- Closing the Gaps Higher Education Plan
- Communications and Policy
- Workforce, Academic Affairs and Research
- Research and Project Grants
- P-16 Initiatives
-
Finance and Resource Planning
- Capital Expenditure Plan
- Community and Technical Colleges
- Construction Costs Standards
- Cost and Expenditure Studies
- Campus Condition Index
- Facilities Audit
- Facilities Inventory
- Formula Funding Recommendations
- General Appropriations Overview
- ICPS
- Higher Education Assistance Fund
- Nursing Shortage Reduction Program
- Project Applications
- Reference
- ROTC Rate
- Sources and Uses
- Space Projection Model
- Space Usage Efficiency
- Student Housing Surveys
- Tuition and Fee Data
- Tuition Revenue Bonds
- Information for Governing Board Members
- Data Resources and Tools
- Online Institutional Resumes
- Applying and Paying for College
- Star Awards
- Laws and Rules
- Human Resources
- Related Links
- Contact Us
Institutional Opportunities and Student Intention
Agenda Speakers Discussion Groups Resources Report & Recommendations
As a result of the demands of a 21st century job market, there is growing consensus among policymakers, the business/economic development community, and educational leaders that we must raise the achievement of our students. This dialogue has led to the college readiness movement which is grounded in the belief that all high school students should graduate with the knowledge and skills needed for postsecondary education success. Prior to the development of college readiness standards, several levels of selectivity were developed to ensure that students admitted to certain universities were prepared to succeed at the institution. Currently, about 50% of the nation’s entering freshmen do not meet institutional placement standards and are not ready for college-level work. By adjusting admissions standards and policies, policymakers, institutions, and individual departments can determine what type of student is provided access to their educational programs.
How can admissions policies impact what type of students attend a university/community college?
Legislative/Statewide policy
Percentage Plans—i.e., Top 10% in Texas, Top 4% in California, Top 20% in Florida
Recommended High School Program mandatory for admissions into public university
Institutional/System-wide policy
Articulation agreements for Transfer students (i.e., University of Texas at Dallas’ Comet Connection)
Highly-selective vs. open-admissions institutions
Departmental/College policy
Different admissions standards for certain academic programs
More rigorous academic standards (i.e., higher GPA, SAT/ACT test scores)
More rigorous course-load (i.e., higher level math, etc.)
Rehearsal/audition (i.e., music, band, theatre)
Other
Freshman class caps
Fixed percentage of yearly admits composed of transfer students
Recommendations: Institutional Opportunities and Student Intention
- Started a specific set of scholarships for high community college students. Might be a transfer culture—once you have students who transfer, get more students.
- Have a transfer center at university but that happened because there were a lot of transfers not necessarily to get transfers.
- Accountability: increased accountability, such as focusing on AP and dual credit issues and weighted.
- Marketing—KIPP Academy as example. Central idea of marketing around families. Need a narrow campaign that would look like something that a specific population would do.
- Statewide tracking system: Need to address limitations in system=-class rosters, grades.
- Recommended High School Program: Incorporate career advising, added flexibility, curriculum alignment
- Mechanisms for implementation—common transcript, resources, common degree audit. This lifts burden off of students.
- Revisit the top 10%
- Guaranteeing admissions to those students who go to university with an AA
- Need to get input on recommendations from other stakeholders—public education, business, etc.
- Issue: Stakeholders missing—public education
