Building Guided Pathways to Success - Doing What Matters for Jobs

©2012 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY • EDUCATIONADVISORYBOARD.COM

Building Guided Pathways to Success A Survey of Innovative Approaches for Directing Student Choice and Reducing Time to Graduation

Education

Advisory Board

2445 M St NW

Washington, DC 20037

A report prepared

in collaboration with

©2012 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY • EDUCATIONADVISORYBOARD.COM 2


LEGAL CAVEAT

The Advisory Board Company has made efforts to verify the accuracy of the information it provides to members. This

report relies on data obtained from many sources, however, and The Advisory Board Company cannot guarantee the

accuracy of the information provided or any analysis based thereon. In addition, The Advisory Board Company is not in

the business of giving legal, medical, accounting, or other professional advice, and its reports should not be construed as

professional advice. In particular, members should not rely on any legal commentary in this report as a basis for action, or

assume that any tactics described herein would be permitted by applicable law or appropriate for a given member’s

situation. Members are advised to consult with appropriate professionals concerning legal, medical, tax, or accounting

issues, before implementing any of these tactics. Neither The Advisory Board Company nor its officers, directors,

trustees, employees and agents shall be liable for any claims, liabilities, or expenses relating to (a) any errors or

omissions in this report, whether caused by The Advisory Board Company or any of its employees or agents, or sources

or other third parties, (b) any recommendation or graded ranking by The Advisory Board Company, or (c) failure of

member and its employees and agents to abide by the terms set forth herein.

The Advisory Board is a registered trademark of The Advisory Board Company in the United States and other countries.

Members are not permitted to use this trademark, or any other Advisory Board trademark, product name, service name,

trade name, and logo, without the prior written consent of The Advisory Board Company. All other trademarks, product

names, service names, trade names, and logos used within these pages are the property of their respective holders. Use

of other company trademarks, product names, service names, trade names and logos or images of the same does not

necessarily constitute (a) an endorsement by such company of The Advisory Board Company and its products and

services, or (b) an endorsement of the company or its products or services by The Advisory Board Company. The

Advisory Board Company is not affiliated with any such company.

IMPORTANT: Please read the following.

The Advisory Board Company has prepared this report for the exclusive use of its members. Each member acknowledges and

agrees that this report and the information contained herein (collectively, the “Report”) are confidential and proprietary to The

Advisory Board Company. By accepting delivery of this Report, each member agrees to abide by the terms as stated herein,

including the following:

1. The Advisory Board Company owns all right, title and interest in and to this Report. Except as stated herein, no right, license,

permission or interest of any kind in this Report is intended to be given, transferred to or acquired by a member. Each member

is authorized to use this Report only to the extent expressly authorized herein.

2. Each member shall not sell, license, or republish this Report. Each member shall not disseminate or permit the use of, and

shall take reasonable precautions to prevent such dissemination or use of, this Report by (a) any of its employees and agents

(except as stated below), or (b) any third party.

3. Each member may make this Report available solely to those of its employees and agents who (a) are registered for the

workshop or membership program of which this Report is a part, (b) require access to this Report in order to learn from the

information described herein, and (c) agree not to disclose this Report to other employees or agents or any third party. Each

member shall use, and shall ensure that its employees and agents use, this Report for its internal use only. Each member may

make a limited number of copies, solely as adequate for use by its employees and agents in accordance with the terms herein.

4. Each member shall not remove from this Report any confidential markings, copyright notices, and other similar indicia herein.

5. Each member is responsible for any breach of its obligations as stated herein by any of its employees or agents.

6. If a member is unwilling to abide by any of the foregoing obligations, then such member shall promptly return this Report and

all copies thereof to The Advisory Board Company.

3

Project Director

Edward P. Venit, Ph.D.

Contributing Consultants

Christine Enyeart

John Tannous

Julia Vlajic

Sarah Zauner

Building Guided Pathways to Success

A report prepared by the Education Advisory Board


Helping College and Universities Solve Their Most Pressing Challenges

The Education Advisory Board

The Parent Firm in Brief

The Advisory Board Company is one of the largest research and consulting firms serving nonprofit, mission-driven organizations around the world. Established in 1979,

the Advisory Board’s 2,000 employees now work with nearly 4,000 members at hospitals, health systems, and institutions of higher learning in more than thirty countries.

In 2007, the firm launched the Education Advisory Board, a division dedicated to helping leaders at colleges and universities find solutions to their toughest challenges.

Through this group, we provide best practice research and data analytics to a membership of several hundred provosts and vice presidents at diverse range of public,

private, four-year, and two-year institutions. We work as a collaborative, with members freely sharing and learning from the most progressive approaches to commonly felt

challenges. By leveraging these economies of intellect, we aspire to be the best source of innovative ideas and insights in service to our members’ mission.

.

1979

ESTABLISHED

2,000+

EMPLOYEES

$375M

REVENUE

ABCO

NASDAQ

FIRM FACTS

OUR MEMBERS

OUR EDUCATION MEMBERSHIP PROGRAMS

WASHINGTON, DC

San Francisco

Chicago

Austin

London

Ann Arbor

Nashville

Chennai

OFFICES

3,100+ Hospitals and

Health Systems

800+ Colleges and

Universities

Academic Affairs

Forum

Strategy advice and research for provosts, deans, and academic leaders on elevating performance in teaching, research and academic governance

Student Affairs

Forum

Research for student affairs executives on innovative practices for improving student engagement and perfecting the student experience

Business Affairs

Forum

Research and support for college and university chief business officers in improving administrative efficiency and lowering costs

Continuing & Online

Education Forum

Research and advice for deans and vice presidents of continuing and online education programs on future program growth, revenues, and academic quality

Advancement

Forum

Research and performance analytics for university chief development officers to help elevate fundraising performance

Community College

Forum

Strategy advice and research for community college presidents and executives on elevating student success and institutional planning

Beyond Best

Practice Research

University Spend

Collaborative

Business intelligence, price comparison database, and consulting to assist chief procurement officers in reducing spend on purchased goods and services

Student Success

Collaborative

Data analytics, predictive modeling, and benchmarking to support at-risk and off-path students and identify areas for systemic improvement


Serving 800+ College and University Leaders Across North America and Europe

Education Advisory Board Members in 2012 (Partial List)

A Privileged Position in Higher Education

Private Research American University Baylor University Brown University California Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University Columbia University Cornell University Dartmouth University DePaul University Duke University Georgetown University The George Washington University Harvard University Johns Hopkins University Marquette University New York University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Syracuse University Texas Christian University University of Dayton University of Miami University of Notre Dame University of Pennsylvania University of Rochester University of Tulsa Vanderbilt University Wake Forest University Washington University in St. Louis Widener University William Marsh Rice University Yeshiva University Private Masters Bob Jones University Bryant University Butler University College of Saint Rose Creighton University Drake University

Elon University Gallaudet University Gonzaga University La Salle University Loyola Marymount University Marymount University Quinnipiac University Rochester Institute of Technology Roosevelt University Simmons College Thomas Jefferson University University of Indianapolis University of New England Private Baccalaureate Bucknell University College of the Holy Cross Colorado College Gettysburg College Hiram College Lafayette College Pomona College Susquehanna University Wellesley College Wheaton College Public (Very High Research) Arizona State University Colorado School of Mines Colorado State University Georgia Institute of Technology Indiana University Kansas State University New Mexico State University Oregon State University University of Alabama at Birmingham University of California, Berkeley University of California, Davis University of California, San Diego University of Colorado at Boulder

University of Connecticut University of Delaware University of Florida University of Georgia University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Maryland University of Massachusetts, Amherst University of Missouri-Columbia University of Nebraska Univ of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of Oregon University of South Carolina, Columbia University of Tennessee University of Utah University of Virginia University of Washington Virginia Polytechnic Inst & State Univ Washington State University Public (High Research and Doctoral) Auburn University Ball State University Clemson University Georgia State University Kent State University Miami University Northern Illinois University Old Dominion University Rutgers University Southern Illinois University-Carbondale Texas Tech University University of Akron University of Alaska Fairbanks University of Arkansas University of Houston University of Idaho University of Mississippi University of Nevada, Las Vegas University of New Hampshire

Univ of North Carolina at Charlotte University of North Dakota West Virginia University Wright State University Public (Masters) Boise State University California Polytechnic State University California State University-Long Beach California State University-Northridge Eastern Illinois University Governors State University James Madison University Marshall University Middle Tennessee State University Midwestern State University MNSCU-St. Cloud State University Towson University University of Baltimore University of Central Missouri Univ of Massachusetts, Dartmouth Univ of North Carolina-Wilmington University of North Florida University of Texas at San Antonio University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Western Washington University Winston-Salem State University International Algonquin College of Allied Arts and Technology Carleton University Centennial College Dalhousie University Langara College Memorial University of Newfoundland McGill University McMaster University Ryerson University Simon Fraser University

St. Clair College University of Calgary University of Guelph University of Montreal University of Nottingham University of Plymouth University of Toronto University of Western Ontario York University Community Colleges Anne Arundel Community College Broward College Bucks County Community College Clackamas Community College Community College of Rhode Island Delaware County Community College Delgado Community College Fayetteville Technical Community College Harrisburg Area Community College Ivy Tech Community College System Kern Community College District Linn-Benton Community College Lone Star College System Lorain County Community College Mercer County Community College Middlesex Community College Northern Virginia Community College Orange County Community College Pellissippi State Community College Prince George’s Community College Santa Monica College South Puget Sound Community College Tidewater Community College Truckee Meadows Community College Wor-Wic Community College

5



Executive Summary

7

Colleges and universities face new pressures to improve

graduation performance. The United States trails much of the

developing world in degree attainment by young adults.

Pressure from governors and lawmakers to improve

performance has many institutions searching for new answers

to a long-felt problem.

College students take too many credits and too long to

finish. Course incompletions and poor decisions result in the

typical college graduate taking a full extra year of credits in

pursuit of a bachelors degree. Surplus course attempts impede

progress, add time and cost to degree, sap institutional

resources, and makes it less likely that a student will ever finish.

Our traditional focus on first-year success misses the

majority of the problem. The vast majority of current student

success practice focuses on supporting new students though

the difficult transition to college, yet nearly two-thirds of all

attrition occurs in later years. Schools must expand success

efforts to support students through to graduation.

Some schools are now focusing on progress, not just

persistence. After making it through the transition to college,

students now face the challenge of connecting to and moving

forward in a correct major. Some schools have begun investing

in strategies to constructively guide choice and ensure students

maintain positive degree momentum.

Maximize credit attempts. Students often believe that

“twelve credits is normal.” In response, some schools are

investing in incentive programs to encourage enrollment in at

least 15 credits each semester, putting students on pace for

graduation in four years not five.

Reduce lost credits The typical graduate loses more than a

semester of credit due to course drops and failures. Some

institutions now invest in systems to discourage students

from making unnecessary course withdraws. Others leverage

predictive data to deliberately guide students away from

classes that they may not pass.

Simplify course selection. Degree requirements are

increasingly complex, and few institutions have the resource

necessary to hire a sufficient number of advisors to guide the

way. Instead, many schools are creating templetized plans

that simplify the registration process and ensure students

take the right courses to stay on path to degree.

Preserve flexibility. Students who change majors risk losing

progress due to shifting degree requirements. To ameliorate

delays, some schools deliberately encourage students to

take courses that can be transferred to other programs. Of

special note are programs intentionally designed to make use

of credits earned by the large numbers of students denied

entry to competitive pre-professional programs.

2

3

1

4

6

7

5

8

New perspectives on an old problem Four promising strategies for guiding progress


Source: OECD (2011), Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing; “Performance

Funding for Higher Education” National Conference of State Legislatures http://www.ncsl.org/issues-

research/educ/performance-funding.aspx; Advisory Board interviews and analysis..

New Pressures Have Colleges and Universities Searching for Answers

Recent years have seen a dramatic

shift in the national conversation

surrounding student degree

completion. With just over 40% of

young adults holding an associates

degree or higher, the United States

now trails several other neighbor

nations in postsecondary

achievement. Many fear America is

losing its competitive edge in an

increasingly knowledge-based global

economy.

Confronted with stagnant graduation

rates and prodded by the Obama

White House, governors and state

lawmakers are implementing new

performance funding standards for

their colleges and universities. No

longer will these states allocate

money to institutions based purely on

enrollment, but instead on how they

educate and ultimately graduate their

students. With many more states

engaged in conversation, it remains to

be seen how far reaching this trend

will be.

Facing these shifting pressures, many

colleges and universities are now

searching for answers as to how they

will meet the “Completion Agenda.”

Can America satisfy the Completion Agenda? The rise of performance funding?

63%

56%

56%

55%

48%

47%

47%

45%

45%

45%

44%

43%

43%

42%

42%

41%

40%

40%

39%

38%

Korea

Canada

Japan

Russian Fed

Ireland

New Zealand

Norway

Australia

Denmark

United Kingdom

Luxembourg

France

Israel

Belgium

Sweden

United States

Netherlands

Switzerland

Finland

Spain

Percentage of 25-34 Year Olds with

Associates Degree or Higher, 2009

“By 2020, America will once again

have the highest proportion of

college graduates in the world.”

President Barack Obama

February 24, 2009

Missouri Base budgets increase

by up to 2%-3% each

year starting in 2014

Tennessee 100% of state funding

based on performance

Ohio 100% of instructional

funding at universities

New Mexico 5% of state funding


Louisiana 25% of state funding


Indiana Currently 5% with

increase to 7% in 2015

Arkansas 5% in 2013-14,

stepping up to 25%

Colorado 25% of state funding

starting in 2015-16

Texas Plans to implement

10% funding model

Oklahoma New formula

approved for 2013

At least 18 other states

Formally considering new

performance funding models

A Changing National Conversation

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/performance-funding.aspx






Source: Johnson, N. Causes and Consequences of Excess Credit (forthcoming)

Study commissioned by Complete College America;

Advisory Board interviews and analysis.

Students Attempt Far Too Many Credits and Take Too Long to Finish

Amid the push for improved

graduation rates are calls for

increases in degree efficiency. Data

show that the typical college graduate

actually enrolled in the equivalent of a

full extra year of classes in pursuit of

what should be a four-year bachelors

degree. These unnecessary and

preventable course attempts impede

progress, add time and cost to

degree, sap institutional resources,

and makes it less likely that a student

will have the fortitude to persist to all

the way to graduation.

Course failures, course withdraws,

and unnecessary electives explain the

majority of these excess credit

attempts. Institutions hoping to

improve efficiency and elevate

graduation rates should seek to

understand the root causes for these

delays on their campuses. Much can

be explained by issues stemming

from insufficient academic planning

and guidance. Some progressive

institutions hope to put policies and

practices in place that guide students

around common pitfalls and thereby

shorten their path to graduation. But

where should they focus?

Average Credit Attempts by Degree Completers

123.0 credits

expected

3.0 credits

12.9 credits

13.2 credits

7.1 credits

135.9 credits earned

158.7 credits

attempted

2.5 credits

120 credits

Standard

Degree

Total

Withdraws

and repeats

Failed

courses

Credits lost

in transfer

Unnecessary

electives

Average additional

degree requirements

Some programs require

more than 120 credits

as a result of special

accrediting standards

or “credit creep”

Inefficiencies in credit accumulation

Too many missed credits

Students are attempting

(and paying for) far more

credits than they actually

complete

Wasteful credit overage

The average student

completes an unnecessary

extra semester worth of

courses, often due to issues

stemming from a lack of

sufficient advisement


Source: Adapted from Bowen, W.G., M.M. Chingos, and M.S. McPherson. Crossing the

Finish Line: Completing College at America’s Public Universities. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 2009.; Advisory Board interviews and analysis.

Our Myopic Focus on the First Year Misses a Huge Part of the Graduation Problem

Decades of student success research

have produced a voluminous library of

work, the majority of which focuses

squarely on supporting students

through the difficult first year of

college. Because national data show

the plurality of all first-time, full-time

students who leave college do so

before the start of the second year,

institutions assumed that a heavy

investment in the first year was the

best opportunity to inflect students’

likelihood for completion.

This approach is intuitively flawed.

Without continued support in later

years, there is no guarantee that

improving first-to-second year

persistence will translate to improved

gradation rates. Indeed, we may just

be kicking the can down the road.

Furthermore, focusing just on the first

year ignores the nearly two-thirds of

attrition occurring in later years.

These students are further along

toward degree and thus may

represent lower-hanging fruit.

Institutions serious about improving

performance must expand their

strategies to support students across

their entire postsecondary careers.

A Misaligned Strategy

36% 36%

27%

14%

9%

9%

5%

64%

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total

Percentage of Total First-Time, Full-Time Attrition by Year

21 State Flagships, 1999 Incoming Class

…But the majority

of institutional

attrition actually

occurs later

Early Warning Systems

University 101 Courses

Bridge Programs

Residence Hall Programs

First-Year Experiences

Orientation

Cohort Programs

Social Networking

Learning Communities

Peer Mentoring

Faculty Interactions

We are making a

major investment

in first-year

retention…

Common First-Year

Retention Practices


Source: Advisory Board interviews and analysis.

Looking Beyond the First Year

Students who successfully transition

through the often difficult initial

adjustment to college will face new

challenges as they set their sights on

completing a degree. Chief among

these challenges are the connection

to and progress through a major well

suited to their aspirations and abilities.

Many will encounter difficulty selecting

the right classes and understanding

correct major requirements. Others

will suffer progress setbacks when

they fail or withdraw from courses.

Some struggling students may not

understand the gravity of their

situation until it is too late.

Progressive institutions are

experimenting with practices and

policies that constructively limit and

guide student choice to reduce

variables and chances for error.

Wayward students receive proactive

intervention to correct course.

Innovative algorithms leverage

historical data to match students to

paths that are best suited for their

abilities. The following report surveys

a handful of these most promising

ideas, broadly described here as

“Guided Pathways to Success”

Thinking About an End-to-End Solution

Get students out of

poor fit majors as

soon as possible

Provide example

course progressions

for all majors

Intentionally match

courses and degrees

to students abilities

Educate students on

deleterious implications

of course withdraws

Proactively identify

and intervene with

off-course students

Simplify the course

selection and

registration process

Implement policies

incentivizing rapid

academic progress

Enable registration

for coherent schedules

not individual courses

Draw on historical data

to better inform student

decision making

New Student

College

Graduate

Choosing a

Correct

Major

Completing

Foundational

Courses

Fulfilling

General

Education

Applying to

Competitive

Program

Understanding

Graduation

Requirements

Making

Satisfactory

Progress

What are some ways to guide student choice and reduce missteps?

What common roadblocks impede the path to degree?


Guided Pathways to Success: A Survey of Current Practice

Nine Promising Ideas for Constructively Guiding Student Choice and Reducing Time to Degree

1. Flat-Rate Tuition

Awareness Campaign

Maximizing Credit Attempts

I

Building momentum to degree

starting in the first year

2. Automated Withdrawal

Advising

3. Predicted Course

Performance

Reducing Lost Credits

II

Limiting unsuccessful attempts

due to withdrawal or failure

4. Prescriptive Degree Maps

5. Default Course Registration

6. Milestone Degree

Requirements

7. Pre-scripted Curricula

Simplifying Course Selection

III

Constructively limiting choice to

keep students on track to degree

8. Pivot Course Guidance

9. Seamless Alternative

Majors

Preserving Flexibility

IV

Safeguarding against delays

resulting from change of major

Accelerating Credit Completion Preventing Wasted Credits


I. Maximizing Credit Attempts

1. Flat-Rate Tuition Awareness Campaign

II. Reducing Missed Credits

2. Automated Withdrawal Advising

3. Predicted Course Performance

Accelerating Credit Completion Incentivizing Rapid Credit Accumulation and

Minimizing Costly Withdraws and Failures


Source: Offenstein, J., C. Moore, and N. Shulock. “Advancing by Degrees: A Framework

for Increasing College Completion” Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy

and The Education Trust (2010); Advisory Board interviews and analysis.

Early Credit Accumulation Tightly Correlated with Graduation Success

A growing body of research shows a

close correlation between early credit

accumulation and ultimate graduation

success. The underlying causality is

varied–some struggling students sap

their credit accumulation totals by

failing and withdrawing at high rates,

while others simply do not take

enough courses in the first place.

Regardless, these findings have some

progressive institutions doubling-down

on strategies encouraging new

students to take more courses in their

first year. By accelerating overall

credit accumulation, students reduce

time and cost to degree. Taking more

credits also creates a buffer against

possible course withdrawals and

failures. Some institutions extend

these standards to part-time students,

encouraging them to catch up to their

full-time peers by enrolling in summer

courses.

Probability of Completion by First-Year Credits Earned

California Community Colleges System and the State University System of Florida

10%

17% 19%

22%

29%

34%

42%

50%

61%

68%

72%

9%

14% 16%

23%

28%

38%

51%

68%

77%

81% 80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30 31+

CCCS

SUSF

Safeguarding Against DFW

A typical college graduate withdraws from or fails

10%-20% of courses during his or her college

career. To pass 24-27 credits per year, a student

should be encouraged to take a full 30 credits.

Students’ odds for success improve

dramatically when they earn a full-time

credit load during the first year of college

30 Credit

attempts

24-27 Completed

credits

credits



Incentivize Students to Take More Credits

Practice #1:

Flat-Rate Tuition Awareness

Campaign

Many institutions attempt to

incentivize additional credit attempts

by offering flat-rate tuition for all full-

time students. Any credit taken

beyond the minimum of 12 is

effectively free, giving students the

opportunity to reduce both time and

cost to degree. Despite the obvious

benefits, many schools with flat-rate

tuition still struggle to get students to

take advantage of the incentive.

The University of Hawai’i System

found that just one-third of incoming

full-time students enrolled in 15 or

more credits. Conversations with

students and parents revealed a

widespread perception that “twelve is

normal.” Few understood the tuition

incentive opportunity.

To combat this attitude, the system

recently launched a media blitz

dubbed “15 to Finish” promoting the

financial and academic benefits of

taking one additional class each

semester. Radio and TV ads target

incoming students and their parents.

Current students are targeted though

the campus paper and YouTube.

Promoting Flat-Rate Tuition at the University of Hawai’i

Finish college quicker

Students who take 15 credits a

semester graduate in four years not five

Get your fifth course for free

Students who take five classes pay the

same as those who take four

Lower your total cost to degree

Students who finish a year sooner

spend an average of $10,000 less

Graduate with more opportunity

Students who take out fewer loans have

more career flexibility after college

Increase your chances of finishing

Taking longer increases the odds that

something could go wrong

Publicity in the

campus paper

YouTube videos

Parents and

new students

Current

students

“15 to Finish” media blitz delivers

message to students and parents

Radio and TV

advertisements

Crafting the Message:

Advantages of taking 15 credits

2

3

1

4

5

Student Meetings Encourage 15 credits

whenever possible

Orientation Sets expectation

to take 15 credits

Degree Maps Updated to reflect

15 credits per term

Advising Reinforces the Message



“15 to Finish” Campaign Generating an Immediate Increase in Credit Attempts

Early data show an immediate and

dramatic increase in the percentage of

2012 incoming students attempting at

least 15 credits at four-year schools

within the UH system. The gain is fully

attributable to a change in behavior

among full-time students who would

previously have attempted just 12-14

credits. The small population of part-

time students was largely unaffected.

Lesser gains were realized among the

two-year schools in the system. There

results were not unexpected, as these

institutions have a smaller overall

percentage of full-time students and

do not charge flat-rate tuition.

Nevertheless, the small population of

new students attempting 15 or more

credits saw a modest increase. And

unlike the four-year schools, the

community colleges also saw a slight

decrease in the overall percent of

incoming students enrolling for part-

time schedules. These results suggest

that students may respond to the “15

to Finish” message even without the

benefit of the tuition incentive. It is

hard to know the degree to which a

flat-rate tuition environment might

further these results.

More Full-Time Students Attempting 15+ Credits

Four-year schools saw a big

shift in the percentage of new

full-time students taking 15+

credits instead of 12-14

UHCC schools do not charge

flat-rate tuition, but still saw a

modest increase in students

taking 15+ credits

3.1%

2.8%

44.4%

60.7%

52.5%

36.5%

2012 Incoming

Class

2011 Incoming

Class

<12 Credits 12-14 Credits 15+ Credits

38.7%

41.2%

50.0%

52.2%

11.2%

6.6%

2012 Incoming

Class

2011 Incoming

Class

<12 Credits 12-14 Credits 15+ Credits

Shift in Credit Attempts at

University of Hawai’i Four-Year Institutions

Shift in Credit Attempts at

University of Hawai’i Community Colleges



Too Easy for Students to Get Away with Poor Course Withdrawal Decisions

While some institutions hope to

shorten time to degree by guiding

students to take more credits, others

are endeavoring to do so by reducing

credits lost due to course withdrawal

or failure.

Course withdrawals are surprisingly

common, especially in lower-level

STEM courses. Students may

withdraw for any number of reasons

and often do so without fully

understanding the long-term

implications of the decision. But not all

course withdraws represent poor

choices. For example, a student

destined to fail a course would be

wise to withdraw to preserve his or

her GPA.

With tens of thousands of course

withdraws each year, advising

students on the difference between

“good” withdraws and “bad” withdraws

requires an investment in advisor

training and capacity that may be

beyond the reach of many institutions.

Standardized and automated

guidance could ensure that more

students understand the implications

of their choice.

Slipping Through the Cracks

Students have many reasons for

choosing to withdraw from a course

“I’m not earning the grade I want”

“I dislike the instructor”

“I don’t want to get up this early”

“I’ve lost interest in material”

“I just want more free time”

Some are

“Good”

reasons

Many are

“Bad”

reasons

“I’m avoiding a failing grade”

“I’m overwhelmed and worried

about my grades in other courses”

Sub-optimal advising practices let too

many students make “bad” choices

Absent a meaningful conversation, many

students do not understand the long-term

implications of their withdrawal decision

Structure

Not all institutions require an advising

meeting prior to withdrawing

Quality

Advisor commitment varies some will

simply rubber stamp all withdraw requests

Capacity

Even the best advisors cannot always dedicate

adequate time to assessing all withdraw requests



Automated Course Withdraw System Discourages “Bad” Course Drops

Practice #2:

Automated Withdrawal Advising

Penn State found that advising quality

and training varied widely across its

large campus, making it nearly

impossible to adequately advise

students on course withdraws via

traditional face-to-face meetings.

Instead, advisors now direct students

to withdraw from courses via the

“eLion” online registration system.

The process requires students to first

complete an automated module

developed by advisors to deliver

standardized guidance on the effects

of the withdraw decision. Data pulled

from the degree audit provides

students with a personalized

assessment of the impact on their

progress to graduation.

Roughly 40% of students who access

the module do not complete the

withdraw process, suggesting that

they have been deterred. Contacts

offer the caveat that these students

may still ultimately withdraw from the

course at a later date.

Penn State’s “eLion” Course Withdrawal System

Student inputs basic information

Current

Major

Reason for

Withdrawing

Course to

be Dropped

Expected

Grade

System queries degree audit to provide advice

Withdrawing could impact your success

You could delay your graduation.

You could lose financial aid eligibility

You may have to retake the course

You will NOT receive a tuition refund

It is unusual for a student earning a B+ to drop

CHEM 101. Please discuss with your advisor

CHEM 101 is a required course for your

BIOLOGY major, and you will need to repeat it

Withdrawing from will leave you enrolled in

9.0 credits and drop you to part-time status

You may withdraw from a maximum of 16.0

credits during your career. If you proceed, you

will have 7.0 withdraw credits remaining.

Building the System

Personalized

advice from

degree audit

Standard

warnings on

implications

of withdraw

40% of students discontinue

the withdrawal following

automated advisement

Some may withdraw later or

ultimately fail the course, but

many will complete the credit

40%

Advisors

Drafted comprehensive

standard messaging

around withdrawals

Registrar

Built module into course

registration system and

integrated with degree audit

http://



What More Can We Do to Combat Course Failures?

Withdraws are one way in which

students do not complete credits.

Course failures are the other. Some

failures are the result of students

being underprepared for college or

unwilling to put in the effort to

succeed, while others result from

courses that are poorly taught or even

deliberately designed to weed out

weaker students.

Course failure is hardly an unknown

or poorly understood issue, and nearly

all institutions already have a robust

basket of counter-strategies in place.

With so many strategies already

deployed, many wonder where they

will find the next untapped area for

exploration.

Recently, some institutions have

begun thinking about reducing failure

rate by intentionally directing students

away from courses they are unlikely

to pass. While still experimental, this

approach merits further consideration.

Already Doing a Lot, Where Are the New Opportunities?

Insufficient

academic

preparation

Poorly taught

courses

Poor course

guidance

Underdeveloped

study skills

Struggles with

focus

and commitment

Common reasons for course failure and

corresponding institutional strategies

Developmental

coursework Course redesign

Advisor and peer

recommendations

based on anecdotes

and conventional

wisdom

Notable paucity of

data-driven practice

Academic skills

centers

Counseling and

psychological

services

Tutoring Summer bridge

programs

Adjunct instructor

professional

development

Time management

coaching

Endemic to the student Endemic to the institution

Potential area

for exploration?



Using “Big Data” to Guide Students Away from High-Risk Courses

Practice #3:

Predicted Course Performance

Currently advisors might direct

students away from high-risk courses

based largely on qualitative factors.

Austin Peay State University is one

of the first institutions to leverage

historical records to create a more

data-driven method for directing

students away from courses that may

cause them to struggle.

Developed by provost Tristan Denley,

the innovative new self-advising

system called “Degree Compass”

makes course recommendations to

students based on several factors,

including their likelihood of passing

the class. To make these predictions,

the available academic information on

a student is fed into an algorithm that

analyzes how similar students have

performed in the past. Results are

highly accurate at predicting if a

student will earn a C or better in any

given course.

Austin Peay’s Degree Compass Course Recommendation System

Fulfillment of major requirements

Applicability to other majors

Predicted grade

2

3

1

System highly accurate at

predicting passing grades

95% of students who are

predicted to get a C or better

in a course go on to do so

95%

High School

Transcripts

Standardized

Test Scores

Completed

College Courses

Prediction engine analyzes

how similar students

performed in the past

Grade Prediction Algorithm

Predicted

Grade

Performance

Degree Compass recommends

courses to students based on:



Could Data Also Be Used to Steer Students Away from High-Risk Majors?

If institutions can make individual

course performance predictions to

guide students away from danger,

some have begun to ask if we can do

the same for entire majors. Couldn’t

we save students a lot of time and

anxiety by steering them away from

entire curricula of courses that are

likely to cause struggles? By guiding

students to majors that better fit their

unique skills and abilities, institutions

could in theory elevate performance

across an entire range of courses with

a single data-driven recommendation.

Some might express concern that

such an approach represents the

death of academic exploration. But

done correctly, such a system could

actually encourage exploration by

presenting students with a broad

range of best-fit options, potentially

presenting new opportunities that are

well suited to their abilities but that

they might not have otherwise

considered.

Could This Be a Powerful New Tool for Academic Advising?

High School

Transcripts

Standardized

Test Scores

Completed

College Courses

Major Risk Predictions

Anthropology Strong fit

Biology Strong fit

Business Strong fit

Economics Strong fit

Geology Strong fit

Political Science Strong fit

Chemistry Medium fit

English Medium fit

History Medium fit

Statistics Medium fit

Nursing Poor fit

Philosophy Poor fit

Physics Poor fit

Students now able to consider performance

predictions when exploring potential majors

Risk predictions generated for each

major based on available data

Shows best bets to earn

higher grades and graduate

Presents range of options to

match with personal interests

Especially valuable for

advising undeclared students

Opens new possibilities not

previously on the radar

Could be used to proactively

alert advisors to poor fits

Alerts student to avoid majors

likely to cause struggles

Avoid these!



III. Simplifying Course Selection

4. Prescriptive Degree Maps

5. Default Course Registration

6. Milestone Degree Requirements

7. Pre-scripted Curricula

IV. Preserving Flexibility

8. Pivot Course Guidance

9. Seamless Alternative Majors

Preventing Wasted Credits Simplifying the Course Registration Process

and Minimizing Delays Due to Major Change



Adequate Academic Advising Capacity Not Financially Feasible for Most Schools

Graduation requirements have

becoming increasingly complex and

difficult to navigate. Overwhelmed by

meaty course catalogs and an

overabundance of choice, many

students make poor registration

decisions that result in unnecessary

course attempts and precipitate

graduation delays.

Institutions invest in professional

academic advisors as the primary

means to guide students through

these difficult waters. Unfortunately,

most institutions cannot fully fund the

advising staff necessary to adequately

advise all students. As a result,

students are not guaranteed of having

a meaningful advising conversation

each semester, or even of having one

at all.

To compensate, some institutions

have developing strategies to

supplement the lack of in-person

advising meetings with tools and

resources that guide students to the

correct path even in the absence of

robust advisement.

Too Costly to Fill the Gap

Typical institution far exceeds the

recommended advisor-to-student ratio… …But meeting the recommended

ratios could break the bank

Small Institution: ≈ 2,000 Students

Large Institution: ≈ 30,000 Students

Mid-Sized Institution: ≈ 15,000 Students

Additional

advisors needed 35

Cost $1.75M

Additional

advisors needed 20

Cost $1M

Additional

advisors needed 10

Cost $0.5M

Estimated Cost of Adding Additional Advisors 600:1

300:1

Regional Access- Focused Public

(Typical)

NACADA Recommendation

• New students may get a little as

five minutes to meet with an

advisor during orientation

• Most semester advising

meetings are just 30 minutes

• Due to capacity limits, not all

students are required to meet

with advisors each semester



Many Schools Now Supplement Advising with Standardized Degree Maps

Practice #4:

Prescriptive Degree Maps

As a basic first-step, most progressive

institutions now supplement limited

advising capacity with standardized

exemplar course plans for students to

reference during registration.

Each “degree map” plans out the

recommended pacing and sequencing

of major requirements, general

education coursework, and electives.

The format give programs the liberty

to craft maps that match the overall

philosophy of their degree

requirements. Sequential STEM and

pre-professional programs tend to

create structured degree maps, while

those created by Liberal Arts

programs are often more flexible.

Good degree maps tend to be more

prescriptive in early years to promote

completion of critical early

requirements. Flexibility in later years

allows students to explore double

majors, minors, or a study abroad

experience.

A Clear Road Map to Graduation for Every Major on Campus

Economics (BS) Degree Map

TERM ONE TERM TWO

First-Year Math Course MAT 101 Calculus I

ENG 101 First-Year Comp I ENG 102 First-Year Comp II

Humanities Elective History and Society Elective

First-Year Seminar Natural Science Elective

Natural Science Elective Cultural Diversity Elective

TERM THREE TERM FOUR

MAT 102 Calculus II ECN 222 Business Statistics

ECN 201 Microeconomics ECN 202 Macroeconomics

Humanities Elective 300-Level Economics Course

Critical Inquiry Elective Science and Society Elective

General Elective Global Citizen Elective

TERM FIVE TERM SIX

ECN 301 Advanced Microeconomics ECN 302 Advanced Macroeconomics

300-Level Economics Course 300-Level Economics Course


Science & Society Elective General Elective

General Elective General Elective

TERM SEVEN TERM EIGHT

ECN 423 Business Forecasting ECN 499 Economics Capstone

400-Level Economics Course Upper Division General Elective

Upper Division General Elective Upper Division General Elective

General Elective Upper Division General Elective


Backload electives in favor of early

completion of major requirements

Carefully script the introductory course

sequence to ensure a strong start

Encourage completion of general

education requirements in first two years

Reserve a flexible senior schedule to

allow for specialization and catch up on

missing requirements

Allow for minors or study abroad in

later course progression

Pace major requirements throughout

the second and third year

Creating a Recipe for Success

2

3

1

5

6

4



Advisors Are the Best Resource to Quickly Create a Full Set of Degree Maps

With hundreds of programs on some

campuses, getting each to create its

own degree map can be a herculean

task. Some institutions report

spending as much as two full years

collecting maps from all programs.

Rather than going directly to

departments, some institutions have

been able to shorten project time by

tapping advisors to create first drafts

of each degree map. Using standard

templates, a relatively small number

of advisors can leverage their

curricular experience to quickly create

degree maps for a wide range of

majors across the campus. Advisors

often have the best understanding of

the course pacing and sequencing

feasible for most students.

Departments should be engaged later

in the process to review maps and

give sign-off. Institutions report that

these reviews often create valuable

moments of introspection as

programs spot opportunities to tweak

and improve requirements.

Guidance for Developing Degree Maps

Ask advisors to create first drafts Create a standard template

• Templates reduce confusion and create

a standard visual identity for the entire

institution

• Modifiable templates can be created by

a graphic designer in MS Word or Excel

• Format must be flexible enough to

account for different types of programs

1

Send to departments for review

• Advisors often have the best

understanding of degree requirements

• A small number of experienced advisors

can create drafts for an entire college

• Advisors should be mindful to adopt an

degree of prescriptiveness appropriate

for each program

• Department review represents the most

significant bottleneck in the process

• The director of undergraduate studies for

each program can expedite the process

• Reviewing degree maps often creates a

moment of introspection highlighting

roadblocks in current program curricula

Custom Degree Maps

Some institutions are investing in software

that allows students to create custom degree

maps reflecting their personal education

goals and circumstances

Many have developed homegrown solutions,

while others adopt third-party software. Most

systems integrate directly with the degree

audit to ensure each custom map fulfills all

graduation requirements

2

3



Leveraging Degree Maps to Enhance the Overall Student Advising Experience

Properly deployed, degree maps are a

powerful tool to enhance the advising

experience. Advising offices often

leverage these documents as the

centerpiece of each student meeting.

Advisors with less experience (and

faculty advisors) often benefit from

having a vetted curriculum as a

starting point for the course-planning

conversation. Many advisors use

degree maps to reinforce to students

that four-year graduation is both

possible and expected.

Some institutions have leveraged their

library of degree maps to create

impressive online resources students

use when shopping for potential

majors. Program summaries,

requirements, and robust career

information help students make

comparisons between potential

options.

Getting More Out of Degree Maps

Degree maps help short-cycle

prescriptive guidance, allowing more

time for higher-order conversations

Less-experienced advisors and faculty

members benefit from having a

standardized reference

Advisors often use degree maps to set

the expectation of graduation in four

years, and prove that it is possible

Others are creating comprehensive websites

to help guide students in choosing majors

Some schools making degree maps the

centerpiece of in-person advising meetings

http://

Degree maps for all

majors presented

together for easy

comparison

Programs of Study Anthropology

Biology

Business

Chemistry

Economics

English

Geology

History

Nursing

Philosophy

Physics

Political Science

Statistics

Clicking into a major

reveals additional info:

Summary of the

program experience

Common minors and

concentrations

Potential careers

including salary data



Three Ways to Leverage Degree Maps to Keep Students on Path

On their own, degree maps only offer

suggested guidance. Many students

will choose to follow the advice, while

others will not.

Institutions hoping to provide more

formalized guidance are finding ways

to more aggressively leverage their

degree maps to ensure students stay

on course while still preserving choice

and exploration. Three general

strategies have emerged.

One method integrates the degree

maps directly into the course

registration system, requiring students

to deliberately opt-out if they want to

select a different path. Another

mandates timely completion of certain

critical courses while allowing

flexibility for completing all others.

And yet a third strategy turns the

degree map into pre-built schedules

that students to select among. Once

the choice is made, the student is

automatically enrolled in the entire

schedule.

Delivering Structured Guidance While Preserving Choice

Load default course

schedules into the

registration system

Allow students to opt out

Require mandatory

registration for critical

degree map courses

Allow flexibility for others

Present students with

a selection of pre-set

course schedules

Allow choice from options

Three Strategies

Economics (BS) Degree Map

TERM ONE TERM TWO

First-Year Math Course MAT 101 Calculus I

ENG 101 First-Year Comp I ENG 102 First-Year Comp II

Humanities Elective History and Society Elective

First-Year Seminar Natural Science Elective

Natural Science Elective Cultural Diversity Elective

TERM THREE TERM FOUR

MAT 102 Calculus II ECN 222 Business Statistics

ECN 201 Microeconomics ECN 202 Macroeconomics

Humanities Elective 300-Level Economics Course

Critical Inquiry Elective Science and Society Elective

General Elective Global Citizen Elective

TERM FIVE TERM SIX

ECN 301 Advanced Micro ECN 302 Advanced Macro



Science & Society Elective General Elective

General Elective General Elective

TERM SEVEN TERM EIGHT

ECN 423 Business Forecasting ECN 499 Economics Capstone

400-Level Economics Course Upper Division General Elective

Upper Division General Elective Upper Division General Elective





Integrating Default Degree Maps Directly into the Registration System

Practice #5:

Default Course Registration

Sinclair Community College

recently has seen impressive gains in

supporting persistence among at-risk

students. As part of this strategy,

Sinclair is leveraging behavioral

economics “nudge” principles to

encourage students to stick to their

degree maps by presenting courses

as defaults in the registration system.

Students meet with advisors to

develop personalized degree maps,

which they agree to follow to

graduation. The agreement is largely

symbolic, but reinforces to the student

the importance of good planning. The

degree map is then loaded into the

registration system. When the student

logs in to register for an upcoming

semester, they are automatically

presented with their degree map

courses as a default. Most simply

accept the default courses and move

on to selecting section times. The

student can still opt out and register

for any course at the institution, but

not without a warning that doing so

may impact their completion timeline,

Sinclair Community College’s Degree Map “Nudges”

Dr. Kathleen Cleary

Associate Provost

Sinclair Community College

“We know that if we give a student too many choices they shut down.

We are trying to limit the appearance of choice when in fact the student

can take any elective they want. If the psychology of choice holds true,

90% of students will simply take the courses recommended on their

academic plan.”

“My Academic Plan” Registration System

My Academic Plan for John Smith

I have worked with an Academic/Faculty advisor to create My Academic Plan (MAP)

for achieving my educational goals at Sinclair. I realize that by developing and

agreeing to this plan, I am acknowledging my responsibility to follow it and thereby

achieve my academic goals without delay or loss of credit. I understand that deviation

from this plan may have negative academic or financial impacts on reaching my goals.

PSY 121

General

Psychology I

ENG 111

College

Writing

MAT 101

Elementary

Algebra

SCC 101

Student

Success

Accept MAP Modify MAP

Students see their personalized plans

upon logging into the registration system

Header text reminds students of their

obligation to follow the agreed-upon plan

Courses for the upcoming semester are

pre-populated for review

Students approve the course plan with a

single click, then select section times

Opting to modify the plan generates an

additional message discouraging students

from violating their agreement before

allowing them to select new courses



Mandating Completion of Critical Early Degree Requirements

Practice #6:

Milestone Degree Requirements

A small but growing number of

intuitions bolster the impact of their

degree maps by mandating

completion of critical major

requirements by specific points in time

early in a student’s college career.

These “milestone courses” prevent

students from putting off the most

foundational part of their majors and

help advisors spot those who may be

having trouble completing early

requirements.

Audits built into the registration

system ensure that students are

signing up for and completing the

milestone courses in their majors.

Some systems proactively alert

advisors when a student misses a

milestone, while others will actually

put a student on registration hold until

the they meet with an advisor to

discuss.

Degree Milestone Tracking System

A Growing Trend

First conceived at the

University of Florida in the

mid 1990s, an increasing

number of four-year

institutions are adopting

degree milestone systems

Economics

Term

One

• English Comp I

• Precalculus

Term

Two

• English Comp II

• Calculus I

Term

Three

• Macroeconomic

• Calculus II

Term

Four

• Microeconomics

• Statistics

Create momentum to

the upper division

Ensure timely completion

of foundational courses

Discourage unnecessary

withdrawals and repeats

2 3 1

Systems flags students who

withdraw or do not register

Programs specify the courses

most critical to complete early

Advisors target students

not making progress

Critical courses compared

against course registration

records to generate flags

Biology

Term

One

• Chemistry I

• Precalculus

Term

Two

• Chemistry II

• Calculus I

Term

Three

• General Biology

• Calculus II

Term

Four

• Genetics

• Cell Biology

Identify problems early and

take corrective action

• University of Florida

• Florida State University

• Arizona State University

• University of Maryland

• Louisiana State University

• Kent State University

• Georgia State University

• Marshall University

• Northern Illinois University

• Wright State University

• Roosevelt University

• Florida International University

Partial List of Degree Milestone Institutions



Each Major Designs Degree Requirement Milestones that Best Fit the Program

Like degree maps, milestones must

be designed to fit the structure of the

underlying program.

Sequenced programs in STEM

departments and pre-professional

colleges typically opt for rigid

milestones ensuring completion of

foundational requirements. In addition

to courses, pre-professional programs

with special admissions standards

also track GPA-based milestones to

surface students who may struggle to

be accepted to the upper division.

Liberal Arts majors tend to opt for

fewer total milestones, reflecting the

flexibility and exploratory nature of

these degrees. Milestones in these

programs tend to track generic

completion of major coursework

without denoting specific courses.

Most liberal arts programs also track

the completion of basic general

education courses such as writing

and math.

Programs Select Milestones to Fit Their Curricula and Philosophy

Biology

Term

One

• Chemistry I

• Precalculus

Term

Two

• Chemistry II

• Calculus I

Term

Three

• General Biology

• Calculus II

Term

Four

• Genetics

• Cell Biology

Management

Term

One

• English Comp I

• Precalculus

Term

Two

• English Comp II

• GPA above 2.5

Term

Three

• Macroeconomics

• Management I

Term

Four

• Microeconomics

• GPA above 3.0

History

Term

One

• English Comp I

Term

Two

• English Comp II

• One History course

Term

Three

• Math General Ed

• Two History courses

Term

Four

• Three History courses

STEM Majors

• Focused on tracking

completion of difficult

foundational math and

science courses

Pre-Professional Majors

• Focused on keeping students

on pace with lockstep

program requirements

• Programs with upper division

admissions requirements also

track GPA levels

Liberal Arts Majors

• Focused on completion of

general education math and

writing courses

• Flexible milestones ensure

positive momentum without

limited course choice


69% 70%

77% 77% 78%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

32

Milestone Tracking Improves Success Rates and Completion Efficiency

The most well-established degree

milestone programs are found at the

University of Florida, Florida State

University, and Arizona State

University. Each school has seen

recent gains that are at least partially

attributable to the impact of tracking

course completion.

Established in the mid-1990s, the

milestone program at the University of

Florida is believed to be the oldest in

the nation. The first incoming class

exposed to the system graduated in

2002 at a rate seven percentage

points higher than the previous class.

Milestones at Arizona State are

tracked as part of the school’s

impressive eAdvisor platform. ASU’s

first-year retention rates have

improved each year following the

launch of their platform in 2007.

Milestones may also increase degree

efficiency. Following the launch of

their milestone system, Florida State

found that students were earning

fewer excess credits at graduation.

Administrators believe the structured

curriculum encourages students to

initiate their majors sooner, reducing

unnecessary credits earned due to

progress delays.

Getting Meaningful Results

Fewer Excess Credits at Graduation

Florida State University

127

134

After Tracking

Before Tracking

Higher Six-Year Graduation Rate

University of Florida

Higher First-Year Retention Rate

Arizona State University

77%

80%

81%

83%

84%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Before Milestones

After Milestones

Before Milestones

After Milestones



Requiring Students to Chose From a Range of Prefabricated Course Schedules

Practice #7:

Pre-scripted Curricula

Advisors at CUNY Lehman College

use pre-scripted semester schedules

to constructively limit choice and

reduce registration errors for incoming

students. During orientation, all new

students must register for a pre-made

first-semester schedule. Each course

plan features fully compatible class

times and fulfills a wide range of

general education requirements. This

practice simplifies the orientation

advising process and ensures that

each student has a viable and

productive schedule.

By clustering courses, Lehman

College creates the opportunity for a

richer educational experience.

Instructors coordinate lectures to

bridge themes across the block, and

students develop strong connections

to the other students taking the same

block. Since implementing this

practice in the early 1990s, Lehman

has seen first-year GPAs improve by

nearly a full grade and retention rates

improve by twenty percentage points.

CUNY Lehman College’s Mandatory First Year Course Schedules

SCHEDULE EIGHTEEN

ENG110 English Composition I

M,W 12:30 – 1:45

PSY166 General Psychology

T,TH 12:30 – 1:45

ANT212 Ancient Cultures

M,W 11:00 – 12:15

ENG234 Women in Literature

T,TH 11:00 – 12:15

FYI001 Freshman Seminar

M 9:30 – 10:20

Class times fit together

and ensure that all new

students attempt:

• Fifteen credits

• English Comp I

• Freshman Seminar

• Three general

education areas*

(* students can make

approved substitutions

due to prior credit or

to explore majors)

Special schedules are

created and targeted to

students preparing for

pre-professional majors

Accounting

Nursing

Pre-med

Teacher Education

Second term schedules

feature English Comp II

and the introductory

courses for popular majors

Psychology

Sociology

Performing Arts

Business Admin

Pre-Professional Options Second Term Schedules Prepare for Major

During orientation,

new students select

from among 25-30

pre-made course

schedules



Advising Students to Maintain Maximum Flexibility

Practice #8:

Pivot Course Guidance

Degree curricula become increasingly

complex over time as departments

and faculty continually add new

options for fulfilling the required

coursework. Often times students

have several different classes to pick

from in order to fulfill a single

requirement. The specific course they

pick could have implications should

that student choose to change majors

in the future.

As part of its recommendation

algorithm, Austin Peay State

Universities’ Degree Compass

guides students to take courses that

could fulfill requirements for multiple

different majors. By enrolling in these

so-called “pivot courses,” students

ensure that they maintain flexibility

and avoid backtracking should they

opt to change majors in the future.

Good academic advisors already have

these conversations, but by providing

this additional resource, APSU helps

ensure that students take flexibility

into consideration even if they cannot

meet with an advisor.

Degree Compass Preferences Courses That Pivot to Multiple Majors

Fulfillment of major requirements

Applicability to other majors

Predicted grade

2

3

1

Math 110

Calculus for

Life Sciences

Degree Compass gives preference

to the course that applies to

multiple different degrees

Which math class should a student take?

Either course fulfills the math requirement

for the student’s Biology major

Biology

requirements

Business Math 115

General Calculus

Math 110

Calculus for Life Sciences

Degree Compass recommends

courses to students based on:

Math 115

General

Calculus

Computer

Science

Biology


Many Students Delayed When Denied Admission to Pre-Professional Programs

Already among the largest on

campus, pre-professional programs

such as Nursing and Business are

becoming even more popular as

students increasingly seek out majors

directly linked to careers. Many of

these programs are “limited access” in

that students must formally apply to

be admitted to the college, usually at

the end of sophomore year. These

programs are highly competitive, with

large numbers of students turned

away each year. Students denied

admission must declare a new major,

and many find themselves suddenly

behind in fulfilling requirements for

this new degree. Credits previously

earned to fulfill major requirements

may now count only toward general

electives.

The limited-access admissions

structure has the potential to create

graduation delays and damage

completion rates. With perhaps one-

third of incoming students enrolling in

a competitive pre-professional

program, many schools are now

looking for better ways to help those

students who likely won’t be admitted

find new majors and stay on track to

graduation.

Students Denied Entry Are Dealt a Significant Graduation Setback

40% Denied

entry

19% Admitted

to college

41% Leave

program

500 Entering

students

Year Two Year One

Will drop out or

backtrack and start

over in new program

Earned Credits at End of Second Year

(Illustrative)

Many students being forced out of majors

Pre-Nursing Students

Midsize Public University

30 30

Major Electives

Before Major Change

6

54

Major Electives

After Major Change

Student is now behind in

new major and at risk for

earning excess electives



Institutions Creating Alternate Majors That Make Use of Earned Credits

Practice #9:

Seamless Alternative Majors

The University of Missouri at

Columbia has created a new

program, the Bachelor of Health

Science (BHS), specifically designed

to absorb students exiting competitive

pre-health programs such as Nursing

and Physical Therapy.

To minimize backtracking and

graduation delays, the BHS program

is intentionally built around degree

requirements that would already be

completed by a pre-health student

during the first two years of college.

With so many credits already

completed, students who make the

switch will lose very little progress and

are well positioned for on-time

graduation.

Five years after launch, the Bachelor

of Health Science has proved to be

exceedingly popular. Current

enrollment more than quadruples

initially expectations, making it one of

the fastest growing programs on

campus. Many of these students were

never pre-health majors,

demonstrating the appeal of BHS as a

stand-alone program.

University of Missouri’s Bachelors of Health Science

Surprisingly High Demand for BHS Program

Not Missing a Beat

A Pre-Nursing student who

switches to the Bachelor of

Health Science program at

the end of Year Two will

have already completed

21 credits toward the

new major plus several

general education courses

Overlapping

requirements

• Microbiology

• Human Anatomy

• Human Development

• Human Physiology

• Diet Therapy

No longer

applicable

• Nursing as a

Profession

• Psychosocial

Issues in

Nursing

Bachelors of Science

in Nursing

Bachelors of Health

Science

250 students

1,100 students

anticipated enrollment

(program launch 2006)

actual enrollment

(Fall 2012)



Alternative Majors Must Overcome the “Plan B” Stigma

Many universities already offer

alternative majors targeted to

wayward pre-professional students.

The majority of these degrees carry

very little prestige and are often

stigmatized as “Plan B” bailout majors

meant for students unable to clear the

bar in their desired field of study. This

second-class status has earned these

programs the pejorative nickname of

“ghetto majors.” Many students would

rather transfer and reattempt their

desired pre-professional degree

elsewhere.

Institutions looking to create

successful alternative majors like

Missouri’s Bachelor of Health Science

must take great care to ensure that

the program is truly attractive to

potential students. Successful

alternatives promote a positive public

perception by intentionally investing in

the academic prestige and quality of

coursework and faculty. The best

programs cater to pre-professional

students’ career ambitions by

demonstrating a clear connection to

the industry that drew them to their

original program in the first place.

Creating an Alternative That Is Truly Attractive

2

3

1

Academic Rigor and Respect

Avoid the “ghetto major” mentality by

intentionally crafting an intellectually

appealing program of study

Industry Endorsement

Consult employers to develop a

curriculum that best prepares

graduates for industry needs

Robust Career Services

Build confidence in post-graduate

employment through internships

and placement programs

Potential for Graduate Study

Prepare students for a return to

their original pre-health career

path via an advanced degree

Perceived Prestige and Rigor

Build around a topic area and

course of study that students

view as legitimate and worthy

Top-Notch Faculty

Recruit talented instructors to

dispel student fears of settling

for a second-class education

Expanded Horizons

Introduce students to new ideas

and outside of the narrow focus

of their original major

Clear Connection to Careers

Demonstrate to students that they

can still pursue a relevant career

in their original field of choice

5

6

4



Proactive Identification and Outreach Guides Students to New Majors Sooner

While alternative majors may help

mitigate delays for students already

denied entry to their desired program,

the best institutions are going a step

further and proactively identifying

likely non-admits well before they

even apply. Once identified, these

students can be carefully counseled

into a new major that best fits their

interests and educational goals.

These institutions have found that

first-year grade performance can

reliably predict which students are

likely or unlikely to be admitted to the

program a full year later. Yet even

when shown these data, stubborn

students may be resistant to giving up

on their dreams, even if doing so is in

their best self-interest.

In response, Georgia State

University recently created two

advisors dedicated entirely to

navigating the complexities of

migrating pre-professional students

into new majors. These advisors work

to convince their students of the

necessity of change while fitting them

to the best possible new major.

Many Strong Students Denied Admission to Pre-Professional Programs

0% 0%

6%

20%

40%

75%

83%

91%

2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0

First-Year GPA

Admission Rate Breakdown by First-Year GPA

Midsize Public University

First-year GPA below 3.2

indicates poor likelihood

of eventual admission

Georgia State’s “Transition Specialists”

Two dedicated advisors help

find new majors for students

leaving GSU’s pre-Nursing and

pre-Education programs

2

3

1 Broad understanding of programs

Extensive knowledge of requirements and

curricula in majors across the institution

Well versed in counseling techniques

Able to deal with distraught students and

deliver especially difficult conversations

Adaptable and resourceful

Skilled at connecting wayward students

with the resources and support they need



In Summary

Guided Pathways to Success: What a Fully Enabled University Might Look Like

Maximizes Credit Attempts

I

Dispels prevailing attitudes about

full-time status and communicates

the financial implications of taking

the most credits possible each term

Reduces Lost Credits

II

Discourages students from making

unnecessary course withdraws and

deliberately guides them away from

classes they likely will not pass

Simplifies Course Selection

III

Creates a degree map for each

major and deploys policies that

ensure students take the right

courses to stay on path to degree

Preserves Flexibility

IV

Identifies common migration

patterns between majors and

intentionally creates opportunities

to maximize use of earned credits

Accelerates Credit Completion Prevents Wasted Credits

Biology

Term

One

• Chemistry I

• Precalculus

Term

Two

• Chemistry II

• Calculus I

Term

Three

• General Biology

• Calculus II

Term

Four

• Genetics

• Cell Biology

Risk

Predictions

Nursing Health

Science

Media Blitz



LEGAL CAVEAT

The Advisory Board Company has made efforts to verify the accuracy of the information it provides to members. This

report relies on data obtained from many sources, however, and The Advisory Board Company cannot guarantee the

accuracy of the information provided or any analysis based thereon. In addition, The Advisory Board Company is not in

the business of giving legal, medical, accounting, or other professional advice, and its reports should not be construed as

professional advice. In particular, members should not rely on any legal commentary in this report as a basis for action, or

assume that any tactics described herein would be permitted by applicable law or appropriate for a given member’s

situation. Members are advised to consult with appropriate professionals concerning legal, medical, tax, or accounting

issues, before implementing any of these tactics. Neither The Advisory Board Company nor its officers, directors,

trustees, employees and agents shall be liable for any claims, liabilities, or expenses relating to (a) any errors or

omissions in this report, whether caused by The Advisory Board Company or any of its employees or agents, or sources

or other third parties, (b) any recommendation or graded ranking by The Advisory Board Company, or (c) failure of

member and its employees and agents to abide by the terms set forth herein.

The Advisory Board is a registered trademark of The Advisory Board Company in the United States and other countries.

Members are not permitted to use this trademark, or any other Advisory Board trademark, product name, service name,

trade name, and logo, without the prior written consent of The Advisory Board Company. All other trademarks, product

names, service names, trade names, and logos used within these pages are the property of their respective holders. Use

of other company trademarks, product names, service names, trade names and logos or images of the same does not

necessarily constitute (a) an endorsement by such company of The Advisory Board Company and its products and

services, or (b) an endorsement of the company or its products or services by The Advisory Board Company. The

Advisory Board Company is not affiliated with any such company.

IMPORTANT: Please read the following.

The Advisory Board Company has prepared this report for the exclusive use of its members. Each member acknowledges and

agrees that this report and the information contained herein (collectively, the “Report”) are confidential and proprietary to The

Advisory Board Company. By accepting delivery of this Report, each member agrees to abide by the terms as stated herein,

including the following:

1. The Advisory Board Company owns all right, title and interest in and to this Report. Except as stated herein, no right, license,

permission or interest of any kind in this Report is intended to be given, transferred to or acquired by a member. Each member

is authorized to use this Report only to the extent expressly authorized herein.

2. Each member shall not sell, license, or republish this Report. Each member shall not disseminate or permit the use of, and

shall take reasonable precautions to prevent such dissemination or use of, this Report by (a) any of its employees and agents

(except as stated below), or (b) any third party.

3. Each member may make this Report available solely to those of its employees and agents who (a) are registered for the

workshop or membership program of which this Report is a part, (b) require access to this Report in order to learn from the

information described herein, and (c) agree not to disclose this Report to other employees or agents or any third party. Each

member shall use, and shall ensure that its employees and agents use, this Report for its internal use only. Each member may

make a limited number of copies, solely as adequate for use by its employees and agents in accordance with the terms herein.

4. Each member shall not remove from this Report any confidential markings, copyright notices, and other similar indicia herein.

5. Each member is responsible for any breach of its obligations as stated herein by any of its employees or agents.

6. If a member is unwilling to abide by any of the foregoing obligations, then such member shall promptly return this Report and

all copies thereof to The Advisory Board Company.

41

Project Director

Edward P. Venit, Ph.D.

Contributing Consultants

Christine Enyeart

John Tannous

Julia Vlajic

Sarah Zauner

Building Guided Pathways to Success

Edward Venit Senior Research Consultant

Education Advisory Board

2445 M St NW

Washington, DC 20037

[email protected]

For more information on the Education Advisory

Board or this report, please contact the author:


©2011 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY • ADVISORY.COM

2445 M Street NW I Washington DC 20037 I P 202.266.6400 I F 202.266.5700

educationadvisoryboard.com

26140

Documents

Building Guided Pathways to Success - Doing What Matters for Jobs