Strategic Planning

Strategic Planning Committee, February 27, 2002
Teague Library

Present: Margaret Hampton, Wes Miller, Sara Penhale, Newell Pledger-Shinn, Rick Foreman, Tamara Clark, Monteze Snyder, Paul Ogren, Tamara Clark, Doug Bennett, Bob Southard, Kirsten Bohl

Board Workshop
We reviewed some of the main points that had been raised at the workshop with the board's ad hoc committee on strategic planning:

• We're not attractive enough to prospective students. We're not attractive enough to matriculants.
• There's a perception of decline in academic reputation since the 1960s and 1970s.
• We need to talk more about Earlham as a place that prepares students for vocation.

We agreed we should ask the Office of Institutional Research to draw together data about what recent Earlham alums are doing vocationally. We should share that data with current students as well as faculty and staff.

Doug distributed a handout with comparative GLCA tuition and admissions data on one side, and Earlham tuition and fees as a percent of U.S. income shares on the other. There are surprisingly few patterns in the GLCA admissions data. We have a comparatively high acceptance rate but also a high yield rate. Conclusion: we need more applications. Or, put another way: how can we widen our marketing niche? As for Earlham charges as a percent of U.S. income shares, the relative price of an Earlham education increased from the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, but has been level (or even slightly declining) since then.

Monteze distributed a matrix compiled from various survey data sources to show admissions factors (e.g., quality of faculty, academic program in your field/availability of major) in rough order of stated importance by students who have chosen not to come to Earlham, as against those students' evaluations of our competence in those areas. (Some evaluations by current students and faculty about our performance in these areas are either included in the matrix, or will be included in future. Specifically, Sara will add faculty data from the Higher Education Research Institute, or HERI, survey.) The matrix helps us get at the larger question of our attractiveness in various areas, vs. our competence in those areas, vs. the importance of those areas to our mission. As we look at taking new steps / making change, some of those changes will address others' perceptions of us; while others will require changes in what we do.

Kirsten will write up notes from the committee's workshop with the ad hoc board committee, noting especially points that board members raised to us. Meanwhile, Doug has engaged Stillwater Consulting to build an econometric model for our admissions and financial aid options. He'll provide Stillwater with copies of the Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) survey results as well as the financial aid white paper. Sara suggested we compile a list of data we couldn't find as we were preparing the white papers - data we don't currently keep but should consider keeping.

Bold Ideas
Doug distributed two draft memos, one to the whole Earlham community, and one to deans and vice presidents, asking for "bold ideas" that haven't yet emerged in the strategic planning process. We suggested changes to the memos; Doug will modify them and send them out.

White Papers
Five of the six remaining white papers are in all-but-final form. We agreed that two of us would read each of those papers and send comments to the authors. After incorporating the feedback of the two readers (below), authors will post the papers on the SPC list serv one more time (for final comments by anyone); then Sara and Doug will post them to the Web page.

-Financial Aid (Monteze) - Bob and Newell will read
-Faculty and Staff (Sara) - Wes and Paul will read
-Curriculum (Bob) - Monteze and Doug will read (Doug will send Bob a "majors/minors" chart)
-Student Life (Newell et al.) - Sara and Bob will read
-Community Life (Sara) - Margaret and Rick will read
-Budget (Doug) - (coming along, but not yet ready for a final read)

Doug will send a note to the community letting folks know that white papers are available on the strategic planning Web page.

Kirsten will follow up with ad hoc board committee members about their white paper reading preferences (each ad hoc board committee member will read and comment on two white papers).

The minutes of February 13 were approved.

Wes will ask Connie Haselby for notes from the Feb. 4 meeting with Fine Arts. (No strengths/weaknesses cards from that meeting, since it was a follow-up.) Sara will write up notes from the Feb. 25 meeting with Religion and Philosophy (to supplement the strengths/weaknesses cards which Darlena is compiling).

Next Meeting
Next meeting will be Wed., March 6 from 3:00 till 6:00 p.m. in Teague Library.