Admissions & Success Committee Update 3/12/2010

We hope that Congress representatives will bring the findings and ideas from the Admissions Committee back to their respective units for discussion.

Our information is based on 2003 incoming freshmen and publicly available IRO reports.

When you're looking at graduation rates, 2/3 of the variance is predicted by student characteristics, and 1/3 is predicted by institutional factors. Some of these institutional factors are beyond our immediate control, such as whether we're public vs. private.

We are currently using a HSGPA of 3.3 and an average SAT score of 450 per section as a proxy for average academic readiness. This SAT score is below the median (between 37th and 47th percentile) for the state of Hawaii and roughly the midpoint for our incoming freshmen. Students who meet this measure of academic readiness have a 6 year graduation rate of 40%; those who do not have a six year graduation rate of 29%.

Some of the current discussions taking place, by stage:

Attraction 1) We currently send letters to some college bound HI HS seniors. We could purchase additional names from the SAT college search service who are of average academic preparation or above, inviting them to contact an advisor at UHH. We could also purchase PSAT names. This advisor acts as a concierge , helping the (potential) applicant with financial aid, housing (if necessary), and course selection. This is probably one of the easiest and least expensive measures to implement.

2) A larger question: Now that Maui is building a four year degree program, where will UH Hilo fit in to the UH system and to the higher education system in the state? Selection 1) No change in current numeric admissions standards. 2) Add essay or personal statement to application process to increase commitment, expose applicants to positive information about UH Hilo, gauge commitment to attending UH Hilo (students are more likely to transfer out of a school that was not among their top choices), and allow students to display characteristics not evident in grades and scores. We can read essays for evidence of conscientiousness (a significant predictor of success in any endeavor), engagement (HS engagement is the biggest predictor of college engagement), and affinity for or familiarity with Hilo or Hawaii. 3) Two committee members expressed concern about the essay/personal statement requirement, pointing out that whoever evaluates these would have to be trained to use an agreed-upon rubric. In addition, this would involve changing the systemwide application. There have also been concerns raised about who actually writes the essay. Applications with essays/personal statements can be read by a faculty committee, a dedicated group in Student Services, an organization or consultant, etc; what are the pros and cons of each approach? Appliations are scored, scores are returned to the admissions office. The scoring rubric might have three levels: Likely to succeed at UH Hilo, possibly likely to succeed at UH Hilo, unlikely to succeed at UH Hilo. 4) Add “fast lane” no-app admission for students of average academic preparation or above. Applications can be prefilled to a great extent and completed and signed in person; we don't get the advantage of the student completing an essay, but the student gets the “VIP” experience. (One committee member expressed concerns about the idea of having different application processes for different students). 5) Enrollment management; the number and mix of students accepted is adjusted to meet institutional needs for the year. Issue: Where do non-residents who pay below full fare fit in?

Retention

1) The director of Admissions strongly recommends attending to campus atmosphere and the student experience in and out of the classroom. The campus (and, ideally, its surroundings) should be somewhere a member of the campus community wants to spend time. Students frequently complain about limited library hours and food service. 2) Provide drop-in on-site childcare. 3) Housing. This has been shown to predict retention. First-year housing is even more effective when it is paired with a learning community. 4) Academic challenge--one area where our NSSE results are significantly lower than our peers. Do current student eval-dependent incentives drive down challenge level? What is a better way to evaluate teaching for promotion and tenure? 5) University-wide honors program (how? For whom?) 6) Universal UNI 101 / 101 Honors 7) Increased academic challenge and more deliberate selection, if publicized, are likely to result in increased institutional reputation, which is an important component of student satisfaction and retention. 8) Student Support Services & Kipuka program methods adapted to the general population. a. At our estimated cost of around $1500 / year / student and enrollment of around 3500 undergrads, it would cost about 5.25M / year to provide services to all undergrads. This would result in estimated 13% increase in grad rate for the ~ half with average academic preparation, or 6.5% overall increase in grad rate. The outcomes of the 2003 freshmen seem to indicate that these services are more effective in raising the graduation rate of students who start at a higher level of academic readiness. (Any analysis in this area contains many assumptions: the grad rate of the general population is as “improvable” as the SS-eligible population of similar academic background, 2003 is a typical year, results using small samples are generalizable, etc.) b. Is there a more cost-effective way to target these services? 9) Review modules. This is not remediation, but short, most likely computerized refresher modules in math and English. These would benefit students who are rusty on a specific concept, but don't need an entire review course. Our new Kilohana academic success center seems like a likely venue to administer this.

Congress representatives, please discuss these points with your constituents. Mahalo!