Report of the President’s Task Group on Undergraduate Graduation Rate–Student Success Rate

Members of the committee: Michelle Appel, Katherine Beardsley, Donna B. Hamilton (chair), Robert Infantino, Lisa Kiely, Andrea Levy, Robert Waters, Scott Wolpert; student representatives: Christopher Ader, Devin Ellis.

[Charge] The task group will examine how to increase the rate of graduation to reduce the cost per student degree. Increasing throughput of students should expand the opportunities for Maryland residents to earn degrees at the University of Maryland within the available resources. The task group should examine methods to increase the success rate of degree program students to ensure graduation within six years and preferably sooner. The task group should also examine incentives to encourage the expeditious completion of programs. The group should consider the maximum subsidy the state should be expected to provide for an individual resident student through instate tuition benefits.

[Objective] In reviewing the charge, the Task Group on Undergraduate Graduation Rate‑Student Success Rate decided to focus on the specific goal of student success and on policies and practices to promote satisfactory progress and degree completion. This report articulates a framework of data, issues and challenges, and recommendations to help the University of Maryland improve student success and the culture that supports it. This report focuses on policy for first-time, full-time students, but contains the flexibility needed for next-step development, including policy for part-time students.

[Procedure] The task group recognizes that it is continuing and building upon the work of the other committees, including the Task Force on Student Success, the Retention Policies Implementation and Assessment Committee, and the Provost’s Commission on Advising. For the purposes of the current project, the committee has reviewed UM graduation rates and rate of change over the past several years, as well as current UM undergraduate patterns of credit use in the follow categories:

Number of students registering by number of cumulative earned credits at this institution.

Number of AP credits students bring into the institution.

Average number of credits accumulated and GPA at the 4-, 5-, and 6-year degree attainment point.

Average number of students who receive double majors and double degrees in a single semester.

Credits attempted, earned, and degree credits for native in-state students.

Credits attempted, earned, and degree credits for transfer students.

Credits attempted per semester.

Profile of students at 1-year increments of time to degree.

The data most relevant to this project and the conclusions that may be drawn from them include the following:

· Given the upward trend in one-year retention rates (for the 1997 cohort, the 6-year rate is 70.4%), the committee would predict that the four year graduation rate for the entering first time freshmen cohort of 2002 will be approximately 55% and the six-year rate for the same cohort will be about 77%. The considerable gap between these two (over 20%) suggests that, although the six-year rate is a standard measure, student success and efficiency would be better served by emphasizing the four-year rate.

· Just over half (51%) of the degree-seeking students enrolled in Fall 2003 were registered for fifteen or more credits; this represents a relatively consistent trend. A sizeable portion of students (42%) were full-time but registered for fewer than 15 credits.

· About half of the degree-seeking undergraduates who enroll full‑time in both the fall and spring earn 30 or more credits in an academic year; a sizeable minority (12.5%) of full-time students earn fewer than 24 credits in an academic year. Thus, even when one does not consider part‑time students, half of the University’s undergraduate, degree‑seeking students do not meet the University’s expectation of progress toward a degree in four years as stated in the catalog.

· Typically, 37% of first-time students (including 20% of the University Honors students, and 30% of College Park Scholars students) enter the University as “undecided” in terms of major, thus making Letters and Sciences their academic advising base until they do declare majors. In Fall 2003, of 4,066 new freshmen at the University, 1,360 enrolled in Letters and Sciences; 964 new transfer students also enrolled in Letters and Sciences, or 41.8% of all University transfers. Currently, Letters and Sciences delivers advising services to more than 4000 students.

· Most students leave Letters and Sciences between 30 and 40 credits; many others stay until 56 credits. While the first year retention rate is comparable to the University average (92.6% for the 2002 cohort), Letters and Sciences students tend to take fewer credits than other students (59% enroll in fewer than 15 credits per semester).

· More than two thirds of the freshmen who begin in Letters and Sciences graduate in three colleges: ARHU (237 students, 26.4% of the 1997 cohort), BMGT (151 students, 16.8%), and BSOS (239 students, 26.6%). Letters and Sciences freshmen comprise a considerable proportion of the graduates from the 1997 cohort who graduated in these colleges.

· Of the Spring 2003 graduates who started at the University as freshmen, 10.7% (266 graduates) received multiple degrees in that semester. A similar number (278, 11.1%) of these graduates had multiple majors. For many of these students, these double majors/double degrees were in different colleges. The colleges with the

largest number of students obtaining multiple degrees in multiple colleges were ARHU (101 graduates, 20.4%), BMGT (87 graduates, 18.8%), BSOS (116 graduates, 17.5%), CMPS (56 graduates, 28.7%), and LFSC (42 graduates, 18%). A considerably smaller percentage (3.7%) of graduates who were transfer students earned multiple degrees in the same semester.

· In Fall 2003, fewer than 400 students registered had earned 125 or more credits at Maryland and were again registered for classes. (This total number of credits does not include AP or transfer credits.) While 400 may seem like a relatively small number out of 25,000 students overall, that number grows in significance in relation to the graduation rate issue. An increase of 40 students graduating from a freshman cohort of 4000 (at 4-year, 5-year-, 6-year) raises the graduation rate 1%.

The committee reviewed policy at other AAU institutions on such issues as satisfactory progress, minimum enrollment, credit maximums, admission of non-degree seeking students, limits on the number of undergraduate majors and degrees, surcharges for credits or degrees beyond a certain limit, registration restrictions on students who accumulate credits in excess of degree requirements, course or semester withdrawal, and restrictions on number of credits that can be repeated, restrictions on the number of times a particular course may be repeated, restrictions on duration that a student may “stop out” of a degree program and return in good standing.

Of most importance are policies currently being used elsewhere to affect graduation rates, including credit minimums, credit maximums, number of semesters limits, and surcharges.

Students at UC‑Berkeley are required to enroll full-time and complete at least 30 credits per year. Undergraduates are not allowed to enroll past eight semesters or 130 units without special permission from their dean. The University does not receive state funding to supplement students who have completed over 120% of degree requirements. Double majors are allowed

if students can complete them within nine semesters.

Students at the University of North Carolina are full-time and must complete their degrees within 10 semesters. While students may pursue as many majors or minors they wish within that time frame, they are assessed a 25% surcharge after reaching 140 credits.

UCLA requires students to complete their undergraduate degrees in 216 units (144 credits) regardless of the number of majors they pursue. Students are required to be enrolled full-time and are told that normal progress to graduation is defined as 45 units per year, or 15 units per quarter.

At the University of Wisconsin, undergraduates are required to complete a minimum of 30 credits per year, to a total maximum of 165 during their academic career. Any student given permission to go beyond 165 credits is assessed a 100% tuition surcharge.

Michigan and Illinois have no limits.

[Issues] A number of issues and challenges provide further context for developing policies that affect graduation rate-student success rate.

1. The University of Maryland is a large urban commuter and land-grant university with first- time, full-time students, as well as large transfer and part-time populations, characteristics that distinguish us in some respects from some of our peers (University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Los Angeles, University of North Carolina, University of Illinois-Urbana, University of Michigan). For example, unlike UNC, the University of Maryland does not have a requirement that full-time students are in residence. Unlike UNC, we do not have a requirement that all students carry a full-time credit/course load. At UC-Berkeley and elsewhere, part-time students are moved to a continuing education college. In considering the degree to which we might emulate our peers in regard to graduation rate and satisfactory time to degree policies, the University of Maryland must bear these differences in mind, while also noting how a broader range of AAU institutions handle these issues.

2. Maryland’s commitment to diversity mandates close attention to policies that have the potential to maintain or increase the diversity of the student population. In Fall 2003, more than 31% of first-time students were students from Black/African American, Asian, Hispanic, and American Indian populations (plus 7.2% unknown U.S.); more than 31% of new transfers were also from these populations (plus 10.7% unknown U.S.). Transfer students are important to diversity.

3. As a land grant institution, the University of Maryland is committed to supporting students whose income, work, and family obligations negatively impact success rate. According to the ACE Issue Brief: Student Success: Understanding Graduation and Persistence Rates (August 2003), time constraints of work and family are the two most important inhibitors to more rapid time to degree. “Children from affluent families have more than 11 times greater chance of earning a bachelor’s degree by age 24 than do children born into poor families” (Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY, September 2003). “College participation rates are now broadly declining in the United States...The United States has now fallen...far behind other industrial countries in college participation rates” (Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY, May 2003). The University of Maryland must continue to avoid policies that would create disadvantages for students with work and family obligations. Financial aid policies, particularly those related to need-based aid and work study, must be considered when examining student success.

4. Financial needs of students bear on success and time to degree. According to the exit surveys conducted by the Counseling Center Retention Study Group by way of the Registrar’s Office, employment is a major reason for attrition among undergraduates; of those students leaving Maryland in Fall 2003, 57% were employed 21 or more hours per week. Forty-two percent of departing students reported they were personally paying for more than three-quarters of their education costs through work, savings, or loans. In Fall 2003, the top four reasons for leaving the university were family issues, health issues, financial issues, depression. For those leaving in the first two weeks, financial issues were at the top of the list. The annual University New Student Census and Beginning Student Surveys corroborate the high impact of financial need on student success, with 41-48% of students in the 1999-2003 surveys indicating that they “strongly agree/agree” that they are concerned about financing their college education, and that it is “difficult/very difficult” to have enough money to cover tuition. A significant number (in Spring 2003, 8% in one survey, 4% in another) indicated that personal credit cards were a major source of funding. When students eligible for financial aid do not apply for it, the explanation of 9% of students is that they were unwilling to go into debt. In surveys taken in 2002-2003, 6-10% of students indicated that they would send money home during the year.

5. Admissions defines or recognizes a niche that Maryland occupies in recruitment. Maryland policy on graduation rates can alter that niche. Currently, Maryland is understood by students to offer more flexibility and more options than many other high demand schools. Maryland can accept that niche as beneficial, or can use graduation rate policy to redefine its niche.

6. Policies which increase retention and graduation rates will have consequences for the size of the student body and for the University’s tuition-based financial model.

7. In the past several years, universities across the country have seen a rise in the number of majors, minors, and degrees that undergraduate students wish to earn. These students are typically high-achieving, high-consuming, and ambitious. They want an edge in the world of competition. At the University of Maryland, these characteristics are in part manifested in the high number of students seeking double majors, double degrees, and citations (soon minors). In many cases, the double majors or double degrees earned are in widely different fields. Most students complete double majors or double degrees within five years. The result for many students is an enriched education that gives them a wider range of career options. Some of these students might instead have moved on to graduate programs or, by finishing a year or semester earlier with perhaps only one major and one minor, have reduced the cost of their undergraduate degrees. The University of Maryland may not, however, want to curb such high achievement of students.

8. In order to regulate resource allocation for high demand majors, the University of Maryland has developed a system of limited enrollment programs (LEPs). About half of all bachelor’s degrees awarded at the University are in one of the nine LEPs, which include the programs in the colleges of Architecture, Business, Education, Engineering, Journalism, and the departments of Communication, Government and Politics, Landscape Architecture, Psychology. Notably, all students who gain entry to one of these programs–either at matriculation or later–have relatively the same rate of success. However, students who try but fail to gain entry have difficulty finding their way to another major. Many go back to Letters and Sciences until finally making another choice or dropping out. This population requires special attention if it is to see the same success as other students.

9. Changing graduation rates have implications for the enrollment management process. Policies that encourage and incentivize higher rates must be conjoined to a commitment and ability to provide access to courses and classes. Policy that increases rates necessitates that students be informed well in advance as to which courses will be offered within a certain period (normally, one academic year). Higher graduation rates place increased demand on the institution, in certain cases raising costs and requiring reallocation of funds. As rates increase, the demand for lower level courses can be expected to go down, the number of upper level to go up. Further, Maryland’s current tuition structure charges full-time tuition for 12 credits and above. Currently, many students carry 12 credits and graduate in 6 years. If those students increased their throughput and graduated in 4 years, the institution would have to deliver and fund for this cohort the same number of credits in 4 years as it previously had in 6 years.

10. Policies that drive student success rates place higher and different demands on all student information and advising systems. Policies affecting time to degree require that students receive adequate information from the university in regard to degree and program requirements. While upgraded and updated web and printed resources can address part of this problem, one-on-one advising also plays a major role. Currently, advising resources are uneven and advising philosophy varies across the campus. Advising resources and philosophy issues must be aligned with university goals for the university to move forward in these areas.

[Recommendations]

The Task Group makes recommendations in the following areas:

· An Enrollment Policy limiting students to 10 semesters or 130 earned credits

within which they are to complete their degrees.

· An expanded Satisfactory Progress to Degree Policy and the accompanying authorities

for each college.

· University-wide adoption of “expectations setting” language aimed at culture change.

· University-wide revision of advising philosophy and of practices that align with these student success goals.

[Recommendation 1] The Task Group recommends the following Enrollment Policy:

Students are to complete their degree requirements and graduate within 10 semesters or 130 earned credits, whichever comes first. Earned credits include University of Maryland credits and all applicable transfer credits from other postsecondary institutions. Applicable transfer credits will be divided by 15 to determine the semesters applicable to the enrollment limit. Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) credits, and credits earned for college courses taken while in high school and prior to matriculation at a postsecondary institution, will not count toward this semester or credit limitation. (Such courses may, however, count toward degrees.) Summer term and winter term are not included in the semester count; they are included in the credit count. Students who have not completed their degree requirements within ten semesters or 130 earned credits (whichever comes first) may not continue enrollment at the University of Maryland without a dean’s approval. The dean’s approval will include an agreement that specifies remaining course work and a timeline for its completion.

The University recognizes that extenuating circumstances might require some students to pursue their degrees on a reduced‑load or part‑time basis. Under the proposed satisfactory progress policy, Colleges may permit students to take reduced course loads to accommodate exceptional circumstances.

(The Task Group considered that an option exists to impose a tuition surcharge after the tenth semester but makes no recommendation on that issue.)

Because Maryland’s academic expectations have not kept pace with the high caliber of students who matriculate, this 10-semester policy must be preceded and accompanied by a set of supporting practices, including practices that lead to academic culture change. The message in the Undergraduate Catalog developed in conjunction with the new retention policy (full-time students are expected to complete the undergraduate programs at the University of Maryland in four years and complete 30 credits per year) is an excellent start. (Unfortunately, no authorities accompanied the policy.) The Task Group proposes a set of policies and practices to support this statement while planning for major policy change.

[Recommendation 2] The Task Group recommends a Satisfactory Progress to Degree policy and accompanying authorities for its implementation.

1. Expectations of Satisfactory Degree Progress

Full‑time students are expected to complete their undergraduate degree in four years by completing an average of 30 degree‑relevant credits each year. Students who register as full‑time degree seeking students are expected to pursue course registration consistent with successful completion of major and degree requirements being their primary goal. Completing fewer than 30 credits per year is considered minimal yearly progress. While a four‑year degree is the University's expectation for most students, those who change majors, who declare a major late in the sophomore year, or who take advantage of special opportunities that enrich the undergraduate experience may require up to five years (ten full‑time semesters) to complete a degree. All students are expected to complete their degrees in not more than ten full‑time semesters or 130 credits (see Enrollment Policy).

Successful, timely degree completion is the responsibility of students, who are supported in developing and meeting their academic goals by the campus faculty, advisers and administrators.

To meet these shared goals, the proposed new policies would stipulate that students must:

· develop detailed academic plans for making satisfactory progress in consultation with an adviser. Plans should be adjusted based on progress in course and degree requirements and be consistent with University and College Satisfactory Progress policies.

· declare a major where they can be successful as early in their academic program as possible. Students are cautioned against changing majors frequently, declaring double majors unrealistically, and lingering in degree programs where they cannot succeed.

· understand University policies for academic eligibility outlined in the Undergraduate Policy on Academic Probation and Dismissal, including the requirement that a student maintain a cumulative grade point average of 2.0 to maintain satisfactory academic performance.

· understand the academic requirements for making satisfactory academic progress as defined by the Satisfactory Degree Progress Policy of their academic college.

· complete general education and major requirements in a timely manner, taking courses in a logical sequence with attention to course prerequisites and consistent with sample academic plans developed for their major.

· accept responsibility when they do not meet satisfactory progress policy guidelines and change to a major program where degree requirements can be successfully completed within ten full‑time semesters of registration.

2. To support this policy, the University and its academic Colleges must:

· provide informative descriptions of academic majors which define their scope, course requirements and linkages to related careers.

· provide sample 4‑year academic major plans by which students can complete degrees consistent with University policies and goals. Detailed information about major requirements and sample 4‑year plans should be posted electronically, be easily accessible, and be updated in a timely way when course and major requirements change.

· provide appropriate levels of staffing, access and opportunity for students to meet with academic advisers in order to support successful satisfactory degree completion goals and policies.

· promote the University's goals for four-year degree completion and ten-semester, 130-credit guidelines by conducting regular reviews of student satisfactory progress to degree and enforcing satisfactory degree progress policies in a manner which is consistent and equitable for all students.

· ensure that the new version of Degree Navigator meets adviser needs.

3. With a focus on student success, all academic deans will set satisfactory progress expectations or benchmarks for the purpose of improving academic success. These expectations are not to be confused with expectations set for limited enrollment programs, which give students only one attempt to gain entry and usually deny access after the sophomore year. For majors in their individual colleges, deans may not set expectations in relation to GPA; they may set expectations in relation to completion of key courses within certain semester limits. Most importantly, colleges will have the authority to stop a student who has failed to meet approved expectations from continuing in the major. (Colleges will also have the authority to accommodate special circumstances.)

4. The full list of available expectations within which colleges may set these policies is solely the purview of the Provost. All college progress to degree plans are subject to the approval of the Provost.

5. These recommendations may impact transfer admission policies.

6. If students do not achieve satisfactory progress, continuation is at the discretion of the dean.

7. Students must have a 2.5 GPA to add a second major.

8. Students are allowed to pursue two degrees within the 10-semester limit.

9. The University does not award more than two majors even in cases where a student is receiving a double degree.

10. Except in the case of mandated state requirements (i.e. Education), the pursuit of double majors or double degrees will not be considered a high priority in the distribution of institutional financial aid.

11. Students who are dismissed and petition for re-enrollment should have their records and academic plans examined in light of their declared major, success in that major, and the feasibility of re-enrolling in that major. Students who cannot complete the desired major within Enrollment Policy limits should not be re-enrolled into that major.

[Recommendation 3] The Task Group recommends the University-wide adoption of “expectations setting” language aimed at culture change.

1. Identify the key points in time and place for introducing and reinforcing degree expectations, and systematically build expectation-setting language into the messages given. There must be disciplined consistency across all functions to accelerate progress. Academic Affairs and Student Affairs must become full partners in this endeavor. Points in time and place will include recruitment activities (including publications and open houses), Orientation, New Student Welcome, SGA, Resident Life activities, fraternities and sororities. Cohort identity should be emphasized by naming incoming students as the Class of 2008, Class of 2009, etc. Especially significant to this initiative are all first year colloquia–UNIV, HONR, GEMS, CPS, ENES– where advisers and teachers have close contact with students. Syllabi in all of these colloquia must include components that build a culture of expectation.

2. Implement in these venues an ongoing “know your semesters” information campaign to encourage each student to find out the requirements of an intended major, to contact an adviser, and to work out an approximate semesters plan. Underlying this campaign is the recognition that campus expectations (from students, advisers, faculty, department chairs, deans, Student Affairs personnel, and student leaders) need to be changed and that advising resources are insufficient to accomplish the goal from the advising base. The agenda of student success becomes, in short, part of everyone’s job responsibility; everyone on campus reinforces and supports the message.

3. Timeline to jumpstart implementation: Spring/Summer 2004: begin university-wide use of the “know your semesters” language; Spring/Summer 2004: syllabus revision for freshman colloquia/seminars (UNIV, HONR, CPS, GEMS, ENES); the summer/fall Undergraduate Studies Advising Conference (proposed as a no-cost event for advisers) will feature sessions on advising with time to degree expectations; Fall 2004: College Satisfactory Progress to Degree plans submitted to the Provost.

4. Move beyond the Planning Cycle to a stand alone process for the purpose of emphasizing retention and graduation rate issues. (Assign to the ACCESS Committee the responsibility to develop the new process.) Higher student success goals require that we elevate attention to these goals. Create a separate process on a different time schedule that will direct attention to and assessment of these issues. Upgrade the data for this process to include better tracking of major changes and graduation rates from the junior year. Everyone (faculty, staff, administrators) should know that a 1% rise in the graduation rate requires graduating only an additional 40 students from a single cohort.

5. After 10 semesters, students do not get priority on institutional financial aid.

[Recommendation 4] The Task Group recommends University-wide revision of advising philosophy and practices to align with student success goals.

1. Each academic department should post 4‑year academic plans or sample schedules (possibly using the same format) that outline recommended progression to graduation. (Such plans have already been submitted in PCC processes, but no University process provides for them to be routinely made available to students and advisers.) Each college will provide on a college‑central website a four‑year plan for each program/major (at least one plan per unit), including adviser/director contact information for each program. Undergraduate Studies will provide all-college links on its web site. These plans will outline curriculum expectations such as prerequisite courses needed to begin the course of study. Plans for common double degrees or majors will also be posted, and participating departments/colleges will coordinate efforts to provide a realistic timetable for students wishing to complete more than one major or degree.

College and/or department advising offices will require that students seeking entrance to a major submit a proposed academic plan which realistically targets degree completion within a specified time-frame. Students will need to demonstrate that they can finish the major within the 10-semester limit.

Students will download advising form versions of the plans as they prepare for advising sessions. Students and advisers will sign and update these academic plans. When signing, advisers and students both agree that this is an appropriate course load based on realistic progress to graduation, students' past performance, and current circumstances (working, difficult lab course, etc).

2. Fully engage the undergraduate assistant and associate deans and advisers in the task of shifting advising philosophy and practice. At the forefront of this effort will be the Office of the Associate Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Studies, the Provost’s Commission on Advising, the Undergraduate Programs Advisory Committee (UPAC), and the Advising Community. The annual Advising Conference organized by Undergraduate Studies will also play a leadership role in this effort.

3. Make adviser and student advising technology needs a University priority. Put in place a structure that ensures these priorities are protected. Identify and eliminate the points of conflict and competition that impede priority-setting and implementation.

4. Admissions and Colleges should meet once yearly to discuss program details and admissions goals. The responsibility for these meetings is held jointly by Admissions and the Colleges. Letters and Sciences also needs to develop close ties and regular contact with all Colleges.

5. Help students distinguish career interest from major interest. Many careers do not require a specific major. The business community does not require graduates with Business degrees. Law schools do not require that students have degrees in such majors as Government and Politics or Criminology and Criminal Justice. Develop better advising strategies for helping students identify majors that are suited to a student’s academic ability while also leading potentially to the student’s career interest. Also, degree programs should advise students of what they are and are not. Colleges and departments should specify in their recruiting and information materials the details that will help students be able to tell whether or not a particular program meets their needs and/or expectations. (For a good example, see material on the University of Maryland web site for Clinical Psychology.)

6. In cases where students need to drop one or more courses in a semester due to illness, death, or psychological event, advisers should routinely refer them to their assistant and associate deans for consideration of a reduced course load as opposed to total withdrawal.

7. Letters and Sciences is the largest single point of entry at the University for first-time students. This unit is central to student success and a key partner in the implementation of policy changes recommended in this report.

8. Focus attention on the work performed by and expected of Letters and Sciences advisers, and support that work at a level commensurate with University expectations for student success. The responsibility of Letters and Sciences to provide advising services for undecided first-time and transfer students, as well as for students trying to gain admission to limited enrollment programs has for many years been met by relying on a combination of full-time and part-time professional advisers, graduate assistants, and Advise 5 volunteers. Additionally, mandatory advising is reserved for first-time students (up to 25 credits), students on warning, and athletes. Recent budget cuts have reduced regular staffing and, as a consequence, have reduced as well the level of advising services. Currently, Letters and Sciences needs to recruit 110 volunteers (each assigned 5 students) in order to handle its advising load. This volunteer program should be retained, but for the purpose of mentoring. In fact, re-engineering Advise 5 for mentoring has the potential for making a significant change in the University’s mentoring power. Appropriate funding for this change in structure and capacity has the potential for significant results. The hundreds of students who enter the University through Letters and Sciences would in all their contacts with advisers be given the same strong assistance in moving toward major identification and degree progress.

9. Develop (and fund) in Letters and Sciences a separate Transitional Advising Unit to manage both re-enrollment and situations where students who have not made satisfactory progress in majors are left without an advising home. Currently, such students “camp out” in majors in which they have no interest and no intention of continuation. Students are best served when they are located in units where they can receive early and appropriate direction.

Pay special attention to the need for new and adequate support for re-enrolled, reinstated students.

10. Create more structured pathways for B.A./M.A and B.S./M.S. degrees. Make known to students that guidelines for Individual Student Bachelor’s/Masters Programs are currently available. (See University of Maryland Policy and Guidelines for Combined Bachelor’s/Masters Programs.)

11. Develop a series of interventions designed specifically to assist transfer students in major identification and progress to degree. Although transfer students are not calculated in graduation rates, the University values their presence now and as future alumni. Transfer students add to the high caliber and diversity of the student body. Pay assiduous attention to the recommendations of the Transfer Student Report of 1999 and the UPAC subcommittee recommendations on transfer students. Implementation of programs in developmental advising and timely transfer credit review should be given top priority.

12. Develop information that instructs students in the costs of continuing at the university longer than is necessary for degree completion with one major and one minor.

13. Develop information that helps students gain a more sophisticated understanding of resume building. Mere accumulation of more resume items acquired at the same level over a longer and longer period of time does not always carry added benefit. However, getting job experience in preparation for moving on to graduate school does demonstrate progression.

14. The Task Group recognizes that time constraints prohibited examination of numerous issues, including a detailed policy for part-time students, and policy in cases of semester withdrawal or stopping-out.