Commission on University Excellence

Report
1984

J. Curtis Chipman, chair

PREFACE
In an address to the Oakland University Senate on September 22, 1983, President Joseph E. Champagne announced the formation of a Commission on University  Excellence to conduct a "thoughtful and deliberate audit of how well we are doing what we say we are doing." Several days later the Commission membership and charge were announced calling for a preliminary report Co be submitted by May 1, 1984.

This document with its assembled appendices is one of a set of three collections of documents which the Commission on University Excellence now submits. It addresses what we were asked to do, the questions we asked,  what we have found out to date, and what we recommend should happen next. The second collection of documents, a support file, contains the formal reports that have been submitted to the Commission, and materials received other than formal reports. The third collection is the work file; it contains correspondence, minutes, and a budget.

The production of these papers, with the numbers of people and hours that have been either directly or indirectly involved, represent an investment by the entire University community in a pursuit of excellence that has been a feature of this institution for its first twenty-five years. We, the members of the Commission, sincerely hope that this investment will permit the continuance and even the acceleration of that pursuit in the next twenty-five years.

Respectfully submitted,
Curtis Chipman, Chair,   Suzanne Frankie, Oded Izraeli,  Joan Stinson, Nancy Collins, Geraldine Graham, Ronald Kevern, Tung Weng, George Feeman, Ray Harris, Joel Russell, Diane Wilson, William Fish, Priscilla Hildum, David Shantz, Frederick Zorn

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On behalf of the other members of the Commission, I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank all the people who are not named in the Appendices as contributors to this effort.

The first to be thanked should be the secretarial and other support staff associated with all of the formal participants. For them also this exercise required an additional effort over the past year. Their contributions were valued. Two faculty members who gave freely of their time were William E. Bezdek of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology in the College of Arts and Sciences and Ravi Parameswaran of the School of Economics and Management. Their assistance in the ^ development of the faculty and employer questionnaires and subsequent analyses was greatly appreciated.

Special thanks are due to Scott J. Barns in the Provost's Office who assisted the Chair in numerous administrative matters.

Persons who were engaged by the Commission and did high quality work in return included William Hamilton who handled some of the statistical overflow from he
Office of Institutional Research and Chuck Junak, Teresa Manschesky, Lori Ann Marsee, Sharel Palmer, and Daniel Pamukcu who did the coding for the alumni faculty and student surveys.  In addition, Stephanie Luongo served well as secretary for the December 3 meeting.

Finally and certainly not least to be thanked are those members of the Provost's Office staff who provided the secretarial needs of the Commission propoer over the past year, Espi Holford for the Organization of the Commission materials, Judy Clark for the preparation of this document and Gloria Schatz for the preparation and distribution of the study requests and service as secretary to the Commission meetings throughout the Winer semester.  It all might have happened without these people, but certainly no one would have known about it.

For the Commission,
J. Curtis Chipman, chair.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction

Chapter I: Admissions Standards
Methodology
Principal Findings
Formal Commission Findings
Recommendations

Chapter II: Competency and Proficiency Standards
Methodology
Principal Findings
Formal Commission Findings
Recommendations

Chapter III: Academic Program Review Mechanisms
Methodology
Formal Commission Findings
Recommendations

Chapter IV: Academic Support Systems
Academic Advising
Methodology
Principal Findings
Formal Commission Findings
Recommendations
Career Advising
Methodology .
Principal Findings
Formal Commission Findings
Recommendations
Computing Resources and Services
Methodology
Principal Findings
Formal Commission Findings
Recommendations
Financial Aid
Methodology
Principal Findings
Formal Commission Findings
Recommendations
Library Services and Resources
Methodology
Principal Findings
Formal Commission Findings
Recommendations
SHES-Resource Center
Formal Commission Findings
Recommendations
Skill Development
Methodology
Principal Findings .
Formal Commission Findings
Recommendations
Academic Support Systems: Summary

Chapter V: Faculty Development
Methodology
Principal Findings
Formal Commission Findings .
Recommendations

Chapter VI: Other Areas for Review
Budgetary and Planning Processes
Information Patterns
Space

Summary 
Appendix I: Address of President Joseph E. Champagne September 22, 1983 [not included in online version]
Appendix II: Commission Study Outline  [not included in online version]
Appendix III: Commission Study Requests  [not included in online version]
Appendix IV: Commission Membership  [not included in online version]

 

INTRODUCTION

Since the complexity of the task outlined in President Champagne's address of September 22, 1983 suggests a strict attention to its formal charge, let us begin there:

The Charge:

 The Commission on University Excellence is charged to examine the quality of the academic enterprise at Oakland University, to document its findings and to propose such changes on policy and practice standards and retirements as it deems necessary to achieve the highest level of academic quality permitted by available resources.

In particular, the Commission is charged:

1.  To assess whether the current standards and requirements for admission to the University's degree programs are appropriate to ensure the enrollment of a student body substantially prepared to undertake the curricula prescribed by the faculty and to recommend revisions of entrance standards and requirements when warranted.

2.  To assess whether the existing undergraduate curricula assure that each degree recipient attains the ability to cope with the demands of a complex social and technological world through the development of substantial competencies in written and oral communication quantitative reasoning and critical thinking, and to recommend revisions and introductions of standards and requirements wherever warranted.

3. To assess whether existing mechanisms for the review of degree programs are adequate to assure that all such programs are of the highest quality compatible with available resources and to propose new mechanisms when necessary.

4. To assess the efficacy of the University's academic support systems—academic and career advising, library services and resources, computing services and resources, skill development programs—and to recommend revisions and introductions of appropriate systems where such will enhance the quality of the academic programs.

5.  To assess the University's program of continuing faculty development so as to assure that the faculty have opportunities to remain scholastically and professionally up-to-date within the limits of available resources.

6.  To assess the quality of the University's programs of professional continuing education and to recommend revisions and introductions of standards and requirements where warranted.

7. To recommend other areas of review which the Commission believes have a direct impact on academic quality.  

In carrying out the various portions of its charge, the Commission is encouraged to enlist the assistance of appropriate standing committees of the Senate as well as other groups and individuals.

Timetable:

The magnitude of the Commission's  task is such that the work of the body may well  extend beyond the current academic year. Nevertheless the Commission should furnish to the President no later than May 1, 1984, a preliminary report of its findings. '

In addressing this charge, the Commission has given its total attention to the first six items.  In doing so, we neither deny that there are other important aspects of academic quality than these six, nor do we assert that these six are preeminent.  Simply put, these were the six that we were asked to start with, and we found them more than sufficient to command our attention.

In particular the reader should note that these six charge items essentially refer to different facets of  the instructional role of the institution. The role of Oakland University as a research institution is well established and professionally respected.  Oakland public service role is considerable, expanding, and increasingly appreciated.  However, both the University's research and public service roles were beyond the scope of the specific tasks  assigned to us.

A second decision also influencing the nature of this work was not to attempt to develop a definition of academic quality against which to measure matters related to the first six items of the charge.  Instead, we have attempted to address the various issues that have been raised in terms of what really happens at Oakland, and what we have said as an institution that we want to happen (in official documents such as the University's Role and Mission Statement).

Early on in the process a subcommittee structure was established to deal with the special work that would be associated with the six items of the charge.  These subcommittees with their respective responsibilities and memberships were:

Subcommittee I    (Standards - Items 1, 2):
        Chipman (Chair), Feeman, Kevern, Stinson, Wilson, Zorn

Subcommittee II    (Resources - Items 4, 5):
        Russell (Chair), Fish, Frankie, Graham, Harris

Subcommittee III  (Academic Program Review Mechanisms - Items 3, 6):
         Shantz (Chair), Collins, Hildum, Izraeli, Weng

After three initial Commission meetings in October, these subcommittees continued to meet to propose studies for the Commission.  These were approved and refined by the Commission at the beginning of December.  The formal study requests were made shortly thereafter. Studies were conducted from then trough March, and most were either completed or had submitted preliminary results by the middle of March. During this time the Commission met monthly for progress reports while the subcommittees met weekly on items of their concern.   Open information sessions were sponsored by each subcommittee in the middle of February.

From the middle of March through the end of April, the full Commission met frequently to review and finalize reports from the subcommittees. Major items went through both an initial meeting for presentation and discussion and a second meeting for refinement and closure. There was also general discussion and determination of additional issues that had arisen in the process. The next six chapters are the results. The first five are organized in a similar fashion. They begin by stating the charge item that they address and by describing the specific studies that were undertaken. The principal findings of all completed studies are summarized, and status reports with indicated findings are given for any that still are incomplete. The last part of each chapter contains the formal Commission finding on that issue and a set of recommendations associated with that finding. The sixth chapter addresses other areas for review. 3  

CHAPTER I --Admissions Standards

The first item of the Commission's charge was:

to assess whether the current standards and requirements for admission to the University's degree programs are appropriate to ensure the enrollment of a student body substantially prepared to undertake the curricula prescribed by the faculty and to recommend revisions of entrance standards and requirements when warranted.

In addressing this item as well as other items of the charge discussed in succeeding chapters, the Commission has taken quite seriously President Champagne's request to determine "how well we are doing what we say we are doing."  Two previous statements of institutional goals seemed to be particularly relevant to the admissions area. The first was from the University's Role and Mission Statement:

Oakland University is selective in its admission standards and seeks both traditional and non-traditional students who can profit from its offerings. While serving principally Michigan residents, it welcomes qualified applicants from other states and countries. A special effort is made to locate and admit disadvantaged students with strong potential for academic success and to provide the support conducive to the realization of that potential. The faculty and staff cooperate with nearby community colleges to ensure that their students who seek to transfer to Oakland University are well prepared for work at a senior college. In recruiting and admitting students, enrollments are not permitted to exceed numbers consistent with preserving the high quality of instruction.

The second relevant statement is the summary of the undergraduate admissions policy dated September 1, 1975. Because of its influence upon the studies that the Commission undertook and the recommendations that have been developed, we ask the reader's indulgence and quote it in full:

UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS POLICY - A SUMMARY
September 1, 1975

A. ADMISSION OF FRESHMEN

Admissions to the freshman class shall be based on the following criteria:

(1) Applicants with a 3.20 or higher GPA will normally be admitted.
(2) Applicants with a 2.50-3.19 GPA may be admitted if recommendations solicited by the University from two high school teachers and/or counselors indicate strong motivation and likely success in Oakland's academic programs.
(3) Applicants with a 2.00-2.49 GPA may be admitted if recommendations from two high school teachers and/or counselors and an interview with a trained University admissions adviser indicates strong motivation and likely success in Oakland's academic programs.
(4) Applicants with a GPA less than 2.00 whose recommendations and interview indicate a high probability for success in Oakland's  academic programs may be admitted to degree programs conditionally. Credit shall be given and the condition removed  upon successful completion of 24 credits of specially designed freshman programs as determined by the academic policy committee and the special projects department of the Dean of Students Office.

B. ADMISSION OF DISADVANTAGED OR MINORITY GROUP PERSONS

Opportunities for disadvantaged students will be insured by establishment of the following guidelines and programs:

(1) Students admitted with a GPA less than 2.50 may be required to attend a summer orientation period.
(2) Students admitted with a GPA less than 2.50 will normally be assigned to the special projects department, Office of Student Affairs, for a particularized academic support program.
(3) To insure more opportunity for academically disadvantaged students while retaining its fiscal responsibility, the University should  make all effort to admit at least five percent and not more than ten percent of the freshmen class in the less than 2.50 GPA  category. Preference will be given to those students who are both academically and economically disadvantaged, and insure an increased admissions to the University of members of other minority groups traditionally disadvantaged.
(4) All efforts shall be made to insure that at least 15 percent of all  new freshmen students be Black.
(5) The chancellor and the appropriate administrative officers shall  work with community colleges in the development of cooperative  programs and arrangements for the purpose of increasing the opportunities in higher education for culturally disadvantaged students; the priorities set under this legislation shall be periodically reexamined in the light of the success of such programs and arrangements.

C. ADMISSION FOR COURSE WORK ONLY

(1) A non-matriculation category shall be established.

D. ADMISSION OF TRANSFER STUDENTS

(1) Admission of transfer students from other accredited colleges or universities shall be based on the following criteria:

a. Applicants who are in good academic standing (commonly defined as a cumulative college GPA of 2.00 or higher) at their previous college or university and who have completed 26 or more semester hours credit will normally be admitted. 5
b. Applicants who are in good academic standing at their previous college or university and who have not completed 26 or more semester hours credit may be admitted if one or more of the following indicate likely success at Oakland University: previous high school work, letters of recommendation, test scores, or an interview with a University Admissions Officer.

E. ADMISSION OF MATURE PERSONS

(1) Admission of individuals whose formal education has been interrupted for three years or more immediately prior to application for admission and who would not normally meet other admissions criteria, may be admitted based on one or more of the following criteria: sustained employment record; recommendations from employers, educators, and other professional persons; success in formal training programs; and standardized test results. An interview with a University Admissions Officer at Oakland University is required for such applicants to be considered for admission.

I.  Methodology

In trying to assess whether our entering students are "substantially prepared " it is easy enough to generate contradictory indicators. On the one hand, if one considers the average Oakland GPA or API of students at the freshman/sophomore level, the correct answer seems yes. On the other hand, if one considers the number of these same students that are taking remedial courses, the correct answer seems to be "no."

In order to make a reasoned assessment to resolve the apparent contradiction noted above, the Commission elected to attempt a thorough study of the current admissions procedures in the operational sense of what kind of students do they produce and how well do these students do. This resulted in a very complex situation. As can be seen from the above, the current procedures address many types of candidates, reflecting our goal to seek both traditional and non-traditional students. In addition to these at the undergraduate level, there are graduate candidates also to consider. At the graduate level, requirements vary from individual program to program. In recent years, different operational rules have been developed at the undergraduate level for candidates to different programs from school to school and/or college and centers. The resulting number of possible procedures for different groups and programs is fairly large.

Consequently, the following groups were selected for attention upon:  FTIACs (First Time In Any College) of age 23 or less, all other FTIACS, transfers from 2 year colleges in Michigan, all other transfers and post baccalaureate/second degree candidates at the undergraduate level. Graduate students were considered as a single group. Minority students were considered as they occurred in all of these groups. Various studies then were requested to assess the current situation in the context of these different student groups.

For background material, an ad hoc committee was established and  requested to conduct a literature search to develop an understanding of  the current professional assessment of valid predictors of success in undergraduate programs. Since most of our students are products of the secondary education program of the State of Michigan, materials were obtained from the recent Commission on Michigan High Schools report¹ submitted to the State Board of Education and from the resulting  recommendations of the State Board of Education.²

The Senate Admissions and Financial Aid Committee was requested to report on the specific procedures being utilized at the undergraduate level. This Committee also was asked to compare our procedures with those of  nine other universities or colleges. A similar study was requested of the Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Study with respect to graduate students. Both of these parties also were requested to report on programs and procedures for minority student recruitment. The Director of Admissions, Jerry Rose, was requested to develop a detailed profile of all entering groups of students; he was to be assisted by the Director of  Institutional Research, David Beardslee, in this effort.

 In addition to these studies designed to determine where our students  came from, what they looked like, and how they got here, further studies focused on what they did after they got here. While longitudinal studies would have been preferable, the Commission determined that they were not feasible given the current student records system. Therefore, a detailed analysis of activities during the Fall Semester of 1983 was made instead.

One component of this analysis was conducted by the Senate Academic Standing and Honors Committee, assisted again by Mr. Beardslee and the Dean for Student Services, Manuel Pierson. The object of this study was to develop profiles of students within the main student groups who were in academic difficulty in the Fall of 1983.

The second component of this analysis was conducted by the Commission in cooperation with every academic unit on campus. A large nine-cell sample was drawn across forty-seven different curriculum code groupings and including 5170 undergraduate students (approximately 50% of the total population). This data was used to ascertain what differences in performance might exist among these student groups. A similar study involving over 600 matriculated graduate students (approximately 60% of all such students) also was conducted by the Office of Graduate Study.

The final study was requested of Mr. Beardslee of the Office of Institutional Research to further develop his analysis of the Summer, 1983 graduates to provide profiles of the four undergraduate groups identified in this study.

 II.  Principal  Findings

A. Background Material

The ad hoc committee for literature searches has not yet  completed its report. Documents arising from the Commission on Michigan High Schools have been reviewed. A recommendation especially relevant to the admissions area is that every high school student preparing to enter college should have 4 years of English, 3 years of Mathematics through trigonometry, 3 years of Science,  3 years of Social Studies, and 2 years of a Foreign Language. In addition, explicit recommendations to institutions of higher learning are to:

1.  Require two years of foreign language instruction or demonstrated proficiency for admission or graduation. (Students should be allowed to meet this requirement at either the high school or college level, in line with the recommendations elsewhere to local school boards.)
2.   Develop alternative programs with a strong service component (counselors, social workers, psychologist, and attendance personnel) to help students at different levels of achievement and personal development. It does little good to encourage minority students and others who may have special needs to seek a college education if they are not offered the help needed to stay in classes.
3. Implement policies to ensure equal access to all services and programs without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry, sex, marital status, or handicap.

Surveys of the Commission on Michigan High Schools also developed information on current typical high school programs. The next section of this report will deal with that information and will include comparisons of Oakland young FTIACs with typical high school graduates in Michigan.

B. Undergraduate Admissions Procedures

Current Oakland admissions procedures are based upon the policy quoted above, but include some additional features.  First, high school GPA is computed solely on academic subjects—English, Mathematics, Social Studies, Natural Sciences, and Foreign Languages. Programs in SEM, SECS, NRS, and Physical Therapy have different GPA minimums than those used elsewhere within the University.  Nursing and SECS require 3.0 for both FTIACs and transfers with demonstrated Mathematics and Science proficiency.  SEM has a 2.8 floor for both FTIACs and transfers. Physical Therapy requires 3.0 of FTIACs, 2.8 of transfers, and also has a Mathematics and Science requirement.  For SECS and Physical Therapy these special requirements include 3 years of Mathematics (not through trigonometry) and 3 years of Natural Science, performing at the 3.0 level.  In Nursing, 2 years of Mathematics and of Natural Science are required.  In some of these programs, enrollment limits have been set but increased GPA minimums have kept these limits from being activated. Transfer students are evaluated on the basis of their total college GPA, since delays in preparing advance standing reports prevent an evaluation on the basis of what courses actually will transfer. Requirements for second degrees and post baccalaureates are based essentially upon departmental consent.

It should be noted that all of the above procedures apply to initial admission to Oakland University. A feature of recent years has been for certain programs to set additional requirements for admission to the program or for major standing within the program. The Commission has not studied these procedures as such, although individual units may have done so in the context of the performance profiles requested by the Commission.

Other institutions studied were Michigan State, Michigan Tech, University of Michigan, Wayne State, Western Michigan, Bowling Green, Kent State, Miami of Ohio, and Wright State. The major comparisons were these. Oakland University is virtually alone in not requiring the ACT for applicants. Schools with higher GPA minimums for FTIACs are Michigan State, University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and Bowling Green. It should be noted that the latter two schools use a GPA that is based upon all courses, while Oakland computes GPA on academic courses only. Schools with higher GPA minimums for transfers are Michigan Tech, University of Michigan and Miami of Ohio. Some of these schools have enrollment limits for some programs, and select the best qualified from applicant pools when the number of applicants exceeds the limits set.

C. Graduate Admissions

Admission requirements at the graduate level vary from program to program with only a few of these requirements being common to all programs. Among the latter are the holding of a baccalaureate with an undergraduate GPA of 3.00 or better. Of the nearly 2,000 graduate students enrolled in Fall, 1983. about 55% were fully admitted and 45% were in the special graduate (non matriculated) status. This shows a sharp improvement over a decade ago when only 36% of the graduate students enrolled were matriculated students.

The graduate admissions process (i.e. promotion, recruitment, application, folder compilation) is separate from the work of the Graduate Office and is a function of the Admissions Office. The budgets are separate as well. This creates problems of coordination and task implementation. It is possible that the University saves money with this arrangement since Admissions Office personnel play multiple roles. However, because of this arrangement, the Dean of Graduate Study reports that recruitment efforts are weakened and the University has difficulty attracting students that fully match its faculty expertise or meet its affirmative action goals.

Data presented to the Commission related only to completed applications on which admissions decisions had been made. They showed that graduate programs have well-defined admissions requirements, similar to those of other institutions reviewed. There is wide variation in the manner to which these requirements are adhered in practice, particularly with regard to GRE scores in Biology and entry GPAs in several programs. In the latter case, the fact that about 75% of the students are above 27 years of age plays a key role in down-playing the entry GPA and considering other factors. The wisdom of this practice is borne out in many cases, but its accuracy is somewhat clouded by several apparent instances of loose grading standards. Cloudiness in the process is also produced by the fact that entry GPAs of the under 28-group are frequently below listed standards. General sharpening in adherence to admissions requirements would be in order, but this needs to be accompanied by a much stronger recruitment effort.

Two of the findings indicate that a correction in some current perceptions would be in order:

First, it is commonly believed that most of our graduate students have baccalaureates from Oakland. This was true in only 25% of the sample. Of the other 75%, about one-third of the students had their baccalaureates from institutions outside of Michigan. This seems to imply a strong recruitment effort,  but such is not the case. Rather the distribution results from the students being located or relocated in this area for personal or employment reasons.

Second, it is commonly stated that Oakland has few full-time graduate students. The data shows that about one-fourth of the matriculated students are full-time. Clearly, virtually all non-matriculated students are part-time.

D. Minority Recruitment

We begin with a discussion of minority recruitment at the graduate level. Data showed that 6% of the students sampled were non-U.S. students, that 8.6% were in minority codes, and that 2.3% were Black minority. The last named were located exclusively in education or social science programs. It is well known that the national pool of such students is small and competition for them is great. Nonetheless, recruitment efforts made by Oakland are at least equal to those at peer institutions out-of-state and all institutions in-state, except in one regard. Most of the institutions examined participated in the federally-funded Graduate Professional Opportunities Program, while Oakland did at one time but does not now. That approach has little chance of success (it is limited to doctoral candidates), but must be tried. The better route to take is to develop strong long range faculty-student contacts with corresponding people in selected minority institutions. This approach has already been initiated.

At the undergraduate level the Admissions Office appears to conduct a wide range of activities, and reports that these are supplemented by the activities of several other campus groups. In the comparative (study with the other institutions mentioned above, only Michigan State and the University of Michigan appear to have a larger number of activities than Oakland.

In terms of resources devoted to this effort within the Admissions Office. Mr. Rose noted that a larger proportion of funds is spent upon the recruitment of minority students than their corresponding proportion in the total new enrollment. All minority applicants with GPAs of 3.0 or higher who are residence hall applicants receive scholarship offers. Out of the nine professional staff in the Admissions Office, two are Black and one is Hispanic, but they perform other duties in addition to specializing in minority recruitment.

Mr. Rose reported that competition for talented minority students is keen nationally and quite intense within the state among Michigan institutions. Further, only the University of Michigan appears to have an advantage at this time. In this light it is interesting to note that U-M's minority recruiting success rate is running currently at a 5% rate in the context of a 10% goal. An additional difficulty cited by Oakland's Associate Director of Admissions, William Robinson, is that of a "decade-long increase and shift, particularly on the part of Black students, of enrollment into community college 2-year programs which lead to employment instead of transfer into 4-year degree programs."

In the group of young FTIACs, when the Black students of the Academic Support Program are taken into consideration, the percentage is 14.5%—practically the stated goal of 15%. However, Oakland does not come close to meeting such a goal for Black enrollment in terms of total student population. From a high of 6.7% in 1977 yearly enrollment figures have tended downward to the current figure of 5.3% for the Fall of 1983. It is interesting to note the differences that occur across the student groups under consideration. In the transfer groups, the percentages are very small—2.2% admitted and 2.4% enrolled from 2-year schools in Michigan, 4.2% admitted and 4.6% enrolled from all other transfers.

The arithmetic of Oakland's distribution of undergraduate students, with only about 45% coming from the young FTIAC group, works strongly against developing an ethnic composition comparable to that of the state's population minority unless recruiting gains can be accomplished within the non-FTIAC groups. It should be noted that the Admissions Office is currently making efforts in this direction.\, although Mr. Robinson's comment quoted above should place limitations on our expectations in this area. In addition, it should be noted that our current figures for Blacks among new enrollees, exclusive of those from the Academic Support Program, are very comparable to those for the Black population of Oakland and Macomb Counties combined, the large majority of our students.

An additional problem in this area is the retention of minority students after they enroll.  There appear to be two components to this problem.  The first is related to the nature of the Academic Support Program, which accounts for approximately 75% of Black FTIACs when added to the group of Fall admits. These are students who fall below the general 2.5 GPA minimum and whom we accept as academically disadvantaged. The difficulties of compensating for those disadvantages in a short period of time are enormous, and it should therefore come as no real surprise that fully 40% of our Black students are in various stages of official academic difficulty as opposed to 10% of our White students. Programs for the academically disadvantaged are by definition high risk ones, but this causes problems for retention and consequently for the achievement of these goals (to the extent that large numbers of our Black students are in the Academic Support Program).

A second component of the retention issue is simply one of the difficulties associated with moving from a community that is primarily Black to one that is primarily White. This is a cultural problem which is at least one order of magnitude bigger than the one traditionally encountered by any other college freshman. It is for this reason that successful recruitment of minority staff and faculty is especially important. On the one hand, the role models provided are important for motivational reasons. But equally important, minority staff and faculty can assist the minority student to feel more a part of this academic community and may be able to contribute positively to retention.

E. Profiles of Entering Students

For the Fall, 1983 Semester, 3721 students were admitted to Oakland University and 2415 of these actually enrolled. The distribution of enrolled students across the different groups was:

We start the discussion with the young (enrolled) FTIACs. These students were not only principally from Michigan but mainly from Oakland, Macomb and Wayne Counties (84.4%). Their academic high school GPA average was 3.14. Approximately 83% of those that applied were accepted. Popular programs were EGR/CIS (21.6%), Nursing/Health (21.0%), and Math/Sci (16.4%). Black students admitted under the standard admissions procedures were 4.3% and other minorities 2.5%. Students enrolled in the Academic Support Program are considered to be entering in Summer, 1983, but if they were added to the student group entering in Fall, Blacks would be approximately 14.5% of the resulting group of young FTIACs.

It is instructive to consider two types of comparisons for these young FTIACs. In the first, we consider them against data obtained from the Commission on Michigan High Schools in terms of course preparation. For the second, we consider them in the light of ACT scores reported in the Detroit Free Press (February 2, 1984) for most high schools in Oakland County.

A summary of significant differences between Oakland young FTIAC academic preparation and state-wide averages includes the following information.

ACT scores are available for approximately 80% of the young FTIAC group. If they are compared to scores in Oakland County, the best match is with those of Birmingham Groves on a subject by subject basis. Composite scores are comparable to those of Groves, Lahser, North Farmington, and Troy. They are inferior to Brother Rice, Rochester Adams, and Seaholm. They are generally superior to all of the 33 other public schools mentioned in the Free Press report.

Although in the total Fall, 1983 population, 5.5% were FTIACs of age 24 or more, this group was so small (1.3%) in the current admissions data that no summary will be given. It should be noted that in the other groups, older students are significantly represented.

We consider next the students who enrolled from 2 year institutions in the State of Michigan. The average college GPA of students who applied was 3.03 and 97.6% of these were accepted. Students from Oakland County were 45.3% of the enrollees of this group and Macomb County 40.7%. The most popular areas for these students were Mathematics/Science (18.1%), Nursing/Health (17.7%), and Economics/Management (15.9%). Class placements were freshman | (19.5%), sophomore (37.6%), and junior (42.9%).  Black students were 2.4% of this total and other minorities 2.0%. 

For students who otherwise transferred, the average GPA of those applying was 2.84 and 92.4% of these were accepted. Here the county distribution was Oakland 52.9% and Macomb 25%. The three most popular areas for these students were Mathematics/Sciences (24.8%), Nursing/Health (18.2%), and Arts/Humanities/Letters (14.2%). Class placements were freshman (22.1%), sophomore (42.1%), junior (33.4%), and senior (2.4%). Black students were 4.6% of this group and other minorities 3.0%.

A similar summary of students within the second undergraduate degree/post baccalaureate group is given as follows. The main county distribution was Oakland 68% and Macomb 21.4%. Essentially all the program placement was to Undecided (89.8%;?). Black students were 4.1% of this total and other minorities 6.1%.
Within the total enrolled group, including students from the Academic Support Program, 9.1% were Black.

F. Profiles of Students' Performance in Course

The focus of the studies associated with this section was on the performance of all these separate groups in the different separate curricula into which the admissions procedures had placed them. The graduate version has been completed. The undergraduate versions are still incomplete, but some significant preliminary analysis has been done. We begin with the graduate situation and then will consider the undergraduate.

The main result from the graduate study, as alluded to previously, involved grading policies. Data from the 28 programs examined show that correlation coefficients between entry GPAs and Oakland GPAs have the following numerical values:
 

This is quite a range. These numbers and the corresponding regression lines, if drawn, demonstrate clearly how varied the contribution of the entry GPA is to the course GPA earned at Oakland. In several programs, it appears that students are virtually assured high grades. While there is a certain amount of looseness in admissions practices and in grading, probationary and dismissal policies are handled rather tightly. That is to say, graduation requirements are taken quite seriously. This practice certainly contributes to the quality of the programs.

As will be discussed elsewhere, graduate programs have a thorough periodic review procedure. Within that mechanism, adherence to entry and exit requirements and grading practices should be examined and corrective measures recommended. The mechanisms for improvement are in place and  working.

At the undergraduate level, there were three components of this study. The first considered the performance of all students across all curricula. This study was divided between the Commission and the various academic departments. The Commission's responsibility was to obtain a systematic sample of the different student groups at two levels, freshman/sophomore and junior/senior, for the first four  groups. U2/PBs have no class standing. The resulting 9 types (4x2 + 1) were sampled from the Fall, 1983 enrollment Student Record tape across 47 curriculum code groupings. Whenever possible, cells of size 35 were constructed.

All relevant data available on that Student Record Tape was subjected to a preliminary SPSS summary and distributed to the academic units along with the names within their samples. These units were, as time and resources permitted, to check for any gross bias in the samples drawn and to report on any significant performance differences that they could detect at the individual course level. In the meantime the Commission would further study the data on the Student Records tape. This preliminary analysis has been done; the work of the various academic units has been only partially completed to this date.

The most significant finding so far is that there were substantial differences in performance with regard to transfers from 2-year colleges in Michigan at the freshman/sophomore level. There were three separate statistically significant indicators of this phenomenon which will be described below.

First, differences were particularly noticeable in these areas: Engineering, Psychology, Undecided Nursing and Health, Undecided Mathematics and Science, and Undecided Letters. The performance indicator used in detecting these differences was the API.  In all the cases mentioned above the average API was under 2.3, more than .3 below the average API of young FTIACs in these curricula, and in the ,presence of cell sizes of 25 or more students for both groups.

Second, this difference was not just confined to a few curricular groupings. If we ignore the cell size and count in how many of the different curricula a group has an average API of under 2.3, we see sharp differences. The following table illustrates this. The second column gives the number of curricular groupings that had any students of this particular type. The first column gives the percentage of curricular groupings where the student type had an average API of under 2.3. As an example the table shows that over half (51.2%) of the 41 curricular groups with 2-year transfers at the freshman/sophomore level have those students at an average API of under 2.3.
 

Third, at the freshman/sophomore level, the standard deviation of the 2-year transfer is significantly greater than that of young FTIACs across all curricula with an F-value of approximately 2.2.

The second component of the undergraduate performance profiles, students in academic difficulty, also echoes this finding about 2-year transfers at the freshman/sophomore level. The study is only partially complete but significant items that have emerged up to now will be summarized, based upon the report submitted by David Beardslee to the Senate committee. The total population figures for the Fall, 1983 Semester included 4.1% coded as on probation and 6.5% coded as dismissible. Of this latter group 62% actually were dismissed while the remainder (2.5% of the total population) were continued in the Dismissal Option Program. In the following discussion, the different class codes will be combined into a single category - academic difficulty.

Here are the summaries for the four undergraduate groups:

One should note that since the older FTIAC group is a much smaller size than that of the others, more variability is likely there.
Otherwise there is a solid echo of the general performance profile noted above. It extends even to the curricula noted, EGR/CIS,Math/Science, and Health. The general problems associated with all undecided groups are also noted. When the figures are broken down by male and female students, the males from the 2-year schools appear particularly prone to academic difficulty.

The other significant finding that has emerged from the preliminary analysis of students in academic difficulty is the disproportionate number of Black students in academic difficulty. The resulting table indicates the differences; cases based on fewer than 35 individuals were omitted.

% in Academic Difficulty

The analysis of the data so far has not subdivided these groups into subgroups admitted using the greater than 2.5 GPA basic minimum or the less than 2.5 GPA alternative. If, as would be likely from the distributions described previously, a majority of the Black students in academic difficulty have participated in the Academic Support Program, it appears that these academically disadvantaged students are not being supported at a level sufficient to permit them to function as successfully as their White counterparts at either the FR/SO or the JR/SR level.

The final component of the student performance profiles considered these groups' representation at the time of graduation. Unfortunately, this study was seriously flawed by an eccentricity in our student record system which eliminates previous information on students who remain at Oakland for further work (10% in this study). From the resulting study, of interest was the fact that the average time between entry and graduation is four and one-third years for the FTIACs and a little over three years for the transfers. Additionally 18% of the FTIACs took some credit at other institutions along the way to obtaining their Oakland degree. Positive correlations, within major programs, were detected between Oakland and high school GPA.

G.  Summary of Findings

We now summarize our findings with respect to how they compare with previous goals and procedures that we quoted at the beginning of this chapter as institutional policies.

1. Admission of young FTIACs: Current procedures seem to be producing students whose credentials compare very favorably with state-wide averages and favorably with averages locally. However, whether this is equal to substantial preparation is questionable. That approximately 30% have not had 4 years of English is clearly not satisfactory. More serious problems also appear when the number of years of Mathematics studied is compared to the results of the placement examination given by the Department of Mathematical Sciences. Only 7% place beyond trigonometry and only 30% place beyond Algebra 2 as opposed to the clearly over 65% who should according to the number of years of Mathematics as reported having been taken in high school. Within their coursework at Oakland FTIACs performed at about the 2.6 level in API during the freshman and sophomore years combined.

2. There were not enough FTIACs over age 23 to yield accurate analysis.

3. Admission of transfers from 2-year colleges: While no problems were detected at the junior/senior level, significant ones were at the freshman/sophomore level. Our current procedures for these students at this level do not appear to be producing students who are "well prepared for work at a senior college."

4. Admission of other transfers: Current procedures appear to be working satisfactorily or at least comparable to those for young FTIACs.

5. Admission of second undergraduate degree and other post baccalaureates: No special problems are indicated by the studies conducted.

6. Admission of Minority Students: Goals for the recruitment of Black students at the freshmen level are close to being achieved, but do not extend to the total population. Difficulties in recruitment are especially noticeable within the groups other than young FTIACs.

7. Academically Disadvantaged Students: If the goals of this program are to provide some form of a college experience to academically disadvantaged students, then this policy is working just beyond the upper end of the limits placed upon it (10% of the freshman class) in the Senate legislation. If the goals are to provide a support system within which students can move to a successful college experience as indicated in the Role and Mission Statement, then the data indicates that serious difficulties are being encountered.

8. Admission of Mature Persons: As expected, this group is a non-trivial proportion of newly-enrolled students. No difficulties in this general category were noted. In fact, within Mr. Beardslee's study for the Senate Academic Standing and Honors Committee, he found that "overall academic progress indicator levels favor the older students in most cases."

9. Admission for course work only: Some questions were asked on the Alumni Survey regarding the use of the non-matriculated category. It was found that only 1.2% of the respondents had first entered Oakland through such an option at an off-campus site.

10. Comparisons with other institutions: The major differences noted were that Oakland does not require the ACT and tended to have somewhat lower GPA minimums for high school admits. However in half of the cases with higher GPA requirements the schools allowed non-academic courses to be included in that average.

11. Admissions Policy: While not the object of a specific study, it is apparent that Oakland does not have an admission policy as such, but rather a collection of various procedures which allow  wide variation in their application.

III. Formal Commission Findings

A.. At the undergraduate level, Oakland University has an admissions policy which consists of a set of procedures that allow for a broad range of interpretation and provide little standardized data for guidance beyond that provided by the GPA at the previous institution. Given that framework, the Admissions Office does a reasonably good job of enrolling students that appear to be above the average of the available pool in Southeastern Michigan.

B. The group of enrolled students shows a good balance of both traditional and non-traditional students drawn from high schools, community colleges, other four-year institutions, and baccalaureates returning for additional study. Goals for minority student recruitment are being met within the group of young high school admits, but recruitment difficulties within the other sources of applicants hinder the extension of these goals across the entire student body.

C. Within the group of enrolled students, there are several indicators that the level of preparation is not as strong as it was in years past and is not likely to significantly improve quickly. These indications arise from regional manifestations of concerns raised in the "Nation at Risk" study,³ local aspects of the concerns raised by the Commission on Michigan High Schools, and actual results obtained from various placement tests administered to entering Oakland students.

D. Beyond these difficulties which are national in scope, there appear to be difficulties which are more specific to Oakland's stated goals in the admissions area. The first is that a smooth transition for community college students at the freshman/sophomore level is not proceeding as well as it is at the junior level. The second is that Oakland's support program for its academically disadvantaged students does not appear to be having the results desired.

E. The Role and Mission Statement states that "enrollments are not permitted to exceed numbers consistent with preserving the high quality of instruction." There are no clear University-wide procedures identified for achieving this goal.

F. At the graduate level, the admissions criteria and procedures are quite varied, since they are primarily the responsibility of individual programs. There appears to be inconsistency in the application of some of these procedures.

G. Overall recruitment of graduate students for most programs appears to be limited to the local area. Approximately one-half of the students in graduate courses are from the non-matriculated category.

IV. Recommendations

A. The following proposed policy statement responds to issues recently raised at both the national and state level as they apply to an admissions policy for Oakland University. This proposed policy should be reviewed by the Senate Admissions and Financial Aid Committee and presented to the University Senate for its possible modification and approval early in the Fall Semester of 1984. If approved, specific procedures should be developed for its implementation by the Senate Committee on Admissions and Financial Aid and presented to the Senate by April 1, 1985. Simultaneously, the Senior Vice President for University Affairs and Provost should present his views to the Senate on the long-range implementation of the total policy:

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY
ADMISSIONS POLICY

The undergraduate admissions policy of Oakland University derives from its position as a major university within the system of public education of the State of Michigan. Consequently, it endeavors to interact constructively with the other members of that system, to serve the educational needs of Michigan, and to impact positively upon the lives of the students that are accepted for admission. That policy is:

1) To select students with an approved college preparatory curriculum which can serve as a foundation for further development in one of the University's undergraduate programs. Specifically, such a program includes as a minimum the equivalent, at the high school level, of 4 years of English, 3 years of Mathematics, 3 years of Natural Science, 3 years of Social Science, and 2 years of a Foreign Language.

2) To select students with a strong likelihood of success in the University's programs. To provide for an accurate assessment of that likelihood, applicants are required to submit relevant information including high school GPA in academic subjects, class rank, reading level, ACT or SAT scores, and previous college GPA when appropriate. In addition, Oakland also actively seeks out students of high potential who might otherwise appear to be academically disadvantaged in terms of some of the above indicators.

3) To select students on the basis of the ability of existing academic support systems to address their individual needs. The support systems should provide a smooth transition from the admissions process to the advising process, accurate placement in the initial courses of instruction, and appropriate assistance in the correction of common weaknesses of background.

4) To draw from the pool of qualified candidates defined in 1) and 2) above in order- to create an academic community which reflects the diverse ethnic backgrounds and talents of the entire society. Oakland University strongly believes that all of its students are enriched by a full exposure to the various perspectives and experiences of a heterogeneous student body. Accordingly, appropriate goals are set periodically for the overall composition of the student body among the varieties of traditional and non-traditional groups of students that Oakland serves.

5) To achieve in its final student body a balance of program enrollments that will be supportive of quality instruction across the diverse curricula of a modern, complex.

Many components of the University community cooperate in the implementation of this policy. The faculty through the Senate Committee on Admissions and Financial Aid, as assisted by the Director of Admissions, develops procedures adequate to identify a pool of applicants with the required preparation levels and positive indicators of likely success. The Senior Vice President for University Affairs and Provost with advice from the Vice President for Student Affairs, the academic deans, the Director of Admissions, the Director of Institutional Research, and the chair of the above Senate committee determines appropriate enrollment goals within the pool of students identified as qualified candidates. In short, implementation responsibilities for items 1) and 2) fall to the Senate Committee on Admissions and Financial Aid, while the Senior Vice President for University Affairs and Provost is ultimately responsible for items 3), 4), and 5). Both parties report to the Senate periodically upon the manner in which they are carrying out these responsibilities.

B. In developing procedures to implement the new policy, the Senate Committee should be asked to include the following features:

1) A phased program of increasing, specific high school preparatory course requirements to meet policy 1) by Fall, 1990. When feasible, competency goals within the different subject areas should be recommended.

2) Required submission of ACT or SAT scores for all applicants by Fall, 1986. Oakland should participate in the ACT Standard Research Service. This would provide for entering students an assessment of their chance of a C or more in up to 40 different courses and various majors at Oakland.

3) To communicate early and clearly that writing is valued at Oakland, a biographical essay should be required of each applicant.

4) Consider transfer students essentially the same as high school admits unless the credit equivalent of at least two years of full-time college work has been completed. Then, assessment of that work should only include courses which are transferable. Therefore, these evaluations must be based on advanced standing reports.

5) Establish practical application deadlines for all students that will permit the considered evaluation of submitted material and the smooth initiation of the orientation and advising process.

C. To facilitate the provision and the identification of needed academic support, all students should be required to take placement tests in Mathematics, Rhetoric, and Reading prior to enrollment. Consideration should be given to using ACT instruments for placement by the Center for Academic Skill Development (as proposed in Chapter 4).

D. The current Academic Support Program for the academically disadvantaged should be restructured. It is recommended that the Senior Vice President for University Affairs and Provost and the Vice President for Student Affairs jointly appoint a committee charged to design a complete one to two year program with suitable summer components that would provide specific requirements for continuation in the program at specifically defined stages. This committee should also recommend which University regulations in the areas of financial aid and academic progress should be modified during a student participation in the program. Relationships with the proposed Center for Academic Skill Development should be defined. This committee should be asked to report by April 1, 1985. When a program is approved, fixed and variable costs should be determined, sources of external and internal funding identified, and corresponding enrollment goals then established in the context of these facts.

E. The graduate program coordinators should be asked to review their admissions requirements in the light of their current admissions practices and to make them consistent whenever discrepancies appear.

F. The Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Study should initiate and conduct, with the help of the Office of Institutional Research, a longitudinal study of non-matriculated graduate students. This study should:

1) determine the composition and educational background of this group of students

2) analyze their course selections

3) determine the extent to which these students remain at Oakland, seek admission to graduate programs, ultimately succeed in doing so, and finally obtain degrees.

G. To pursue the instructional goals set for graduate education, graduate recruitment activities should be strengthened. Consequently, the University should review the organizational structure of the total graduate operation to examine the feasibility of having an integrated office for handling recruitment, publications, admissions and program implementation.

CHAPTER II --Competency and Proficiency Standards

The second item of the Commission's charge was:

to assess whether the existing undergraduate curricula assure that each degree recipient attains the ability to cope with the demands of a complex social and technological world through the development of substantial competencies in written and oral communication, quantitative reasoning, and critical thinking, and to recommend revisions and introductions of standards and requirements wherever warranted.

In addressing this particular item in the context of President Champagne's exhortation to assess "how well we are doing what we say we are doing," the Commission found the following excerpt from the University's Role and Mission Statement to be an appropriate prior statement of institutional goals in this area:

Oakland University provides rigorous educational programs. A strong core of liberal arts is the basis on which undergraduates develop the skills, knowledge, and attitudes essential for successful living and active concerned citizenship. A variety of majors and specialized curricula prepare students for post-baccalaureate education, professional schools or careers directly after graduation. Each program provides a variety of  courses and curricular experiences to ensure an enriched life along with superior career preparation or enhancement.

The competency levels implied by "substantial" and the reference to "degree recipient" were interpreted to envisage ones beyond those necessary for survival in undergraduate courses and equivalent, rather to those common regarded as the hallmarks of a sound university education. Finally, it was turned that these competency levels were but steps toward the ultimate goal of developing the "skills, knowledge, and altitudes essential for successful living and active concerned citizenship."

I. Methodology

While this issue of competency development is indeed central to the instructional mission of the institution, ready means for making a reasoned assessment of our current status were not obvious. This was initially frustrating and ultimately a matter of concern. Six studies finally were selected to attempt to develop hard information. The first was to gather information from the literature as to how others deal with this issue both practically and theoretically. The ad hoc committee used in the admissions area was again called upon. The Senate General Education Committee was asked to file a report on the relationship of that program to the development of these competencies with possible implications for admissions of all students, and transfer students in particular. The remaining four studies consisted of the faculty, alumni, student, and employer surveys. All were designed to measure the assessments of major concerned parties of our efforts in this area. The faculty survey attempted to gather other information as well.

The faculty survey was distributed to all full-time faculty and to all part-time faculty who had taught at least one course in the Fall Semester of 1983. While it called upon each respondent to express an opinion on relevant areas for increased attention, the majority of its questions sought information on specific course practices which might be generally considered as supportive or necessary for the development of these competencies. Additional questions attempted to identify major influences upon each individual instructor in the adoption of these practices. As was indicated previously, the Commission was greatly assisted by a considerable effort on the part of Professor William Bezdek of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology of the College of Arts and Sciences in the development of the questionnaire, establishment of coding procedures for the accurate transmission of data, and initial statistical analysis.

It was not anticipated that the results of the faculty survey would establish that these competencies were being developed, but rather that the degree of absence of related activities in actual courses would indicate the appropriate level of concern for their development. For example, if students are seldom asked to write, it is hard to imagine how they will become proficient writers.

The alumni and student surveys sampled the perceptions of people who had either received an Oakland education, or who were completing one. A key
aspect of these was to use sections of an ACT-developed survey which contained questions that we found to be particularly relevant and for which a large amount of normative data was available (in excess of 10,000 respondents). A sample size adequate to detect differences of five percentile points or more between Oakland's data and Chat of the normative group was determined.

For the alumni survey, the previous CAMP alumni response rate was considered in determining the final sample size, and a systematic sample was drawn from the alumni relations computer files. This original random sample drew graduates of undergraduate programs in the same approximate proportions that they were represented by in the Summer, 1983 graduation list. This was done to accurately reflect the current programmatic mix which is different from that in the alumni computer file. There, previous program preferences for the Arts and Sciences are still evident and neglecting this factor could have produced some bias in the sample.

The student survey was essentially the same as the alumni survey but also included some questions in the STUDENT CONGRESS supplement. This was in return for the Congress' offered assistance in survey distribution and coding. Only students with ninety credits or more (seniors) were included. The sample size was determined as for the alumni survey, and since this amounted to a sizable proportion of all such students, all seniors enrolled in the Fall, 1983 Semester were surveyed.

The employer survey involved employers or potential employers of twenty-five or more Oakland graduates (approximately 150 employers). This instrument was developed by Professor Ravi Parameswaran of the School of Economics and Management. As was indicated previously, his efforts were considerable and were greatly appreciated. This survey asked for promotion patterns of Oakland graduates and assessments of their strengths and/or weaknesses. Comparisons were sought between them and graduates of other state institutions, other U.S. institutions, and the respondents' own imagined "top ten" institutions as a third comparative group. Follow-up interviews were conducted with sources of negative comments for additional clarification and amplification.

II. Principal Findings

In this section, the findings that have been so far derived from the studies are summarized, and an indication of the status of each as of the time of the drafting of this chapter is given.

A. Literature Search

The literature search is not yet completed. One article, otherwise brought to our attention, was particularly thought-provoking. This was Astin's "Excellence and Equity in American Education," which was presented to the National Commission on Excellence in Education.⁴  It is here that Astin argues for a "value added" concept of excellence in education whose "basic argument...is that true excellence resides in the ability of the school or college to affect its students favorably, to enhance their intellectual development, and to make a positive difference in their lives." Astin also argues that "the value-added approach is not a substitute for academic standards, nor does it require any change in such standards."

Astin's entire program with its use of pretests, posttests, and other feedback devices raises a number of interesting points. While many would question their applicability at the individual course level, their implications at the institutional level are more defensible.  For us, a more precise statement of the challenge inherent in these ideas would be:

Let us suppose that Oakland has established standards and requirements that assure that all of its degree recipients obtain the stated goals. How good a job does Oakland then do in advancing the students that it admits toward these goals? Does Oakland indeed "affect its students favorably,...enhance their intellectual development, and...make a positive difference in their lives"?

Responding to these questions would be an interesting exercise for us all; it would extend from the total institution all the way down to the individual faculty member.

B. General Education

The response from the Senate General Education Committee was that theoretically the structure of the new General Education program is designed to support precisely both the goals implied for competency development as well as those for the development of successful human beings who are active, concerned citizens. However, given that the program is not fully implemented, they chose not to make any further claims for the actual results that would be achieved. They did note that a writing component would be a desirable feature in the courses approved for inclusion in the program.

The Commission finds that the General Education program bears a heavy responsibility in the development of the desired competencies. As the single common component of every Oakland undergraduate degree, it is within this program that the initial commitment must be made and the development begun. Later, enhancement and further development can and must occur in the courses of the major, but the overall program can hardly be any better than its roots in General Education. It is in General Education that Oakland either does or does not deliver on the "strong core of liberal arts" promised in the Role and Mission Statement quoted previously.

In addition, because General Education forms a large part of many students' early programs, it should be recognized that it is within General Education that Oakland begins to communicate its standards and to indicate how they may differ from the student's previous institution. To a large extent, the "rigor" of Oakland's programs will be revealed in its courses of General Education.

Accordingly, the program in General Education is a complex one, and the successful implementation of the new program will be difficult, requiring the active support of the entire University community. The Commission notes that not the least of these difficulties is, paradoxically, a consequence of one of its strengths. The strength referred to is Oakland's oft-stated commitment not to use graduate students as instructors of record in its college-level introductory courses. While a definite advantage of this is to assure experienced regular faculty in charge of its General Education courses, it does limit the options available in the actual conduct of many of them. There are no graduate students available to lead small discussion sections or to grade students' papers as is usually the case in many institutions of comparable complexity and size to Oakland. The successful resolution of this anomaly is a continuing challenge for us all.

C. Faculty Survey

The analysis of the faculty survey is not yet complete. As one can see by referring to the survey in Appendix III, it was a lengthy instrument seeking detailed information about specific course practices. An almost equal amount of information also was obtained about the characteristics of the course and of the instructor. All of this requires further, careful, statistical analysis to ascertain the actual relationships that exist. In this section we shall report upon results that have emerged from the preliminary analysis. Examples will be given of the apparent levels of activities that are associated with some of the desired competencies.

The survey was distributed to about 360 full-time faculty and visitors and to about 185 part-time faculty. The response rate for the full-time faculty was approximately 46% and for the part-time faculty approximately 26%. Consequently, there is a bias in the sample to over-represent the full-time faculty as indicated below.

Across the different ranks the correspondences are fairly good. Instructors tend to be slightly over-represented, and full professors are slightly under-represented. The 437 courses in our sample were most often taught by experienced, full-time faculty who had been at Oakland for over 7 years. The courses varied considerably in size—a quarter of them being small (less than 20 students) and the remainder evenly divided between medium-sized and large classes.

Slightly more than two-thirds of those responding had appointments in the College of Arts and Sciences. Most courses (regardless of the unit in which they were taught) were directed toward majors in that field; courses offered for fulfillment of General Education requirements accounted for about 25% of all those taught, and service courses for another 19% of all courses in our sample. Before addressing specific information related to the courses, several observations about those conducting the courses can be made.  The first is that between full-time and part-time faculty the number of (statistically) significant differences in course practices is very small—many fewer than between members of different disciplines. There may be only two. Full-time faculty are more likely to employ alternate final examination methods to the traditional closed book final, and they also are more likely to assign papers of more than fifteen pages in length. With respect to matters requiring additional institutional attention (Question #93), part-time people are more likely to call for more opportunities for students to specialize within their curriculum.

When the faculty is considered across the disciplines, the variety of teaching styles is much in evidence. However, when the major influences affecting how a particular course is to be structured are considered (Question #29, e.g.), no significant differences appear. The ordering of these influences, as self-reported, is from greatest to least: course material, class level, student background, class size, personal preference, and need to meet other University obligations. There may be some indication of faculty overload here as 30% of the respondents count this last category as of non-minimal influence in setting course structure.

When items for increased curricular attention are considered, differences occur. The item of the greatest concern is critical and analytic skills (78.5% for increased attention). Here, the faculty from the natural and social sciences are weighted toward increased attention, while those from the humanities and the schools are relatively weighted toward the opinion that enough attention is being given. The area of next greatest concern is writing (76.2% for increased attention). Here, the support appears uniform across all the major discipline groups. After these two topics, concern falls off to about the 50% level for increased attention for oral communication and quantitative skills. For admissions, 42% indicate need for increased attention. With quantitative skills and admissions, the same pattern of disciplinary differences occurs as did previously with respect to critical and analytic skills.

Some of the specific course data is summarized below:

Tests or quizzes used—Yes, 83.2%
On tests, importance of short answer questions—Major, 32.8%
On tests, importance of problem solutions—Major, 62.1%
On tests, importance of essay questions—Major, 47.9%
Final examination given—Yes, 87.0%
Type of final examination—Closed book, 77.7%
Final examination cumulative—Yes, 70.0%
Homework or papers assigned—Yes, 78.4%
On assignments, importance of library papers—Major, 23.0%
On assignments, importance of analysis/criticism papers—Major, 37.0%
Papers over 15 pages assigned—Yes 19.5%

Now, of course, not all of the activities above are necessarily relevant to any one course, but the numbers indicate their general level within the courses of the sample. The analysis becomes more complicated when one tries to measure the effect of such factors as course type, class level, class size, and discipline (none of which are often independent). It is here that the bulk of the additional analysis has to be done. Topics to study, in addition to those above, include such items as grading schemes, other types of papers, and patterns of time spent in class discussion.

In the preliminary analysis there are indications that the competency developments are more often being addressed in small, advanced, or (some) major classes (or perhaps some combination of these). There are also indications that they are addressed less in General Education courses and that these courses may be less rigorous. Whether this is due to the typical large class size of these courses or not is not yet clear, but the following tables illustrate some of these tendencies:

Importance of Analysis or Criticism Papers

Importance of Library Papers:

Required Paper over 15 pages

Importance of Essay Questions:

Again the reader is cautioned that as in any large data collection, interpretations will vary.  It is the responsibility of further analysis to clarify apparent patterns. Obvious questions for that analysis include what levels of activities exist across major discipline groups, what kind of influence does class size actually carry, and which bears more influence, class level or being a course primarily for majors.  In addition an attempt should be made to resolve some apparently contradictory responses in the data. For example, the "material" is given as the major determining factor by a very large margin, but there are still widely varying patterns of structure. Also, does the level of concern about writing match the level of activities that are required involving writing, or is it just a problem everyone wants someone else to solve?

The total analysis should provide a first approximation as to what Oakland's standards are at the current time. These should be reviewed periodically by the faculty, since a standard is not a very effective rallying point if it is never seen. This common knowledge of what others are expecting their students to do serves as a  valuable balance. Naturally, students often prefer the easiest path. Instructors that appear to imply that such a path is feasible undermine those who would lead their students along one that is more rigorous.

D. Alumni Survey

The analysis of the alumni survey is complete from the point of view of comparing Oakland alumni to those of the normative data. The sample size obtained has provided a stronger test than is customary in such studies, and we can have a high degree of confidence in the existence of most of the differences claimed to have been detected. The complete technical presentation and specific cautions are included in the full report on this survey in the support file. In that report comparisons will be made between Oakland alumni and alumni of both public and private institutions. In this summary we will focus just upon comparisons with public institutions. The actual questionnaire is in Appendix III, and the reader may wish to insert a thumb there before proceeding further.

While the primary interest was in comparing our graduates' perceptions of the contribution that Oakland had made to their development in twenty-four different areas, additional information was gained as well. This can be divided into two parts, one demographic and the other dealing with perceptions of the institution as a whole. Our summary will begin there. Please keep in mind that here we describe only areas of (statistically) significant differences between Oakland and the normative data.

The Oakland alumni were older, with more representatives of the thirty-year category than those in their mid-twenties. The normative group contained more Education majors and fewer majors in Engineering/Computer and Information Science or the general letters area. Although not explicitly provided for within the design, the Oakland sample contained a good match to the current mix of students among the main admissions groups described previously. There were more Oakland alumni who had attended for three years and less who had attended for two years. The Oakland group contained fewer who planned to obtain a Ph.D. and more with no further educational plans. Of those planning to continue their education, more Oakland alumni were doing so for increased earning power and fewer for licensure or other certification. In that pursuit more Oakland  alumni had taken from 0-10 additional credits, but fewer fell within the categories of 11-30 additional credits or of non-credit courses.

The responses in the area of institutional assessment were interesting since several were directly related to the goals of the Role and Mission Statement quoted above. There was no difference in the area of preparation for further study. One should note the actual numbers here since they show that 52.6% found themselves either "more than adequately" (34.6%) or "exceptionally well (18.0%) prepared. With respect to attending Oakland again 65.0% said "probably" or "definitely" yes, but the "definitely" group was smaller than that of the normative group. There is also a difference in whether a person would elect the same major again, with more Oakland alumni indicating a definite change. The reason for the choice of college showed strong differences (over ten percentile points) with the location factor much greater for Oakland alumni and fusing less relevance for the factors of cost and program offerings than in the normative data. Finally, the assessment of overall institutional quality was higher for the Oakland group as was their assessment of the resulting improvement in the quality of their life regardless of the financial benefits ("definitely yes - 72.1%).

 The third section of the alumni survey dealt with contributions to personal growth in a number of academic and nonacademic areas. For each, the possible responses were that the school had contributed "very much," "somewhat," and "very little." We checked for differences within each of the two extreme categories. Oakland alumni had higher responses in the "very little" category for the growth areas of speaking effectively, managing personal/family finances, using the library, understanding consumer issues, caring for one's own personal and mental health, and recognizing rights, responsibilities, and privileges as a citizen. Of these, the greatest difference was in health with the library close behind and the least difference was in citizenship. Fewer credited us with contributing "very much" in the area of following directions. On the other side, fewer said that we had contributed "very little" in the areas of writing and appreciating the arts. Even more positively, more said that we had contributed "very much in understanding different philosophies and cultures, defining and solving problems, and in the area of recognizing assumptions making logical inferences, and reaching correct conclusions. Of these, the greatest difference was for the topic of different philosophies and cultures.

Now while we must remember that these are measurements of what our past students think that we did for them (as it is also for the normative data against which we are comparing ourselves) it still should be a source of institutional pride that those ideals that we have elected to stress in our curriculum, particularly a "strong core of liberal arts," have both been perceived and appreciated by our past students. Correspondingly, those areas that we have not stressed so strongly also reveal themselves, but the overall picture provided of an institution capable of setting some educational goals and achieving a corresponding impact upon its students should provide with a confidence in our ability to deal with the new challenges that we face today.

Additional work is required on the alumni survey to investigate what differences exist internally to the Oakland data among graduates of different major curriculum groupings. In addition, the responses of graduates of different time periods should be examined to see if any changes seem to be occurring in their perceptions.

E. Student Survey

The preliminary analysis of the student survey is not yet available. It will include differences between our current students and our |alumni. It will also require careful analysis of the normative data to determine how these perceptions appear to evolve over time within the normative group. It will be important to determine whether the positive aspects of the alumni survey extend to our current students.

F Employer Survey

The preliminary analysis of the employer survey is not yet available. While it is still subjective data, its analysis will provide some external evaluation of characteristics of our graduates.

III. Formal Commission Findings

A. The data of the alumni survey indicates that Oakland has had some success in the past developing competencies in written communication, quantitative reasoning, and critical thinking. The new program in General Education demonstrates a continuing commitment to extend these competencies to students within all the curricula of the University. However, data from our other studies also indicates a coming decade or two of poorly prepared secondary students. This will require an increased effort to obtain the goals Oakland has set for each undergraduate degree recipient. To be effective, this effort will require increased attention to our students' development. It is a development that is not guaranteed merely by the successful completion of courses.

B. With respect to the particular areas of written communication, oral communication, quantitative reasoning, and critical thinking, the Commission finds:

1. It is necessary to write well to function well in our society. Development of writing skills requires and enhances development of critical thinking. It balances the tendency created by the increasing complexity of technology to deal with issues in quantifiable forms. Oakland should redouble its efforts in this area; the University should set and pursue as a long-term goal producing graduates known for writing well.

2. Substantial quantitative skills are necessary for a person to successfully cope with the complex, technological world that is emerging. At Oakland, current program preferences of many students provide multiple opportunities for such development. Indeed, it is an absolute requirement in many cases. Current mechanisms exist for extending these opportunities to all students, but there are limitations to their full utilization because of the poor preparation students have in mathematics.

3 In the area of oral communication, continuing restrictions of resources for both staff and space make a formal university program infeasible. Wherever there are opportunities for improvements, these should be pursued actively.

4. As implied above, the active development of both written and quantitative skills supports the development of critical thinking and general intellectual enhancement. Suitable means for assessing what kind of contribution an Oakland education is making should be developed.

IV.   Recommendations

A.   The development of competencies in written and oral communication,
quantitative reasoning, and critical thinking is at the heart of our instructional efforts. All academic units must make an appropriate contribution. The Commission recommends that this effort be considered a balanced responsibility between the General Education program and the programs of the individual majors as follows:

1) General Education's role is a key one in that it is the only common component of all curricula and is essentially the first one encountered by the students. As was mentioned before whatever is going to happen must be started there and started well.  The essential limitation faced by General Education is that most of its courses have high enrollments, and ready means of providing much individual attention to students within them are not generally available.

However, working within these limitations and seeking to improve upon them whenever possible, the Senate General Education Committee should be asked to:

(a) Evaluate any proposed course not only on the basis of its subject matter, but also on the basis of what contribution can be made within that course to competency development;

(b) Once the entire program is implemented, review the patterns that develop in the students' sequences of courses, and assess the balance of the competencies being developed;

(c) Periodically receive reports on particular General Education courses and reauthorize them or not on the basis of their apparent ability, in practice, to address the dual goals of subject matter and competency development; and

d) Continue to exercise a leadership role in the University's developing pursuit of these general instructional objectives.

2) It is within the individual major programs that the competency development begun in General Education must be carried on and realized. In the small classes which are common for the courses in the major, they have the opportunity to further develop these competencies in the course of mastering the particularities of that discipline. Accordingly, all program directors and others with similar curricular responsibilities should be asked to actively encourage their faculty to take full advantage of all such opportunities that arise within their classes. They should attempt to assess during program reviews what kinds of results are being achieved. All major programs should either require extensive writing in most of their courses or require an advanced writing course as is currently done in some Management curricula.

B. Since the overall success of any University commitment to develop these competencies is never going to be far ahead of the faculty's commitment to achieve them, we recommend that the instructional efforts of individual faculty members be supported by:

1) Asking that all parties to the assessment of teaching as a component of either reviews or salary determinations seriously consider how adequately their current evaluation devices measure the contributions that the individual is making to the development of these competencies by students, and to make such modifications as they deem both practical and appropriate; and by

2) Asking that the Senate Teaching and Learning Committee, as assisted by the Office of Institutional Research, review teaching practices, inform the University community on a regular basis as to the normative expectations that are being made concerning these competencies in the individual courses of instruction, and to recommend changes as they deem appropriate. More specifically, current course practices should be carefully assessed periodically, and the University should be informed as to the standards implied by them. The Teaching and Learning Committee should recommend changes if particular practices appear to be eroding those standards. The specific procedures and timetable for accomplishing these objectives should be developed by May 1, 1985.

3) Continuing to support and expand the "Writing across the Curriculum" workshops sponsored by the Rhetoric faculty. The Senate Teaching and Learning Committee should attempt to identify other such devices for similarly assisting the faculty.

C. While the current writing requirement may be appropriate to achieve survival skills in an undergraduate curriculum, it is not sufficient to achieve the level of effectiveness desired of our undergraduate-degree recipients. Therefore, we recommend that the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences be asked to form a committee of his faculty complemented by representatives of additional schools to recommend to the University Senate by April 1, 1985 a second level of writing proficiency to be achieved by each undergraduate prior to the receipt of the degree. The current writing requirements should be maintained as a method of achieving the competence necessary to function in an undergraduate curriculum where writing is valued.

General requirements should be developed that efficiently make use of the writing that is already taking place in upper-level courses. Submission of writing samples and/or individual instructor approvals should be considered.  Special courses or seminars might be appropriate to some disciplines, so alternate means of satisfaction should be explored.  To prevent students from procrastinating, specific time requirements would need to be set with specific procedures established for those who had not met the requirement by the 100 credit limit.

D.  All faculty should be asked to consider if there are appropriate oral communication experiences that could be used in their courses.  In particular, the Communications faculty should be asked to develop some specific suggestions that could be considered by April 1, 1985.

E.  Astin's challenge on value added education is one which we should accept.  Accordingly, the Senate Teaching and Learning Committee should be asked to investigate the feasibility of periodically assessing the impact that Oakland is having on its students' intellectual development, and to report its findings to the Senate by April 1, 1985.  In particular, the standardized instrument offered by ACT, COMP⁵ should be carefully considered for its applicability.

Chapter III--Academic Program Review Mechanisms

The third item of the Commission's charge was:

to assess whether existing mechanisms for the review of degree programs  are adequate to assure that all such programs are of the highest quality compatible with available resources and to propose new mechanisms when necessary. 

In addition, the sixth item of the Commission's charge was:

to assess the quality of the University's programs of professional continuing education and to recommend revisions and introductions of standards and requirements where warranted.

During initial discussion, it was noted that most of the programs associated the the sixth charge item do not currently have written program review procedures. It was decided therefore that the most effective and feasible way of responding to these two charges was to combine them in the following assignment of responsibilities to Subcommittee III, Academic Program Review

A. Determining if all academic programs offered by the University are periodically reviewed by an appropriate reviewing body (i.e., the relevant college, school, etc.),

B. Examining all existing review mechanisms to determine if they are adequate to ensure that all academic programs are of the highest quality compatible with available resources,

C.  Making recommendations concerning either the development of appropriate review mechanisms where they do not now exist and/or the improvement of current review mechanisms where this appears indicated.

I.  Methodology

The following sequence of steps was taken:

A.  A list was developed of all major academic programs sponsored by each of the University's academic units (see Table 1).

B. Deans and directors of these academic units then were asked to indicate those programs which were reviewed on a regular basis with a formal review mechanism described in writing (see Table 1). Copies of all such formal review mechanisms were then gathered. (Copies are available in the support file.)

C.   A set of criteria was developed for use in evaluating program review mechanisms as formally described. The initial assumption was that any mechanism for reviewing academic programs should be able to serve adequately three major purposes. First, a program review process should make a significant contribution to long-range planning.

During the course of a review, attention should be given to the original goals and objectives of the program, and an assessment of the extent to which they remain valid given current and/or future realities. Second, the review process should determine if the program is using its resources effectively, and if they are adequate to ensure an institutionally acceptable level of program quality. Finally, a program review process should be able to make a significant contribution to increasing the degree of rationality of the University's budgeting process. Institutional budget decisions should, in our view, take into consideration the contribution of a program's goals to the University's mission, and the level of resources needed to carry out the program's goals at a level of quality acceptable to the institution.

In order to accomplish the above objectives, a review process should be built around a written self-study prepared by those closely involved in the program. This self-study should be largely descriptive as well as evaluative in nature. It should contain basic information about the program, such as its goals, resources, and accomplishments as seen from the perspective of both teachers and students. Evaluation by outside individuals is necessary to provide both objectivity, and a larger and more diverse perspective from which to view the program. Finally, there must be some final set of recommendations flowing from the process, with a mechanism for ensuring they are appropriately carried out.

Based on the above considerations, the criteria presented in Table 2 were developed and adopted by the Commission.

D. Each formal review mechanism was then reviewed and evaluated in terms of the criteria described.

E. Following the initial assessment as to the degree of consistency between the written description of review mechanisms received and the criteria in Table 2, copies of these assessments were sent to the respective deans and directors for their comments as to the accuracy of the characterizations of their document. Respondents were invited to comment on their own views as to the strengths and weaknesses of their review procedures, together with any other relevant observation they wished to share. (The responses received are in the support file.) The final assessments of all formal program review mechanisms as currently described in writing are presented in the Subcommittee's report in the support file. They take into consideration feedback we received from deans and directors.

II. Formal Commission Findings

A. The majority of major academic programs are reviewed periodically by formally adopted review mechanisms which are described in writing. All graduate programs and undergraduate programs in the College of Arts and Sciences are reviewed by procedures developed and controlled within the University. At this point, a number of graduate reviews have been completed. The College of Arts and Sciences' mechanism, however, is new and the initial set of reviews are just now reaching completion. Undergraduate programs in the professional schools and in the Center for Health Sciences which are reviewed, are done so by external bodies only, with review procedures designed and controlled by the external body.  At the present time, undergraduate programs  in these schools and centers are not also reviewed by groups within the University.

B. At the present time. there is no formal review mechanism for periodically evaluating the following programs (although informal review may be done by program faculty):

1) B.S. in Computer and Information Science (School of Engineering and Computer Science)

2) B.S. in Human Resources Development (School of Human and Educational Services)

3) B.S. in Industrial Health and Safety (Center for Health Sciences)

4) B.S. in Medical Physics (Center for Health Sciences)

5) B.S. in Medical Technology (Center for Health Sciences)

6) Bachelor of General Studies Degree (BGS Council)

7) Early College Study Program (Provost's Office)
 

C. Except for the Legal Assistant Diploma Program no written review mechanisms exist in the Division of Continuing Education. No jurisdiction for examining the results of such reviews by any University-wide group has been established.

D.  All the formal review mechanisms currently in use appear to be detailed, thorough, and in substantial conformity to the criteria described in Table 2.

E.  A number of the review mechanisms as currently described in writing are, in some areas, unclear or incomplete, or fail to reflect accurately current review practices.

F All the formal review mechanisms currently in place also appear to |make enormous demands on the time and effort of faculty and staff and require the cooperation of those individuals for their success.

G.   The review mechanisms examined have,  by and large, not been used a sufficient number of times to assess adequately how well they work in practice. In general, however, deans and directors are pleased with the mechanisms currently in place and think they show promise of  being effective review devices. It is not clear, as yet, how the review process is, or will be, integrated with the budgeting processes which allocate resources to academic programs.

III. Recommendations

A. The Steering Committee of the Senate should instruct the University Committee on Undergraduate Instruction (UCUI) and the relevant sponsoring academic units to work together to develop a formal review mechanism for periodically evaluating all major academic programs which are not so reviewed. At the present time, these would include the following:

1) B.S. in Computer and Information Science (School of Engineering and Computer Science)

2) B.S. in Human Resources Development (School of Human and Educational Services)

3) B.S. in Industrial Health and Safety (Center for Health Sciences)

4) B.S. in Medical Physics (Center for Health Sciences)

5) B.S. in Medical Technology (Center for Health Sciences)

6) Bachelor of General Studies Degree (BGS Council)

7) Early College Study Program (Provost's Office)

B. The Graduate Council should work with the Division of Continuing Education to develop a formal review mechanism for all major academic non-credit course program offerings offered by the Division. Responsibility for monitoring these reviews should rest with the Graduate Council, since most are continuing professional education with post-baccalaureates. Once this mechanism is in place and working, the assessment requested in the sixth item of the charge can be accomplished.

C. Academic programs offered at extension sites are credit offerings and should be reviewed as part of the formal reviews of departments and schools. Reviews of extension programs should include an assessment of the physical and administrative adequacy of the extension sites and their operation.

D. The Steering Committee of the Senate should be asked to instruct the UCUI and the relevant sponsoring units to work together to develop a  formal internal review mechanism for all undergraduate programs that are currently reviewed solely by bodies external to the University. It is assumed that these external bodies are primarily interested in reviewing programs for the purpose of deciding whether or not to continue accreditation of the program. The internal mechanisms, however, should periodically evaluate programs in terms of University goals and standards, with an eye to suggesting how programs can be strengthened and improved given the resources available to the University. These internal mechanisms should rely, as much as possible, on the self-study documents prepared for the external reviews

E.  The Steering Committee of the Senate should be asked to make clear in the charge to the UCUI that its responsibilities include evaluation and approval of all formal University mechanisms for reviewing major undergraduate academic programs. The UCUI should, in general have a sim