|
 |
Five Year Retention Plan Table of Contents
5 Year Retention Plan:
Appendix D
The Five-Year Strategic Plan to Improve Retention and Graduation Rates
| |
D. 1. Rationale
Over the next five years, we expect to improve overall retention of the undergraduate population. Through the five-year retention plan, we expect to understand what student groups we retained and how we did so. If we fail to retain specific categories of students, we expect to understand why that occurred. Finally, we expect to understand why and under what conditions our interventions work, i.e., help us retain students, so that we are poised to recognize at-risk conditions and to act on them before unnecessary attrition occurs.
As our retention efforts encompass an all-university approach, so must our assessment efforts. The five-year plan includes a commitment to whole-university assessment so that we document our processes of identifying the issues that influence students' decisions to stay or leave and of understanding the relationships among services/programs and students' perceptions of the institution. Our intention is to focus on an outcome-based assessment strategy. We expect to study the impact of programs, services, and business practices on student life with a view to understanding what works and what needs improvement. We suggest this model complements the All-University Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Committee (AUSLOAC) model currently in development as an approach in the academic context of learning outcomes and continuous improvement assessment.
At this writing, the Office of Budget and Planning estimates that full-time undergraduate main campus enrollment will level at approximately 10,850 by fall 2005. The major underlying assumptions for this projection are:
New student enrollment of 2,950 per year. This is the recommendation of the Senate Budget Committee (average annual enrollment of 2,950 plus or minus 25). The Admissions Office currently plans that the 2,950 be comprised of approximately 2,650 first-year students and 300 transfers.
Overall attrition (all class levels) is projected to be equal to historical five-year average annual rates. Student attrition fall-to-spring (owing to factors other than December degree completions) is estimated at 2.7%, which is the average rate for academic years 1995-96 through 1999-00. Spring-to-fall attrition (owing to factors other than May/June/August degree completions) is estimated at 6.1%, which is the average rate for 1995 through 1999.
Based on these assumptions, it is projected that the University will lose approximately 300 students each year fall-to-spring (on a current base of approximately 10,700) and it will lose another 500 students spring-to-fall (on a base of approximately 8,300 potential returning students after commencement). In other words, it is estimated that approximately 800 students a year will drop out.
Reductions in attrition will have quality and/or revenue implications.
The quality dimension. If the University were to reduce the entering class by 50 students from what is currently planned and still achieve the projected 10,850 enrollment, it would require a 6-percent reduction in annual attrition. Said another way, the average annual attrition, now projected at 800, would have to be reduced to 750. If this were possible, a reduced number of entering students would permit the University to be somewhat more selective with admissions.
Reduced attrition among students of color would result in a more diverse student body and enhance the quality of the institution. Such students continue to attrite at a higher rate than their white counterparts. Actions to address the needs of these students would lead to further quality enhancement and potentially more success in recruiting students of color. Reduced attrition among academically on-track, upper-division students would also have a very positive impact on the quality of the student body.
Improved retention is an outcome of improved practices that address the quality of the academic experience, student life issues, and student support. While improvements in these areas are also worthwhile pursuits in and of themselves, improvement in academic and student life should make Syracuse more attractive to higher quality students. By addressing these issues, we improve the overall quality of the institution and support the movement of the University toward our commitment to academic excellence.
Revenue potential. If the University were to maintain entering student enrollment at the projected 2,950 and reduce annual attrition by 50 students, after four years there would be approximately $3 million of additional net tuition revenue to spend each year on programmatic enhancements or other priorities.
Were there to be an increase in enrollment beyond the projected 10,850 level (the result of both maintaining the entering student class at 2,950 and reducing attrition as suggested), the University would need to examine closely its physical and human capacity to deal with the higher enrollment. One could argue that if we are at capacity, then improved retention might require adding more faculty and perhaps even more space beyond what is already planned. This, of course, would have a reducing effect on any new tuition revenue from the improved retention.
Increasing student quality and enhancing revenue through retention are not mutually exclusive. If it were possible to be more selective in admissions by admitting fewer students but of higher quality, this itself could help in the effort to reduce attrition -- assuming students are appropriately served and challenged once they are here. Rather than thinking about improved retention as a revenue generator, which might result in larger expenditures as explained in the preceding paragraph, one might think of improved retention as an opportunity to reduce entering student numbers and improve the quality of the entering class.
Whatever the reason -- quality, revenue or because it simply supports the University's commitment to academic excellence -- increasing the rate of persistence to graduation is necessary to advance the institution's vision of being the nation's leading student-centered research university. It is estimated that a reduction in attrition on the order of 50 students a year as suggested above, when coupled with the gains already experienced in first- and second-year student retention in the latter half of the 1990's, would increase the graduation rate to roughly 80 percent within the next five years. This would seem to be a realistic goal.
We must be careful, however, to understand the distinction between improving the annual retention rate of students and improving the graduation rate of student cohorts. These are two separate goals; success with the first one does not guarantee success with the second. In our aspiration to improve the annual retention rate, we are arguing for retaining more students from year to year. The argument does not consider who the retained students are; it accounts only for the fact that more students stay.
When we aspire to raise the 6-year graduation rate, we must consider specific attributes associated with student groups. Our analysis actually focuses on two issues. First, we need to understand the trend of drop-out activity for a specific cohort to establish the baseline from which we project the level of effort required to move that cohort's graduation rate to 80 percent. For example, the first- and second-year drop-out rates for the 1994 and 1995 cohorts are as follows.
| Cohort |
After the 1st Year |
Drop-out Rates
After the 2nd Year |
| |
n |
% |
n |
% |
| 1994 |
261 |
10.4% |
197 |
7.9% |
| 1995 |
220 |
9.2% |
166 |
6.9% |
[Data taken from the Syracuse University Attrition and Graduation Report, March 2000
prepared by the Center for Support of Teaching and Learning.]
It is clear that retention is generally better for the 1995 cohort. It is equally clear that for the 1994 cohort there is less time in which the institution can intervene. Therefore, in this example, we would expect to invest more in moving the 1994 cohort toward the 80% six-year graduation target because they are, by implication, further from the goal than their 1995 counterparts.
Second, we need to understand the impact of intervention programming on students within a given cohort. These are interventions that will improve the campus climate and/or that are the right thing to do. They will help stabilize our yearly enrollment and tuition-revenue stream. However, if these efforts influence the retention of students in selective cohorts or students who are not members of a cohort, then our work may not result in an increase in the 6-year graduation rate systematically across cohorts. Stated another way, we must be strategic in our intervention programming so that we influence retention rates across all targeted cohorts if we expect to reach our 80% goal. Furthermore, that strategy must account for the current baseline drop-out rate of each cohort in order to prioritize resource allocations for intervention programming.
D.2. Method
The method is an action agenda for near-term impact and, concurrent studies of long-term student sub-population identification and intervention. Our method is represented as three variations of an identification/program intervention model. The purposes of deploying these variations are to ensure the fit of assessment method to sub-population studied and to maximize our assessment opportunities across a broad range of groups and experiences.
The model has two major components.
Component 1: Sub-populations of students
Identify the subgroups at-risk for leaving the institution
Identify the attributes of each subgroup
Component 2: Programming interventions
Assess impact on (a) target subgroups and (b) other subgroups
Identify intended and unintended outcomes
The variations represent three different relationships among the components. In Table 1 and Figure A on the following pages, we describe and illustrate each variation.
Model Variation One includes cases where the sub-population is easily identified. We know quickly how to intervene, and we are confident that we have the resources to implement the intervention in a short-term time frame.
Staff in the Center for Retention Studies and the Center for Support of Teaching and Learning are piloting this model variation, in partnership with the schools and colleges, on the student sub-populations of senior drop-outs from cohorts 1993 - 1995 and the current part-time dependency students. For senior drop-outs, schools and colleges have partnered with CRS/CSTL to identify and contact these students for the purpose of assisting them in completing their degree requirements. For the current part-time dependency students, University College has partnered with SAIP in programming designed to increase students' academic support networks and their connections to the campus community.
Model Variation Two includes cases where we have identified a programming intervention that responds to a generally pervasive need throughout the undergraduate community.
Staff in the Center for Retention Studies and the Center for Support of Teaching and Learning are piloting this model variation on current students participating in Learning Communities. The Assessment Steering Committee for Learning Communities has agreed to partner with CRS/CSTL to include retention outcomes in their analyses and to share their findings with the Retention Council.
Model Variation Three includes cases where the sub-population attributes are difficult to identify. We need time to identify students in the subgroup and to understand the issues that have put these students at risk. It is only after we have gained this understanding that we can develop programming interventions that target the issues.
Staff in the Center for Retention Studies and the Center for Support of Teaching and Learning are piloting this model variation on four student sub-populations: attriting students of color matriculated between 1993 and 1998, and student drop-outs from cohorts 1997, 1998, and 1999. For these two sub-populations (collectively known as the Leavers' Study), CRS/CSTL staff are conducting qualitative interviews with the students to understand what their experiences were when they attended Syracuse and why they left.
D.3. Study Implementation
At-risk sub-populations by Model Variation
Model Variation One
Easy identification of sub-population and concurrent programming intervention.
Sub-population: Senior Drop-outs
Description: Seniors with 114+ credits are leaving before completing their degrees. Data from student records show 73 seniors in cohort 1994 and 125 seniors in cohort 1995 to be in this category. We recognize that some of these students may not be close to graduation, i.e., credits earned may not all apply to the current degree program. However, the number of students within each school/college is manageable enough to warrant individual degree audits to determine how close each student is to completing the degree.
Action(s) in response: We suggest two areas of action response.
Connection with each student who is close to completing degree requirements for the purpose of facilitating degree completion. This may include approval of transfer credit or partnership with University College's Unfinished Business program or the University's Last Semester Senior Rate Exception policy.
Study of the current group of senior drop-outs to identify any patterns or trends that characterize rising seniors at-risk for leaving. From this study, we propose to craft programs for early identification and interventions such as advising holds to bring students in for assistance and partnerships with other units, e.g., financial aid, bringing resources to bear on the issues students raise.
Expected outcome(s): With relatively few resources, we can identify and intervene with a sub-population that is a short distance away from degree completion. We should be able to increase the fifth- and sixth-year graduation rates with relatively little resource allocation to the effort.
Implications for retention improvement: Of 125 seniors drop-outs from the 1995 cohort, we project a target of 50 students retained. Based on this target, we would increase the 6-year graduation rate of the 1995 cohort by 2% if these students complete their degrees by August 2001. We project a target of 25 students retained in subsequent cohorts.
Model Variation One
Easy identification of sub-population and concurrent programming intervention.
Sub-population: First-Year Students not selecting housing and not registering
for Fall 2001
Description: As the Fall 2001 housing assignment process concludes this spring, the Housing Office has identified approximately 300 first-year students who have not completed the process. Because first- and second-year students are required to live in campus housing, we see this as a potential behavior indicator that these students may not return next year. To strengthen the probability that we have identified students at-risk for leaving, we will compare this list to one that identifies those students who have not completed a Fall 2001 course schedule by the end of the registration period this spring.
Action(s) in response: We will follow-up with the students on the combined list to understand their issues and to offer assistance, as it is appropriate.
Expected outcome(s): If students are struggling with issues that influence their decisions to stay or leave, they may not consider the institution as a resource in helping to resolve problems. Through this pilot intervention, we have the potential to influence an in-progress stay/leave decision. We have the opportunity to send the message of partnership and support at a time when a student is most likely to hear it and to benefit by it.
Implications for retention improvement: We know that between 200 - 250 first-year students drop out before the sophomore year. Because we have no historical data or experience with this pilot, it is difficult to estimate the impact it will have on students' decisions and actions. Therefore, we estimate a modest goal of retaining 10 students a year through this strategy. Based on this target, we would increase the six-year graduation rate by 0.4% beginning with the Fall 2000 cohort.
Recommendations:
Follow-up with the students receiving assistance to track their use of institutional resources and their satisfaction with the institution.
Data collection and analysis of interactions with this student sub-population to see if there are identifiable behavior patterns, signaling a decision to leave, that we can use to identify such students in the future.
Model Variation One
Easy identification of sub-population and concurrent programming intervention.
Sub-population: Special Admission Students, Part-time Dependents
Description: Students, who are dependents of eligible S.U. faculty and staff, receive tuition benefits for pursuing their degrees. Some of these students are not admissible to undergraduate, full-time study; many of them elect to study part-time through University College. As they work with these students, U.C. staff often find them to be unprepared for post-secondary study. Generally they are commuting to campus for their courses. As a result, they express frustration with their University experience that we understand as a lack of connection to their campus community. It is this combination of attributes that contributes significantly to the low academic performance and high attrition rate of this group.
Action(s) in response: University College has formed a partnership with the Syracuse Academic Improvement Program (SAIP), a retention-focused intervention program, to provide year-around academic support services and structured opportunities for involvement in campus activities.
Expected outcome(s): As we increase the quality of students' academic performance and their involvement in the campus community, we increase student and employee satisfaction.
Implications for retention improvement: Students in this subgroup are not included in cohort tracking for attrition and graduation rates. However, this is an excellent example of our argument for enhancing the quality dimension of retention. As we improve the retention rate of this subgroup, we are addressing the quality of the academic experience, student life issues, and student support.
Recommendations:
Dissemination of the findings on subgroup attributes and intervention impact for possible use with other targeted subgroups.
Model Variation Two
Programming intervention is in place; impact on sub-population(s) follows.
Sub-population/Program: Learning Communities
Description: Residential Learning Communities allow students to live and learn within a small community of diverse students who share similar interests. This experience is designed to bring the students' academic, professional, and personal interests and pursuits together with the learning that occurs outside the classroom. An Academic Affairs and Student Affairs partnership is a key component.
Action(s) in response: Learning Communities are an institutional programming response to students' concerns about the vastness of the University, including the predominance of large residence halls. While we consider that a large university has much to offer its student population, it is the size and multiplicity that can be daunting for entering, first-year students. The Learning Community concept addresses this concern with structure and connection points that give students a focus for getting organized, comfortable, engaged, and involved.
Expected outcome(s): Students must become connected to the institution if they are to view their college experience as worthwhile, productive, and satisfying. Participating in a Learning Community is one experience that makes the goal of connecting manageable; it makes the University less formidable by providing structured access to the campus community.
Implications for retention improvement: Approximately 200 students are involved in Learning Communities during the current academic year, 2000-2001. Of that number, approximately 87% are first-year students, 10% are sophomores, 2% are juniors, and less than 1% are seniors. While we do not yet understand the direct impact of this program on student retention, we know that it addresses a chronic concern among some students about their comfort with the residential environment at Syracuse. Based on anecdotal data to date, we estimate a goal of retaining 25 students a year through this program. Based on current patterns, we expect the heaviest participation in Learning Communities will remain within students' first two years. Based on this expectation, we would increase the 6-year graduation rate by 1.0% beginning with the Fall 2000 cohort.
Recommendations:
Develop a measure that relates the direct impact of the Learning Communities experience on specific sub-populations of students.
Develop an analysis procedure that relates the influence of the Learning Communities experience on the campus culture.
Model Variation Two
Programming intervention is in place; impact on sub-population(s) follows.
Sub-population/Program: Intra-University Transfer (IUT) Term-Trial
Description: Matriculated students requesting to transfer to a different home college or to enroll in a second or dual college initiate the process in the new primary college office (Rules and Regulations, Section 13.3). Anecdotal data from the schools and colleges show that approximately 1,000 undergraduate students seek such transfers each year and, of that number, approximately 50% are not accepted. Students wishing to transfer within the University must meet the IUT requirements of the new primary college (Rules and Regulations, Table 1). This is particularly problematic for the student who is not doing well in the current college but has potential for doing well in a different program of study. We recognize that these students are often in a catch-22 situation. They must improve their academic standing by doing well in an major in which they have been unable to achieve in order to get into a major that is a better fit with their abilities and goals. Often, these students are at high risk for attrition when they stop pursuing degree requirements in the current program and attempt to pursue degree requirements in a program in which they are not matriculated.
Action(s) in response: We propose a pilot program of term-trial admission, at the option of the new primary school/college. The goal is to remove the institutional barrier that slows a student's ability to demonstrate academic success in the new discipline.
Expected outcome(s): We expect and encourage students to act on their decisions about pursuing majors that are a better fit to their goals while holding them accountable for academic excellence. If we work to facilitate students' desire to move forward in a different major, we increase student satisfaction with their choices and their progress toward S.U. degrees.
Implications for retention improvement: We know that approximately 500 students a year are not successful in their request for an IUT. While some of those denials are based on factors other than the students' academic performance to date, it is reasonable to assume that perhaps half of them are based on the students' inability to meet the new school's eligibility requirements. We estimate conservatively that half of these ineligible students would be successful in the term-trial experience. Therefore, we estimate a goal of retaining 125 students a year through this program. Assuming approximately half (50 students) of this group is comprised of sophomores, we would increase the six-year graduation rate by 2% beginning with the Fall 2000 cohort.
Recommendations:
Implementation of the IUT term-trial pilot proposed by ECS (see following page) as an option for schools and colleges.
Data analysis of the pilot to determine its impact on retention of this sub-population for possible expansion to schools and colleges as appropriate.
INTRA-UNIVERSITY TRANSFER (IUT) TERM-TRIAL PILOT PROGRAM
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & COMPUTER SCIENCE
Issue: One of the best cohorts of entering first-year students (the ECS cohort) typically has the lowest graduation rate of any school/college cohort at the University.
The entering ECS cohort is, by several measures, among the top 3 school/college cohorts at SU. The first-year drop-out rate for ECS students is relatively low (4th lowest of the schools/colleges for the 1998 cohort), consistent with a high-quality student body. Despite the overall quality of the students, they graduate from SU at the lowest rate of any school/college; for example, the 6-year graduation rate for the 1993 ECS cohort was 65%: 47% from ECS, 18% as IUTs into ECS from other schools and colleges.
Hypothesis: High-quality students who do not perform well in the mathematically demanding first- and second- year curricula in ECS leave Syracuse University because their poor performance prevents them from transferring to a suitable non-ECS major - the "path of least resistance" to a non-ECS degree leads to another university.
Recent data analysis reinforces the critical nature of mathematics courses for ECS students: nearly 100% of students who complete the calculus sequence graduate from ECS. It is hypothesized that a significant portion of ECS's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year drop-out rate is due to the cumulative effect of poor performance in the first year in mathematically demanding courses. A typical scenario might be as follows: 1.) During the first-semester adjustment, a student does not invest as much time in MAT295 as necessary and fails the course or earns a D; 2.) The student is now unsure about his/her ability to complete an ECS degree, but proceeds with the standard curriculum and does poorly in MAT295 or 296 and PHY211/221; 3.) Convinced that ECS is not the right major, the student attempts to IUT to another school/college but does not have a high enough GPA to be accepted; 4.) The student re-takes calculus and/or physics courses to raise the GPA and takes some courses from the target school/college but without proper advising; 5.) Student fails or performs poorly in the technical courses because they no longer have the motivation to work hard, and does poorly in the non-technical courses because a general malaise sets in regarding academics; 6.) Student withdraws from SU to start from ground zero at another university in a non-technical field.
Challenge: Find a way to help these quality students succeed at SU, either in ECS or in a major that is better suited to their interests and talents.
Proposal: 1) Review data (quantitative and qualitative) to assess the validity of the hypothesis and what impact corrective actions may have on retaining talented students at SU (either in ECS or other schools/colleges). 2) Implement corrective actions and programming.
Candidate Interventions/Programming:
Enhancement of the ECS SummerStart program to provide a higher percentage of incoming ECS students with a highly supportive environment in which to begin learning calculus. This may include more financial aid to increase enrollment, additional resources to provide tutoring during the academic year, etc.
Academic Excellence Workshop program enhancement, including expansion to other key courses and more integrated involvement of the Mathematics Department.
" Development of a joint program with University College and academic schools and colleges to provide a second chance for students with a low GPA in ECS to demonstrate that they can succeed in a non-ECS curriculum. Allow these students to transfer to the new school or college under conditions established in a one-semester trial contract.
This arrangement is contingent on approval by the new school or college. This may include special college learning strategies programming, tutoring, and transcript review using transfer standards that exclude ECS-specific courses from consideration.
Model Variation Two
Programming intervention is in place; impact on sub-population(s) follows.
Sub-population/Program: Undecided/Undesignated
Description: Some undergraduates come to Syracuse with relatively unformed ideas about the major(s) they wish to pursue. Others come with a clear choice in mind only to discover that there is a mismatch between their conceptions of the discipline and their chosen degree program. For these students, Syracuse has an option by which they may clearly identify themselves as undecided. This designation generally applies to first- or second-year students; by the third year of study, students are required to specify their major(s) of choice. In the Fall 1998 cohort, there are 700 students designated undecided/undeclared across 5 schools and colleges; in the Fall 1999 cohort, there are 750 students with that designation across 5 schools and colleges.
Action(s) in response: Based on earlier Syracuse studies of retention issues, the institution has implemented a variety of support programs to help students with this decision-making process. They include special sections of first-year student forums, special recitation sections of entry-level courses to particular majors, and attention by professional advising staff in schools and colleges. To make our response to these students more consistent across schools and colleges, we recommend the establishment of a central advising office staffed by professional academic counselors trained to guide the discussions about developmental issues that influence decisions about selecting majors and minors.
Expected outcome(s): As with our IUT and AO subgroups, we expect and encourage students to act on their decisions about pursuing majors, but we need to be accessible to them when they need help in the decision-making process. When we work to facilitate students' desire to move forward in a selected major, we increase student satisfaction with their choices and their progress toward S.U. degrees.
Implications for retention improvement: We know that between 700 - 750 students are currently in the process of selecting a program of study. Because the number is so large, structured intervention with this group has the potential for major impact on retention. The process and resources for establishing a professional advising center are challenging. If established in year three of the five-year plan timeline, the first impact would be realized with the Fall 2002 cohort influencing the 6-year graduation rate in 2008. As progress on developing this office moves forward, we will develop target retention rates for this subgroup.
Recommendations:
Creation of an all-University professional advising center that acts in partnership with schools and colleges and is a neutral place for students to consider program-of-study options.
Model Variation Two
Programming intervention is in place; impact on sub-population(s) follows.
Sub-population/Program: Sophomore-to-Junior Transition
Description: For cohorts entering 1994 through 1996, we have seen a steady drop in the sophomore  junior-year attrition rate and a slight increase in the junior senior-year attrition rate. Across these two time spans, we lost 235 students from the 1994 cohort, 210 students from the 1995 cohort, and 203 students from the 1996 cohort. These numbers are significant enough to focus on these time periods for targeted intervention.
Action(s) in response: Vice President Cavanagh has proposed the creation of a sophomore transitions program. It would be designed to address the issues of transition from preparatory or general studies to a focus on upper-division course work and degree requirements. The goal of the program is to ensure that all students consider how to incorporate specific resources, tools, and experiences into enhancing their academic performance. Proposed components of the program include: a) decision-making processes on majors/minors, service learning, volunteer or internship experiences, study abroad, leadership opportunities; and b) skills/tools development in resume writing, interviewing, time management, portfolio development, mentoring relationships, and so on.
Expected outcome(s): Because students have made it past the first transition hurdles, we have assumed that they no longer struggle with new transition issues. However, these issues may have a strong influence on their decisions to stay or to leave, and, once again, they may not consider the institution as a resource in helping to resolve their concerns. Through this pilot intervention, we have the potential to influence an in-progress stay/leave decision. We have the opportunity to send the message of partnership and support at a time when a student is most likely to hear it and to benefit from it.
Implications for retention improvement: We know that between 200 - 235 second- and third-year students drop out each year. We assume that we can reduce some of this attrition by addressing upper-division transition issues before or as students experience them. Therefore, we estimate a goal of retaining 20 students a year through this strategy. Based on this target, we would increase the 6-year graduation rate by 0.8% beginning with the Fall 2001 cohort.
Recommendations:
Creation of a pilot sophomore-to-junior transition program to be implemented in year two (2002-2003) of the five-year retention plan.
Concurrent assessment of the pilot for possible expansion to other schools/colleges as appropriate.
Model Variation Three
Sub-population attributes are difficult to identify; programming intervention follows sub-population analysis.
Sub-population: Intra-University Transfer (IUT) Doing well, but want to change
Description: Matriculated students requesting to transfer to a different home college or to enroll in a second or dual college initiate the process in the new primary college office (Rules and Regulations, Section 13.3). Anecdotal data from the schools and colleges show that approximately 1,000 undergraduate students seek such transfers each year. Students wishing to transfer within the University must meet the IUT requirements of the new primary college (Rules and Regulations, Table 1). We recognize the IUT process as one in which the student may be temporarily adrift, i.e., the student is not pursuing degree requirements in his/her current program and is attempting to pursue degree requirements in a program in which s/he is not matriculated. We have come to understand that many students feel uncomfortable about initiating the IUT process, often requesting that the new primary college not inform the current college of their requests.
Action(s) in response: It is clear that students currently use many different contexts in which to explore their options for IUT. The characteristic these contexts have in common is that they are places students feel comfortable in reflecting about their needs and wishes. We suggest designating multiple contact points for students to initiate the IUT process. This includes developing partnerships among schools/colleges and units that some students tend to see as neutral places for building strategies toward a successful IUT, such as SAIP, Career Services, and the proposed all-University professional advising center. It also includes improved communications and information dissemination among schools/colleges for directing students to appropriate resources.
Expected outcome(s): A consistently applied process, available to all students, that makes the IUT process explicit and manageable. This is a process we anticipate students will use, and we want them to perceive it simply as a tool for their use rather than as a risky venture. Regardless of the initial contact point, students need to get our message that we expect and encourage them to act on their decisions about pursuing majors that are a better fit to their goals. If we work to facilitate students' desire to move forward in a different major, we increase student satisfaction with their choices and their progress toward an S.U. degree.
Implications for retention improvement: We know that approximately 1,000 students a year make a request for an IUT. We have no idea how many students consider the process, find it cumbersome or unproductive, and never share their thinking with someone who can assist them. Therefore, we estimate a goal of retaining 50 students a year through this program. Assuming approximately half of this group is comprised of sophomores, we would increase the 6-year graduation rate by 1.0% beginning with the Fall 2001 cohort.
Recommendations:
Creation of an all-University professional advising center that acts in partnership with
schools and colleges and is a neutral place for students to initiate the IUT process.
Model Variation Three
Sub-population attributes are difficult to identify; programming intervention follows sub-population analysis.
Sub-population: Alternate Offer (AO)
Description: Some students are admitted to Syracuse University not to the school or college of their first choice, rather to one that is an alternate choice. In this process of Alternate Offer (AO), students elect to come to Syracuse knowing that they are not matriculating into their first-choice major and often hoping that they will be able to transfer into that preference. While the institution is as clear as possible about these students' options (or potential lack thereof), it is understandable that this sub-population is sometimes characterized as frustrated and dissatisfied.
Data from the Admissions Office show that there were 550 alternate-offer students in the Fall 1998 cohort and 600 AO students in the Fall 1999 cohort.
Action(s) in response: We suggest two areas of response.
Designating multiple contact points for students to explore their options. This includes developing partnerships among schools/colleges and units such as SAIP, Career Services, and the proposed all-University professional advising center. Students need guidance and time to examine their goal(s) from multiple program perspectives. They need assistance in understanding that one goal does not equate to one path in achieving that goal. While some faculty are excellent advisors in this context, most do not have the time or expertise to guide students in the necessary developmental processing to identify and to be comfortable with alternative viable options.
Reviewing, with the goal of expanding, our curricular offerings, to create more options for students.
Expected outcome(s): A consistently applied process, available to all students but targeting the Alternate Offer student, that provides structure to program-of-study decision making. This is a resource similar to that proposed for students considering IUT; in fact, we understand the potential for overlap between these two populations. As with the IUT student, we anticipate students need such assistance. We want them to perceive it as a tool that emphasizes good decision-making skills and institutional support for their decisions. As students understand that their goals are attainable, we anticipate an increase in student satisfaction with their program plans and degree progress.
Implications for retention improvement: We know that approximately 575 students per cohort enter the University as Alternate Offer students. We estimate a goal of retaining 100 students a year through this program. Assuming this intervention focuses on students at the first-year and sophomore levels, we would increase the 6-year graduation rate as much as 2.0% beginning with the Fall 2002 cohort.
Recommendations:
Creation of an all-University professional advising center that acts in partnership with schools and colleges and is a neutral place for Alternate Offer students to consider their options.
As we noted earlier, we use Variation 3 of our Model to address those sub-populations with attributes that are difficult to identify. Because we do not know much about these subgroups yet, we must delay creating programming interventions until we have sufficient information from our sub-population analysis to identify the issues. The following sub-populations are those we wish to study. In subsequent updates of this five-year plan, we will provide new information about these subgroups as it becomes available. For the purpose of this discussion, we identify the subgroups of interest to us currently.
Sub-population: Leavers, Emphasizing On-track Achievers and Students of Color
Description: Those students in cohorts 1997 through 1999 who have left the institution in good academic standing as defined by cumulative GPA. In the table below, we show the numbers of student drop-outs by cum GPA at the time they left.
| Cohort |
cum GPA |
| |
2.5-4.0 |
2.5-3.49 |
>3.5 |
| Fall 1997 |
115 |
98 |
17 |
| Fall 1998 |
149 |
101 |
48 |
| Fall 1999 |
174 |
118 |
56 |
Sub-population: High Financial Need
Description: Those students with a chronic inability to meet the financial demands of attending Syracuse.
Sub-population/Program: Emergency Financial Support
Description: Students sometimes find themselves in unanticipated crisis situations where they need immediate, short-term financial support to resolve the situation. To date, we have not studied this group or this support mechanism to understand its impact on students' ability to remain at Syracuse.
Sub-population: Transfer
Description: Those students who come to Syracuse with some previous post-secondary work. This is another group whose retention will not affect our 6-year graduation rate. However, we see them as important for their contribution to the quality of our educational experience and as a significant barometer of the external perception of quality of our programs.
Sub-population: Special Admission, Emphasizing Student-athletes, Legacies
Description: We are aware the institution makes special admission arrangements for some students. This population is, presumably, a small but high-risk group for completing a Syracuse degree. When we invite students to join our campus community, we have an obligation to support their success. We need to understand how we can accomplish that goal with this subgroup.
D.4. Projection of Retention Impact on Six-year Graduation Rate
As argued above, we estimate that a reduction in attrition on the order of 50 students a year, when coupled with the gains already experienced in first- and second-year student retention in the latter half of the 1990's, would influence an increase in the six-year graduation rate to roughly 80 percent within the next five years. Our goal, then, is to implement a strategic combination of identifying the risk factors for specific student sub-populations and of intervention programming so that we promote both near- and long-term reductions in attrition.
For the purposes of our retention-rate analysis, we will look at attrition reduction using the second of the two operational definitions discussed in our rationale section: 1) that of reducing attrition by 50 students a year, and 2) that of intervention impact on student cohorts. We will use the definition of student cohort as defined in the work by the Center for Support of Teaching and Learning (CSTL). Here, a cohort "is defined as all students who are full-time, first-time students entering in a given fall semester as of the fall enrollment date (on or about October 1)" [from Syracuse University Attrition and Graduation Report, March 2000]. This second operational definition of attrition reduction is a focus on improvement in the six-year graduation rate for each cohort. Over the life of a cohort (6 years), we will have to retain approximately 25 more students within that cohort for every 1% increase desired in that group's six-year graduation rate.
We have projected retention targets for sub-populations where we have a reasonable estimate of numbers and a plausible hypothesis about the intervention(s) that will address the risk factors for that subgroup. We have summarized the information from the section on subgroup discussions in two tables below. In Appendix Table 2, we summarize the identification and programming plan of all interventions across the five-year time line. For each intervention, we show the sequence of identification analysis and programming intervention. In Appendix Table 3, we show a summary of the estimated number of students, per cohort, retained through each intervention.
Based on the Retention Council and Steering Committee members' considerations, our overall target goal for increased student retention seems reasonable. These numbers are, of course, rough estimates of intervention impact. We are particularly sensitive to the problem of determining attribution of an intervention to any student's decision to remain at the institution. We expect to conduct a rigorous schedule of program and sub-population assessment concurrent with intervention programming. Through it, we expect to understand what student groups we retained and how we did so.
|
| |
|
