Present:
Bob Szafran, Chair
DawnElla Rust
Doyle Alexander
Lauren Scharff
Roger Bilow
Florence Elliot-Howard
Piero Fenci
Pat Spence
Mike Legg
Absent:Marty Turnage
The Admissions Requirements Committee met at9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 30, 1999, in the McGee BusinessBuilding, Room 169.
I. Old Business
A.Lauren Scharff updated the committee regarding status of gatheringinformation from the Faculty Senate. Bob Szafran informed thecommittee about the upcoming Student Government Associate meeting onApril 6. Piero Fenci volunteered to monitor the SGA meeting forfeedback. Bob also reported that Sandy Turner, Manager, UniversityInformation System, is providing a file that captures data about Fall1998 SFA undergraduates. This data can be used to examine theconsequences of possible changes in admissions requirements.
B. Bobrequested that some committee members volunteer to draft a survey forfaculty members to be posted on the web. Pat Spence, Lauren Scharff,DawnElla Rust and Florence Elliot-Howard volunteered to do so.
C. Bobsuggested the committee choose two dates to have an open forumdiscussing admissions requirements. The committee selected April 19and April 22 at 3:30 p.m. Location to be announced.
D. Boburged the committee members to be prepared at the next meeting toexpress their initial views regarding changing admissionsrequirements. Members will have approximately 5 minutes each to sharetheir viewpoint.
II. New Business
A. Thecommittee, lead by Bob Szafran, held a discussion regarding theconclusions and recommendations of the consultant's report. Some ofthe points made during the discussion were the following:
1. Theterm "high ability" is perceived in a variety of ways. Defining theterm is essential in understanding the report. The particular usage,in this instance by the consultant's, refers to high ACT/SATscores.
2.Prospective students from Louisiana/Arkansas experience a significantbreak due to legislation in place. Recruiting is viable there, butnot cost effective since state funds cannot be used for out-of-staterecruiting.
3. Rogerreported that the admissions ratios in the consultant's report wereaccurate.
4.Recruiting efforts to achieve an increased freshman populationcontinue to be focusing on the major metropolitan areas; Dallas andHouston.
5.Raising the admission standards of the university would put it indirect competition with some of the larger Texas State universities,which in turn would demand from SFA the financial resources for amuch more aggressive marketing plan.
B. Thecommittee discussed several possible consequences if admissionsrequirements were raised. A perception of academic quality is oftenassociated with admissions requirements. Raising admissionsrequirements for the 3rd and 4th quarters while increasing recruitingefforts to attract higher quality students might result in no netchange in the size of the freshmen class. Also, higher admissionstandards could create less academic probation, which wouldultimately increase retention. Development of a stronger provisionalprogram using previously discussed criteria could also helpuniversity retention.
C. Thecommittee discussed strategies for recruiting area-targeted students.They included a close analysis of our market, implementing a dynamicmarketing strategy toward that market and aggressive utilization andsupport from our University programs already in place such as theAARC, SFA 101, FIG's, Honors Program, etc. Additionally, create anAdvising/Mentoring program to refer students to for specificassistance.
D. Bobstated that the discussion of the next meeting should be gearedtoward what specific direction the committee should pursue. Hepointed out that the committee's report will join other recentuniversity reports like the 03 Commission on the Future and theRetention Report and any connections we could point out between ourrecommendations and those other reports might add strength to ourrecommendations.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30a.m.