Enrollment Management: Attracting and Retaining High Quality Students

1
Enrollment Management Attracting and Retaining
High Quality Students

• Meridith Wentz
• Cindy Gilberts

2
Statement of the issues

• Shift from management of enrollment FTE targets
  to management of tuition revenue budget. Changes
  management at the campus level.
• Relatively flat overall retention rates over
  past 5 years despite investment of significant
  resources.
• Significant and growing gap in retention and
  graduation rates between white and minority
  students.
• Significant financial and resource needs in an
  environment of limited resources.

3
Overview

• Enrollment Management What is our targeted
  enrollment for 2010 to 2015? How do we get
  there?
• Retention How do we retain students?
• Diversity How do we enroll and retain a diverse
  student body?
• Resource Needs What are the financial and
  resource implications for students and the
  university?

4

• What is our targeted enrollment for 2010 to 2015?
  How do we get there?

5
Enrollment Management Why it is important to
ask the questions now

• Enrollment management data influence
• Instructor needs
• Need for additional faculty positions
• Auxiliary operations
• Access-to-learning allocations
• Number of laptop computers

6
Enrollment ManagementWhy it is important to ask
the questions now

• Change in how enrollment is managed at System
  level
• Institutions allowed to keep excess tuition
  revenue and can request additional budget
  authority
• If a campus does not meet target, must return
  budget authority to System

7
Enrollment ManagementWhy it is important to ask
the questions now

• Changing national trends
• New enrollment counting definition
• Major UW-Stout initiatives

8
Enrollment ManagementCurrent targets

• 7,500 FTE by fall 2010
• 1,525 new freshmen target
• If targets are met, estimate 7,519 total FTE in
  fall 2010

9
Enrollment ManagementRevenue collected

Year Tuition Revenue (excludes customized and access to learning) Variance
2001-02 22,233,456 595,015
2002-03 24,950,885 1,492,757
2003-04 27,066,580 (410,419)
2004-05 29,806,406 (773,303)
2005-06 33,286,620 346,217
10
Enrollment ManagementHistorical Enrollment Data
Enrollment (including customized) Enrollment (including customized) Enrollment (including customized) Enrollment (including customized) Enrollment (including customized) Enrollment (including customized)
Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006
New Freshmen 1,308 1,275 1,281 1,694 1,506
Re-Entry 164 110 189 163 227
Transfers 634 538 565 581 607
New Graduate Students 191 184 192 183 335
Total Headcount Enrollment 7,902 7,708 7,547 7,895 8,327
Undergraduate (headcount) 7,316 7,101 6,973 7,341 7,492
Graduate (headcount) 586 607 574 554 835
Total FTE 7,042 6,921 6,724 7,047 7,199

11
(No Transcript)
12
Enrollment ManagementNext Steps

• Small subcommittee to address these questions
• Revenue projections should influence enrollment
  target setting. How can this be accommodated?
• What is a reasonable process by which to manage
  enrollment?
• How do we manage when enrollment fluctuates?
• How do we maintain a healthy enrollment given
  current environment?
• How do we manage when there is internal
  competition?
• What is a strategic plan for recruitment and
  resource needs?

13
Enrollment ManagementAdditional resources

• Additional resources available on the retreat
  website
• Cancellation survey results
• Total contacts
• Campus visit questionnaire

14
Table discussion

• What input and thoughts do you have for the
  committee? What additional questions should they
  be considering?

15

• How do we retain students?

16
RetentionCurrent targets

• 80 retention by 2010
• Using the formal definition of retention,
  retention rates range from 71 to 73
• Using the informal definition of retention,
  retention consistently exceeds 90

17
RetentionEnrollment projections
Projected Enrollment Headcount (FTE) Projected Enrollment Headcount (FTE) Projected Enrollment Headcount (FTE) Projected Enrollment Headcount (FTE)
Current Retention 75 Retention 80 Retention
Fall 2007 8,513 (7,355) 8,513 (7,355) 8,513 (7,355)
Fall 2008 8,654 (7,477) 8,716 (7,531) 8,805 (7,608)
Fall 2009 8,728 (7,541) 8,784 (7,589) 8,879 (7,671)
Fall 2010 8,703 (7,519) 8,800 (7,603) 8,965 (7,746)
18
RetentionResources Invested

• Establishment of the first year experience
  program and learning communities
• Establishment of the math teaching and learning
  center and writing center
• Implementation of block scheduling
• Implementation of a centralized advisement model
• Implementation of Title III funded retention
  initiatives

19
Retention Evaluation Data
Segmented Retention Rates Fall 2005 to Fall 2006
OVERALL 71.5
Learning Community Participants 79 (19/24)
Career Exploration Course Participants 69 (33/48)
Career Cluster Participants 70 (54/77)
ASPIRE participants 77 (327/427)
Minority Scholarship Recipients 100 (10/10)
includes non-freshmen
20
RetentionEvaluation Data

• Early Alert- Fall to Spring retention
• Participants 76
• Matched Control 91

21
RetentionEvaluation Data
New Freshmen Completing General Courses in First Year New Freshmen Completing General Courses in First Year New Freshmen Completing General Courses in First Year New Freshmen Completing General Courses in First Year
03-04 04-05 05-06
English 090 12 11 11
English 101 82 83 83
English 111 6 7 8
English 102 55 62 60
English 112 3 4 4
Speech 100 47 72 78
Any Math Course 77 76 77
22
RetentionEvaluation Data

• Positive Student evaluations of the First-Year
  advising program
• Over 95 satisfied or very satisfied with their
  First-Year advising experience.
• Over 95 of freshmen students in 2007 reported
  their advisor was prompt about responding to
  e-mail messages and the advisor was sufficiently
  available to meet their needs. Approximately 80
  reported fall orientation and Advisement day
  information as useful and 67 reported the
  Transition meeting was useful.
• Freshmen in 2006 indicate that the quality of
  academic advising at Stout has remained about the
  same as last year.

23
RetentionEvaluation Data

• Mid-grant Title III evaluation results
• 1,764 undergraduate students and 281
  faculty/staff have been touched by the grant.
• Students report that their level of knowledge of
  career possibilities with a UW-Stout education
  has increased.
• Over 170 student undergraduate students have
  created electronic portfolios.
• Preliminary impact estimates on student retention
  for targeted groups have been encouraging.

24
RetentionEvaluation Data

• Math Lab
• Served 1,231 students
• 61 drop in failure/withdrawal in Math 010 and
  23 drop in Math 110
• Writing Lab
• 104 tutorials
• High satisfaction ratings

25
Retention Overall Retention Rates
Cohort Non-Returners Retained at UW-Stout Retained in UW System Retained at any College/ University
F1999 542 76.8 81.6 87.3
F2000 354 74.9 80.3 91.1
F2001 327 73.3 78.6 93.6
F2002 326 72.3 78.1 92.6
F2003 312 73.3 79.0 97.7
F2004 345 73.3 79.6 94.1
F2005 487 71.5 77.9 91.4
26
RetentionTransfers

• Approximately 20 of students who start at
  UW-Stout (250 students) subsequently transfer to
  another institution.
• Nationally, there is a trend for students to
  transfer multiple times before graduating.

27
Table Discussion

• What do you consider to be the 1 or 2 most
  important retention initiatives for us to
  continue or start?
• What retention initiatives should we stop doing?

28

• How do we enroll and retain a diverse student
  body?

29
DiversityResources Invested

• Many Plan 2008 initiatives underway
• Recruitment at Bradley Tech
• Campus Preview Days for multicultural students
• Academic Success Plans
• Career Seminar
• Minority Scholarships
• Career Exploration Program

30
Enrollments - Undergrad and Grad 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 HC
Women 49 50 51 51 52 4,306
Racial /Ethnic Background
American Indian .4 .4 .4 .6 .7 61
African American 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 111
Asian American 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.1 178
Hispanic American .9 .8 .8 .8 .9 74
Total 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.1 424
International 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.6 130
31
Diversity Retention Gap

• Retention gap for 2000 cohort is 33.1

2003 6-year Graduation Rate All Students Minority Gap
UW-Stout 45.5 26.7 18.8
Peer 1 34.1 15.5 18.6
Peer 2 64.6 49.2 15.4
Peer 3 48.6 29.7 18.9
32
DiversityNext Steps

• Further planning for Plan 2008 will occur in
  2006-07
• Will participate in Equity Scorecard Project

33
Table Discussion

• What input would you like to provide to the Plan
  2008 planning group?

34

• What are the financial and resource implications
  for students and the university?

35
Resource ImplicationsTuition and Fees

• Average Tuition and Fees
• 4 year publics 5,836
• WI 4-year publics 6,044
• UW-Stout 6,963
• Includes tuition, segregated fees and laptop fee

36
Resource ImplicationsDeclining State Support
37
Resource ImplicationsData

• Customized Instruction programs that have been
  approved to charge differential tuition or
  market rates.  Expensive delivery methods or have
  high market demand. To reach target markets like
  non-traditional students. 
• Distance Ed Not face to face delivery. 
  Physical separation between instructor and
  student and also have live or real time two-way
  interaction between instructor and student.
• Differential Tuition customized instruction and
  access to learning are differential tuition.  A
  tuition rate higher than the Regent approved
  rate.  Access to Learning is 5 of the resident
  tuition charged to undergrads and grads. 

38
Table Discussion

• Who should pay how much for what where?
• Differentials
• Customized
• Distance Education
• How do we advance quality in an environment of
  limited resources, when greater productivity is
  being demanded of us?

39
Thank You! Questions?