WASC Home > CPR Reports
Back

STUDENT INITIATIVES SUMMARY

Below is a list of ideas that came from the discussion held November 14, 2005 about students as part of the academic planning process and was supplemented by e-mail comments and follow-up work done by the Academic Council.

Ideas:
More than anything the consensus was that faculty need more information in order to make any useful comments on may of the questions above.  The group generally felt happy with the students entering their majors and pleased with the improvement in the quality of students.

  • What committees are in place to look at these issues?  Where will the resources come from?  How will priorities be set?
  • Create structures to provide access to a college education for students from ethnically diverse and socio-economically challenged groups.
  • The faculty want to be better informed about the process that the Undergraduate Admissions Office uses for building the freshmen class.  This would help in departmental recruiting.  Perhaps some sort of extended presentation in a faculty meeting would be the best venue.  Some of the questions raised:
    • Does the choice of major play any role in the selection process?
    • How much weight does “institutional fit” carry and how is it defined?
    • What is the waiting of the numerical factors?
  • We need to find a way to track graduate persistence and graduation rates. 
  • There are some interesting research questions related to student recruitment.  Which of these have been investigated?  Which could be used for student/faculty research projects?
    • What are the most effective tools for recruiting graduate students?
    • What are the most effective for recruiting undergraduate students?
    • Are there ways to identify people in congregations with influence who can advocate for PLNU (more than the “youth pastor”)?
    • How would we measure the reasons that students select PLNU?
    • We need to learn from both parents and students if PLNU is being selected for the type of educational experience we offer.
  • There are some interesting questions related to student retention. Which of these have been investigated?  Which could be used for student/faculty research projects?
    • What are the key factors that students (both graduate and undergraduate) identify as important to keeping them in our learning community?
    • Why do students leave and where do they go after they leave?  Are there lessons to be learned there?
  • Form a team (faculty and others) in support of Institutional Research whose main work is to use student research projects to answer questions about our student population in a systematic way (it has been done in a hit and miss way in the past).  The MICS Department is making this a component of their service learning and research work with students.
  • There is no institutional committee tasked with focusing on developing undergraduate research beyond the Honors Program.  There are issues involving money for travel, money for materials, policies about the use in independent study units, support for faculty wanting to start doing research with undergraduates, etc that need to be investigated.  If we are serious about undergraduate research, then we need the supporting structure.
  • Investigate if we need further structures to support graduate student research that is part of many degree programs.
  • Build opportunities for students to form relationships with faculty and staff across ethnic and class barriers.

Note:

  • CPR Group One: Data recommends:
    • The University needs to continue to study institutional diversity.  Great strides have been made and some analysis is called for to identify our most effective strategies.  In addition, a comparison needs to be made between the university’s faculty, staff and student population and that of our catchment area.
    • There needs to be improvement in the collection and reporting of graduate program data.  The University is in the process of correcting the problems, but must be diligent in seeing the task through over the next few years.
  • CPR Group Four: Standards 2 & 4 recommends:
    • It is recommended that PLNU continue its efforts with freshmen retention and to continue to look for new and better ways to facilitate freshmen retention.
    • Further, it is recommended that PLNU continue researching reasons behind students leaving the university before graduation in order to raise this percentage further.
    • It is recommended that PLNU continue its efforts in utilizing the programs in effect and look for additional ways to meet institutional objectives concerning transfer students.
    • Finally, it is recommended that the Graduate School at PLNU develop consistent measures using specific definitions for retention and graduation rates. Afterward, the Graduate School should make comparisons to other institutions on retention and graduation rates and begin modifying their programs accordingly.
  • CPR Group Seven: Diversity recommends:
    • Initial indications point to a positive trend in enrollment of students of color at PLNU.  Sustaining these gains will take increasing intentional efforts from admissions, financial aid and student support staff.  Progress can be made by sustaining and increasing diversity leadership scholarships, ongoing and increasing recruitment infrastructure for diverse neighborhoods and schools, ongoing commitment to a diverse admissions staff, and an increase in special outreach programs for students of color who meet our mission target. 
    • Special attention should be given to expanding outreach programs to churches with more diverse Christian populations.
    • Increase the level of institutional support for the Admissions Associate Director of Outreach in order to expand outreach programs for underrepresented populations. 
    • Continue to increase the level of institutional support for the Director of Diversity and International Students along with the M.O.S.A.I.C. student club alliance. 
  • EER Task Force II: SHAPE may have some recommendations for this section.

Framing questions

  1. Are we getting the students we desire?
  2. Are we satisfied with student persistence and graduation rates?
  3. What would an appropriate persistence and graduation rate be for graduate programs?
  4. Do our students understand and select us for the right reasons?  Do they really desire the education process we provide?
  5. What three initiatives could we undertake to more effectively shape our recruiting and student selection?
  6. What are the most important three things the institution could do to better shape its undergraduate freshman class?
  7. Do graduate students have a “sense of place” in our programs?  How could this best be encouraged and enhanced?