Time & Location: 8:30 – 10:30 a.m., 220 Seymour
Attendees
Voting Members
- Mike Andriatch
- Davida Bloom
- Steven Breslawski
- Frances Dearing
- Samantha Dicanio
- Scott Haines
- Katy Heyning
- Debbie Jacob
- Sara Kelly
- Kadathur Lakshmanan
- Brooke Leddon
- Teresa Major
- Jose Maliekal
- Brad Menear
- Dave Mihalyov
- Kathy Peterson
- Summer Reiner
- Susan Stites-Doe
- Jay West
- Katy Wilson
Non-Voting Members
- Denise Copelton: Co-Chair
- Crystal Hellenbeck
- President Macpherson
- Jim Wall: Co-Chair
- Melissa Wight
- Jim Zollweg
Guests
- Dawn Footer
- Jamie Scheid
- Robert Wyant
Regrets
Voting Members
- Tom Hernandez
- Cherise Oakley
Non-Voting Members
- Karen Riotto
The meeting was called to order at 8:33am
Approval of the Minutes
Dr. Copelton asked the committee to review the minutes from the November 15, 2018 meeting. With no corrections, Dr. Peterson motioned the minutes to be approved, Ms. Major seconded the motion, and all present voting members were in favor. Therefore, the minutes were approved.
Announcements
- Dr. Copelton stated that the Investment Fund applications were due on November 30, 2018. There were 32 applications submitted out of the 36 proposals that were invited to submit a full application. The following is the breakdown of the number of applications and totals for each fund category:
- The Strategic Priorities Fund had nine applications submitted for a total of over $141,000.
- The Core Needs, Facilities & Alterations Fund had 16 applications submitted for a total of over $730,000.
- The Venture Fund has seven applications submitted for a total of over $160,000.
- Mr. Haines requested clarification on the disbursement of funds from the approximately $90,000 set aside for small projects and alternations. Dr. Copelton stated the recommendations will come from the committee, but President’s Cabinet will make the decision on which applications are awarded funding. The process of determining the funding sources will be completed by Mr. Wall, Ms. Riotto and Ms. Hallenbeck.
- Dr. Copelton provided the committee with the following updates on the application reviews process for the Investment Funds:
- The Investment Fund Subcommittee met last week to complete training on the scoring process.
- The subcommittee is currently tasked with reviewing the applications for the Core Needs, Facilities & Alternations Fund and the Venture Fund.
- All Goal Group Leaders were sent an email yesterday with applications attached for review and scoring. The scores are due to Dr. Copelton by February 1. Any questions regarding the review process and scoring from the Goal Groups can be sent to Dr. Copelton or Dr. Rey Sia.
- The scoring of the Venture Fund and Core Needs, Facilities & Alternations Fund by subcommittee members is due January 20, 2019. The subcommittee will meet on January 25, 2019 and January 31, 2019 to discuss the scores and complete final recommendations.
- Dr. Copelton reviewed with the committee the tentative meeting dates and agenda topics for the spring semester. In addition, Dr. Copelton stated all members are asked to attend the Fee-Based Budget Presentations on February 21, 2019 from 8:30-10:30 a.m. in Union 220. Attendance is important as members will be voting on these budgets. A meeting invitation was sent out to hold all meeting dates as well as the presentation day.
Enrollment & Retention
Presented by Dr. Sara Kelly, Interim Assistant Vice President for Enrollment Management and Student Affairs; Jamie Scheid, Enrollment Analyst; and Robert Wyant, Director of Undergraduate Admissions
Note: Presentation is available on Blackboard.
The following are questions, answers and discussion points that occurred during the presentation:
- A question was raised about the students in the cohort addressed on the table regarding unmet need. The question was if all of the students in the cohort applied for financial aid. Mr. Scheid stated that some of the students did not have financial aid. Some of the students in the “less than $10,000” group did not file a FASFA.
- A question was raised regarding what the percentage is of students in the incoming class that are from the Long Island and New York City area. Mr. Wyant stated that 20 to 25% of the students are from that area.
- A question was raised regarding what attracts the high parameter students that live far away to come here. Mr. Scheid stated that there are various different reasons these students choose to come here but one is because of the SUNY name. SUNY has a big recognition Downstate. There are many alumni that live in the area and word of mouth really helps us attract students.
- The question was raised regarding how a faculty member can better assist a transition student. Dr. Kelly stated that a three-credit APS class was piloted this year for transition students. This class was designed to be similar to the three-credit APS class for EOP students. The transition students that were in this APS class had higher GPAs at mid-term than the transition students who were not in the class. This APS course is being reviewed to be expanded to more students in the fall. In addition, there are discussions regarding implementing the Summer Bridge Program that we had for transition students years ago. The cost of the program as well as other details that would be involved in the program are
being examined. - The question was raised whether an advisor would know if they were advising a transition
student. Dr. Kelly stated that this is a current discussion item as this information as not been provided to advisors before. In EagleSUCCESS, we are looking at how we are communicating with faculty about who their students are and which students may need more support. It will also be a little bit of a cultural change, as we do not want a student’s needs to be dismissed because they are a transition student. We need to look at how we can
communicate better with EagleSUCCESS and other programming about whether a student
is a transition, undeclared, or on probation. Having knowledge of this information with more people could help in creating a positive student journey. President Macpherson and Dr. Kelly stated the importance of balance and how a transition student is viewed is important so that it is not detrimental to their journey as a student. - The question was raised regarding the Bridge Program and how that would affect the Excelsior Program. The example that was provided was that a one-credit GEP class does
not count towards the total credits needed for the scholarship. We just need to be aware so
we are not cutting students short of the 30 total credits needed for the scholarship. Dr.
Kelly stated that was important information to look at and we are still in the early stages of
reviewing the program. We still need to look at peer institutions to see how they navigate
with their bridge programs and Excelsior. - The question was raised regarding predictive analytics and whether discriminant analysis
as well as, logit and probit had been completed. Mr. Scheid stated that he had not yet conducted this at Brockport but with his experience in the past of common factors, SAT scores and GPA are common predictives in retention. Mr. Wyant stated that they are in a transition with their CRM in Admissions and the new CRM has the option to create a retention log, which Mr. Wyant will be working with Mr. Scheid on. Dr. Kelly stated that a week or two ago, a text went out to students who had not registered for the spring semester yet. Thomas Chew and his staff in the Academic Success Center followed up with the students who responded. Some responses were regarding financial aid issues and we did get one that said they had transferred. It was the first time using this method and we received good feedback from students. - A suggestion was made to develop a special registration group for students that may need
incentive to stay. Calling this group the “Gold Star Students” and they would get the first
block of registration sign up. This may help motivate them to stay. - A suggestion was made for individuals to review Marcy Esler’s study that was completed
several years ago on logistic regression of students, why they are leaving, and why they are
retained. This would provide individuals with a better understanding of student retention. - An observation was made that most colleges have an input and output model to examine
why students are retained and not retained. As we explore the services we are going to offer, we should start developing a conceptual framework to understand this process. Instead of trying to put fires out, we need to be more strategic about what we are going to
do, what is the basic model we will use, and what knowledge we have when we achieve
what we wanted to achieve. - A suggestion was made that with the low number of available students, as a college we need to look at developing new programs that are needed on our campus and to interface
existing programs to make them more marketable. - An example was provided regarding standardized testing. It was stated that Nursing did not want to include GRE scores as an admission requirement for the Master’s program, but the State required that the scores be a part of the admission requirements. What has been discovered is that the students with the low GRE scores have dropped out of the program so there is a predictive value when it comes to reviewing the standardized test scores.
- A suggestion was made that when enrolling freshman students into courses that advisors be
mindful of the class size that the student is being enrolled in. It is difficult for a faculty member to provide one on one attention to a student that they are concerned about when they are in a class that has 100-150 students in it. It might be better to enroll freshman in smaller class size courses and then allow them to take the bigger size courses when they are a sophomore. - Dr. Heyning stated that she has been working with the Deans to break down academic barriers. She stated that they would begin to look at the “DEW” courses. These are the courses where students receive a “D”, “E”, or “W”. She stated while they are looking at these courses they can see if there is a correlation between a student that receives one of these grades in a large section course and if they fall into one of the areas where we are seeing low retention rates. They will examine if there something we can do to make the course more attractive. In addition, they will look at ways to provide more resources to help in specific areas. We are looking at some intervention models in terms of helping faculty with their advising processes. Some of these methods include providing online advising and spending more time with incoming faculty so that they are aware of the issues. During this onboarding time, they will be trained on some easy techniques they can
use with students that fit within one of the low retention categories. - A question was raised regarding the exit survey that a student receives when they indicate
they want to transfer. Is it possibility to add questions to the survey asking why they have
the desire to transfer and have them check boxes like “campus safety, department didn’t give them what they needed, or they are receiving more aid at another school”. In addition, is the survey mandated for students who indicate that they are leaving the school. Dr. Kelly stated that students that indicate they want to leave are referred to the Academic Success Center where they complete a face-to-face survey. Some students just walk away without anyone aware that they wanted to leave until they do not return. - A suggestion was made that we should think about institutionalizing the approach of
asking students in their APS course after ten weeks what their biggest disappointment is.
If we find out what students are unhappy with earlier, it is easier to respond then when they
are doing their exit interview. This may help provide an overarching theme that needs to be
addressed. - A question was raised requesting clarification on what “unmet need” is based on. Mr. Scheid said that it is based on the cost of attendance (tuition, fees, room and board), subtracting out any scholarships that the student might be eligible for, grants through the State or the Federal government like PELL or TAP, and any loans that the student has received. Once you subtract all of those items from the cost of attending here that is their
unmet need. Mr. Wyant stated that unmet need is what a student has to subsidize with a personal loan or alternative loan. Ms. Major added that the cost of attendance is more than
what is on a student’s bill. Some examples of items that are considered cost of attendance
and are not on a student’s bill are expenses like transportation and books. - A suggestion was made about having more structured training for faculty members on how
to use EagleSUCCESS given that it is still new software and some faculty members find
that it is not user friendly. In addition, the PDFs that used to be online could not be located.
The suggestion entailed someone providing a training session during a departmental meeting. The reason for this request is that there has been a lot of time and money invested
into the system and with faculty not fully trained on it or being shown why it is so valuable
to use, therefore the system is not being used to its full potential. Much of the information
being discussed is embedded in the system and if faculty are not using it to the full capacity, we are going to be limited with the data and information we can get out of it. Dr.
Kelly stated that they are happy to provide training for anyone who requests it and for
faculty to spread the word to request training would be helpful. Dr. Copelton stated that the
training needs to be a more proactive approach. Someone needs to reach out to all of the
chairs and ask when they can come to a staff meeting to provide training, otherwise; it
would be put on the backburner. - A question was raised regarding what the current curriculum is in APS courses, if it has
been updated and how. In regards to updates, do we know if they have had any impact and
have they been successful. Dr. Wilson stated that the curriculum went through a major overhaul last year. Thomas Chew used a group of faculty that have been teaching APS and
who had some new fresh ideas. They made these changes by looking at other institutions
and the Gardner Institute, which guides first year learning for the first year experience.
This does not mean that other changes cannot be made. Mr. Chew is open to other ideas.
The three credit APS course will have more content and will be taught by the faculty and
staff that are interested in working with at risk students. - A question was raised on whether there was a contact through SUNY that could provide
information regarding the underrepresented minority retention rates as those declines are
concerning especially with our Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Department and our overall
Strategic Plan. Dr. Kelly stated we know other SUNY institutions are experiencing the same decline but we have not engaged with those institutions to see what is working. Our
next step would be to bring in the Department for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion to provide guidance on what our process should be. Ms. Dearing stated that it might be helpful to develop a focus group of these students to see what their experiences have been.
She stated she had spoken to a student recently that said they had trouble with public transportation and getting to the Academic Success Center. This student was working and
trying to get here on the bus and could not get here while they were open. Dr. Kelly stated
that the center is open later and that she is aware that the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
Department has an assessment subcommittee that is doing focus groups this semester but
she is unsure about the particular population they are working with or who they have
interviewed yet. Mr. Wyant stated that he helped facilitate one of the focus groups and it
started in October. Transportation was one of the issues especially for students from New
York City as the transportation system here is vastly different from what it is in the city.
He said that there were about seven or eight students in the focus group and there were
seven or eight different responses to the question. Mr. Wyant stated that we also need to
be mindful about these students’ experience. Some of these students have both parents
working full-time; some have a one-parent household; while others have many different
siblings. There are many factors that these students have to deal with that are vastly
different from when we were in school. President Macpherson added that we have two
Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Performance Improvement Funding (PIF) plans. She also
stated that SUNY has appointed Terri Miller as the new Vice President for Strategic Initiatives. She has previously held the position of Chancellor’s Chief of Staff as well as a
high-ranking position at Buffalo. It appears that she very proactive in this area. - The question was raised if students are asked if they have a job off campus and if there is a
correlation between hours worked and retention. It has been observed that more students
are working 20, 30, 40 hours on top of going to school. Mr. Wyant stated that the correlation really depends on the student and it is very individualized. It does have an impact though because working in high school is very different from working in college.
Dr. Kelly stated that student employment on campus has shown nationally that it helps
retention. She does not believe there is a way to track students that are employed off
campus and analyze that data, but it is a good idea for an item for us to think about discussing in focus groups. Dr. Heyning stated there have been some discussions about
increasing funding for student employment so that we can keep them here if they need to
work and are eligible for it instead of going off campus. We also need to educate people
on the best way to use this funding. - The question was if we are looking at the demographics of faculty on campus as many
students look to find “themselves” in faculty members around campus or in front of them
in the classroom. The concern is that there are a majority of students that cannot complete
this task and what are we doing anything to change that. President Macpherson stated that
we have a Performance Improvement Fund Grant from SUNY and we have just hired a
Diversity Recruiter to supplement the work we are doing. In addition, part of the search
committee training is diversity training and an individual needs to complete this training in
order to serve on a search committee. Also, one of the difficulties in recruiting diverse
candidates is that, especially in the STEM areas, there are far fewer diverse candidates that
achieve their PhDs than we would like to see nationally. We have completed and are
required to do an affirmative action plan every year. One of the items the plan reviews is
the diversity of our faculty, how that compares regionally and nationally, and how that
compares to the available workforce. There are only a couple of different areas where our
faculty is different from the available workforce. It is however different than the diversity of our students and that is something we are working on and why we have invested
additional funding to create best practices on how better to recruit diverse candidates. One
of the benefits of being in Brockport is that we are right on the edge of Rochester and there
are 19 higher education institutions in the area. We do not have the difficulties like the
small towns next to the big town, but we are still a small town and that is not always as
easy to recruit to as other areas. - The question was raised if temporary service funding for student employment could be
increased so that more departments and students would have the opportunity to utilize
student employment funding, as there are many more temporary service student
employment applications than work-study applications. President Macpherson stated there
are complexities between work-study versus temporary service dollars in terms of how we
pay benefits and there are many ways in which the temporary service dollars are more
expensive to the institution. There are many things we look at with this and working on
campus has shown in almost every study to be a preferable way to work than off campus.
Working up to 20 hours a week tends to have a positive impact on a student’s GPA.
Working over 20 hours is where it starts to potentially have a negative impact. These are
national trends, these are not necessarily Brockport trends. These are all things that need
to be reviewed, but it is true that there are opportunities to work on campus other than
work-study. - A question was raised regarding the four areas identified for underrepresented students and if there is a way to determine the percentage of students that are in all four areas, three areas, two areas and one area. This way we could target students that have three and four areas more thoroughly than the students that only fall into one of the categories. Mr. Scheid stated that is not something they have reviewed yet but it can be examined to determine the best approach on where to start.
- A suggestion was made that we need to look at how mental health has changed for students
and how this has impacted enrollment. - A question was raised regarding retention rates of students that are involved on campus
like being on a sports team or participate in a campus organization. Dr. Kelly stated they
are currently examining cohorts of students in categories such as student employment,
being involved in clubs and organizations, living and learning communities and one of the
areas they are analyzing is retention. President Macpherson stated that the national trends
show that being involved in a club or organization, being on a sports team, or having a job
on campus does help retention. There are many ways we can make a student feel involved
on campus to help retain them.
Other Items from the Committee
None at this time.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:54 a.m.
Next Meeting: February 14, 2019, 8:30-10:30 AM
DC/JW/mw