TO: Dr. Chernoh Sesay, Executive Vice-President and Provost

FROM: Admission Standards Planning Committee

Members: L. Agard-Jones; D. Catarina; A. Class-Rivera; L. DeBartolo; D. Fountoukidis; J. Hill (convenor/organizer/secretary); K. Martus; N. Norville; L. Risley.

DATE: October 23, 1997

RE: Final Report from Admission Standards Planning Committee

Please find attached the final report from the ad hoc Admission Standards Planning Committee that was formed in winter 1997. You will note from this report that the work of the committee covered not only admission standards, but also policies and academic standards. This broad scope is responsive to our charge which included consideration of the recommendations of the Admissions and Academic Standards Council regarding raising admission and academic standards, and issues raised at the Open Forums. Moreover, it became clear to our committee that admission standards, academic standards and policies are so interconnected that all need to be addressed if we are to make the desired progress.

At this point, we would like to narrow our focus to concentrate on admission standards and pass on to others for further work our findings on policies and academic standards. Is this agreeable to you?

FINAL REPORT
ADMISSION STANDARDS PLANNING COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 1997

Introduction

In response to a request by Provost Sesay and the Faculty Senate, the Executive Committee of the WPUNJ Faculty Senate invited several individuals to form the ad hoc Admission Standards Planning Committee. The committee's charge was to consider the Provost's recruitment initiatives designed to build a pool of highly qualified undergraduate students, recommendations of Admissions and Academic Standards Council regarding raising admission and academic standards, and issues raised at the Open Forums and then to develop a plan to gradually raise admission and academic standards. An additional charge was the development of a time line for completion of proposed changes.

The Admission Standards Committee convened on March 5, 1997 and met approximately weekly through the middle of June. Meetings in October 1997 were primarily to prioritize our ideas to be included in this final report. We considered a wide range of background information, including research on predictors of academic success, relevant policies from sister institutions, and information on individual WPUNJ students as well as summary data. We also spent considerable time educating ourselves about WPUNJ policies and procedures. We recognized that raising admission and academic standards involves not only setting appropriate criteria for admission to WPUNJ, but also requires appropriate support systems, policies and procedures as well as expectations and standards in the classroom. In other words, the "package" offered by WPUNJ, to its students, should be one of excellence (and challenge) from admission to graduation. Members of the committee worked well together, were positive about the institution's future, and were genuinely interested in both improving and/or clarifying admission standards, maintaining open access to students, and maintaining enrollment. Meetings were typically long and discussions often extended 2-3 hours.

This report summarizes our discussions and presents ideas that may prove valuable for improvement of: I. Admission Standards (Freshmen, transfer, non-traditional), II. Re-admission (including expungement), and III. Academic Standards (Probation and dismissal, classroom). Appendices that provide details of current, relevant WPUNJ policies are attached.

I. Admission Standards
A. Freshmen
1. Admission Criteria
The WPUNJ Admissions Office receives approximately 5,000 applications per year from prospective freshmen and each member of the staff is assigned a specific case load to evaluate (in addition to several thousand applications for other student categories). Those applicants which meet or exceed the AI (Academic Index) threshold are accepted. Those which fall below the threshold and meet additional criteria may be considered for admission under two special programs. Applicants who do not meet the AI qualification and who are economically disadvantaged are reviewed for admission through the Educational Opportunity Fund (EOF) (approximately 140 students out of 1,000) (Appendix I). Also, some applicants with special talents may meet criteria established by the Sponsored Student Program (Appendix I).

Traditionally at WPUNJ, there has been strict adherence to the established threshold value of the AI for admissions. Recently, applications with borderline AI's have been examined more closely by taking into account additional factors such as strength of the high school. For example, both the report card issued by New Jersey for each high school and published pass rates for the High School Proficiency Test (HSPT) may be considered.

Ideas for Consideration:
Raise the AI cut off point for automatic admission so that the pool of applicants who are looked at more carefully is increased.

Define a pool of students with AI's slightly above and below the cutoff point who will be looked at more closely. A review of the transcripts of WPUNJ students who were accepted below the AI cutoff revealed that many perform as well or better than those with AI's in higher ranges. A closer look at these students during the admission process might enable us to identify those who are likely to succeed. For these students, the following additional criteria may be used: Recalculated GPA based on academic subjects.

An interview which includes completion of the non-cognitive predictor questionnaire similar to the one used by the Sponsored Student Program.

A contract for those students who are admitted which requires mandatory participation in support programs.

A committee process for making decisions.

Concern was expressed that accepting more students who are likely to have lower SAT's would change WPUNJ's reported statistics unfavorably. The lowering of reported SAT scores might, however, be offset by the Presidential Scholars and Honors Programs. It is important that conversion of accepted Presidential Scholars (and all high achieving students) be given high priority. Conversion of accepted students, in general, deserves careful thought and attention.

It was noted that high school guidance counselors report having students who were rejected by WPUNJ but accepted by comparable state institutions (including those outside New Jersey) and who have succeeded at those schools. These students were rejected by WPUNJ because their AI was too low. Last year, fifty students who fit this category were accepted after reviewing their entire records. These students will be followed to see how they perform at WPUNJ.

It was pointed out that colleges with "great" names do not have all highly qualified students and that WPUNJ also needs to have a range of qualifications represented in its student body.

We need to improve retention. The profile of WPUNJ will gradually be improved as we are more successful with our students. Improved retention may allow us to raise admission standards while maintaining enrollment.

It was emphasized that in order to look more closely at applicants, the admissions office needs support to accomplish the additional work.

2. Admission Application
The Committee discussed the WPUNJ application form and agreed that additional information may provide a stronger base from which to accept or deny admission. Ideas for consideration are located in the following paragraphs and emphasize non-cognitive criteria.

High School Activities. A description of a student's extracurricular activities in high school, including positions held, would provide information about the applicant's level of involvement, leadership potential, and potential contribution to the WPUNJ community. Also, this information may be useful for advisement and for personal contacts from members of the WPUNJ community. There is a screen in SIS where admissions could enter this kind of information. One concern is the ability to verify the information provided by the applicant; some high school transcripts include extracurricular activities. The committee is responsible, in part, for an improved application form (for Fall 1998 admission) that requests information about high school activities and also asks applicants to submit a 200 word essay that describes either a significant personal experience or a specific topic of interest.

Letters of Recommendation. Although some institutions ask for recommendations from high school counselors, there is serious criticism that these recommendations are typically variable and have questionable value. We agreed that both student's time and WPUNJ admissions time could be better spent on other criteria.

Interviews and On-site Essays. These might be useful for borderline applicants. For those who clearly meet admissions criteria and for those who clearly do not meet the criteria, interviews are not necessary. This is potentially both valuable and time consuming. Although departmental involvement was discussed, we agreed that interviews by the admissions staff would give continuity to the admissions process and that departmental involvement would be more valuable in the process of conversion of accepted students.

Links to the University. An additional new component of the application for Fall 1998 is a request for information on relationships the applicant may have with alumni and/or currently enrolled students.

B. Transfer Students

Although this is certainly a relevant and important topic, the committee defers, in this case, to the Senate's Admissions and Academic Standards Council for their in-depth consideration of policies regarding transfer students.

C. Non-traditional Students

Background Information. A non-traditional student is defined as someone who has been out of high school for 2 or more years and is 21 years of age or older. In order to gain acceptance to WPUNJ, the only requirement is proof of graduation from high school. Because these applicants are required to provide minimal background information, there is concern that we have accepted some non-traditional students who would otherwise have been rejected by the usual admission process. Further, academic advisement for these students is currently almost non-existent. Many of these students are part-time, i.e., they work during the day and register for night courses. Because few General Education courses are taught at night, non-traditional students find it difficult to obtain degree requirements in a timely manner.

Non-traditional students are mentioned in the Mission Statement and there is a national trend to include this population in the student mix of institutions. If WPUNJ were to seriously consider recruiting non-traditional students, it must develop a long range vision with a careful assessment of the contributions these students would make to the institution and a commitment of resources. When we, as an institution, speak of diversity, this population should be a part of that discussion.

In the past, programs for non-traditional students have not been successful. For example, a grant-funded program a few years ago was terminated when funding ended. We feel that support programs for these students are more important than admission criteria.

The committee feels that this particular student population has much to offer the institution and that WPUNJ should play a much larger role in recruiting, admitting, and supporting non-traditional students.

Ideas for Consideration:
Re-define non-traditional students as those who have been out of high school for five or more years. If out of high school for fewer than five years, apply regular admission criteria. This includes submission of SAT scores which remain valid for five years.

Ensure that students have completed required high school academic courses or passed the GED. Require students to submit their high school transcripts.

Explore possibility of giving credit for "life experience."

Increase support programs for retention.

Expand the Sponsored Student Program to include non-traditional students.

Institute a structured and nurturing advisement program for these students.

Institute an analog to the Freshman Seminar for nontraditional students.

II. Re-admission (including expungement)

Re-admission Background. When a student leaves WPUNJ for any reason, to be re-admitted, s/he must submit a completed application form to the Admissions Office. (Note: reinstatement occurs as a result of a successful appeal when a student is dismissed for academic reasons and is thus not related to re-admission.) Re-admission for a student who leaves in good academic standing is generally automatic. The WPUNJ policy for students who did not leave in good standing could be strengthened to clarify re-admission criteria and to improve retention of this particular group of re-admitted students. As emphasized throughout this document, a well-planned and well-coordinated support system is essential for students to maintain solid academic standing.

Ideas for Consideration:
For students who did not leave in good standing, consideration should be given to the following requirements:

Require students to be away from WPUNJ at least one year before applying for re-admission.

Require a typewritten essay stating why the student wishes to return to WPUNJ and what was accomplished while away from WPUNJ. Documentation to support relevant accomplishments is invited.

If deemed appropriate, require student to participate in a course similar to Freshman Seminar that meets the needs of this population.

In general, the progression of a readmit student might be:
Admissions.
Advisement center.
Deans.
Registrar.

Expungement Background. The expungement policy originated with faculty who felt that students should be allowed a Asecond chance@ to succeed and was subsequently adopted by the Admissions Office. When an application for re-admission is received, students are notified of our Expungement Policy as well as the time limit for completing a degree at WPUNJ, and, for those students who have earned a degree at a community college, the option of erasing all previous course work at WPUNJ (see Appendix II for details). Only at the time of re-admission, do students have the option of exercising the Expungement Policy. Note that, for spring 1997, 30 of the 70 re-admit students exercised this option. This is a relatively small number of students, but the processing of their records is very labor intensive. For example, Admissions staff spend a great deal of time calculating the effect of expungement on GPA's of each student.

There are problems with the current policy that deserve attention. For example, expungement may be more closely related to advisement than to admissions. Also, a liberal expungement policy may be a short-term solution to a student's academic history that may have been different if support systems were stronger.

We reviewed the transcripts of four representative students who had exercised the Expungement Policy and they illustrated that expungement may be the result of weaknesses in other academic policies or support programs. For example: One of the students, as a first time freshman, had taken two 300-level courses and one 200-level course his first semester here.

As a result of our liberal Dismissal Policy one student was here in poor academic standing for four semesters before being dismissed, thus increasing the possible number of semesters that might be expunged.

Ideas for Consideration:
Limit the number of semesters that may be expunged to one.
Consider moving responsibility for implementing the Expungement Policy from the Admissions Office to Advisement. This makes sense because the process is really a reactivation of the student's record and concerns academic rather than admissions policies. Moreover, careful advisement, including the implications of expungement, is crucial to the success of these students. Also, the Admissions Office cannot monitor adherence to a contract into which a student might enter.

III. Academic Standards A. Probation and Dismissal

Probation and Dismissal Background. We reviewed the current WPUNJ probation and dismissal policy (Appendix III) and agreed that it is so generous that poorly-performing students may become so deep in academic "debt" that they cannot recover. If these students receive financial aid, the extended probation may result in increased loan indebtedness with little realistic chance of success (mean indebtedness for these students is $6,000). When students are ultimately dismissed, they have little chance of obtaining quality employment to pay off their loans. This in turn may lead to default which is not only problematic for the students but also jeopardizes WPUNJ's participation in institutional financial aid programs.

In addition, the few weeks between winter and spring semesters are not sufficient time for the dismissal and appeal processes. As a result, students who should have been dismissed in January are allowed to stay another semester, thus potentially increasing loan indebtedness with little realistic chance for success.

There is no minimum GPA before dismissal. For example, a student could conceivably have a 0.0 GPA for 4 semesters (duration of current probation and dismissal process).

Although attempts have been made to institute support systems to aid these students, the necessary support seems to be lacking.

Ideas for Consideration:
Establish a minimum GPA a student must have to remain at WPUNJ. If below minimum, student would automatically be dismissed.

Implement an early warning system in order to intervene before students have accumulated many credits with low GPA's. Placing resources at this point rather than after students are already on probation may be more effective toward student retention.

Consider changing from four semesters of substandard GPA (current) to two semesters before dismissal.

Consider the possibility of eliminating appeals. But, if we continue to have an appeals process, we may need to consider dismissals only at the end of the year, at the end of the spring semester (little time during winter break).

B. Classroom Standards

Classroom Standards Background. The committee feels strongly that WPUNJ cannot raise admission standards without also raising classroom and institutional standards. Classroom standards are the most difficult to address, but cannot be ignored. It was suggested that we might have an outside speaker or an open forum to address this issue. The following paragraphs address specific areas that may benefit from examination and include: grading practices, student outcomes, freshman year experience, basic skills, and mentoring new faculty. Although these are topics that were discussed, we do not imply that they represent the only academic topics which could be examined.

Examination of university-wide statistics indicates that there has been little increase in mean GPA over the past eight years. While there is wide variability in grading practices across departments, we award quite a high percentage of superior grades. This appears inconsistent with the frequent concern expressed by faculty of low level of achievement by students.

Another approach to academic standards is student learning outcomes. If we set the expectation that our graduates can write, for example, we should then hold ourselves accountable and guarantee that this is in fact the case. This should be examined in conjunction with General Education and, of course, each major. Standards should be established which are based on the five student learning outcomes adopted by the Senate.

An intensive freshman year experience is needed, perhaps in conjunction with a pre-college academy for some students. Students need to learn how to learn: note taking, test taking, study skills, etc. Recent efforts, e.g., Freshman Seminar, are to be commended for their attempts to increase freshman academic skills, as well as bond students to the institution. It appears that we need even stronger efforts to achieve baseline academic skills for many students.

Our Basic Skills Program is designed to recognize students that do not yet have requisite skills for college-level courses and to follow-up with remedial courses that bring students to a level comparable to other "prepared" students. Evidence suggests that students who complete Basic Skills courses succeed at WPUNJ almost equally with students who did not have Basic Skills courses. We question whether Basic Skills and, indeed, foundation courses (e.g., Writing Effective Prose) bring students to a level of competency that meets our expectation of academic excellence.

Some departments have a mentoring system for new faculty which has been very successful. This program assists new faculty with resources and culture, and is relevant to overall faculty development. New, tenure-track faculty sometimes find it difficult to balance course rigor with student approval. Mentoring helps alleviate apprehension concerning the possible relationship between failing students and poor student evaluations.

Ideas for Consideration:
Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, a self-administered questionnaire may be helpful in defining what is meant by academic standards. There is also a student version which is being administered to Freshman Seminar students during Fall 1997.

Carefully examine the basic skills program with regard to its challenge to students, the adequacy of the exit test as a measure of basic skills competence, and followup to evaluate its level of achievement. Is the test at the conclusion of the basic skills program adequate?

Completion of basic skills should be immediately followed by a course in which the skills are reinforced., e.g., follow with a history course that requires a number of papers; follow math basic skills with a math or business course that will reinforce those math skills.

Administer a standardized examination at the end of 30 credits to assess students' progress toward achieving student learning outcomes. If students do not pass, require additional course work. If tests were conducted in the aggregate, perhaps it would avoid intimidating faculty. Should students be required to pass a test in order to declare a major?

Restructure Freshman Seminar to provide an intensive freshmen year experience where students learn skills such as note taking, test taking, studying, etc. We also discussed extending the current Freshman Seminar from halfway to the end of the semester.

On the department level, provide support for new faculty such as a mentor program to assist with resources and culture.

Hold Open Forums for faculty to discuss classroom standards.

TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

TOPIC		WHO				ACTION
I.A.B.C.		Similar ad hoc group		Recommendations 
or Senate council		by March 1998

II, III.A.		Admissions Council		Recommendations 
by March 1998

III.B.			Undergraduate Council	Recommendations
by March 1998

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The interconnectedness of the topics covered above requires that we view them as an integrated system. All component parts need to be addressed in order to achieve the desired progress. Councils of the Faculty Senate would enthusiastically continue work on this project.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Special thanks are extended to Sandy DeYoung for direction and to Jackie Hill for organizing meetings and recording minutes. Dona Fountoukidis, Leo DeBartolo, and Nancy Norville provided considerable supportive documentation for discussions. The committee also benefitted from J. Hill's and Kevin Martus' membership on the Admissions and Academic Standards Council. D. Fountoukidis summarized our meetings in the preparation of a draft of this report and J. Hill gathered information found in the appendices. Lance Risley prepared the final report. Finally, the committee wishes to thank Provost Sesay for recognizing and responding to the need for examination of admission and academic standards as we continue the transition from college to university.