The Non-Returning Student Survey should be continued to obtain trends and to assess the effectiveness of the retention effort. The content and aims of this survey should be reviewed periodically by individuals who are active in the retention effort. Also, further analysis could be performed, for instance, of the higher-achieving students.
The Retention Workshops organized by the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education should be continued annually. Special efforts to involve the three campuses that have not participated should be made.
An analysis of University Park retention should be performed to learn what promising changes might be looked at by a new CQI team.
New strategies may be needed to deploy modest amounts of student aid to help retain some good students who now drop out for financial reasons.
The timing of retention efforts is critical, as the non-returning student data show. Workshops, communications, letters, and student actions should all be conducted with the knowledge that decisions not to return are taken in April-May and January.
The next retention team should focus on diagnosis, placement, and freshman year messages and advice, with a new technology-based approach in mind; a particular problem is determing readiness for mathematics, but a diagnostic approach may be especially helpful with it. This effort could lead to a revised orientation program that would be consistent with national benchmarks.
- CEMG Steering Group, Sponsor
- John Cahir, Leader
- Jack Gido, Facilitator