June 15, 2014
June 15, 2014
June 18, 2014
24.1327.1 - 24.1327.10
Using Enrollment Management to Influence Student Quality and Retention Many state supported schools face a conflict between maintaining a quality education while serving increasing enrollment numbers. At [school name] engineering degree programs draw students to attend the university; in 2013, the size of the entering engineering cohort grew by 4 percent. Unconstrained growth, particularly in popular engineering programs ([program name one and program name two]) results in high student to faculty numbers that negatively impact the availability to convey a quality education. To manage growth in the engineering college, an enrollment management system was implemented in 2012 and employs program admission requirements and student performance as performance metrics. To enter in the college of engineering, a student must be an assured admit to the university and are denoted as a foundational engineering student with a concentration as their desired major (i.e., FNDL‐program name). If the student is not an assured admit to the university, students are placed in pre‐engineering and may qualify for engineering after completing a minimum of 12 hours at [university name], becoming calculus I‐ready and maintaining a GPA of 3.0. Once in the college of engineering, engineering foundational students must maintain a minimum GPA of 2.5 to stay in engineering. If the student's GPA drops below 2.5, the student is placed on engineering probation and the student must attend an academic recovery workshop and mandatory tutoring once a week. If the GPA drops below 2.5 for two consecutive semesters, the student is expelled from engineering. At the end of the Fall 2012 semester, 48% of the entering 2012 cohort (freshman, transfers (sophomore, juniors, seniors) and second degree students) where placed on engineering probation. By the end of the spring semester, 43% and 31% percent of the engineering probation students were expelled from engineering or returned to good standing, respectively. Eighteen percent of the probation students chose not to return to engineering. Overall, the 21% and 67% of the total 2012 entering cohort was expelled or in good standing at the end of the spring semester. More importantly, student quality improved. A review of the [degree program name] program compared the GPA of the 2012 sophomore students to the 2013 sophomore students that were and were not classified as foundational. [Degree program name] sophomore students that were classified as foundational performed > 0.5 GPA points higher than non‐foundational sophomore students. The data suggests the enrollment management plan is managing the engineering population while improving student academic performance.
Morse, A. N., & Watson, R. G. (2014, June), Using Enrollment Management to Influence Student Quality and Retention Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. 10.18260/1-2--23260
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2014 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015