June 30, 2006 meeting that a central issue in the retention of students to graduation is to provide a better quality education, and that conclusion caused Dr. Martinez to ask for the expenditure information. Review of that information points to the issue of UTSA funding priorities as an area for further examination. Action items: The information provided will inform EM Team recommendations for examination of funding issues. Agenda Item: Financial Aid Strategy Discussion: Lisa Blazer discussed some alternate packaging strategies to include 1) guaranteed tuition and fee coverage for low income students; 2) frontloading grants and scholarships to freshmen and sophomores; 3) or that we could develop a different strategy. Conclusions: Lisa's idea is that we need to review the data to see if either of the first two approaches would positively impact retention and success, or if a better approach would be to develop another strategy. Action items: Lisa agreed, after the fall semester is underway, to report to the committee on the specific distribution of financial aid. Also, financial aid variables will be incorporated to the EM matrix described in the above-mentioned agenda item. This will inform EM plan development related to financial aid packaging. Agenda Item: Need to set standing meeting times for the EM Team. Discussion: Agreed Conclusions: George to establish regular meeting time. Action items: George has proposed a standing meeting for the third Friday of each month at 1:30 PM. Locations to be announced in the minutes prior to each meeting. Comments/concerns: None at this time. Next meeting date: September 15, 2006, 1:30 PM, MB 4.106 |
September 15, 2006Present: George Norton, Joe DeCristoforo, Niki Stutzman, Gerry Dizinno, Steve Wilkerson, Dan Hollas, Lisa Blazer, Sam Gonzales, Ruben Martinez Absent: None Agenda Item: Review of the minutes from August 17. George Norton Discussion: No additions or edits. Conclusions: Minutes are satisfactory. Action items: Minutes accepted. Agenda Item: Status of Central Planning Committee, George Norton Discussion: Sept. 21 meeting canceled. The Chair reiterated availability of the project management classes in September, and the availability of the streaming video on planning and goal setting presentations on the website. Conclusions: September 22 is the Strategic Planning Retreat Reunion Action items: None Agenda Item: Update from the Student Success Thematic Team, Steve Wilkerson Discussion: Steve reviewed the status of his committee's work on defining student success, the skills development that support student success, the values promoted through a quality education, and the strategic goals the committee is embracing as it works to draft its plan. Note was taken that his second goal ". . . enhance and strengthen undergraduate and graduate education. . . ", is one that had been recognized earlier by the EM team. Steve discussed the data revealed by already conducted freshman surveys about perceptions of UTSA and factors influencing decisions to attend. Steve also discussed continuing student surveys on the topic of students working while in school. Steve also talked about how his group is using the UT System Strategic Plan to set minimal guidelines for topics to be covered in his group's plan, and provided some of the detail of that plan to our committee. Conclusion: As such, EM will no longer seek to address the strengthening of the academic program directly, but will collaborate as needed with the Student Success Team to support their goal. The collected survey data will be retained for reference by the EM team as it goes about its work. Action items: None Agenda Item: Review of the Matrix Discussion: Discussion of the Matrix included its implication that high school rank is the most predictive variable for first-year to second-year retention for the incoming first time freshman class of 2004. Students ranked in the top 10% of the high school class had an 82.9% retention rate while those in the top 25% had a 69.3% rate. Second quarter students dropped eight points to 61.4% and the spread among second, third, and fourth quarter students was just over five points. Provisional admits and admits by individual review had retention rates between those of regularly admitted students in the second and third quarter. Fourth quarter students were the weakest of all with a retention rate of 56.1%. They were also the smallest single group of enrollees. This is likely due to the higher SAT/ACT score requirements for the lower ranked applicants. Conclusion: The initial conclusion is that the EM Team can evaluate different scenarios to make recommendations as to what admission criteria will serve UTSA well in terms of its enrollment targets. Also important for inclusion in that analysis will be SAT/ACT writing samples because admission criteria need to be established for those scores. Action items: As the committee agrees on specific goals to be included in the draft plan, the Matrix will be taken advantage of to help formulate recommendations for objectives and strategies. Agenda Item: Content for draft EM Plan Discussion: The interconnected nature of targets, infrastructure (grad, undergrad, programs, data, and facilities), admission criteria, student success and other issues make determination of the specific goals for EM challenging. Conclusion: Based on Steve's comments during his presentation on the approach of the Student Success Team, and based on Gerry's recommendation to set some very simple goals to start with, we will review the related major components of the UT System Strategic Plan and use that for guidance on goals with additional goal statements to suit the specific needs of UTSA. Action items: George Norton will review notes from our meetings and the UT System Strategic Plan to generate initial goals for review by the committee. This will be done the week of September 18, with feedback from the group anticipated the following week. Comments/concerns: A concern for the group is receipt of the college-by-college projections for growth in their areas. This information will be important to the EM Team's ability to set broad targets on which recommendations for admission criteria can be based. A concern for the group is the specific formatting of the draft plan to be produced. It is expected this will be addressed at the Sept. 22 meeting. A concern for the group is the writing and editing process. The chair is considering offering his services for initial drafts of the sections with direction and edits to be provided by group member. Next meeting date: October 20, 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM, location, TBA |
October 2, 2006Present: George Norton, Dorothy Flannagan, Niki Stutzman, Sam Gonzales Absent: Due to the quickly called meeting, absences were expected: Steve Wilkerson, Gerry Dizinno, Ruben Martinez, Dan Hollas, Joe DeCristoforo, Marianne Lewis, Lisa Blazer Agenda Item: Goal Statement Review Discussion: Too many goals. Conclusions: Need to reorganize the statements to have one or two solid goals and more objectives, strategies and metrics. Action items: George will reorganize the worksheet and submit to committee members for feedback. Agenda Item: Goal Statement Review Discussion: Some of these goals may be handled by the Infrastructure or Student Success Team. Conclusions: We need to look into this and possibly remove some of the goals that are duplicating the work of other committees. Action items: George will check on this and report back to the members. Agenda Item: Tight timeline. Discussion: Due to the Oct 16 deadline to have a draft, we need more meetings. Conclusions: More meetings are hard to arrange with everyone's schedule. George will meet with who he can get, when he can get them. Action items: George will suggest a long list of times and see when people are available and meet on an as needed basis with available members to complete the task. Comments/concerns: It will be critical to get feedback by email if members are not available to meet. Next meeting date: The EM team had a quickly scheduled meeting on October 2, 2006. Our next meeting is set for 1:00 PM on October 9 in the JPL Admissions Conference Room. Our next meetings after that are October 20 @ 1:30 PM, November 17 @ 1:30 PM, and December 15 @ 1:30 PM. Locations are TBA. |
October 20, 2006Present: George Norton, Niki Stutzman, Steve Wilkerson, Ruben Martinez, Gerry Dizinno, Dorothy Flannagan, Dan Hollas, Sam Gonzales and Lisa Blazer attended. Absent: None Agenda Item: Refining Goals, Objectives and Strategies. Discussion: The group evaluated the current work sheet and discussed the goals. Conclusions: We eliminated duplications and settled on the wording for the Goals, Objectives and Strategies. Action items: George will make the changes to the plan. Agenda Item: Metrics Discussion: Primarily that metrics need to be more clearly defined and measureable. Conclusions: Work needs to be done to refine the metrics. Action items: George will use available data and guidance gained from the committee to refine the metrics, and share with the group in advance of the next meeting. Comments/concerns: Next meeting date: November 17, 2006 |