Performance audit, the universities, the student experience

              -
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
THE UNIVERSITIES:
THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
October 1994
Report 94- 7
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENER& L
October 13,1994
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
Members, Arizona Board of Regents
Dr. Lattie Coor, President
Arizona State University
Dr. Clara Lovett, President
Northern Arizona University
Dr. Manuel Pacheco, President
The University of Arizona
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of
The Universities: The Student Experience. This audit was conducted pursuant to
the provisions of Sessions Laws 1993, Second Special Session, Chapter 1, Section
79. This audit is the first performance audit of the universities to be conducted by
this Office.
Arizona's universities need to do more to raise graduation rates and lower the
time it takes to graduate. Currently, one- half of the students who enroll in
Arizona's universities do not graduate from the university where they first enroll.
Of particular concern is the fact that, compared to other universities, too few of
Arizona's top students graduate. In addition, those students who do graduate
often need more than the traditional four years to do so. Only about 17 percent
of students starting as full- time freshmen graduate in four years.
2910 NORTH 44TH STREET . SUITE 410 m PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 l( 602) 553- 0333 1 FAX ( 602) 553- 0051
October 13, 1994
Page - 2-
To increase the graduation rates and decrease the time to graduation, the
universities must continue to increase course availability and improve academic
advising. Perhaps even more important, the universities need to become more
student centered in their decision- making. With some notable exceptions, many
administrators and faculty simply do not view students as customers of the
universities and, as a result, may not give student needs the priority that is
warranted.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarlfy items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on October 14, 1994.
Sincerely,
Auditor General
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
undergraduate student experience in Arizona universities. This audit was conducted
pursuant to the provisions of Session Laws 1993, Second Special Session, Chapter 1,
Section 79. Ths audit is the first of two audits to be conducted under these provisions.
The universities' mission includes teaching, conducting research, and providing public
service. Over 70,000 undergraduate students were enrolled in the three universities in
fall 1993. State General Fund appropriations, tuition, research grants from federal and
state agencies and private industry, fees, private donations, and a variety of other
revenues finance the universities and their activities. These sources provided the
universities nearly $ 1.6 billion in fiscal year 1993- 94.
Many Students Leave Arizona's
Universities Without Graduating
( see pages 5 through 15)
Although college graduation provides important benefits to both the student and the
state, almost one- half of those who enroll in Arizona's universities as full- time students
do not graduate from the university where they began. About one- fourth of entering
students do not return for their second year, and almost as many leave the universities
later, without graduating. While leaving college without graduating is not a new
problem, nor a problem unique to Arizona, comparisons to other universities show
Arizona can and should improve graduation rates.
We found that more Arizona students of hgh ability leave without graduating than
similar students at other universities. In addition, a faculty study compared each
university's overall graduation rates with rates at 43 universities with analogous
admission standards, and found that Arizona's three universities' graduation rates
ranked 28th, 29th, and 37th. Further, although some university administrators attribute
the low graduation rate to Arizona's broad admission standards, we found many
students who leave are passing their college courses. Better information is needed in
order to understand and correct the loss of students. Currently, the universities have
little data regarding students who leave without graduating.
Universities Can Do More
To Enable Students To
Graduate More Quickly
( see pages 16 through 23)
Few students - for example, only about 17 percent of those who entered as full- time
freshmen in 1985 - graduate in the traditional four years. In addition, many students
accumulate more credits than required by the time they graduate. Delayed graduation
prolongs college expenses for students and parents, and postpones the student's entry
into the adult job market. A combination of student- related factors and institutional
factors causes graduation delay; for example, many students work and attend classes
only part- time, and some students lack a coherent plan or select inappropriate majors.
On the other hand, grade replacement policies, university curriculum decisions, course
availability problems, and poor advisement also contribute to delays. The universities
can do more to address the factors under their control.
The Universities Can Do More
To Address Course
Availability Problems
( see pages 25 through 34)
For many students, graduation is delayed because they cannot gain admission to
required courses. Course availability problems affect more students in the liberal arts
colleges than in other colleges, due to both the number of liberal arts majors and the
liberal arts colleges' role in providing most general education courses for students
throughout the universities. However, other colleges also have availability problems,
especially in junior- and senior- level courses in popular majors. The universities have
taken some steps to improve course availability, but in some cases, the university
responses have not been beneficial to students. For example, one common response,
increasing class size, may resolve availability problems but reduce the quality of
education.
The universities need to give higher priority to undergraduate course availability. They
do not forecast course demand, but make many decisions based on faculty teaching
preferences and concern for university academic reputation. Some administrators stated
that. students should take what is offered; for example, students should take another
language if Spanish classes are filled. This is not only a non- student- centered attitude,
but often an unrealistic one, as students will wait to get the courses they want. In the
long run, the universities will have to take difficult steps, including increasing faculty
workload, reallocating faculty to undergraduate courses, and ensuring unnecessary or
duplicative doctoral programs do not consume resources needed for undergraduate
education.
Student Support Services
Need Improvement
( see pages 35 through 43)
Support services such as academic advising, orientation, and residence life are important
to student success. These services help to integrate students into the social and academic
life of the institution, introduce students to university policies and requirements, and
help students with specific needs such as class scheduling, career counseling, and
tutoring.
1 Many students at Arizona's universities are dissatisfied with academic advising.
Some students, including athletes and honors students, have access to excellent
advising. However, the universities overall have too many students per
professional advisor and do not use faculty effectively. The universities should
reduce the student: advisor ratio, use computers to handle certain tasks, and
reward faculty for good advising.
Orientation programs do not reach enough students. Participation rates at ASU
are much lower than the national average. The universities should consider
making attendance at orientation mandatory.
Students living in residence halls tend to have higher graduation rates than
commuter students because they are more involved in campus activities and have
more relationshps with faculty and peers. The strongest effect on graduation rate
is found in residence halls that offer coordinated programs, including a variety
of academic and other support services such as academic advising, tutoring,
workshops on academic success and study skills, and access to computer facilities.
Although many incoming Arizona students initially live in residence halls, few
residence halls at Arizona universities offer such comprehensive programs.
I
I
I
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
1
I
Table of Contents
Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Finding I: Many Students
Leave Arizona's Universities
Without Graduating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
One- Half of Students
Leave Without Graduating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Graduation Rates Can
BeImproved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Low Graduation Rates
AmongTopStudents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The Universities Should
Study the Reasons
Students Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a 15
Finding II: Universities Can Do
More To Enable Students To
Graduate More Quickly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Students Who Remain Take
Longer Than Four Years
toGraduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6
Students Earn More Hours
Than the Minimum Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 9
Several Factors Influence Time
and Hours to Graduation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Universities Should Take Steps
to Minimize Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table of Contents ( Con't)
Finding Ill: The Universities Can Do
More To Address Course
Availability Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Course Availability Problems
Are Severe for Some Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Some University Responses May Cause
Additional Problems for Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
The Universities Could Show More
Regard for Students as Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Long- Term Solutions Will Require
Making Some Unpopular Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Finding IV: Student Support Services
Need Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Academic Advising Should
Be More Effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 5
Orientation Could
Reach More Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Residence Life Programs
Could Be More Effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 2
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Areas For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
University Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Quality of Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
General Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1 Table 1
I Table 2
I Table 3
I Table 4
I
I Table 5
I Table 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
First Year Attrition:
Percent of Full- time Undergraduate Students
No Longer Enrolled After First Year
Average For Students Who First Enrolled
In 1985 to 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Overall Persistence:
Percent of Students Who Left Without Graduating
After Entering In 1985 As First- Time, Full- Time Students . . . . 8
Six- Year Graduation Rates By Academic ~ bility
Comparison With Other Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Length of Time to Graduate:
Percent of Students Graduating Each Year
After Entering in 1985 As
First- Time, Full- Time Freshmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
Hours At Graduation
By University, By Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
New Student Participation In
University Orientation Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
vii
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
viii
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
undergraduate student experience in Arizona universities. Ths audit was conducted
pursuant to the provisions of Session Laws 1993, Second Special Session, Chapter 1,
Section 79. This was the first performance audit conducted in the universities. Using
a variety of methods, we studied graduation rates and some of the factors that affect
them, and found several ways the universities could improve. In general, we believe
the universities should work to become more student centered in order to improve their
success with today's diverse student population.
Arizona's three universities, all established before 1900, operate under the governance
of the Arizona Board of Regents. The largest, Arizona State University ( ASU), is the
fifth largest university in the nation with 30,178 undergraduate students.( l) The
University of Arizona ( U of A) is nearly as large as ASU, with 26,558 undergraduate
students. Even the smallest, Northern Arizona University ( NAU), is among the top 10
percent in the nation in size, with 13,931 undergraduate students. All three offer a wide
range of baccalaureate, master's, and doctoral degrees. The combined state support for
the universities in fiscal year 1993- 94 was over $ 685 million, and the universities' total
budget from all sources for fiscal year 1993- 94 was nearly $ 1.6 billion.
The universities share a mission to teach, conduct research, and provide public service.
In addition, each fills a unique role in the state. ASU meets the educational needs of
both full- and part- time students in the state's dominant population center, and has a
growing research role. NAU emphasizes undergraduate education on its primarily
residential campus, and provides educational opportunities to teachers and others in
rural areas statewide. U of A is a well- established research university, and provides
cooperative extension and medical school programs.
Universities Need To Be
More Concerned About
Graduation Rates and
Time To Graduate
Arizona's universities lose too many students who leave without graduating, and those
who remain take too long to graduate. University administrators attribute much of the
(' I Figures cited in this paragraph are undergraduate student head counts for fall 1993.
poor graduation rate to the academic ability and preparation of the students they
admit. However, although today's students are not so homogeneous as in the past and
come to the universities with differing levels of preparedness, we believe the
universities have an obligation to do the best they can to provide a college education
to all who are admitted under the Board of Regents standards. As Ernest Boyer, former
U. S. Commissioner of Education, said,
" Re face of young America is changing ... lf our sense of nationhood is to be
strengthened, if a generation of new citizens is to be brought into the mainstream
of American life, colleges and universities must recommit themselves to the task of
equality of opportunity fw all."
Whle we did not conduct extensive work regarding the financial cost of student
attrition and delayed graduation, we believe these costs are very high. Since the state
subsidizes tuition for Arizona residents, there is a direct cost to delayed graduation.
The higher cost, though, is the opportunity cost for students who do not graduate at
all, and forgo the hgher earnings associated with a college degree.
In addition, throughout the audit, we identified a need for the universities to take a
more student- centered approach to decision making. Our observations during the time
we spent on the campuses led us to conclude that undergraduate students are often not
viewed as customers of the universities. In fact, one administrator explicitly told us that
students were not customers of the universities. In his opinion, students are not paying
for their own education, do not know what they need, and should not be presumed to
be " always right." Other administrators and faculty members told us that, although
they viewed students as customers, the concept was unpopular among others in the
university community. Two examples illustrate the consequences of these views. First,
although students complete faculty evaluation forms in each course at the end of the
semester, the results are not available to students. Second, when a department
participated in an experiment that accepted twice the usual number of students into
certain sections of a course and employed a lecture instead of interactive teachng
format in those sections, students were not informed of the experiment. Students who
found themselves in the large lecture sections were understandably resentful.
Lack of student centeredness seems to be a national problem: John White of the
National Science Foundation recently asked educators,
" How long would a firm be in business if it consistently failed to meet its advertised
delivery dates by 25 percent? How long would a firm be in business if its products
failed to satisjij more than half of its customers?"
Although we found instances where students' needs and desires were respected, our
overall sense was that other needs tend to take precedence in decision making.
Recently, the universities responded to a request from the Board of Regents to establish
performance measures in seven goal areas and two outcome measures. Several of the
goals and both outcome measures parallel problem areas highlighted in this report:
class availability, advisement, faculty in undergraduate courses, mentoring by faculty,
graduation rates, and length of time and number of credits required to graduate. The
remaining items - classroom equipment and technology, graduates properly educated
for their chosen fields, and undergraduate research experience - are intended to
further enhance the undergraduate experience in Arizona. The university responses,
submitted to the Board in September 1994, represent a good first step in making
improvements by defining the objectives and target dates for achieving them. These
responses should not, however, be viewed as implementable plans; they simply set
goals and timetables, and ( U of A only) state the general types of actions to be taken.
Because these responses were presented after the end of our audit work, we did not
have an opportunity to examine the responses to ensure the measures would fully
address the issues, or to review the methodology for collecting baseline data and
reporting progress.
Audit Scope
Our audit focused on graduation rates, considered both as persistence ( proportion of
students staying at the universities until graduation) and as length of time and number
of credits required to obtain a baccalaureate degree. The complex and interrelated
factors influencing graduation rates include course availability, student characteristics,
and student support services such as advisement. We conducted in- depth audit work
in each of those areas. Findings I and I1 of this report provide an overview of Arizona's
graduation rates, considered in Finding I as the proportion of students who persist to
graduation and in Finding I1 as the length of time needed to graduate and the number
of credit hours students have earned at graduation. Findings I11 and IV discuss some
of the primary factors impacting graduation rates. Finally, we present areas where
further study is needed.
To ensure broad coverage of the subject matter, we selected the colleges at each
university which among them include the majority of undergraduate students and
represent a variety of fields of study. Most of our audit work was concentrated in the
colleges of business, education, engineering, and the college( s) on each campus that
encompass the liberal arts and sciences, including the social sciences. All of our work
was conducted on the main campuses in Tempe, Tucson, and Flagstaff; we did not
review ASU West, NAU Yuma, or U of A's Sierra Vista campus due to time constraints
and the relatively small numbers of undergraduates at those campuses.
Audit Methodology
We used a combination of several methods to study the issues involved in ths audit.
For example, we
w Reviewed current relevant literature and pertinent studies and reports prepared
by universities,
Met with parents, student leaders, and academic administrators regarding their
concerns,
Surveyed 468 students regarding course availability,
Interviewed 4 to 5 college deans at each university and 9 department chairs
regarding course availability and other issues,
Surveyed all academic departments regarding student advisement,
w Studied class status reports for fall 1993 to determine how quickly classes were
filled,
w Reviewed transcripts of students in the top 10 percent of credit hours at grad-uation
at ASU and U of A, and of NAU students with over 160 credits who
were still enrolled,
w Conducted focus groups with seniors at all 3 universities to discover issues they
consider important, and
Spoke with experts at national organizations and with administrators at other
universities.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the students, faculty, administra-tion,
and staff at all three universities for their cooperation and assistance throughout
the audit.
FINDING I
MANY STUDENTS
LEAVE ARIZONA'S UNIVERSITIES
WITHOUT GRADUATING
Despite the importance of college graduation, one- half of the students who enroll in
Arizona's universities do not graduate from the university where they first enroll.
About one- fourth of the universities' new full- time students leave before the beginning
of their second year, and another one- fourth leave later. Although university officials
have pointed to Arizona's broad admission standards as one explanation, we found that
many students who have high college aptitude test scores ( suggesting they are
academically prepared for college work) leave without graduating. Further research is
needed to determine the causes of student attrition and what additional steps are
needed to address it.
When a student persists through college to graduation, both the student and the state
receive important economic and social benefits. A college degree provides advantages
throughout the graduate's working life, including enhanced earnings, increased
likelihood of stable employment, and generally higher levels of career mobility and
attainment. College students learn to think critically and reflectively, develop cultural
and artistic interests, and expand their intellectual and interpersonal horizons and their
general psychological maturity and well- being. The state needs a well- educated work
force to attract relocating businesses, to increase its taxable revenues, and to meet the
needs of a changing society and the challenge of global competition.
One- Half of Students
Leave Without Graduating
Only about one- half of the students who enter Arizona's universities as full- time
students graduate from the same university within six years. Approximately one of
every four students leaves after completing a year or less of college, and almost as
many leave later, without graduating. In fact, 6,689 of the 14,580 students who enrolled
full- time in Arizona's universities in 1985 left without graduating.
Many students leave college within the first year of enrollment. For example, nearly
110,000 students enrolled for the first time as full- time undergraduate students in the
three Arizona universities from fall 1985 through fall 1991, and over 30,000 of those
students did not return the next year. Table 1 ( see page 7) shows the first- year attrition
rates by university and by category of student.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Table 1
First Year Attrition:
Percent of Full- Time Undergraduate Students
No Longer Enrolled After First Year
Average For Students Who First Enrolled In 1985 to I991
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
ASU NAU UofA Statewide
Fresh men 30.9% 32.1% 24.3% 28.2%
Lower- Division
Transfer( a) 32.1% 30.6% 29.3% 30.9%
Upper- Division
Transfer( b)
23.7X
23.3% 19.7% 22.2%
( a) Lower- division transfer students have obtained 12 to 55 credit hours before enrolling
at the university.
( b) Upper- division transfer students have obtained 56 or more credit hours before enrolling
at the university.
Source: Arizona Cohort Survival Study prepared by the universities for the Arizona Board
of Regents, 1991 enrollments ( prepared December 1992).
Overall, nearly as many full- time students leave their original university without
graduating as graduate from Arizona's universities. As shown in Table 2, of the
students who began as new freshmen in 1985, 49 percent left without graduating by
the end of 6 years. Fewer transfer students in the 1985 cohort left without graduating:
45 percent of those who transferred in as freshmen or sophomores, and 33 percent of
those who transferred in as juniors or seniors. ( The lower rate for transfer students is
partly explained by the fact that many have already survived the critical first year of
college, when one- half of the total attrition takes place.)
Table 2
Overall Persistence:
Percent of Students Who Left
Without Graduating After Entering In 1985 As
First- Time, Full- Time Students
Percent Who Percent Still Percent Who
Starting Number Graduated Enrolled After Left Without
of Students Within 6 Years 6 Years Graduating
Freshmen
ASU 3,762 45.93 6.73 47.34
NAU 1,662 37.06 3.49 59.45
U of A 3,699 47.42 6.11 46.47
Statewide 9,123 44.92 5.89 49.19
Lower- Division Transfer Students ( 13 to 55 Transfer Credits)
ASU 1,759 55.03 3.47 41.50
NAU 56 1 51.52 4.10 44.39
U of A 979 44.84 4.09 51.07
Statewide 3,299 51.41 3.76 44.83
Upper- Division Transfer Students ( Over 55 Transfer Credits)
ASU 1,162 64.29 2.15 33.56
NAU 314 59.87 3.50 36.62
U of A 682 66.72 - 1.47 31.82
Statewide 2,158 64.41 2.13 33.46
Total
ASU 6,683 51.52 5.07 43.41
NAU 2,537 43.08 3.63 53.29
U of A 5,360 49.40 5.15 45.45
Statewide 14,580 49.27 4.85 45.88
Source: Arizona Cohort Survival Study prepared by the universities for the Arizona Board of Regents,
1991 enrollments ( prepared December 1992).
Leaving college without graduating is not a new problem, nor is it unique to Arizona.
The U. S. Department of Education's National Longitudinal Study of the high school
graduating class of 1972 found that 27.8 percent of those who enrolled in four- year
colleges or universities did not return for their sophomore year. More recently, a
national study of 28,000 1980 high school seniors found that 19.7 percent of those who
enrolled in four- year colleges or universities did not return for their tlurd semester. The
study of 1980 seniors found 45 percent of those who went to college left without
graduating by the end of the sixth year.
Graduation Rates
Can Be Improved
Even though graduation rates are a national problem, Arizona's graduation rates can
be improved. Too many of the best students in Arizona's higher education system are
not graduating from the university where they initially enrolled.
Low Graduation Rates
Among Top Students
Some university administrators told us that Arizona's low graduation rates can largely
be explained by the state's broad admission policies. They suggest too many students
are not prepared to succeed academically. However, we found that when compared to
other universities, it is the top students with whom Arizona may be failing most.
Methodology - We compared six- year graduation rates for students of varying
academic ability, measured by college entrance exam scores, withn the Arizona
universities with the graduation rates at universities with similar average scores. We
asked each university to divide their 1987 entering freshmen into ten groups of
approximately equal size, according to their Scholastic Aptitude Test ( SAT) scores, or
American College Test ( ACT) scores converted to SAT equivalents.(')
College entrance exam scores such as SAT and ACT are not perfect predictors of college success. A
combination of test scores and hgh school grades is considered a better predictor, but a comparative
study using high school grades would require information that is not published ( and indeed, is not
retained or tracked by all universities). SAT scores do, however, have a .56 correlation with college
freshman grade point average, and thus provide a reasonably good indication of student preparedness
for college- level work.
Implications of the study - As shown in Table 3 ( see pages 12 through 14) , students
with hgher SAT scores do graduate at a somewhat higher rate than students with
lower SAT scores at the same schools. However, many students whose SAT scores
indicate they are fully capable of university work do not graduate from our universities
withn six years of beginning as full- time students. Far too many students in the top
decile, whose SAT scores are hsgh enough to suggest they might be successful in the
most selective universities in the country, leave our universities without graduating. In
this group, over one- half of NAU's students, one- half of ASU's, and nearly one- half of
U of A's leave their original university without graduating. Although some of these
students may be transferring to other universities, we believe the loss of these students
diminishes our universities and indicates a possible loss of talent to the state. Thus, the
loss of so many capable students should be a cause for concern to the universities, the
Board of Regents, and the Legislature as well as to parents of good students in
Arizona.
When compared with other universities, Arizona universities do relatively well with
students in the lower and middle ranges, but increasingly poorly as student exam
scores increase. U of A had higher graduation rates than the comparison universities
in the six groups with the lowest test scores, and NAU had higher than average rates
in three midrange groups. However, NAU and U of A's graduation rates for the four
groups with the highest test scores were lower than the average rates of the comparison
universities. ASU's graduation rates for the six groups with the highest scores were
lower than the averages at the comparison universities. Thus, many universities below
the highly selective top tier group are also graduating students at a higher rate than
our universities.
Another implication of the study is that, if the best students are leaving at fairly high
rates, simply raising admission standards would not automatically raise graduation
rates to an acceptable level.
Limitations of the study - First, the study does not explain why the graduation rates
are at the current levels. Instead it raises further questions as to why some of Arizona's
brightest students leave and where they go to after leaving our universities.
Second, the comparisons to other universities are subject to greater limitations at the
top and bottom ranges of the table than in the middle. Because there are fewer
universities with very low average SAT scores, the comparisons for the lowest ranges
are less meaningful. On the other hand, the comparison universities for the very top
range include not only such highly regarded public institutions as the University of
California at Berkeley and the University of Michigan, but many prestigious private
universities including Stanford and Harvard. If one is willing to concede that Arizona's
universities cannot, or should not, be expected to compete with the nation's top schools,
then comparisons from the top decile may be unfair.
Administrators suggest only a partial explanation - When presented with the results
of our study, university administrators could not explain the loss of talented students
but suggested that hgher per- student funding contributes to the other universities'
higher graduation rates. For example, in the 33 universities that form the comparison
group for ASU's and U of A's top deciles, average spending per student ranges from
$ 9,248 ( William and Mary, a public university with an 87 percent graduation rate) to
$ 60,623 ( California Institute of Technology, a private university with an 82 percent
graduation rate), with a mean spending per student of $ 24,967. By contrast, U of A
reported per- student spending at $ 9,732, ASU reported $ 7,835, and NAU reported only
$ 6,045.
Results of comparisons in the seventh, eighth, and ninth tiers suggest, however, that
the differences in universities' financial resources do not fully explain Arizona
universities' loss of students with above- average test scores. The comparison universities
in these groups include numerous state universities, where per- student spending is
much lower than in the top tier. Although our research suggests there is a relationshp
between higher spending per student and higher graduation rates, we found that some
universities with lower spending reported higher graduation rates than our universities.
For example, in comparison group 8, two State University of New York campuses spent
less per student than U of A ($ 8,801 and $ 8,050), but reported graduation rates of 70
and 75 percent, respectively, compared to U of A's rate of only 50 percent. Similarly,
the University of Georgia spent less than ASU ($ 7,174) and reported a graduation rate
of 60 percent, compared to ASU's rate of 45.2 percent. A few universities spent less
than NAU, including Mississippi State ($ 5,750) whch reported a graduation rate of 51
percent, compared to NAU's rate of 45.6 percent.
Other approaches confim results - Corroboration for our results was provided by
a study performed by the Arizona Conference of the American Association of
University Professors ( AAUP), who studied the U. S. News and World Report data with
a different method, but with similar results. They compared total graduation rates for
Arizona universities with the rates of national universities that were not hghly selective
and had similar students to Arizona's. U of A ranked 28th in graduation rate out of the
43 universities, ASU ranked 29th, and NAU ranked 37th. The AAUP concluded that
low graduation rates were " not the student's fault."(')
The universities in the AAUP study had midpoint SAT scores between 900 and 1010, a range from
25 points below NAU's midpoint to 25 points above U of A's midpoint. In addition, fewer than 35
percent of their entering freshmen were in the top 10 percent of their high school classes, comparable
to U of A's 30 percent, and ASU's and NAU's 23 percent. The AAUP did not include universities that
reported ACT instead of SAT scores, did not report the percent of freshmen in the top 10 percent of
their graduating classes, or did not report a graduation rate. Our replication of the AAUP study found
that one university, the University of Missouri- St. Louis, was apparently inadvertently left out of the
published results; the figures in ths report reflect our correction of this error.
Further confirmation that poor graduation rates are not entirely due to admitting poorly
prepared students comes from an examination of the academic status of students who
leave. As reported by the universities in the Cohort Survival Study, many students who
leave are in good standing, with a grade point average of 2.00 ( C) or hgher. Of the
students who enrolled as full- time freshmen in 1985 but left without graduating within
7 years, slightly over one- half ( 53 percent at U of A, 46 percent at ASU, and 55 percent
at NAU; or 51 percent systemwide) had a C average. Although students with a C
average are not excelling in their schoolwork, they are certainly not failing academical-ly.
Table 3
Six- Year Graduation Rates
By Academic Ability
Comparison With Other Universities
ASU Percent
( a) ( b) ( c) ( d) - Please see page 14 for footnote text.
U of A Percent
( a) ( b) ( c) ( d) - Please see page 14 for footnote text.
13
( a) Students from the 1987 cohort ( the most recent for which 6- year graduation rates were available) were
divided into 10 approximately equal size groups at each Arizona university, according to their SAT
scores. For students who took the ACT test, the ACT scores were converted to SAT equivalents
based on a concordance table prepared by Educational Testing Service. The SAT score range in each
ranking is unique for the particular university; e. g. NAU's lowest group ranges from 400 to 590, and
U of A's lowest group ranges from 440 to 740. Only freshmen, and students who transferred with less
than 36 credits ( less than 12 at NAU), are required to provide test scores for university admission.
( b) The universities' institutional research staff provided graduation rate information for each group.
( c) We grouped the 200 national universities that provided both SAT and graduation rate data to U. S.
News & World Report by average SAT score to match the SAT score range for each of the groups
of students. Because individual SAT scores are all evenly divisible by 10 ( e. g., 740, 750, but not 745),
comparison universities with odd- numbered average SAT scores were assigned to groups according
to 514 rounding ( e. g., 745 rounded up to 750, and 744 rounded down to 740). We then calculated the
mean graduation rate for each group of comparison universities. SAT information reported to W. S.
News & World Report was based on the entering freshmen class of fall 1992, and the graduation
rates were based on an average for the 1983 to 1986 freshmen cohorts.
( d) Because each university grouped its students independently, the numbers of comparison schools
differ. For example, because NAU's top one- tenth of students began at the 1100 SAT score level, and
ASU's and U of A's at 1180, the 61 comparison universities for NAU's top group includes 28 with
average SAT'S between 11 00 and 11 70, while those universities are in the second or third highest
comparison groups at ASU and U of A.
Source: Auditor General's analysis of data provided by ASU, NAU and U of A Institutional Research
departments, and data regarding other universities as reported in America's Best Colleges: 1994
College Guide published by U. S. News & World Report, 1993.
The Universities Should
Study the Reasons
Students Leave
Better information is needed to understand and reverse the loss of students. Currently
the universities have little data regarding students who leave the universities without
graduating. University studies to date have focused primarily on predicting success for
variously prepared students, instead of on improving graduation rates for all students
who enroll. While these studies have been useful, for example, in determining the high
school course work that will be required in future for university admission, they have
not addressed the question of why students leave without graduating. Until we know
why students leave, particularly the better students and students in good standing,
needed solutions are difficult to develop. We have identified some of the problems
undergraduates encounter in their efforts to earn a degree, and propose some solutions
in the remainder of ths report. However, the universities will ultimately have to take
on the task of discovering and resolving the institutional factors that contribute to
attrition.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Arizona Board of Regents should require the universities to study and report
to the Board and the Legislature within two years why students, and in particular
students of high ability, leave before graduation.
2. The universities should monitor and track on an ongoing basis student attrition ( by
levels of student ability) as compared to similar students at other universities.
FINDING II
UNIVERSITIES CAN DO MORE
TO ENABLE STUDENTS TO GRADUATE
MORE QUICKLY
Few students graduate from Arizona's universities in the traditional four years. Most
of the students who stay until graduation take longer than four years to complete their
studies. Further, many accumulate more credit hours than required by the time they
graduate. Although student- related factors, such as attending classes only part- time or
beginning college without a clear goal, account for much of the length of time to
graduate, the universities can and should take some steps to help students graduate
more quickly.
Delayed graduation affects both the student and the state. College expenses are
prolonged for students and parents. Even if employed full- time during college, a
student typically earns one- third to one- half less than he or she will earn upon entering
the adult labor market, and delayed graduation can reduce the student's number of
years of peak earnings later on. Both students and parents told us they felt the financial
impact of delayed graduation, and the effect on the state's income tax base is obvious.
Students still in school after four years also take up enrollment slots, which could result
in denying entrance to new students when the universities are at enrollment capacity.
Finally, the state subsidy for resident students is extended when the credit hours to
graduation are extended.
Students Who Remain
Take Longer Than Four
Years to Graduate
Few Arizona students who enter the universities as freshmen receive their degrees
upon completion of the traditional four years, even if they begin their studies as
full- time students. In fact, of the students who started as full- time freshmen in 1985,
only about 17 percent graduated in four years. As shown in Table 4 ( see page 18), a
hgher proportion of NAU students graduate in four years, while at U of A and ASU,
five- year graduation is most common.
I
I
IE
P
I
a
I
1
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank) I
1
l
@
I
I
E
I
I
I
Table 4
Length of Time to Graduate:
Percent of Students Graduating Each Year After
Entering In 1985 As
First- Time, Full- Time Freshmen
Cumm. Percent
Percent Percent Still
Grad. In Percent Percent Grad. In Enrolled
No. of 4 Yrs. or Grad. In Grad. In 6 Yrs. After 6
Students Less 5 Yrs. 6 Yrs. or Less Y- rs.
Statewide 9,123 16.75 21.01 7.16 44.92 5.89
Source: Arizona Cohort Survival Study prepared by the universities for the Arizona
Board of Regents, 1991 enrollments ( prepared December 1992).
133% Grad. 5 Yrs.
I% Grad. in 6 Y rs.
The length of time to graduation is more difficult to calculate for transfer students, who
enter with some credit earned at another institution. These students are an important
part of the university picture - 37 percent of all undergraduates statewide who
entered in 1985 came in as transfers. As expected, these students spend fewer years at
the universities than students who enter as freshmen. However, the universities have
no data on how long these students spent at their previous colleges.
Students Earn More Hours
Than the Minimum Required
Many graduates of all three universities earn more than the minimum number of credit
hours for their degrees. Ths affects the length of time required to graduate, is costly
for both the students and the state, and could result in denying admission to new
students if enrollment caps are enforced. A number of factors contribute to the excess
hours. The universities should address the factors under their control before any efforts
are made to penalize students for earning too many hours.
According to university data summarized in Table 5 ( see page 20), many students earn
more credit hours than they need to graduate. University records show that 25 percent
of their graduates earn at least 145 hours by the time they graduate, and 10 percent
earn at least 159 credit hours. For some majors, 159 hours represents about two
semesters more credit hours than the number required for the degree. ( Some majors,
such as Engineering, may require 135 or more credit hours for graduation, but most
majors require between 125 and 135 hours.) On average, transfer students earn more
total hours, including hours transferred in, than students who enter as freshmen.
Table 5
Hours At Graduation
Bv Universitv, Bv Catenorv
Aver. Hrs. 25 Percent 10 Percent
No. of At of Grads. of Grads.
Graduates Graduation Had At Least Had At Least
ASU 1991- 93( a)
Freshmen 3,670 135 141 152
Transfer 8,433 144 152 168
All 12,103 141 148 163
NAU 1992- 93( b)
Freshmen 91 2 135 140 153
Transfer 1,483 142 150 164
All 2,395 139 145 160
U of A 1992- 93( c)
Freshmen 1,926 137 143 154
Transfer 2,466 142 150 164
All 4,392 140 146 159
( a) ASU provided information for a two- year period instead of one year. Figures include all accepted
transfer credits. Includes architecture majors.
( b) Excludes students earning dual degrees. Includes all accepted transfer credits.
( c) Excludes architecture majors ( because the degree requires 166 credits) and students earning dual
degrees. Includes maximum of 72 transfer credits per student.
Source: Data provided to auditors by ASU, NAU, and U of A Institutional Research departments.
Differences in nature of data provided by each university are due to differences in the
universities' data systems.
However, the university data shown above, and similar data provided previously by
the universities to the Board of Regents, actually understates the number of classes a
student takes. In reviewing student transcripts, we found that when a student
withdraws from a class, retakes it for grade replacement, or audits it, the student
records do not reflect the credits for that class. Because NAU has an extremely liberal
grade replacement policy, we found the greatest discrepancy there. When we reviewed
the transcripts of the students identified by NAU as still enrolled after earning at least
160 credit hours, we found recorded credits understated the actual classroom seats in
19 of the 22 cases.
Several Factors
Influence Time and Hours
To Graduation
Delayed graduation, whether the delay is seen in the number of years elapsed or the
number of credits accumulated, results from a combination of student- related and
institutional factors. The individual student's personal and academic characteristics play
a large part in determining whether he or she can graduate in a timely manner.
The number of credits students take each semester may be the largest single factor
affecting the length of time to graduation. Over one- fifth of Arizona students attend the
universities part- time, generally defined as less than 12 credits per semester. Even many
full- time students do not take a high enough course load to graduate in four years: a
student would need to take more than 15 credits per semester to graduate with 125
credits in four years. Because many students work ( recent surveys indicate as many as
60 percent of students report working an average of 20 hours per week), it may be
unrealistic to expect them to take more credits per semester. Further, many students
are older than traditional 18- to 22- year- olds - the number of students over the age
of 35 has increased by nearly 5 times nationally, and in Arizona, the average age for
seniors is 25 - and may have other financial and family commitments that cause them
to interrupt their college careers from time to time, or to take fewer credit hours per
semester.
Other student characteristics also play a part in determining both the length of time to
graduation and number of hours earned. Our review of student transcripts(') suggested
several reasons for excess hours and delayed graduation. For example, some students
struggle with majors they find difficult, so they retake failed classes, take extra classes
to bring their grade point averages up to the minimum required to stay in the major,
or take remedial classes whose credits do not count toward the major requirements.
Many students change majors, and find that classes taken for the earlier major do not
count toward their new graduation requirements. Finally, some students appear to lack
a coherent plan, and end up having taken many classes that cannot be drawn together
to create a degree. Other factors primarily influencing the number of credits earned at
graduation include earning secondary ( high school) teachng credentials in addition to
completing a major in a specific field, such as history; returning to the university after
leaving college for several years; taking military science ( ROTC) courses; earning a dual
degree; transferring from another institution; and simply selecting a major that has
higher credit requirements for graduation.
(') We reviewed transcripts of students with high credit hours at all three universities. At NAU, we
reviewed the 22 still- enrolled students who had already earned over 160 credits. At U of A, we
reviewed 20 students, selected at random from the 10 percent of 1992- 93 non- transfer and non-architecture
students who had earned the highest credits at graduation. At ASU, we reviewed 26
students, selected at random from the top 10 percent ( in credit hours) of all 1992- 93 graduates.
Universities Should
Take Steps to
Minimize Delays
Because the cost of unnecessarily delayed graduation is high, the universities should
study the issues under their control. Decisions made and policies set by the universities
contribute to the length of time and number of hours required to graduate. When
setting policy or establishing requirements, the university should consider the impact
on timely graduation. For example:
Curriculum requirements can result in delayed graduation when they involve
lengthy sequences of specialized courses, or when they define general education
requirements in a way that prevents transfer students or students who change
majors from applying previously earned credits to their degree.
Selective admission policies in certain colleges and departments can create delays
by forcing students who do not meet the standards to take extra classes to raise
their grades or to change to a different major. Students who change majors may
earn extra hours if the new major does not accept all the previously earned
credits, and may take longer to graduate if they have to start at the beginning
of the sequence of classes.
Grade replacement policies can allow students to accumulate excess hours or
take extra semesters, unless they include specific restrictions and the restrictions
are enforced. We found this problem exclusively at NAU.
Withdrawal policies can also delay graduation by allowing students to withdraw
late in the semester to avoid a poor grade, and may encourage the course
shopping that makes demand projection difficult.
When needed courses are unavailable, students may have to stay an extra
semester or more in order to complete the requirements, and may take unneces-sary
courses to fill their class schedules. Finding 111 ( see pages 25 through 34)
discusses this problem in detail.
Poor advisement can lead to delayed graduation, as described in Finding IV ( see
pages 35 through 43). Incorrect advice can lead students to take unnecessary
classes. Other students have not received the benefits of good advisement that
would help them select an appropriate major.
The universities should review and address these issues. For example, more flexible
general education requirements could reduce the number of credit hours earned by
transfer students and by freshmen who need to explore options before selecting a
major. Similarly, there may be room for flexibility in the courses required for some
majors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The universities should review curriculum requirements in light of their impact on
length of time and number of hours to graduation. Particular attention should be
paid to making general education requirements easier to fulfill across majors.
2. The universities should consider the impact on length of time and hours required
to graduate when developing and establishing policies.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
FINDING Ill
THE UNIVERSITIES CAN DO MORE
TO ADDRESS COURSE
AVAILABILITY PROBLEMS
Many undergraduate students are delayed in graduating because they cannot gain
admission to required courses. The universities need to give hgher priority to
undergraduate course availability and begin to forecast course demand. To solve
problems over the long term, the universities will need to enforce minimum faculty
teaclung loads, reallocate faculty from small graduate courses to high- demand
undergraduate courses, and ensure that unnecessarily duplicative programs, especially
at the doctoral level, do not consume resources needed for undergraduates.
Course Availability Problems
Are Severe for Some Students
The inability to get into classes required for graduation severely affects some groups
of students. While problems vary across campuses, significant course shortages exist in
junior- and senior- level courses in some majors.(') The liberal arts and sciences colle,~ es
are more severely affected, although other colleges also have shortages in junior and
senior requirements. Course availability for freshmen and sophomores has improved;
however, problems remain in particularly popular courses.
Waiting fm required courses delays graduation - Wlule information on how many
students attempt to enroll in classes exists for a few groups of courses, none of the
universities could provide comprehensive data on the availability of courses versus
demand. However, the results of U of A surveys, our own surveys, and interviews with
students, parents, and faculty make it clear that for many students, graduation is
delayed due to their inability to get into needed courses. The following comments
illustrate the severity and breadth of the problem:
Student: I'm on a five- page waiting list to get into a class I need to graduate.
(') In order to graduate, students must fill requirements in their major field of study as well as
university- wide or college- wide requirements, such as general education requirements. Generally,
most junior- and senior- level courses pertain to the student's major.
Administrator: The real heartbreak is when you see desperate juniors and
seniors who will take anythng just to graduate on time, but can't get into any
classes.
Student: Many psych classes are only offered only at one time slot each
semester, and, of these, many are offered at the same time of the day. Several
classes that are supposed to be offered are not taught at all. No wonder no one
graduates for six years. This problem is ridiculous.
Administrator: Anyone who believes there are no availability problems is not
in touch with the students. I talk to them when they have tears in their eyes
when they cannot get their courses. I talk to parents on the phone who are
exasperated because their son or daughter is going to spend another semester.
It is absolutely unfair to students and parents not to be able to provide the
courses needed to graduate.
One student in a focus group told us he " stopped- out" for a full semester in his
junior year because he could not get any required classes.
Two U of A surveys also confirm serious problems:
A 1993 study of students in the College of Business and Public Administration
found that 52 percent of 117 upper- division BPA students reported considerable
to major problems with closed professional core courses. Thirty- seven percent
said they will need to attend summer school or delay graduation due to not
getting needed courses.
In a survey of 4,863 students taking the 1991- 92 writing proficiency exam
( primarily seniors), 49 percent reported taking extra time to complete their
studies due to not getting a particular course.
Liberal arts affected m m than professional programs - Overcrowding and course
shortages are more common in the liberal arts and sciences wluch, unlike the
professional programs, have not limited admission through higher entrance require-ments.
More of the bachelor's degrees awarded by Arizona universities are in liberal
arts programs than in any other programs. Additionally, liberal arts colleges teach the
majority of general education requirements, as well as entry- level math, English, and
foreign languages. The other colleges are not free of course availability problems, but
with a few exceptions, seem to have fewer bottlenecks.
Course shortages in the majors and patzinrlargroups of courses - Currently, the most
severe course shortages exist in upper- division requirements for the major in particular
areas of study. Our survey of undergraduates in selected courses identified several
significant availability problems. In fact, in two upper- division classes we surveyed,
over 25 percent of students reported having to wait one semester or more to get into
the class.
Since the universities do not have adequate studies of course supply and demand, they
were unable to provide data indicating the location and magnitude of course shortages.
Thus, to better understand the number of students affected and how they are impacted,
we chose five courses to study: two freshman- level courses studied across the system,
and one course required for a major at each of the three universities. We visited 15
class sections and surveyed a total of 468 students. Although we chose five classes to
investigate, availability problems are not limited to these classes.( l)
Legal, Social and Political Environment of Business ( surveyed U of A only)-
Required of all U of A Business majors; 27.6 percent of students surveyed
reported having to wait a semester or more to get into the course.
Teaching Reading and Decoding Skills ( NAU only) - A core requirement for
Elementary Education majors that must be completed prior to student teaching
in the last semester; 26.5 percent of students surveyed reported having to wait
at least one semester.
Second- semester Spanish - Language requirements vary by university, college,
and the student's major of study. However, many students are required to take
one or more years of a foreign language, and Spanish is among the most popular
choices. The percentage of students reporting having to wait at least one
semester for the class was 14.6 percent at ASU, 3.4 percent at NAU, and 18.4
percent at U of A.
(') Each course was selected to add to our knowledge of the problem. For example, Finite Math is
required for a significant number of students at all three universities. Therefore, we were able to
compare the seats offered, class sizes, etc. between the three campuses. Spanish was chosen to
examine a separate aspect of availability: since Spanish itself is not required, and a student can take
another language instead, we were interested in whether students would wait for Spanish or
substitute another language. The three courses required for students' majors were each chosen from
a different college and a different university, allowing us to show that such shortages are not
extremely localized. We did not choose the five classes in an attempt to identify the worst cases.
Experimental Psychology ( surveyed ASU only) - A required course for
approximately 1,400 ASU psychology majors, and a prerequisite for many
required junior and senior courses; 12.5 percent reported having to wait at least
one semester.
Finite Mathematics - A freshman- level class required of Business majors at all
three universities and of ASU students pursuing a bachelor of arts degree in
Psychology. At ASU we found 5.9 percent of students reporting having to wait
a semester or longer, 6.7 percent at NAU, and 16 percent at U of A.
Some University Responses
May Cause Additional
Problems for Students
The universities have responded in a variety of ways to course availability problems.
While their efforts have helped or will help alleviate course shortages, some responses,
such as increasing class size or employing non- professorial faculty, are not perceived
favorably by students.
Universities have improved availability in some areas - Over the past several years,
the universities have tried to ease student problems in getting required courses. All
three universities have put effort and money into improving the availability of
freshman courses.
In the past two years, ASU reports it has reallocated $ 3.5 million to address course
availability problems. ASU appears to have reduced availability problems in general
studies courses and is considering the feasibility of a general studies degree, which will
allow students a more flexible bachelor's program.
Perhaps because it has had the most serious availability problems, U of A is ahead of
the other universities in studying availability. U of A has conducted several student
surveys, is creating longitudinal data, and is projecting demand for general education
requirements. Using the data on supply and demand, U of A has added hundreds of
seats in key general studies areas.
Finally, although not a direct response to availability, NAU's curriculum allows
students more choice in classes meeting general education requirements and is more
likely than the U of A and ASU curriculums to allow the courses to count toward
another major should the student make a change.
Some university responses may negatively impact students - Whle some of the
university efforts have been successful, others may have negative impacts of their own.
Increasing class sizes and hiring more teachng assistants and non- professorial faculty
may lower the quality of education.
Increased class size can reduce the quality of education. While increasing the size of a
class is an expedient and inexpensive way to improve availability, in many cases, the
cost is paid by the student who has less opportunity for interaction and individual
attention. Two examples of how increasing class size leads to negative impacts on
students are:
To accommodate high demand for Finite Mathematics, in the fall of 1993 ASU
offered 7 classes of 140 students each ( 980 seats). By comparison, U of A offered
17 sections of 30 or 35 students each ( 585 seats). Although U of A has more
availability problems in ths course than ASU, U of A has actually made a
greater resource commitment and more effort to preserve quality. An administra-tor
at U of A told us that when the university reduced entry- level math courses
from approximately 75 students per class to 35, grades increased, and fewer
students dropped the course. At ASU, both a professor teaching the course and
the Math Department chair said that 140 students in a math class is not optimal
for student learning.
In lower- division Spanish classes, responding to pressure from freshmen facing
closed classes ( and their parents), U of A increased fall 1993 class sizes by 25
percent. However, a few years earlier, to reduce the pressures on the graduate
teachng assistants, the Spanish Department made computer- graded homework
and testing necessary to complete the course. When class sizes were increased
in 1993, there were not enough computers to accommodate the students, and the
drop rate increased by 50 percent.
Another university response to availability problems ( especially at ASU and U of A)
is to rely more heavily on teaching assistants ( TA's) and adjunct faculty for undergrad-uate
instruction. As discussed in Finding IV ( see page 35 through 43), contact with
professors is important for student retention. Most faculty and administrators would
agree that as juniors and seniors, students should be taught by tenured or tenure- track
professors. However, at U of A, professors are teachng only 52.7 percent of junior- level
lecture courses and 67.9 percent of senior- level lecture courses. At ASU, the percentages
are 69 percent and 80 percent, respectively. At NAU, students enjoy relatively frequent
contact with professors and according to the 1993 JLBC Faculty Workload Study, NAU
professors spend hgh levels of time in the classroom.
The Universities Could
Show More Regard for
Students as Customers
Overall, the universities need to make undergraduate course availability a hgher
priority and begin to forecast course demand. Some administrators and faculty exhbit
a cavalier attitude toward undergraduate course preferences, instead making decisions
based on faculty teachng preferences and concern for university reputation.
Course demand data is needed - With the exception of the efforts in general
education at U of A, we found course demand projections were incomplete or
non- existent.(') When we asked department chairpersons how they decided the number
of course sections to offer, we were told decisions were based on either who was
available to teach or what had been offered in the past. In some cases, department
chairs did not know whch other majors required the course they were offering. Others
told of instances where outside colleges or departments had added a course
requirement without the knowledge of the department offering the course, resulting in
hundreds of students with unmet demand. Two chairpersons estimated that the true
demand for the required course they were offering might be double the number of seats
available per semester.
Course needs of underpduutes should be given higher priority - Although
administrations at all three universities have initiated major efforts to improve the
undergraduate experience, it will take time for widespread acceptance of students as
customers. In U of A's TQM effort, over 140 administrators were encouraged to view
students as the primary customer base. In our interviews with over 12 deans, 9
department chairs, and over 10 top- level administrators across the three universities,
we found many people do not yet accept ths view. We were surprised that several we
interviewed expressed the view that students should take what is offered, and the
university should not be expected to fill demand for specific courses. For example, one
official told us that the university should not be expected to fill the demand for Spanish
- that the value of a language is the process of learning it, rather than using it for a
practical purpose, and the students should fill seats in open languages such as Persian
or Greek. ( A student in the NAU student focus group compared ths attitude to going
into a clothing store and being told, " we don't have your size; we don't have your
color; but we have this one in mauve" and then being expected to take the shirt and
pay for it.) However, student behavior does not coincide with the view that they
Every semester, NAU measures the percentage of course requests fulfilled for students preregistering.
In the fall of 1994, NAU was able to fulfill 91 percent of courses requested at preregistration. While
we believe that this is an important performance indicator and believe that 91 percent may be good
performance, we do not consider the measure to be a comprehensive demand forecast because it
reflects the experience of only 8,643 of the approximately 15,000 fall enrollees.
should take open classes. Instead, many students simply wait to get the subject of their
choice, even if it means delaying graduation.
Long- Term Solutions
Will Require Making Some
Unpopular Changes
Undergraduate course availability can be improved without funding increases. Solutions
include increasing faculty teachng load, reallocating faculty from specialty and
graduate courses to undergraduate courses, and eliminating unnecessarily duplicative
programs, especially at the doctoral level, across the university system. All these
changes are difficult given the university culture and reward system.
Faculty teaching load - To increase faculty available to teach undergraduate courses,
the universities should begin to enforce a minimum average teaching load at the
department level. While NAU professors spend high levels of time in the classroom,
professors at both ASU and U of A are teaching less than two lecture sections per
semester on average, and some departments teach far less than the university average.(')
According to internal university memorandums, two lecture sections per semester is a
reasonable average teaching load standard for academic departments, even for those
with active research engagements. Thus, the two- course standard should be a minimum
average per department. Ths would result in a university- wide average of above two
lecture sections per semester.
ASU data for fall 1992 show the average teaching load for professors as 1.92.
However, some ASU departments are far below a 2.0 average. For example, in
Physics, Zoology, and Chemistry, professors taught less than 1.2 lecture sections,
and both the Departments of Economics and Public Affairs averaged less than
1.5 lectures. In contrast, the Department of Foreign Languages averaged 2.5
lecture sections.
At U of A, during fall 1993, professors taught an average of 1.63 lecture sections,
18.5 percent below the 2- course standard. The U of A average also varies greatly
by department, with some departments averaging far less; for example, the
teaching load averaged near or less than 1.5 in Psychology, English, and
Chemistry. On the other hand, the Departments of Classics and Teacher
Education averaged 2.6 and 2.4, respectively.
Our analysis of teaching load examined the number of lecture sections that professors teach. Due to
the student focus of this audit, we did not do an extensive examination of the teachng loads of
non- professorial faculty. Also, NAU was not included in the analysis ( see page 32 for explanation).
NAU professors spend acceptable levels of time in the classroom. According to
the 1993 JLBC Faculty Workload Study, NAU faculty spent more time in
classroom instruction than U of A and ASU, and 36 percent more time than at
NAU's peer institutions. Further, the teachng load data we reviewed at the
department level, and interviews and focus groups with NAU students, did not
indicate a problem with faculty teaching load. Therefore, we did not request
university- wide faculty workload data at NAU.
While our teaching load analysis provides insight into potential gains from adherence
to minimum teachng loads, more research needs to be done. Significant gains can be
made through optimizing faculty time. For example, if ASU and U of A were at a 2.0
lecture- course- per- semester average for the semesters we analyzed, it would equate to
100 additional lecture sections at ASU and 422 at U of A. Further, these added sections
would be taught by professors as opposed to TA's.
Reallocation of faculty to high h n d courses - While adherence to teaching load
minimums can improve course availability, a portion of teaching resources needs to be
reallocated from small specialty and graduate courses to undergraduate courses.
However, ths is not a popular solution with faculty.
Understandably, some faculty members would prefer to teach a class of 15 in their
specialty rather than a 300- person introductory class. Not only is teachng the course
itself more gratifying, the university community appears to consider teaching these
classes as more prestigious than teachng introductory courses. Whle data on minimally
enrolled courses were not readily available, our analysis of an internal ASU report for
the 1991- 92 academic year showed 17 percent of courses did not meet minimum
enrollment standards. These are primarily graduate courses or highly specialized upper-division
courses. One college dean told us that, aside from putting more money into
the system, the greatest gains in undergraduate course availability will come from
reallocating professors from small graduate and specialty courses.
The universities and the regents must continue to develop systems that elevate the
importance of faculty involvement in undergraduate education. According to
administrators, U of A is beginning to take several actions in this regard: the stipu-lation
of undergraduate teachng has been added to new faculty contracts; administra-tion
is actively monitoring courses below minimum enrollment standards and
reallocating faculty to undergraduate classes; and deans' performance evaluations will
be based on their ability to measurably increase the presence of professors in
undergraduate classrooms. Additionally, the Board of Regents has asked the universities
to develop plans to increase the importance of teaching in the faculty reward system.
Reallocation of resources between p o p m s , colleges, and universities - While the
discussed changes will help to improve course shortages for undergraduates, ultimately
the universities, the Board of Regents, and the state will need to reallocate resources.
Specifically, they will need to identify programs of strategic importance and cut others
- especially eliminating doctoral programs unnecessarily duplicated at more than one
university.
Across the nation, students, parents, taxpayers, and legislators are demanding that
universities provide a better product for the same or less cost. Experts believe that the
pattern of continual increases in funding for public universities has ended and will not
return. Additionally, the student population at Arizona's universities is approachng or
exceeding approved enrollment caps, making timely graduation increasingly important.
Given these factors, the universities need to identify programs that are key to their
mission and prepare to cut others. Faculty and administrators at all three campuses told
us that the key to having resources for undergraduate education is in clearly focusing
the mission of each campus and limiting its doctoral programs accordingly. As one
university administrator expressed:
" The real issue here is how many graduate programs do we need in the state in the
same specialization. This is the macro solution to the resource constraints impacting
course availability and the quality of education."
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The universities should commit to resolving the problem of undergraduate course
shortages by taking the following actions:
Identify the location and magnitude of course shortages, project supply and
demand, establish benchmarks for satisfactory availability, and direct
resources to unsatisfactory areas;
Enforce a minimum average faculty teaching load per department and direct
resulting resources to high- demand undergraduate courses; and
Reduce the number of specialty courses and courses with low enrollment and
direct resources to high- demand undergraduate courses.
2. The universities, the Board of Regents, and the Legislature need to continue
discussions regarding the missions and program focus of the three universities to
eliminate unnecessary duplication of programs, primarily at the doctoral level.
Further study or audit work should be considered.
3. The Legislature should consider additional study of faculty teaching loads to
understand the implications for course availability and graduation rate.
FINDING IV
STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES
NEED IMPROVEMENT
Student support services at Arizona's universities need improvement. Support services
such as academic advising, orientation, and others are important to student achieve-ment
and persistence to graduation. Although some university programs have been
successful in meeting students' needs, more needs to be done.
Effective student support services improve student achievement and persistence to
graduation. Support services help to integrate students into the social and academic life
of the institution by encouraging meaningful contact with peers, university faculty, and
staff. Although the universities have hundreds of programs providing important
support services to students, due to time constraints we limited our review to academic
advising, new student orientation, and residence life.
Academic Advising Should
Be More Effective
Advisement, an important component of a student support system, could be improved
at all three universities. Advisement entails two components: prescriptive advising helps
students schedule classes, understand university requirements, and learn about other
support services on campus such as tutoring. Developmental advising helps students
clarify their educational and career goals and develop an appropriate overall academic
plan. Students expressed general dissatisfaction with advisement, and we found that
the advising systems at all three universities had serious problems including high
student- to- advisor ratios, ineffective use of faculty, and an inadequate reward structure.
Although there are some model academic programs at each of the universities that
provide good advising, changes are needed to improve academic advising overall.
During the audit, we found that each of the three universities structure and deliver
academic advising differently. We found that advisement differs from college to college
witlun each university, and from department to department within the colleges.
Many students are dissatisfid with advising - Although research has shown that
quality academic advising can have a substantial effect on student persistence, many
students are dissatisfied with the academic advising they receive. Recent surveys
conducted by U of A and ASU found many of their undergraduate students were
displeased with advisement: 42 percent at ASU said they were dissatisfied with the
academic advising they had received; about 30 percent at U of A were dissatisfied with
the availability of their advisors and 40 percent felt getting the information they needed
was a " considerabld' or a " big" problem. Satisfaction with advisement was somewhat
hgher at NAU; however, 15 percent of the students at NAU said they were
" dissatisfied or " very dissatisfied with the quality of faculty advising they received.
In addition, when we held student focus groups at all three universities, many students
openly expressed dissatisfaction with advisement. Some of the students we spoke with
said they had received conflicting advice from different advisors, or had taken
unnecessary classes based on inaccurate advice. Others described obstacles to getting
the best advice, including a faculty member who flatly told a student he didn't have
time for him.
Several factors hamper effectiveness - The academic advising systems at all three
universities have problems that detract from their effectiveness. Our extensive review
of the literature on academic advising suggests that a comprehensive system of
professional, faculty, and peer advisors is most effective. Although all three universities
have advising svstems that rely on this combination to one degree or another, we
found them to be impaired by hgh student- to- professional advisor ratios, ineffective
use of faculty, and inadequate reward structures.
High student- to- professional advisor ratios - According to experts familiar with
good academic advising programs, the ratio of students per full- time professional
advisor should not exceed 300: l. However, we found that ASU and U of A
exceed ths ratio by as much as two to three times. Estimates of NAU's student-per-
full- time- professional advisor ratio is also in ths range. Further, we found
some colleges and departments at ASU and U of A with ratios greater than 1,000
students per full- time professional advisor. High ratios can prevent advisors
from providing quality advising or monitoring and helping students who are
having academic problems. For example, advisors at one university told us they
receive mid- semester reports identifying students who are experiencing academic
problems, but the advisors do not have enough time to follow up and work with
these students. University officials, staff, and students told us that hgh student-to-
advisor ratios have been problematic.
Ineffective use of faculty - Although faculty play an essential role in a compre-hensive
advisement system, many departments rely on faculty to provide the
kinds of advisement that could be offered by full- time, professional advisors.
Faculty are uniquely qualified to advise and mentor students in matters central
to their academic discipline, such as recommended programs of study,
graduation requirements for the major, and graduate school and career options.
However, faculty advisors told us they spend too little time providing this kind
of developmental advising and spend too much time advising students on
prescriptive matters such as general education or administrative requirements,
which professional advisors are trained and qualified to provide. Since 43
percent of faculty, according to the results of our survey, spend less than 5
percent of their time advising undergraduate students, having faculty provide
prescriptive advising may not be particularly effective. Furthermore, a consultant
lured by ASU to review its advising system found that many faculty at ASU
seem to be " willingly disengaged from the academic advising process" and that
perhaps faculty would become more willing participants if they were relieved
of the " mundane and clerical tasks they currently associate with advising."
Our survey of academic departments also found that more than two- thirds of the
advisors at each of the three universities do not receive mandatory training in
academic advising. Further, some departments also rely on administrative assistants
or graduate students to advise undergraduate students on some matters.
Inadequate rewards for advisors - Despite statements supporting the importance
of academic advisement, the universities have not implemented a tangible system
of rewards for good faculty advisement. Although some individual programs at
each of the universities reward high- quality advising during promotion and
tenure reviews, university administrators, faculty, and staff told us that good
advising often goes unrewarded. In fact, a recent internal report on advising at
NAU confirmed that there have been instances in which faculty have been told
that continuing to perform as an advisor might seriously hamper their advance-ment
in rank and tenure. We were told of similar experiences at ASU and U of
A as well.
Sow programs provide good advising - During our review, we identified a number
of programs at each of the universities that provide students with hgh- quality
academic advising. Effective programs have advising systems that utilize the expertise
of faculty and professional advisors to provide students with clear and accurate
advisement during critical periods throughout the student's academic career. For
example;
One academic department adopted a comprehensive advising plan, involving
faculty and a full- time professional advisor, in order to address a 600 percent
increase in majors over a 4- year period and to improve the overall quality of
advising. Previously, a faculty member was responsible for advising all
undergraduate students. Today, however, all department faculty provide
developmental advising and serve as mentors to approximately 25 students each.
A professional advisor now provides prescriptive advising to students and
supports the faculty by handling administrative matters and providing updated
information and training. In addition, the professional advisor coordinates
several social activities, including a monthly newsletter and a student reception
at the beginning of each fall semester. The department chair told us that the
complementary roles of faculty and a professional advisor at the department
level provide students with the breadth of assistance they need to accurately
plan and attain their academic and career goals.
An intercollegiate athletic department, in an effort to improve graduation rates,
assigns all student- athletes to an academic counselor. The department serves
approximately 500 student- athletes with 4 full- time academic counselors, a ratio
of about 125: l. Academic counselors help students focus on an area of study
early in their academic career and actively monitor student progress through
frequent meetings with the student and progress reports sent to the student's
professors three times each semester. According to a 1993 Official National
Collegiate Athletic Association ( NCAA) Graduation Rates Report, the university's
6- year graduation rate for student athletes has steadily increased, from 32
percent in 1990- 91 to 52 percent in 1992- 93. The Athletic Department's Director
of Academic Programs attributes the increase in graduation rates partly to the
support programs available to student- athletes.
Changes are needed to provide good advisement to all students - The universities have
demonstrated that successful advisement can be acheved through a coordinated,
committed effort at the department level. While all three universities have taken some
steps to improve academic advising for all students, they have yet to resolve fundamen-tal
problems, including reducing high student- to- full- time professional advisor ratios,
utilizing faculty more effectively, and implementing a tangible system of rewards for
good advising. In an effort to improve advising, the universities should consider several
options; for instance:
The universities could improve the quality of advisement by encouraging faculty
to become more involved in the academic advising process. To accomplish this,
the universities may need to bolster professional and peer advising staff in order
to relieve faculty of the tedious and time- consuming paperwork they currently
associate with advising. With adequate professional and peer advising support,
faculty advisors could spend more time providing students with much needed
developmental advising and mentoring.
In addition, the universities could improve the quality of advisement, and
possibly student persistence and graduation rates, by developing a computerized
information system, or " degree audit," that is readily accessible to all advisors
and students and is able to track student progress through a myriad of curricular
requirements. Thus, the automated system could compare a student's transcript
with degree requirements in any given field of study and determine what classes
the student needs to complete. An expert familiar with degree audit systems
explained that such a system could provide advisors with timely, accurate, and
complete information on increasingly complex and constantly changing
requirements. Moreover, the system could allow professional advisors to spend
more time interacting with students and monitoring their progress toward
graduation. At present, none of the three universities have a " degree audit"
system in place, though U of A is planning to implement its " On- Course" degree
audit system during the 1994- 95 academic year.
Finally, to improve advisement the universities should implement a tangible
system of rewarding faculty for providing good advisement to students.
Rewarding high- quality advisement may encourage faculty to become more
willing participants in advising.
Orientation Could
Reach More Students
Like academic advising, new student orientation is important to student success and
persistence to graduation. Although all three universities encourage new students to
attend orientation, student participation is poor at ASU, in particular. To improve
student participation in orientation, changes are needed.
Purpose of mientation - Orientation introduces students to academic policies and
requirements of the university, helps students with business matters such as paying
tuition or obtaining student loans, and provides students with general information
about the campus, university hstory and traditions, and social activities. Each of the
three universities offer students one- to two- day formal orientation sessions during
spring and summer, as well as extended orientation activities before or during the
beginning of the fall semester. Literature on student retention suggests that such
orientations can significantly improve student satisfaction, leading to better grades and
hgher graduation rates.
Student participation in orientation is poor - Freshman and transfer student participa-tion
in orientation at ASU is significantly lower than other institutions of similar size.
We analyzed data collected by the National Orientation Directors Association ( NODA)
from more than 300 small, medium, and large four- year colleges and universities and
compared the results with data from each of Arizona's universities, as shown in Table
6 ( see page 41).
A couple of factors may contribute to low student participation in orientation at ASU,
in particular. For example, ASU does not require any of its students to attend ori-entation.
U of A, on the other hand, requires some students who are considered to be
at greater risk of not persisting to attend orientation. According to the National
Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience, orientation needs to move from an
optional to a required status in all universities. Many institutions that have mandatory
orientation also have first- year persistence rates that are higher than average.
In addition, ASU's formal summer orientation sessions begin in late spring, but end by
the first week of July. By contrast, U of A's summer orientation sessions are available
throughout the months of June, July, and August, which gives students, especially those
who decide to enroll weeks before the beginning of classes, a greater opportunity to
attend.
Finally, the universities should continue their efforts to improve transfer student
participation in orientation by tailoring sessions to meet their needs. All three of the
universities have developed orientation sessions that acknowledge the uniqueness of
transfer students and highlight academic and student support services of particular
interest. Transfer student participation in orientation, however, remains considerably
lower than for new freshmen.
Table 6
New Student Participation in
University Orientation Sessions
( Percent of New Students in 1991 - 92)
Large Institutions
( 1 5,000 Students or More)
ASU UofA Nat'l Ave.
New Transfers 28 65 53
Medium Institutions
( 5,000 to 15,000 Students)
100 r I
( a) According to NAU administrators, NAU staff submitted inaccurate student participation
data to NODA for fall 1991 orientation. While unable to substantiate 1991 data provided
by NAU, we were able to validate data for fall 1994 orientation, which showed a much
/ higher rate of participation than previously reported by NODA. Thus, this table reflects
1 fall 1994 orientation data as provided by NAU.
I Source: National Orientation Directors Association, Data Bank, 1992- 93, and data pro- 1 vided by NAU's Institutional Research department.
Residence Life Programs
Could Be More Effective
Residence Life Programs can also impact student success. Although the majority of
Arizona's students live off- campus, many new students live on campus, at least
initially. During fall 1993, approximately 50 percent of new students enrolled at ASU
and U of A and about 75 percent of new students at NAU lived in residence halls.
Research shows comprehensive programs for these students can improve their academic
achievement and ultimately, graduation rates.
Nationally, resident students tend to have higher persistence and graduation rates than
students living off- campus. Research on student retention suggests, however, that
residence halls that have purposefully designed programs that integrate the student into
the intellectual and social life of the institution have the strongest effect on academic
achievement and persistence to graduation. ASU's Freshman Year Experience ( FYE)
illustrates the nature of these effective programs:
In fall 1993, ASU's Office of Student Development and Residential Life
established the FYE program, which provides students easy access to a variety
of academic and support services within the residence hall. For instance,
residents can access academic advising, individual and group tutoring,
workshops on academic success and study skills, university courses, computer
facilities, and other campus resources withn the hall. In addition, all first- year
students, regardless of their place of residence, are eligible to participate in any
FYE program or service. Currently, ASU has two FYE residence halls housing
approximately 800 new students. Early indications suggest the program is
benefiting students academically as well as helping them adjust to university life.
ASU has plans to convert other residence halls to the FYE program and has
established a pilot project to monitor the program's effect on student persistence
and graduation rates. The total budget for renovation, equipment, and staffing
for the FYE program is about $ 140,000.
Similarly, U of A and ASU have residence halls that offer more comprehensive
academic and support services for certain students, such as those living in honors halls
or halls that are based on cultural or ethmc themes, than are available to students
living in other residence halls. However, we found few residence halls that have
comprehensive programs purposefully designed to reinforce student academic
achevement and foster a sense of community. Residence Life programs, particularly at
NAU and U of A, could do more to reinforce academic achevement. In fact, a recent
survey of students living in residence halls at U of A found that students perceived the
residence halls as providing little academic support.
To develop comprehensive programs witlun residence halls, officials at NAU and U
of A believe there needs to be greater coordination with other academic and student
support services on campus. In addition, the universities will need to create adequate
space for additional support services, possibly by renovating some existing residence
halls.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. To improve student satisfaction, persistence, and graduation rates, the universities
should make academic advising more effective by:
Reducing student- to- professional advisor ratios;
Developing a comprehensive advising model, in which faculty and profession-al
advisors work together to advise students on topics in which they are
uniquely well qualified; and
Implementing a tangible system of rewards for faculty providing good
advising.
2. The universities should consider making orientation mandatory for all new students.
3. The universities should encourage residence life to do more to reinforce student
academic achievement and foster a sense of community withn all residence halls.
AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY
During the course of our audit work, we identified several areas where further study
is needed.
University Resource Allocation
The funding formula for the universities, which is based on the number of student
FTE's enrolled in classes on the 21st day of the semester, may contribute to some of the
problems we discovered. According to a 1993 article in Change magazine:
"... lengthening time- to- degree gets much of its inertial drift fiom the fact that it
confmms only too well to the immediate needs of all the majm groups present on
campus. Adrninistratms of public institutions gain mme FTE- basedfunding and thereby
some relief fiom budgetary constraints ... Only parents and state governments care very
much about the cost implications, and their concern is too global to influence the
minutiae of practice that result in the lengthening."
Thus, the way universities are funded today provides little incentive to graduate
students " on time."
Additional audit work could focus on program duplication, resource allocation, and the
funding formula. Recent critiques of hgher education in America have suggested that
a resource allocation imbalance favors research and graduate students over undergradu-ate
students. Several of the problem areas we identified, including lack of sufficient
courses and excessive student: advisor ratios, may result in part from a lack of funding.
University administrators told us that lack of money caused these problems, citing
funding cuts during the past few years. However, we did not conduct extensive audit
work regarding university funding, so we do not know if the universities already have
resources that could be redirected to address these problems.
Quality of Instruction
Students, their parents, and some faculty raised the issue of quality of instruction at the
universities. Although the current presidents and provosts have placed lugh priority on
undergraduate ( especially freshman) education, some faculty say the universities have
not yet developed reliable methods for evaluating and rewarding professors for their
teachng abilities. As with most of the issues raised in tlus report, ths is a national
issue: critics of lugher education state that " teaching is shunned in the name of
research." Tenure decisions here and elsewhere are based largely on research
contributions, partly due to the ease of measuring research grants and counting
published articles compared to the difficulty of assessing teachng. The quality of
instruction has obvious implications for the universities' graduates, who go on to
become, among other things, teachers in the state's elementary and hgh schools.
Without further study, though, the quality of instruction and, indeed, the quality of
education at Arizona universities cannot be accurately measured.
Although some students were satisfied with the quality of teaching they received from
teaching assistants, others were dissatisfied and preferred courses taught by professors.
Dissatisfied students felt the screening process for teaching assistants should be
improved. One remarked, " knowledge of the subject matter alone is not enough."
Because teaching assistants perform every teaching function in some cases, including
lecturing, holding discussions, and determining student grades, the quality of teachng
assistants, as one parent said, " ultimately impacts the quality of education."
As discussed in Finding I11 ( see pages 25 through 34), the universities have sometimes
increased class sizes to relieve course availability problems. Some of the students we
spoke with felt that large classes were impersonal and impaired their learning. Large
class sizes restrict students' contact with professors, and may limit the instructor's
ability to use essay exams and assign term papers that provide more opportunities for
personalized feedback than multiple choice tests. Some students told us they had
encountered these large class sizes at all course levels. While it is common practice to
teach some introductory, freshman- level classes in a large lecture format, students
expect smaller classes at the junior and senior level. In these upper- division courses the
subject matter is narrower and covered in more depth in order to prepare students for
professional work or graduate study in the subject.
General Education
Additional study is needed to determine whether the universities can improve
implementation of general education requirements to alleviate the excess hours and
course availability problems. Evaluation of the requirements themselves may also be
appropriate, in the context of a national movement to reform the general education
curriculum.
General education consists of courses students take outside their major fields in order
to improve their skills and place their knowledge in perspective. Recently, universities
all over the country have clarified the goals of general education and defined more
rigid requirements to ensure students achieve them. Each of Arizona's three universities
has taken its own approach to general education, requiring work in " core areas and
awareness areas" at ASU, " foundation studies and discipline studies" at NAU, and
" basic proficiencies and study areas" at U of A. Further, some colleges and departments
specify a narrower set of acceptable general education classes for their own students.
The complexity and variation in general education requirements contributes to delayed
graduation, excess credit hours earned, and course availability problems. Students who
change majors may face different general education requirements and be unable to use
courses already taken. Students who transfer in from community colleges or other
universities often have credits that they cannot apply toward their graduation
requirements. Departments such as English and Mathematics provide classes for
students from all over the university, in addition to their own students, making
demand prediction difficult, and contributing to course availability problems.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
I
I ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
2020 NORTH CENTRAL, SUITE 230
I PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004
( 602) 229- 2500
s October 12, 1994
Douglas R. Norton, Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
291 0 North 44th Street, Suite 41 0
Phoenix, AZ 8501 8
Dear Mr. Norton:
Responses from the Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona State
University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of
Arizona to your report on The Universities: The Student
Experience are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunities you
have provided for us to discuss preliminary drafts of this report and
your offer to include these responses in the text of the published
report.
Sincerely,
Frank H. Besnette Lattie F. Coor
Executive Director President
Arizona Board of Regents Arizona State University
Manuel Pacheco Clara M. Lovett
President President
The University of Arizona Northern Arizona University
I THE UNlVERSlN OF ARIZONA
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85721
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
TEMPE, ARIZONA 85287
NORTHERN ARIZONA UNlVERSiN
FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86011
University and Board of Regent Responses
To the Findings and Recommendations of
The Universities: The Student Experience
Arizona's public universities and the Arizona Board of Regents welcome the Auditor
General's report on the undergraduate student experience. Although findings in the
report are often based upon partial data, small samples, questionable analysis and
anecdotal evidence, they reiterate some of the concerns regarding academic and
student service issues that have been identified and analyzed by the universities and
the Board over the last several years. While some of the recent studies, change
initiatives and resource reallocations at the universities have been ignored or given
only passing mention, the report does recognize the universities' Board- approved
goals for addressing those issues as " a good first step in making improvements."
These measurable goals were based upon several years of study and discussion and
were developed specifically to link faculty teaching effort to improvement of the quality
of undergraduate education.
The issues raised in the Auditor General's report serve to underscore the
appropriateness of the goals and the relevance of the performance measures that
have been developed by the universities. As described below, the general, outcome-oriented
recommendations contained in the audit report mirror the measures
developed by the universities for improving the quality of undergraduate education.
However, while some of the more specific, process- oriented recommendations
contained in the report are currently being implemented by one or more of the
universities, there are others that are misinformed and would not help the universities
to achieve the detailed goals approved by the Board.
ISSUE I GRADUATION RATES
Audit Findina I: Many Students Leave Arizona's Universities Without Graduating
UniversitvIBoard Res~ onse: This finding is addressed by one of the outcomes
described in the universities' measurable goals: Student persistence rates and
graduation rates will improve over time. To achieve this outcome, each university has
developed a specific goal for ( 1) the percent of full- time freshmen who return for a
second year, ( 2) the percent of full- time freshmen graduating in six years, ( 3) the
percent of full- time lower- division transfer students graduating in five years, and ( 4) the
percent of full- time upper- division transfer students graduating in four years. These
percentages are defined either relative to comparable data from peer institutions or as
absolute increases over baseline data.
With respect to the Auditor General's finding, it should be noted that some of the
students who do not graduate from the university they first enter transfer to and
graduate from another of Arizona's universities, transfer to community colleges and
return later to graduate from one of the universities or transfer and graduate from
schools out of state. Also, while completing a degree program is certainly a goal for
many students, it may not be the goal of all students, and completing any number of
higher education courses short of a degree is clearly of value both to the student and
to the taxpayer. Finally, while current graduation rates at Arizona's universities show
room for improvement when compared with those at peer institutions with similar
missions, students and programs, they mirror the national pattern for public four- year
institutions of higher education and should not be evaluated by comparison with
institutions which are dissimilar on all these dimensions.
The comparison of graduation rates by academic ability levels with other universities--
private and public, selective and access- oriented- contained in this report is a
comparison of apples with oranges. It ignores the State's goal of access to public
higher education, the relative lack of private institutions compared to other states, the
absence of 4- year state colleges which are a part of most public educational systems,
and the unique Constitutional provision in Arizona for higher education " as nearly free
as possible." As a result, major differences in student characteristics and profound
variances in average expenditure levels, not to mention significant dissimilarities in key
demographic and academic variables such as age, race, gender, and grade point
average, all of which may have a greater impact upon graduation rates than the SAT
scores focused on in this report, are ignored, and spurious differences between
graduation rates are created.
In particular, the comparison of decile subsets from Arizona's universities with entire
student bodies which have similar scores is simply unacceptable methodology. We
would note, however, that the universities cited with high SATs and high graduation
rates spend two to three times as much per student as do Arizona's universities.
The problems caused by omitting key variables from the analysis are exacerbated by
the use of an unreliable methodology for comparing distributions, an improper
technique for comparing percentages, and reliance upon a sample of only one cohort
of students ( freshmen entering in 1987). Moreover, the study conducted by the
Arizona chapter of the American Association of University Professors ( AAUP) and
based upon U. S. News and World Report data, which is cited in the report as
corroboration for the finding on graduation rates, is nearly as bad in ignoring the
combination of complex factors that contribute to graduation rates and in drawing
misleading conclusions from unwarranted comparisons. As a result, this data set can
be manipulated to suit almost any agenda.
Audit Recommendation I. 1 The Arizona Board of Regents should require the
universities to study and report to the Board and the Legislature within two years why
students, and in particular students of high ability, leave before graduation.
UniversitvIBoard Response: Each university has information on the reasons that
students leave prior to graduation. This information is currently utilized at the campus
level in the ongoing effort to improve retention and will play a key role in the success
of each university in meeting several of their outcome goals.
Since the Board will monitor progress toward these goals for graduation rates of
freshman and transfer students, the studies necessary to achieve those goals are the
responsibility of the individual universities. However, the Board will ask the
universities to provide information on the various reasons that students, including
those of high ability, leave the universities and will pass this information on to the
Legislature together with a progress report on the universities' measurable goals .
Audit Recommendation 1.2 The universities should monitor and track on an
ongoing basis student attrition ( by levels of student ability) as compared to similar
students at other universities.
UniversitvIBoard Res~ onse: Through a cohort survival study, the universities
currently monitor and report to the Board on an ongoing basis information about
student attrition. In addition, the flow of students between universities has been
tracked and one of the outcomes addressed by the universities' measurable goals
contains specific benchmarks for persistence rates based upon a comparison of
students in Arizona's universities with those in peer institutions-- universities with
similar missions and programs. The universities will continue their tracking and their
monitoring of persistence and graduation rates for students of all ability levels and will
expand them, as necessary and in a manner which is cost effective, to include
comparative data from peer institutions.
ISSUE II TIME TO GRADUATION
Audit Findinu 11: Universities Can do More To Enable Students To Graduate More
Quickly
UniversitvIBoard Res~ onse: This finding is addressed by another outcome
described in the universities' measurable goals: " The average length of time and
number of academic credits required to complete academic degrees will remain steady
and perhaps be reduced over time." To achieve a significant reduction in time and
credits to degree, each university has developed a specific goal for ( 1) the average
number of years taken by all freshmen to complete a baccalaureate degree program,
( 2) the percent of graduating seniors who entered as freshmen and complete the
baccalaureate degree with no more than 18 credits over the minimum required by their
programs, and ( 3) the percent of graduating seniors who entered as transfers and
complete the baccalaureate degree with no more than 18 credits over the minimum
required by their programs.
Audit Recommendation 11.1 The universities should review curriculum
requirements in light of their impact on length of time and number of hours to
graduation. Particular attention should be paid to making general education
requirements easier to fulfill across majors.
Audit Recommendation 11.2 The universities should consider the impact on length
of time and hours required to graduate when developing and establishing policies.
UniversitvIBoard Res~ onse: Several outcomes in the universities' measurable
goals show that the universities plan to reduce the average number of years taken by
all freshmen to complete a baccalaureate degree program by one- half year and to
increase the percent of graduating seniors who enter as freshmen or transfers and
complete the baccalaureate degree with no more than 18 credits over the minimum
required for their programs. In order to accomplish these goals, the universities have
been and will continue to review cuniculum requirements, including general education
requirements, as well as other policies which might impact the time and credits
required for an undergraduate student to graduate.
ISSUE Ill COURSE AVAllABlUTY
Audit Finding 111: The Universities Can Do More To Address Course Availability
Problems
UniversitvIBoard Response: This finding is addressed by an item in the
universities' measurable goals: " Students will be able to obtain classes necessary for
meeting their general education and major requirements when they need them." To
achieve this goal, the universities have developed specific objectives appropriate for
their individual registration procedures, such as ( 1) the proportion of General Studies
courses completed by 64 hours, ( 2) the percent of preregistered students who obtain
requested schedules and ( 3) the percent of students reporting class availability in their
major.
Audit Recommendation 111.1 The universities should commit to resolving the
problem of undergraduate course shortages by taking the following actions:
* Identify the location and magnitude of course shortages, project supply
and demand, establish benchmarks for satisfactory availability, and direct
resources to unsatisfactory areas;
* Enforce a minimum average faculty teaching load per department and
direct resulting resources to high- demand undergraduate courses; and
* Reduce the number of specialty courses and courses with low enrollment
and direct resources to high- demand undergraduate courses.
UniversitvIBoard Response: The universities currently make course availability a
priority by projecting supply and demand of courses, working to minimize the number
of courses with low enrollment, and monitoring and enforcing minimum teaching loads
on a departmental basis. Moreover, in their measurable goals they have already
developed baseline data and established benchmarks for satisfactory course
availability. To achieve these benchmarks, the universities will continue efforts to
improve educational outcomes and to increase productivity.
In addition, the universities' measurable goals contain other items directly related to
faculty teaching load. These items specify that the number of lower- division courses
taught by ranked faculty will be increased, student contad by ranked faculty in the
many aspects of the student's educational experience will be increased, and
undergraduates will be more completely integrated into reseamh- related activities.
It should also be noted, however, that while undergraduate instruction and course
availability are priorities at all three institutions, the very different missions of the three
Arizona universities are not factored into the analysis presented in this report. More
directly, the comparisons in the report support an expectation that faculty at all three
universities should have identical instructional responsibilities, even at the department
level. The relevant comparison should be between similar disciplines both among
peer universities and within individual universities. Only in this way can the
appropriate mix of instruction, research, economic development and service be
considered in the allocation of resources.
In 1993 Arizona's Joint Legislative Budget Committee ( JLBC) published a reported on
the Faculty Workload Study for Arizona Universities and reached a similar conclusion.
In their study the JLBC found that " the Arizona faculty workload survey indicates that
the Arizona faculty work 56 hours a week, approximately the same number of hours
as indicated in other faculty studies nationally" ( page 27). Moreover, using data from
public research universities to evaluate ASU and UIA and from public doctoral
universities to evaluate NAU, JLBC findings demonstrate that faculty at ASU spend
15% more time in direct classroom instruction than the national average, faculty at UIA
spend 5% more time than the national average, and faculty at NAU spend 36% more
time than the national average. Taking these findings into account, the JLBC
concluded that " the Arizona Board of Regents and the universities should look for
ways to improve faculty productivity in teaching without imposing substantial sacrtfices
in other vital functions of the academe and without increasing the overall faculty
workload" ( page 28, emphasis added).
Audit Recommendation 111.2 The universities, the Board of Regents, and the
Legislature need to continue discussions regarding the missions and program focus of
the three universities to eliminate unnecessary duplication of programs, primarily at the
doctoral level. Further study or audit work should be considered.
UniversitvIBoard Response: While this recommendation suggests that
unnecessary duplication of programs is a problem, primarily at the doctoral level, there
is no evidence or documentation provided that the universities currently offer any
unnecessarily duplicative doctoral programs or that doctoral programs consume
resources needed for undergraduates. Indeed, Arizona has developed a system of
higher education that is noteworthy for its lack of duplication.
The Board of Regents currently requires substantial justification for any new academic
programs which are duplicative, oversees in- depth reviews of all academic programs
every seven years, and reviews university plans to disestablish or eliminate programs
which might be unnecessarily duplicative. Also, in developing plans to manage
enrollment growth over the next twenty years, the Board and the universities received
input from legislators through a statewide commission which addressed issues
including the need to prevent unnecessary duplication of programs. The Board of
Regents is currently revising its Strategic Plan, which addresses issues of mission and
program focus and will be sharing this document with the Legislature when
appropriate. All of these joint efforts to prevent the unnecessary duplication of
programs at both the graduate and undergraduate levels will be continued.
Audit Recommendation 111.3 The Legislature should consider additional study of
faculty teaching loads to understand the implications of course availability and
graduation rate.
UniversitvIBoard Response: Two years ago, the Arizona Board of Regents,
together with the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, sponsored a comprehensive
analysis of faculty workloads based upon an extensive survey of faculty at all three
universities and a comparison of the results with national data on similar universities.
The audit did not questions the validity of this JLBC study. In addition, the universities
continually monitor faculty teaching loads and are tracking progress towards meeting
the benchmarks for teaching loads, course availability and graduation rates described
in the universities' measurable goals. Given the recent JLBC study of faculty
workload, the initiatives currently being undertaken by the universities and the on-going
monitoring of this issue by the Board, additional study of faculty teaching loads,
course availability and graduation rates would not be useful at this time.
ISSUE IV STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES
Audit Finding IV: Student Support Sentices Need Improvement
UniversitvIBoard Response: The universities' measurable goals include several
items addressing the need for improvement in student support senrices, including
advising of students, contact of students with faculty outside of the classroom, and
access of students to instnrctional technology. To achieve these goals, the
universities have developed specific objectives appropriate for their individual advising,
mentoring, and technological systems, such as ( 1) the percent of current students,
graduating seniors, and alumni satisfied with advising, ( 2) the percent of students with
an educational ( academicJcareer) plan by the end of the freshman year, ( 3) the
percent of students with electronic access to a report on their fulfillment of degree
requirements, and ( 4) the percent of students with regular advisinglmentoring contact
with ranked faculty.
It should also be noted that the general tone of this finding suggests that student
dissatisfaction with public higher education in Arizona is substantial. Although
problems certainly exist, the available data from all three universities suggest that the
majority of students are indeed satisfied with the education they receive and with the
services which support them.
Audit Recommendation IV. 1 To improve student satisfaction, persistence, and
graduation rates, the universities should make academic advising more effective by:
* Reducing student- to- professional advisor ratios;
* Developing a comprehensive advising model, in which faculty and
professional advisors work together to advise students on topics in
which they are uniquely well qualified; and
Implementing a tangible system of rewards for faculty providing good
advising.
UniversitvIBoard Res~ onse: The universities disagree with the emphasis on
professional advisors in the audit report. Utilizing a more comprehensive advising
model in which faculty and professional advisors work together to advise students on
those topics with which they are uniquely familiar, the student- to- advisor ratios at the
universities are in line with the ratios quoted in the report. Moreover, the universities
have committed to improving student satisfaction, persistence and graduation rates in
their measurable goals. In addition, these goals stipulate that students will receive
adequate advising for their program and caner needs. The speck goals developed
by the universities to improve advising and to increase student satisfaction with
advising will be achieved by continuing to make improvements in the advising process.
Audit Recommendation IV. 2 The universities should consider making orientation
mandatory for all new students.
UniversitvIBoard Res~ onse: Some orientation programs are already mandatory
for those students who will benefit from them the most. It may not be appropriate to
make orientation mandatory for all other groups of students. The universities will
continue to encourage all students to attend orientation and additional otientation
opportunities will be provided.
IV. 3. The universities should encourage residence life to do more to reinforce student
academic achievement and foster a sense of community within all residence
halls.
UniversitvIBoard Res~ onse: Significant initiatives are being developed by all three
universities in this area, and some of these efforts are already undeway. The
universities will continue to reinforce student academic achievement and foster a
sense of community within all residence halls.
ISSUE V AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Audit Finding: During the course of the audit work, several areas were identified
. where further study is needed.
Audit Recommendation V. 1 University Resource Allocation-- Additional audit work
could focus on issues such as program duplication, resource allocation, and the
funding formula.
UniversitvIBoard Res~ onse: The JLBC studies issues of university resource
allocation each year in reviewing state operating budget requests, which include
decision packages for new programs and continuing services funding requests based
upon the enrollment growth (" 22: l") formula. Moreover, there is not any relationship
between the funding formula and the time it takes a student to graduate, given that
funding depends upon credit hours generated by the courses that are taken not upon
how many years a student takes to complete those courses. Unless signhnt issues
are raised in the annual review of budget requests or in the strategic planning and
program authorfiation review processes, additional audit work on these issues is not
called for.
Audit Recommendation V. 2 Quality of Instruction-- Without further study, . . . the
quality of instruction and, indeed, the quality of education at Arizona universities
cannot be accurately measured.
UniversitvIBoard Res~ onse: The Board will provide the Legislature with copies of
the annual progress report on the universities' measurable goals, with its multiple
measures linking faculty teaching effort to improvement in the quality of undergraduate
education. These reports will enable the Legislature to measure progress each year
on the quality of education without assigning additional resources to conduct new