StartingPointsBuilding on SuccessPurdue University Calumet’sStrategic Plan 2007-2012

Results from past initiatives inform future planning.

Success:Building Enrollmentwith Quality Initiatives

Raised admissions standards Attracted more minority students Increased enrollment overall

Test Scores, One Indicatorof Enrollment Quality

919

917

924

923

924

912910

912

914

916

918

920

922

924

926

Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007

Success:

MinorityEnrollment

Domestic Minority

3093

28212889

2935

2602

2411

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007

Success:

Enrollment byHeadcount and FTE

9303

9128

9222 9302 9607

8863

5777

66446371623960715995

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

8500

9000

9500

10000

Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007

Total Enrollment (Headcount) Total Enrollment (FTE)

Success:

Retention and Graduation Rate

NOTE: Graduation rate reported reflects the entering cohort six years prior.

60% 62%64%64%64%62%

15.5%

21.0% 21.3% 23.6% 23.0% 24.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006

Retention Graduation

ProgramFall to Fall

Retention*

Honors 95.8%

Best & Brightest Scholarship 80.92%

Student Employment 77.2%

Supplemental Instruction 75.0%

Freshmen Seminars 69.2%

Academic Recovery Program 55.2%

Retention Initiatives2001-2007 Averages

*All undergraduates in program in fall and returning the next fall.

Success:

RetentionInitiatives

Average Fall-to-Fall Retention Rate

General Population 64.10%

Honors Program (1 yr) 95.83%

Best And Brightest Scholarships (3 yrs) 80.92%

Student Employment (5 yrs) 77.22%

Supplemental Instruction (4 yrs) 75.01%

Freshman Seminars (3 yrs) 69.16%

Academic Recovery Program (2 yrs) 55.19%

NOTE: Number of years represent the length of time since program was implemented.

Success:

A New Way to CalculateGraduation Rates

ICHE seeks new approach to graduation rates

“Efficiency” rates focus on graduating students, not students’ time to graduation

Accounts for part-time students and transfers students

Success:

A New Way to CalculateGraduation Rates

Institution4-year average rates: efficiency vs. time-to-

degree

Liberal Arts 96.4 92.0

National Research 90.2 90.5

Masters I, Tier I 75.3

Master I, Tier II 61.2

Master I, Tier III 50.2

Master I, Tier IV 56.2

Master I, Average 60.7 47.7

Success:

New ProgramsBuild Enrollments

BA Human Development & Family Studies (2001) BA Business (2002) AS & BS Computer Graphics Technology (2003) BS Electrical Engineering (2006) BS Mechanical Engineering (2006) BS Civil Engineering (2006) BS Computer Engineering (2006) MS Technology (approved BOT 2007)

8 new degree programs (2001-2007)1 pending degree program

Success:

ExperientialLearning

April 2007: Purdue Calumet’s Faculty Senate approved experiential learningas a graduation requirement. Set quality standards for every experience.

October 2006: Purdue Calumet’s received a $1.7 million U.S. Dept. of Education Title III grant for faculty development and curriculum designin experiential learning.

Success:

Types of Experiential Learning

ServiceLearning

Experiential LearningUnder-

graduateResearch

Practicum

CooperativeEducation

DesignProject

InternshipCultural

Immersion

CampusLifeSuccess:

Economic Development:Supporting Start-up Companies

Purdue Technology Center:14 clients

Lilly Opportunities for Indiana: 94 interns placed in three years$380,000 supports students and companies to grow

Success:

Centers andInstitutesSuccess:

Centers andInstitutes

WATER INSTITUTE

BP Project on quality ofLake Michigan water

Early warning system againstthreats to critical water systems

Success:

Centers andInstitutes

CENTER FOR ENERGY, EFFICIENCYAND TECHNOLOGY

Improve energy utilization Reduce emissions and costs

Success:

Centers andInstitutes

NavOps

Science program for at-riskstudents in the region

HAMMOND URBAN ACADEMY

Urban Science and TechnologyCharter Academy

Success:

The Future:ContinuingChallenges

Faculty Salary as Compared to Peer Mean

-12%

-15%

-16% -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0%

2005

2006

985

967

957

983

943 943

916

976

939933

900

910

920

930

940

950

960

970

980

990

Fall1997

Fall1998

Fall1999

Fall2000

Fall2001

Fall2002

Fall2003

Fall2004

Fall2005

Fall2006

Graduate Enrollment

-6.1%

Faculty salaries far below meanof peer institutions

Purdue Calumet down 12% from mean in 2005; 15% down from mean in 2006

State funding creates systemic problem Need systemic solution

Faculty and Staff SalariesBelow the Peer MeanThe Future:

10-year enrollment decline (6.1%) In ten years, university doubled

the number of degrees awarded Limited number of programs

with few new programs

GraduateEducationThe Future:

RECOMMENDATIONS

Track admissions and retention data Encourage full-time graduate students Conduct regional needs assessment

GraduateEducationThe Future:

RECOMMENDATIONS

Increase financial support to students Offer accelerated programs Increase distance learning and

web-based coursework

GraduateProgramsThe Future:

Our HedgehogWorking Students

Our passion: Graduating

successful students

What we are good at:flexibility and

predictability in learning environment

Support for working student

Our economic driver:serving Northwest

Indiana

Jim Collins, Good to Great

The Future:

Learning aboutWorking Students

Purdue Calumet students who workmore than 27 hours a week risk…

Withdrawing during the semester Taking a semester off And eventually dropping

out of school all together

The Future:

31% of the 21 and younger students worked more than 30 hours a week(Working Student Research, 2005 & 2007)

11% worked more than 40 hours/week

WorkingStudentsThe Future:

WorkingStudents

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

Age Under 21 Age 21-24 Age 25-29 Age 30 and over

The Future:

WorkingStudents

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14M

ed

ian

Cred

it H

ou

rs

Age Under 21 Age 21-24 Age 25-29 Age 30 and over

The Future:

WorkingStudents

What we learn by interviewingworking students…

They have highly structured routines The work to pay bills, but also for

personal independence They do not see work as having a

negative impact on school. (Work is a given)

The Future:

WorkingStudents

THE INSTITUTION’S RESPONSE…

Support students with predictableand flexible learning environment

Be flexible in course deliveryweb-based learning tools

Be predictable in course scheduling to support students’ academic planning

The Future:

Environmental Scanning:Understanding our history and conditions for future planning

Getting our vision “right” seeing clearly where we want to be

Strategic Planninghas StartedThe Future: