|
793
DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
PROPOSAL TO CONTROL ENROLLMENT BY REDEFINING
THE PROVISIONAL ADMISSION PROGRAM
Executive Vice President and Provost Sheldon
Ekland-Olson has provided a draft of a proposal, reproduced below, to
control enrollment by redefining the University's Provisional Admission
Program. This proposal will be discussed at the meeting of the Faculty
Council on September 18, 2000. The Secretary has classified this item
as general legislation. The Council can take action on the legislation
at its meeting on October 16.
<signed>
John R. Durbin, Secretary
The Faculty Council
This legislation was posted on the Faculty Council
web site (http://www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/) on September 14, 2000.
Paper copies are available on request from the Office of the General Faculty,
FAC 22, F9500
764
DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
PROPOSAL TO CONTROL ENROLLMENT BY REDEFINING
THE PROVISIONAL ADMISSION PROGRAM
Problem
The University of Texas at Austin has long had a Provisional
Admission Program. This program was originally designed to give students
not regularly admitted to the University a chance to prove they could
perform well in the highly-competitive academic environment on the Austin
campus. In recent years, two things have happened. First, the quality
of students being provisionally admitted has improved to a point where,
for many students, it no longer makes sense to say they are being denied
regular admission because they would not be able to compete. Concerns
for program design as well as for a student’s sense of pride and
accomplishment have emerged as a result. Second, increased enrollment
pressures have led to a dramatically increased number of students enrolling
in the provisional program, which has led to a substantial reduction in
the University’s ability to control admission. This proposal to
change the Provisional Admission Program is motivated and informed by
both of
these factors.
Background
Enrollment peaked in 1989 at 50,245. Believing that it
could not adequately handle enrollment of this size, the University, in
1990, began to lower enrollment to the more manageable level of 48,000.
The plan was to allow the graduate population to grow while lowering the
number of undergraduates. By fall 1995, the goal had been reached and
overall enrollment bottomed out at 47,905.
Graduate enrollment did increase between 1990 and 1993,
before going into a steady decline that continued through 1998; undergraduate
enrollment decreased between 1990 and 1995, but has risen steadily since.
Law School enrollment remained flat from 1990 to 1994, but has declined
since.
Driven by increases in undergraduate enrollment, there
has been a steady increase in overall enrollment to 49,902 in fall 1999.
Projections by the Office of Institutional Studies indicate that, absent
changes in our undergraduate admission policy, fall 2000 enrollment will
once again approach the high-water mark of 1989.
Projections
The number of high school graduates from Texas public
and private high schools is projected to increase steadily for the next
ten years rising from an estimated 209,800 in 1999-2000 to 233,500 in
2010-2011. These students are already in the pipeline. Efforts
are being made to improve high school graduation rates. There is every
reason to believe we will continue to see enrollment pressure in the foreseeable
future.
A link exists between regularly admitted and provisionally
admitted students. As regular admissions become more selective, the provisional
admission cohort becomes larger and more qualified. Larger provisional
cohorts will yield a higher proportion of successful students who will
enter the University in the fall. Unless we change the current provisional
admission policy we will not be able to control enrollment. Hence this
proposal for change.
Proposal
|
I.
|
Working Assumptions
| A. |
Students with a strong desire to succeed at
the highest level should be given the chance to do so, even
when their entry academic credentials do not signal success.
Hence, the Provisional Admission Program should not be totally
eliminated.
|
|
795
|
|
|
| B. |
The goal is to keep The University of Texas
at Austin at a total enrollment of roughly 48,000 students,
with approximately 36,000 undergraduate and 12,000 graduate
students.
|
|
|
II.
|
Three-tiered Freshman Admission Policy
Two changes in admission and enrollment policies are being proposed.
First, we propose to substitute a Summer Enrollment Plan, designed
to yield approximately 600 regularly admitted students, for the current
on-campus Provisional Admission Program. Second, we propose to create
an "Off-site" Provisional Program at a sister UT System
university. This pilot program is being designed in cooperation with
UT Arlington. Other universities might be added, depending on the
success of the UT Arlington initiative. The result would be a three-tiered
admissions program: Fall Admission; Summer Enrollment Plan; and Off-site
Provisional Admission.
| A. |
Fall Admission
This program will continue as currently structured.
|
| B. |
Summer Enrollment Plan
We propose that the current on-campus Provisional
Admission Program be replaced by a Summer Enrollment Program
effective summer 2001. There are several compelling reasons
for doing so. The two most important are: 1) Regular summer
admission will allow us to better control overall student
enrollment. 2) The design of the Provisional Admission Program
no longer matches the students who enroll. The qualifications
of students who are currently being offered the provisional
option have changed over time to include many very able students.
These students are not being well served by a "pseudo-remedial"
or "bridge" program. They and their families are
insulted by the implication that they are not "college
ready," and they become grudging participants only because
they want to be at UT Austin, not because they feel that
summer
academic work is necessary to their academic development.
Because of the improved academic abilities of students, the
current Provisional Admission Program has become less well
matched to students and more difficult to manage.
With the initiation of the Summer Enrollment
Program, students would enroll in typical first-semester freshman
courses. This would relieve some of the course availability
problems currently experienced in the fall semester. These
students would be held to the same GPA requirements placed
on students entering in the fall. They would be free to select
courses appropriate to their goals. Using current matriculation
rates, we believe it will be possible to enroll a total freshman
class of 7,000 (6,400 fall plus 600 from summer) without increasing
overall enrollment.
|
| C. |
Provisional Program through UT Arlington
We propose that the current Provisional Admission
Program be redesigned and moved, effective summer 2001, to
The University of Texas at Arlington.
Fall freshman applicants who are not offered
fall admission or the newly proposed Summer Enrollment Plan
will be offered admission through the Off-site Provisional
Program. Upon completion of a required 30-credit sequence
of courses and the maintenance of at least a 3.0 GPA, these
students will be accepted unconditionally into the College
of Liberal Arts or the College of Natural Sciences. They may
also compete for admission into the major of their choice
once they arrive on campus. Should they fail to attain the
required credits and GPA within their first year at UT Arlington,
they would no longer be eligible for automatic admission and
would compete for admission to UT Austin as regular transfer
students.
UT Arlington has been very supportive of this
plan. Preliminary meetings have taken place and the program
is fully endorsed by President Robert Witt.
|
|
796
|
|
III.
|
Summary
Admission for freshman applicants would be hierarchical
in the following way. The top students would be offered regular fall
admission. The next set of students would be offered the Summer Enrollment
Plan. The remaining students would be offered Provisional Admission
through UT Arlington.
|
|
IV.
|
Program Review
Because these changes are dramatic, it is expected that adjustments
will need to be made as the various aspects of the proposal become
operational. A formal and thorough program review will be conducted
at the end of the third year by representatives of the colleges and
UT System institutions involved.
|
|
