Strategic Planning Steering Committee Meeting
October 23, 2012
Meeting Notes
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Present: Ed O'Malley, Cindy Claycomb, Robert Ross, Rick LeCompte, Don Malzahn, Chris Brooks, Bill Hendry,
Aleks Sternfeld-Dunn, Suzanne Hawley, Cathy Moore-Jansen, Alan Aagaard, Matthew Albers, Connie Dietz,
Alexandrea Diaz, Paul Werner, Becky Endicott, Christine Schneikart-Luebbe, Lynn Nichols, Marilyn Pauly, Jackie
Vietti, Bill Moore, John Schlegel, Herman Hicks, Alicia Thompson, and Dianne Coleman.
Absent: Alex Chaparro, Luis Carbajal, Chester Daniel, Russ Meyer, Dennis Schoenebeck, Brian Barents, Abe
Rodriguez, and Holly Dyer.
Cindy Claycomb opened the meeting and thanked everyone for their attendance. Claycomb explained that at
the committee's request, certain short presentations will be made to provide information that may inform the
committee of key points of interest. These mini-presentations have been labeled WSU 101. This month Bobby
Gandu, Director of Admissions, was invited to give a brief overview of the Office of Undergraduate Admissions.
Committee members were given a copy of the current view book used for promotional purposes as well as a
copy of his slide presentation. Gandu presented a summary of the fall 2012 statistics regarding prospective
students. He also presented an overview of recruitment activities, diversity initiatives, recruitment programs,
and activities focused on transfer students and returning adults. He also presented a summary of how
technology and predictive modeling are used in the strategic decision making of the office of admissions.
Discussion followed the presentation with many questions raised. The concept of yield rate, or conversion rate,
was defined as the number/percentage of students who apply for admission that actually become fully admitted
full-time students. For fall 2012, approximately 1,150-1,300 students were admitted from approximately 2,000
applications. Transfer students and returning adults numbered about 1,200, as explained by Aaron Hamilton,
Assistant Director of Admissions.
Vietti: Commented that conversion rate was the number /percentage of first-time, full-time students that
matriculated from application to admission through enrollment.
Moore: Commented that in reviewing his homework, he found that for the fall of 2011 there were 1,600 men
who applied for admission, 1,500 were admitted, and 650 were enrolled, yielding 42% conversion rate. There
were 1,700 women who applied for admission, 1,630 were admitted and 750 enrolled, yielding 46% conversion
rate. Gandu cautioned definition of terms. Many students come with transfer hours, but are new full-time
students to WSU. An example was the IB (International Baccalaureate) program at East High School where
students are often admitted as new freshmen with up to 60 college credit hours.
Vietti: Stated she also reviewed the number and they were close to what Moore reported. She also
commented it was important to compare our numbers with our peer institutions.
1
Gandu: We are typically a bit behind the curve on those statistics. Moore: Of those admitted but not enrolled,
do you get feedback why they didn't choose to come to WSU? Gandu: We do that regularly and the major
reason is cost - lack of scholarships - and then fit. These admitted students who don't choose to come to WSU
typically enroll at the University of Kansas, Kansas State University, or Butler Community College.
Discussion followed on admission criteria and how beginning 2015 admission standards will increase. Currently
a student must have a composite ACT of 21 or be in the top 1/3 of their class, or have a 2.0 grade point average
in the Kansas Board of Regents basic curriculum. The new admissions standards will be to have a composite ACT
of 21 or be in the top 1/3 of their class AND have a 2.0 in the Kansas Board of Regents basic curriculum. It is
predicted that the number of students admitted will decrease when the new standards are implemented. Hicks:
The number of minority students who do not meet admission criteria will increase. First generation minority
students meeting the criteria will likely decrease and that is a concern. Gandu: The new standards could
potentially reshape our campus culture. He also explained the exceptions process, where 10% of qualified
admission students can be admitted by exception, a process controlled by the faculty exceptions committee. He
commented that the office of admissions is very much concerned with access and continues to look at criteria.
Hicks: Stated that many students who do not do well on the ACT could do well in college. He feels this hurts
many students who feel they can't do well in college because they didn't do well on the ACT and then don't
attempt to further their education. Gandu: Raised the question - do we want to be a campus that truly serves
our urban environment? And if so, what should be our recommendation?
O'Malley: What's it going to take to make WSU grow from 14,500 students to 20,000 students? Gandu:
Scholarship dollars, reduced tuition cost, do more for returning adults, i.e. online courses that allow for adult
completion. Our current adult completion program is not flexible with scheduling to meet the student's needs.
Hamilton: Stated that the number of traditional age students across the state is a flat line currently. We need to
look out of state for additional students as well as increase the number of transfer students. The new qualified
admissions standards will mean working harder with high school students. Another major factor is that instead
of beginning at WSU, students are choosing to begin at the community college.
Discussion followed regarding allowing out-of-state admission of students with certain criteria to be admitted as
in-state students, i.e. Oklahoma and Missouri. Kansas does not have such criteria for out-of-state students. The
University of Kansas is working heavily on out-of-state student recruitment. Gandu stated that many out-ofstate students would choose to come to WSU, but cannot do so because of the cost of out-of-state tuition.
Endicott: Stated that 80% of WSU's enrollment is from Sedgwick county residents. She asked if this was the
focus market of the Office of Admissions. Gandu: Yes, but also recruiting heavily across the state. Northeast
and Western Kansas are other key areas of recruitment.
Vietti: Commented that as an urban serving university it is important that our demographic profile match the
demographic profile of Wichita, thus very critical that we reach out to the community.
Next on the agenda, Claycomb commented that committee members were interested in gathering certain
information and some members stepped forward to work on gathering requested information. Each was then
asked to give a two minute report regarding their work for the committee.
Claycomb reported for Holly Dyer who was working on gathering some alumni association data and assisting
with developing an online survey of all WSU alums. Three information documents have been gathered and will
be posted on the strategic planning web site. The alumni survey is still a work in progress.
2
Sternfeld-Dunn reported on social media endeavors. He stated the committee should concentrate on a focused
and streamlined approach to social media. A lot can be done, but then the information gets spread out. His
main focus will be the use of Twitter - @wsustrategicpla, #wsustrategy. He was tweeting the meeting real-time.
He stated we want to be transparent and open. As for the results of committee meetings and town hall
meetings, this information will be available on the strategic planning website.
Moore-Jansen: Gathered all the data links that were used in this meeting's assignments to committee members.
She will continue to gather information as requested.
Dietz: Working on ideas for high school student engagement. She is beginning to work with USD 259 to reach
out to high school students.
Diaz: She reported she will be creating a Facebook page to post questions for students to address. She is also
working on a strategy to inform students of the Facebook page.
Claycomb: Reported that she and Bob Ross have been selected to be on the university's master planning
committee. This is the first actual master plan for the university and much excitement has been generated.
Consultants from the Boston area have been contracted and they are directing the process. More to follow.
O'Malley stated that if there is something a member of the committee is passionate about, they can volunteer
to help gather information for that area. He noted that President Bardo has not stated exactly what the
committee should do, so the committee can work in ways they feel best. He encouraged all committee
members to step forward and help.
Claycomb: Stated that the strategic planning web site is up and running. It is a fluid site and will be constantly
updated. There has been a tab set up called Talk To Us for anyone to leave a message for the committee. This
page has been set up for sending a message only, meaning the messages will not receive a response.
Claycomb: Announced the next town hall meeting will be held on October 30, 2012 in Hubbard Hall 208 3:30 5:00 pm. This town hall meeting will be for the campus community and the theme title is WSU: Our University,
Our Culture.
O'Malley: Commented that most exercises like this seek occasional input from the community, but we want to
turn this model upside down, seeking lots of input - seeking full engagement. In that spirit we have to figure out
how to do that. This campus town hall meeting will have two objectives: 1) Continue to build enthusiasm for
this process. Most who attended the first meeting on September 5, 2012 appreciated the opportunity to
participate and we want to continue that enthusiasm. 2) Gain a deeper understanding of the culture of the
university. What in the culture of this place will help us accomplish great things and what is it in the culture of
this university that may get in the way. We need to better understand the way things work at this university, in
this culture. The format of this town hall meeting will be the same as the first meeting, small group discussions
where the results of the discussions will be collected, typed, and posted on the web site. One difference at this
meeting will be that all attendees will discuss the same questions.
The proposed four questions for discussion include the following:
1.
2.
When you think of the future of WSU, what concerns you the most? What challenges do we need to
get our arms around?
What about the culture of WSU helps us make progress on the things that concern us the most?
3
3.
4.
What in the culture of WSU hinders our making progress? (This could be a tough conversation for most
people, but an important one to have.)
What type of culture will it take for WSU to make even more progress on the things that concern us the
most - things we thing most important?
The discussions should be highly interactive and the results will be reported back to the committee as well as
posted on the web site.
Schneikart-Luebbe: Reported that she has forwarded an announcement of the town hall meeting to all of her
staff and has encouraged them to attend. Room was clarified as Hubbard Hall 208.
Moore: Stated we needed to define culture so all understand what we are really talking about. He suggested
giving examples as it's hard to understand buzz words.
Vietti: Stated she likes that we are talking about culture. She asked if the campus community would see the
questions in advance to have a heads up before just walking into the discussion. O'Malley: Stated that was a
great question, but his sense was to not have the questions ahead of time, especially since some may have a
negative overtone and that might influence their attitude prior to attendance. The title of the meeting should
clarify that the discussion will focus on the university and its culture. Vietti: Responded that it's the spirit or
conceptual framework that is importance for all to understand.
O'Malley: Stated that in his experience if you ground people in something they understand, or concerns them,
and then ask them to talk about the culture in relation to that thing, you get a better response. If the concern is
lack of enrollment, or working in silos, or endowments are not large enough, they begin to talk about the culture
in reaction to that concern and talk more honestly. Thus, we can help them along with the discussion. He
suggested we try this approach and evaluate if we get the most helpful information. We can find additional
ways to get information if this process doesn't work as well as expected.
Endicott: Will there be some way to provide feedback if they cannot attend the meeting? Claycomb: They can
give feedback via the web site. It was agreed to not post the questions on the web site prior to the meeting.
Sternfeld-Dunn: Stated he just deleted the questions from the tweet. He also added that there are tools we
may want to use following the meeting to gather information.
O'Malley: Noted that how we work together is key. The information will be helpful too, but this is about more
than the information. It's about helping to condition the community to the fact that some of the work that may
need to be done is actually how we work together, in addition to gathering information. He stated that his
guess was that we'll get some new, shiny ideas. The more we can get people to think about these questions, the
more information we'll obtain.
Sternfeld-Dunn: What about posting these questions on Facebook for student feedback? A great idea for after
the meeting.
Claycomb: Announced the November 5 town hall meeting will be held at the Sedgwick County Extension
Education Center at 21st Street North and Ridge Road 5:30 - 7:00 pm. This town hall meeting in west Wichita is
intended to reach out to the larger community.
O'Malley: Explained that this meeting's format would be the same as the September 5 meeting. The goal is to
get a more expanded voice from the community. There were not that many community folks at the September
4
5 gathering. The meeting has been entitled WSU: Your Hometown University. President Bardo expressed that
he would like community meetings be held in west Wichita, east Wichita, and perhaps downtown for the larger
community input. O'Malley expressed hope that all committee members had extended their 15 personal
invitations.
Sternfeld-Dunn: Asked if there was going to be something in the Wichita Eagle. Claycomb stated "yes" and that
there was a press release in the Eagle today (October 23). The meeting was also posted on WSU Today. She is
working to secure announcements on KMUW radio as well.
Moore: Suggested flyers also be posted at Dillon's and other locations. Claycomb stated that the
announcement will be on the electronic sign on the corner of 21st Street and Ridge Road. Moore again stressed
that terms need to be clearly defined at these meetings. We don't want to use language that hinders
participation in discussion.
O'Malley: Stated that the committee had an important role to play at these town hall meetings. Members
should plan to attend the meetings, participate in the discussions, and help host the events.
Claycomb: Stated that in addition to these promotional strategies, arrangements have been made with USD
259, Goddard, Maize, and Bishop Carroll Catholic High School to send the meeting announcement to their
students and parents.
Claycomb: Informed the committee that 17 breakfast meetings have been arranged to meet individually with
the president's executive team and the college deans, as well as the presidents of the foundation and the alumni
association. The first breakfast meeting was with Sharon Iorio, Dean, College of Education. Summary notes
from these breakfast meetings will be made available to the committee.
Claycomb: Announced that plans are underway for a trip to Topeka in January or March to speak with the
Kansas Board of Regents and the executive branch of the state, as well as legislators.
O'Malley: The idea behind these visits is that WSU is critically important to this community and to Kansas. It
seems that if we want to do an honest strategic plan, we need to have a better sense of how the plan fits into
the state of Kansas. This committee will come up with big, bold things and those things could be formed with
the Kansas Board of Regents and the legislators, seeking assistance with implementing the big, bold ideas. Andy
Schlapp is very excited about this as well as Andy Tompkins, president of the Kansas Board of Regents. No
university has every approached the Kansas Board of Regents to solicit their input and ideas for bold strategies
for the university. Tompkins thinks the Kansas Board of Regents will be totally excited about this visit. We'll be
asking the bold questions of them and getting their thoughts and ideas, not asking them for specific
recommendations. O'Malley stated that we should be sensitive to how we approach them with our
engagement. It's not their work, but we want them informed and we want to seek their input. We can attend
either the January or March meeting of the regents. It is also planned to engage the executive branch, the
governor, and others at the same time. We need to approach not only the south-central legislators, but other
delegations as well, as everyone needs to know more about WSU and how an urban research university can
benefit Kansas beyond Wichita. All committee members are invited to attend these meetings.
Vietti: "A brilliant idea!"
5
Hicks: Asked if this would be an over-night trip. That is unknown at this time. Hicks also stated that it may be a
good idea to attach a social gathering to the meetings. Sometimes we get more information informally than
formally.
Moore: Commented that was a great idea. He also noted that WSU has a reasonable number of alum
supporters in Topeka. It would be a great idea to spend the night and incorporate a social gathering.
O'Malley: Supported the idea to reach out and include WSU alums in the Topeka discussions. We can obtain a
list of alums in the Topeka area and invite them to the social gathering. More planning to follow.
Claycomb: Announced that a meeting has been arranged with all WSU center directors for January 31, 2013.
One focus of this meeting will be to obtain input regarding technology transfer and how research translates into
practice. Ideas are still being fleshed out and input from the committee would be appreciated. She also asked
the committee members if there were other groups that have not been included in the discussions that we
should consider.
O'Malley: Commented that individual committee members can also take the initiative to reach out and visit
with anyone that can provide valuable input into the process and then find a way to share that information with
the committee.
Claycomb then began the exercise activity. In their assigned groups, members were asked to share their five
pieces of key research information with the others in their group (this resulted from the pre-meeting
assignments made to the committee). Then within each group select the top three pieces of information to
share with the committee at large. Claycomb also stated that the individual five selected items should be
presented to Dianne Coleman for documentation, as well l as the group selected three key pieces of information
shared with the committee. All notes will be included in the meeting notes. Group discussion followed.
Group reports (3 key items to inform the committee):
Group 1: WSU Current Mission Statement and Planning Matrix
1. The Matrix is not linked to students, cannot be accessed - what does that say about the most important
constituency?
2. Matrix not an effective management tool and lacks understanding amongst university personnel. What
measurement tools are associated with the goals?
3. Mission statement should be re-evaluated as to what the mission should be or aspire to be. The current
statement is not succinct enough.
Group 2: WSU Background Information and Data (1)
1. Price per credit hour compared to peers is significantly lower, room and board is nearly double.
Cleveland State $386 per credit hour, WSU $212 per credit hour, UMKC $361 per credit hour, and
Portland State $261 per credit hour.
2. Housing and residence life comparisons shows that at WSU 36% of students live on campus as
freshmen, but only 8% of students live on campus. UMKC - 36% and 8% respectively.
3. Service delivery on campus lacks the use of technology for online courses, customer service, and
websites, and all need improvement.
6
Group 3: WSU Background Information and Date (2)
1. Lower conversion rates than peer institutions (first-time, full-time degree seeking freshmen from
application through admission through enrollment). Comparatively lower on availability of scholarships,
and comparatively lower on-campus population.
2. Comparatively low student demographic/market penetration relative to region.
3. Prescriptive nature of the Kansas Board of Regents Foresight 2020 strategic plan relative to retention,
completion and online courses/programs has ramifications for WSU.
Group 4: Student Data
1. 4% of students never ask questions in class and 38% ask infrequently. 40% of students never discuss
ideas from their class readings outside of class. 24% of students never read outside of class for pleasure
or improvement, and 49% do so infrequently.
2. 13% of students included in diverse population.
3. 27% never and 40% sometimes attend an art exhibit, play, dance, music theatre show, or other artistic
performance.
Group 5: Faculty Data
1. Racial demographic composition of faculty: 13% Hispanic, 13% African-American. Wage equity between
male and female faculty is an issue.
2. NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) versus FSSE (Faculty Survey of Student Engagement)
shows disparity between student and faculty perceptions.
3. Age of faculty at WSU a growing concern - only 85 faculty members are age 39 and younger.
Group 6: Regents Institutions - Comparative Data
1. Our graduate status for first-time freshman for 4, 5, 6, and 8-year cohorts was the lowest of the six
campuses listed.
2. WSU had the greatest overall number of faculty terminations out of all the six campuses listed.
3. The WSU stipends for GTA's are considerably lower than those provided by the University of Kansas of
Kansas State University.
Additional committee notes will be compiled and available on the website.
Discussion followed. Claycomb stated that after gathering all of our data and other input, we will need to begin
formulating and writing a document. The suggestion before the committee is that we plan a committee retreat
to focus on writing the components of this document. March 5 -6, 2013 is the proposed date. Perhaps it would
be beneficial to bring in a facilitator to get this first draft composed. Discussion followed and it was agreed that
March 5-6 were not good dates due to tournaments and other activities. And spring break should be avoided.
Two days in late March will be better target dates. The committee will be notified as soon as possible on the
new chosen dates.
Vietti: Commented that continuity of this process is very important and it's key to have the retreat for this
purpose.
The floor was opened for general comments.
7
Sternfeld-Dunn: Data-wise, there is one piece of information that would be helpful, and that is costs to our
students. He also suggested we gather information from our peer institutions regarding scholarships and
support through student loans. He noted the committee could better focus on apples to apples with this
information.
Endicott: Agreed. It would be beneficial to include the same information from the universities in our
surrounding states.
Malzahn: Noted that it's important to compare to peers, but not so much for surrounding states. We are not
Oklahoma State University/University of Kansas types, but we should compare ourselves to other urban
universities that have the same type of enrollment statistics as WSU.
Ross: Concerned that we have favorable tuition rates with border states and we should have reciprocity. Our
border states have favorable tuition rates for students from Kansas, but Kansas does not have the same
reciprocity.
Brooks: Asked if it was true that there are 17 competing colleges/universities for students in Wichita? Yes, that
is true. He also suggested we need financial incentives for other counties besides Sedgwick county. It's very
difficult for a student outside Sedgwick county to get any benefit for choosing WSU. Discussion followed on this
topic.
Aagaard: Shared that it is depressing to walk across campus and see signs on doors that say, "No GTA positions
available here." He stated there is something wrong with that. We should have those openings. We should be
able to help our students get an education by working on campus. But there is no money. So where is that
money not coming from?
Vietti: Stated that from her perspective it makes sense to approach this strategically. If we're an urban serving
institution of the state, and we are part of the Wichita community that wants to increase business and industry,
then rather than just recruiting students for the sake of recruiting them, it may be beneficial to look at labor
market demands for our region and build a scholarship program that entices students to come here and meet
labor demands for our state and region. She suggested that we not take a shot-gun approach to scholarships,
but determine which students we want to recruit.
Schneikart-Luebbe: Confirmed that WSU is doing some of that. For example, a few years ago with the nursing
shortage, WSU worked with Via Christi to create scholarships to encourage nursing enrollment. She also noted
that more could be done along those lines.
Endicott: Asked how many students we have in the MSEP (Mid-west Student Exchange Program) program.
Schneikart-Luebbe answered that we don't have many. MSEP is a reciprocal agreement with six other midwestern states that the regents have approved. There are only 24 spots for students and the spots are based on
specific majors. Currently there is work being done to add other disciplines to the program. It's one way to get
enrollment in under-enrolled programs. And it's not in-state tuition for these out-of-state students, but in-state
tuition plus half, so only a bit of an incentive.
Sternfeld-Dunn: Shared that what concerns him about admissions is that the number one thing that turns
students off is cost, but we are lower than some peer institutions. It appears there is some disconnect with the
data. Discussion followed on that concept.
8
O'Malley: Clarified the definition of peer institutions. These are institutions we compare ourselves with, not
with whom we are competing. Addressing the rationale that it costs too much may not be the real reason for
not attending WSU and we may not want to take that statement at face value.
Schneikart-Luebbe: Stated some students turn down significant scholarships at WSU to attend the University of
Kansas. It has nothing to do with WSU, but influence from family and others to attend a certain university.
Claycomb thanked the committee for the great discussion. The next committee meeting is November 13, 2012,
3:00 - 5:00 pm in the Champion's Club of Charles Koch Arena.
Respectfully submitted,
Dianne Coleman
Strategic Planning Assistant
Addendum to the notes: Message from Bobby Gandu, Director of Admissions
As a follow-up to the discussion following the presentation, Bobby Gandu submitted the following points of
clarification. His slide presentation is also posted on the website for your review.
1. As you’ll recall, we had a good discussion on yield rates (i.e., converting students from the point of admission
to enrolled). Here are the university’s yield rates according to various admissions-related reports prepared by
the university’s Office of Planning and Analysis. Please keep in mind that our data – from an admissions
perspective – may be somewhat different than what other university reports demonstrate just given different
data definitions and reporting needs.
- For fall 2012, freshmen yield rate was 43%, transfer yield rate was 70% and non-degree students yield
rate was 58%.
- For fall 2012, considering all applicants, we yielded 54% overall of those who were admitted.
Historically and as recently as 2009, the yield from all applicants has been 60%.
- For fall 2011, as compared to nine urban peers for which data was available, we are precisely in the
middle of the yield rates of new freshmen.
o UNLV 60.5%, Memphis 57.9%, Cleveland State 57.6%, UMKC 49.5%,WSU 44%, IUPUI 43.4%,
University of Texas at Arlington 39.1%, Old Dominion 35.4%, Oakland 34%
2. Questions were raised about qualified admissions, how it is changing for the future and the concern that it
may shift WSU’s ability to provide access. Here is the link to the Kansas Board of Regents site that lists the QA
changes (http://www.kansasregents.org/qa_requirements). As I mentioned during the presentation, my
suggestion is that if you want access to be a significant point of emphasis for the university moving forward, I’d
incorporate that preference in the strategic plan. Our university faculty oversee the admissions exceptions
9
process and they may have different perspectives on access (e.g., their primary concern may be retention and
success/graduation).
3. If you’d like to be subscribed to our campus recruiter newsletter which offers a plethora of information
regarding our recruiting and admissions process, please simply emailbobby.gandu@wichita.edu and we’ll be
sure to add you to our distribution list.
4. Ed asked a great question that I wanted to provide some written follow-up on. He asked about how we might
go about reaching the enrollment goals that Dr. Bardo has set forward. Given my own perspective and
experience, these are areas that I would submit for consideration:
- We’ll need more scholarship resources in play for our students. The cost of tuition continues to
elevate, which makes us a less attractive option for price-sensitive students especially when you factor
in the more affordable cost of two-year colleges and potential for decreased federal financial aid
availability.
- In order for us to be a major player in the adult market, we have to meet adult learners on their terms.
That is, research shows adults are looking for online/hybrid courses, one-stop shops for
admissions/advising/enrollment/financial aid, and courses that start more frequently and end sooner
than the typical eight or 16-week semester we currently offer.
- With more resources including scholarships, personnel and a tuition break, greater focus and targeting
could be done with out-of-state students.
- What are we doing, as an institution, to reach out to students who enrolled at WSU years ago but
haven’t yet returned or completed their degree elsewhere?
- I’d suggest we take a hard look at recruiting graduate students. Unfortunately there is not currently a
cohesive, university-wide approach as each department is really left to handle their own recruiting for
their own graduate programs. As well, the graduate school does not have the resources to recruit for
the specific departments nor the resources to process applications in an expeditious manner.
- We should truly consider our over- and under-subscribed programs. Which academic programs have
unmet capacity? What academic programs are in demand right now and will be sustained for the
foreseeable future? What are the needs of the Wichita workforce? What programs will not grow and
how can we shift resources to another department that is saturated due to available resources?
I hope that this is only the start of the admissions/recruiting discussion for your committee. Please don’t
hesitate to contact me individually or as a group if you feel that there is more information that I can provide. I
appreciate all of you and the important work you are doing for a university that I care deeply about as an
alumnus and as a professional.
10
Strategic Planning Steering Committee Assignment Addendum
5 Important Points From Reading Assigned Data Documents
October 23, 2012
Don Malzahn:
1. Low total number of students compared to our peer institutions (comparatively low penetration in our
market).
2. Admitted versus number of enrolling seems low.
3. Only 8% of undergraduate students live on campus.
4. The goals established for Foresight 2020 (9,562 undergraduate students) will not get us to 20,000
students.
5. It appears that all of the goals and targets in the reports reviewed were based upon our history and not
benchmarked to high quality external programs.
Bill Moore:
1. 42% of first-time, full-time/part-time men admitted actually enrolled. 46% of first-time, full-time/parttime women admitted actually enrolled.
2. 92% undergraduates live off campus. 64% of freshmen live off campus.
3. 91% undergraduates call Kansas home.
4. 25% of enrolled freshmen students scored above 26 ACT composite. 25% of enrolled freshmen students
scored below 21 ACT composite.
5. 48% of degree seeking freshmen were in top quarter of graduating high school class. (Obviously the rest
are below the top quarter.)
6. First-time, full-time students in fall of 2005 - 75% had either graduated or were still at WSU in 4 years.
(Though was a bar chart, looked like about 25% graduated.) First-time, full-time students in fall of 2005
- 75% had either graduated or were still at WSU in 6 years. (Looked like about 60% graduated, twice as
many as in 4 years.)
Christine Schneikart-Luebbe:
1. NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) vs. FSSE (Faculty Survey of Student Engagement) findings
shows a gap between what our students think and what our faculty think about their educational
experience at WSU. In several cases the gap was significant.
2. Our faculty of color do not in any way mirror the diverse population in Wichita. The 2011-2012 figures
list 11 African-American faculty and 13 Hispanic faculty.
3. The salary equity between genders is concerning.
4. The age of our faculty suggests we have a large number of faculty nearing or past retirement still
teaching.
11
Rick LeCompte:
1. Tuition and fees substantially below some of our peers (Cleveland State, UMKC, Portland State).
2. Room and Board at WSU roughly half the price of these peers above.
3. Student to faculty ratio at WSU (20-1) is above some of our peers - UMKC (13-1), and Cleveland State
(18-1).
4. WSU has a significant amount of experiential based learning programs, i.e. internships, cooperative
education, and the Barton International Group.
5. Some peers are highly ranked in areas important to us and it is used as a "hook" on their website. For
example, UMKC - #1 in innovative management, Top 25 in entrepreneurship, #15 in not-for-profit
management, and EMBA ranked #1 for career impact.
6. Very small number of domestic students are from out of state.
7. Not as diverse (student body or faculty) as I would have expected given our urban setting and mission.
8. It appears that our students receive a lower level of grant funding than our peers.
9. 52% of senior students feel that campus staff was helpful, considerate or flexible (low degree of
customer satisfaction on that aspect.)
10. Student satisfaction with faculty fairly high and around 80% indicated they would attend again and that
their education experience was good or excellent.
Becky Endicott:
1. 80% of our current student body resides within Sedgwick County - in order to grow it is going to be
necessary for WSU to reach far beyond their borders by attracting the very best faculty and students.
2. Deficit of opportunity for under-represented minorities - what is the makeup of USD 259 and are we
serving that t population?
3. Retention problems - not by reducing our commitment to quality, but by increasing it, finding ways to
keep those students enrolled, studying, learning, and moving ahead.
4. Using assets' strategically in recruitment of students.
5. Anticipate demographic shifts - increasing the number of high school graduates in the Midwest, making
our culture more welcoming and responsive to prospective students in a wider demographic by shifting
our reciting efforts accordingly.
Paul Werner:
1. Distance learning: WSU has made progress in offering more online courses, but has a long way to go to
match what other institutions are offering.
2. Looking at the goals set forth in Foresight 2020, WSU is well under the target set for percentage of
under-represented minority and low income undergraduate students.
3. Less than 10% of students live on campus. This is about half what our peer intuitions experience e. 90%
of students are from Kansas, over half of those are from Sedgwick County. What can we do to broaden
our student base?
4. Most of the research dollars received at WSU center around NIAR and the College of Engineering. Are
there other areas that could be developed from a research standpoint?
5. Operating revenues received from the State General Fund were $69.6 million in FY 2007. For FY 2013,
that number has fallen $65.0 million. Tuition revenue was budgeted at $45.2 million in FY 2007, and is
$69.9 million for FY 2013. How can we continue to offset losses in state revenue and increases in
12
required expendutures (health insurance premiums, utilities, academic promotions, etc.) without
increases in tuition?
Suzanne Hawley:
1. Low tuition of peer universities (less investment by the student).
2. Low student funded positions (less investment by the university).
3. Low use of technology for university services (one-stop shopping/website. Little investment for
students.)
4. Low use of technology for teaching (few online courses, if online quality is varied. Little investment for
students and faculty.)
5. Little visibility of what we are good at and what prospective students want to know (you have to dig 4
layers deep to a specific department on website to know what is great about us). Other universities
have more fast facts (elevator speech) about our diverse examples of academic excellence or career
promise of degrees offered.
Marilyn Pauly:
1. Regarding the Matrix, the link to "students" can't be accessed - what does that say about the most
important constituency?
2. The Matrix is not an effective management tool - lack of understanding amongst university personnel.
3. What measurement and tools are associated with the goals?
4. Regarding the Mission Statement, it should be re-evaluated as to what the mission statement should be,
or aspire to be.
5. The current Mission Statement is not succinct enough - first paragraph is a goal.
Jackie Vietti:
1. First-time, full-time, degree-seeking freshmen appears relatively low (582 males/695 females).
2. Conversion rates from application through enrollment seem relatively low. How do these compare to
peer institutions?
3. Student demographics do not appear to mirror the demographics of the region.
4. Minority faculty appear to be under-represented.
5. Are the degrees awarded correlated to regional labor market demands since most students are from
Sedgwick County?
John Schlegel:
1. While WSU's headcount has been flat since the mid-ninnies, student credit hours have been trending
upward, a sign that WSU is moving from part-time enrollment to more full-time students.
2. This observation is supported ;by the head count trend upward in full-time enrollment.
3. While WSU's headcount has been flat, those of the nearby community colleges have been trending
upward. To me, this is an indication that students are opting to pursue the more economical credits
13
available at those schools before enrolling at WSU, which is supported by the upward trends in numbers
of sophomore, juror and senior transfers.
4. Wichita State is trending toward greater racial and ethnic diversity, although it does not yet reflect the
diversity of the community which surrounds it.
5. The geographic origin of its student body has not changed significantly since 2000, suggesting that there
are additional markets that could be accessed.
Aleks Sternfeld-Dunn:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Matrix - addresses constituencies.
Mission - guide for tenure and a slight advertisement. No mention of student expectations.
Mission - who is it for?
Matrix - it doesn't make sense.
Matrix is too vague.
Bill Hendry:
Information pieces derived from the KBOR State University Data Book document.
1. For all the Kansas institutions, the overall increase in tuition costs for the 2007 - 2012 was about 35%
(pgs 11 - 14).
2. Our graduate status of first-time, full-time freshmen for 4, 5, 6, and 8 - year cohorts was the lowers of all
the six campuses listed (pg. 26).
3. WSU had the greatest overall number of faculty terminations out of all the six campuses listed (pg. 41).
4. Our educational expenditures per SCH (Student Credit Hour) or fall STE student decreased overall from
2006 - 2011 (pg. 9).
5. The WSU stipends for GTA's are considerably lower than those provided by KU or KSU (pg. 38).
Chris Brooks:
1. 4% of students NEVER ask questions and 38% do infrequently. Basic skills requires public speaking in
COMM 111, so should we be reinforcing that basic skill by requiring a report be mandatory in upper
division classes where pertinent?
2. 13% of students included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs) in
their papers.
3. 40% of students NEVER discussed ideas from their class readings outside of class. If our education
product is simply a module that is digested long enough to regurgitate it on a test, should we rethink
having a "comprehensive" final exam to create retention skills?
4. 24% of our students NEVER read outside of class for pleasure or improvement, and 48% do so
infrequently. Should we be concerned that having a "working class" of students means changing how
we teach?
5. 27% NEVER and 40% sometimes attend an art exhibit play, dance, music theatre, or other artistic
performance, despite the fact that WSU offers music, theater, dance, and a museum Should we require
an "Art Appreciation" class? Should we revise entirely our curriculum to a mass media culture?
14
Alex Diaz:
1. Campus traditions
a. Hippodrome - As WSU's longest-running tradition since 1928, is definitely one of the best weeks
every school year. It's an all-school party promoting Shocker pride through contests and live
entertainment leading up to the main event - the Hippodrome skits. Groups of students
perform original, no-holds-barred skits with the winners getting bragging rights and a first-place
trophy.
b. Shoctoberfest - That's right - Shocktoberfest. Not to be confused with Oktoberfest.
Shocktoberfest is our weeklong fall festival - filled with events like mud tug-of-war, a campus
carnival, and a competition for man and woman of the year.
c. Welcomefest - What better way to kick off the school y ear than a university bash? It's a week
of activities inducing late-night outdoor movies and the popular beach party.
d. Convocation - Convocation is the main event of Welcomefest - a chance to mingle with other
students and staff, take in some live entertainment and enjoy a fee lunch.
e. Homecoming - In February, a full week of campus events culminates in the Homecoming Parade,
a pre-game bonfire and the crowning of the homecoming king and queen.
2. Residence Life Information
a. 36% of new freshmen live in campus-based housing or residence halls.
b. 8% of all undergraduates live on campus.
c. UMKC - 59% of new freshmen live in campus-based housing or residence halls. 10% of all
undergraduates live on campus.
d. University of Akron in Ohio - 48% of new freshmen live in campus-based housing or residence
halls. 15% of all undergraduates live on campus.
3. International students - International Student Union - see Goggle Chrome.
4. Original majors and programs - 6% elementary education and teaching, 6% registered nuking/registered
nurse.
5. Student experiences - diverse, work in groups.
15