Implementation of Enrollment Management Policy in the CSU

AS-2483-00/AA - January 20-21, 1999

Attachment to AS-2483-00/AA

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the Trustees of the CSU to adopt the following principles when implementing enrollment management practices under conditions of impaction for campuses and programs.

GENERAL:

  • Campus faculty and Senates shall participate fully in developing policy, procedures, and criteria for admitting students.


  • All enrollment management policy, procedures, and criteria shall be widely publicized.


  • Special admissions shall be used to maintain diversity in programs where impaction affects diversity.

  • Each campus shall be allowed to maintain a unique identity and distinctive emphases.


  • The freshmen eligibility index shall remain targeted at the top 1/3 of graduating high school seniors.


  • An appropriate balance between upper and lower division students shall be maintained.


CAMPUS:

  • All policies regarding campus impaction shall be systemwide.


  • Campuses shall accept a diversity of students from within the full range of academically qualified CSU-eligible applicants.


  • A proportion of admissions at every impacted campus may be allocated by the use of supplemental criteria.


  • A proportion of admissions at every impacted campus may be reserved for students within the campus’ service area.


PROGRAM/MAJOR:

  • Criteria for admission to impacted programs/majors shall be designed to ensure a high probability of success for students entering a program but not specifically to reduce the numbers of eligible students.


RATIONALE: Admissions policies go to the very heart of the nature of the CSU and its mission. The faculty believes that discipline faculty should take the lead in identifying standards and criteria for their programs. Access must be a high priority even within impacted majors. Post-impaction enrollment practices should be expected to maintain the kind of diversity already existing on the campus, including diversity of learning styles that is so valuable to the quality of the educational process.

Outstanding applicants––e.g., high school valedictorians and some other U.C.-eligible students––should simply be guaranteed access to the campus and programs of their choice. No student should be compelled to attend a local or regional campus if a place in another campus or program––for which that student qualifies––is sought.

To the greatest extent possible, individual campuses, and/or regional groups of campuses, should be permitted to modify enrollment management practices (within the limits fixed by policy) so as to preserve and enhance the distinctive natures of campus missions (Cornerstones Principle 10).

The system should assist campuses in avoiding impaction by increasing capacity, including, whenever possible, new capital investments in campus classroom, laboratory, library, and housing space. The use of off-campus centers, even centers resulting from creative or synergistic partnerships with other institutions, should not be viewed as a satisfactory substitute for the development, maintenance, and enhancement of CSU campus facilities. In keeping with Cornerstones Principle 1, attempts to increase capacity must not interfere with or reduce in any way demonstrable student learning outcomes, or (in keeping with the Academic Senate CSU’s Study of the Baccalaureate) the quality of the collegiate experience.

Students for whom attendance at a non-regional campus would create a hardship should be given special consideration, but not a firm guarantee, in admission, whether they are high priority transfers or lower priority first-time freshmen. Changes in enrollment management policies and practices should not decrease diversity on any given campus. For example, the use of selective criteria for some applicants that tend to discriminate against a particular class of students should be offset by the use of a process used for another group of applicants that favors such students. (This principle suggests a need for flexibility rather than the application of a uniform set of criteria for the entire population of applicants.)

APPROVED – February 11, 2000



 
Academic Senate Home | Calendar | Search Resolutions | Contact Us | Helpful Links