UMA Strategic Plan - History and Context for Key Goal 3
Key Goal 3: Improve Student Retention
Key Goal 3 establishes UMA's commitment to student retention by formulating an overall plan in Objective 3.1 and targeting specific service initiatives in Objectives 3.2-3.4.
Past efforts at retention planning often focused on explaining why UMA did not have or expect to have high retention rates. When UMA served as the "community college" for the state of Maine, it was inevitable that many students would take foundation courses at UMA and then move on to degree completion at other intuitions. As a matter of fact, even students seeking admission to competitive programs at the "Maine Vocational-Technical Colleges", now the Maine Community College System, would do their pre-admission work at UMA. But over the years UMA's mission has changed significantly and such explanations for less than stellar retention performance are no longer valid. It is true that the IPEDS comparative retention and graduation data is inherently biased against institution like UMA that serve a largely non-traditional population. That data excludes the success of incoming transfers, focuses only on a small minority of first-time, full-time students, and discounts students whose circumstances require extended time to graduate. When compared to a legitimate peer group of 6, UMA's retention rates are respectable. According to IPEDS, the percentage of UMA full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking students from fall 2003 returning in fall 2004 was 61%. The average of the 6 peer institutions was 58.2%. On the other hand, one peer was at 71%, providing UMA an ambitious, though reasonable target. In terms of graduation rates, UMA's 25% rates fell below the 31.3% peer average.
External factors further mandate that retention improve. Competition for new students is increasingly challenging. The number of traditional-aged high school graduates has peaked and is now in decline. The emerging community college system with its competitive tuition now draws many of UMA's historic recruits. Many traditional campuses are retooling in response to diminishing numbers of young recruits and aggressively pursuing UMA's long-established adult market. Conventional wisdom proposes that retaining a student is more cost-effective than recruiting a new one. All of these factors suggest that increased student retention is paramount to maintaining UMA's economic viability and vitality. In addition, it reflects responsible stewardship of Maine's investment in higher education and promotes the economic self-sufficiency of its citizens.
To succeed on its own terms, UMA must finally establish its own retention and graduation goals and measures suitable to the types of students it serves, rather than simply criticize existing measures (Objective 3.1). It must create a practical strategy somewhere between the "Retention Czar" model that may inadvertently absolve all others of responsibility and the "Everyone's Job" model that requires little personal accountability. As the professional literature repeatedly asserts, quality academic advising is likely the most potent tools for retention, hence UMA's emphasis on improving its advising program (Objectives 3.2 and 3.4). Advising has the potential to affect every student and the majority of faculty and staff. The literature also asserts that students new to an institution, whether first-time in college or incoming transfers, are most vulnerable to attrition, hence the focus on these populations.
Objective 3.3 addresses the need to improve students' satisfaction, affiliation and involvement with the university. A better understanding of student needs, both individual and collective, is required to guide more aggressive intervention and effectively promote participation in beneficial activities. Knowing what works and what doesn't will suggest the most cost-effective investments. Creating more meaningful relationships among UMA community members will increase satisfaction, enhance persistence, and support the long-term goal of graduation.