REPORT TO STUDENT ENROLLMENT SERVICES POG
Prospective Undergraduates Team (PUT)
January 24, 2000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Prospective Undergraduates Team (PUT) was charged with advising and recommending to the
Student Enrollment Services Process Owner’s Group (SESPOG) how the University could develop interactions with prospective and newly-enrolled students and their parents that are of exceptional quality and service, clear and accurate, timely, consistent, efficient and effective, simple, thorough, personal, and respectful.
Goals:

Identify the kinds of communication that would realize the goals of an ideal system;

Document the current system; and

Offer recommendations to bridge the gap between current and ideal processes
Identified key interactions in the prospective undergraduate student process:
1. Accessing Student Health 6. Faculty/Student Interactions
2. Applying for Admission
3. Course Selection, Advising, and Enrollment
7. Housing for Transfer Students
8. Placement Tests
9. Preparing Students to Start Classes 4. Dining Selection
5. Evaluation of Non-University Credit/Transfer
Credit Evaluation
Recommendations: The Prospective Undergraduates Team recommends that SESPOG:
1. Explore opportunities to simplify the Student Health pre-entrance process through automated means (e.g., web form, connection to ISIS).
2. Explore opportunities for improvement in the following areas within the Applying for Admission process: (1) the undergraduate Financial Aid Award notification process, (2) how the University handles ad hoc inquires, and (3) the application packet. Although these areas seem to offer the greatest benefits to prospective students, the PUT recommends that SESPOG also consider exploring other possible opportunities for improvement within the Applying for Admission interaction.
3. Examine, streamline, and standardize to the extent possible the various processes by which schools evaluate non-University transfer credit. PUT further recommends that SESPOG seek representation from the six schools that enroll undergraduate students and from the Office of the
Provost.
4. Approach the topic of improving faculty/ student interactions in a manner similar to the way it has addressed the issue of academic advising. SESPOG should investigate opportunities for providing administrative support and systems to aid in the development of improved faculty/student interactions in areas such as residence halls, residential colleges, academic organizations, etc.
5. Investigate the feasibility of the University guaranteeing housing to all new transfer students who request to live on-grounds. To assist in this evaluation, PUT further recommends that the Housing
Division institute a system that will track more precisely which students receive housing offers, enter the waiting list, or remove themselves from the list, and when these changes in status occur.
Page 1

I. INTRODUCTION
Launched in January 1999, the Prospective Undergraduates Team (PUT) was charged with advising and recommending to the Student Enrollment Services Process Owner’s Group
(SESPOG) how the University could develop interactions with prospective and newly-enrolled students and their parents that are of exceptional quality and service, clear and accurate, timely, consistent, efficient and effective, simple, thorough, personal, and respectful.
To that end, PUT bounded its work by focusing on key interactions that define the prospective undergraduate student experience beginning at the point of inquiry (e.g., college fairs, UVa web site, guidance counselors, student request for information, student on-site visit, college board list), and culminating at the end of the first semester. PUT considered parents, newly-enrolled students, and prospective undergraduate students as the primary target groups of the process. A prospective undergraduate student was defined as any person who is thinking of coming to UVa or who should be thinking of coming to UVa.
Secondary constituents include UVa faculty and staff.
Specific goals were to:

Identify the kinds of communications that would realize the goals of an ideal system;

Document the current system; and

Offer recommendations to bridge the gap between the current process and the ideal process
SESPOG advised that the ultimate goal of the effort was "to make our institution of 20K students feel like an institution of 2K students." Appendix A outlines the team’s mission.
George Stovall, Institutional Studies, served as the team leader. Other core team members included Marilyn DeBerry, Financial Aid (January 1999 to June 1999); Mark Doherty,
Housing; Steve Farmer, Admission Office; Frank Griffith, transfer student; Debbie
McCormick, Office of the VP for Management and Budget; Monica Nixon, Office of
Orientation and New Student Programs; Donna Oliver, Financial Aid (June 1999 to January
2000); Shelley Payne, Organizational Development &Training; Karen Ryan, Faculty; Carey
Wilkinson, 2nd year student; and Lori Willy, Registrar's Office. Additionally, representatives from areas involved in the prospective undergraduate process served as resource members to the core team (Appendix B documents the complete membership, including the resource members).
II. METHODOLOGY
To identify and prioritize opportunities to improve the prospective undergraduate student experience at the University, PUT conducted a quick look assessment. Accordingly, the team collected sufficient high-level data to make an informed, data-driven choice as to which processes should be considered for improvement. The quick look assessment was accomplished by creating a process baseline (e.g., process maps, operational and performance data, customer input) and a technology baseline (e.g., existing technology, available data and information).
Page 2

The first step in the assessment was to identify (through brainstorming) a nearly exhaustive list of interactions in an ideal system and to provide a structure for examining them (Appendix
C provides the structured list). The next step was to determine which of the interactions on the list were the key interactions in the prospective undergraduate student experience.
Conceptually, the team identified that for a process to be considered a key interaction, it should have the following attributes:
(1) high volume;
(2) reflect a “moment of truth” in customer service;
(3) high cost of failure;
(4) every “prospective” student must engage in the interaction; and
(5) be an opportunity for the University to improve.
Through consensus-building techniques and brainstorming sessions, the team created a list of key interactions that shape the prospective undergraduate student experience.
Next, PUT decided that student input would help the team prioritize its work and validate the identified key interactions. On April 29, 1999, an electronic survey was sent to 500 randomly selected first-year students and 300 transfer students. The survey included a brief introduction, and questions about: which interactions went well, which interactions did not go well, and which five interactions were the most critical in ensuring success at UVa. During the 11-day field period, 376 responses (47 percent) were received. (See Appendix D for a copy of the web survey; Appendix E for survey results).
Finally, the team evaluated and prioritized the list of key interactions that were the best candidates for improvement. To develop this list, the team determined that the process should:
(1) have low customer satisfaction (obtained from the web survey);
(2) be of high importance to the University;
(3) have a high volume;
(4) be determined to have a high cost of failure; and
(5) be used by every “prospective” student.
The key interactions that the PUT decided to investigate were:
A. Accessing Student Health F. Faculty/Student Interactions
B. Applying for Admission
C. Course Selection, Advising, and Enrollment
D. Dining Selection
G. Housing for Transfer Students
H. Placement Tests
I. Preparing Students to Start Classes
E. Evaluation of Non-University Credit/Transfer
Credit Evaluation
Page 3

III. FINDINGS
The following is a summary of the findings for each key interaction. Copies of the complete reports are attached as indicated.
A. Key Interaction: Accessing Student Health
Scope: Physical access to the site (e.g., parking), as well as access to the clinic provider
(e.g., wait times).
Data Collection: (1) Analyzed customer (student) satisfaction using data obtained from student surveys conducted by PUT (April 1999) and Student Health Office (February 1 to
September 30, 1999). (2) Identified current processes and obtained information on technological needs by meeting with the Alison Montgomery, Associate Director for
Student Health.
Finding(s):
1. Access issues (e.g., clinic wait time, parking) - (1) The PUT survey revealed that students believed that access to Student Health was one of the top five interactions that went badly (41% 1 st year students; 29% transfer students). (2) The survey conducted by the Student Health office did not indicate any concerns with access issues, except for parking. Corrective action was taken in the fall when 14 parking spaces were added in the U5 parking lot for student patients.
2. Pre-Entrance Health Records - Ms. Montgomery identified an opportunity for improved service in the pre-entrance process. Prior to enrollment, students must provide specific information about their health status using a six-page UVa preentrance health form. If the form is not submitted on time, students are blocked from registering their second semester. This year, approximately 800 new students were blocked from registration representing about 23% of all entering first year and transfer students. In past years, 12-16% of the entering students were blocked from registration. Ms. Montgomery noted that the deadline was not put on the form or adequately communicated to the students.
Conclusion(s): (1) Student Health has a self-evaluation process in place and takes corrective action to resolve identified concerns/problems or explore opportunities for improvement. (2) Data do not support the need to explore further concerns regarding access issues. (3) The pre-entrance process is an opportunity for the University to measurably improve a key manual process in the Student Health Office using available technology.
Recommendation(s): The Prospective Undergraduates Team recommends that
SESPOG explore opportunities to simplify the Student Health pre-entrance process through automated means (e.g., web form, connection to ISIS).
Report: See Appendix F
Page 4

B. Key Interaction: Applying for Admission
Scope: Process to apply (admission and financial aid) for admission to the University.
Data Collection: (1) Analyzed customer (student) satisfaction using data obtained from student surveys conducted by PUT (April 1999). (2) Identified current processes and obtained information on technological needs by meeting with subject matter experts. (3)
Researched best practices by benchmarking with peer institutions.
Finding(s): (1) In the PUT student web survey (April 1999), the admission process
(applying for admission) was ranked as being the most important interaction in which the prospective student engages (61% 1 st year students ranked #1; 60% transfer students ranked #2) and was ranked as being the interaction that went the best (64% 1 st year students; 65% transfer students). (2) After mapping the admission process, the team agreed that three sub-processes should be more closely examined: (a) the undergraduate Financial Aid Award notification process, (b) how the University handles ad hoc inquires, and (c) the application packet.
Conclusion(s): (1) Students ranked the application process as a key interaction and one that the University does well. (2) Admission Office and Financial Aid Office staff desire continuous improvement of their processes. (3) The PUT found three areas that seemed to offer significant opportunities for improvement: (a) the undergraduate Financial Aid
Award notification process, (b) how the University handles ad hoc inquires, and (c) the application packet.
1. The Undergraduate Financial Aid Award Notification Process - The financial aid award letters are considered confusing by approximately 2/3 of the parents and students who were informally surveyed. Revision of the financial aid award letter requires a cooperative effort between Financial Aid and ITC.
2. Ad Hoc Inquiries - The Admission and Financial Aid Offices receive significant contact via web page, e-mail, walk-in traffic, and telephone calls. Although systems are in place in the Financial Aid Office and Admission Office to handle ad hoc inquiries, the
PUT believes that there may be more efficient ways to respond to these contacts.
3. The Application Packet -
The University of Virginia’s CollegeNET application is more effective than most commercially available electronic on-line application packages because it exports its data directly into ISIS. CollegeNET does not allow the
University to take full advantage of electronic communications with prospective students and their families
–an area which UVa peer institutions report that their applicants express a great deal of satisfaction. The methods of electronic communication (on-line application and e-mails) are complementary and, taken together, offer the University an excellent opportunity to make itself more genuinely responsive to its prospective undergraduate students.
Although these areas seem to offer the greatest benefit to prospective students,
SESPOG may wish to explore other possible opportunities.
Recommendation(s): The Prospective Undergraduates Team recommends that
SESPOG explore opportunities for improvement in the following areas: (1) the
Page 5

undergraduate Financial Aid Award notification process, (2) how the University handles ad hoc inquires, and (3) the application packet. Although these areas seem to offer the greatest benefits to prospective students, PUT recommends that
SESPOG also consider exploring other possible opportunities for improvement within the Applying for Admission interaction.
Report: See Appendix G
C. Key Interaction: Course Selection, Advising, and Enrollment
Scope: Long-term career and course selection advising.
Finding(s): The process for course selection, advising, and enrollment was recently reviewed as part of the re-organization of the summer orientation program, and is being monitored by the Office of Orientation and New Student Programs.
Conclusion(s): This process was modified in the summer 1999 as part of the new orientation program. PUT has learned that the Office of Orientation and New Student
Programs plans to monitor, evaluate, and make changes to improve this interaction as needed.
D. Key Interaction: Dining Selection
Scope: Number of available meal plans for 1 st year students.
Data Collection: (1) Analyzed customer (student) satisfaction using data obtained from
PUT student web survey (April 1999). (2) Identified current processes by interviewing
UVa subject matter experts. (3) Researched best practices by benchmarking with peer institutions.
Finding(s): (1) Policy regarding meal plans is determined by the Director of Dining
Services, reviewed by the Assistant Vice President for Business Operations, and approved by the Board of Visitors. (2) PUT student web survey (April 1999) indicated that this was one of the top five interactions that went badly (38% 1 st year students; 16% transfer students). (3) Dining Services conducts regular student satisfaction surveys but does not solicit data regarding meal plans in the student surveys. (4) Information on dining services is communicated via a web page, brochure, and in the meal plan contract. (5) Paper forms are used in the dining selection process. (6) Money is not exchanged between the student and Dining Services when submitting the forms. (7)
When compared with peer institutions, UVa is in the middle of the group regarding meal pricing and options.
Conclusion(s): (1) Dining Services has a policy that is reviewed and approved by the highest authority at the University. (2) Data are not available from Dining Services to indicate customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction regarding meal plans, as well as efficiency of the process. (3) Information regarding meal plans is sufficiently communicated to the student. (4) Since money is not exchanged directly in the process, the paper forms could
Page 6

be converted to web-based forms. (5) Prices for meal plans are comparable to those of peer institutions requiring first-year residency.
Recommendation(s): Available baseline data do not suggest that the process represents a measurable, significant opportunity for improvement. The Director of Dining Services will pursue the possibility of converting the paper forms into web-based forms.
Report: See Appendix H
E. Key Interaction: Evaluation of Non-University Credit/Transfer Credit Evaluation
Scope: Process for evaluating non-University credit and transfer credit for prospective students (Architecture, Arts and Sciences, Commerce, Education, Engineering, and
Nursing).
Data Collection: (1) Analyzed customer (student) satisfaction using data obtained from
PUT student web survey (April 1999). (2) Identified current processes by interviewing
UVa subject matter experts.
Finding(s): (1) PUT student web survey (April 1999) indicated that this was one of the top five interactions that went badly for transfer students (28%), and that this is the most important interaction for transfer students (66%). (2) Each school has its own process for evaluating non-University and transfer credit.
Conclusion(s): Transfer students rank the evaluation of non-University credit/transfer credit as an important interaction. The University also should work toward streamlining and standardizing the process.
Recommendation(s): The Prospective Undergraduates Team recommends that the SESPOG examine, streamline, and standardize to the extent possible the various processes that the schools use to evaluate non-university transfer credit.
PUT further recommends that the team should have representation from the six schools that enroll undergraduate students and from the Office of the Provost.
Report: See Appendix I
F. Key Interaction: Faculty/Student Interactions
Scope: Intellectual and social interactions between students and faculty.
Data Collection: Analyzed customer (student) satisfaction using data obtained from PUT student web survey (April 1999)
Finding(s): (1) In the PUT web survey (1999), 41% of first-year and 27% of transfer students identified faculty/student interactions as one of the top five interactions that went badly for them, and faculty/student interactions were ranked as the second most important interaction in the prospective undergraduate process. (2) The University is
Page 7

currently seeking opportunities to improve faculty/student interactions (e.g., the Alderman
Coffee Shop, and the Arts and Sciences "take a faculty member to lunch program").
Conclusion(s): Although there was a separate category on the PUT survey (April 1999) for course selection, advising, and enrollment, PUT feels that it might have been difficult for students to separate their dissatisfaction with advising from their feelings about other faculty/student interactions. The team was encouraged by several programs recently initiated by the faculty to increase faculty interactions, such as the Alderman Coffee
Shop, and the Arts and Sciences "take a faculty member to lunch program”. PUT believes that such programs, coupled with what it perceives to be a generally heightened awareness of attention to faculty/student interactions on-grounds, should be given a chance to bear fruit. Further, PUT believes that efforts to improve faculty/student interactions need to come from the faculty. However, the magnitude of the percentages in the above-mentioned survey results leads the team to believe that it is a topic that
SESPOG should investigate further.
Recommendation(s): PUT recommends that SESPOG approach the topic of improving faculty/ student interactions in a manner similar to the way it has addressed the issue of academic advising. SESPOG should investigate opportunities for providing administrative support and systems to aid the development of improved faculty/student interactions in areas such as residence halls, residential colleges, academic organizations, etc.
Report: See Appendix J
G. Key Interaction: Housing for Transfer Students
Scope: Availability of housing for transfer students; process for obtaining housing.
Data Collection: (1) Analyzed customer (student) satisfaction using data obtained from
PUT student web survey (April 1999) and Office of Orientation and New Student
Programs survey (Fall 1999). (2) Identified current processes by interviewing UVa subject matter experts. (3) Researched best practices by benchmarking with peer institutions.
Finding(s): (1) Of the students responding to the PUT web survey (April 1999), 27% indicated that this is one of the top five interactions that went badly. (2) UVa does not guarantee housing to entering transfer students. (3) The housing process for entering transfer students can extend into late July and early August. Housing Division staff have little control over when summer cancellations will allow them to release rooms to entering transfer students. (4) The waiting list is resolved, at least partly, because students remove themselves from it once they realize that they will not receive housing ongrounds. (5) The UVa policy is a common practice when compared to peer institutions.
Conclusion(s): (1) The University cannot provide on-grounds housing for all transfer students who request on-grounds housing. (2) Measurable data are not available regarding the numbers of students who receive offers of housing, are placed on a waiting list, or who removed themselves from the waiting list.
Page 8

Recommendation(s): The Prospective Undergraduates Team recommends that
SESPOG Investigate the feasibility of the University guaranteeing housing to all new transfer students who request to live on grounds. To assist in this evaluation,
PUT further recommends that the Housing Division institute a system that will track more precisely which students receive housing offers, enter the waiting list, or remove themselves from the list, and when these changes in status occur.
Report: See Appendix K
H. Key Interaction: Placement Tests
Scope: Process to schedule and take placement exams.
Finding(s): The process for scheduling and taking placement tests was examined as part of the re-organization of the summer orientation program, and is being monitored by the Office of Orientation and New Student Programs.
Conclusion(s): This process was modified in the summer 1999 as part of the new orientation program. PUT has learned that the Office of Orientation and New Student
Programs plans to monitor, evaluate, and make changes to improve this interaction as needed.
I. Key Interaction: Preparing Students to Start Classes
Scope: Includes numerous issues, such as billing and payment, community information, computing, orientation, parking and transportation, photo IDs, transcript evaluation, telephone/cable service, etc.
Finding(s): The process for preparing students to start classes was extensively examined during the recent re-organization of the summer orientation program, and is being monitored by the Office of Orientation and New Student Programs. The Summer
Communications Team also is reviewing aspects of this process.
Conclusion(s): This process was modified in the summer 1999 as part of the new orientation program. PUT has learned that the Office of Orientation and New Student
Programs plans to monitor, evaluate, and make changes to improve this interaction as needed.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Although PUT assessed the prospective undergraduate student process at UVa over a twelve-month period, the time seemed inadequate to thoroughly review the numerous, complex processes in place. Additional time could have been spent effectively in creating more in-depth process baselines for the key processes (e.g. volume analysis, customer analysis, process flowchart analysis).
Page 9

B.
PUT was only able to research nine key interactions. While in the “discovery” stage, the team brainstormed nine primary steps and 64 secondary steps in the prospective undergraduate student process. The team believes that the comprehensive list contains key interactions that were left unexamined due to time constraints. PUT suggests that
SESPOG review the list for possible future projects.
C. Of significant concern to the PUT is that during the final stages of the team’s work, attendance by student members ceased. Many of the team reports or recommendations did not have student input. PUT believes that the students provide a unique perspective that is unattainable from faculty/staff members.
V. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Prospective Undergraduates Team recommends that SESPOG:
A. Explore opportunities to simplify the Student Health pre-entrance process through automated means (e.g., web form, connection to ISIS).
B. Explore opportunities for improvement in the following areas within the Applying for
Admission process: (1) the undergraduate Financial Aid Award notification process, (2) how the University handles ad hoc inquires, and (3) the application packet. Although these areas seem to offer the greatest benefits to prospective students, the PUT recommends that SESPOG also consider exploring other possible opportunities for improvement within the Applying for Admission interaction.
C. Examine, streamline, and standardize to the extent possible the various processes by which schools evaluate non-University transfer credit. PUT further recommends that
SESPOG seek representation from the six schools that enroll undergraduate students and from the Office of the Provost.
D. Approach the topic of improving faculty/ student interactions in a manner similar to the way it has addressed the issue of academic advising. SESPOG should investigate opportunities for providing administrative support and systems to aid in the development of improved faculty/student interactions in areas such as residence halls, residential colleges, academic organizations, etc.
E. Investigate the feasibility of the University guaranteeing housing to all new transfer students who request to live on grounds. To assist in this evaluation, PUT further recommends that the Housing Division institute a system that will track more precisely which students receive housing offers, enter the waiting list, or remove themselves from the list, and when these changes in status occur.
Page 10