Facing the multiple headwinds of a decline in the college age population, a questioning of the value and purpose of a college degree, and a general mistrust of the motives in higher education, those of us in the field are confronting an existential crisis of declining enrollment and morale among all members of the campus community. In response to such problems, universities need to fundamentally reconsider their status quo in how they operate vis-à-vis the student experience. The case study I present here is one example of how a university can improve by shifting long-established and previously unquestioned processes that risk harming rather than helping our students. Seeing our policies and procedures as students experience them can result in a broader culture shift on a campus to ensure that our practices align with our institution’s mission and values, especially where vulnerable students are involved.
One of my overarching philosophies working in higher education is that rather than just preparing students to navigate the policies, procedures, and general bureaucracy they will encounter in college, it behooves university leaders to modify and change the university’s policies, procedures, and bureaucracy to meet the needs of the students we serve. Traditionally, the research on college student retention focuses on preparing students to adapt to the realities of being a college student, learning to advocate for themselves and make informed decisions. But why should the onus be solely on students to adapt? Rarely does the literature ask how universities can or should adapt to meet the students where they are. We have seen some movement here because of the pandemic and the need for campuses to adjust course modalities and in some cases grading practices, but there are still plentiful examples of how universities have yet to adapt to students’ realities. By “adapt,” I am referring to revisiting long-standing campus rules and regulations to serve the current reality of our students. The university also has a responsibility to adapt as needed over time to meet the needs of its students as they change.
The case that prompted this article came out of my time as Director of Academic Advising at California State University Channel Islands (CSUCI). A student we will call Ana completed her first semester (fall 2016) with a 2.5 GPA as a first-generation, first-year student coming directly from high school. She was forced to take time off from school after her first semester because her father was injured at work, and she had to work full time to help support her family. She did not meet with any university official at the time, nor did she notify the university about her intention to take time off. She passed all of her classes and dropped the spring classes for which she had registered once she made the decision to take time off thinking there was nothing else she needed to do. After about a year and a half her situation at home improved, and she planned to return to school in fall 2018. She scheduled a meeting with an academic advisor in April of 2018 because that is when students typically start to register for their fall classes. Unfortunately, the advisor had to deliver some bad news.
He had to inform her that not only could she not return to campus the following fall semester, but also that it would likely be at least three semesters before she could return. As a result of being gone for more than one semester, she was no longer active in our system and was therefore no longer able to register for classes. The only means of reactivating students in our system after an absence of more than one semester was having them go through the application process as a new student. She was essentially no longer a CSUCI student at this point so she would have to reapply as a new student. What is more, because she completed one semester of college coursework, she would not be considered a first-year student but, rather, a transfer student. This presented another problem because transfer students must have a minimum of 60 units completed in order to be eligible to transfer. This meant she had to go to another college or university and complete another 48 semester units to add to the 12 she completed in her first semester at CSUCI before she would be eligible to transfer. At best, this would take an additional three semesters.
Needless to say, the student was devastated at this news. It took a lot for her to make the decision to meet with an advisor to talk about returning to school. She had really questioned whether she was ready to come back or whether college was even for her. She had gotten a job and had been able to contribute to her family while her dad was unable to work so she would be making a sacrifice to reduce her work hours to come back to school. Upon hearing that she would have to complete at least three semesters at some other college or university she was heartbroken. The advisor she met with tried to encourage her to take the necessary courses at her local community college, but he could tell that Ana was probably not coming back to school anytime soon, if at all.
Ana’s situation led me to examine the whole process of how students navigate their return to the university after an extended absence. At the time, and this was pre-COVID, students were allowed to take one semester off with no negative repercussions. They remained “active” in the system and would be able to register without any special permissions or paperwork. If a student took more than one semester off, however, they were no longer considered “active.” The only avenue available to them to return to CSUCI was to go through the full application process as a new CSUCI student. In essence, there was no recognition of their previous status as a CSUCI student.
Ana’s story was a worst-case scenario because not only was she considered a new student, but she would only be able to return as a transfer student. But even for students who left after completing 60 units, though they would not need to earn units elsewhere, there would still be a significant logistical barrier to overcome. As an example, let us consider a student in good academic standing who has completed 62 units and is in the same situation and follows the same timeline as Ana’s. He decides to take time off after fall 2016 and returns in April 2018 to meet with an academic advisor so he can register for fall classes. In this case the advisor must inform the student that to come back in the fall he needed to have applied as a new transfer student the previous November. At this point, the earliest he could return is in the spring 2019 semester. He has already completed all general education and required lower division courses so there is nothing he can take at the local community college that will help him progress toward his degree. His time to degree has now been extended by an additional semester.
Therefore, any time students take more than one semester off, they would be treated as new students if they wanted to return. The one exception to this is if they submitted a request for Academic Leave. Students who plan to be away from the university for more than one semester can apply for a leave for up to four consecutive semesters, with no more than a total of six semesters. Most significantly, students who submit these requests are not required to reapply to the university as new students. They are administratively returned to active status in the system and are able to register for classes just as they did before their leave. This policy was important because it told me that there were no technical or regulatory issues preventing us from simply reactivating students.
The problem that I saw with this was that in order to avail themselves of this option students needed to know what Academic Leave was in the first place and that this was even an option for them. Students had to have the cultural capital to know about the option of an Academic Leave and how to ask for it. Those who knew and submitted this request could tell the university when they planned to return and could do so without having to reapply. Such a clear inequity was problematic for me because at the time nearly 60% of CSUCI students were the first in their families to go to college. Knowing what taking a leave is and how to ask for it is precisely the type of cultural capital that typically comes with having family members with college degrees.
When I first brought this issue up to our Enrollment Management leadership, they were skeptical. Our process was the same one used at every one of the other 22 California State University campuses. Students who left and wanted to return after more than a semester had to fill out the admissions application, it was a simple as that. I brought this up at our semesterly Directors of Academic Advising meeting with my counterparts at the other campuses, the response was the same: this is just how it’s done.
I knew here had to be another way, and because of my previous experience working in the University of California system, I had one. At UCLA, students in good standing could take off an indefinite number of terms and would only have a simple re-entry form to fill out. They could submit the form after meeting with an academic advisor to ensure they had the appropriate academic plan in place. Taking the UCLA process and form as a model I presented this to our Enrollment Management team here at CSUCI. This time, instead of bringing it up as an abstract concept of how we bring back students who had left, I personalized it by using Ana’s specific example. I also presented the case to other administrators outside of Enrollment Management to gather support. I was ultimately allowed to present this proposal to our entire Enrollment Management team. I concluded my argument by saying, “If we presented this case study to our President, does anyone honestly feel she would be ok with our current process?” After that I was given the green light to lead a team to develop a new process. The areas most impacted by this would be Admissions, the Registrar’s Office, and Academic Advising. Admissions confirmed that they were only part of the process because returning students were routed through them. They were happy not to play a role here. The Registrar’s Office would be the one with the most work, but after confirming that there were no policies preventing us from enacting this, they were on board. They acknowledged that creating a re-entry form and new simplified process for this, while requiring some initial work, would be much better for students in the long run. As I oversaw Academic Advising (and was the instigator of the new process), I was happy to commit to having any returning student be required to meet with an advisor before signing off on re-entry.
The process we have in place now makes it much easier for students to take time off and to return. Students who want to return for the fall semester must submit their two-page re-entry form and meet with an advisor by August, and those coming back for the spring semester must complete the process by December. We further simplified the process by changing our campus policy on Academic Leave to include an “informal leave of absence” and to extend that from one to two semesters. As a result, students did not have to file the formal Academic Leave and had an additional semester where they would remain active in the system and would not even need the informal two-page re-entry form.
Luckily, we enacted these changes before the pandemic. With the pandemic disrupting enrollment patterns at other campuses in the CSU system, everyone began to think proactively about how to remove barriers to enrollment or re-enrollment. As a result of the changes we enacted and the attention we brought to this issue in CSU systemwide meetings, our process has since become a model for overhauling the re-entry process for other CSU campuses.
I take three lessons from this experience. First, never stop questioning why a policy or process exists. Ask yourself whether what might have made sense in the past might no longer makes sense. Second, as we question processes, we should do so through the lens of equity and the experiences of the students we serve. We make the university experience better for our students when we adapt to their needs and experiences rather than expecting them to adapt to ours. Finally, I was able to see solutions because I came from a different campus and university system with very different processes. I am keenly aware that in order to be able to identify other processes needing revision, I must stay up to date with best practices at other campuses. Moreover, I need to bring people onto my team that have varied perspectives and experiences so that we are constantly sharing new ideas and insights that will more easily identify similar issues so that we regularly examine whether the status quo truly serves our students. Once we had changed the process, we ran a campaign where were reached out to all students who had left in good academic standing and Ana was part of that effort. Unfortunately, to this date she has not responded to the outreach. While the new processes were not in place to help Ana when she first came to us, I know that future Anas will have a much simpler path to return for their degree.