Acknowledgments: The Enrollment Management and Admissions Task Force of Savannah State University gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the following individuals who aided considerably in its search for data in support of this report:

Nathan Coleman, Office of Planning & Analysis, Georgia State University

Nicola Juricak, Planning & Policy Analysis, Board of Regents, University System

Karim Ladha, Institutional Research & Planning, Savannah State University

Al Quinn, Chatham County/Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission

Cheryl Tarter, Institutional Research, Armstrong Atlantic State University

Dave Whities, Savannah Technical College

Discussion: The University System of Georgia Office of Research and Planning provided headcount projections (1997-2010) for system institutions based on demographic factors often highly associated with college and university enrollment levels. These findings suggest that Savannah State University might gain an 11.5% growth over a 13-year period, ending in 2010 (average rate of growth: .88%/year). The expected growth rate is similar to that of other state universities that share Savannah State's southeast Georgia higher education market (i.e., Armstrong Atlantic and Georgia Southern). If these projections were to materialize, each institution would maintain stable market shares in their respective regions (Figure 1-2; Table 1).

These headcount projections were, as explained by information accompanying Dr. James Muyskens’ Letter to Institution Presidents (6 December 1996), identified by examining expected growth among age cohorts, projected county populations, and past college participation levels. Among assumptions used for developing these projections, county participation rates were expected to remain constant, age cohort participation rates would remain constant, regional economic and catastrophic events would not intervene, and the college mission would not change materially. These projections could be expected to result, in short, if colleges did not take overt steps to manage their enrollment or materially change their operations.

Historic enrollment patterns at Savannah State University, however, demonstrates that the usual assumptions may be problematic for this institution. Between 1950 and 1970, Savannah State University enrollment was highly correlated with high school graduation (R2 = 95%). But between 1970 and 1997, that relationship became extraordinarily tenuous--nearly random (R2 = 5%). Indeed, for the past 25 years, Savannah State University’s aggregate enrollment does not appear to have been strongly associated with population growth, high school graduation, or aggregate employment levels. Instead, during this time period, Savannah State University’s enrollment has oscillated around 2424 students (+/- 435; standard deviation), quite apart from general societal trends. Viewed through the lens of regional demographic and economic frames, Savannah State University’s enrollment appears increasingly random and unpredictable--an observation suggesting that other factors may have been more responsible for enrollment than the ones usually measured by economists and demographers (Figures 3-5; Table 2). Thus, a working hypothesis for Savannah State University’s Institutional Research and Planning Office, subject to further testing and verification, is that explaining changes in university enrollment levels should be sought among other local organizational and/or contextual factors, rather than basic demographic factors.

Moreover, the enacted mission of the University has been subject to a drifting current by force of contextual circumstances. Prior to W.W.II, Savannah State served the region largely as a post-secondary trade school for African-American students. During the 1950's the curriculum was drastically overhauled--Savannah State emerging as a more traditional collegiate college, dominated by the liberal arts and sciences; and the student clientele adjusted accordingly. Then, in the late 1980's, the level of preparedness among Savannah State students shifted, leaving the college no choice but to center on remediation--the majority of its more promising potential students being swept by the gathering strength of affirmative action into mainstream competitive institutions. And now that Savannah State University finds itself with an entering freshman class dominated by under prepared students (by traditional measures), the University System of Georgia has announced that these students should become ineligible for admission by 2005.

Clearly forces and events beyond direct institutional influence have pressured the University. Among the more obvious is the drift associated with desegregation, along with changing funding and enrollment eligibility requirements mandated by governmental agents. Also influential is the increasingly crowded and complex higher education environment in southeast Georgia, generated by a recent influx of suppliers--for example, Armstrong Atlantic University, The Savannah College of Art and Design, Savannah Technical College, and South College. These accumulated environmental changes have led to a truly dramatic decline in market share of southeast Georgia African-American students enrolled at Savannah State University (Figures 6 and 9; Table 3); and the declining share of African-American students has not been compensated by a growing share of non-black minority students. It should also be noted that the changing market shares are thought to be highly associated with the changing nature of students remaining at Savannah State University.

Equally notable, for the fortunes of the University, is the state's seemingly vacillating commitment to permitting and funding graduate studies at Savannah State. And Georgia Southern University's recent shift in academic programming, including its expansion into the local market, has further tested the stamina of this institution. Luckily, community perception of Savannah State University as a solid, trustworthy academic site, in comparison to neighboring state institutions, has wavered little. Still, keeping in mind Savannah State’s early origins as a trade school, the importance of long-term commitment to contemporary academic programming is vital. Important, too, is Savannah State's continuing development of a variety of University-Community partnerships--always in keeping with System-wide strategic goals, emphasizing and reporting the substance of academic excellence on campus.

Furthermore, the unique enrollment pattern of Savannah State University has occurred within a population context where the most immediate local geographic region constituting the primary market for Savannah State University, the city of Savannah, has been experiencing a net outflow of migration over the past decade (Figure 10; Table 4). While county population has been gradually growing, out-migration for the county has exceeded in-migration for most recent years. Discussions with Savannah’s metropolitan planning staff reveal that the older residential portions of Savannah's metropolitan region closest to the University have slowly but sporadically lost population to the outlying suburban and rural areas in neighboring counties. These are areas that lie more specifically within the primary market spheres of Savannah State University’s sister colleges, Armstrong Atlantic University and Georgia Southern University. Savannah State University now finds itself geographically surrounded and locked into an immediate area of declining population (Map 1).

Finally, over recent years, internal organizational factors and academic practices within the institution, as portrayed by the local media, have fostered a less than flattering public perception of the institution (See Institutional Summary Report for Savannah State University, 1997-98; Georgia Student Opinion Survey Project, April 1998). Most likely, in aggregate, these factors have also influenced the type of student matriculating, as well as the persistence of those students remaining at Savannah State. Together, these multiple geographic, organizational, and systemic factors are thought to heavily contribute to changes in enrollment levels at Savannah State University--especially as reflected in persistence and succeeding class conversion rates, as discussed below (Figure 18; Table 6).

Through focused intervention, manipulating these institutional factors could easily bring dramatic change to Savannah State University’s aggregate enrollment level over the coming planning period. Savannah State University’s future enrollment is expected to be highly elastic, depending mostly on controllable organizational and institutional factors, rather than exogenous demographic ones (Figure 13; Table 5). This elasticity yields the possibility for Savannah State University to adjust carefully and rapidly back from remediation to academic excellence and survive its present enrollment crisis.

Recommendation 1: A Working Motto: While it is vitally important that Savannah State University staff are cognizant of exogenous factors and societal trends in planning for the University’s future, it would be a strategic mistake to assume any posture of fait accompli and not react creatively to current trends. It is recommended that Savannah State University should adopt a current working motto: Awhile external and internal factors have impacted the growth of the institution; yet informed internal initiative together with more informed and supportive external partners will be the foundation of our growth in the future.

Discussion: Close examination of local factors suggests that Savannah State University could, as a result of organized and self-conscious university-wide intervention strategies, grow substantially in aggregate enrollment over the next eight years, without violating the spirit of the Board projection. A possible and reasonable scenario is that Savannah State University inaugurate a period of emergency re-alignment between 1998 and 2000. During this phase, the University should radically decrease reliance on under-prepared freshmen as the largest single category of matriculating students and makes serious progress in recruiting students who are academically equipped and intellectually alive (Figure 15). Following that period, Savannah State University might then seek to fine-tune its enrollment mix to approximate that of other universities in the Georgia system (Figure 16). Following this strategy, Savannah State University could accumulate 4000 gross students by 2000 and 5000 by 2005, as interventions are gradually effected (Figure 13-14; Table 5). Thereafter, Savannah State University might claim a student population of approximately 5000--or 20% of the projected southeast Georgia Public Higher Education market, which ever is larger (Figure 13; Table 7). Relative institutional size is an important issue, owing to the importance of public perception and the twin roles of peer and role-model influences on African-American students selection of colleges (Figure 6).

Recommendation 2: Class Enrollment Mix: It is recommended that Savannah State University consider seeking an enrollment mix more closely reflecting the norms of the University System of Georgia (Figure 12). Towards this end, planning should aim, in particular, to increase graduate student enrollment towards 13%, while reducing freshmen enrollment to approximately 34%, in accordance with state wide averages (Figures 13-14; Table 7).

With this strategy, by the year 2000, Savannah State University’s freshman class should total c.1360 students, still below its level when Board projections were made (1995). Thereafter, freshman should increase over five years at c. 5%/year, while attracting approximately 1%/year in new traditional students. Fully 4% of the freshman class growth over the next few years will be attained as a result of increased attraction and retention of several categories of non-traditional students (Figures 12-16).

As more graduate programs are brought on line (e.g., urban affairs and marine sciences), accreditation is established, and the programs are allowed to grow toward optimum and sustainable levels, graduate students may rise from 4.5 to 13% of the student body (Figures 13-14; Tables 7-8).

Recommendation 3: New Admissions-Recruiting Strategy: It is recommended that

Admissions staff should consider developing new recruiting tactics and practices, guided strictly by documented past successes. Admissions practitioners could assume roles like brokers, targeting specific niches rather than mass markets, bringing specific target audiences into contact with mobilized faculty from particular disciplines, thereby attracting specific target audiences of students for specific openings within the available enrollment matrix. Enrollment officers could be encouraged to specialize in different arenas (e.g., international students, transfer students, and non-traditional students) and different fields (e.g., social sciences, physical sciences, and business). Resources might be conserved and yield increased by visiting only those high schools from which Savannah State University receives a large number of prepared students. In all cases, careful records of recruiting activities and specific results should be maintained, so that formal cost-benefit analysis can be employed to guide efforts for continuous process improvement (Figure 16; Table 8).

Recommendation 4: Involve Current Students in Recruiting: Successful upper-class and graduate students could be employed and/or subsidized in working (perhaps as interns) along with full-time recruiters. Commonly, in successful marketing ventures, satisfied customers are the best sales persons available for attracting future customers. First, it is recommended that Savannah State University train and enlists carefully selected local students in a comprehensive Tele-counseling program to personalize the recruitment process, automating tracking, and follow-up systems. Second, Savannah State University might systematically involve students from distant homes in recruiting from their hometowns and high schools. Making systematic use of trained non-local students en route home for vacation would be far more cost-effective than the practice of sending out recruitment professionals. In both cases, however, the University must take care to enlist only those students able to represent the institution with an appropriate professional image and behavior.

Recommendation 5: Involve Alumni in Recruiting: It is recommended that Savannah State University involve alumni, more immediately and fully, in recruiting. Trained alumni could visit local high schools, colleges, and universities on behalf of their alma mater--referring talented students to Savannah State University, participating in educational fairs, career days, and college nights, as well as a variety of other activities. At minimum, appropriately designed recruiting materials should be mailed to alumni on a regular basis, encouraging alumni to assist in recruiting students. The alumni society could donate funds for recruiting expenditures (i.e., training, handbooks, newsletters, and project assessment). And alumni members who contribute the most students each year should receive suitable formal University recognition. But before help from any alumnus is enlisted, the University must first ascertain that she or he shares the administration's perceptions of the institution and its mission.

Recommendation 6: Involve Faculty and Staff in Recruiting: It is recommended that Savannah State University involve faculty and staff more fully in its recruitment campaign.

As Savannah State University attempts to Aright size its staff, in conjunction with its current student load, staff members might be trained in recruitment practices and temporarily loaned from particular under-enrolled service areas to the recruitment office, in order to upgrade the enrollment level of their home domains, among others. Faculty can earn merit points, as service to the University, by participating in recruitment activities, boosting enrollment in their respective fields.

Discussion: Clearly, forecasting the impact of the aforementioned changes depends upon effectively anticipating the impact of the enactment of several component plans and activities across campus. Many initiatives that will impact the forecast outlined here are already underway at Savannah State University; yet, since much of this activity is new and lacks a track record, it is difficult to accurately project what the outcome may be. Still, further recommendations, designed to support the overall forecast, are outlined below:

Recommendation 7: Freshman Admission Plans: While the Freshman class size may be adjusted to reflect 34% of total university enrollment (Figure 14), it is recommended that the type of student recruited should also be changed substantially (Figure 17; Table 8). Regular admits should be raised from 4-5% of the class total to 50% of the class. Meanwhile, non-eligible students, lost in compliance with the Board mandate on learning support should decline from 34% towards 0. Soon, returning freshmen should decline from 50% of the freshman class to 33%. And, the remainder of the class should be filled with non-traditional, transfer, and international status freshmen at the aggregate rate of 16% of the freshman class. Diversifying the freshman class is key in an effort to build a diversified student body, in keeping with both the University mission and system goals, and in response to the learning support crisis. (Figures 15-17; Tables 5 and 8; See also, Learning Support Phase-out Plan, n.d. [Spring 1998])

Recommendation 8: Period of Emergency Realignment: Although the ultimate goal of Savannah State University is to decrease its enrollment of under prepared students, in the intervening years leading to 2001, Savannah State should continue to admit as many learning support students as possible, while complying with system policy directives. Savannah State University should reduce the total of learning support students by only the required 5% per year and no more. This strategy would maintain the maximum possible student enrollment for the University, while allowing the enrollment management staff to "regroup" and begin recruiting students who fit the new longer-term student profile. This approach would provide, simply, a margin of safety in gross enrollment while the University is able to develop new plans and procedures appropriate to its new public image (Table 8). [The Task Force members realize that this particular recommendation may not be in conformity with the views of all University constituents nor is it the only possible alternative. Another option, for example, would be to force a rapid reduction of learning support students immediately and then to rebuild enrollment subsequently with students boasting higher academic qualifications. After much consideration, the Task Force has recommended against this second alternative as too risky. It is felt that the inevitable decline in enrollment, occurring before new recruiting strategies are in place and functional, could prove disastrous to both the morale and the financial health of the institution.]

Recommendation 9: A Specific Admissions Plan: It is recommended that Savannah State University consider phasing-in its freshman admissions plan over a period of four years, as it adjusts its new overall enrollment management effort. Consistent with Table 5, regular admission should be granted to all applicants who have completed all College Preparatory Curriculum (CPC) requirements (five curricular areas) and whose Freshman Index score is at least as great as the minimum required for each year. In 1998, FI = 1830; 1999, FI = 1850; 2000, FI = 1880; and 2001, FI = 1940 (See Matrix I and II).

Recommendation 10: Treat Preferentially Regular Admits and Honor Students: As Savannah State University’s ratio of learning support students declines, it is recommended that limited seats be allocated to the most prepared students first--more marginal students should be accepted only later to fill remaining vacancies. To accommodate this strategy, the long-standing "rolling admission" practice should cease in favor of a new "qualified admission" practice. A qualified admission" procedure would welcome marginal students on a space available basis; seats should not be guaranteed to a Anon-eligible students until very late in the recruiting season after all available eligible students have been admitted.

Recommendation 11: Open a Loop-hole for Committed Applicants: Some at-risk students may be sufficiently self-motivated or so strongly supported by family and peer groups that they will likely succeed at college, in spite of their apparent marginal capacity (U.S. Department of Education [1998], Toward Resiliency: At-risk Students Who Make it to College). Recognizing the importance of personal commitment and support to collegiate success, it is recommended that Savannah State University continue to admit such committed students. Students might prove their commitment by a willingness to post an advanced tuition deposit; the deposit would be non-refundable, but would apply fully towards tuition expenses. (Students may, of course, continue to apply without such a deposit; those who are qualified should be admitted immediately; those who are marginal, should be awarded a qualified admission pending space confirmation of available in August.) Savannah State University should track those students who are admitted by posting an advanced admission deposit to see if their success rate justifies the exception. [The Enrollment Management Task Force is led to believe that this provision should be permissible under Board Policy, since other Georgia State Universities already do collect advanced deposits. But its strict legality or conformity with Board Policy might be confirmed with state personnel.]

Recommendation 12: Pursue Elite College Rejects with a Vengeance: It is recommended that, throughout the late recruiting season, especially May - August, Savannah State University feverishly recruit students rejected by relatively more elite Georgia colleges and universities. Attention should focus first on Atlanta privates and the Georgia system institutions from which Savannah State University typically receives more transfer students (Figure 23). Admissions should establish personal networks and relationships with these institutions, enabling Savannah State University to learn about quality students who are turned away from those institutions. Each such student should receive repeated personal contacts from appropriate Savannah State University staff; the pursuit of these particular students should be both intense and aggressive.

Recommendation 13: Focus Attention on Class Conversion Rates: Savannah State University programs have already been initiated to help students progress successfully from one class to the next (e.g., freshman orientation programs, enhanced counseling, altered admissions practices). Sound management practice, as well as the Southern Association of College and Schools expectations, suggest finding suitable outcome measures to demonstrate success or to identify areas for further strengthening. While one might track the success of these intervention efforts using retention-rate changes, Savannah State University lacks longitudinal data for doing so. It is recommended, therefore, that Savannah State University should monitor and publicize internally class conversion rates as easy proxies for formal retention rates.

A class conversion rate is the number of students enrolled in a class divided by the number enrolled in the prior years’ previous class. For example, the conversion rate of a specific sophomore class is the number of enrolled sophomores divided by the prior years’ number of enrolled freshmen. Not a perfect proxy, a conversion rate is confounded by changing class size, transfer students and, among seniors, students remaining to meet specific graduation requirements long after attaining senior status. But the freshman-sophomore conversion rate is critical: it is traditionally the smallest conversion rate among undergraduate classes; most students departing an institution before completion leave before attaining sophomore status. Perhaps most useful, conversion rates are easily attainable for a variety of institutions for the purposes of bench-marking over long trends.

For comparative purposes, over the past five years, Georgia universities, state-wide, have an average freshman-sophomore conversion rate of 52.7. Thus, a number totaling slightly more than half a freshman class is found in the sophomore class the following year. While Kennesaw, for example, has an average rate of 68.6 over this period, Savannah State University has had, over the same period, a freshman-sophomore conversion rate of 40.1--among the lowest in the system. Savannah State University programming should focus on ensuring that more than 50% of the freshman class succeeds in moving on to sophomore status the following year (Figure 18; Table 6).

To enhance the academic profile of the University and foster a higher class conversion rate, Savannah State University has already begun planning for an honors scholar program. This program will seek academically-focused students and immerse them in a setting that fosters intellectual curiosity and development and provide additional stimulation, honors, and awards to their academic life (See Bogan to Silver, 26 Feb 1998, Memo re: Honors Task Force Recommendation).

Recommendation 14: Attract Star Students to Star Programs: It is recommended that, as foundation resources and corporate and agency sponsorship permit, further resources should be reserved to award a combination of need and merit-based "full-ride" tuition grants, waiver packages, internships, and other financial inducements to recruit top quartile students for specific identified star academic programs. By identifying and recruiting star student prospects for stellar programs, Savannah State University will achieve a state of enhanced academic excellence. A measurable outcome should be a quickly declining outflow of students, as students with a vested interest in these particular programs remain at Savannah State University and succeed (Figures 20-22).

Recommendation 15: Develop Endowed Chair Positions in Star Programs: It is recommended that, as resources and sponsorships permit, endowed faculty chairs should be established for stellar programs to aid in attracting top-of-the-field professionals who will provide greater visibility for star programs. Offering students the opportunity to work with stellar faculty, along with financial incentives, attracts top students. While the impact and timing of these initiatives cannot yet be accurately forecasted, one measurable outcome of the value of employing star faculty might be an on-going content analysis of news coverage on Savannah State University faculty. Another would be changing findings in student attitude surveys over time.

Recommendation 16: Expand On-Campus International Program: To maintain its historic involvement in international education, it is recommended that Savannah State University further develop its own unique brand of international programming, featuring employment and enrollment practices that impact more extensively than might the mandates of Board policy alone. Where policy suggests that 2% of students should be involved in a study abroad program (Policy Directive on Internationalizing Education, March 1995), Savannah State University should bring international students and faculty on campus to broadly impact the learning environment of all students, not just those who enjoy the leisure to study abroad. On-site international programming is a more realistic approach to enhancing the international awareness of Savannah State University’s financially challenged student population, those who do not have or are unable to obtain the funds to travel abroad. Savannah State University should develop international study at home through three strategies: internationalize the curriculum; maintain a strong presence of international faculty on campus; recruit and retain international students at the minimum level of 5% of the incoming freshman class (Table 8; See International Committee Recommendations, May 1998).

E. Recommendation 17: Return to the Secondary Department Concept: In response to the mandated need to retrench learning support and raise the bar for college admission, it is recommended that Savannah State University should consider recapturing a chapter from its own history and simultaneously establish a separate organizational unit (University College or Preparatory Studies) for assisting students who lack skills or the track record to support regular admission. As in earlier years, this approach (the university houses a captive subsidiary for preparing pre-collegiate students) is recommended to provide basic literacy for a large population lacking quality K-12 training throughout Savannah State University’s service region. While in other regions of the state a university may rely on comprehensive community colleges or outstanding secondary schools to provide this service, in the Savannah metropolitan region, doing so has not been possible.

The new pre-collegiate Basic Skills program could be staffed by instructors formerly responsible for the Learning Support Program. They might play a role similar to those in the old secondary department maintained by Savannah State University prior to World War II. Likely this revived unit would fill to capacity with local clients at approximately the rate that non-eligible are phased out of the collegiate program (Table 8; See Learning Phase-Out Plan, Spring 1998).

Recommendation 18: Vigorous Attack on Major Sources of Student Dissatisfaction: Savannah State University, like all colleges in the current highly competitive post-secondary market, is situated in a context where an oversupply of capacity is in pursuit of a scarce number of clients. This competition, underway for many years within defined geographic regions, is now sharpened by the arrival of distance learning and the information superhighway. Real competitors are found, not just down the street, but around the globe.

In such a highly competitive context, an important issue for provider survival is competitive advantage--particularly advantages perceived by clients. Simply, institutions perceived by clients as providing the best service will survive.

A recent survey of Savannah State University students, completed in Fall 1997, indicates a great deal of student dissatisfaction. On a variety of issues, students rate Savannah State University lower than students rate any other public institution in Georgia. While the new administration inherited this situation, it has made a commitment to address the problems at hand. Therefore, it is recommended that Savannah State University take an immediate, vigorous, and public attack on improving conditions with respect to 20% of the items surveyed--those generating the greatest level of dissatisfaction and affecting the largest percentage of students, where Savannah State University currently ranks last in the state. The mandate for attacking these 15 items (20%) should be to focus available resources and time to demonstrate measurable improvement within one year (as measured by the same survey items). Each organizational unit within the university should be charged by leadership to develop action plans towards improving these issues for students. The more visible and radical the improvements, the better. The more students are involved in designing the improvement, the better. And, the more the improvement is softly publicized, the better. Even if resources are unavailable for ideal or ultimate solutions, some measurable improvement on each item should be demonstrated (ACT 1998, Institutional Summary Report for Savannah State University; 1997-8 Georgia Student Opinion Survey Project; Figure 25; Table 14). It is further recommended that the level and relative rank of dissatisfaction not be publicized--only the fact of the University attack on the fifteen greatest sources of student dissatisfaction.

Recommendation 19: Preventative Maintenance & Space Removal: Identified formally as a major source of dissatisfaction to students, the physical facilities of Savannah State University should not be allowed to continue in a state of disrepair and neglect. It is recommended that appropriate staff should be held strictly accountable for an effective preventative maintenance schedule, as well as prompt attention to reported un-safe, unhealthy conditions or conditions leading to greater destruction and deterioration. (Parenthetically, the University System must take immediate action to revise its current Catch-22 capital development rules so that Savannah State might develop a reasonable physical environment on its campus. The situation is that new spaces are not funded unless old spaces are heavily utilized. Yet, much old Savannah State University space is not usable in its present form and condition owing to safety and pedagogic considerations. But new space may not be funded within the 500-year flood zone; and the campus may not develop off-campus spaces in conflict with complex regional agreements and plans. In this context, therefore, it is recommended that Savannah State University should move quickly to demolish some of its old unused or unusable space, enhancing thereby, its utilization level and justifying the construction of new spaces. Furthermore, the System should be made aware that "quality" (not quantity) of space is a real and serious issue at Savannah State University.)

Recommendation 20: Staff Development: Anecdotal and survey evidence suggest that non-instructional staff may sometimes contribute negative experiences for students at Savannah State University. Students have demonstrated concerns about staff attitudes; and, in some areas, supervisors have concerns about skill and motivation levels. It is recommended that Savannah State University consider instituting a comprehensive and mandatory staff development program with respect to three areas: customer service and/or sensitivity, computer skills, as well as cross-training and teamwork in the functional area for which an organizational unit is responsible. No student or employee should be subjected to the experience of being instructed to return to the same office for the same service at a different time because the particular individual responsible for a particular desired function is unavailable at the present time. Other individuals within the same functional unit should be able to satisfactorily provide the required service.

Recommendation 21: Computer Help/Consulting Service: In recent years, Savannah State University has successfully installed contemporary computer hard and software in many offices and buildings, as well as a computer laboratory with staff classes and a computer service department where energies are devoted to setting up hardware. But the utilization of sophisticated computer capacity has not been optimized on campus. Therefore, in order to best optimize its computer facilities, it is recommended that Savannah State University take immediate steps to ensure that there is a computer help desk open daily during work hours. Further, that desk should be staffed by a computer advisor/consultant who is highly trained (both for technical and customer service skills and attitudes) and able to guide users effectively through all generic or default software in common use on campus.

Discussion: Records show that Savannah State University students identify themselves as falling, roughly, into three equal proportions, with majors in the liberal arts, business, and the science & technology fields. An equal proportion of students is either undecided or unknown with respect to their major field of study (Figure 19; Table 9). It is particularly notable that the number of majors within each college is not associated with the number of major programs offered by that college: COBA restricts enrollment to six programs; CLASS maintains ten separate programs and is adding an eleventh; and COST maintains twelve major programs. Yet the three colleges attract approximately the same enrollment level and have done so for a decade. Meanwhile, in some programs, numerous classes attract a hand full of students (or less), making it difficult to offer the necessary curriculum sequence, in a cost-effective and timely way, to enable student progress to degree. Among the results are student frustration and attrition--as is dramatically underscored by the comparatively low class conversion rates found for every class. (Figure 18). From this discussion, one possible hypothesis is that increasing the number of major programs within a general area may fragment the clientele rather than attract a greater number of customers. It this hypothesis proves valid, it may be prudent to consider retrenching the number of different programs while broadening their individual appeal to gain greater enrollment.

Recommendation 22: A Focused Curriculum: Assisted by formal program review, faculty and academic administration should consider merging, enlarging, and phasing out major programs to arrive at a mix of 6-8 stellar undergraduate majors with 150-200 students each and 2-3 graduate programs of the same size within each college. The three colleges would remain, thereby, approximately equal in headcount, for graduate and undergraduate constituents, while focusing resources upon the relatively few selected star programs in which Savannah State University can maintain a strong core competency and competitive advantage. With this level of enrollment, surviving programs could offer required curricula with well-funded support to cost-effective sized student groupings, with a regular and predictable pattern of scheduling and outcome effectiveness. (It is due partly to academic quality, efficiency, and scheduling requirements that an overall university size of approximately 5000 students is the forecast target; Tables 9-10).

It is recommended that Savannah State University identify a tight niche market, specializing in fewer closely articulated programs, generating synergy between them, making use of unique core competencies, thereby forming a strong comparative advantage against competitors in southeast Georgia higher education setting. Meanwhile, Savannah State University should consider eliminating academic redundancy, wherever possible, and expand cross-university service or support courses (including cross- and inter-disciplinary courses) which may have a wider applicability to more majors. On example of such a course might be a rigorous interdisciplinary university studies course in behavioral science research methods that could apply to all academic programs in the behavioral sciences rather than maintaining separate low-enrollment courses for each particular specialty.

Meanwhile, the retained programs should develop unique valuable twists and become intrinsically news-worthy so that, when they are publicized externally, students will have positive reasons to pass by other higher education providers to seek matriculation at Savannah State University. Presently, it appears that qualities characterizing this finely honed learning setting should cluster around diversity and service; organizational, social, and group behavior; political, administrative, and managerial leadership; natural science and engineering technology. Each program should develop a minimum of one highly visible and valued community component sporting internships or other student work experiences--e.g., The Dolphin Project, the Midtown Project, The Trade Policy & Investment conference, among others (Tables 9-10).

On line for immediate inclusion in the graduate program are urban affairs and marine biology degrees. Planned for undergraduate expansion is an African-American studies program. As yet to be identified are appropriate corresponding programs for retrenchment, merger, and/or phase out (See Graduate Committee Report, April, 1998). Formal needs assessments should be undertaken immediately to identify the specific nature of and the extent of demand for such programs in this region.

Recommendation 23: Reduce Undecided/Unknown Majors: It is recommended that admissions personnel, counseling and advisement personnel, faculty, and general university staff be trained to influence students in academic decision making and given appropriate incentives to assist in dramatically reducing the ratio of undecided program majors (recently 28%, overall), a phenomenon viewed as counter-productive to successful college completion. In the fall semester, 1997, for example, 1/3 of Savannah State’s students lacking a declared major had passed their freshman year while ten percent had attained upper-division status. Furthermore, half those students lacking a declared major no longer had any requirements remaining to meet for learning support enrollment. (Fig. 19d, 19e) The entire campus community should consider participating in developing a heightened expectation for students to affiliate with a major field. In time, a completed and revised enrollment process might require from students an identified major--if only tentative. Tentative commitments may become self-fulfilling prophecies. These expectations are fully congruent with the thinking displayed by the Savannah State University Task Force on Academic Advisement which recently recommended establishing both an Academic Advisement Council and a University Academic Advisement Center. These ideas were developed in order to upgrade advising from the relatively low-profile pattern it has assumed in recent years and to make it more effective. (See Eke to Silver, 9 June 1998, Memo and Report of the Task Force on Academic Advisement)

Recommendation 24: Student-Centered Scheduling and Room Utilization: It is recommended that academic department chairs and college deans be accountable for developing sound course schedules, offering a suitable array of courses for traditional day students, as well as for non-traditional evening and week end students. Courses should be scheduled in specific rooms, without duplication, and the Registrar should maintain a master scheduling grid during the scheduling process, so that program directors and department chairs might easily locate available space for additional classes. Students should be involved in or consulted about the design of the class schedule at the program or department level. These strategies would address the issues of poor planning and conflicting room assignments, as it relates to room utilization and develop a more student-centered class schedule.

Discussion: The most immediate and dire threat to Savannah State University, from system policy changes, comes from the phase-out of ineligibles from college. Without creative local response, this change over the next three years could be immediately catastrophic: instantly it would eliminate c. 35% of the extant freshman class (the ineligibles) and in short order, much of the returning segment of the freshman class--recently numbering over 50% of the class. Even considering the low conversion rates of recent freshman classes, drastically removing 80% of them would soon ripple through succeeding upper classes cutting a swath from which the university could hardly hope to survive. Calculating a worst case scenario, the freshman class could quickly drop to c. 150 students. If, from that class, Savannah State University then converted 53% into sophomores the following year (the state average conversion rate), the resultant sophomore class would then be under 80. And, again using the state-wide average, if Savannah State University converted 86% of its sophomores to juniors in the following year, the junior class could top out at just 70 students. Finally, repeating the above, Savannah State University could convert its juniors into seniors the following year at the state-wide average rate and find itself with a class of 84. The cascading effect of this policy could reduce the entire student body of 2747 to 384 in just four years (Figure 18; Table 6). Apart from this policy-induced scenario, little else is of great concern. Savannah State University must manage its enrollment process with great finesse if it hopes to survive the pressures induced by policy.

Discussion: Recently, owing partly to enrollment declines, the student/faculty ratio at Savannah State University has fallen lower than the average mean for the University System of Georgia. For example, in 1996, the ratio at Savannah State University was 18 students to 1 faculty member, while state-wide it was 26.6/1. Accordingly, the current faculty could support considerably more students, provided that those students are deployed or recruited into areas where faculty, (underemployed by state standards), now reside. Alternatively, if faculty positions, now under-employed, were shifted gradually into disciplines congruent with current student demand, the current number of faculty could support far more headcount (Table 12).

If, for example, the state’s average student/faculty ratio of 26.6 were applied to 157 faculty (the number at Savannah State University reported for Fall, 1996), the currently sized Savannah State University faculty could support 4176 students. On the basis of gross headcount, Savannah State University should require no further faculty positions to accommodate the forecasted student enrollment through 2000. Savannah State University’s full-time faculty, however, actually declined by Fall 1997 to 147. So it is reasonable to project that Savannah State University would have to reclaim ten faculty positions (returning the faculty to its size in 1996) by the year 2000 in order to accommodate the projected 4000-student level. The next 1,000 students would require an additional 45 faculty members. To serviced this growth, Savannah State University would have to recruit c. 9 faculty/year from 2,000-2005. Fully 30 of these should be those star faculty described in Recommendation 12, above.

Recommendation 25: Faculty Size and Productivity: It is recommended that Savannah State University should consider developing a top-quality, productive faculty by employing a faculty of a size such that the average student/faculty ratio remains in the most productive quartile for the University System of Georgia. By this measure, together with efficient scheduling practices, the faculty could essentially support itself directly on the marginal revenue generated through tuition received as a result of instruction. Attaining the optimum number and quality of faculty will become, thereby, a self-generating, self-monitoring, and self-fulfilling prophecy. Financially, faculty, on average, will carry their own weight in terms of student load (Table 11).

Recommendation 26: Faculty Load: Further, it is recommended that Savannah State University should consider having its faculty and department chairs be actively involved with their Deans in identifying and recommending appropriate student load standards by disciplines, course levels, and pedagogic plans. The average load should be calculated by aggregating data at the program, department, or college level as appropriate by college. By adhering to these appropriate average load demands, the University may overcome the fiscal constraints imposed by recent low productivity (Table 11).

In light of current cost-structures, 22 full-time equivalent enrolled students is the minimum needed to support, on average, one properly loaded full-time faculty position. A complete program with 150 enrolled students (annual average), therefore, would support and require a maximum of 6-7 full-time faculty teaching positions. A program with 200 enrolled students would support and require 9 faculty teaching positions. Clearly, if even higher average loads could be attained, funds would become available for further expansion or other use.

Discussion: Various plans are emerging to invigorate a robust program of academic support at Savannah State University. Space prohibits detailing them here. See, in particular, the Honors Program Recommendation (May 1989) and the Learning Support Phase-Out Plan (Spring 1989).

Recommendation 27: Academic Support System: It is recommended that Savannah State University continue developing and enhancing its academic support system and consider this the primary component of the University’s comparative advantage in relationship to competing institutions. Savannah State University should become known regionally as a leader in this student support arena (Figure 24, Table 13).

Discussion: Arriving late to the table of distance learning, Savannah State University must continue working to develop more extensive plans in this area over the next 18 months. To date, the University has joined with its neighboring institutions to provide local service to residents in Liberty County to the South. President Brown has identified the development of two other off-campus sites among his visions for the University to accomplish by 2005. Incorporating technology in delivering distance learning is a strong interest of a number of faculty and a high tech distance learning classroom has been outfitted in the Library, under the aegis of Title III funding. But the quality implementation of distance learning depends, in part, upon the University developing a cadre of professional computer support staff for both administrative and academic computing. Developing that staff is rapidly underway at the present time. Implementation of distance learning requires, further, allocation of faculty time to the advance development of materials; it is widely understood that technologically supported distance learning projects require extensive advance development and several years’ operation to generate a meaningful return on the investment. These and other advances are being carefully considered in the newly revised and energized strategic planning process for 1998-99.

Discussion: Empirical evidence shows that the majority of southeast Georgia’s African-American college students (69%), as well as the vast majority of general post-secondary clientele (82%), are not currently electing to attend Savannah State University and are matriculating, instead, at Armstrong Atlantic University or Georgia Southern University. The recent trend (See Figures 4-8) is that students are no longer attracted, as once they were, to a college lacking defined positive market attributes--including an adequate physical plant. Although a small sub-set (11%) of students continue to select Savannah State University on traditional HBCU grounds, the new trend is very clear. The vast majority of today’s college students require competitive programming, competitive facilities, and a strongly positive user-friendly attitude on the part of faculty and staff.

Recommendation 28: A Limited Scope but High Quality Program: For survival, Savannah State University should consider devising and marketing a highly competitive, high quality academic program, around a focused set of curricular plans, in the context of high-touch and genuinely caring student-centered staff, within the visibility of relevant communities. It is recommended that Savannah State University should not attempt to compete on all fronts with its much bigger sister institution competitors, since that strategy will deploy resources too broadly and thinly to maintain excellence. Instead, it should consider spearheading an institutional revitalization of the type engineered by Carnegie-Mellon University: hue a tightly focused core competency, demand excellence in performance, and create a positive attraction to allure students to its tidal basin (Tables 9-10).

Discussion: Although the new administration of Savannah State University has been quite effective in rapidly gaining necessary funds from a variety of individual and group sources in order to fuel both expansion and excellence, the University is still in need of funding. Indeed, one of the classic measures of organizational effectiveness is the organization’s ability to extract resources from its community. To this end, Savannah State University has reorganized and re-staffed its office of institutional advancement and charged it with multiple tasks. Under current leadership, the Office of Institutional Advancement has sponsored the heralded Tiger Program, marked by individual staff giving; it has also stimulated a considerable alumni scholarship campaign and is readying itself for a new capital campaign, among other successful projects. Beyond these discretionary programs, Savannah State University also has begun to take a new posture with respect to negotiating commercial and business arrangements with vendors and other enterprises doing business on campus. Of particular note, an exclusive contract with Pepsi Cola has garnered extensive new resources for the University, as has another lucrative contract with Paramount pictures for the on-campus filming of feature film, The General’s Daughter. Judged by the resource extraction criteria, Savannah State University was, in FY 1997-8, many times as effective in garnering discretionary resources as it had been in the three prior years together (Graph 25).

Recommendation 29: A Tripartite Funding Concept: Conceptually, it is recommended that the University allocate state formula funding to support basic institutional overhead; that a properly sized and arranged academic enterprise be expected to generate, through tuition and fees, the resources needed to sustain the marginal cost of instruction; and that outside sources, including Title III, the Savannah State University foundation, and a variety of other programs be orchestrated to cover development, research, and excellence plans together with scholarships and other forms of student aid.