|
 |
List of all Retention Council Agendas & Minutes
Agenda & Minutes for November 18, 1999
| |
Agenda of the Retention Council
Bartlett Room Newhouse II 10:00 - 11:30
| I. |
Announcements |
|
| |
Welcome and Introduction of Vice Chancellor Deborah Freund |
Horace Smith |
| |
Review and Approval of 6/23/99 Minutes |
|
| II. |
Presentation of Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data for 1992 - 1997 Cohorts of High and Low Achievers |
Anne Shelly, Barbara Yonai |
| |
Discussion of the Data to Identify Target Student Groups for Follow-Up Studies |
|
| |
Identify Issues Relevant to the Study of these
Identified Groups |
|
| III. |
Other Issues |
|
Minutes of the Retention Council
In Attendance: Chuck Barletta, Marlene Blumin, Peter DeBlois, Tom Ellett, Deborah Freund, Rosanna Grassi, Judy Hamilton, David Kohr, William McPeak, Judy O'Rourke, Lena Rose Orlando, David Potter, Barbara Settel, Anne Shelly, Corinne Smith, David Smith, Horace Smith, Carole Stevens, Seth Tucker, Anastasia Urtz, Tim Wasserman, Mike Wasylenko, Barry Wells, Barbara Yonai
I. Announcements
The Council considered the minutes from the 6/23/99 meeting and approved them without revision.
II. Vice Chancellor's Vision and the Role of Student Retention Efforts
Horace Smith introduced Vice Chancellor Freund and asked her to speak about her vision for the University and the role retention efforts play in actualizing that vision.
The intention of the Vice Chancellor is to raise Syracuse to the next echelon of prestige and quality as a student-centered research university. In her initial remarks the Vice Chancellor emphasized the following points:
Retention/Graduation rate is a key, though not only, indicator of the university's success.
We need well designed, tailored institutional research to guide our actions. We must identify data-supported success strategies.
Cooperation among units is a necessity in an environment of scarce resources and complex issues.
Present graduation rates are not high enough. The degree to which students in good academic standing depart is not surprising.
While some variance in student attrition can be explained by entry characteristics like SATs, class rank, and financial status, much of the variance will be unexplained by existing quantitative variables.
Much of the unexplained variance can be attributed to "campus climate." As example Indiana University lost high numbers of women from rural backgrounds. When surveyed they reported a high degree of discomfort with the urbanized environment of IUs campus.
Taking action is important. Even if we cannot fully understand something complex like campus climate it is preferred that the institution experiment based on best available information rather than remain inert awaiting full knowledge.
The Vice Chancellor does not expect immediate large-scale gains in retention. Our goal must be continuous small improvements. We presently seem to be on this road.
Do not be afraid to be bold even if the research is not completely clear.
Tom Ellett raised concerns over both institutional culture and the physical environment. The institution does not push students to commit themselves sufficiently. Further, the physical environment in the present residence halls is not conducive to making student's from differing lifestyles comfortable in their living environment. This discomfort translates to greater attrition.
Peter DeBlois said that when exploring issues like retention we tend to divide faculty, staff, and students. We tend to focus on staff because they are the most captive audience when trying to implement change. What is the faculty's role in addressing attrition? Student role? And, what about the deans?
Vice Chancellor Freund responded that faculty have tended to express surprise that retention was within their purview. We need to change this. Why are there not more faculty on the Council? What role do they play? We need to develop, perhaps this group, a set of incentives or disincentives for the deans and the schools and colleges.
Rosanna Grassi and Corinne Smith responded that there is some faculty involvement and some initiatives underway.
Dave Smith stated that while the Retention Council has been making efforts to address concerns about attrition, it has not been an agenda item for the Dean's Council. There has not been action responsibility placed on the Deans and there should be.
Corinne Smith responded that the School of Education was given marching orders to improve retention and faculty have been involved in that effort.
Peter DeBlois argued that the focus has been on the Associate Dean level and not the Dean level. This was not intended as a critique of individuals but rather the level at which the conversation is heard.
Vice Chancellor Freund responded that she appreciated the depth of conversation about this issue and would like to attend further meetings to listen and deepen her understanding of the specifics of the retention issue at Syracuse.
Barbara Settel stated that further faculty involvement was important. Particularly noting that whole faculty are committed to teaching they have not had much in the way of training or preparation as advisers. An enhanced discussion of the faculty's role as advisor would be beneficial.
Dave Potter stated that we should be clear about our motivations both to ourselves and the campus community. There is a cynical perception that retention is about dollars rather than improving the experience for students and enhancing their chances for success.
III. Presentation of Longitudinal Retention Data for 1992 - 1997 Initial Cohorts of High and Low Achievers
Barbara Yonai presented the following data
1992-1993-1994 cohorts - drop-outs after each year
1992-1993-1994 cohorts - stop-outs and drop-outs after each year
Percent of leavers in "low" achievement category by year
Percent of leavers in "high" achievement category by year
Percent of leavers after 1st year for both "low" and "high" achievers
The discernible pattern indicates that we lose consistently more high performers than low performers after each year across all cohorts.
Dave Potter suspects that those high achievers that leave are so those not pro-active enough to take advantage of University opportunities.
Peter Deblois said that there is a service available that tracks transfers. The National Student Loan Clearinghouse service.
Anastasia Urtz argued that we do tend to put our resources towards the "squeaky wheels" and consequently miss those who may have unarticulated difficulties.
Rosanna Grassi mentioned that crime victims should be studied to determine their attrition relative to their trauma.
Anastasia Urtz agreed indicating that there was no seamless support for victims.
Judy Hamilton added that what support there is tends to focus on solely the victim and misses the wider social network of the victim that might also be negatively affected.
Corinne Smith stated that the School of Education holds faculty fiscally responsible for income based on credits earned by students.
|
| |
|
