Administrative Support Unit Review Report
May 12, 2004
Office of Undergraduate Studies and New Student Programs
ASUR Subcommittee:
Mary Jane Casto, Chair
Sheryl Gowen
Sally Wallace
I. Unit Profile
A. Mission
a. Office of Undergraduate Studies: “The Georgia State University
Office of Undergraduate Studies is to facilitate academic success for a
diverse range of students through coordination and oversight of the
following programs and courses: Freshman Learning Community
Program, Atlanta Based Learning Program, State Scholars Program,
GSU 1010: New Student Orientation Courses and Perspectives
Courses.”
b. New Student Programs: “The Georgia State University Office of New
Student Programs is committed to recruiting, retaining and developing
students. We will do so by introducing new students to Georgia State
University, offering orientation programs that facilitate their
integration and providing programs that enhance student development
through leadership opportunities.”
Primary programs: Incept, Panther Welcome Week (Freshmen
Convocation), Parents Association, Tighter Grip, Alpha Lambda
Delta, Tau Sigma, T.O.A.S.T.
B. Number of Employees
a. Office of Undergraduate Studies: 6 staff including a Director, faculty
member, and four other full-time members
b. New Student Programs: 3 full-time employees (Director, Student
Affairs Advisor I, and Administrative Coordinator) plus 25 students.
C. Customer Base
a. Office of Undergraduate Studies: Students are the primary customers;
parents are beginning to be critical customers, particularly as the State
Scholars program is building; faculty and staff are secondary
customers due to their work in several US programs.
b. New Student Programs: Prospective students (newly admitted degree
seeking students to the university – both freshmen and transfer);
parents of prospective students (either as newly concerned parents
after students have been admitted or Parent Association members);
current students (new and existing Georgia State students); staff and
faculty.
D. Budget Analysis
a. Office of Undergraduate Studies - $309K in staffing; $34K supplies
and travel
b. New Student Programs - Both Fund Code 10 and Fund Code 13
resources are allocated. Total expenditures were $359,621, of which
29 percent was allocated to full time personnel, 63 percent to Incept:
New Student Orientation (including staff supervision and training),
and the remainder for welcome week, other new student programs, and
technology and office operations
E. Key Indicators
a. Office of Undergraduate Studies - Key indicators are not explicitly
stated; however, data are presented for some of the following items
and would make good candidates for indicators: number of freshmen
learning communities (FLC); number of students in FLC (and growth);
GPA and retention rates for FLC (done with appropriate techniques to
control for other selection issues); number and growth of students
serviced in various programs, along with satisfaction indicators; and
scholar enrollment.
b. New Student Programs - Key indicators are not explicitly stated;
however, our reading of the report suggests that key indicators could
include: participation in events (absolute and as a percentage of
eligible students); changes in participation, increasing engagement,
and the satisfaction with the programs (based on students, parents,
faculty and staff input).
II. Evaluation of Self-Study
A. Office of Undergraduate Studies - The self-study is well written and concise,
however, the descriptions of the staff and budget are somewhat confusing.
The comparison institutions and programs are interesting, but as noted in the
report, the coverage is different among programs, which makes comparisons
in terms of budget and level of effort difficult. Customer satisfaction types of
indicators are not mentioned. The self-study response to the section on areas
that need improvement and recommendations could have been more explicit
and more detailed. Likewise, the 1- 3- and 5-year goals deserve more detailed
explanation.
B. New Student Programs - The self-study is well presented and organized. The
comparisons with Georgia Tech, UGA and UAB were especially helpful as
was the detail on the various programs. The study usefully states the
integration of goals and objectives with the University’s overarching goals. A
few pieces of information are missing such as specific key indicators,
measures of client satisfaction in some of the programs, and follow up
activities. Some parts of these are covered in the accomplishments section.
The self-study also fails to date the various activities, and this information
would be helpful to those doing the review.
III. Key Observations
A. Office of Undergraduate Studies
i. The reviewers expressed confusion regarding the name of the
office, which was communicated to us as “Freshman Studies”, not
“Office of Undergraduate Studies”, which is how the unit selfstudy was titled. As well, we knew this unit reported to the
Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies, so we were unsure as
to whether the report was reviewing the AP’s office, or something
else.
ii. The Office administers academic programs primarily for new
freshman students. Currently, transfer and existing students are
not a large constituency group, but this will change as the State
Scholars and the Atlanta Based Learning programs are expanded.
iii. The success of the Freshman Learning Communities is impressive
and worthy of praise.
iv. The Scholar program is an excellent venue for achieving the
academic improvement goals of the institution.
B. New Student Programs
i. The office supports a large number of students with a variety of
programs that are innovative and well attended based on the
figures presented. The Office integrates a number of activities that
seek to increase the support and experience of students: retention,
community service, recognition, and collaboration. The final
section of the report regarding strategic goals is well presented and
of reasonable time frame.
ii. Relative to the comparison institutions, the Office seems to serve
more students with more programs and less funding. The unit
deserves praise for its innovative and pertinent programs, such as
Parents Association, Parent Hotline, and Tighter Grip. The Office
serves a large number of students, but does not present consistent
statistics on how many and to what level of satisfaction. Incept
assessment appears quite complete, yet no assessment is reported
for some of the other programs.
C. Cross-over Observations
i. While both of these units put forth much of their effort toward new
students, there are different lines of reporting for these two offices.
ii. There appear to be strong and positive collaboration efforts
between these offices that help to mitigate conflicts or problems.
IV. Action Recommendations
A. Office of Undergraduate Studies
i. The committee recommends that discussion be held with the
Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies and appropriate
constituents to determine whether more specificity in the unit’s
name would help to avoid future confusion. Perhaps something
that emphasizes the academic focus of the office.
ii. The report mentions there is an active effort to define work
responsibilities within the office; the committee encourages
completion of this effort with attention to ensuring continued
coverage of critical functions.
iii. The committee recommends more specificity in the office’s 1-, 3and 5-year goals, particularly related to retention; engaged
learning; the State Scholar program; and customer satisfaction.
iv. The committee agrees that increased technology resources and
additional space would ease some of the physical constraints on the
office.
v. The recommendations suggested in the report include adding two
types of positions; faculty associates for retention and a program
development specialist. This action is strongly supported by the
review committee.
B. New Student Programs
i. The recommendations and time line suggested for changes in the
report are reasonable and should be pursued.
ii. Develop and conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the various
programs on key indicators (participation, retention and
satisfaction, for example) to rank the success of various programs
for possible budget augmentation or reduction.
iii. The unit should encourage tutor training using existing university
resources for the FACE program.
C. Crossover Recommendations:
i. The Office of Undergraduate Studies has a more academic focus
than New Student Programs, which directs its efforts to new
student engagement by increasing involvement in the university
and developing leadership skills. It is the committee’s opinion that
the units should retain their current reporting structures, but
continue to be considered together for future ASUR reviews.
ii. Both department heads complimented the formation and activity of
the Enrollment Management Group (EMG) as instrumental in
streamlining the cross-unit collaborations. The committee
recommends that effort be taken to document the critical touch
points between these two units to ensure continued collaborative
success in the event of any personnel changes.