WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation Statement of Questions Addressed Methodology Findings, Interpretations, and Analysis Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusions For questions regarding the WASC Self Study contact the WASC Coordinating Office. Statement of Questions Addressed 1. To what extent do University policies and procedures enhance or inhibit the ability of students to be successful in their studies and to complete a degree program in a timely manner? 2. What resources would enable students to be more effective in their studies and complete a degree in a more timely manner? The committee sought to address the research issues through the following inquiries. ? What factors at Cal Poly affect the retention of students? ? What factors at Cal Poly affect the time to degree completion? (Top) Methodology Disclaimer Many of the observations made in this report arose from the committee members’ extensive professional experience in academia and their understanding of the processes at Cal Poly. Thus, if a citation is not mentioned in a given section, it was committee-generated, based on the knowledge and experience of the committee members. Discussion of Importance The issues of student retention and time to degree completion were addressed in the 1989 WASC Report and have remained critical issues for the ten years since. As a result of its selective admissions procedures, Cal Poly is fortunate to have highly competitive students in almost every major. The 87% return rate of first year students and the 58.9% six-year graduation rate are the highest within the CSU (Table 1). However, when one looks at the institutions which compete most strongly for the caliber of students recruited by Cal Poly, primarily the University of file:///C|/WINNT/Profiles/mtoomey/Desktop/pdf/retention.html (1 of 38) [2/9/2000 3:43:30 PM] WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation California schools, Cal Poly’s statistics do not look so impressive. As can be seen in Table 2, Cal Poly’s graduation rates are significantly lower than those of the other schools, even though the freshman retention rate is comparable. Table 1 (Back to report) Cal Poly and Selected CSU’s Six Year Graduation Rate for Fall 1991 First-time Freshmen (Full-time) Includes Graduates from Campus of Origin and Within the CSU Campus of First Attendance CSU Six Year Grad Rate Cal Poly 58.9% Chico 54.0% Sonoma 49.6% Stanislaus 49.5% Hayward 46.4% Sacramento 46.4% Humboldt 46.1% Fresno 45.8% System-wide 40.4% Notes: Full-time is defined as students taking at least 12 units in their first year. Rates shown are for the eight CSU campuses with the highest rates (1991 cohort). Source: CSU Chancellor's Office and IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey, 1991 cohort, data collected in 3/97. Table 2 (Back to report) Cal Poly and Comparable Institutions Selected Indicators Campus Six-Year Grad Rate Freshman Retention Cal Poly 58.9% 86% UC Berkeley 81.0% 94% file:///C|/WINNT/Profiles/mtoomey/Desktop/pdf/retention.html (2 of 38) [2/9/2000 3:43:30 PM] WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation UCLA 79.0% 95% UC Davis 75.0% 91% UC Irvine 75.0% 91% UC Santa Barbara 72.0% 86% Note: These percentages are from US News using their methodology. They should be used only as a tool for comparison between these institutions, as methodology and results vary from institutional data published by Cal Poly. Source: US News & World Report 1999 College Rankings. In the last ten years state funding for higher education has come under increased scrutiny. Members of the legislature and the public expect universities to be more productive and efficient, and to graduate students in a timely manner. Those pressures are likely to increase as a result of the influx of students in K-12 who will be entering higher education in the coming years. Improving the time to degree rate will be an important component to any plan that attempts to address this problem. Various studies and documents published over the years (1989 WASC Report, Visionary Pragmatism, Cal Poly Plan, Cornerstones, Dean's Enrollment Planning Committee Report), show a concern for the issues of retention and graduation. Principal 5 of the Cornerstones document states, "The California State University will meet the need for undergraduate education in California through increasing outreach efforts and transfer, retention, and graduation rates, and providing students a variety of pathways that may reduce the time needed to complete degrees." The first Student Throughput Survey (Appendix II.3.A)completed in 1994 indicated: Student throughput is an issue which affects many aspects of the university, including resources, class scheduling, student satisfaction, and our image to the citizens of California. We strongly believe that student throughput is very important, and we have found that throughput is affected by a variety of factors. In order for throughput to be effectively dealt with we must all take a positive approach to the various issues and problems which have caused throughput to become a problem. We should all realize that we have a commitment to the students who have been admitted to our university--we also should have a commitment to enabling them to be able to graduate from Cal Poly in a timely fashion. Cal Poly has tried to address the throughput problem in several ways. Many departments have attempted to reduce the required number of units in their majors to 186, the minimum required for a Bachelor of Science degree. A number of departments have also increased the number of free electives available to students. (See Appendix II.3.B) In addition, effective with the 1998-99 Catalog, the GE requirements decreased from 76-79 units to 72 units, and additional flexibility in the area distributions was allowed. This decrease was retroactive to previous catalogs back to 1984, so that most Cal Poly students received the benefit of the reduced GE requirement and file:///C|/WINNT/Profiles/mtoomey/Desktop/pdf/retention.html (3 of 38) [2/9/2000 3:43:30 PM] WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation expanded area distribution flexibility. Although these changes are significant, there is still a great deal that can be done to enhance the quality and selection of general education courses at Cal Poly. Assumptions In looking at the issue of retention, it was noted earlier that Cal Poly has an 87% retention rate of first time students from the first fall quarter to the subsequent fall quarter. This compares very favorably with other schools. However, in looking at data presented in the Office of Institutional Planning and Analysis report entitled "Retention and Graduation of Full-time Undergraduates. Cal Poly Cohorts Entering Summer/Fall 1990 to 1994," the committee noted that freshman attrition between year one and year two was 13-15% and 8-11% from year two to year three. In the absence of any definitive data on why students are leaving Cal Poly, the committee can only make educated guesses about the reasons. Clearly some type of exit interview would be helpful to an understanding of this data. In discussions regarding the time to degree research question, it was noted that three different levels of inquiry had impact on this issue: ? System level, which describes the state of higher education in the United States and the State of California. ? Institutional level, which describes problems particular to Cal Poly that affect the retention and time to degree of students. ? Student level, where choices and attitudes of the students who attend Cal Poly affect time to degree. System Level A review of current national data on time to degree indicates that students everywhere are generally taking longer to obtain their bachelors’ degrees than they did in the past. The Graduation Rate Survey for the Integrated Post-Secondary Data System, published by the CSU in March 1999, reported that 7.3% of the CSU students graduate after 4 years, 27.2% after 5 years, and 39.6% after 6 years. Many students in the survey reported dropping their unit levels below full-time status during the course of their education or dropping out all together for one or more periods. The report cautions against assuming that a four-year standard is the norm. It suggests that a more realistic assumption for time to degree for CSU students is 5.5 years. If that period is extended 150% to 8.25 years, almost 95% of CSU degree earners would be captured in the data. Many universities in California find that a large percentage of incoming freshmen require remedial courses in Math and English. Remedial courses place significant cost burdens on the university and may delay the progress of students whose majors depend on math or English prerequisites. Cal Poly is fortunate to have the lowest number of entering freshman students requiring remediation in the CSU. At Cal Poly, 17% of entering students need English remediation as measured by the English Placement Test (EPT), and 16% need math remediation as measured by the Elementary Level Mathematics Exam (ELM). The CSU system reports averages of 47% and 54% of students requiring remediation in English and mathematics, respectively. The characteristic profile of the student group needing remediation is unknown and file:///C|/WINNT/Profiles/mtoomey/Desktop/pdf/retention.html (4 of 38) [2/9/2000 3:43:30 PM] WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation may have significant impact on university resources and retention rates. Institutional Level Some of the factors which are institutional in nature and which affect time to degree are listed below. ? Students choosing a major on application. ? This results in students being an asset to a particular degree program rather than to the university as a whole. Therefore, each college has a stake in its students only so long as they are actually following their majors. There is no incentive for colleges to help or to allow students to prepare for a different major. ? Students who do want to change majors often have to continue taking classes in their first majors. By the time they change, they are behind in their new majors. This is a double cost to the university from wasted classes in the first major and extended time in the second. ? Upside-down curriculum forces students to take major courses before they have adjusted to college life. ? GE pattern at Cal Poly is restrictive in that students have very few choices in most categories. A cursory review of other CSU catalogs indicates that the other CSUs offer a much wider range of choices to fulfill GE categories. A review of UC catalogs reveals that the total number of GE units is significantly lower. ? Repeated high failure rates in some courses contribute to delays. Data obtained from the Office of Academic Records indicates that in any given quarter there are 1700 seats being occupied by students repeating coursework; if we apply the university’s standard of an average class size of 38 students, the result is 45 class sections comprised of students in repeating coursework. (See Appendix II.3.C for list of classes with high failure rates.) ? The quarter system is more demanding and stressful than the semester system. There is also less time available to intervene if a student is experiencing difficulties. ? Financial aid may not be adequate to allow students to work toward a degree in a timely manner. ? Class scheduling problems prevent students from getting courses when they need them. ? Student demand exceeds available spaces in courses. Student Level Many factors that result in longer time to graduation are the result of choices that students make. These include: ? Major choice: ? Many students choose a major based on the needs and wishes of parents and other supporters with no real understanding of the field they have chosen. ? Cal Poly may be a poor fit for students who are very undecided about what field they want to pursue. They may be better off at a school that offers more flexibility in course selection and that allows a student to take more time to decide on a field of file:///C|/WINNT/Profiles/mtoomey/Desktop/pdf/retention.html (5 of 38) [2/9/2000 3:43:30 PM] WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation study. ? Average number of units undergraduate students take at Cal Poly is 14.2, even though 16-18 units would be required to graduate in four years. ? Working/financial problems. ? Lack of study skills and poor time management. ? Interest in doing an internship, co-op, going abroad for a quarter or a year, or gaining other kinds of experience. ? Other responsibilities that prevent a student from pursuing a full-time education, such as children, marriage, illness in family, etc. ? Students appreciate the environment of SLO and are not in a hurry to leave. Committees previously cited have addressed most of these issues. Recently, the Task Force on Advising, commissioned to study the state of advising on campus, found that previous concerns identified through the 1994 Throughput Survey still exist. These include: ? Barriers to changing majors. ? The lack of a coordinated and comprehensive advising system. ? Difficulties with class scheduling. ? Difficulty completing senior project in a timely manner. These issues are similar to those reported by the Deans’ Enrollment Planning Committee (DEPAC) in their 2/99 report. Work Plan and Methods A sub-group of the committee met several times to discuss the issues of retention and time to degree. These discussions led to the development of a list of possible relevant factors. The list included: Avenue of admission--Multicriteria Admission (MCA) process: Does the MCA accurately predict student success? Do students who are admitted outside of the MCA process succeed as well as those students who come in through MCA? High failure rate for certain courses: Numerous lower division courses, including many in math and the sciences, have failure rates in excess of 20% . How do these courses affect student progress toward a degree? (See Appendix II.3.C) Standards for progress: The different colleges of the university use different standards to determine if a student should be disqualified for academic or administrative reasons. Does this have an effect on retention and time to degree? High-risk students: Do students who are first generation college students or who come from a lower socioeconomic status have a harder time completing their degrees? Processes and forms: The highly structured curriculum for most of Cal Poly’s majors results in many students having to file paperwork for exceptions of one kind or another. Most processes are very cumbersome; they often require the student to pick up a form in one office and go to file:///C|/WINNT/Profiles/mtoomey/Desktop/pdf/retention.html (6 of 38) [2/9/2000 3:43:30 PM] WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation several other offices to obtain signatures. Could some of these processes be streamlined? Staff resources: There is a shortage of staff in both the Records/Evaluations Office and the college advising centers. Current students do not always receive timely information regarding curricular changes. Transfer students do not receive transfer evaluations before they must register. Graduating seniors do not get directed help in completing their degree requirements. Change of major: Approximately 30% of Cal Poly’s students change majors during their college careers. There are no statistics on how many students leave Cal Poly because they cannot change into the majors they want. How does this affect retention and time to degree? Poor scheduling of courses: Some departments appear to schedule courses without paying attention to students’ needs. Many courses offered only once per year overlap with others, or an important major class will overlap with an important support class because departments don’t communicate with each other. Also, especially in summer quarter, many courses will be clustered into a small range of time slots so that students have a hard time taking as many units as they would like. Should students submit a list of desired courses prior to the formulation of department course offerings? Senior project: Failure to complete senior project has been mentioned many times as a reason why students do not obtain their degrees. Effects of technology: Can new technologies improve the planning and processes at Cal Poly to help with the issues of retention and time to degree. For instance, an automated degree audit system might give students timely information about their progress through a degree so that they know what courses are outstanding for graduation at any given time, regardless of catalog. A predictive scheduling module could help departments plan more effectively for what courses to offer in which quarter and how many sections will be needed to meet student demand. The committee reviewed the 1994 Throughput Survey and decided that it would be useful to implement it again in order to determine if there were any significant changes in student perceptions during the intervening five years. Some questions were eliminated, some reworded, and new questions were added. The survey was formatted for scantron administration and given to 617 students during Winter Quarter 1999. A copy of the survey is attached. The Assessment and Testing Center determined the class sections to be surveyed in order to obtain a random sample of students that represented an accurate cross-section of the student body. The data was compiled and returned to the committee for analysis. A study was initiated to gather data regarding students who had applied to graduate, but who had never completed their degrees. A list was compiled of students in all of the colleges who had applied to graduate in Spring 1997 and Spring 1998, but who had not completed their degrees. At Cal Poly, students apply to the Evaluations Office to graduate in a certain quarter. After that quarter, students are not permitted to register for classes unless they file a form changing their graduation date. Choosing a graduation date allows students to go through graduation ceremonies, but there is no requirement (or check) that they have completed their degree requirements in order to participate in the ceremony. Previous studies designed to assess how many students went through ceremonies without completing their degrees were based on "So Sorry" letters which are sent out 1-2 months after file:///C|/WINNT/Profiles/mtoomey/Desktop/pdf/retention.html (7 of 38) [2/9/2000 3:43:30 PM] WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation graduation to inform students that all the requirements for their degree have not been completed. This study purposely looked at students who were nine months past their graduation dates in the case of the 1998 cohort and 21 months post graduation for the 1997 cohort. Our reasoning was that many students leave with several classes to complete, perhaps at another school, or with their senior projects unfinished. We thought that this timeframe would eliminate those students who were actually working on completing requirements post graduation ceremony. Each student’s file was pulled and checked to determine what requirements remained. The categories checked were Only Senior Project Remaining, Senior Project Plus other requirements, only Graduation Writing Requirement, Graduation Writing Requirement in addition to other requirements, Major/Support or General Education remaining, and USCP only. The results of the study are outlined in the charts below.   Students Who Applied to Graduate Spring 1997 College Total Graduated Not Graduated # % # % Agriculture 332 287 86% 45 14% Architecture 143 131 92% 12 8% Business 248 235 95% 13 5% Liberal Arts 343 312 91% 31 9% Engineering 316 287 91% 29 9% Science & Math 135 113 84% 22 16% Totals 1517 1365 90% 152 10%   Breakdown of Remaining Requirements for 1997 Spring Graduation Cohort Who Had Not Completed Degree by April 1999 College Sr Project only remaining Sr Project + other requirements GWR only GWR + other requirements Major/Support or GE remaining USCP only Miscellaneous # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Agriculture 5 11% 21 47% 3 7% 1 2% 9 20% 2 4% 4 9% Architecture 1 8% 5 42% 2 17% 1 8% 2 17% 0 0% 1 8% Business 3 23% 3 23% 4 31% 0 0% 1 8% 0 0% 2 15% file:///C|/WINNT/Profiles/mtoomey/Desktop/pdf/retention.html (8 of 38) [2/9/2000 3:43:30 PM] WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation Liberal Arts 6 19% 13 42% 0 0% 0 0% 6 19% 0 0% 6 19% Engineering 8 28% 6 21% 1 3% 3 10% 8 28% 0 0% 3 10% Science & Math 0 0% 9 41% 0 0% 1 5% 8 36% 0 0% 4 18% Totals 23 15% 57 38% 10 7% 6 4% 34 22% 2 1% 20 13% Students Who Applied to Graduate Spring 1998 College Total Graduated Not Graduated # % # % Agriculture 380 287 76% 93 24% Architecture 165 142 86% 23 14% Business 325 300 92% 25 8% Liberal Arts 467 393 84% 74 16% Engineering 370 310 84% 60 16% Science & Math 180 145 81% 35 19% Totals 1887 1577 84% 310 16%   Breakdown of Remaining Requirements for 1998 Spring Graduation Cohort Who Had Not Completed Degree by April 1999 College Sr Project only remaining Sr Project + other requirements GWR only GWR + other requirements Major/Support or GE remaining USCP only Miscellaneous # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Agriculture 27 29% 36 39% 4 4% 2 2% 15 16% 0 0% 9 10% Architecture 5 22% 2 9% 5 22% 1 4% 7 30% 0 0% 3 13% Business 8 32% 6 24% 0 0% 2 8% 5 20% 0 0% 4 16% Liberal Arts 22 30% 29 39% 1 1% 4 5% 13 18% 0 0% 5 7% Engineering 18 30% 18 30% 2 3% 6 10% 11 18% 1 2% 4 7% Science & Math 37% 15 43% 0 0% 2 6% 1 3% 0 0% 4 11% 13 file:///C|/WINNT/Profiles/mtoomey/Desktop/pdf/retention.html (9 of 38) [2/9/2000 3:43:31 PM] WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation Totals 93 30% 106 34% 12 4% 17 5% 52 17% 1 0% 29 9% The committee also brought in guests during the course of our discussions to inform us on particular areas. These included Bonnie Krupp, Institutional Planning & Analysis to bring us up to date on the results of the recent cohort study and Jane Leaphart and Kathi Peterson from the Office of Academic Records/Evaluations Unit to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of an automated degree audit system as well as other processing issues. Each member of the committee was also assigned a topic addressing a different aspect of our question to research and bring back to the committee for discussion. The topics were Advising/ Retention of High risk Students, Automated Degree Audit, Graduation Rates/Senior Projects, Undergraduate Admissions and Exit Surveys. (Top) . Findings, Interpretations, and Analysis While clearly there are myriad factors affecting student retention and time to degree, not all of them are factors that can be addressed at the university level. System requirements, as well as unrealistic expectations of entering students, contribute to the problem. Although the committee discussed all of the factors listed in the previous section and took into account the presentations by our guest speakers, we decided to focus our report on several key issues. Retention and High Risk Students The issue of student retention and dialogue regarding factors and influences that cause students to leave the institution was one that caused extensive dialogue. It became apparent that in the absence of systematic information on this topic, there could be no truly focused dialogue or solutions generated. Currently, there is no accurate data collected to inform the institution why students choose not to continue at the university. While clearly some students leave for academic reasons, the other factors that affect attrition remain largely based on anecdotal information. The Assessment and Testing Center is in the process of conducting a study to determine the profile characteristics of Cal Poly's high-risk student population. Until the results from this study are available, the University will continue to use national data to help define its high-risk students. The definition presently includes students who have not taken advantage of advising programs such as the Summer Advising Program, those from educationally and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and those belonging to an underrepresented population as defined by the Federal Affirmative Action guidelines. The Strategic Plan (4.4.1) says that "Cal Poly shall establish and implement a thorough approach to investigating the reasons why students choose to discontinue study at Cal Poly." DEPAC recommends that exit surveys be instituted to determine why first year students do not return for their second year at Cal Poly. They also believe that an exit survey would be helpful in file:///C|/WINNT/Profiles/mtoomey/Desktop/pdf/retention.html (10 of 38) [2/9/2000 3:43:31 PM] WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation determining why students who have applied to graduate do not complete their degrees. The 1989 WASC Report indicated that collecting data on attrition would be beneficial to determining why students left the university. Instituting an exit survey process is an important step in gathering the information needed to make informed decisions regarding student retention. Advising As the committee discussed issues related to retention and time to degree, it became clear that many problems could be traced to the lack of an effective advising infrastructure. Our review of previous reports and documents related to this question made it apparent that advising was a critical piece in helping students graduate in a timely manner. For example, Commitment to Visionary Pragmatism, which has served as one of the guiding institutional documents for the past five years, states that "the university needs to: 3.8 Offer proactive, consistent and accurate advising throughout the student's undergraduate experience. 3.9 Request colleges and programs to designate coordinators for advising. 3.10 Employ effective assessment and monitoring systems for advising programs. 3.11 Support faculty/staff/peer mentoring for students in whatever context it occurs. Although a clear plan of action has been identified, it remains to be implemented. Complementing the recommendations within Visionary Pragmatism is the University’s Strategic Plan, which, though more general in spirit, is congruent in its goals: 4.1 Cal Poly’s administrative, academic, and student services programs shall promote student retention, success, and graduation in a timely manner. 4.2 Cal Poly’s administrative processes affecting students shall be efficient, effective, and oriented toward service. 4.4 Cal Poly shall administer regularly a systematic survey of student attitudes toward academic, administrative, and support services. 4.4.1 Cal Poly shall establish and implement a thorough approach to investigating the reasons why students choose to discontinue study at Cal Poly. The 1989 WASC Report specifically recommended "that the university develop an improved and effective organization and process of advising." Most recently, the University has commissioned an ad hoc Task Force on Advising to study again the advising system and the manner in which it might be improved. This group included academic advisors and faculty from the six colleges and staff members from support areas such as Enrollment Support Services and from many distinct areas within Student Affairs. The Task Force on Advising recommended the following in their final report dated 6/99: ? Development of expanded college-based advising centers. ? Ratio of professional advisors to students should be 1:700. ? Larger facilities to accommodate student affairs personnel and to allow faculty to hold office hours in advising centers. ? Clerical and peer advisor support for each advising center. file:///C|/WINNT/Profiles/mtoomey/Desktop/pdf/retention.html (11 of 38) [2/9/2000 3:43:31 PM] WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation ? Formal training for all advisors (faculty, professional and peer). ? Funding to support training and assessment. ? The committee strongly recommends mandatory advising for all students throughout their Cal Poly career once the infrastructure outlined above is in place Automated Degree Audit/Predictive Scheduling In theory, there is agreement that an automated degree audit would be beneficial to student progress because it would allow students and their advisors to know what degree requirements remain. It would also allow the university to do predictive scheduling and to use this information to plan future course offerings. However, there are several factors that make the implementation of a full degree audit system at Cal Poly problematic. These include: ? The transitional General Education and Breadth (GEB) pattern was applied retroactively to eight existing Cal Poly catalogs and a new GEB template is scheduled for 2001. ? The catalog cycle was changed from a two-year catalog to a one-year catalog. ? Faculty have been encouraged to revise curricula yearly which has resulted in different course numbering and unit values which need to be applied retroactively to previous catalogs. ? The money to fund personnel and equipment to maintain an automated degree audit has not been forthcoming. ? Historically, there have been large numbers of exceptions to established curricula (blanket substitutions, petitions, experimental courses, etc). Currently, the university is beginning to implement PeopleSoft, a system that is advertised as having the potential to provide automated degree audits. Since the implementation will take several years to complete, there is no way of knowing right now whether or not this is a viable option. There are clearly many challenges to be addressed in order to achieve degree audit automation. Such systems exist at other institutions. The committee recommends that these issues be investigated in order to clarify institutional direction in these matters. If it proves unfeasible for an automatic degree system to be successfully implemented then this reality needs to be acknowledged and alternative approaches developed to assist in quality advising. Graduation Rates/Senior Projects The Academic Senate should look at ways to expedite the completion of students’ remaining degree requirements. Focus should be directed on those requirements that seem to be problematic for many students. The information gathered by the committee indicates that senior project, the graduation writing requirement and general education courses are often the requirements left uncompleted upon separation from the university. The committee suggests a review of other campuses that restrict attendance to graduation ceremonies be assigned to the Instruction Committee of the Academic Senate for discussion. In the case of senior project, the committee feels that a manageable senior project that must be completed by a very specific deadline would lead to the completion of the senior project file:///C|/WINNT/Profiles/mtoomey/Desktop/pdf/retention.html (12 of 38) [2/9/2000 3:43:31 PM] WASC: Retention and Time to Degree for Graduation requirement. For example, the Soil Science Department has their seniors sign a contract that states they will not go through commencement without having their senior project completed. If Cal Poly instituted a mandatory graduating senior exit survey, perhaps we would gain a better understanding of the possible barriers students face during the senior year that may prevent them from finishing their graduation requirements. Undergraduate Admissions The committee looked at our undergraduate admissions process to determine if anything that was done in the admissions process could have an effect on student retention or graduation rates. Cal Poly uses a multicriteria admission process (MCA) for selecting students. Five categories are used to evaluate and to screen freshman candidates. They include GPA earned in specific CSU preparatory courses, overall GPA, electives from the CSU preparatory course requirements, test scores (e.g., SAT and/or ACT), and work experience and/or participation in extra-curricular activities. Transfer candidates are evaluated and screened for admission on the basis of four categories, including major-specific courses completed, GE courses completed, GPA in courses completed, and related work experience and extracurricular activities. Three scoring processes are used to select students. The first determines if students have met the minimum eligibility standards established for each program. The second process selects the top 60% of the students to be offered admission. The remaining 40% of the students offered admissi