2. New Students of 2015
Update
A future approach to Admissions:
The time is Now
Board of Trustees
February 25, 2017
Jim Goecker
Vice President of Enrollment Management

3. May 2013 BOT meeting: Enrollment Management Update – Next Year
3

4. Presentation to the Student Affairs and Enrollment Committee,
September, 2015: Admissions Framework
4

5. Questions posed at September 2015 BOT meeting
(How a class is formed: “What’s Next? – An Opportunity!)
5

6. Historic approach
Originally, virtually all criteria focused on academic measures
• test scores
• grades in required mathematics and science courses
• rank in class
• recommendation
Moved to enrollment management model
• intended major
• gender, ethnic and racial mix
• financial considerations
•Advisement
•Freshman
Orientation
•Test Scores
•Academic data
•Intended major
•Mainly
concerned with
11-12 grade
Admissions
Student
Experience
6

7. Two students, seemingly identical
650 MA
600 CR
Top 10 %
Good recommendations
Family income $125,000+
Interviews well
“is a nice kid”
Intends to study ME
650 MA
600 CR
Top 10 %
Good recommendations
Family income $125,000+
Interviews well
“is a nice kid”
Intends to study ME
7

8. One fails, the other succeeds
650 MA
600 CR
Top 10 %
Good recommendations
Family income $125,000+
Interviews well
“is a nice kid”
Intends to study ME
GRADUATES
650 MA
600 CR
Top 10 %
Good recommendations
Family income $125,000+
Interviews well
“is a nice kid”
Intends to study ME
FAILS
8

9. Fundamental question:
650 MA
600 CR
Top 10 %
Good recommendations
Family income $125,000+
Interviews well
“is a nice kid”
Intends to study ME
GRADUATES
650 MA
600 CR
Top 10 %
Good recommendations
Family income $125,000+
Interviews well
“is a nice kid”
Intends to study ME
FAILS
WHY?
9

10. Other questions
• When do you take a risk in admission?
• What is the decision based on?
• Are there other factors as important as
academic measures that contribute to
success?
10

11. College Board two years ago presented a framework for their future work
An example of a non-cognitive measurement tool:
Adversity Index – placing a student in the context of what he or
she has faced on their path to success.
Scores in Context – comparing test scores and student
performance in the context of others with similar opportunity.
Academic Curricular Index – comparing the rigor of the
student’s level of preparation relative to the opportunities available.
2 yr. to 4 yr. transfer facilitation – investigating additional
sources of data that can assist colleges in identifying and evaluating
students who have demonstrated post-secondary potential via
community college enrollment.
11

12. Change is occurring: Environmental Context Dashboard
12

13. Grit, persistence, maturity, locus of control, …
• The measurement of non-academic or non-
cognitive attributes are being viewed as the
next evolution in admission.
• Rose-Hulman has been a part of this evolution
with the use of the Locus of Control Inventory
and Curiosity Index.
13

14. A revision of our understanding of admissions
Lifecycle Admissions
• Admission should not be solely based on a student’s ability to be academically
successful at Rose-Hulman.
• We should also consider other aspects of life and the student’s talents in those
areas as well.
• Personality
• Attitude
• View of world
• Persistence
• We should better understand those attributes that lead students to a life of
fulfillment and success.
• We are admitting individuals whose personality, in the long run, will be as
much or more important to their future success as the academic preparation
we offer.
• Such traits should be measureable.
14

15. Remember this?
15
•Advisement
•Freshman Orientation
•Test Scores
•Academic data
•Intended major
•Mainly concerned
with 11-12 grade.
Admissions
Student
Experience

16. The vision for the future: Lifecycle Admissions with a formal,
measurable, iterative cycle of information to improve all parts of the cycle.
• Success
•What was taught
•What was learned
•Happiness
•Success
•What was taught
•What was learned
•Happiness
•Advisement
•Curriculum
•Extra-curricular
•Maturity
•Life skills
•Graduation
•Employment
•Identify sooner
•Non-cognitive
•Test Scores
•Academic Data
•Contextual
•Demographic
•Compatibility Admissions
Student
Experience
Career
Personal
Life
16

17. Work to do
17
• Input from alumni and faculty
• Charge to the Admissions and Standing Committee to define the attributes of
the ideal student.
• Great Debate data is rich with feedback on this topic.
• Additional surveys of alumni at specific points in their career.
• “Clean Slate” committee work and results.
• Identify tool(s) that will provide measureable data.
• Continuing to work with a number of potential partners.
• Also looking at stand alone products.
• Identify a structure for long term development and implementation.
• Long term commitment.
• Will grow beyond original set of data as process evolves.
What else?
• Grow the applicant pool.
• Make sure the process is not so onerous as to deter application.
• Make Lifecycle Admissions our norm rather than a tool to make “tweener” decisions.
• “Hunting rather than fishing.”