Enrollment management work group 2-16-2008
Page 1
Flagship 2030 enrollment task force
Initial meeting: February 16, 2008 – Agenda/handout, with notes from discussion
Present (with interests/background, from introductions)
 Lou McClelland – co-chair - institutional research / planning, budget, and analysis
(PBA) – chair of campus “enrollment prediction (and management)” group, focusing
on undergrad enrollment, with reps from admissions, registrar, budget, bursar,
financial aid, housing, and PBA
 John Ackerman, PWR - new to campus, civic engagement, U-community
engagement, background U Utah, NAU, Kent State in graduate education
 David Boonin, philosophy chair; especially interested in increase in grad students
 Deb Coffin, AVC housing+
 Bill Emery, aerospace and LASP. Recruiting international students.
 Kevin MacLennen, admissions
 Armando Pares, continuing ed – 8 programs that bring students to campus
 Gwen Pomper, financial aid
 Jeffrey Zax, economics Absent
 Fred Pampel, sociology – chair - out of town
 Chuck Gamber, parent assoc board out of town
 Noel Lenski, classics excused
 Garrison Roots, art and art history
 Ken Strzepek, civil/architectural engineering
Introductions
What’s given? Plan says (and Lou verified given, with Phil and Ric) :

We expect the university will continue the same modest growth rate it has
maintained over the past 25 years.

Under this model, the university will have approximately 6,500 more students in 2030
than it does today. We expect to manage the overall mix of residents and
nonresidents within the state guidelines of 66 percent residents and 33 percent nonresidents. Additionally, our plan calls for an increase in the percentage of graduate
and professional students in the student population from 15 percent to 20 percent.
We also will increase the number of tenure-track faculty to enhance the quality of
undergraduate and graduate teaching and to expand our research capacity.

Looked at time series of enrollments (see resources, below)

Graduate level includes MBA and Law

Plan comments on number of students, grad/undergrad mix, and
resident/non-resident mix. Increasing student academic credentials has
always been a campus goal but is not explicit in the plan

The 33% non-resident is a statutory limit. The plan sets a goal of
maximum non-resident within the limit because the campus gets more
money per non-resident (tuition minus aid) than per resident (tuition
plus state funding minus aid) and needs the non-residents to generate
funds. If enrolling a resident vs. non-resident were financially neutral,
the campus would still want non-resident students to contribute to
geographic and intellectual diversity on campus, but would not
necessarily elect to aim for the maximum 33%. Ric verified this.

Some discussion of the statutory limits.
PBA: Lou.McClelland@colorado.edu -- D:\98882500.doc -- 7/12/2016 7:24:59 AM – Page 1
Enrollment management work group 2-16-2008



Page 2
The University of Colorado at Boulder typically enrolls between 6 percent and 7
percent of Colorado's high school graduates each year—and at this time we plan to
maintain that share in the coming years.

DISCUSSION: However, looking at share 1988 through 2030, it’s a bit
over 7% right now, and has been/will be under 6% in the early ‘90’s and
after 2015 or so. (from the time series enrollment 1988-2030)

DISCUSSION: Looking at new-freshmen qualifications and sources

From www.colorado.edu/pba/records/acprep/matricresidency.htm

About 10% of residents and 55% of non-residents come from HS which
do not assign class rank.

60% of residents are from the top 25% of their HS class; 27% are from
top 10%. These are substantially lower proportions than, say, Berkeley
or Michigan

Academic qualifications have increased over time. However, it’s hard to
separate the effect of HS grade inflation from real change

The pct of Colorado HS graduates who enroll at CU-Boulder in the fall is
a rough simple index of our Colorado students relative to other
Colorado HS graduates

Other Colorado schools do enroll students from the top 10% of
Colorado HS graduates; so too do schools out of state
Our overall enrollment plans may need to be adjusted, for example, if new state
policy modifies the respective enrollment goals for Colorado's community colleges,
four-year colleges, and research universities.
Over the next quarter-century, Colorado expects to see a 30 percent increase in the
number of high school graduates (in year-round learning section)

DISCUSSION: Kevin circulated a plot of Colorado HS graduates by
race/ethnic for the next ?20 or so years.

Historically CU-Boulder enrolls about 5-7% of white, Hispanic/Latino, and
Native American Colorado HS graduates, with a somewhat lower share of
African American and a higher share – as much as double – for Asian
American
Resources – See print of what’s available at
http://www.colorado.edu/pba/records/enrlproj.htm including

Enrollment since 1877

Plans done in 1995 and 1997

Link to Flagship 2030

Enrollment 1988 – 2030 given fall 2007 actual plus Plan 2030 assumptions – We
looked at this in the meeting, some discussion

We did not look at any of the other posted resources in the meeting
Enrollment traditional worries/concerns/goals Lou’s list, constructed
during large-group session 2-16-08. Reviewed informally, not
systematically.
 N of new freshmen non-residents
 Total N of new freshman
 N of graduate students, and N relative to UG (percentage of total)
 Have had goal to increase N or proportion for some years
PBA: Lou.McClelland@colorado.edu -- D:\98882500.doc -- 7/12/2016 7:24:59 AM – Page 2
Enrollment management work group 2-16-2008











Page 3
Limitations for departments include space, financial support for
students (including research-grant RA’s), faculty, risk of
overenrollment, N of qualified applicants. Limitations differ
considerably from one department to another.
 Would entire 6500 increase be graduate, to get to 20%? No. Roughly
4000 increase in undergrad, 2500 in grad, results in 20% grads. But
this is a 16% in UG, 57% in grads, to 2030.
Overall N especially fall census
Mix, expecially new freshmen
Diversity especially minority, also first generation, and Colorado off the Front
Range – Some discussion here
Academic credentials, both UG and graduate; attracting high-achieving
Colorado students; relationship of credentials of residents and non-residents
– Some discussion of public expectations and legislative rules on this.
Should not be easier to get in as a NR than as a Resident. Rules
concentrate on freshmen.
Undergraduate retention, transition, and completion rates- Non-resident
freshmen graduate at slightly lower rates but graduate faster than residents
Conversion rates – students entering as non-residents, converting to resident
status
Distribution across schools and colleges, and majors – Much interest in,
where would growth be. The plan does not specify. This task force could
outline processes for determining.
Colorado numbers, especially relative to prior year and other Colorado
schools
Role as western university, especially for UG. And attraction of place. What
makes us different.
Managing to state and DHE/CCHE constraints
PBA: Lou.McClelland@colorado.edu -- D:\98882500.doc -- 7/12/2016 7:24:59 AM – Page 3
Enrollment management work group 2-16-2008
Page 4
Relationship to initiatives – Lou’s thoughts, run by Fred, discussed with Phil and Ric
 “Assigned” means, assigned in initiative x workgroup matrix as of 2-14-08
 **** THIS SECTION (relationship to flagship 2030 initiatives) was in the handout
but was not discussed at the 2-16-08 meeting ****
Flagship initiatives

Residential colleges – for all, multi year. Assigned.

So need more beds per entering freshmen.

Experiential learning – two semester-long experiences, possibly not on campus,
possibly even requiring one off-campus term of study. Assigned.

So need mechanism of enrollment between time out and enrolled, and model of
what services/supervision the student gets.

And factor into capacity – need fewer buildings/classrooms (faculty??) per
student

University villages. Assigned

Don’t get the connection – Ric/Phil agree marginal

Year round learning. Assigned

Additional N of students accommodated in X buildings if Y% aren’t present for
peak term – as in Buff Futures. Interacts with “experiential learning,” with similar
implications for capacity.

Working group should consider/examine, not just recommend who/how to
consider/examine, but might not complete

Transcending boundaries, customized learning, and alternate degree tracks. Not
assigned

But Academy, interdisciplinary, etc. have implications for handling all undergrad
admission by college. And all graduate admission by department.

Alt degree tracks could have implications for admission, if students are, e.g.,
admitted to the master’s at the same time they’re admitted to UG work

Enterprise. Not assigned

But if tuition doubles has big implications for aid needs and access and for mix!

Global crossroads. Not assigned

Research diamond. Not assigned
Core initiatives

Grad ed – Assigned.

Need to coordinate on work on increasing percentage graduate of total
enrollment from 15 to 20%.

Ensure access – Double need & merit aid in 5 years; diverse student body.
Assigned

Others not assigned: education/scholarship, research, mission support, tools,
diversity, outreach
Lou asked Phil/Ric: “Fair game to suggest enrollment management position and staff?”

Answer: Yes

Some mention of this at 2-16 meeting
PBA: Lou.McClelland@colorado.edu -- D:\98882500.doc -- 7/12/2016 7:24:59 AM – Page 4
Enrollment management work group 2-16-2008
Page 5
Notes from Phase 2 2030 startup meeting 2-16-08
From part 1 – Phil, Ric with all task forces together
Not addressed further in enrollment task force session
Emphasize flagship – not all things to all people; provides leadership,
coordination
Significant purpose to support state of Colorado
But region too
Place on the US map of AAU’s
Discussion of
 N of Colorado HS grads – in posted
 Composition of Colo HS grads – race/ethnic, income, academic preparation
Relationship to other CU campuses – competition but cooperation
Don’t start from scratch. Read phase-1 documents
No statewide plan for higher education
Action time frames
 12-18 mo
 3-5 year
 12-15 year
Task force timelines: September 1 deadline, May 1 interim reporting




Goal of each task force: Action plan including implementation and budget – or
recommendations on processes to be used in decision-making around the topic
Each group should use the “matrix” of initiatives x task forces, but should refine its
focus
Consider subgroups – and additions (especially from the 125 other volunteers who
weren’t named to task forces)
Each task force has budget of $10k
Wrap-up at the meeting
 Handed out weekly, term calendars to mark up with times unavailable. Some
returned them at the meetings; others will return them by email to
IR@colorado.edu, or fax to 303-492-0996, or campus mail to Lou at campus
box 15.
 Preference for meetings: Not on weekends
What needs to happen now - Fred and Lou confer re
 Contacting members not present 2-16
 Gathering scheduling info from all
 Scheduling
 Reviewing initiatives, setting focus
 Subgroups
 Other background materials, presentations
PBA: Lou.McClelland@colorado.edu -- D:\98882500.doc -- 7/12/2016 7:24:59 AM – Page 5