March 1, 2002
In his May, 1997 introduction to MU’s strategic planning process, Chancellor
Wallace noted that the strategic planning effort was undertaken to assist the University with two things. One was to help the university determine what it must accomplish in order to continue its efforts to be recognized as an “institution of renown.” The other was to identify what MU needed to do in order to “fulfill its obligations to the State of Missouri.” Within the Strategic Plan, it is clear that one expected accomplishment is an increase in graduation and retention rates.
Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan speaks of the need to increase graduation rates for
MU students. Goal 4 notes that the University should “develop a comprehensive enrollment management plan that focuses on recruiting, retaining, and graduating both undergraduate and graduate students. The Mission Enhancement Objectives related to the
Strategic Plan also list one of the benefits of mission enhancement as an increase in graduation and retention rates for undergraduates.
The charge given to the Enrollment Management Subcommittee on Retention and
Graduation was in the spirit of helping the university become an institution of renown and fulfilling its obligations to the State of Missouri. Specifically, the Committee was asked to do the following:
1.
Address issues associated with General Education and its impact on student retention and graduation
2.
Address advising issues (especially for transfers, undecided and those changing majors)
3.
Address high-risk courses
4.
Make recommendations on new program initiatives and delivery strategies as they impact enrollments
5.
Address issues associated with our student engagement in the academic experience as it impacts retention and graduation rates

6.
Recommend optimal target for undergraduate student retention and graduation rates without compromising quality
There was no specific charge to the Subcommittee about examining the University’s funding model and its influence on retention and graduation. However, it is obvious that any funding model will be a driving force that influences behavior of units that provide undergraduate education. Since enhanced retention and graduation rates are part of the
Strategic Plan, it is important that proposed funding models be examined to ensure they truly enhance retention/graduation rates. As such, the Subcommittee examined the RAC model and developed recommendations pertaining to the latest version that was shared with its members.
A concern that needed to be addressed by the Subcommittee before it could complete its charge was “Does MU need to increase its current retention & graduation rates?”
After reviewing information in the Strategic Plan and other sources, the Subcommittee was able to answer this question with a resounding “Yes.” The affirmative response was based on four observations: (1) there is an inherent moral obligation to help all students succeed, (2) a high retention/graduation rate is one of the measures of a quality educational institution; (3) there is a financial benefit to an institution that increases its retention rates; and (4) there is room for improvement in MU’s current retention and graduation rates. The Subcommittee made the assumption that any activity which aids the university in fulfilling its moral obligation, increases the quality of its educational programs, and adds money to the university’s coffers is a highly desirable activity.
As such, the Subcommittee used guidelines for “quality” rather than “average” institutions in setting its goals. For example, it used comparisons to other AAU institutions rather than national averages for public institutions when establishing retention and graduation goals. Comparisons were also made to other peer institutions, whose student profile closely matches that of MU.
The Subcommittee also. . .at the outset. . .agreed that it should utilize existing research and data in making its recommendations. The theme suggested by one of the members and adopted was that the Subcommittee be “data assisted, but common sensedriven.” As such, the Subcommittee was divided into five subcommittees that carefully analyzed data from numerous sources, including MU’s Office of Institutional Research,
MU’s Student Information Systems, and national reports from various organizations. To ensure the “common sense” aspect wasn’t neglected, the subcommittee chairs encouraged anyone who wished to attend their meetings. A list of the subcommittee members and chairs. . .along with their detailed reports. . .are included in Section 5.
Although the Subcommittee did not retain a consultant, the Subcommittee chairperson attended a regional Noel-Levitz Retention Workshop and returned with information and recommendations from this nationally acclaimed consulting group. It was

assumed by the Subcommittee that since many of the Noel-Levitz recommendations had been successfully implemented at other universities, they would also work at MU.
In order to address funding related to retention and graduation, individuals from
MU’s Budget Office and the Office of Institutional Research were asked to update the
Subcommittee on the latest version of the RAC Model. The recommendations related to funding were based on this version.
For this study, the Subcommittee defined Student Engagement to be “the relationship between the professor, the class and the student.” These three components are very interactive and interrelated, and directly impact whether or not a student makes an underlying and lasting connection to the University.
High-risk courses were identified by the Subcommittee as classes that appear for two consecutive semesters on one of two lists compiled by Student Information Systems.
These lists include the following information: (1) classes with at least 20% of students receiving Ds and Fs, including W/Passing, and (2) classes with at least 50 students receiving Ds and Fs including W/Passing.
An assumption was also made by the Subcommittee that MU faculty would be willing to fulfill their responsibilities as outlined in the Collective Rules and Regulations of the University. This is particularly true for those rules that speak to the obligations of the faculty member in becoming an effective teacher, ensuring accurate evaluation of students, and demonstrating respect for students as individuals.
A final assumption made by the Subcommittee was that the recommendations included in this report might “fall through the cracks” unless specific responsibilities and actions were identified. A review of similar studies conducted in the past revealed that some recommendations failed to be implemented because of a lack of direction or specificity. As such, action steps were developed for each of the recommendations. With few exceptions, each action step specifically identifies responsibilities for administrators and/or faculty and staff, along with recommended procedures for implementation.
Note: The recommendations are classified into categories along with a list of action steps for specific individuals. Also, the recommendations are listed without explanation and/or definition. In order to understand the rationale behind the recommendations, it is important to read the information included in Sections 2 &5.
1.
Retention/graduation should be given a more prominent role in the implementation of the University’s Strategic Plan .

Action Steps :
(a) The Strategic Planning Advisory Committee should review the current Strategic
Plan and identify ways to clarify the importance and need for enhanced retention/graduation rates. The plan should include specific goals for MU’s graduation and retention rates.
(b) The Chancellor and Provost should frequently address enhanced retention/graduation rates in their addresses to the University community.
(c) An individual within the Provost’s office should be given the specific responsibility of implementing recommendations related to enhancement of retention/graduation rates.
(d) A campus enrollment management standing committee made up of faculty, staff and students should be established to make recommendations to the Provost’s Office.
(e) The Provost’s Office should present a periodic report on retention and graduation rates.
2.
The RAC formula should be revised to more effectively reward units that excel in retention/graduation rates.
Action Steps :
(a) The Resource Advisory Council and/or appropriate administration should specifically include retention/graduation rates as part of both the “Quantitative” &
“Qualitative” side of the RAC formula.
(b) The retention and graduation rates recommended in this report should be used as the criteria for evaluating retention/ graduation efforts.
(c) Units that perform well in helping “At Risk” students should be rewarded in addition to those who perform well in helping students who are deemed highly likely to succeed.
3.
Information specific to why MU students persist and why they leave should be utilized in the University’s planning efforts.
Action Steps :
(a) MU’s Institutional Research Office should conduct a yearly study to collect “Persistence Data” on undergraduate students. A similar study should be conducted to determine why students leave the university.
(b) The advisory committee identified in 1d should be given the information identified in these studies and asked to develop a profile of “At Risk” students, along with suggestions for assisting these students in their efforts to succeed at MU.
(c) The Provost’s office should share the suggestions from the committee with all appropriate units across campus.

4.
By fall 2008, the University should increase its freshman retention rate to 90% and its six-year graduation rate to 72%. In addition, the four-year graduation rate should increase to 50%.
Action Steps :
(a) The Strategic Planning Advisory Council and appropriate university personnel should include these goals in the University’s Strategic Plan.
(b) The Chancellor and Provost should share these goals with the University community.
(c) The advisory committee identified in 1d should periodically review the retention and graduation rates and make recommendations to the appropriate university personnel.
5.
Provide clear communication of MU transfer policies by administrators, staff members of all offices that deal with incoming transfer students, faculty, and in all MU publications designed for sending institutions.
Action Steps :
(a) The Chancellor and the Provost should co-sign a letter to the CAO’s of all Missouri institutions of higher education expressing the MU vision of general education and our pride in our current program and indicating our genuine interest to attract and serve fairly all qualified transfer students with an interest in the diverse programs available in a Research I university.
(b) Directors of Undergraduate Studies in all departments should take the lead in initiating new program-to-program articulation agreements. Deans should provide funding necessary to make such arrangements.
6.
Improve cooperation between the Office for Admissions and the deans and department chairs to identify and rectify current barriers to smooth internal transfer of students between departments and divisions.
Action Steps :
(a) Directors of Undergraduate Studies in all departments should take the lead in initiating new program-to-program articulation agreements. Deans should provide funding necessary to make such arrangements.
(b) Each department and division should review current programs of study and identify the current requirements that have proved to be consistently problematic for internal transfer students. A report of this internal review should be forwarded to the Office for Admissions.

(c) The Office of Admissions should review the departmental/divisional reports and generate a list of barriers. This list should be ranked by frequency of occurrence and sent to each division representative for review.
(d) The Vice Provost for Undergraduate Affairs should request each division to develop a plan, based on the collective findings of the internal review to rectify current barriers that prevent smooth internal transfer. The plan should address each barrier and include alternative options for internal transfer students, or specifically justify why certain requirements are necessary for successful completion of a given program.
7.
Establish a special unit in the Student Success Center to serve both internal and external transfer students.
Action Steps :
(a) Directors of Undergraduate Studies in all departments should take the lead in initiating new program-to-program articulation agreements. Deans should provide funding necessary to make such arrangements.
(b) The Provost should fund and designate a single individual, perhaps someone already involved in transfer issues, who would function as a “one-stop” ombudsperson for all internal and external transfer questions and issues. This person, called our Transfer Advisor (or something similar), would chiefly act as a resource for students intending to transfer to MU or intending to transfer to division on campus.
(c) This transfer resource person, while able to answer transfer questions from faculty and staff, would chiefly serve students, answering questions, mediating transfer problems, putting them in touch with the right people. The Student Success Center seems the appropriate location, however we recommend that this person interact closely with both admissions and the campus deans, particularly with respect to Recommendation #6.
(d) The Provost and Chancellor will make this service known to other campuses and constituencies throughout the state—including the legislature.
8.
Eliminate inconsistencies for students transferring to MU, students attempting to change majors at MU, and students appealing the enforcement of campus wide policies.
Action Steps :
14.
The Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies should assume the charge of identifying inconsistencies and recommending policy changes to the appropriate body, i.e., faculty council, undergraduate deans, or campus curriculum committee.
15.
Issues that need to be resolved include: (1) policies on how transfer courses are applied to a degree program or as a general education requirement, (2) policies on adding, dropping and withdrawing from a course, (3) level of enforcement of all policies across the divisions, (4) deadlines for transferring divisions, (5) purpose

of these deadlines, (6) degree and manner in which they are enforced, and (7) inconsistent policies on core course completion.
9.
Issues regarding general education requirements should be made the responsibility of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies.
Action Steps :
(a) The Vice Provost should work with appropriate groups on campus, i.e., CUE,
Undergraduate Deans, Campus Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and Faculty Council, to delineate carefully the role of each of these committees in resolving general education issues.
(b) All courses on campus should be identified as either a particular type of general education course or as an elective, and that this should be consistent across the campus.
(c) Three problematic areas on campus include CIP, WI and MRP requirements.
Clarification should be made on which of these requirements can and cannot be met by transfer courses and why.
(d) Divisions must continue to work with the Office of Admission and Provost’s Office to eliminate inconsistencies in the treatment of transfer credit toward general education requirements.
(e) Divisions must demonstrate progress in working with community colleges in establishing transfer agreements which identify the courses from the sending institution that will meet divisional degree requirements.
(f) All articulation agreements should be formally approved by the Office of the
Provost. Prior to such agreement, the Provost’s Office, appropriate Dean’s Office and Department Chair should be included in all discussions about possible new articulation programs. A list of all agreements should be regularly published in the catalog and available in the Office of the Registrar and Office of Admission.
(g) Computer proficiency should join English 20 and Math 10 as requirements in the first year, with appropriate assistance offered through the Student Success
Center staff and/or intervention teams.
10.
A greater effort should be made to share information in areas that affect incoming transfer students and students transferring divisions.
Action Steps :
(a) The Vice Provost for Enrollment Management should coordinate this information sharing and oversee the implementation of the other action steps listed under this recommendation.
(b) The MU undergraduate catalog should be redesigned to include this important information and to make it more user friendly for students seeking self-advising.
(c) Adequate resources need to be provided to ensure the appropriate software advising module remains current.

(d) Web format and content should be reviewed to insure that necessary information for transfer students is easily accessible.
(e) Academic program information with clearly defined course prerequisites should be made readily available to students. Informational sheets should be provided yearly by each division and placed in a publication that is updated each semester, such as the Schedule of Classes. This information should also be easily available on the web.
(f) The New Student Transfer Guide, prepared each fall and winter for dissemination to new transfer students should be given more support and attention. Specifically, it should be given the same level of care as we currently give to the booklet for new freshmen.
11.
A individual in the Provost’s Office should be given responsibility for coordinating and resolving issues related to advising and continually review, recommend changes and prepare strategies for implementation of changes.
Action Steps :
(a) The Vice Provost for Undergraduate Student Affairs should be given this responsibility.
(b) The Vice Provost should address the issues of the: (1) limited number of advisors to give personal attention to students, (2) limited incentives for faculty advisors and (3) limited faculty availability when school is not in session.
(c) For those for whom it is appropriate, faculty advising should be given more credence when it comes to promotion and tenure and annual evaluations. if the campus is truly interested in promoting and ensuring its success.
(d) Advising should be made available in all divisions for transfer applicants who have not yet been admitted to the university and to potential internal transfer applicants.
(e) Faculty should be encouraged to give graded assignments in the first six weeks in courses numbered 199 and below. Additionally, they should be encouraged to utilize a more consistent reporting of student progress within the first six weeks of class.
12.
Enhance retention efforts for transfers and provide incentives to appropriate units for assisting transfer students succeed.
Action Steps :
(a) The RAC model should include an incentive for the sending division to assist the transition of the student to a new division on campus.
(b) Consider implementation of a “leave of absence” category for students who are taking time off from school for appropriate reasons.
(c) Continue to develop the TRIG program, specifically targeting more TRIGS for transfer students enrolling in the winter semester for the first time.

(d) Continue Winter Welcome, especially the programming efforts for transfer students.
(e) Continue to examine the nature of Summer Welcome sessions that pertain to transfer students,
(f) Collect data on transfer students and implement a policy reflecting that data.
13.
Continue to identify and implement appropriate roles for the Student Success
Center to play in the recruitment, registration, advising and success of internal and external transfer students
Action Steps :
(a) The Office of the Provost review the following questions and implement appropriate action:
 What role should the Student Success Center play in advisor training, perhaps even campus-wide advisor training for professional and faculty advisors?
 What role should the Student Success Center play in information gathering on campus, perhaps including information from students who choose to leave the university?
 What role should the Student Success Center play in coordination of activities such as World of Business Day and World of Health Professions Day?
 Should the Student Success Center play an intervention role in working with students who are leaving the institution?
14.
The University should conduct more research on the problems and possible solutions to the problems posed by A+ schools, dual credit, course equivalencies, assessment of general education, and the course-numbering system.
Action Steps :
(a) Up-to-date information about the A+ program should be obtained and disseminated to the Enrollment Management Team, Associate Deans, Directors of Undergraduate Studies, academic advisors, and relevant faculty. In general, more knowledge about the A+ program, along with EMT's analysis of its impact, should be made available.
(b) The Enrollment Management Team should study recent reports on dual credit generated by the UM Office of Academic Affairs, collect other data as needed, and, in conjunction with appropriate committees, arrive at a policy for accepting dual credit coursework.
(c) Although the Assistant Director of Admissions and her staff have purview over determining course equivalencies, her office should be empowered to foster conversation between internal and/or external constituencies when discrepancies or complaints arise. When MU's course requirements are at odds with other institutions
(such as with first-year composition), diplomatic language should be provided by the department in question so that Admissions can offer a clear, justifiable expla-

nation. Such explanations should also appear on MU's website, be included in documents provided to transfer inquirers, and available to all academic advisors.
(d) The Committee on Undergraduate Education should revivify its Assessment subcommittee. Articulation between this subcommittee and the campus-wide Academic Assessment Committee should be strengthened. Alternative ways of assessing the impact of MU's General Education Program should be considered.
(e) The Office of the Provost should commission a Task Force charged with undertaking a comprehensive review of MU's course numbering system, with the goal of regularizing the current campus system.
15.
Additional information on students. . .beyond what is currently collected. .
.should be secured from students prior to their enrollment at MU.
Action Steps :
(a) The Office of Admissions, working closely with each individual college and/or professional school, should collect information from first time college students that will provide a better picture for effective student advisement. One example is a list of the students’ interests and areas of study in which they perform well.
(b) Advisors should utilize this information in advising course work for students new to MU
(c) Transfer students should provide test scores (ACT) in order to help advisors with their responsibilities.
16.
The university should implement a routine intervention process for courses that are identified as high-risk.
Action Steps :
(a) Student Information Systems should identify and provide to the Provost’s office a list of high-risk courses.
(b) The Provost, or a designee, should meet with the associate dean responsible for the classes on the list. Together, they should determine if the identified class(es) meet the high-risk criterion. The also should identify resources available to remove the class from the list, determine which strategies best address the issues related to the class in question, and develop a plan to remove the class from the list.
(c) The associate dean should meet with the appropriate department chair to develop a plan for improvement with assessable goals and performance reporting deadlines, and evaluation of the division’s progress in meeting its goals. Suggested interventions to be implemented include:
 A review of grading policies. Workshops and small group discussions that help faculty explain to students how grades are determined, e.g. normative vs.

criterion referenced grading and that describe for faculty the benefits and shortcomings of each.
 Workshops for teaching faculty that discuss alternative teaching resources.
 Encouragement of faculty to work with the Learning Center to develop weekly help sessions in support of the class curriculum.
 Encouragement of faculty to identify bright students with good communication skills as potential tutors and refer them to the Learning Center.
 Encouragement of faculty to (1) inform tutors of class goals and concepts to be reinforced, (2) encourage student participation in the sessions, and (3) reinforce and review concepts in class that are identified by the tutors as ones with which the class is struggling.
 Design and incorporate active learning components for high-risk classes.
Components could include: a) creating study groups and team work; b) developing and employing course management systems (e.g. Web CT, Blackboard), c) restructuring the class, and d) developing strategies that provide students with early and frequent feedback including feedback prior to midterm and the published drop date for the course. Faculty should review test results in a manner that promotes learning, and provide regular feedback to students about their individual performance in the class.
 Consulting PET and ET@MO in the redesign of class assignments, structuring presentations, defining learning goals for the course and matching teaching strategies to those goals, etc.
 Evaluate the level of academic challenge offered by the course. Examine the syllabus and course procedures to see if improvements can be made (see 3 below). Faculty and departments should be encouraged to look at the freshness of the class. Do lectures, assignments and tests change from semester to semester to keep students engaged in the class? Is poor performance based on lack of challenge caused by predictability of the class? Is the class teaching or expectation at too high a level for the type of course?
(d) The Learning Center should hire, train and supervise tutors, stay in touch with faculty members, and provide to them end-of-semester data on student performance related to Learning Center attendance.
(e) The Provost’s designee should encourage deans to develop procedures for good learning in all classes, not just high-risk courses. Such procedures might include:
 Defining and assessing student learning. Faculty should be encouraged to identify and articulate learning goals for their classes, to inform students of their expectations for students (including attendance, participation, the ability to display knowledge gained in tangible ways, the capacity to link concepts introduced early in class to issues discussed later, etc.), to design evaluation instruments that measure students mastery of the course goals, and to describe to students how and when they will be assessed.
 Taking class time to describe the purpose of the course, its content, how the teacher will present information (e.g. lecture, small group discussions, student presentations, with/without visual aids, etc.), and how student learning will be assessed.
 Providing early and continual opportunities for students to gauge their prob-

able success in a course, including sufficient information to evaluate the advisability of dropping a course before drop date. Feedback includes quizzes, graded assignments, and/or exam scores and information about relative class standing. Use of electronic grade books and/or electronic distribution of grades is encouraged, as are at least three assessments throughout the semester, given at regular intervals and with associated grades.
(f) The Office of Institutional Research or Student Information Systems should develop a set of standard procedures to evaluate the effect of High School Rank and standardized test scores on grades earned in specific classes. Trends that indicate probable student failure or a negative effect on retention should be followed and procedures to reduce them should be implemented. Advisors and/or automatic restrictions on enrollment should implement the recommendations.
(g) Each department should conduct written or verbal exit interviews (surveys) with students about the quality of their experience as part of the department’s assessment of the major and for program reviews.
(h) Math 5 should be offered three days per week at 1.5 hrs/day and continue to be offered as a three-credit class.
(i) The Provost should continuously stress the importance of teaching and learning.
17.
The University should encourage faculty to engage students outside of the classroom, making it an integral part of the teaching culture
Action Steps :
(a) The student Success Center should create a program to link undecided majors with “mentors”
(b) Department chairs should encourage faculty, especially those who teach large, introductory classes, to do everything possible to give early and frequent feedback to students and make the classroom and assignments as active and collaborative as possible. The Program for Excellence in Teaching should continue to offer assistance to faculty in this regard.
(c) Faculty at all levels should be encouraged to engineer serendipity. . . this means being open to student engagement, seeking it out, mentoring, advising and accommodating various learning styles in and out of the classroom. The Program for Excellence in Teaching should provide assistance to faculty who wish to improve in this area.
(d) Department chairs should provide faculty copies. . .or access to copies. . .of the publication, Know the Demographics Realities of Your Students .
(e) The office of Student Affairs should create and administer a survey designed to help faculty self-identify areas where they could help with student engagement.
(f) The Program for Excellence in Teaching should develop workshops to help set student engagement expectations at faculty orientation and other faculty workshops. These workshops should stress the importance of student engagement, making it a part of the culture.

(g) Questions dealing directly with student engagement should be added to the teaching evaluation surveys administered at the end of each semester.
(h) Involve departments in the orientation of new students. Departments could then explain how best to become engaged with their particular program.
(i) Consider establishing an experimental group advising session that would meet at least once each semester. The group would consist of approximately 20 students, a peer advisor, an academic advisor and a faculty/professional advisor.
(j) Examine the role of orientation and orientation-type courses, such as T42: Learning Strategies and the FIGs program in promoting the likelihood of student engagement
(k) Share “Best Practices” such as ones currently being used or implemented in the
College of Arts & Sciences and the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
(l) Those in charge of the FIGS program should continue to examine ways to expand and/or improve the current program.
The time lines for accomplishing the retention and graduation goals are clearly outlined in the recommendations pertaining to retention and graduation rates. It is perceived that implementation of the other recommendations can begin immediately and could be completed within a one-year period. . .with the exception of those recommendations which are obviously meant to be part of an ongoing process.
Steps that need to be taken in order to accomplish the recommendations are also clearly outlined for each recommendation, in the form of action steps. Where appropriate, the action steps identify recommended changes in individual responsibilities or organizational structure. The Subcommittee makes no other recommendations regarding organizational structure beyond those found in the action steps.
The Subcommittee anticipates that most of the recommendations can be handled without additional resources. This is because most of the action steps call for a clarification of responsibilities and/or re-ordering of priorities for existing people and programs.
Exceptions to this are Recommendations 7 and 15. . .which could require additional resources, primarily in the form of additional personnel.
The rationale for the recommendations is listed in each of the subcommittee reports that follow. Many of the reports have noted the resources that were used in developing their rationale. Additional resources beyond those included in the subcommittee reports follow the reports. A discussion of the rationale for the recommendations on the
RAC model is provided following the list of additional resources.

CHARGE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE: Address issues associated with General Education and its impact on student retention and graduation.
Committee Members:
Deborah Carr, Dan Hooley, Gil Porter (chair), Brenda Selman, TedTarkow, and Marty
Townsend
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND AGENTS INVOLVED IN PROBLEM-
SOLVING
External Transfers
The General Education Program at MU stresses teaching across the curriculum, integrates its components with academic majors, spreads coursework over all four years of the under-graduate curriculum, enjoys participation through course-delivery of over seventy percent of the regular faculty, and proudly displays its 1997 Theodore M. Hesburgh Award for outstanding undergraduate education. The Writing Intensive Program, the first component to be implemented in the General Education Program, has become a national model for teaching writing across the curriculum. The Campus Writing Program's workshops for WI instructional staff now attract faculty participants from colleges and universities across the nation.
MU must make clear to all its constituencies its pride in the quality of its general education and its receptiveness to qualified transfer students from sending institutions, especially within the state. We must be very explicit in explaining our 39-hour, generaleducation core based on a distribution model that assigns specific credit hours to course work in specific traditional disciplines and assures intellectual challenge and a strong foundation in the liberal arts and sciences.
Transfer students holding the AA degree will have satisfied all lower-division general-education requirements, but will be required to take the nine hours of upperdivision work also required of our native students. Those coming to MU without the AA degree will have their transcripts evaluated on a course-by-course basis. Our transfer policies are based on long experience, careful attention to the academic indicators of student success, and placement of students at appropriate levels of achievement and in programs compatible with their talents and aspirations.
Problem-Solving

Responsibility to communicate our policies clearly to sending institutions will fall heavily on the offices of Admissions, the University Registrar, Financial Aid, and the
General Education Program, as well as the advising staffs of the various academic units.
MU must increase the span of program-to-program articulation agreements with sending institutions and provide the staffing support necessary to establish and oversee these agreements. All MU publications that deal with transfer practices must state our position clearly, indicate that we value qualified transfer students, and pledge continued fair evaluation of credit and friendly, conscientious, individual treatment of all transfer students.
An example of a current effort includes the centralization of transfer credit, as being led by Barbara Rupp, Assistant Director of Admissions, and the ad hoc committee reviewing web-page content currently led by Ruth Wright, Director of Academic Advising for the College of Arts and Sciences.
Internal Transfer
We recognize the importance of creating clear communication and articulation for external transfers. Compelling evidence also indicates that internal transfer issues are just as serious and may have a greater impact on retention and graduation. Problem courses and divisional snags must be identified and corrected so that students may move smoothly from major to major or from division to division. During awkward periods of student transition (from the freshman to the sophomore year, for example, or at the start of the junior year when some students have difficulty qualifying for professional programs), we must anticipate problems and numbers of students likely to encounter difficulties and provide viable alternate plans that honor original intentions but recognize other ways of realizing them. Sensitive, informed, and authoritative advising will be essential at these critical junctures so that students can map new degree plans with the help of enlightened and experienced guides.
Problem-Solving
Barriers need to be identified and eliminated wherever possible. This will take support from the Provost’s office on down. Deans and associate deans will provide expertise and leadership in the cooperative effort to resolve all transfer problems that are resolvable, general education or otherwise.
Examples of current efforts include the work previously mentioned related to the centralization of transfer credit. This effort has identified many variations between academic units. In addition, a new ad hoc committee with members from all the academic units will begin review of the Undergraduate Catalog this month to identify barriers to both internal and external transferring and suggest methods of correction and improvement. This effort is being led by Brenda Selman.
The Student Success Center will be essential in this process, especially for undecided students. In fact, we recommend that a special unit in the SSC be designated to assist all students, internal and external, in the transferring process.

OTHER RELATED ISSUES
 Preparation of incoming freshmen from A+ schools
Issues of general preparedness for MU course work are of major concern.
Will the A+ programs increase numbers of community college transfers to MU with inadequate preparation for work here? More pertinent to the generaleducation architecture, how will coursework completed elsewhere integrate with our general-education requirements?
 Dual credit, first-year composition, WI courses, and transfer difficulties
Given the decision of two-year and our own sister institutions not to limit dual credit, MU may be faced with transfer student transcripts "loaded" with credit earned while students were in high school. MU is currently obliged to accept all credit endorsed by a sending institution; in order to maintain a strong and meaningful general-education program here, do we want to entertain the possibility of not allowing high school dual credit courses to satisfy general-education requirements or capping allowable credit and limiting the kinds of course work we will accept?
The mismatch between the two-course composition sequence common at most institutions with the one-course requirement at MU remains a problem, as does what many sending institutions consider MU's overly restrictive policy on accepting transferred WI credit. Better dissemination of MU policies and procedures for waiving one WI course might be helpful. What plans do we have for addressing this issue?
 Accommodation of learners with special needs and differing abilities
MU is a comprehensive university incorporating a wide range of student abilities. With respect to general-education requirements, can we investigate ways of heightening student "engagement" across this range? One possibility is to enhance a reward structure for especially good student work in general-education courses. Such recognition could include widely publicized awards for capstone projects, awards for undergraduate seminar projects, and the like. On the other side, we need workable ideas for helping to promote competencies of less wellprepared students within the framework of the General Education Program.
 Assessment of general education

Are there ways of getting more meaningful feedback about students' generaleducation experiences than the current instruments we are using? The Committee for
Undergraduate Education's interest in working with departments to establish facultyconducted exit interviews with graduating seniors will be a step in the right direction.
The data being gleaned from the NSSE materials will also be helpful.
 The proposed RAC model of funding as a threat to retention
The Resource Allocation Committee (RAC) scheme does not specifically address the issue of retention, except within degree programs (program money follows student participation). There is no incentive in the model to encourage cooperation in using courses developed by other academic units to meet generaleducation requirements. Instead, there may be incentives to create unique classes within an academic unit to attract students to generate more revenue. Thus, will program adjustments to accommodate RAC impinge negatively on retention? Is this a general-education issue?
 Definition of courses and classification of subject areas in general education for the MU Undergraduate Catalog
CUE has been working with departments to define general education courses that satisfy requirements in the distribution-of-content area and to place them in appropriate subject categories. Now in its third round of revision, this list should be ready for publication by the GEP in time for Summer Welcome 2002.
The information will be available in the University Catalog at the next regular publication date.
 Renumbering of courses for clarity and uniformity
Erratic course numbering has been a problem at MU for some time, creating difficulties in distinguishing lower-division from upper-division courses and undergraduate from graduate courses. Lack of uniformity in the numbering system also complicates evaluation of transferred credit. For example, some academic units have accepted a course as fulfilling a general-education requirement with an upper-level identifier, but then refused to allow it to be
“counted’ as an upper-level course for their students. Such inconsistencies are exacerbated by the current numbering system.
(h) Timeline for enrollment-management improvements

The Enrollment Management Team should recommend a time frame for implementation of desired changes. Here expedition must be balanced by deliberation.
Problem-Solving
(f) These areas will require the attention of the campus at large, but led by the Enrollment Management team. It is important that all involved in the reform effort take on what is doable and viable and demonstrably better than current practice and not seek change just for the sake of change.
(g) Higher Administration, working with faculty, needs to provide an unambiguous vision of what kind of university MU is going to be--how big, how exclusive, how expensive, how responsive to student needs, etc. A clear, consistent vision is necessary to shape and guide our collective efforts in addressing the improvement of retention and graduation rates and related issues.
SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE'S MAIN
RECOMMENDATIONS
 Clear communication of MU transfer policies by administrators, staff members of all offices that deal with incoming transfer students, faculty, and in all MU publications designed for sending institutions.
ACTION STEPS:
* The Chancellor and the Provost co-sign a letter to the CAOs of all Missouri institutions of higher education expressing the MU vision of general education and our pride in our current program and indicating our genuine interest to attract and serve fairly all qualified transfer students with an interest in the diverse programs available in a Research I university.
(i) The Vice Provost, the Director of the General Education Program, and, perhaps, selected Associate Deans and Advisors visit main sending institutions in Missouri to mend fences and explain our current transfer policies.
(j) Directors of Undergraduate Studies in all departments take the lead in initiating new program-to-program articulation agreements. Deans fund these new programs.
 Improved cooperation between the Office for Admissions and the deans and department chairs to identify and rectify current barriers to smooth internal transfer of students between departments and divisions.
ACTION STEPS:

* The Vice Provost requests, from each division, an Associate Dean, Advisor or
Director of Undergraduate studies to work collaboratively with the Office for
Admissions to identify transition barriers that prevent smooth internal transfer of students between departments and divisions. The identified individual will be responsible for collecting and forwarding internal transfer information to the Office for Admissions.
 Each department and division reviews current programs of study and identifies the current requirements that have proved to be consistently problematic for internal transfer students. A report of this internal review is forwarded to the Office for Admissions.
 The Office of Admissions reviews the departmental/divisional reports and generates a list of barriers. This list can be ranked by frequency (e.g. General
Education requirements, prerequisite courses required for professional standing).
 The Office of Admissions sends a copy of this report to each division representative for review.
* The Vice Provost requests that each division develop a plan, based on the collective findings of the internal review, to rectify current barriers that prevent smooth internal transfer.
 Each division develops a plan in regards to each internal barrier. This plan can include alternative options for internal transfer students, or specifically justify why certain requirements are necessary for successful completion of a given program.
 Establishment of a special unit in the Student Success Center to serve both internal and external transfer students.
ACTION STEPS
*The Provost funds and designates a single individual, perhaps someone already involved in transfer issues, who would function as a “one-stop” ombudsperson for all internal and external transfer questions and issues. This person, called our Transfer
Advisor (or something similar), would chiefly act as a resource for students intending to transfer to MU or intending to transfer to division on campus.
*This transfer resource person, while able to answer transfer questions from faculty and staff, would chiefly serve students, answering questions, mediating transfer prob-

lems, putting them in touch with the right people. The Student Success Center seems the appropriate location.
*We recommend that this person interact closely with both admissions and the campus deans, particularly in respect to item 2 above.
*The Provost and Chancellor will make this service known to other campuses and constituencies throughout the state—including the legislature, which has been critical of transfer complications at MU. The point is to facilitate the transfer process for students, and to make that service widely known to potential transfer students and their families.
 More involvement of faculty with students outside the classroom in service or social activities to enhance student engagement. Such co-curricular interaction is important for the retention of all students but especially for those who are undecided on a major or struggling with the demands of university life.
 Residential Life should explore creative ways to expand the offering of
FIGS so that all interested students are assigned to one.
 FIGS should be extended to a second semester for students interested in continuing with an academic support group
 The Student Success Center should create a program to link undecided majors with “mentor” faculty in small groups and/or one-on-one through out the academic year to increase the bond between undecided students and faculty.
 Creation of an early warning system and academic intervention teams to identify and assist students who are at risk academically.
ACTION STEPS
* “At-risk students” need to be defined and identified. The committee identifies three groups of at-risk students:
 Students in the fourth quartile of advising groups who gain admission to the university
 Students with low grades at mid-semester
 Students on probation at the end of the semester
* Plans for meeting the needs of these groups of students must be developed, with proactive strategies designed for the first group, and reactive interventions for the remaining two groups.
* Intervention teams comprised of a professional advisor, a faculty member, and an upper-division student should be formed to advise any student defined as at-

risk. Teams need training to counsel students, advise on courses, and make appropriate referrals. The training for these teams could be coordinated by the Student Success Center staff.
* Students in the fourth quartile of advising groups who gain admission to the university should be required to take T-42, enroll in a FIGS group, and/or be assigned to an intervention team.
* Computer proficiency should join English 20 and Math 10 as requirements
in the first year, with appropriate assistance offered through the Student Success Center staff and/or intervention teams.
 More research on the problems and possible solutions to the problems posed by
A+ schools, dual credit, course equivalencies, assessment of general education, and the course-numbering system.
ACTION STEPS
Up-to-date information about the A+ program should be obtained and disseminated to the Enrollment Management Team, Associate Deans, Directors of Undergraduate Studies, academic advisors, and relevant faculty. In general, more knowledge about the A+ program, along with EMT's analysis of its impact, should be made available.
The Enrollment Management Team should study recent reports on dual credit generated by the UM Office of Academic Affairs, collect other data as needed, and, in conjunction with appropriate committees, arrive at a policy for accepting dual credit coursework.
Although the Assistant Director of Admissions (see page 2) and her staff have purview over determining course equivalencies, her office should be empowered to foster conversation between internal and/or external constituencies when discrepancies or complaints arise. When MU's course requirements are at odds with other institutions (such as with first-year composition), diplomatic language should be provided by the department in question so that Admissions can offer a clear, justifiable explanation. Such explanations should also appear on MU's website, be included in documents provided to transfer inquirers, and available to all academic advisors.
The Committee on Undergraduate Education should revivify its Assessment subcommittee. Articulation between this subcommittee and the campus-wide Academic Assessment Committee should be strengthened. Alternative ways of assessing the impact of MU's General Education Program should be considered.

The Office of the Provost should commission a Task Force charged with undertaking a comprehensive review of MU's course numbering system, with the goal of regularizing the current campus system.

CHARGE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE: Address advising issues (especially for transfers, undecided and those changing majors)
Committee Members:
Deborah Carr, Michael Devaney, Michael Prewitt, David Rielley, Barbara Rupp
(chair), Brenda Selman, Ted Tarkow, Ruth Wright.
Introduction:
The format of this report is the following:
I.
List of previous committee reports over last decade relevant to this topic.
II.
Recommendations of these past committees and the current status of those issues.
III.
Recommended actions to be taken and appropriate position responsible for coordinating those efforts and performing annual review.
I. Previous related committee reports: i
Many committees have looked closely at advising issues, including issues specific to transfer students. Some of the Committees whose work seemed most pertinent to our group included:
1993: Report of the Provost’s Task Force on Undergraduate Advisement
1996: The CQI Educational Planning Committee’s Report on MU’s System of Academic
Advising
1997: The Student Affairs Strategic Planning Document
1998: The Undergraduate Deans’ Retention Subcommittee for Issues Affecting
Academic Retention for First-Year Students
1998: The Report of the Subcommittee on Retention of the Enrollment Management Task
Force
1999: Minutes from the MU Council on Retention
1998-1999: MU Advising Improvements In-Process – Retention Council
2001: Faculty Council recommendation to increase admission requirements for incoming transfer students
II. Previous Observations/Recommendations and Current Status:
While the mission and scope of these committees varied, all dealt with aspects of advising. Our current subcommittee noted the overlap of these committees and of some of the similarities of their recommendations. We have elected to recount some of these recommendations and evaluate the current status of those recommendations.
A) (1993, Provost’s Task Force on Undergraduate Advisement) “A successful advising program for MU should included the following elements:
- strong administrative support

- institutional policy recognizing the centrality of advisors/advising
- recognition/reward system
- selection of advisors based on specific and rational criteria
- professional development opportunities to enhance advisement
- advising handbook
- information about advisees readily available to advisors
- frequent and high quality contact (advisor/student)
- ongoing evaluation
- appropriate delivery system”
Current Status :
Administrative support for advising has improved, evidenced by efforts toward more recognition of advisors and work on an evaluation system that includes annual review and longitudinal tracking. With the help of a very active
Advisors Forum there has been progress in raising professional status of advisors on campus. This has also been made possible through both fiscal and attitudinal support from the Provost’s office.
There is now a brochure distributed to students and families during Summer
Welcome, which includes information on rights and responsibilities of the advisee and information on advising processes.
With the recent more consistent use of Mizzou email addresses, information is now flowing to students in a more consistent, timely manner. There is also now greater use of departmental electronic distribution lists to get information to students in a timely manner.
There are still remaining issues surrounding recognition/reward, opportunities for professional development at the national level, advisor/student ratio in some academic units and ongoing evaluations. However, the Provost’s office
(2001-2002) has been collecting and summarizing what each division is doing regarding evaluations.
B) (1993, Provost’s Task Force on Undergraduate Advising) “…advisors must have the time to devote to helping students identify goals and capabilities, make decisions and plans, and assess and reassess progress. Accordingly:
-
No more than 300 students should be assigned to a full-time professional advisor and no more than 20 students should be assigned to a full-time faculty member with normal teaching and research expectations.
-
Advisors must have office hours sufficient to accommodate the needs of students assigned.
-
Students must be taught how to make effective use of advising sessions.
-
The campus must devote resources to address advising needs of students when the advisor is unavailable. Backup advisement should be available when needed.”
Current Status: There has been an increase in the number of professional advisors in Arts & Science, Education, Health Professions and Journalism, reducing the advisor workload in those academic units. The advisor/advisee ratio of 1:300 is much closer in many academic units on campus than in 1993. There is now information available to advisees on the web and in print regarding their respon-

sibilities in an advising relationship. One important achievement is the development of the Student Success Center, which opened in the summer of 2001.
This Center, comprised of Academic Exploration and Advising, Academic Retention Services, Career Center and the Learning Center, allows for collaborative programming among these four units. Additionally the Center is designed to make appropriate referrals across the campus. The opening of the SSC in a central location on campus was a very important step in making advising more visible and more readily available on campus.
C) (1996, the CQI Educational Planning Committee Report on Academic
Advising) “…advising is too often uneven, indifferent, or inadequate and thus a frequent source of student frustration and academic confusion.”
Current Status : “Uneven” advising is still an issue, in part because of expectations of both faculty and professional advisors. However, most feel that there has been some progress in distinguishing what can be reasonably expected of professional and faculty advisors and the most appropriate role for each.
“Academic confusion” is still an issue because of inconsistencies in academic policies. There was a general consensus among members of the committee as well as a number of members of the Advisors’ Forum that there were inconsistencies that created inappropriate obstacles for students transferring to MU and students attempting to change majors at MU. These inconsistencies include policies on adding, dropping and withdrawing from a course, as well as enforcement of the policies. There are also inconsistencies in the deadlines for transferring divisions, and the purpose of these deadlines.
Following constructive conversation across divisions on campus there has been some reduction of “red-tape” in transferring divisions. (Transfer of Division forms now only require one signature, rather than requiring that the student obtain several signatures prior to submitting their request.) Certainly, the current work of the Provost appointed web and divisional policy committee, still in progress, is reducing inconsistencies, redundancies, and errors in information and procedural difficulties both on the web and across divisions and departments.
D) (1996, CQI Educational Planning Committee Report on Academic Advising)
“Goal: To develop optimal educational planning, especially with reference to the availability of necessary courses and patterns of course-sequencing. Recommendation: Create a University Council on Advisement to serve as a steering committee, working with the director and support staff in coordinating advising activities in the various divisions and encouraging reasonable and consistent advising procedures across divisions and oversight of campus-wide advising activities.”
Current Status : With the progress of centralization of transfer credit evaluations in the Office of Admissions, there is now greater efficiency and consistency in handling evaluation of credit earned elsewhere. By centralizing transfer credit evaluations, the campus has made some important strides toward responding more quickly to transfer applicants so that they are better informed at the time they first register for classes. Centralizing the transfer credit process has also

unearthed and subsequently resolved some (not all) of the inconsistent transfer credit practices across the campus.
A second accomplishment is that an Advisory Committee for the Student Success Center was created in FS2001. It is a large committee representing all constituents of undergraduate programs, i.e., students, advisors, faculty and administrators from all undergraduate divisions. This committee is charged with developing “recommendations for the ongoing planning and development of the SSC and recommendations for strategies, actions and procedures to accomplish SSC goals.” An academic advising subcommittee will begin addressing advising issues in January 2002.
Third, as of Winter 2002, the campus is piloting a Winter Welcome that is targeted toward incoming transfer students. This is an important accomplishment as studies have shown that students starting in January have a significantly higher attrition rate than students starting in a Fall semester.
A continued concern is that there is no consistent campus-wide policy on issues related to class availability, including wait listing, priorities for subsequent semester registrations, or identification of alternatives. There is no real consistency (nor published info) on course over-ride policies. There is no central or electronic location to advertise classes not in the original schedule of courses. There is a lack of full collaboration across the departments in scheduling needed courses for a given program.
Lastly, departments do not all individually notify enrolled students when a course is cancelled or the time/place of the class change.
E) (1996, CQI Educational Planning Committee) “Goal: To develop strategies for effective advising and enrollment management. Recommendations: Establish an
Advising Center in an appropriate centrally located space, where the director of advisement and the advising staff working with the University Council on Advisement and all divisions will assume responsibility to:
assist undecided students
assist any student who chooses the Advising Center
assist undecided students whose interest spans more than one MU school or college
assist students who have not made realistic academic decisions
assist students who have not met upper-division or special admission criteria
assist students who might otherwise leave MU because they think rejection by a professional program has left them no future here.”
Current Status : While the Student Success Center is not a one-stop-shop, it does serve many undecided students, including transfer students who have not yet determined their most appropriate major and prospective internal and external transfer students. They also work with numerous students whose goals were either unrealistic or have not yet been met.
F) (1997, Student Affairs Strategic Planning Document) “Objective Four: Substantially increase the retention and graduation rate for undergraduate students. Activities for achieving this objective: [not all included here]
-
Substantially improve advising services, particularly for undecided students

-
Develop a strategy to ensure effective, vibrant teaching in lower division courses…”
“Construct a Student Success Center that provides integrated academic support programs and services for freshmen and sophomores.”
Current Status : The SSC provides many integrated support services for underclassmen, including offering three new courses: Career Explorations (A170),
Learning Strategies (T42), and Orientation to Arts and Science Education. The
SSC is also offering 7 different workshops for students throughout the Winter
2002 semester, including “Preparing for Tests”, “Creating and Working with and Academic Plan”, and additional programs.
G) (1998, Undergraduate Deans’ Retention Subcommittee for Issues Affecting Advising) “Given the variety of reasons students cite for leaving MU without a degree and the individual nature of that decision process, no single intervention is likely to provide the outcome we desire. Any successful Plan will of necessity therefore rely on multiple interventions.”
Current Status : We still lack sufficient data on the reasons student leave MU so there has not been much headway on creating multiple interventions. No plan has been adopted at the present time to collect the data.
H) (1998, Undergraduate Deans’ Retention Subcommittee for Issues Affecting Advising) “Ruth Wright has established a pilot peer mentor program for entering transfer students in Arts and Science. An entering transfer student from a community college is paired with a successful residential transfer student from the same community college. We recommend that MU consider replicating this program on a wider scale…”
Current Status : This was regarded as a good program, but was discontinued due to lack of resources. It proved to be very labor intensive and costly.
I) (1998, Undergraduate Deans’ Retention Subcommittee for Issues Affecting Advising) “MU should establish a permanent Chancellor’s Task Force on Graduation
(The Happy Graduate Committee?). …”Retention/graduation is the responsibility of the entire campus community. Thus the Task Force should be a broad-based partnership of all stakeholders in the creation of “happy graduates”, with strong representation from both the academic community and Student Affairs.”
Current Status : There have been efforts begun but not completed, as reflected in the historical perspective. Nothing has progressed in a consistent manner on this issue.
J) (1998, Report of the Subcommittee on Retention to Enrollment Management Task
Force) “The undergraduate deans, working with the appropriate faculty, should also look for ways to ease internal transfers for students, those with grades less than 2.0, who have made the “wrong” enrollment decisions…”
Current Status: As recently as the end of the Fall, 2001 semester, the College of Arts and Science has attempted to facilitate the continued enrollment of students at MU who, while making some progress towards a degree, will

clearly be better served by reexamining personal and academic goals and exploring alternative degree options. Since 1999, the College has allowed students who have met three of four criteria (satisfactory completion of English
20, satisfactory completion of Math 10, 2.00 term gpa, 2.00 cum. gpa) to be admitted; the clear expectation given these students is that they explore other options, both in and outside A&S, that are consistent with their prior academic strengths and with their projected career or professional goals. Other students are admitted if the two deans agree that doing so is appropriate and is in the institution's best interest. While such a policy is in line with the mission of a College of Arts and Science, discussions should commence with other divisions that have 2.00 admission requirements for the majority of degree programs in the hope that this policy could be more consistent. Further, all divisions should participate in discussions around selected academic or professional themes (the "World of Business" model is an excellent starting point) that include majors offered by a variety of MU divisions.
K) (1999, Minutes from MU Council on Retention) “Provide students with information on alternatives to their chosen major to help them be retained at MU after a separation from their current college.”
Current Status : Information sharing and availability remains an issue, but there are some signs of improvement. ASP personnel are currently working on a PeopleSoft advising module that is said to be comparable to DARWIN, but a demo is not yet available. There is also currently a new catalog committee, chaired by the University Registrar, looking at a complete re-design of the catalog that will include more information on what general education requirements are fulfilled by each course per academic unit. Lastly, there is also a new committee, chaired by Ruth Wright, looking at revisions to web sites that will enhance the ability of students to find necessary information on the web.
L) (1999, Retention Task Force) “Goals: Achieve a first-year retention rate of 85% within five years. Achieve a graduation rate of 60-65% within ten years. Recommendations: [not all included here]
-
Develop a training program for freshmen and sophomore advisors and for support personnel who interact frequently with freshmen and sophomores.
Establish a dropout detection, monitoring, and intervention program.
-
Establish a data collection system on student attrition.
-
Ensure that the reward structure at MU reflects a campus-wide retention priority.
Current Status : There have been some gains in the development of training programs. For example, in the College of Arts & Science there is now a series of workshops related to advising for faculty, GTAs and support staff held every year. Additionally, across divisions there is now an increased role of advisors in training CA’s and PA’s across the campus. There have also been discussions of the SSC providing training for advisors, both faculty and professional, for the campus.

The early detection efforts have not yet succeeded, due in part to teaching style of some faculty who do not give exams prior to mid-semester, to inconsistent reporting of D and F grades, and to differing advisor responses to those alerts.
M) (1998-99) “[MSA has] concluded that the following items are among those that need to be addressed:
-
The degree audit forms need to be redesigned to be more user friendly.
There should be simple checklists available for planning coursework and to explain requirements.
-
Current and complete information should be available on the web.
Information should be available without an appointment or days of waiting.
-
Extra availability of advising assistance is needed during pre-registration periods.
Current status : There has been very little progress on the degree audit, but some academic units now have checklists for students to use to plan their program. There is a committee looking at the information available on the web (see item K).
N) (Faculty Council, May, 2001) “The goal of the policy is for transfer students to success at MU and be retained and graduated at a rate comparable to native students.”
-
“Transfer applicants not from other UM campuses, with up to 24 hours of college credit are eligible for admission if they have a 2.75 GPA and have completed either the equivalent of Math 10 or English 20 with a C or better
(…Math 80 …if an Engineering applicant).
-
“Transfer applicants, not from other UM campuses, with 60 or more hours must have a 2.5 GPA and have completed the equivalent of Math 10 and English 20, with a C or better (…Math 80…if Engineering) or have an AA degree.”
Current Status: Policy was passed by Faculty Council but has not been implemented on campus. Being reviewed by Office of Provost.
III. Subcommittee Recommendations:
The following are the subcommittee’s recommended actions. Additionally, we recommend and annual review of progress on these recommendations by the Enrollment Management Committee.
A.) Inconsistencies with academic policies:
There remain some serious inconsistencies in policy and procedure that have created inappropriate obstacles for students transferring to MU, students attempting to change majors at MU, and students appealing the enforcement of campus wide policies. The subcommittee recommends that the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies assume the charge of identifying inconsistencies and recommending policy changes to the appropri-

ate body, i.e., faculty council, undergraduate deans, or campus curriculum committee.
Some of the issues that need to be resolved include:
 policies on how transfer courses are applied to a degree program or as a general education requirement (see item B).
 policies on adding, dropping and withdrawing from a course.
 level of enforcement all policies across the divisions.
 deadlines for transferring divisions
 purpose of these deadlines and degree and manner in which they are enforced.
 inconsistent policies on core course completion.
All of these inconsistencies continue to hinder the smooth transition of transfer students to and within the institution.
B.) General Education Issues:
The subcommittee recommends that issues regarding general education requirements be the responsibility of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Instruction, who should work with appropriate groups on campus, i.e., CUE, Undergraduate Deans, Curriculum Committee and Faculty Council, to delineate carefully the role of each of these committees in resolving general education issues. The VP for Instruction and the appropriate committee should review the following issues and make recommendations for the campus:
 All courses on campus should be identified as either a particular type of general education course or as an elective, and that this should be consistent across the campus.
 Three problematic areas on campus include CIP, WI and MRP requirements. There needs to be clarification on which of these requirements can and cannot be met by transfer courses and why.
 Divisions must continue to work with the Office of Admission and Provost’s Office to eliminate inconsistencies in the treatment of transfer credit toward general education requirements.
 Divisions must demonstrate progress in working with community colleges in establishing transfer agreements which identify the courses from the sending institution that will meet divisional degree requirements. This is especially important in light of the campus decision to not support the state-wide general education block, as well as the increasing numbers of A+ program students. This effort will help ensure that transfer student expectations are realized and it will enhance the value of their prior work.
 All articulation agreements should be formally approved by the Office of the Provost.
Prior to such agreement, the Provost’s Office, appropriate Dean’s Office and Department
Chair should be included in all discussions about possible new articulation programs. A list of all agreements should be regularly published in the catalog and available in the Office of the Registrar and Office of Admission.
C.) Information Sharing and Availability:
The Vice Provost for Enrollment Management should coordinate information sharing on campus in areas that greatly affect incoming transfer students and students transferring divisions. These areas include:
 The choice of DARS or DARWIN or PeopleSoft Advising module has important implications, but whatever system is adopted there must be sufficient resources to ensure that the system is and remains current.

 The MU undergraduate catalog needs to be redesigned, as content is lacking enough valuable information and format is not user friendly for students seeking self-advising.
 Web format and content needs to be reviewed. Many transfer students have expectations of information that should be available on the web and expect that information to be easily accessible.
 Academic program information with clearly defined course prerequisites needs to be readily available to students. This committee recommends that these informational sheets be provided yearly by each division and placed in a publication that is updated each semester, such as the Schedule of Classes. This information should also be easily available on the web.
 The New Student Transfer Guide, prepared each fall and winter for dissemination to new transfer students needs more support and attention. We need to give the same level of care toward preparation of this booklet as we give to the booklet for new freshmen.
NOTE: Currently committees looking at DARS, the college catalog and web issues are making some gains with accurate and available information sharing. However, efforts must be taken to ensure that there is continued progress in these areas and stated expectations for outcomes for the committees examining those issues. These issues are of special significance to transfers to and within the institution, in part because they have already completed a number of college credits and this availability of information is especially important in their planning their upcoming college semesters.
D.) Faculty Advising and professional advising:
The Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies should be responsible for coordinating and resolving issues related to advising and continually review, recommend changes and prepare strategies for implementation of any changes. The following items are some that are in need of review by the Vice Provost and appropriate campus representatives:
 There are still too few advisors to give personal attention to students, limited incentives for faculty advisors and limited faculty availability when school is not in session.
 For those for whom it is appropriate, faculty advising should be given more credence when it comes to promotion and tenure and annual evaluations if the campus is truly interested in promoting and ensuring its success.
 There needs to be more training for faculty across the divisions. Training across the campus is currently inconsistent. Many transfer students are especially interested in speaking to faculty in their area of interest and seeking advising from them.
 Advising needs to be available in all divisions for transfer applicants who have not yet been admitted to the university and to potential internal transfer applicants. Transfer applicants frequently need advising information before they can make an informed decision on the transfer process. This kind of advising goes beyond what is available in the admissions office as it is typically centered around specific degree and general education requirements for a particular division.
 Sound advising requires information on the progress of the student being available to the student and the advisor. Faculty need to give graded assignments in the first six weeks in courses numbered 199 and below. Additionally, need to participate in a more consistent reporting of progress within the first 6 weeks of class.

E.) Incentives for retaining transfer students and students who are transferring divisions and ability for transfer students to succeed.
Retention needs to be made a part of everyone’s concern on campus and the responsibility for involving all constituents should reside with the Office of the Provost. The campus needs to work together to ensure that students who are transferring to MU are more likely to be retained. Further, and just as important, the campus needs all academic units to be involved in an effort to assist students in choosing alternate majors without undue obstacles. Transfer applicants to the campus need to have the best opportunities to succeed, including adequate preparation. Issues that involve retention of transfer students to and within the institution include:
 Make retention a part of the RAC model that is scheduled for implementation on campus.
 The RAC model should include an incentive for the sending division to assist the transition of the student to a new division on campus.
 Consider implementation of a “leave of absence” category for students who are taking some time off from school for good reasons. This would help keep the student in the loop of information from their division, and help them continue to feel more connected to the campus in their absence.
 Develop a comprehensive plan for collection of data on students who are leaving the institution and a plan to use that data for future retention efforts.
 Continue to develop the TRIG program, specifically targeting more TRIGS for transfer students enrolling in the winter semester for the first time.
 Continue Winter Welcome, especially the programming efforts for transfer students.
 Continue to examine the nature of Summer Welcome sessions that pertain to transfer students.
 Whether or not the transfer admission policy, as passed by Faculty Council, is implemented is less important than revising and strengthening the transfer admission policy.
Data gathered over the years points to the wisdom of such a decision. Collect the available data on transfer students and implement a policy reflecting that data.
The Office of the Provost needs to continue to identify and implement the appropriate role of the Student Success Center in the recruitment, registration, advising and success of internal and external transfer students. Issues that should be reviewed immediately by the Provost’s Office include:
 What role should the Student Success Center play in advisor training, perhaps even campus-wide advisor training for professional and faculty advisors?
 What role should the Student Success Center play in information gathering on campus, perhaps including information from students who choose to leave the university?
 What role should the Student Success Center play in coordination of activities such as
World of Business Day and World of Health Professions Day?
 Should the Student Success Center play an intervention role in working with students who are leaving the institution?

CHARGE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE: Address high-risk classes.
Committee Members:
Joe Camille, Lori Franz, Kim Humphrey, Jay McGarraugh, Pat Schwartz, John Spencer,
Bonnie Zelenak (Chair)
RECOMMENDATION: The committee on high-risk classes recommends that the Provost implement a process to intervene with deans and department chairs to improve teaching and learning at MU, targeting classes with high D and F rates.
High-risk classes, for the purpose of this report, are defined as follows: classes that appear for two consecutive semesters on one of two lists compiled by Student Information
Systems. These lists include the following information:
1. Classes with at least 20% of students receiving Ds and Fs, including W/Passing, listed in declining order by number of students enrolled.
2. Classes with at least 50 students receiving Ds and Fs including W/Passing, listed in declining order by number of students enrolled.
(This committee reviewed data for fall 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 and determined that 5-
10 classes are likely to appear on the lists when at least 50 students are required for inclusion; another, larger group of classes appears when a minimum number of students is not required.)
The recommended procedures to be followed, once high-risk classes are identified, follow:
Each year, at the conclusion of fall semester, Student Information Systems will provide to the Provost, or his designee, a list of high-risk classes, as defined above. The Provost will implement a routine intervention consisting of the following:
1.
The Provost, or his designee, meet with the associate dean responsible for the classes on the list.
2.
The Provost’s designee and associate dean identify resources available to remove the class from the list, determine which strategies best address the issues related to the class in question, and develop a plan to remove the class from the list. They: a) determine whether the identified class(es) meet the “high-risk” criterion. If so, they and the appropriate department chair b) develop a plan for improvement with assessable goals and performance reporting deadlines, and c) evaluate the divi-

sion’s progress in meeting its goals. Among the recommended interventions to be implemented are:
--A review of grading policies. Workshops and small group discussions that help faculty explain to students how grades are determined, e.g. normative vs. criterion referenced grading and that describe for faculty the benefits and shortcomings of each.
--Teaching faculty. Discuss alternative teaching resources.
--Learning Center (LC) weekly sessions. (Data reveal that regular participation in Learning Center sessions for specific classes improves students' grades.). Deans encourage faculty who teach designated classes to work with Learning Center staff to develop help sessions in support of the class curriculum. Faculty identify bright students with good communication skills as potential tutors and refer them to the LC, inform tutors of class goals and concepts to be reinforced, encourage student participation in the sessions, and receive from the tutors feedback about particularly difficult concepts with which the class is struggling. Faculties reintroduce and review these concepts as they become aware of students’ difficulties. The LC hires, “trains,” and supervises tutors, stays in touch with faculty members and provides to them end-of-semester data on student performance related to LC attendance.
--Active engagement in student learning. Suggest that the department facilitate the design of active learning components for high-risk classes.
Components could include: a) creating study groups and team work; b) developing and employing course management systems (e.g. Web CT,
Blackboard), c) restructuring the class, and d) developing strategies that provide students with early and frequent feedback including feedback prior to mid-term and the published “drop date” for the course. Faculty should review test results in a manner that promotes learning, and provide regular feedback to students about their individual performance in the class.
--PET and ET@MO might be consulted in the redesign of class assignments, structuring presentations, defining learning goals for the course and matching teaching strategies to those goals, etc.
--Evaluate the level of academic challenge offered by the course. Examine the syllabus and course procedures to see if improvements can be made (see 3 below). Faculty and departments should be encouraged to look at the “freshness” of the class. Do lectures, assignments and tests change from semester to semester to keep students engaged in the class?
Is poor performance based on lack of challenge caused by predictability

of the class? Is the class teaching or expectation at too high a level for the type of course?
3.
In addition, the Provost’s designee encourages deans to develop procedures for good learning in these and all other classes. Such procedures might include:
--Defining and assessing student learning. Faculty should be encouraged to identify and articulate learning goals for their classes, to inform students of their expectations for students (including attendance, participation, the ability to display knowledge gained in tangible ways, the capacity to link concepts introduced early in class to issues discussed later, etc.), to design evaluation instruments that measure students’ mastery of the course goals, and to describe to students how and when they will be assessed. Taking class time to describe the purpose of the course, its content, how the teacher will present information (e.g. lecture, small group discussions, student presentations, with/without visual aids, etc.), and how student learning will be assessed promotes deeper understanding among students and it engages them in the teaching-learning dialog.
The process forces implicit faculty assumptions about teaching and learning to the foreground; it requires the simple description of difficult concepts.
--Continuous course grade availability. Students need early and frequent feedback. Faculty should provide early and continual opportunities for students to gauge their probable success in a course, including sufficient information to evaluate the advisability of dropping a course before drop date.
Feedback includes quizzes, graded assignments, and/or exam scores and information about relative class standing. Use of electronic grade books and/or electronic distribution of grades is encouraged, as are at least three assessments throughout the semester, given at regular intervals and with associated grades.
--Placement. Students whose incoming high school rank (HSR) and standardized scores indicate probable difficulty in specific types of classes should be restricted from taking those classes their first semester. (A review of institutional data is needed to make this work.) The Office of
Institutional Research or Student Information Systems should develop a set of standard procedures to evaluate the effect of HSR and standardized test scores on grades earned in specific classes. Trends that indicate probable student failure or a negative effect on retention should be followed and procedures to reduce them should be implemented. Advisors and/or automatic restrictions on enrollment should implement the recommendations
--Exit interviews/surveys. Each department should conduct written or verbal exit interviews (surveys) with students about the quality of their

experience as part of the department’s assessment of the major and for program reviews.
In addition to these recommendations, the committee believes that the Provost should continuously stress the importance of teaching and learning. Student engagement indicators provided by NESE indicate that students rate MU low. Engagement occurs in the classroom; relationships between students and faculty must be honored and valued for their importance to the growth of our undergraduates. Faculty must believe that their teaching role is genuinely valued, recognized, and rewarded by the administration.

CHARGE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE: Recommend optimal target for undergraduate student retention and graduation rates without compromising quality.
Committee Members :
Andrew Beckett, Kim Humphrey; Cathy Scroggs (Chair) ; John Stowe; Ruth Wright
Introduction
MU Strategic Plan states in Goal 2, Objective 6 that we will:
 Increase the graduation rate for MU students from the current 5-year rate of 58% to 65% by 2003.
Goal 4, Objective 1 indicates:
 Develop a comprehensive enrollment management plan that focuses on recruiting, retaining, and graduating both undergraduate and graduate students
Current Context
 In 1993, a retention task force recommended to the Provost that “within the five years MU should aim for a first-year retention rate of 85% and within the next ten years a 60-65% graduation rate.” The retention rate for freshmen in 2001 is 84% and the six-year graduation rate for freshmen is 65%.
 Although MU’s retention and graduation rates have improved, they are still below our comparator institutions, and MU is ranked 23 among the 30 AAU public institutions in both six year graduation rates and in sophomore and junior retention rates.
 There is a financial benefit for increased freshman retention. Each 1% increase in the freshman retention rate translates into $800,000.
 Number of FTC Fall 2001 – 4167.
 Average ACT for Fall 2001 – 25.6
 The average GPA of students who withdraw is 2.5.

Influences on retention
 Women are more likely to graduate than men, and this is not due to higher ability indicators.
 Students who participate in a FIG (Freshman Interest Group) or “orientation course” are more likely to return for their second year than other students.
 Whites and Asian students have higher graduation rates than Native American,
Hispanic and African American students.
 Students who receive merit-based aid are more likely to graduate than those who did not.
 Students who have financial need are less likely to graduate than those who do not have a need.
 Out-of-state students are more likely to graduate than Missouri students. (Students from Colorado and Kansas are more likely to graduate than students from
Texas and Nebraska).
 Students who enroll on a full-time basis are more likely to graduate than those who enroll part-time.
 Students who graduated from private high schools and out-of-state high schools are more likely to graduate than students from Missouri public high schools
 Students whose initial academic unit is Journalism, Agriculture, Business, and
Human Environmental Sciences have higher graduation rates than students in other colleges or schools.
 Quality of the degree program may be a variable. Perceived high quality universities tend to have higher graduation and retention rates than lower quality, and within universities, perceived higher quality degrees have higher graduation rates.
Issues to address
 Comparators have higher graduation rates and freshman retention rates than MU.
 Inconsistency of general education requirements across divisions.
 Accessibility to majors by students.
 Student engagement – involvement in, and integration into, the academic and social life of the institution.

 The perceived and actual quality of majors is a concern. Besides journalism, other degree and majors must either (1) be of low value or quality or (2) receive modest recognition, even from Mizzou administrators.
 Why students leave.
Recommendations
 By fall 2008 increase freshman retention rates to 90%.
 By fall 2008 increase six year graduation rates to 72%.
 Four year graduation rates should also be targeted for improvement. By 2008 the four-year graduation rate of at least 50%. We should begin tracking this critical statistic. Degree programs requiring more than 120 hours for graduation should be tracked and reported separately.
Action Steps
 Form a campus enrollment management standing committee made up of faculty, staff and students to advise the Vice Provost for Enrollment Management on enrollment and retention issues.
 Assign a member of Provost’s staff to provide administrative leadership and support of the campus retention efforts.
 Collect data to inform retention efforts.
 Routinely conduct exit surveys of those students who do not return to MU but are eligible to do so.
 Provide resources and support for a “freshmen experience” or “learning strategies” course for every interested student. Require “at risk” students to take the course. Restructure academic policies so these courses count towards graduation for all degrees (i.e. currently only 1 hour of T42, a 2 credit hour course, counts toward graduation in the College of Arts and Science and there are other policies that govern these “type” of orientation courses).
 Provide a comprehensive orientation program for students who enroll for the first time in winter or summer terms.
 Critically evaluate general education courses that have a negative impact on graduation. Develop “learning” strategies for assisting students in succeeding in the courses. Develop “advising” strategies so that students take these courses at the appropriate time. Develop “teaching” strategies for improving the instruction in the courses.

 Reassess the role of MU summer school. A substantial increase in summer enrollment can improve retention and graduation rates as well as reduce the enticement that students have to attend summer school elsewhere and transfer. A doubling of summer enrollment should be achieved.

CHARGE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE: Address issues associated with our student engagement in the academic experience as it impacts retention and graduation rates.
Committee Members:
Lori Franz, Associate Provost; Ted Tarkow, Associate Dean College of Arts and Sciences; John Stowe, Associate Dean, College of Business; Mark Lucas, Interim Director Student Life; Andre Thorn, Academic Retention Services; Andrew Becket, FIGS Program;
Cathy Scroggs, Interim Vice Chancellor Student Life; Priscilla LeMone, Nursing; LeAnn
Scott, Visitor Relations (Chair); Bonnie Zelenak, Learning Center
Upon our first meeting the committee realized that there was a lot of overlap between our goal and that of the other subcommittees. All of the other committees, especially advising, retention, general education and the committee looking at “weedout” courses have a direct impact on student engagement. Another important factor is for student engagement to be seen as a cumulative effort throughout the campus. This would include administrators, faculty, staff and students. It was also stated/discussed that student engagement would indirectly be tied to the RAC Model through retention. If a student is engaged they are more likely to be retained.
The first thing that needs to be done is to define what “student engagement” means. It was discussed that not all students want to be engaged and that forcing them to do so might be counterproductive. But as a working definition we defined student engagement to be the relationship between the professor, the class and the student. These three components are very interactive and interrelated, and directly impact whether or not a student makes an underlying and lasting connection to the University.
It’s important to note that student engagement flows both directions; from student to faculty member and faculty member to student, and that student’s have just as much responsibility as the faculty member to work at becoming engaged. That is why it is important to look for areas that both can improve upon.
Current Issues :
-MU, first-year students perceive lower academic challenge vs. peers at other institutions.
*Large classes should be explicitly structured for active engagement in learning, and examinations should reflect that.
-Active and collaborative learning is lower for first-year students than for seniors.
*Large, first-year classes should include some team activities.

Seniors’ perceptions of gains in personal development are low
*Lack of quality contact with faculty.
*Advised more by professional advisors than by faculty.
*How do we get them to interact more with faculty re: career counseling?
Faculty :
-Faculty, especially those who teach large, introductory classes, should do everything possible to give early and frequent feedback to students and make the classroom and assignments as active and collaborative as possible. The “all-lecture, midterm and a final” approach is not conducive to first-year student engagement or success.
-Faculty at all levels should be encouraged to “engineer serendipity.” This means being open to student engagement, seeking it out, mentoring, advising and accommodating various learning styles in and out of the classroom.
-Faculty should be encouraged to engage students outside of the classroom, making it an integral part of the culture.
-Provide/encourage faculty to pick up a copy of “Know the Demographics Realities of
Your Students”. This list will help faculty understand the current profile of students in their classes. This knowledge could help faculty come up with examples current students can relate too. Ex: Beloit College
Students :
-Students should be given better orientations to college, emphasizing faculty expectations of student engagement and efforts, study skills and checklists of key tasks for successful learning and survival. Ex: Create a workshop; College 101, The Scoop
-Use a course taken by a large number of students to provide information to students motivating engagement. For example, Psychology 1 enrolls about 2500 students each year.
The department is working with Alan Strathman to develop a set of on-line laboratory assignments to increase the engagement of students in that class. It may be possible to work with Professor Strathman to develop an on-line lab appropriate to the subject matter which leads students to understand the implication of engagement for personal success and which allows them to assess opportunities that would help them to become more engaged.
-Create a culture in which students share in the welfare of the University long-term.
-Tie community involvement to the curriculum. This will help create meaningful niches.

Action Steps :
-Create a survey for the faculty to self-identify areas where they would be interested in helping with student engagement. This would help create faculty niche areas and provide a list of how they can get involved with various components of student engagement.
-Look at the role of orientation and orientation-type courses, for example T42: Learning
Strategies and the FIGs proseminar in promoting the likelihood of student engagement.
Our data suggests that these courses have a significant impact on retention for firstsemester freshmen. These types of experiences should be available to all students and should be required for students at risk. Under the RAC model, funding for these experiences could come directly from tuition.
-Work with the Program for Excellence in Teaching to help set expectations at faculty orientation and other faculty workshops. These workshops should stress the importance of student engagement, making it a part of the culture.
-Add questions dealing directly with student engagement to the teaching surveys administered at the end of each semester. This will help provide feedback to professors and also access areas where improvements can be made. Ultimately developing a list of what
“student engagement” means.
-Involve departments in the orientation of new students. Departments could then explain how best to become engaged with their particular program. This early contact will help the student get connected and ease his/her transition.
-Look at piloting an experimental group advising session that would meet at least once each semester. The group would consist of approximately 20 students, a peer advisor, an academic advisor and a faculty/professional advisor. The academic advisor would work with the specific details involved with the general education requirements. The faculty advisor would be there to provide career advice and make a meaningful contact with the students. The premise being that if the students make an early connection to a faculty member they will likely be more engaged. An example: Seton Hall University.
Current Best Practices:
There are several good best practices on the campus.
Example 1: The College of Arts and Science has developed an ambitious plan whereby undergraduate students are encouraged to be engaged in one or more aspects of the University’s mission of teaching, research and service as they complete the baccalaureate degree.
Example 2: College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources does a lot to engage their students. The faculty are very involved with advising. They have activities that their entire faculty participates in. This participation allows students to interact with the faculty in a non intimidating/threatening way. A good example of the culture in Agriculture is “Ag Round-up”.

Websites
The website for the Provost’s Office, http://web.missouri.edu/~provost/ , was utilized for information on planning and mission enhancement, assessment, and faculty and students.
The website for MU’s Enrollment Management Committee, http://web.missouri.edu/~ provost/admin.html, provided a significant amount of information related to retention and graduation.
Printed Materials
1993 Retention Task Force Report , Report from committee appointed by Provost Brouder to study the environment and support for UMC students, July 1993.
Concerns of Department Chairs , Notes from Paul Vaughn, following attendance at Departmental Chairs Forum devoted to Enrollment Management, November 28, 2001.
Differences Between First-Time-College Students at MU Who Graduate and Those Who
Do Not Graduate, Part 1. Variables From Student Information System , August 2001,
Division of Enrollment Management.
Differences Between First-Time-College Students at MU Who Graduate and Those Who
Do Not Graduate, Part 2. Variables From Financial Aid Data Base , August 2001, Division of Enrollment Management.
Differences Between First-Time-College Students at MU Who Graduate and Those Who
Do Not Graduate, Part 3. Variables From ACT Assessment Selected Student Profile
Items , August 2001, Division of Enrollment Management.
Enrollment Management, University of Missouri: Challenges and Opportunities; Proposed Strategies, presentation by Dr. Ann Korschgen, Vice Provost for Enrollment Management, October 26, 2001.
FY2000 Budgets Using RAC Budget Model , shared with Subcommittee as part of discussion by Pat Morton, Office of Institutional Research and Alisha Rychnovksy, Office of
Budget.
General Operating Allocation Principles for Academic Units , Draft 1/10/02, shared with
Subcommittee as part of discussion by Pat Morton from Institutional Research and Alisha
Rychnovksy from the Office of Budget.
MU Retention Council Recommendations , April, 1999.

MU’s System of Student Advising
: A Report from the CQI Educational Planning Committee, October 30, 1996.
Report from Noel-Levitz Workshop , Dallas, Texas, January 14-15, 2002, Paul Vaughn, attendee.

The Subcommittee was concerned that the RAC model, as presented, does not provide adequate financial incentive for enhanced retention and graduation. While it applauds the inclusion of retention on the “qualitative” side, it finds fault with the contention that the model rewards retention on the “quantitative” side.
Currently, the RAC model rewards retention efforts by allocating dollars based on student numbers. The argument presented was that units that do an effective job of retention will be rewarded because of the resulting increase in number of students. The committee finds at least two flaws with that argument:
(1) Many units can easily increase student numbers without making any effort to retain students already enrolled in the university.
- The best evidence of this is that currently some of the units with the highest enrollments also have the lowest retention and graduation rates. Providing rewards for increases in student numbers will not change current retention practices.
(2) With the proposed plan, units will be actually be rewarded if they do a poor job with retention and graduation.
- For example, units that delay student graduation will benefit from the existing model, while units that quickly move students through the system will not. A student who has to repeat a class several times will be more valuable to a unit than one who is able to complete the course in one try. Units that increase graduation requirements will benefit more from the proposed funding model than those who keep their requirements to a minimum.
The Subcommittee recognizes that it is appropriate to expect units to do what is best for students. . .regardless of funding. However, it also recognizes that it is difficult for a unit to make changes if the funding formula does not reward such action. It is the belief of the Subcommittee that if the University truly wants to enhance retention practices on campus, it must provide a reward beyond what is currently proposed in the RAC model.
i All documents listed are available in 230 Jesse Hall.