CREATING A CULTURE OF INCLUSIVITY
REPORT OF THE 2011-12
UNDERGRADUATE MARKETING AND
ENROLLMENT TASK FORCE
CREATING A CULTURE OF INCLUSIVITY
REPORT OF THE 2011-12 UNDERGRADUATE MARKETING AND ENROLLMENT
TASK FORCE
MEMBERS
Sharon Alston, Office of Enrollment – Co-chair
Fanta Aw, Office of Campus Life – Co-chair
Stefanie Matthews – Administrative Assistant
Nana An, Office of Finance and Treasurer
Maria Green Cowles, School of International Services
Teresa Flannery, University Communications and Marketing
Karen Froslid-Jones, Office of Institutional Research and Assessment
Greg Grauman, Office of Enrollment - Admissions
Brian Lee Sang, Office of Enrollment – Financial Aid
Rob Linson, Office of Enrollment -- Administration and Fiscal Affairs
Hossein Modarres, Office of Enrollment -- Systems
Chris Moody, Housing and Dining Programs
Phyllis Peres, Academic Affairs
Alice Poehls, Office of the University Registrar
James Raby, Office of Enrollment -- Marketing
Lauren Renner, Kogod School of Business
Rose Ann Robertson, School of Communication
Tiffany Sanchez, New Student Programs
Catherine Schaeff, College of Arts and Sciences
Virginia Stallings, Undergraduate Studies
Meg Weekes, School of Public Affairs
Acknowledgement: The co-chairs wish to express their appreciation to all members
of the Task Force with a special note of thanks to Dr. Maria Green Cowles and Ms.
Shirleyne McDonald for their leadership in preparing the respective sub-committee
reports Accounting for the AU Experience: Beyond the Cost of Attendance and Financial
Literacy .
CREATING A CULTURE OF INCLUSIVITY
REPORT OF THE 2011-12 UNDERGRADUATE MARKETING AND ENROLLMENT
TASK FORCE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Undergraduate Marketing and Enrollment Task Force (UMET) convened in the fall of 2011 at
the request of Provost Scott Bass to discuss the changing student population at American University
and its implications.
In approaching its work the task force considered data from a variety of sources including internal
data as well as outside readings. Based on its review UMET focused on the new student population,
the AU student experience, and financial concerns.
BACKGROUND
Demographic Projections
According to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), projections
through 2021-22 indicate that there will be shifts in the number and composition of high school
graduates with growth occurring in the Western and Southern regions of the U.S. and decreases in
the Northeast and Midwest. Using AY 2011-12 as a baseline, by 2014-15 the number of high school
graduates from the Northeast region will decrease by 5.7%; and ten years from now, by 2021-22,
that number will be 7.4% lower than the AY 2011-12 baseline. Of immediate concern is that the
university draws over 40% of its undergraduates from this region.
Projected Change in Public High School Graduates: By Region
Baseline
2014-15
% Change
2021-22
2011-12
from
Baseline
Northeast
586,021
552,894
-5.7%
542,730
Midwest
732,309
707,917
-3.3%
720,073
South
1,110,377
1,137,400
2.4%
1,252,153
West
794,743
786,503
-1.0%
841,124
Knocking at the College Door, March 2008, WICHE
%Change
from
Baseline
-7.4%
-1.7%
12.8%
5.8%
WICHE projections also reflect the pattern of the changing composition of public high school
graduates by race and ethnicity. Again, using AY 2011-12 as the baseline, the data show that by AY
2021-22 there will be an increased number of public high school graduates, but the primary source
of growth in that number will come from Hispanic and Asian American students. Indeed, there will
be consistent, if not dramatic, increases in these two groups while the number of White, nonHispanic and African American high school graduates will decrease.
1
Projected Change in Public High School Graduates: By Race and Ethnicity
Baseline
2011-12
2014-15
%
Change
from
Baseline
9.8%
8.4%
Hispanic
535,197
587,438
Asian/Pacific 173,494
188,103
Islander
American
32,687
32,455
-1.6%
Indian/Alaska
Native
Black/non420,388
396,466
-5.7%
Hispanic
Wh/non-H
1,722,896
1,654,471
-4.0%
R/E total
2,884,662
2,858,933
-0.9%
Knocking at the College Door, March 2008, WICHE
2021-22
780,268
244,143
%
Change
from
Baseline
45.8%
40.7%
35,187
7.7%
393,363
-6.4%
1,588,455
3,041,416
-7.8%
5.4%
The AU Response
To address the changing student population, AU’s Office of Enrollment looked at its outreach,
admission, and financial aid practices to determine how to create access. In addition, a new
program, the Frederick Douglass Distinguished Scholars was created in response to AU’s strategic
goals to Provide an Unsurpassed Undergraduate Experience and to Reflect and Value Diversity.
Outreach
High schools with diverse student populations who are college bound are always included in the mix
of the more than 700 schools which are visited annually. However, for the past three years, the
Admissions team focused its recruitment resources on adding more of the latter as well as inner city
schools with motivated counselors to the fall travel schedule.
In addition, the team focused more resources on reaching out to students within the local region, as
well as connecting with community based organizations nationwide. The staff also participated in
more multicultural college fairs.
With the increase in the number of high school graduates occurring in the western and southern
regions of the US, the Admissions staff underwent a restructure with the goal of maximizing its
outreach across the United States and specifically within the west and the south. As a result there
was a 55% increase in the number of students enrolling from those states (135 compared to 87 the
previous year). For the western and southern regions combined, there was a 6.6% increase in the
number of students enrolling from these regions (435).
Admission Practices
A review of the SAT averages of each new first year cohort indicates that AU has grown increasingly
selective over the past ten or more years. For the most recent four admission cycles the average
SAT has ranged between 1259 and 1276.
2
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
SAT Average
1259
1267
1276
1262
Mid-50% Range
1160 – 1360
1180 – 1360
1180 – 1370
1180 – 1360
The increase in the university’s SAT profile has been a point of pride and an indication of the quality
of the institution as well as the talent of its student body. As is the case at most institutions such
information is shared widely in a variety of media including the institutional website, college
guidebooks, admission presentations, etc. However, to the extent that one believes that
standardized testing is a measure of academic talent, reliance on scores in the evaluation process can
put students of color at a significant disadvantage as these data from The College Board illustrate.
Total SAT Test Takers by Range and with a B+ or greater GPA: 2011 College Bound Seniors*
1100 - 1190
1200 – 1290
1300 – 1390
1400 – 1490
American Indian
842
593
272
109
or Alaska Native
Asian or Pacific
16,638
15,628
12,796
8,675
Islander
African American 8,020
4,172
1,756
582
Hispanic
15,813
9,314
4,426
1,577
White
113,735
89,529
54,824
25,686
*Source: Data from the College Board Enrollment Planning Service. N = 1,493,588 SAT test takers
Total SAT Test Takers by Range and with a A- or greater GPA: 2011 College Bound Seniors*
1100 - 1190
1200 – 1290
1300 – 1390
1400 – 1490
American Indian
641
492
244
99
or Alaska Native
Asian or Pacific
12,771
12,789
11,175
8,022
Islander
African American 5,764
3,332
1,501
520
Hispanic
12,047
7,688
3,912
1,482
White
87,115
74,775
48,860
24,099
*Source: Data from the College Board Enrollment Planning Service. N = 1,493,588 SAT test takers
1500 - 1600
20
4,864
110
388
8,073
1500 - 1600
19
4,699
100
374
7,791
The Admissions staff at AU evaluates each candidate for admission in a holistic manner, focusing on
the student’s entire record, including academic performance throughout four years of high school,
extracurricular involvement/achievement, and personal qualities. But, because the university profile
is so public, students may assume, incorrectly, that standardized scores play a larger role in the
evaluation process than is actually the case. To the extent to which students are aware of AU’s
profile, this can serve as a deterrent to students with more modest test scores who, in other respects
are a good fit with AU and who, if they had applied, would likely have been admitted because of the
holistic nature of the evaluation.
The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), in its 2008 Report of the
Commission on the Use of Standardized Tests in Undergraduate Admission, urged institutions to rethink their
use of test scores in the admission process. As a result in 2009 the Office of Enrollment launched a
Test Optional pilot program which allowed Fall 2010 Early Decision (ED) candidates to indicate
their preference regarding the use of their test scores in the evaluation process.
3
In the inaugural year of the pilot, 79 students applied under the Test Optional Pilot. The pilot has
subsequently been extended to Regular Decision candidates who apply by November 1. Prior to the
Test Option pilot, students of color comprised 18% or fewer of the ED pool. Based on the data
below, it can be argued that the Test Optional offering has encouraged more students of color to
declare AU as their first choice by applying ED.
Early Decision Multicultural Applicants
2010
ED apps
538
MC ED apps*
105
% ED MC
20%
*MC refers to Multicultural students
2011
526
134
25%
2012
787
238
30%
Additionally, as the number of students choosing to apply under the Test Optional Pilot has
increased, so has the number of students of color choosing to do the same.
Admission offerings such as the Test Optional Pilot send a message to students that they are valued
for more than their standardized test scores and remove what may have been a barrier to applying to
AU. Refer to Appendix A for a more detailed summary of AU’s Test Optional Pilot.
Test Optional Applicants
2010
Total Test
79
Optional
MC Test
27
Optional
apps*
% MC Test
34%
Optional
*MC refers to Multicultural students
2011
870
2012
1302
254
478
29%
37%
Frederick Douglass Distinguished Scholars
Launched in 2010 the Frederick Douglass Distinguished Scholars program (FDDS) was developed
to address two of American University’s strategic goals:
• Provide an unsurpassed undergraduate experience; and
• Reflect and value diversity.
Additionally, a principal goal of the program was to attract high achieving students of color to AU.
In its first year, 560 students applied for the program. Of that initial group, students of color
represented 27.1% of the applicants; white students represented 59.6% of the total. For the Fall
2011 cohort, there were 531 applicants – a decrease of 5.2% over the previous year’s total, but for
this cycle, students of color comprised 50.3% of the total. Even more significant was the growth
over that two year period in African American applicants from 18 in 2010 to 112 in 2011 – 522.2%!
And there was a similar, though less dramatic, boost in the number of Hispanic applicants – 104.1%
(49 to 100). Conversely, the number of white students applying for the program decreased by 36.8%
(334 to 211). The change in the composition of the applicant pool followed a similar trend for the
Fall 2012 cycle with students of color representing 63.7% of all FDDS applicants with comparative
increases in the number of African American and Hispanic applicants, 45.5% and 41.0%
respectively.
4
As it enters its third year, in collaboration with Admissions, the program has
• attracted and recruited 731 applicants (compared to 531 for AY 2011-12);
• selected and awarded seven high-achieving students – reflecting a 100% conversion rate for
the first time.
On average, an incoming scholar graduated in the top 10% with a 4.2 weighted GPA and has a SAT
of 1329 or an ACT of 31.
With the incoming cohort of seven new scholars The FDDS are a community of 16 including:
• Seven males and nine females;
• One white, five Hispanic, eight African American, and two Asian students coming from
California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Florida, New
Mexico, and Pennsylvania;
• Three Pell-eligible scholars; and,
• Three first-generation college students.
All are University Honors students and represent Kogod, CAS, SIS, and SPA.
Financial Aid Practices
Financial aid is a means of creating affordability, access, and choice for students. Without sufficient
financial support American University is not a choice for many students. Within the past few years,
staff within the Office of Enrollment noticed a trend in the direction of higher percentages of AU
funds going toward merit rather than need-based aid. For the Fall 2000 admission cycle, 62% of
funds offered were for merit aid. By the Fall 2008 admission cycle the figure was 83%, leaving little
to support AU’s neediest applicants.
Beginning with the Fall 2009 admission cycle, the Office of Enrollment took steps to correct this
situation, looking to modify the merit to need-based aid ratio. However, the strategic use of
institutional funds to manage enrollment is key to achieving targets and meeting the goals of the
university. Hence, the shift needed to occur gradually. The table below reflects the adjustment for
the most recent admission cycles.
Percentage of AU funds used for merit aid
2000
2008
62%
83%
2009
71%
2010
76%
2011
54%
The result of this shift is that the university has been able to meet a higher percentage of the
demonstrated need of a larger number of first year students and socio-economic diversity has
increased as indicated by the percentage of Pell-eligible students in each of the recent entering first
year classes.
First year Pell-eligible students
2000
2008
9.2%
7.9%
2009
14.2%
2010
15.4%
2011
23.2%
Who are the AU undergraduate students?
The data indicate that there have been significant shifts in the student population at AU.
5
Academically, the profile of each incoming class indicates that they are a stronger group:
HS GPA
SAT average
Ranked top
10%
Admit rate
Fall 2000
3.21
1194
28%
Fall 2005
3.51
1267
47%
Fall 2011
3.82*
1262
44.7%
72%
51.3%
41.6%
* GPA scale changed in 2009.
Recent freshman classes are more socioeconomically diverse as indicated by the data above
regarding Pell-eligible students.
The racial/ethnic mix of each entering class has also changed:
Af. Am./Black
American Indian
Asian-Am/Pacific
Islander
Hispanic
International
White
2000
4.8%
0.2%
3.5%
2005
5.2%
0.1%
5.4%
2011
7.0%
0.2%
6.7%
3.5%
11.3%
61.2%
4.0%
2.5%
67.4%
11.4%
4.0%
58.5%
First generation students have also increased as a percentage of each entering first year class:
2000*
n/a
2005
2.0%
2011
9.3%
*Data regarding first generation students was not tracked until Fall 2005.
And, there are also regional shifts in the overall undergraduate population:
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
New England
South
West
2000
63%
9%
13%
9%
6%
2011
51%
9%
15%
13%
12%
These trends suggest that we are truly a “new” AU. But with such shifts in the student population,
is the university prepared and does it offer a climate that is both welcoming to new populations and
that will nurture success?
Assumptions
In making its recommendations, task force members made the following assumptions:
• the goal of the university is to have enrollment numbers at AU remain stable;
• the goal of the university is to maintain its current academic profile;
• retention rates will hold;
• there will be continued emphasis on increasing the number of domestic students of color at
AU;
• faculty will continue to maintain high expectations for student performance; and
6
•
academic rigor in the classroom will continue to be the hallmark of the academic experience
at AU.
FOCUS OF THE TASK FORCE
The UMET focused its attention on the growing trend of two-year to four year college transfer;
understanding how our emerging populations experience AU; and the development of financial
literacy programs as a means to help students to develop fiscally responsible habits. Representatives
from UMET are also members of the Faculty Retreat Planning Committee for 2012. Sessions for
this retreat will include the findings from this report and best practices in teaching to and
accommodating a diverse population.
New Student Populations - Transfer Students at AU
With projected decreases in its major feeder markets, AU has focused its attention on transfer
students, specifically those from community colleges, as a means of maintaining enrollment.
Applicant data
For the most recent three years, there has been steady growth in the number of applicants who have
completed work at a community college. Between 2009 and 2011 that percentage increase was
36.9%, with annual increases of 17.8% from 2009 to 2010, and 16.2% from 2010 to 2011. For the
Fall 2011 semester, transfer applicants from community colleges constituted 47% of all transfer
applicants, and 57% of enrolled transfer students at AU. And, as the data below indicate, not only
has the growth been in absolute numbers of applications, but also as a percentage of the total
number of transfer applicants.
Community College
Applications
Total Applications
Community College as
% of Transfers
2009
574
2010
676
2011
786
1338
42.9%
1530
44.2%
1659
47.4%
There is a similar trend at the point of enrollment with growth in community college students as a
percentage of the enrolled group.
Community College
Enrollment.
Total Dep.
Community College
as a % of Transfers
2009
149
2010
183
2011
175
377
39.5%
418
43.8%
346
50.6%
Profile
On the whole, transfer students coming to American University have earned a grade point average
of 3.0 or higher and most (61.7% to 64.8%) are transferring 30 to 90 credits.
Transfer- Avg. GPA
2009
3.21
2010
3.26
2011
3.22
7
They are increasing in terms of racial and ethnic diversity.
2009
GPA
3.21
MC Students*
17.5%
*MC refers to multicultural students
2010
3.26
25.1%
2011
3.22
34.3%
Academic performance
First semester GPAs of transfer students show varied performance. Just over 37% of transfer
students made below a B average their first semester at AU, compared to 23% of first-time
freshmen.
Freshmen Mean GPA, Fall 2011 (N=1529)
First Term GPA: 3.30
1st Term
GPA
Range
>2
Frequency
Percent
49
3.20
2.00-2.24
27
2.25-2.49
Transfer Students 2011 (n=306)
First Term GPA 3.10
1st Term GPA
Range
Frequency
Percent
>2
20
7.07
1.77
2.00-2.24
11
3.89
51
3.34
2.25-2.49
15
5.30
2.50-2.74
82
5.36
2.50-2.74
22
7.77
2.75-2.99
141
9.22
2.75-2.99
37
13.07
3.00-3.24
214
14.00
3.00-3.24
36
12.72
3.25-3.49
338
22.11
3.25-3.49
45
15.90
3.50-3.74
308
20.14
3.50-3.74
48
16.96
3.75-3.99
273
17.85
3.75-3.99
41
14.49
4
46
3.01
4
8
2.83
The one-year retention rate for the entering cohort of 2011 will be available fall 2012. Of those
transfer students who entered in sophomore status in 2007, 71% graduated in four years at AU. The
graduation rate for the entering class of 2009 sophomore transfer students will be available late
summer 2012.
Financial Need
There is a growing level of financial need among AU’s transfer students.
% Needy
2009
41.9%
2010
48.1%
2011
46.2%
Within the transfer pool, students coming from community colleges in particular reflect a greater
level of need in comparison to students coming from other types of institutions. For the most
recent academic year (AY 2011-12) the data reflect the following:
8
Avg. Income
4-year private
$110,251
university
4-year private
$82,118
college
4-year public
$74,460
Community
$72,690
colleges
All transfers
$78,770
*EFC = Expected Family Contribution
Avg. EFC*
$30,741
Avg. Need
$33,031
$29,277
$37,053
$22,778
$18,832
$33,729
$42,187
$23,188
$38,983
Funding
While funding for transfer students does not fit neatly into the concept of “culture,” it does relate to
the extent to which these students are able to integrate themselves into the AU community based on
the degree to which they are supported financially. The current funding model provides for 29% of
the revenue from tuition to be used for financial support, including both need- and merit-based aid
for all full-time, degree-seeking students. On average first-year students are discounted at a rate
between 32% and 34%, while the comparable rate for transfer students is between 7% and 11%.
Much of the difference has to do with the increasing level of competition to recruit new first year
students to AU by making strategic use of those resources to create attractive financial packages.
Remaining resources are used to support and retain continuing students, thereby leaving little to
fund transfers.
As the data on the profile of new transfer students indicate, the financial needs of this group will
only continue to grow. In the absence of additional funds allocated for financial support, the Office
of Enrollment will look at best practices for stretching its resources; including but not limited to reexamining the current practice of awarding merit scholarships to transfer students and re-directing
some of these funds for use for need-based aid. While this is an approach that would be useful for
the short-term, projected demographic shifts suggest that the university will need to increase the
current financial aid budget to address the needs of these students.
However, there is currently no long-term, comprehensive university-wide strategy that accounts for
this growth. As American University positions itself to prepare for decreases in its major feeder
markets there must be more intentionality about developing strategies that will create a pipeline not
only to ensure enrollments but to position AU as a “transfer friendly” institution. These would
include strategies that create a clear pathway to transfer to AU from the community college as well
as those that create transparency in the credit articulation process for students.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are offered to facilitate a more transfer-friendly environment:
• Pursue “2+2” programs that create a transparent pathway for guaranteed admission to AU
• Create a database of transfer equivalencies to facilitate the course articulation process and
create consistency. Additionally, post this information on a website for transfer students
that will allow them to determine early on in the process how their credits will transfer.
• Increase participation rate in Transfer Transition Program using freshman participation rates
as a benchmark.
9
•
•
Consider the creation of a Transfer Student Center – a “one stop shop” for transfers and
determine how this would fit into AU’s existing services.
Revisit current funding models for transfer students to make best strategic use of current
resources.
Accounting for the AU Experience: Beyond the Cost of Attendance
With the downturn in the economy in the last decade, much attention has been paid to the rising
costs of a college or university education. The Task Force examined the impact of indirect costs
(cost beyond the standard cost of attendance) – lab fees, new student programs fees, move-in costs,
internship-related costs, etc., and their impact on the student experience.
In conducting its research, the subcommittee recognized that while Pell-eligible students are
impacted by these additional costs beyond attendance, some of these costs may be addressed and
mitigated through Cost of Attendance (COA) appeals. However, there appear to be at least two
other groups of students for whom the impact of these costs may be greater. The first group is
comprised of those students who are not Pell-eligible but have low Expected Family Contributions
(EFC). The EFC, determined by the Department of Education, is based on the financial data
provided by the student on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The students
with a low EFC are generally identified as “high need.”
During AY 2011-12, 50% of the eligible undergraduate student population applied for financial aid.
Of the 50% who apply, approximately 65% receive some form of institutional financial aid. As the
table below notes, AU has a significant percentage of Pell-eligible (high need) students. Based on
financial aid data from fall 2011, 1170 students who applied for financial aid were in the Pell-eligible
category. This constituted 18% of the undergraduate population. Another 1,098 students were in
the Moderate financial aid category, comprising 17% of the undergraduate population. Taken in
total, 35% of undergraduates for AY 2011-12 were of high to moderate need.
Table 1: Financial Need of Undergraduate Students who applied for financial aid in Fall 2011
Need Level
EFC Range
Number of Applicants
Percentage of Class
Pell-eligible (high
need)*
$0-$5,499
1170
18%
Moderate
$5,500-$19,999
1098
17%
Low
$20,000-39,999
899
14%
No Need
$40,000-$54,000
345
5%
Note: Pell eligibility may not always be an accurate indicator of a student’s financial need or financial
strength. In some cases, students and families may actually demonstrate significant financial
resources. Due the limited nature of the financial data that is captured on the FAFSA, families may
exclude information regarding businesses and certain assets. While a number of these families are
Federally eligible for Pell funding and hence, appear to be high need, for purposes of institutional
funding they demonstrate little to no financial need.
The cost of attending AU impacts the students in the Pell-eligible (High Need) and moderate need
students in two key ways. The first is the actual financing mechanisms. Families are responsible for
making up the difference between what the university provides and what the family is expected to
contribute toward the student’s educational expenses (EFC) up to and beyond the standard COA.
Oftentimes, families opt to finance this difference through the use of additional parent and or
10
student loans. Unfortunately, most loans – parent and student – are contingent on credit worthiness
and thus may not be available to some families. Additionally, many of these families do not have a
four-year plan for funding a student’s education. There appears to be a willingness to secure loans
initially, with the assumption that AU or outside scholarships will reduce the out-of-pocket
expenses. The second impact – the focus of this report – is that for these students, even small costs
beyond the basic COA may preclude students from fully participating in the AU experience. While
indirect costs impact everyone, those who are high to moderate need – 35% of undergraduates –
may face particular challenges in addressing these costs.
The second group of students for whom indirect costs may pose a great challenge is the transfer
population, of which an increasing number come from community colleges. While these students
may be Pell-eligible or demonstrate high-financial need, they do not enter the university with the
same type of institutional funding as first year students -- a common practice in universities across
the country.
Oftentimes indirect costs that relate to the broader “AU experience” are not included in AU’s COA
as these are not mandatory activities. This is again a common practice at many U.S. universities.
However, because AU is regarded as an institution in which students are encouraged to participate
in internships; study abroad; assume leadership positions on campus; prepare for careers in
medicine, media, law, government, and public and private sector, etc.; these indirect costs have
major significance for the student experience at AU.
Indirect costs related to the “AU experience” are many and fall into the following categories and add
up to significant additional costs to students and their families:
1) academic programming (including undergraduate research and first-year experiences)
2) internships
3) national awards
4) study abroad opportunities
5) residential life
6) wellness programming
7) leadership/team/service opportunities in student clubs and organizations
8) social/integration opportunities
9) career and graduate school opportunities
10) graduation
Recommendations
The committee is proposing five recommendations for addressing indirect costs:
1. Examine ways to reduce indirect costs that are part of the AU experience.
2. Restructure budgets to absorb key indirect costs and create a self-help orientation to help
High Need students understand how best to communicate their needs to university
administrators (requesting fee waivers, etc.)
3. Conduct further study on financial aid and cost-structure for transfer students.
4. Work with the Development Office to identify ways to significantly expand donor support
of high-need students and programming activities.
5. Re-evaluate work study program.
11
Financial Literacy
The fragile economy and anemic job market has contributed to students’ mounting concerns
regarding student loan debt and their overall financial welfare. Research published by the National
Student Debt Project indicates that over the past decade, the average amount of student
indebtedness has increased more than threefold. This increase in student debt compounded with a
national unemployment rate of more than 8% is troubling. Current students and recent graduates
are grappling with limited job prospects and loan repayment responsibilities. Students’ relative lack
of knowledge regarding financial matters has exacerbated these concerns. According to a recently
published report by the Government Accountability Office, in 2009, only 13 states required a course
in personal finance prior to high school graduation.
Prog ram
The aim of the financial literacy initiative is to provide students with the tools and resources needed
to understand and negotiate their personal finances so that students are empowered to prosper at
AU and beyond. Through a comprehensive financial literacy program, students will gain the ability
to use knowledge and skills to manage financial resources effectively for a lifetime of financial wellbeing. In particular, the initiative seeks to:
•
•
•
Provide fundamental money management skills to include:
o Banking
o Budgeting
o Credit
o Lifestyle choices
Counsel students on career planning and financial needs assessment
Educate students on debt and loan management while in school and during repayment
Recommendations
The task force proposes a multi-phased implementation of a financial literacy program. The first
phase of the implementation began during the spring semester of AY 2011-12. The following
details the recommendations:
•
•
•
•
Design a financial literacy program to promote continuous learning throughout a student’s
academic career.
Provide audience specific programming to promote student management of financial
decisions.
Present program offerings through a myriad of mediums.
Engage a cross section of the AU community in the financial literacy initiative.
Based on the evaluation of best practices, the task force recommends consideration of the following
elements for incorporation in the development of the AU financial literacy program:
• Financial literacy inventory assessment
• Marketing campaign
• Student and parent seminars
12
•
•
•
•
•
•
Peer-to-peer/one-on-one counseling
Program evaluation
Online resources
Presentation series
Career planning and financial counseling
Alumni involvement
FROM ACCESS TO INCLUSION
The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) defines Inclusion as The active,
intentional, and ongoing engagement with diversity—in the curriculum, in the co-curriculum, and in communities
(intellectual, social, cultural, geographical) with which individuals might connect—in ways that increase awareness,
content knowledge, cognitive sophistication, and empathic understanding of the complex ways individuals interact
within systems and institutions.
Given increased socio-economic, racial/ethnic, and geographic diversity in the student body, AU
must ensure that staff, faculty, students and administrators have the appropriate level of awareness,
content knowledge and empathic understanding to manage and embrace increased diversity in the
student population. According to the 2011 Campus Climate Survey results, underrepresented
students (African-American/Black, Latino/Hispanic, and Native American students) report the
following:
•
•
•
•
52.4% feel that there is a sense of community in their school or college;
66.7% agree or strongly agree that the AU community demonstrates a commitment to
creating an inclusive campus community;
81.5% agree or strongly agree that overall the AU commitment demonstrates a respect for
diverse views and perspectives;
73.1% are generally satisfied with the quality of the academic advising provided by the
school/college.
However, based on focus group findings, African-American and Latino students, students are at
times feeling alienated in the classrooms and report being called upon often to speak on behalf of
their respective communities or to represent the “Black” or “Latino” perspective.
Recommendations for Achieving Inclusion at AU
• Continue to work to create a sense of belonging at AU among students with lower financial
means.
• Support students who are juggling two distinct worlds and dealing with feelings of guilt,
shame and betrayal:
o 1/3 of students from low socio-economic backgrounds feel unprepared for college
level work;
13
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o Family burdens have an effect on academic success (pressures to succeed
academically to maintain financial support, to later support their families financially,
and to be involved in family matters).
Engage faculty, staff, and students in structured dialogues around issues of race and class.
Infuse dialogues about race and class further into the academic curriculum.
Re-examine institutional traditions to ensure that traditions are inclusive.
Increase the intentionality of existing dialogue groups – Dialogue Development Group.
Rally stakeholders across campus about how to support students more effectively.
Examine and address the costs above cost of attendance encountered by students while
attempting to be engaged at AU and in DC
Enhance efforts to raise faculty awareness and engagement with diversity and inclusion in
the classroom beyond the faculty retreat. AU faculty in attempting to create safe, inclusive
classrooms should consider multiple factors, including the syllabus, course content, class
preparation, their own classroom behavior, and their knowledge of students’ backgrounds
and skills.
Create resources to assist faculty with teaching and pedagogy. The Center for Teaching and
Research might want to create a website and workshops similar to Vanderbilt site on
“Diversity and Inclusive Teaching”- http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teachingguides/interactions/diversity/.
Next Steps
• Consult with AAC&U on Diversity and Inclusive Excellence initiatives and identify institutions
with best practices to emulate
• Campus Life and CTRL are collaborating to create resources and workshops for faculty on
teaching pedagogy
• The Fall faculty retreat will focus on diversity and inclusion and the role of faculty
• The UMET needs to be reconstituted with a strong faculty presence and a charge to focus
on inclusive classroom and co-curricular programming
14