Town Hall Meeting on Enrollment: University of Michigan Flint April 21, 2015 Tom Green, Ph.D. Associate Executive Director. AACRAO

Town Hall Meeting on Enrollment:University of Michigan Flint

April 21, 2015

Tom Green, Ph.D.

Associate Executive Director. AACRAO

UM Flint Town Hall on Enrollment, 4/21/2015 2

Town Hall Agenda

1. Introductory remarks on enrollment– Chancellor Borrego

2. UM Flint’s enrollment environment– UMF Data Team

3. Retention behaviors:– Tom Green, AACRAO Consulting

4. UMF’s optimal enrollment – a discussion:– Facilitated by Dr. Green

University of Michigan FlintEnrollment Environment

UM Flint Data Team

UM Flint Student Enrollment Behaviors

Teresa Farnum & Associates, Inc.

Tom Green, AACRAO


UM Flint Historical Retention Rates - FTIAC

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

after 1st year 0.7352 0.7179 0.6938 0.7429 0.7637 0.7033 0.7081 0.7155 0.7293 0.7217 0.7001 0.74 0.799 0.719

after 2nd year 0.5801 0.5714 0.5375 0.6357 0.616 0.5737 0.5652 0.5993 0.5319 0.572 0.5681 0.619 0.6593 NaN

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

85%

Full Time First Time Cohort Retention

Average rate = 72%

Source: UM Flint Institutional Assessment, Fawn Skarsten


Roughly 40-50% of all freshmen are gone after two years

Domestic FTIAC

Start TermStarting count

Retained to second fall

% retained

Retained to third fall

% retained

Fall 2008 897 642 71.6% 451 50.3%

Fall 2009 761 530 69.6% 414 54.4%

Fall 2010 667 448 67.2% 394 59.1%

Fall 2011 567 404 71.3% 337 59.4%

Fall 2012 533 418 78.4% 332 62.3%

Fall 2013 639 440 68.9% ?? ??

Source: Historical UM Flint data files (not tied to official IPEDS totals)


Retention by admission type - FTIAC

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Challenge/Proba-tion

0.623076923076923

0.626262626262626

0.547169811320755

0.542857142857143

0.702702702702703

0.623529411764706

Standard 0.748936170212766

0.736585365853658

0.707979626485569

0.754068716094033

0.809815950920245

0.728241563055062

5.0%

15.0%

25.0%

35.0%

45.0%

55.0%

65.0%

75.0%

85.0%

First Fall to Second Fall Retention by Admission Type

Challenge/ProbationStandard


Retention by distance from UM Flint campus

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

CommutableNon Commutable


Retention by ethnicity - FTIAC


FTIAC and Transfer retention compared

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

Full-Time Transfers and Freshmen Fall to Fall Retention

TransfersFreshmen


Benchmarking FTIAC retention – Education Trust algorithm


Benchmarking FTIAC retention – MI publics

Source: Education Trust, college results online, 3/2015


Student satisfaction

1. UM Flint administers the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory:– Measures the importance of issues to students.– Measures the level of satisfaction with those issues.– The “gap” between importance and performance implies areas where

improvements can be made.– On standard questions, allows comparison of those issues against

other institutions to “norm” the responses.

2. In most areas, UM Flint performs well:– Students are generally more satisfied with academics and services

than students at other institutions.


Student satisfaction

3. The instrument allows for “local” questions that are not answered by students at other institutions.

4. Two local questions revealed areas where the gaps between importance (high) and performance (low) imply areas for improvement:– Classes I need to complete my degree program are available.– Course scheduling problems have interfered with my ability to

complete degree requirements and graduate in a timely manner.


Where do students go when they leave?

1. National Student Clearinghouse provides data on students who attend other institutions who report enrollment through them:– This is their Student Tracker service.– Using this, we can see where students may enroll if they leave UM

Flint.

2. Some students may not appear on the report:– It contains about 94% of all enrollment in the United States but not

all.– Students who leave for military service or work will not appear.– Students who change names or have mismatched data.– Overall, it matches most students.


Top choices for next institution after UM Flint – all students1. Mott Community College

2. Baker College – Flint

3. Oakland Community College

4. UM – Ann Arbor

5. Lansing Community College

6. Michigan State University

7. Central Michigan University

8. Oakland University

9. Davenport University

10.University of Phoenix

11.Delta College

12.Saginaw Valley State University

13.St. Clair Community College

14.Eastern Michigan


Top choices for next institution after UM Flint – 3.0 or higher earned GPA

1. Mott Community College

2. UM – Ann Arbor

3. Michigan State University

4. Baker College – Flint

5. Oakland University

6. Oakland Community College

7. Lansing Community College

8. Central Michigan University

9. Grand Valley State University

10.Ferris State University


Students are Leaving with Lower Estimated Family Contributions in Recent Years


Student financial resources (EFC)


Student financial resources (EFC)


Average EFCs Differ by Destination


Students are Leaving with Higher GPAs in Recent Years


Average GPAs Differ by Destination


Virtually all students who left did so in good academic standing


Retention and student success discussion

1. How role do UM Flint faculty play in raising retention and graduation rates?

2. What stood out from the data and information you saw today?

3. How can students become connected to their academic interests at the point of entry, rather than later in their academic careers?

4. What are the ways the UM Flint can create a supportive and vibrant campus life for its students that supports academic excellence, student engagement, traditions, etc.?

Considering “optimal” enrollment:Background and Discussion


How can we consider the “optimal” enrollment for UM Flint?

Optimally, an institution’s enrollment is comprehensively developed and is based on a strategic, integrative plan that includes the identification, attraction, selection, encouragement, registration, retention, and graduation of targeted student segments. The quality of the students’ collegiate experience is based largely on the academic environment, operational excellence of the institution’s transition programs, student services, and personal development opportunities.

Huddleston, T., Jr. (2000). Enrollment Management. New Directions in Higher Education. Fall 2000, No. 111, p. 65.


Enrollment by level 2010 – 2014

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 20140

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Undergraduate Full-time Undergraduate Part-Time Graduate Full-time Graduate Part-time



Enrollment share by level 2010 – 2014

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 20140%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Undergraduate Full-time Undergraduate Part-Time Graduate Full-time Graduate Part-time



Undergraduate enrollment by segment 2010 - 2014

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 20140

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

GuestGenessee Early CollegeDual EnrolledOther Non-DegreeContinuing DegreeNew TransfersNew Freshmen



Undergraduate enrollment share by segment 2010 - 2014


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

GuestGenessee Early CollegeDual EnrolledOther Non-DegreeContinuing DegreeNew TransfersNew Freshmen



Growth of enrollment

1. Overall, UM Flint has been growing over the last five years.– How does growth help UM Flint more fully live out its mission?– What are the challenges when considering continued growth?

2. The growth in undergraduate enrollment has been in part-time, dual-enrolled students:– Is this a positive trend?– What balance would you see as ideal between degree-seeking and

non-degree students?

3. Graduate programs have grown from 15.5% to 17.4% of overall enrollment:– Would 20, 22 or 25% of enrollment be unbalanced with

undergraduate enrollment?


International enrollment 2011 - 2014

Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014200

300

400

500

600

700

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

International (all levels) Perent of all enrolled Percent of degree-seeking



Enrollment by ethnicity share 2010 - 2014


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Other/unknownTwo or moreWhiteHispanicHawaiian/Pacific IslanderAsianAmerican IndianAfrican American



Background of students

1. As the share of international enrollment continues to grow, is there a desired level of enrollment that represents a healthy balance of domestic, Michigan and international students?– How does UM Flint’s role as a public state institution figure into this

equation?

2. Given the shifts in demographics in the United States and in Michigan, how well-positioned is UM Flint to welcome and support growing numbers of students from Hispanic and Asian backgrounds?– What are the challenges UM Flint will face in serving growing

numbers of students from these groups?

QUESTIONS or ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AREAS?

Thank you.

Tom Green, Ph.D.

Associate Executive Director, Consulting and SEM

AACRAO

Documents

Town Hall Meeting on Enrollment: University of Michigan Flint April 21, 2015 Tom Green, Ph.D. Associate Executive Director. AACRAO