Pointer Partnership Advisory Board
Minutes from March 18th, 2016
1:15 PM, DUC Room 235
I.
II.
Call to Order
a. Called to order at 1:15pm
Roll Call
a. Students present: Amy Vida, Matt Grutza, Jeffrey Behselich, Cody Kamrowski,
Andrew Glazner, John Peralta
b. Faculty/Staff present: Max Trzebiatowski, Matt Welz
c. Guests: Erin Hintz, Greg Diemer, Kathy Davis, Sue Kissinger, Jim Barrett
III.
Approval of the Agenda
a. Approved by general consent
IV.
Approval of the Minutes
a. No minutes presented
V.
VI.
Public Forum for Non-Agenda Items (3 min. each)
Review enrollment and budget projections for 2016-2017 and beyond
a. Discussion and Presentation about Bottleneck Courses from Jim Barrett:
i. There are two major distinctions of how to classify bottlenecks, courses
that have been filled and courses that have been filled that more people
still are interested in taking. This is then broken down further into classes
that people need to take and those that people are simply interested in
taking. Enrollment management tried to focus on the courses that are
continually filled and that students need to take in order to graduate and
complete their degrees. Currently, there has been an attempt to create a
rudimentary waiting list of who needs to take courses and when this is
combined with information that is collected by advisors in certain areas to
try and get a handle on bottlenecks.
ii. Goal is that eventually Peoplesoft will be used on campus as a more
predictive tool to help determine who will be taking classes in the future
and can be used as a more effective way to identify how many class
sections will be needed for courses.
iii. Jim Barrett also included and presented information about what courses
have currently been identified as bottlenecks which included:
1. Bio 210, 270, 306, 342, 377, 378, 381
2. CIS 110
3. Math 355, 111
4. NRES 301, 320, 368, 458, 473, 474
5. SOIL 364, 366
6. WATR 382, 383, 388, 390
7. WLDL 321, 381, 450, 451, 458
8. WSTE 380, 382, 481
iv. Vida question about whether it is better to try and target lower level
courses, midrange courses or upper level courses, Barrett believed that
targeting middle and upper level courses are better to target resources at
because the University is already working on targeting many lower level
courses because they are often part of the GEP.
v. There was much discussion about how to best gather further data and
understanding about bottlenecks as enrollment management is not
currently able to fully predict and analyze all bottlenecks. Ideas included
talking to some current advisors and departments that track their own
bottlenecks, including business as an example.
b. Discussion then moved towards whether the committee was comfortable in
approving how to prioritize funding in the first year of the implementation to
give each area receiving funding a starting budget point upon which to consider
and propose possible ways to use that funding for their individual areas. There
was discussion about creating a buffer for funding that can be used later on by
the committee almost as a reserve in case there are additional courses or
financial aid needs.
c. Motion to set broad percentages for the different areas of funding for the first
year of implementation as follows:
i. 25% of funds collected will be targeted towards reducing bottleneck courses
ii. 25% of funds collected will be targeted towards financial aid
iii. 47% of funds collected will be targeted towards the new advising model
iv. 3% of funds collected will be kept as a buffer be directed towards the other
areas if needed, as a safeguard.
v. Motion made by Vida, Seconded by Behselich
vi. Approved unanimously
VII.
VIII.
Further Discussion
Adjournment
a. Meeting adjourned at 2:20pm