1. The Impact of Raising Admissions Requirements on Entering Freshmen Class Diversity at California State University, Long Beach Presented by Vincent A. (Van) Novack, Ph.D. Director, Institutional Research California State University, Long Beach

2. CSU Long Beach Total Enrollment Growth Fall Semesters, 1997 - 2003 200334,717 200234,566 200133,259 200030,920 199930,012 199828,637 199727,810

3. CSULB First-time Freshmen Fall Semesters 1997 - 2003 20033,523 20023,037 20014,517 20003,367 19993,482 19982,806 19972,653

4. CSU Eligibility Index (High School GPA * 800) + SAT Composite Score Primary admission criteria (students must also meet course pattern requirements) CSU minimum eligibility = 2,900 With 2.50 GPA, SAT of 900+ required Nearly 75% of freshmen applicants admitted prior to impaction

5. Impaction Methodology Chancellor’s Office approval required First implemented in fall 2002 Only freshmen affected in first year Local service area defined (index = 2,900) “Extended” local service area defined (slightly higher index) Considerably higher eligibility requirements for rest of California and non-residents All admits must meet minimum CSU eligibility

6. Why Freshmen? Freshmen represent largest and fastest growing new student cohort at CSULB CSU Chancellor’s Office allows impaction for entire class as well as by academic program California Master Plan designates community college transfers as first priority Nearly 80% of freshmen applicants originate outside CSULB’s local area

7. Enrollment Management at Cal State Long Beach Presidential Ad Hoc Committee composed of mostly administrators formed in 1999 Standing Advisory Committee on Enrollment established by Academic Senate in 2002 Advisory Committee is chaired by newly created Vice Provost for Enrollment Includes six faculty members serving staggered three-year terms Includes community, K-12, and community college representatives

8. Fall 2002 Enrollment After Impaction Fall 2002 Freshmen class = 3,037 Freshmen class reduced by 1,480 Represents a reduction of 32.8% Mean composite SAT increased from 979 in fall 2001 to 1018 in fall 2002 Mean High School GPA increased from 3.21 in fall 2001 to 3.41 in fall 2002 Highest SAT and HSGPA of any freshmen class in CSULB history Three groups most affected by impaction: African Americans, Latinos, & Caucasians

9. CSULB African American First-time Freshmen Enrollment History YearNumberPercent 20013367.4% 20002587.7% 19992256.5% 19982298.2% 199730511.5%

10. CSULB Latino First-time Freshmen Enrollment History YearNumberPercent 20011,15625.6% 200079923.7% 199987325.1% 199872125.7% 199770426.5%

11. CSULB Caucasian First-time Freshmen Enrollment History YearNumberPercent 20011,53233.9% 20001,12933.5% 19991,13432.6% 199884730.2% 199775228.3%

12. Fall 2002 Freshmen Ethnic Distribution Compared to Fall 2001 Fall 2001Fall 2002 NumberPercentNumberPercent African American 3337.41595.2 Latino 1,13825.268622.6 Caucasian 1,52333.71,09636.1

13. Fall 2002 Freshmen Ethnic Distribution Compared to Fall 2001 Diff. In Class Proportion Diff. In Total Count from 2001 Percentage Change from 2001 African American -2.1%-174-52.3% Latino-2.6%-452-39.7% Caucasian+2.4%-427-28.0% All StudentsN/A-1,480-32.8%

14. Difference in Eligibility Elements by Selected Tier and Ethnicity SATHSGPA Local Area9943.32 Non-local1,0493.48 African American1,0053.31 Latino9503.36 Caucasian1,0743.45

15. Percent of First-Time Freshmen from Outside Local Service Tiers 57.2% of all freshmen 70.6% of Caucasians 65.0% of Asians 65.6% of “Other” ethnicity 50.3% of African Americans 46.0% of Latinos

16. Changes for Fall 2003 Eliminated eligibility index differential between tiers one and two Added selected tier three schools to tier two Declared certain majors impacted for upper division transfers Enforced admissions filing deadline for all first-time freshmen Considered adjusting eligibility index for tier three Targeted certain populations for recruitment efforts and admissions follow-up

17. Freshmen Enrollment Goals, Fall 2003 Enrolled freshmen class target of 3,300 to 3,800 Approximate fall 2001 ethnic distribution (last year before impaction)

18. Ethnic Distribution of Freshmen 2001 - 2003 Cohort200120022003 Native American0.4%0.7% African American7.4%5.2%7.4% Latino25.6%22.6%25.9% Asian22.6%25.6%22.3% Caucasian33.9%36.1%36.4% Unknown10.1%9.8%7.4%

19. Concerns Regarding Continuing Impact of Impaction Methodology Bifurcation Observed differences in pre-college performance of local versus non-local Similar observations regarding Caucasians and minorities Future implications regarding graduation and retention The “Haves” and the “Have Nots” Similar issues regarding transfer student impaction methodology (spring 2004)

20. Percent of Selected Student Groups Outside of Local Area CohortFall 2002Fall 2003 All Freshmen54.2%55.2% Caucasian70.6%73.0% Asian65.0%49.0% African Americans50.3%40.6% Latinos46.0%37.7%

21. SAT SCORES & HSGPA of Selected Cohorts Outside of Local Area Fall 2002Fall 2003 CohortSATHSGPASATHSGPA Local Area9943.3210073.34 Non-local1,0493.4810503.46 African American1,0053.319393.24 Latino9503.369483.35 Caucasian1,0743.4510793.46

22. Top Ten Institutions for CSULB Students Admitted but Not Enrolled, Fall 2002 InstitutionCount% California State University, San Diego91814.2 University of California, Irvine6049.3 University of California, Santa Barbara4627.1 University of California, Los Angeles3705.7 University of California, San Diego2814.3 California State University, Fullerton2744.2 University of California, Santa Cruz2594.0 California Polytechnic, San Luis Obispo2303.6 University of California, Davis2283.5 California Polytechnic, Pomona2113.3

23. Top Ten Institutions for CSULB Students Admitted but Not Enrolled, Fall 2003 InstitutionCount% California State University, San Diego98715.3 University of California, Irvine6179.5 University of California, Santa Barbara6129.5 University of California, Los Angeles3845.9 University of California, Santa Cruz3425.3 California Polytechnic, San Luis Obispo3275.1 California Polytechnic, Pomona2834.4 University of California, San Diego2684.1 University of California, Davis2073.2 Loyola Marymount University2063.2

24. Changes for 2004 and Beyond Explore the possible use of non-quantitative admissions criteria Monitor effect of impaction methodologies for upper division transfer students Continue targeted recruiting to stimulate applications from selected populations Continue more aggressive follow-up regarding admitted students

25. Perhaps More Important: Philosophical Considerations What is the true mission of CSULB? Who is our desired clientele? What becomes of CSU-eligible students not admitted by CSULB? How do we get “buy-in” from campus constituents if we endorse anything other than accepting only the most “qualified?”

26. Conclusion Nothing is more important to any university than who we admit and how many CSULB is facing unprecedented demand in a time of fiscal crisis How do we adjust our impaction methodologies when demand decreases?

27. Conclusion (continued): Increasing enrollment forecast through at least 2010 for entire CSU system The CSU will accept a decreasing proportion of college-eligible high school graduates Eligibility requirements must be found that do not disproportionately impact minorities or first generation students Graduation and retention efforts must be an integral part of enrollment management

28. “Fairness is what Justice Really Is.” Potter Stewart Associate Justice, US Supreme Court October 1958