Pointer Partnership Advisory Board
Minutes from March 18th, 2016
1:15 PM, DUC Room 235

  1. Call to Order
  2. Called to order at 1:15pm
  1. Roll Call
  2. Students present: Amy Vida, Matt Grutza, Jeffrey Behselich, Cody Kamrowski, Andrew Glazner, John Peralta
  3. Faculty/Staff present: Max Trzebiatowski, Matt Welz
  4. Guests: Erin Hintz, Greg Diemer, Kathy Davis, Sue Kissinger, Jim Barrett
  1. Approval of the Agenda
  2. Approved by general consent
  1. Approval of the Minutes
  2. No minutes presented
  1. Public Forum for Non-Agenda Items (3 min. each)
  1. Review enrollment and budget projections for 2016-2017 and beyond
  1. Discussion and Presentation about Bottleneck Courses from Jim Barrett:
  2. There are two major distinctions of how to classify bottlenecks, courses that have been filled and courses that have been filled that more people still are interested in taking. This is then broken down further into classes that people need to take and those that people are simply interested in taking. Enrollment management tried to focus on the courses that are continually filled and that students need to take in order to graduate and complete their degrees. Currently, there has been an attempt to create a rudimentary waiting list of who needs to take courses and when this is combined with information that is collected by advisors in certain areas to try and get a handle on bottlenecks.
  3. Goal is that eventually Peoplesoft will be used on campus as a more predictive tool to help determine who will be taking classes in the future and can be used as a more effective way to identify how many class sections will be needed for courses.
  4. Jim Barrett also included and presented information about what courses have currently been identified as bottlenecks which included:
  5. Bio 210, 270, 306, 342, 377, 378, 381
  6. CIS 110
  7. Math 355, 111
  8. NRES 301, 320, 368, 458, 473, 474
  9. SOIL 364, 366
  10. WATR 382, 383, 388, 390
  11. WLDL 321, 381, 450, 451, 458
  12. WSTE 380, 382, 481
  13. Vida question about whether it is better to try and target lower level courses, midrange courses or upper level courses, Barrett believed that targeting middle and upper level courses are better to target resources at because the University is already working on targeting many lower level courses because they are often part of the GEP.
  14. There was much discussion about how to best gather further data and understanding about bottlenecks as enrollment management is not currently able to fully predict and analyze all bottlenecks. Ideas included talking to some current advisors and departments that track their own bottlenecks, including business as an example.
  15. Discussion then moved towards whether the committee was comfortable in approving how to prioritize funding in the first year of the implementation to give each area receiving funding a starting budget point upon which to consider and propose possible ways to use that funding for their individual areas. There was discussion about creating a buffer for funding that can be used later on by the committee almost as a reserve in case there are additional courses or financial aid needs.
  16. Motion to set broad percentages for the different areas of funding for the first year of implementation as follows:
  17. 25% of funds collected will be targeted towards reducing bottleneck courses
  18. 25% of funds collected will be targeted towards financial aid
  19. 47% of funds collected will be targeted towards the new advising model
  20. 3% of funds collected will be kept as a buffer be directed towards the other areas if needed, as a safeguard.
  21. Motion made by Vida, Seconded by Behselich
  22. Approved unanimously
  1. Further Discussion
  1. Adjournment
  2. Meeting adjourned at 2:20pm