Southeastern Louisiana University Faculty Senate

Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, October 6, 2004

Alumni Center

I. Senate President David Wyld called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. in the Alumni Center. Membership Secretary Mary Sue Ply called roll. Senators absent were: Bancroft, Boulahanis, Brewer-Plazinic, Coats, Diez, Dranguet, Hathorn, Holt-Ochsner, Nelson, Ratcliff, Saeki, Schulte, Valentino, Weaver, and Williams.

II. Minutes from the September 8, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved.

III. President Wyld introduced invited guests to the meeting:

A. Kathy Pittman, Director of the Southeastern Alumni Association, briefed senators on Homecoming activities including a myriad of campus events such as the plans for a bon fire and pep rally, the faculty and staff tasting contest, a theatrical production at the Vonnie Borden theatre, and Late Night Catechism at the Columbia Theatre. She informed senators about the Alumni Awards evening ($15 a ticket) including meal and drinks. Director Pittman also discussed Saturday’s parade that was scheduled to run through Friendship Circle, and library activities planned prior to tailgating and to the Football game.

B. Stephen C. Soutullo, Dean of Enrollment Management, was introduced by Senator Wyld and presented the senators with two handouts for discussion:

1. The first report provided a comparative analysis between enrollment statistics for fall 2003 and fall 2004 respectively. (See Addendum A).

a. Mr. Soutullo said that, in an effort to meet improved admission standards of the Louisiana Board of Regents Master Plan that must be implemented by fall 2005, information from fall 2003 was analyzed for purposes of identifying steps toward improvement that could be put into place ahead of schedule. It was determined that three significant changes could occur by fall 2004 semester:

i. To restrict full, regular enrollment for students who had more than one developmental course to take upon arriving at Southeastern;

ii. To increase the minimum ACT score in English from 17 to 18; and

iii. To implement an admissions deadline of August 15.

b. Understanding that the above steps could have resulted in an enrollment decline beyond what was desired, several goals for fall 2004 were simultaneously put into effect:

i. A goal was set for an enrollment of 15,400 students for fall 2004. The headcount had been 15,662 in the fall of 2003. The goal for fall 2004 was reached with a total enrollment of 15,472.

ii. A goal was set to increase the number of entering students with an ACT score of 24 or higher to 418 students for fall 2004. The previous fall semester, 357 students entered Southeastern with an ACT of 24 or higher. The goal for fall 2004 was exceeded with 424 first year students enrolling with an ACT score of 24 or higher.

iii. A goal was set to increase the average ACT score to at least 20 for freshman entering in the fall 2004 semester. During the fall 2003 semester, the average ACT for an entering first-year student was 19.9. The goal for fall 2004 was exceeded with an average ACT composite of 21.0.

c. Mr. Soutullo told the senators that reaching these goals demonstrated the advances that Southeastern was making in recruitment based on the quality programs that we offer.

d. He added that the University experienced an expected decline in the graduate program from 2,033 students in the fall of 2003 to 1,808 students in the fall of 2004.

i. The Masters of Arts in Teaching program had a huge influx of students at inception. Since that time, the admissions criteria had been redefined.

ii. As a result, we had anticipated and indeed witnessed a decrease in the graduate enrollment numbers.

e. Mr. Soutullo pointed to the increase in students re-admitted who had been out at least a year; and noted that the numbers for transfer students were still up and down, and that we needed to make dramatic improvements in this area. As admissions criteria become more stringent, we will be looking to attract more students from community colleges and from sister institutions in our region.

2. The second document discussed by Mr. Soutullo was on Progression and Retention Rates (See Addendum B).

a. By examining the entering cohort from the previous year and the retention rates from the fall of one year to the fall of the next year, the administration had set retention goals.

b. The retention goal for the returning cohort from fall 2003 to fall 2004 was 67.9 percent.

i. We exceeded our goal. The 2003 cohort was retained at 68.9 percent.

ii. In profiling the retention rates, successes as well as problem areas became evident. As an example of our successes, we retained students with an ACT of 24 or higher at a rate of 77.6 percent (more than 11% higher than the 66.4 percent retention rate of the same group of students between 2002 and 2003).

c. Mr. Soutullo said that we had an ongoing goal not to simply keep students here, but to keep them here and to help them complete degrees. He noted that graduation rates were based on students completing a bachelor’s degree within six years at Southeastern. Students who transferred and completed elsewhere were not counted towards our graduation rates. The Board of Regents calculated while using a different formula, but only students who started at and graduated from the same university were calculated in federal graduation rate reporting.

i. Our graduation rates for the 1998 cohort (whose six year period ended in the summer of 2004) was up almost three percent (still only a 25.3 percent graduation rate), although many of them were still enrolled. Mr. Soutullo said that our students were taking longer to graduate and we needed to improve in this area by helping students to reach their goals in a timely manner.

ii. Mr. Soutullo said that the 1999 cohort must graduate by the summer of 2005 to contribute to graduation rates for the 1999 cohort. We need to help this group progress toward graduation within six years. A recent report from the Office of Institutional Research indicated that there were 178 students in the 1999 cohort who were currently enrolled as seniors and who had not yet graduated or applied to graduate in December. If those 178 students graduated by summer 2005, our graduation rate for the 1999 cohort would be almost 29 percent. While this was still not where we wanted to be, Mr. Soutullo pointed out that it was still four percent higher than where we were now.

iii. Senator Ply asked whether the departments were being sent a list of these students since advising was now beginning.

iv. Mr. Soutullo said the list detailing hours completed, standing, classification, etc. would be sent to deans and sorted by departments. It was important to let those who could graduate know, to make sure that they were taking the right classes in the spring, and to inform them of all graduation deadlines.

v. Mr. Soutullo said that now was the time to begin talking about the 2000 cohort, a group that would be graduating a year and a half from now. He said that of the 2,220 students who were part of the 2000 cohort, 190 or 8.6% had graduated and 32.8% of them were still here and had not graduated. If those 728 students could graduate by the summer of 2006, then our graduation rate for the 2000 cohort could be 41.4 percent.

d. Mr. Soutullo told senators that he hoped that the information supplied would help the senators to better understand our challenges, and encouraged senators to offer strategic suggestions as we helped cohorts move through the process to a degree. He then opened the floor for discussion.

i. Senator White asked whether students who attended community college and then transferred here and completed were considered in our graduation rates. Mr. Soutullo said that only those students who started at Southeastern as a full-time student could be included in a cohort.

ii. In response to an inquiry by Senator Root, Mr. Soutullo added that our plan when we set our new admissions deadline involved a significant public relations campaign to complete student registration before the deadline. Our goal was not just to eliminate two or three hundred people from enrolling; rather we wanted students to apply and to enroll earlier.

iii. Senator Bonnette asked if the July 15 deadline for application without fee penalty would be retained. Mr. Soutullo said that we would still have the July 15 date as a deadline, after which a student would have to pay more money up until the final application deadline of August 15.

iv. Senator Bonnette then asked for clarification on the number of remedial courses allowed. Mr. Soutullo said that students could take no more than one developmental course at Southeastern and that an area that needed further consideration was how we were going to handle required changes between now and 2005.

v. Mr. Soutullo added that the Board of Regents said that students could take no more than one developmental course at Southeastern unless admitted as an exception. The university could provide an avenue for students to satisfy one of those two developmental requirements by attending summer school. This would allow a student to still be admitted for the fall without being admitted as an exception. We could also undertake initiatives such as utilizing the current high school cooperative by helping high school teachers to develop courses that helped students achieve higher scores on the ACT, or by allowing students to take a departmental exam that satisfied a developmental requirement without receiving credit.

vi. Senator Ply asked whether students who needed two developmental courses and were taking English through Southeastern and Math through River Parishes (offered here on campus), were considered part of our cohort or part of our exceptions, and whether this would be continued in the future. Mr. Soutullo said that they were not considered part of our cohort because the River Parishes classes were not counted as our classes. Students were cross enrolling (with Southeastern as their home institution and with River Parishes Community College as the venue for their developmental class). While these students could have a total of twelve hours for purposes of Financial Aid, they were only enrolled in a maximum of ten hours at Southeastern. Therefore, they were considered part-time students and were not a member of the cohort.

vii. Senator Ply asked whether they would become a member of a cohort in the spring, after completing their developmental courses. Mr. Soutullo said that they would not, and added that we would have to do things a bit differently in the future since those students would not be admissible at all under the master plan criteria unless we admitted them as exceptions. In the future, we could still, even if we admitted them as exceptions, place our own conditions on their enrollment here and still have a partnership with a community college to teach the second developmental course. Yet, we would have a much smaller exception pool with which to deal. It would be better if we could get students to come into summer school and satisfy that one requirement.

viii. Senator Ply said that she had learned, through some research conducted in Senator K. Mitchell’s tech writing class, that there were activities being carried out by a recruiting office on campus of which she had been unaware. She expressed that the English Department would be interested in participating, but had not been contacted. She suggested that an event be set up where representatives from each academic department would be informed what Recruiting Office staff was doing in terms of letters, off-campus visits, etc. Mr. Soutullo said that deans and department heads were invited to have a representative at certain functions. He said that he would forward Senator Ply a list of recruiting events scheduled for the year for her information. Senator Ply said that she was particularly interested in the cards that high school students were filling out expressing interest in particular academic disciplines. She encouraged the formation of a workshop as a means of opening up the lines of communication. Mr. Soutullo said that we were moving towards PeopleSoft being able to generate letters automatically to potential students who filled out cards indicating specific academic interests.

ix. Senator Yeargain said that he had been in the management office when a student who was currently taking Orientation 101 suggested that s/he had to be advised immediately in order to receive a grade. Senator Yeargain asked if there was a rule dictating when advising should start for a following semester. Mr. Soutullo said that there was currently no coordinated rule that applied across all departments, and sometimes it presented a problem when students received different information from different departments. He added that a component of the Orientation class currently required students to complete advisement at the appropriate time.

C. Dr. Crain was then introduced to address pay increases, Hurricane Ivan, SOT narratives, and sick leave.

1. Dr. Crain told senators that budgets were increasingly being driven by enrollment (tuition and fees). This academic year was budgeted for a target enrollment of 15,400 students. Based on meeting that goal, as previously shared by Dr. Moffett at the senate, a raise plan of three to four percent was in the process of being finalized. Dr. Crain said that the administration was waiting on additional analysis about enrollment, particularly some projections for next year before releasing specifics, because they wanted to make sure that the raises given this year could be paid for next year. The current freshman cohort was being analyzed against the required fall 2005 admissions standards to determine the potential impact on next year’s enrollment. Dr. Crain said that the administration wanted to make sure that the University would have sufficient enrollment to sustain the raises next year. Dr. Crain felt fairly confident of a four percent (or close to four percent) raise plan. He added that a list of names would shortly be given to the department heads to work through to make sure that all appropriate/current employee names were on the list. The dollar allocations (the pool of four percent if that was what it ended up being) would not actually be on this initial list. When the administration received the final analysis from Institutional Research in the next week or two and after the list of names was finalized, the allocations would go out to the departments. Then, there would be an allocation process at the departmental level that involved the same raise plan used for the last number of years: a $250 per individual flat allocation and, above that allocation, raises based primarily on merit. Department heads would make recommendations based on the annual evaluation results. Those recommendations would then move up the line to deans and on to Dr. Crain for review. Then, the President would sign off before the recommended raises were passed on to the board for approval. Dr. Crain said that the current plan was for the raise to be effective October 1, 2004. However, due to the Board’s meeting schedule, the raises would not be in the checks until December 2004. The December checks would include any back pay.

a. Senator Ply asked for clarification on a previous discussion that the raise might have to be part raise and part supplement.

b. Dr. Crain said that the administration would rather give a raise that we knew they could continue, which is why they were going through the extra step to consider possible impacts of next fall’s admission standards.

c. Senator Simoneaux asked if the October date also included 12-month staff.

d. Dr. Crain said this raise would be for faculty and unclassified staff.

e. FAC Representative Bostic raised the issue that the current raises were tied heavily to enrollment. Yet, in the early part of the 1990 when the enrollment was increasing at such high percentages, it did not have a particularly positive effect on our raises.

f. Dr. Crain said that he suspected the university was in a different situation then. First, at that time, a larger percentage of the budget was attributed to appropriations rather than student tuition and fees. He believed that over the past several years most institutions over the country had seen a greater proportion of their budgets come from tuition and fees, and a smaller number come from state appropriations. Secondly, at that time, we were growing so fast that we were using money to add new faculty and facilities, and to address other additional costs.

g. Dr. Crain encouraged anyone with questions over the next couple of weeks to discuss them with their department heads.

2. Dr. Crain noted that the University had been closed for several days during the recent hurricane. The administrative team had met with local and state police, studied information from the weather service, consulted with city and parish governments, and had monitored the weather throughout the ordeal in order to arrive at the decision for closure dates. Most of the decisions for the recent closure were made with the knowledge of what surrounding areas were doing with regard to evacuations. Given the traffic situation, the university remained closed through Friday. The Interstates were jammed and, since probably 85 percent of our students travel by Interstate to Southeastern, a decision was made to remain closed on Friday. Dr. Crain said that current seat-time rules allowed us to have a little more flexibility and all hours missed due to events such as hurricane closure did not necessarily have to be made up.

a. Dr. Wyld thanked the administration for the decision to close due to traffic.

b. President Wyld also added that he had received emails from other faculty members who too praised the decision to close.

c. Senator Ramsey said that the closure was a good idea and made note of several websites he had reviewed of surrounding Universities, one of which had offered to assist students in finding a ride to the airport.

d. Senator Norris suggested that the closure information listed on the website be worded more clearly in the future to avoid confusion.

3. Dr. Crain then followed up on two pending items of old business: the delay in receiving SOT narratives, and the sick leave policy for faculty.

a. Dr. Crain said that he had visited with Drs. Baldwin and Hall about eliminating some of the delay in faculty receiving the narrative portion of student SOTs. He said that he was continuing to work with them to determine if the change could be made. The change would require redesigning the process.

b. Another issue Dr. Crain revisited regarded the way that sick leave is charged for faculty. Sick leave is supposed to be charged by the actual hours missed. Dr. Crain said that, as a follow up to a specific case brought up by Senator Yeargain at the last meeting, he would work with Senator Yeargain if there were something that needed to be done for an individual faculty member who might have been charged for sick leave inappropriately. Senator Yeargain said that he had been in contact with the department where the problem had originated (as discussed in the last faculty senate meeting) and had asked them to contact Dr. Crain directly. Dr. Crain said that he had not yet heard from anyone. Senator Wyld added that this did not appear to be a widespread problem.

IV. Old Business—Dr. Wyld took reports from two committee chairs:

A. Senator Coxe, Chair of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, said the committee is currently reviewing the Constitution and Bylaws to determine how they need to be updated. She said that she would have a report and more information at the next meeting.

B. Senator Stewart, Chair of the Facilities, Safety, and Security Committee, presented a resolution containing necessary updates to the University Computing Policy (See Addendum C). Senator King seconded Senator Stewart’s motion to approve the resolution. Discussion ensued with Senator Ramsey requesting that the material quoted from the Southeastern Louisiana University website be re-checked for accuracy. Senator Stewart said she would do so. The resolution passed unanimously.

V. New Business—Senators Ply and Kirylo brought new business to the floor:

A. Senator Ply said that she had recently served as an outside reviewer for a faculty member at another institution who was going up for promotion to full professor. She was impressed with the narrative forms that put more of the responsibility for learning on students. For example, students were asked to respond to prompts such as, “I could have improved my learning in this course by….” Senator Ply suggested that prompts with positive tones such as these might be more helpful than asking students to write about the classroom or about the textbook, as they were currently requested to do. She moved that this issue be sent to the Academic Committee for study and for suggestions of potential changes for our narrative form. Senator Dassau seconded the motion. The motion passed and was forwarded to the Academic Committee. President Wyld said that anyone who had samples of narrative forms from other universities that they would like to pass along should forward such to the Academic Committee Chair, David Ramsey, at dramsey@selu.edu

B. President Wyld called on Senator Kirylo to discuss some concerns he had about parking.

1. Senator Kirylo expressed his concerns that the prioritizing of parking for faculty appeared to be minimal. He then read a portion of a previously written email (attached as Addendum D).

2. President Wyld said that not withstanding the current construction, the parking issue was an ongoing concern. Some of the input that he had received from Drs. Crain and O’Hara was that extra enforcement would be provided if they were alerted to a specific problem. President Wyld asked for senators to email him directly at dwyld@selu.edu to detail the time and locations where parking problems were occurring so that he could pass the information along to enforcement.

3. President Wyld said that parking down resolutions have been passed before without success. Senator Wyld said that parking should not be such a problem…that faculty should have a parking spot. He also expressed concern that staff members were getting ticketed at points simply for trying to come and do their job.

4. Senator Prescott said it was her understanding that the decision not to allow parking down was made in an administrative meeting of DSA and the PD, and was made based on PD officials recommending that parking down was not necessary. Senator Prescott said that she wanted us to revisit the issue with some understanding as to why parking down was not permitted, and maybe have it reconsidered based on some faculty input.

5. Senator Coxe said that this issue had gone through committees before without success. She added that there was supposed to be a committee, in addition to the police, that made the decisions.

6. Senator Prescott said that there might be a committee, but it was her understanding that they were not making the decisions.

7. Senator King suggested that faculty members call the police and ask for a ticket writer at a particular location when non-faculty individuals were seen parked in faculty lots.

8. Senator Coxe said that she was against parking down because she believed that it told students that they did not matter. She recommended that if faculty names were not going to be put on parking spots, departments should conduct a head count of who needed parking and the various departments should be assigned the number of spots needed.

9. Senator Ply said that a few years back when there was still faculty parking by the campus security office and no parking spots near her building, she would park in the lot by campus security office and ask them to give her a ride to her building.

10. Senator Siegel said that she appreciated what Senator Coxe said about devaluing the students, but questioned whether such was also happening to the faculty?

11. Senator Coxe said that on a day-to-day basis each department should have enough parking spots allocated for faculty to be able to find a parking space.

12. Senator Ramsey pointed to the signs on Friendship Circle designating administrative parking spaces. He said that rank seemed to have its privileges.

13. Senator Kirylo said that he had seen students take faculty spaces and had repeatedly called for enforcement. He believed that enforcement was not happening like it should.

14. Senator Siegel said there that were students parking in faculty lots and not being ticketed.

15. John Yeargain moved to send the issue to the Faculty Welfare Committee. Senator Dassau seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. President Wyld sent the issue to the Faculty Welfare Committee for action. President Wyld said that he had been told that parking down was not going to happen. So, any additional suggestions should be sent to himself or Ed Nelson, Chair of the Faculty Welfare Committee.

VI. Announcements:

A. Senator Yeargain reminded the senators that the computers in our offices belonged to Southeastern Louisiana University. He added that these computers were hooked up to a main frame and contents were preserved in archives off-campus. These contents include every email ever sent or received by an employee, even emails that had been deleted. If litigations occurred, faculty should be aware that the email archives might very well be reviewed and a cause for dismissal might be found. Therefore, the campus email system should not be used for personal business. Additionally, sending very large files by email created money and space problems. Senator Yeargain added that the University monitored the volume of communications sent through its network. Senator Yeargain encouraged anyone wishing to send very large files to faculty and to staff, to post those documents on a personal website and to refer faculty and staff members to that website. For more information, check SLU’s Responsible Computing Policy at: http://www.selu.edu/copyright/responsible.htm

1. Senator Mirando said that he assumed that these policies applied to students and to their email accounts as well.

2. Senator Yeargain said that student accounts were also archived and noted that litigation might even occur, for example, where the recording industry presented a subpoena if they believed a student was downloading improperly. They could ask the University to divulge the name of the student engaged in the improper activity. Senator Yeargain was also aware of two tenured professors at another university who lost their jobs for making email inquiries about one of the university officers on their work computers.

3. Senator Higginbotham pointed to software that we should also be aware of that recorded/monitored telephone calls. He added that this software might be in use in this state.

B. Senator Hite reported that SGA had contributed $6,500 toward the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. lecture in Hammond as a part of the fanfare events. She said that SGA members were reporting sometimes having trouble acquiring appointments to meet with deans and departmental heads.

C. President Wyld reminded everyone that faculty and staff were invited to bring family and food and to enjoy use of the Faculty Tailgating space (Spots #34 and #35 in Friendship Circle) throughout the football season.

D. Door prizes were then awarded.

VII. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for November 3, 2004.

Respectfully submitted,

Jayetta Slawson

ADDENDUM A:

Fall 2004 Preliminary Enrollment Compared to Fall 2003
	Fall 2004	Fall 2003	% Change
Enrollment
UG Headcount	13,664	13,629	0.26%
UG FTE (15 Hours)	12,082	12,186	-0.85%
UG FTE (12 Hours)	15,102	15,232	-0.85%
GR Headcount	1,808	2,033	-11.07%
GR FTE (12 Hours)	890	988	-9.92%
GR FTE (9 Hours)	1,187	1,317	-9.87%
Total Headcount	15,472	15,662	-1.21%
Total FTE (15/12)	12,972	13,174	-1.53%
Total FTE (12/9)	16,289	16,549	-1.57%
Classification
Freshman	5,002	5,308	-5.76%
Sophomore	2,880	2,754	4.58%
Junior	2,348	2,281	2.94%
Senior	3,434	3,286	4.50%
Graduate*	1,808	2,033	-11.07%
* Includes Post-Bacc Students
Race
Asian/Pacific Islander	118	106	11.32%
Black, Non-Hispanic	2,428	2,389	1.63%
Hispanic	240	243	-1.23%
American Indian/Alaskan Native	52	57	-8.77%
White, Non-Hispanic	12,348	12,618	-2.14%
Unknown/Not Reported	286	249	14.86%
Gender
Females	9,818	10,051	-2.32%
Males	5,654	5,611	0.77%
Student Type
New Freshmen*	2,387	2,583	-7.59%
New Transfer Students	734	751	-2.26%
New Cross-Enrolled/Guest Students	19	25	-24.00%
New SPA Students	16	31	-48.39%
Total New Undergraduates	3,156	3,390	-6.90%
Reentry Undergraduates	722	589	22.58%
Continuing Undergraduates	9,786	9,650	1.41%
*Includes admit types of BF, EA, GT, and SJ
New Graduate Students	374	497	-24.75%
New Transfer Graduates	30	32	-6.25%
Reentry Graduates	104	151	-31.13%
Continuing Graduates	1,300	1,353	-3.92%
Number in Original Freshmen Cohort	2,142	2,552	-16.1%
Average ACT Scores for Freshmen Cohort
Composite	21.0	19.9	5.28%
Math	19.9	18.9	5.45%
English	21.6	20.2	6.68%
Reading	21.9	20.9	4.78%
Science Reasoning	21.3	20.4	4.41%
Number of Students with 24 or Higher	424	357	18.77%
Top Six Parishes
Tangipahoa	3,435	3,562	-3.57%
St. Tammany	3,263	3,288	-0.76%
East Baton Rouge	2,143	2,190	-2.15%
Livingston	1,895	1,857	2.05%
Jefferson	834	843	-1.07%
Ascension	679	654	3.82%
Transitional (Developmental) Enrollment
Sections Transitional Math	28	41	-31.71%
Students Enrolled Transitional Math	762	1,103	-30.92%
Transitional Math SCHs	2,286	3,309	-30.92%
Sections Transitional English	20	20	0.00%
Students Enrolled Transitional English	497	497	0.00%
Transitional English SCHs	1,988	2,485	-20.00%
Total Transitional Sections	48	61	-21.31%
Total Transitional SCHs	4,274	5,794	-26.23%
Total Students Enrolled in At Least One Transitional Course	1,184	1,269	-6.70%

ADDENDUM B:

Progression and Retention Rates
Fall 2003 Revised Beginning Freshmen Cohort
	Original Cohort	Retained Spring 2004		Progressed Fall 2004		Retained Fall 2004		Total Retention Fall 2004
Total	2,546	2,209	(86.8%)	700	(27.5%)	1054	(41.4%)	1,754	(68.9%)
Gender
Male	1,094	927	(84.7%)	220	(20.1%)	590	(53.9%)	810	(74.0%)
Female	1,452	1,282	(88.3%)	480	(33.1%)	564	(38.8%)	1,044	(71.9%)
Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic	1,944	1,688	(86.8%)	555	(28.5%)	789	(40.6%)	1,344	(69.1%)
Female	1,085	960	(88.5%)	375	(34.6%)	408	(37.6%)	783	(72.2%)
Male	859	728	(84.7%)	180	(21.0%)	381	(44.4%)	561	(65.3%)
Black, Non-Hispanic	480	422	(87.9%)	111	(23.1%)	215	(44.8%)	326	(67.9%)
Female	301	269	(89.4%)	80	(26.6%)	133	(44.2%)	213	(70.8%)
Male	179	153	(85.5%)	31	(17.3%)	82	(45.8%)	113	(63.1%)
Other Minority	59	46	(78.0%)	15	(25.4%)	27	(45.8%)	42	(71.2%)
Female	31	26	(83.9%)	12	(38.7%)	13	(41.9%)	25	(80.6%)
Male	28	20	(71.4%)	3	(10.7%)	14	(50.0%)	17	(60.7%)
Not Reported	63	53	(84.1%)	19	(30.2%)	23	(36.5%)	42	(66.7%)
Female	35	27	(77.1%)	13	(37.1%)	10	(28.6%)	23	(65.7%)
Male	28	26	(92.9%)	6	(21.4%)	13	(46.4%)	19	(67.9%)
Age*
Under 25	2,503	2,171	(86.7%)	687	(27.4%)	1032	(41.2%)	1,719	(68.7%)
25 or Older	43	38	(88.4%)	13	(30.2%)	22	(51.2%)	35	(81.4%)
ACT Composite
Not Available	3	3	(100.0%)	0	(0.0%)	2	(66.7%)	2	(66.7%)
17 or Below	601	505	(84.0%)	80	(13.3%)	294	(48.9%)	374	(62.2%)
18-19	472	406	(86.0%)	112	(23.7%)	206	(43.6%)	318	(67.4%)
20-23	1,113	967	(86.9%)	337	(30.3%)	446	(40.1%)	783	(70.4%)
24 or Higher	357	328	(91.9%)	171	(47.9%)	106	(29.7%)	277	(77.6%)
Campus Housing*
On-Campus	678	603	(88.9%)	187	(27.6%)	289	(42.6%)	476	(70.2%)
Off-Campus	1,868	1,606	(86.0%)	513	(27.5%)	765	(41.0%)	1,278	(68.4%)
TOPS*
Received TOPS	936	863	(92.2%)	409	(43.7%)	328	(35.0%)	737	(78.7%)
Did Not Receive TOPS	1,610	1,346	(83.6%)	291	(18.1%)	726	(45.1%)	1,017	(63.2%)
* Based on student's first semester
Note: Based on IPEDS definition of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking freshmen
Progression means the student was enrolled that semester at the next classification, I.e. Sophomore in year 2, Junior in year 3, and Senior in year 4

Progression and Retention Rates
Fall 2002 Revised Beginning Freshmen Cohort
	Original Cohort	Retained Spring 2003		Progressed Fall 2003		Retained Fall 2003		Total Retention Fall 2003		Progressed Fall 2004		Retained Fall 2004		Total Retention Fall 2004
Total	2,390	2,059	(86.2%)	588	(24.6%)	1006	(42.1%)	1,594	(66.7%)	414	(17.3%)	815	(34.1%)	1,229	(51.4%)
Gender
Male	1,019	852	(83.6%)	147	(14.4%)	474	(46.5%)	621	(60.9%)	88	(8.6%)	369	(36.2%)	457	(44.8%)
Female	1,371	1,207	(88.0%)	441	(32.2%)	532	(38.8%)	973	(71.0%)	326	(23.8%)	446	(32.5%)	772	(56.3%)
Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic	1,896	1,628	(85.9%)	494	(26.1%)	787	(41.5%)	1,281	(67.6%)	351	(18.5%)	661	(34.9%)	1,012	(53.4%)
Female	1,076	942	(87.5%)	372	(34.6%)	407	(37.8%)	779	(72.4%)	276	(25.7%)	351	(32.6%)	627	(58.3%)
Male	820	686	(83.7%)	122	(14.9%)	380	(46.3%)	502	(61.2%)	75	(9.1%)	310	(37.8%)	385	(47.0%)
Black, Non-Hispanic	389	344	(88.4%)	72	(18.5%)	174	(44.7%)	246	(63.2%)	52	(13.4%)	117	(30.1%)	169	(43.4%)
Female	240	214	(89.2%)	53	(22.1%)	104	(43.3%)	157	(65.4%)	41	(17.1%)	74	(30.8%)	115	(47.9%)
Male	149	130	(87.2%)	19	(12.8%)	70	(47.0%)	89	(59.7%)	11	(7.4%)	43	(28.9%)	54	(36.2%)
Other Minority	52	41	(78.8%)	15	(28.8%)	15	(28.8%)	30	(57.7%)	8	(15.4%)	16	(30.8%)	24	(46.2%)
Female	24	21	(87.5%)	10	(41.7%)	6	(25.0%)	16	(66.7%)	7	(29.2%)	7	(29.2%)	14	(58.3%)
Male	28	20	(71.4%)	5	(17.9%)	9	(32.1%)	14	(50.0%)	1	(3.6%)	9	(32.1%)	10	(35.7%)
Unknown	53	46	(86.8%)	7	(13.2%)	30	(56.6%)	37	(69.8%)	3	(5.7%)	21	(39.6%)	24	(45.3%)
Female	31	30	(96.8%)	6	(19.4%)	15	(48.4%)	21	(67.7%)	2	(6.5%)	14	(45.2%)	16	(51.6%)
Male	22	16	(72.7%)	1	(4.5%)	15	(68.2%)	16	(72.7%)	1	(4.5%)	7	(31.8%)	8	(36.4%)
Age*
Under 25	2,319	1,995	(86.0%)	570	(24.6%)	973	(42.0%)	1,543	(66.5%)	403	(17.4%)	790	(34.1%)	1,193	(51.4%)
25 or Older	71	64	(90.1%)	18	(25.4%)	33	(46.5%)	51	(71.8%)	11	(15.5%)	25	(35.2%)	36	(50.7%)
ACT Composite
Not Available	12	10	(83.3%)	3	(25.0%)	6	(50.0%)	9	(75.0%)	2	(16.7%)	5	(41.7%)	7	(58.3%)
17 or Below	588	504	(85.7%)	69	(11.7%)	299	(50.9%)	368	(62.6%)	34	(5.8%)	200	(34.0%)	234	(39.8%)
18-19	477	394	(82.6%)	88	(18.4%)	215	(45.1%)	303	(63.5%)	56	(11.7%)	179	(37.5%)	235	(49.3%)
20-23	1,015	895	(88.2%)	309	(30.4%)	406	(40.0%)	715	(70.4%)	225	(22.2%)	348	(34.3%)	573	(56.5%)
24 or Higher	298	256	(85.9%)	118	(39.6%)	80	(26.8%)	198	(66.4%)	97	(32.6%)	83	(27.9%)	180	(60.4%)
Campus Housing*
On-Campus	594	513	(86.4%)	146	(24.6%)	241	(40.6%)	387	(65.2%)	105	(17.7%)	189	(31.8%)	294	(49.5%)
Off-Campus	1,796	1,546	(86.1%)	442	(24.6%)	765	(42.6%)	1,207	(67.2%)	309	(17.2%)	626	(34.9%)	935	(52.1%)
* Based on student's first semester
Note: Based on IPEDS definition of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking freshmen
Progression means the student was enrolled that semester at the next classification, I.e. Sophomore in year 2, Junior in year 3, and Senior in year 4

Progression and Retention Rates
Fall 2001 Revised Beginning Freshmen Cohort
	Original Cohort	Retained Spring 2002		Progressed Fall 2002		Retained Fall 2002		Total Retention Fall 2002		Progressed Fall 2003		Retained Fall 2003		Total Retention Fall 2003		Progressed Fall 2004		Retained Fall 2004		Total Retention Fall 2004
Total	2,011	1,746	(86.8%)	481	(23.9%)	897	(44.6%)	1,378	(68.5%)	359	(17.9%)	746	(37.1%)	1,105	(54.9%)	325	(16.2%)	634	(31.5%)	959	(47.7%)
Gender
Male	801	676	(84.4%)	142	(17.7%)	366	(45.7%)	508	(63.4%)	88	(11.0%)	303	(37.8%)	391	(48.8%)	78	(9.7%)	380	(47.4%)	458	(57.2%)
Female	1,210	1,070	(88.4%)	339	(28.0%)	531	(43.9%)	870	(71.9%)	271	(22.4%)	443	(36.6%)	714	(59.0%)	247	(20.4%)	254	(21.0%)	501	(41.4%)
Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic	1,666	1,435	(86.1%)	399	(23.9%)	740	(44.4%)	1,139	(68.4%)	298	(17.9%)	605	(36.3%)	903	(54.2%)	269	(16.1%)	531	(31.9%)	800	(48.0%)
Female	970	850	(87.6%)	279	(28.8%)	418	(43.1%)	697	(71.9%)	225	(23.2%)	343	(35.4%)	568	(58.6%)	205	(21.1%)	303	(31.2%)	508	(52.4%)
Male	696	585	(84.1%)	120	(17.2%)	322	(46.3%)	442	(63.5%)	73	(10.5%)	262	(37.6%)	335	(48.1%)	64	(9.2%)	228	(32.8%)	292	(42.0%)
Black, Non-Hispanic	279	254	(91.0%)	60	(21.5%)	133	(47.7%)	193	(69.2%)	49	(17.6%)	111	(39.8%)	160	(57.3%)	46	(16.5%)	82	(29.4%)	128	(45.9%)
Female	201	185	(92.0%)	46	(22.9%)	99	(49.3%)	145	(72.1%)	38	(18.9%)	84	(41.8%)	122	(60.7%)	35	(17.4%)	65	(32.3%)	100	(49.8%)
Male	78	69	(88.5%)	14	(17.9%)	34	(43.6%)	48	(61.5%)	11	(14.1%)	27	(34.6%)	38	(48.7%)	11	(14.1%)	17	(21.8%)	28	(35.9%)
Other Minority	35	29	(82.9%)	11	(31.4%)	11	(31.4%)	22	(62.9%)	5	(14.3%)	14	(40.0%)	19	(54.3%)	5	(14.3%)	8	(22.9%)	13	(37.1%)
Female	20	18	(90.0%)	7	(35.0%)	6	(30.0%)	13	(65.0%)	3	(15.0%)	6	(30.0%)	9	(45.0%)	4	(20.0%)	4	(20.0%)	8	(40.0%)
Male	15	11	(73.3%)	4	(26.7%)	5	(33.3%)	9	(60.0%)	2	(13.3%)	8	(53.3%)	10	(66.7%)	1	(6.7%)	4	(26.7%)	5	(33.3%)
Unknown	31	28	(90.3%)	11	(35.5%)	13	(41.9%)	24	(77.4%)	7	(22.6%)	16	(51.6%)	23	(74.2%)	5	(16.1%)	13	(41.9%)	18	(58.1%)
Female	19	17	(89.5%)	7	(36.8%)	8	(42.1%)	15	(78.9%)	5	(26.3%)	10	(52.6%)	15	(78.9%)	3	(15.8%)	8	(42.1%)	11	(57.9%)
Male	12	11	(91.7%)	4	(33.3%)	5	(41.7%)	9	(75.0%)	2	(16.7%)	6	(50.0%)	8	(66.7%)	2	(16.7%)	5	(41.7%)	7	(58.3%)
Age*
Under 25	1,934	1,694	(87.6%)	468	(24.2%)	865	(44.7%)	1,333	(68.9%)	348	(18.0%)	722	(37.3%)	1,070	(55.3%)	304	(15.7%)	609	(31.5%)	913	(47.2%)
25 or Older	56	52	(92.9%)	13	(23.2%)	32	(57.1%)	45	(80.4%)	11	(19.6%)	24	(42.9%)	35	(62.5%)	10	(17.9%)	20	(35.7%)	30	(53.6%)
ACT Composite
Not Available	2	1	(50.0%)	1	(50.0%)	0	(0.0%)	1	(50.0%)	1	(50.0%)	0	(0.0%)	1	(50.0%)	2	(100.0%)	0	(0.0%)	2	(100.0%)
17 or Below	485	421	(86.8%)	50	(10.3%)	261	(53.8%)	311	(64.1%)	39	(8.0%)	188	(38.8%)	227	(46.8%)	30	(6.2%)	143	(29.5%)	173	(35.7%)
18-19	390	329	(84.4%)	65	(16.7%)	202	(51.8%)	267	(68.5%)	43	(11.0%)	171	(43.8%)	214	(54.9%)	37	(9.5%)	139	(35.6%)	176	(45.1%)
20-23	900	792	(88.0%)	268	(29.8%)	363	(40.3%)	631	(70.1%)	197	(21.9%)	319	(35.4%)	516	(57.3%)	183	(20.3%)	288	(32.0%)	471	(52.3%)
24 or Higher	234	203	(86.8%)	97	(41.5%)	71	(30.3%)	168	(71.8%)	79	(33.8%)	68	(29.1%)	147	(62.8%)	73	(31.2%)	64	(27.4%)	137	(58.5%)
Campus Housing*
On-Campus	572	526	(92.0%)	178	(31.1%)	238	(41.6%)	416	(72.7%)	138	(24.1%)	197	(34.4%)	335	(58.6%)	129	(22.6%)	158	(27.6%)	287	(50.2%)
Off-Campus	1,418	1,220	(86.0%)	303	(21.4%)	659	(46.5%)	962	(67.8%)	221	(15.6%)	549	(38.7%)	770	(54.3%)	185	(13.0%)	471	(33.2%)	656	(46.3%)
* Based on student's first semester
Note: Based on IPEDS definition of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking freshmen
Progression means the student was enrolled that semester at the next classification, I.e. Sophomore in year 2, Junior in year 3, and Senior in year 4

Progression and Retention Rates
Fall 2000 Revised Beginning Freshmen Cohort
	Original Cohort	Retained Spring 2001		Progressed Fall 2001		Retained Fall 2001		Total Retention Fall 2001		Progressed Fall 2002		Retained Fall 2002		Total Retention Fall 2002		Progressed Fall 2003		Retained Fall 2003		Total Retention Fall 2003		Graduated		Retained Fall 2003		Potential Graduation Rate
Total	2,220	1,896	(85.4%)	543	(24.5%)	943	(42.5%)	1,486	(66.9%)	379	(17.1%)	801	(36.1%)	1,180	(53.2%)	325	(14.6%)	668	(30.1%)	993	(44.7%)	190	(8.6%)	728	(32.8%)	918	(41.4%)
Gender
Male	869	717	(82.5%)	169	(19.4%)	371	(42.7%)	540	(62.1%)	112	(12.9%)	308	(35.4%)	420	(48.3%)	89	(10.2%)	255	(29.3%)	344	(39.6%)	60	(6.9%)	257	(29.6%)	317	(36.5%)
Female	1,351	1,179	(87.3%)	374	(27.7%)	572	(42.3%)	946	(70.0%)	267	(19.8%)	493	(36.5%)	760	(56.3%)	236	(17.5%)	413	(30.6%)	649	(48.0%)	130	(9.6%)	471	(34.9%)	601	(44.5%)