October 9, 2003

Present: Erik Bucy, Ellen Dwyer, Roy Gardner, Kevin Hunt (chair), Chuck Livingston (recorder), Al Ruesink, Rob Shakespeare

1. The meeting began at 4:00 PM with the approval of the minutes of October 2, as amended.

2. At 4:05 PM Don Hossler, Vice Chancellor for Enrollment, joined the meeting. Vice Chancellor Hossler discussed with the Committee a number of topics related to the admissions process.

• The number of new freshmen this fall was slightly below the target of 6750, which is significantly below levels of recent years. It is expected that a target in this range will be maintained in coming years. Of the many controls on enrollment in the admissions process, the one with the greatest effect is in limiting admissions of students at the border of meeting admission requirements. Other controls can have significant effect but must be developed incrementally.



• Committee members described anecdotal experiences pointing towards a low level of achievement among the students with late dates of admission and encouraged Vice Chancellor Hossler to explore this issue carefully.



• If portions of scholarship funds are shifted to direct them toward particular categories of students (for instance, low-, middle- and high-achieving students or in-state and out-of-state students) the effect can vary, both in shaping the demographics of the student body and on the budget. Committee members suggested a careful analysis to identify budget-neutral means to decrease the number of low-achieving students.



• The balance of in-state and out-of-state students affects the profile of our student body. The benefits of changing this balance must be weighed against the obligations of a state-funded university.



• Scholarship funds directed towards incoming students are much more effective at enhancing enrollments and improving the overall profile of the student body than are funds awarded to upper-level students. Committee members noted that many departmental scholarship are constrained by their endowment, for instance by being limited to juniors, whereas they could have a bigger impact on enrollments if they could be used to attract direct admit students.



• Committee members raised the issue of recruitment. Vice Chancellor Hossler reported that the average recruitment expense at IU is approximately $400 per matriculating student, roughly one tenth of the expenditure at some exclusive universities.



• Committee members suggested that an accurate model of the admissions-budget relationship should take into account the relative cost of admitting students of different qualifications. For instance, the added cost of remedial undertakings for low-achieving students.



• Vice Chancellor Hossler noted that schools with which IU has traditionally competed for students have been increasing their selectivity measures (such as SAT scores and class rankings of incoming students) in recent years, and it is essential that IU match those improvements.

• Consideration of Dean Subbaswamy's goal of College-wide discussion of tenure criteria, with particular emphasis on the role of teaching effectiveness.



• A review of the CPC's role in, and the general structure of, the annual departmental planning meetings held with the Dean.



• Salary policies for professional staff and the Dean's goal of encouraging a modification of these policies at the university level.