1. Student Success in the 21 st Century: How the Conflict between Retention and Mobility Influences who Graduates from a Large Public University Mary Anne Baker, Exec. Director for Retention and Student Support Todd Schmitz, Exec. Director for University Reporting & Research Vicki Roberts, Assoc. Vice President for Institutional Development & Student Affairs Scott Evenbeck, Dean of University College, IUPUI Indiana University

2. Student Success in the 21 st Century: “An examination of attendance patterns reveals increasing complex configurations…Understanding these patterns is particularly important for enrollment management at the state system and institutional levels.” Adelman, 2004, p.v

3. OBJECTIVES  Understand how retention and mobility of students affects enrollment and graduation success at Indiana University Analyze change in enrollment mix of beginner and transfer students Analyze change in enrollment mix of beginner and transfer students Describe the relationship between new mix and retention and graduation rates Describe the relationship between new mix and retention and graduation rates Discuss how these changes might affect enrollment management programs Discuss how these changes might affect enrollment management programs

4. Types of Transfer  True Transfer —Attend another institution, leave that institution, and enroll at IU  Continuing Student Transferring Courses from Another Institution —Remain enrolled at IU, but take courses from other institutions (Summer or Distance Ed)  Simultaneous Enrollment —Enrolled at two institutions of higher education as the same time  Intercampus Transfer --Transfer between IU campuses

5. Enrollment Mix of New Beginner and True Transfer Students 2000-01 to 2005-06  Transfer Percent of Entering Cohort Increased 4.6% for Indiana University Residential Campus —Bloomington— Increased 1.5 % Residential Campus —Bloomington— Increased 1.5 % Urban Campus —IUPUI—Increased 6.6% Urban Campus —IUPUI—Increased 6.6% Regional Campuses —East, Kokomo, Northwest, South Bend and Southeast— Increased 8% Regional Campuses —East, Kokomo, Northwest, South Bend and Southeast— Increased 8%

6. Enrollment Mix of New Beginner and True Transfer Students 2000-01 to 2005-06

7. RESIDENTIAL CAMPUS  URBAN CAMPUS   REGIONAL COMMUTER CAMPUSES

8. True Transfer 2005-06  From Community College of Indiana Residential Campus—12% Residential Campus—12% Urban Campus—24% Urban Campus—24% Regional Commuter Campuses—21% Regional Commuter Campuses—21%  For all IU campuses Top Transfer Institutions are located in Indiana or border state

9. Intercampus Transfer  In 2005-06 2469 Intercampus Transfer Students (Undergraduate enrollment =75,147)  Residential campus has a out-migration intercampus transfer pattern  Regional campuses have nearly equal numbers of in- and out-migration  Urban campus has in-migration pattern— includes completing Allied Health programs

10. Net Migration of Intercampus Transfers

11. Retention to Year 2  Comparing Campuses Higher for Residential campus Higher for Residential campus Equal for Urban and Regional campuses Equal for Urban and Regional campuses  Comparing Transfers to Beginners Transfer lower on Residential campus Transfer lower on Residential campus Transfer slightly higher for Urban and Regional campuses Transfer slightly higher for Urban and Regional campuses

12. Transfer Retention Rates: Year 2

13. Beginner Retention Rates: Year 2

14. Baccalaureate Degrees Earned  21% of IU Baccalaureate degrees earned by True Transfer students 13% on Residential campus 13% on Residential campus 33% on Urban campus 33% on Urban campus 33% on Regional Commuter campuses 33% on Regional Commuter campuses

15. Transfer and Beginner Graduates— All Campuses

16. Transfer and Beginner Graduates— Type of Campus RESIDENTIAL CAMPUS  URBAN CAMPUS   REGIONAL COMMUTER CAMPUSES

17. Summary  At Indiana University in the last five years undergraduate students are: More likely to have transferred from other institutions More likely to have transferred from other institutions Increased percent of transfers from Community College of IndianaIncreased percent of transfers from Community College of Indiana More likely to transfer among IU campuses More likely to transfer among IU campuses Residential campus more transfer out than inResidential campus more transfer out than in Urban campus more transfer in than outUrban campus more transfer in than out Regional campuses nearly equal transfer in and outRegional campuses nearly equal transfer in and out

18. Summary  Retention to Year 2 On the Residential campus, transfer students are less likely to be retained to year 2 than are beginners (6.6% lower for 2004-05— 87.1% for beginners, 80.5% for transfers) On the Residential campus, transfer students are less likely to be retained to year 2 than are beginners (6.6% lower for 2004-05— 87.1% for beginners, 80.5% for transfers) On the Urban and Regional campuses, transfer students are retained at a slightly higher rate ( 2.3% higher for 2004-05-- 62.5% for transfer students, 60.2% for beginners) On the Urban and Regional campuses, transfer students are retained at a slightly higher rate ( 2.3% higher for 2004-05-- 62.5% for transfer students, 60.2% for beginners)

19. Summary  Transfer students earned 21% of Baccalaureate Degrees in 2003-04 13% on Residential campus 13% on Residential campus 33% on Urban and Regional campuses 33% on Urban and Regional campuses

20. Implications for Enrollment Management  Need new ways of tracking student success Within the institution—need ways of evaluating success in addition to six-year graduation rates and retention to year 2. Within the institution—need ways of evaluating success in addition to six-year graduation rates and retention to year 2. Between institutions—need ways to track students as they move among institutions Between institutions—need ways to track students as they move among institutions Defining “success” based on multi-institution participation Defining “success” based on multi-institution participation

21. Implications for Enrollment Management  Need new ways to recruit transfer students  Need to gain better understanding of the “best practices” for meeting the needs of transfer students  Need improved statewide, web-based transfer sites to provide student access about course transfer  Need to develop 21 st Century Enrollment Management models to guide our work.