RECRUITMENT

Strategic Recruitment Plan Priority Committee

Minutes: January 30, 2004 Meeting
11:45 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Adams Alumni Center

Attended: Carolyn Barnes (for Kirk Cerny), Glenda Carter, Ann Eversole, Brenda Maigaard, Larry Mallett, Susie Massey, George McCleary, Lisa Pinamonti, Heidi Simon, Robb Sorem, Luke Thompson, Kathryn Nemeth Tuttle, Jennifer Wamelink, JoAnn Williams.

Pinamonti handed out an ACT projection for 2004, 2006-2016. Williams handed out reports with ACT details. The first and second pages are details of freshman at KU and their residency. Members reviewed the information and Mallett felt that adjustments to the projections were not necessary. He felt 2016 is doable and reasonable and we now need to figure out how to achieve the profile. Pinamonti asked all members to review the projections to see if there are any increases or decreases that do not look right.

Mallett has also reviewed the ACT information that Pinamonti has sent electronically. He pointed out some interesting facts:

On the In-State page:

In 2001, there were 891 students with a 27 and above. In 2003, there were only 827 – this is a decrease of 27%.

In 2000, there were 357 with a 30 ACT or higher. In 2003, there were only 315 – this is also a decrease.

On the Out-of-state page:

In 2002, there were 345 students with a 27 and above. In 2003, there were only 255 – this is a 36% decrease.

In 2000, there 156 students with a 30 ACT or higher. In 2003, there were only 56 students. Part of this decrease is due to the difference in the out-of-state National Merit scholarship package which changed for Fall 2003.

Mallett shared a Chronicle article that mentioned scholarship dollars trumps all other factors when choosing a college.

He also shared this idea:
Some states have incentive for out of state students where a student pays all of the in-state tuition rates and only a portion of out-of-state tuition. This is their scholarship offer. KU could design a grid taking into consideration ACT, class rank, etc. It could be designed to guarantee full out of state tuition waived and pay the in state rate for the best students and other examples could be:
32 – 34 ACT = pay ½ out of state portion + in state
28-31 ACT = pay ¼ of out of state portion + in state

Discussions:
Is it difficult to recruit the high ability with the very high ACT? What about making the incentive lower? If Mallett’s idea could be implemented than scholarship dollars could be reallocate to students with a 26-29 ACT.

Is there any research on what motivates students? Is the bottom line the cost or scholarship offer? Thompson said from a student perspective, it is a combination. He said for him, it was the money. He said KU is not competing with the more expensive, elite schools.

It was suggested to maybe add bottom line to scholarship letter – This pays for a ¼ of your tuition….and to add comparison of housing costs so have overall picture of what it costs to attend KU and just how affordable it is.

Thompson thought it was possible to stack scholarships here without affecting financial aid package. Maigaard mentioned that this was incorrect. Gift aid goes first for the need of the student and then it is determined what need is left.

What about the idea of – if an admissions representative is visiting with a student and they mention another school has given the XX dollars. Could KU give $500 and will they come? There were concerns from committee members that this is an unfair approach – why award to those who call and complain.

Tuttle asked - could we change Kansas Qualified Admissions requirements? Pinamonti replied that this must be passed by the Board of Regents (BOR) and if changes were made, they would not be implemented for five years.

Can we ask if and when KU has approached the BOR for contiguous county tuition costs? Pinamonti will ask Dr. Marlesa Roney to find out some history.

Can we improve the profile and at the same time, gain tuition money (not lose it) by doing it? Can someone on this committee determine this type of cost information?
It was suggested that maybe we look at high school graduation projections.

It was asked that Williams run Fall 2004 application numbers – where are they coming compared to Fall 2003?

Thompson mentioned an approach by Iowa State – if you are one of the first 25 out of state National Merits to commit, you receive a full ride.

Mallett expressed a concern that we need more clear direction on the Chancellor goals – we need policies in place to address these issues such as Are we going to recruit out of state National Merit scholars or not? It is important to mention that if we want goals then we need to be consistent.

Where are students going if they are not choosing KU? OAS is collecting this information if the student provides it. Pinamonti will send Williams where it is entered in PeopleSoft – not coming and if provide location – so the committee can learn where they are going. There needs to be more assessment of students who attend and students who do not.

Question: Why is there a focus on National Merit Scholars? Are we alienating a lot of high ability students who are not National Merit Semifinalists?

What is the best predictor for graduation rate – this question was directed to Williams and Tuttle. At this time, KU does not know. Is there a report that show this ACT=graduation?
Is it high school g.p.a.? Sorem has done studies and he mentioned there is a correlation between ACT and g.p.a. He has also looked at involvement.

Pinamonti shared a few ideas:
-What if we give out some renewable scholarships for top ACT or if not renewable for all four years then at least 2 years?
-What if we limit the number of conditional admits and Kansas exceptions who are admitted if they have a low ACT?

Next meeting:
Pinamonti and Carter will distribute OAS communication plans
Information about comparative tuition costs

Williams will try to have an updated report of scholarship retention for non-renewable or if necessary, Pinamonti will bring the report from Fall 2002
Pinamonti will have some visit day information including the different type of agendas

For all members -- Homework idea:
How can we achieve these increases in ACT? Please come to the meeting with some ideas

Question asked: Are we aware of other institutions who have a systematic approach for improving the profile? What approaches have been taken? Simon mentioned the Enhanced Recruitment Team (KU Marketing Council) asked the same question. So how do we find this information? Pinamonti said we do need to look into it – she will email the Big 12 Admission Directors plus Michigan and Illinois.