|
 |
List of all Retention Council Agendas & Minutes
Agenda & Minutes for February 7, 2001
| |
Agenda of the Retention Council
Public Events Room, Eggers 220 10:30 - 12:00
| I. |
Announcements
Welcome
Introduction of Martha Sutter, Assistant Dean, VPA
Minutes from 1/24/01 meeting
Proposed Future Meeting Dates
- February 21, March 14, March 28, April 11
|
Horace Smith |
| II. |
Presentation of Model 2 |
Anne Shelly, Barbara Yonai |
| |
Continued Discussion
Identify targeted students with each
Small Projects that might be expanded
Projects with reasonable chance of success that
lack resources
Proposed interventions with populations important
to you
Actions you deem appropriate to meeting any of the
VCs retention objectives
|
Council Members |
| III. |
Process: How do we select which
strategies to pursue in the near-term? |
Council Members |
|
| |
Minutes of the Retention Council
In Attendance: Charles Barletta, Marlene Blumin, Ronald Cavanagh, Luvenia Cowart, Peter DeBlois, Thomas Ellett, Bea Gonzalez, Rosanna Grassi, Judy Hamilton, David Kohr, William McPeak, Lena Rose Orlando, David Potter, Amie Redmond, Hanna Richardson, Barbara Settel, Anne Shelly, David Smith, Horace Smith, Eric Spina, Martha Sutter, Silvio Torres-Soillant, Seth Tucker, Anastasia Urtz, Mike Wasylenko, Barry Wells, Barbara Yonai,
I. Announcements
Horace Smith welcomed Martha Sutter to the Retention Council.
Future Council meetings were scheduled for 2/21, 3/14, 3/28, 4/11
Minutes from 1/24/01 meeting were approved with revisions.
II. Presentation of Model 2 and Identification of Target Sub-populations and Suggested Interventions
Anne Shelly and Barbara Yonai presented model 2 from the 5yr. Retention Plan Preliminary Report.
Hanna Richardson expressed interest in unsuccessful IUTs to Management. Do we/Can we communicate unsuccessful IUTs to their home school or college.
Rosanna Grassi suggested that we could require sign-off from the home school or college. She also is concerned about potential privacy issues relevant to prospective IUTs and communicating their interest in transferring to the home school/college.
Barb Settel argued that this information should be collected and used for our purposes. This could be invisible to students and thus avoid any problem with their perceived discomfort over sharing IUT information.
David Potter stated that the school that denies the transfer could advise the student to talk with home school/college.
Rosanna Grassi indicated that most IUT request occur over the summer making it difficult to intervene with the students directly.
Peter DeBlois indicated that Model 3 seems to be subordinate to 1 & 2 in the 5yr. Plan. Given the significant interest in IUTs, how do we address interest in studying IUTs, which are identified as a model 3 issue?
Anne Shelly responded that the model is for organizing our approach and is not rigid. IUT assessment could be moved to model 2. Model 2, however, is more focused on immediate action.
David Smith proposes that students get a signature from the home school/college to IUT.
Hanna Richardson argued that the information is what's needed not the student signature. Denial forms could be sent routinely to the home college and another step for the student could be avoided.
Ron Cavanagh stated that we used to do this and could easily do so again. However, this one issue won't deliver a 5pt. Improvement in retention rates. We need to focus on interventions that will lead to this targeted improvement.
Marlene Blumin inquired about the retention rate of undecided/undeclared students.
Hanna Richardson suggested we might revisit the Freshmen Advocacy Network (FAN) program.
Peter DeBlois proposed examining the idea of a learning community for undecided students.
Tom Ellett asked about a link between Freshmen Forums and undecided students.
Luvenia Cowart advocated teaching decision-making skills in freshman forum to help undecided students.
Barb Settel advocated focusing on those who are only a few credits short of graduation. Could we offer a fiscal incentive for these students to finish?
Bea Gonzalez indicated she has been working with student-athletes to to finsih their degree using distance learning, summer courses, on-line courses, and limited residency programs.
Rosanna Grassi stated that there is a system in place that allows students in the 5th or 6th year of their program to petition to be charged UC rates. This is not well communicated to students.
Tom Ellett stated that another institution required a housing deposit that was not returnable until the student went through an exit interview.
Ron Cavanagh proposed assessing and interviewing based on housing information for those that do not return (DNRs are discovered through housing checks). Can we contact and intervene with this group?
Horace Smith asked who would carry out such a task?.
David Potter indicated a central office should do it to assure continuity.
Peter DeBlois stated we could produce on-going lists of students that don't register for the next semester.
Lena Rose Orlando raised three points:
Are there activities targeted at AOs currently underway in the schools/colleges?
Do we reach out to freshmen not doing well and is it linked to residential behavior?
Could we institute a centralized help desk/line/webpage to which students could address any question and expect their question to be routed to the proper office to respond or, perhaps, answered immediately?
Peter Deblois stated that to intervene at mid-semester the process would have to be adjusted since at present mid-semester information is not stored.
Mike Wasylenko would like to focus some of the discussion on the 2nd year. SU loses students between the sophomore and junior years; i.e., sophomores who do not return for their junior year. This suggests that we should have more programming for and pay more attention to sophomores. By contrast, the vast majority of the students who persist to junior year are retained and eventually graduate. One senses that there is significant first-year intervention that evaporates in the 2nd year.
Rosanna Grassi noted that sophomores tend to have a significant disconnect between their skills and the careers they believe they want.
Bea Gonzalez stated that UC was experimenting with a career awareness course around certain sub-populations to help them make good career decisions.
Ron Cavanagh proposed formal sophomore orientation with a focus on issues specific to this population (DIPA, service optiosn, major selection, etc).
Rosanna Grassi advocated that such an effort should be school/college based and focused on advising rather than a one-size-fits-all central model since many of the sophomore adjustment issues are school/college related.
Marlene Blumin asked that established sub-groups be factored into intervention strategies. Athletes, fraternities/sororities are good sites for strategic intervention.
Eric Spina indicated that in ECS junior attrition was related to 1st year problems. Bad calculus skills, etc. allow students to dig such a hole for themselves in the first semesters they cannot even transfer and thus they leave.
David Potter proposed that a sophomore intervention be required, like freshman forum. Advising issues are general and focus could be on issues that faculty aren't trained to address. We simply don't have the resources at this point to deal with all sophomores one-on-one.
Hanna Richardson suggested a publication aimed at sophomore issues.
Mike Wasylenko stated that MIT has a "charm" school component that might be adopted.
William McPeak suggested some discussion on mental health elements (family problems, depression, etc.). We have been proactive with SAIP, could we do so through other interventions?
The next meeting will be held on February 21, from 10:30 -12:00, in the Bartlett room or Newhouse II
|
