Transfer Advisory Council

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

2:00 p.m.  Room 702 Culkin Hall

Present:  Rhonda Mandel, Joyce Smith, Andy Westfall, Rameen Mohammadi, Sandy Kyle, Harry Shock, Linda Hefti, R.Deborah Davis, Glynn English, Sheila Cooley, Judith Belt, Chris Hockey

Meeting Began: 2:08pm

Ø     Sub-Committee Updates

Chris shared results and workings of last week’s sub-committee meetings.

Advisement

Discussion centered around what is working in advisement and what areas we would like to see changes made. The breakdown is as follows:

-         Areas of advisement that are working well are:

o       Bringing students in early during TRANSFERmation.

o       When advisement materials are available early to advisors.

o       When students bring a copy of CC transcript and spring courses.

o       When students bring a copy of high school transcript (School of Ed).

o       School of Business Passports

o       CAPP reports

-         Areas of advisement that the group would like to see improved or changes that can be made to the advisement process are:

o       Most spring semester CC courses not available for CAPP in summer.

o       Students not coming to summer with list of courses they’ve taken.

o       No incentives to recruit transfer advisors

o       Not all advisors created equally

o       Timing of students receiving an advisor

o       Poor education of faculty re: 2 year experience

o       Faculty not knowing curriculum or GenEd

-         Suggestions were given on how to improve the general transition of transfers as well as improve academic advisement. Suggestions were:

o       Providing students with a checklist of things to bring to TRANSFErmation (courses taken, transcripts, etc.)

o       Ensuring students are aware of all functions available on myOswego.

o       Creating program outlines for non-articulated programs.

o       Helping students prepare for their entire time here as opposed to semester by semester.

o       Holding “socials” by major for incoming transfer students.

o       Train the advisement coordinators with appropriate information to funnel to advisors.

o       Providing some kind of incentive to advisors and advisement coordinators to attend trainings.

Data Collection

Discussion revolved around what types of data we currently have and what we need to get. The breakdown is as follows:

-         Data we do have:

o       6 years retention data

o       Data on GenEd courses taken/needed by incoming transfers

o       Some graduation rate data

o       Numbers in majors

-         Data we would still like to obtain:

o       Data on TRANSFERmation sessions

o       Associate Degree vs. Non-Associate Degree

o       Data regarding success of CC students against each other.

o       Experiences of advisement during 1^st semester and after 1^st semester.

o       Ongoing data collection every year.

Mentor Program

The Mentor Program group discussed the current direction of the mentor program and how to proceed from this point:

-         After review of the program outline discussion revolved around potential issues surrounding the creation of the mentor program. Issues include but are not limited to:

o       Recruiting prior to deposit paid status

o       Logistics surrounding overnight visits

o       Incentives to encourage participation in program

o       Early registration issues

Membership agreed upon naming the mentor program Mentors Offering Support for Transfers or the MOST Program. Committee agreed to begin putting together promotional teaser materials for the program to Cayuga.

TRANSFERmation

The TRANSFERmation group discussed reasons behind attendance patterns and ways to improve attendance at June/July sessions. The following comments were made:

-         Possible reasons for students attending later programs are:

o       Students making late decisions due to “shopping around” or inability to decide.

o       Students being accepted late due to a lag in transcripts or other important admissions information.

o       TRANSFERmation is not a mandatory program.

o       Work schedules of transfer students

o       Transfers feeling that they don’t need a orientation program

Transfer Preceptor Course

The originally dubbed “At-Risjk Class” committee decided to move in a direction of a “preceptor” course after Chris shared a discussion with Mark Morey with the group. The group discussed the following:

-         Discussion began with Chris talking about his meeting with Mark Morey from the Psychology department. Mark has taught a Transfer Preceptor class for a couple of years. The concept of the preceptor class is to take an existing class and limit it to transfer students with the inclusion of material to address the transitional issues that transfer students face. 

-         Membership discussed the pros and cons of a class aimed exclusively to “at-risk” transfer students as opposed to the preceptor class. Membership agreed that the preceptor course concept was a better idea to try and develop.

-         Discussion then centered around which other departments would benefit from and have the capability to create a transfer preceptor course. The committee agreed that major transfer departments such as broadcasting, public justice, and art would benefit. Discussion then moved to how to incorporate the Schools of Business and Education into the preceptor course as their curriculums are more structured.

Ø     Sub-Committee Discussion

After reviewing the work of the sub-committees, Chris asked for comments and feedback regarding any of the sub-committees workings. The majority of discussion centered around the Preceptor Course concept. The following comments, issues or concerns were raised:

o       Rhonda shared her experience teaching a preceptor course and that it was not a positive experience for her as she felt that the preceptor course does not allow peer support from a returning Oswego student.

o       Joyce and Sandy were concerned about the ability to schedule students into a preceptor class as there is no room for electives in the education curriculum.

o       There was also some concern about not knowing exactly how many transfer students are entering a department until late during the summer. This would affect the ability to set aside sections of courses to transfer students.

Discussion moved back towards discussing the possibility of creating a class for “at-risk” students based on incoming GPA. Incoming GPA, so far, has been the only factor identified as contributing to transfer students not being successful.  Other similar issues raised were:

o       Students entering last TRANSFERmation session seem to be more at risk for problems than other students. Suggestion was made to have students attending last session be made to attend at-risk class.

o       The possibility of a 1 credit course, similar to GST, could be created and become a conditional admit for students in danger of failing. The issue was raised that the admissions office had been spoken to about this idea and were extremely apprehensive about having a conditional admit for transfers based on GPA as it may deter students from applying to the institution.

o       Point was made that both preceptor and at-risk models could be utilized as different departments have different abilities and constraints.

o       Glynn mentioned that the School of Business was looking at reinstating midterm grades to help better advise at-risk students. Concerns were raised about the ability to get faculty to submit midterm grades.

Other discussion items were:

o       The importance of examining current data and retrieving new data to determine what, if any, other risk factors are present in students that are failing. The group was interested in examining associate degree vs.non-associate degree students in determining success patterns.

o       The issue of the Noel-Levitz RMS program being used for freshman was raised. There is currently no such program for transfer students, but rumor is that Noel-Levitz may be working on such a program and could we offer to pilot it?

o       How many at-risk students do we bring in each year? The numbers would determine how many sections of an “at-risk” class would be needed.

o       The Preceptor Sub-Committee should review pros and cons of each model and provide program outlines of each.

          Meeting Adjourned at 3:09pm.

Next Meeting:  TBD.