Game Change on Graduation:
Improving Graduation and Retention at the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville
1
Contents
Context: What Happened at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville? ............................................ 2
Five Factors Leading to Change ...................................................................................................... 4
Factor One: Raised Expecations ............................................................................................ 4
Factor Two: Partnership with the State of Tennessee ............................................................ 6
Factor Three: Cross-Functional Teaming and Engagement ................................................... 6
Factor Four: Planning and Prioritization ................................................................................. 7
Factor Five: Action with a Sense of Urgency .........................................................................11
Closing the Gaps, Reflections, and Next Steps...............................................................................12
1
Context: What Happened at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville?
Graduation and retention rates have become common success metrics in higher education.
These statistics are at the core of a growing political discussion to make post-secondary education
more accessible and affordable. The discussion is spurred by the fear that the nation’s colleges
and universities are failing in the quintessential task of getting their students to graduation.
The current six-year graduation rate for public colleges and universities in the United States is
57%, a percentage that is broadly deemed unsustainable. A post-secondary educated workforce,
many argue, is necessary to ameliorate the widening earning gap and resulting hit to the middle
class. As more jobs become automated, demand for employees with an associate or bachelor’s
degree will outstrip supply, a process that many say has already begun.
In response to these troubling trends, the University of Tennessee made graduation and
retention rate improvement an institutional commitment. UT’s success is worthy of investigation at
a time when graduation metrics have become part of the public dialogue, but have shown little
movement on a national level. Using the 2002 freshmen cohort as a baseline, the University of
Tennessee increased:


Four-year graduation by 13 percentage points over seven years
Six-year graduation by 8 percentage points over five years
Figure 1 - Four-Year and Six Year Graduation Rates; 2002 to 2009 Cohorts
4-Year Graduation
70%
Graduation Rate
60%
5-Year Graduation
60%
61%
61%
5%
5%
5%
25%
24%
25%
30%
31%
31%
2002
2003
50%
40%
63%
5%
25%
6-Year Graduation
66%
68%
5%
5%
26%
25%
26%
36%
37%
39%
43%
2008
2009
30%
20%
10%
34%
0%
2004
2005
2006
2007
Incoming Freshmen Cohort Year
Note: The chart above tracks incoming freshmen cohorts, not graduation year. For example,
the 4-year graduation rate for the 2002 cohort is 2006 and the 6-year graduation rate for the 2002
cohort is 2008.
The University’s journey demonstrates the importance of a campus-wide commitment to both
objectively examine and alter the institution’s culture. Universities often outline action plans that
fail to yield results. Strategic planning in higher education can be notoriously slow with poor
implementation results. The key to success at the University of Tennessee was the intangible, and
2
perhaps the improbable. Despite a complex university environment and a climate of financial
constraints, UT created a culture of collaboration and action.
Five factors led to the change in culture and resulting improvement in graduation and retention
rates:

Factor 1: Raised Expectations - UT raised awareness by demonstrating metric-based
performance gaps between itself and a set of the nation’s best public universities. As a
result, stakeholders elevated expectations for Tennessee’s flagship university and
engaged in the improvement effort.

Factor 2: Partnership with the State of Tennessee – UT adopted outcomes-based
institutional metrics that supported the Complete College Tennessee Act and the
Tennessee Higher Education Commissions’ performance-based funding initiative. With
goals aligned, UT’s improvement was both supported and rewarded by the State of
Tennessee.

Factor 3: Cross-Functional Teaming– UT crossed organizational boundaries to form the
right team to build a plan for graduation and retention improvement. The team coalesced
and began to solve problems from a student-centric, rather than unit-centric, perspective.

Factor 4: Planning and Prioritization – UT laid out a logical undergraduate education
action plan that carefully avoided the unattainable or unrealistic. The plan outlined clear
priorities that ultimately facilitated resource allocation decisions.

Factor 5: Action with a Sense of Urgency – UT moved immediately from plan to action,
quickly committing financial resources to the plan’s highest priorities.
The improvement, especially the rapid increase in four-year graduation rates, exceeded the
University’s expectations. UT’s story illustrates the rewards, as well as the complexities, that
accompany improved graduation rates. In this white paper, we examine progress in the context of
the five factors leading to a change in culture. We also review how UT is working through new
challenges and discuss how the University plans to build on its success.
3
Five Factors Leading to Change
Factor One: Raised Expecations
Though UT had worked to improve retention and graduation rates since 2002, the journey
intensified in January 2010 when then-Governor Phil Bredesen challenged Tennessee’s flagship
university to become a “Top 25 public research university.” UT’s Chancellor, Dr. Jimmy Cheek,
immediately embraced this challenge.
Many stakeholders initially expressed concern that UT would adopt controversial metrics
tracked by U.S. News and other non-academic ranking systems in order to rise in the rankings.
Sensitive to this, Dr. Cheek convened a Task Force to uniquely define what it meant for UT to be a
“Top 25 public research university.” Using this charge as their guide, the team customized an
approach independent of popular surveys.
The Task Force began by carefully selecting a new peer group consisting of the nation’s best
public research universities. Regional comparisons no longer held weight. UT was ready to
compete on a national scale and framed its perspective accordingly. The Task Force then adopted
a set of executive-level metrics that encompassed undergraduate education, graduate education,
research, faculty and infrastructure and resources; dimensions that extended beyond
undergraduate education to reflect “research university” aspirations.
The Task Force established a “Top 25 Target” peer group that closely reflected institutional
characteristics and provided a reasonable evaluation of metric-based performance gaps. A
broader “Aspiration” group would also serve as a high-end performance threshold and provide
models to evaluate on a case study basis.
Figure 2 - “Top 25” Peer Groups
4
The final “gap analysis,” a comparative assessment of UT’s relative standing to the Top 25
Target group, showed significant gaps across all metrics except undergraduate ACT equivalent.
The outcome revealed a worrisome trend. UT was enrolling capable students, but these students
were not graduating at an acceptable rate. While UT’s ACT equivalent was slightly higher than the
Top 25 Target group at the time of the 2010 study, first-to-second year retention and six-year
graduation rates lagged behind the Target Group by 6 and 15 percentage points, respectively.
Figure 3 - Gap Analysis; 2010
UT’s Relative Standing Compared to Top 25 Target Peers
Dr. Cheek shared the gap analysis with the Board of Trustees in order to begin a discussion
concerning the importance of improved results for the university. The lagging performance
stimulated the UT community to action, prompting The Board to embrace the unique Top 25 effort
and pledge its support to Dr. Cheek and the University.
Chancellor Cheek made undergraduate education an immediate priority in the new
VolVision/Top 25 Strategic Plan. Fixing graduation and retention was not only imperative to the
enduring financial stability of the University, but important to its land-grant access mission and the
higher education goals of the State of Tennessee. Dr. Cheek was careful to point out that
improvement would require a long-term commitment that may extend over a decade, frequently
highlighting importance of the “journey” rather than the goal.
The administration, faculty, and staff at UT soon came together to make retention and
graduation part of a campus-wide commitment. The Chancellor immediately established a new
expectation for the incoming freshmen class in 2010: graduation in four years, rather than six
years. Incoming freshmen in 2010 were given “Class of 2014” graduation tassels during
orientation, setting “on time” graduation expectations from Day One. Parents were also informed
that UT supported their desire to see their students graduate in four years.
5
The “Top 25” aspiration and the four-year graduation expectation began to change the culture
at UT to one in which “on-time” graduation was the standard. The new expectations catalyzed
conversations such as how advisors should serve students in their programs and how students
should approach their degrees.
Factor Two: Partnership with the State of Tennessee
In January 2010, the State of Tennessee passed the Complete College Tennessee Act. In a
substantive change to policy, future state appropriations to higher education in the state would be
driven by outcomes rather than enrollment. At this time, the Tennessee Higher Education
Commission (THEC) structured a new outcomes-based incentive system for Tennessee’s public
universities.
The Top 25 Task Force paid close attention to THEC’s progress. Accordingly, the metrics
adopted in the gap analysis aligned with many of the metrics included in the new funding formula.
While Top 25 and the funding formula metrics were not mirror images of each other, both place
value on outcomes, such as graduation and degrees conferred, rather than input metrics such as
enrollment.
Figure 4 - Complete College Tennessee Act
Outcomes Included in Funding Formula
Students Accumulating 24hrs
Bachelor and Associate Degrees Awarded
Students Accumulating 48hrs
Masters and Ed Specialist Degrees Awarded
Students Accumulating 72hrs
Doctoral and Law Degrees Awarded
Transfers Out with at Least 12 Credit Hours
Research and Service Expenditures
Degrees per FTE
Six‐Year Graduation Rate
The alignment resulted in an effective partnership with the State of Tennessee. In the years
that followed, UT demonstrated marked improvement in many performance categories, including
graduation and retention. As a result, UT received additional funding from the state that allowed
for critical investments. Thus began an iterative process that provided the investment needed to
fuel the improvement efforts that drove increased graduation effectiveness.
Factor Three: Cross-Functional Teaming
By August 2010, Chancellor Cheek convened the first VolVision/Top 25 action plan team to
focus on undergraduate education. The Chancellor and Provost Susan Martin recognized that
solely assigning staff and administrators from the Provost’s Office to the team would not solve the
systemic problems associated with retention and graduation. In UT’s organizational structure,
Academic Affairs and Student Life report to different leaders. Business administration and the
6
analytical capabilities of institutional research also reside in separate reporting lines. As a result,
planning and analysis efforts in the past occurred predominately at the unit level.
The Chancellor and Provost believed that improvement depended on these disparate units
working as an integrated team. They crossed traditional reporting lines to form a new team. The
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Dr. Sally McMillian, was appointed as Team Leader. Team
members included representation from the Faculty Senate, Student Success, Enrollment
Management, Institutional Research, Student Life, and Finance and Administration.
Dr. Cheek set a deadline of three months for the completion of the action plan, an aggressive
timeline that reflected his action-oriented leadership style. This sense of urgency prompted those
involved to quickly relinquish unit-level perspectives and preexisting modes of operating in favor of
university-wide goals. The team was able to overcome these sacrifices and, as a result,
collaborated with greater efficiency than was previously possible. With the right people in the
room, decisions could be made and interdependencies addressed quickly.
As the team solidified, new ideas and innovations became possible. The group transcended
silos to take on a stronger student-centric perspective. In one week, the group was able to design
and agree upon an action plan for the creation of a one-stop shop for student services that
integrated multiple units and administrative functions. Three of those units reported to three
different team members. Previous to this, such a planning effort may have required several
months.
After three months of intense work, the team presented Dr. Cheek with a completed
Undergraduate Action Plan that received unanimous support from its members. The power of
consensus allowed a group of formerly fragmented units to agree upon priorities and confidently
share an integrated path forward with the university community as a united front.
Forging the right team set the stage for results. Collaboration became a way of doing
business. The group immediately transitioned to implementation and continued to meet on a
monthly basis after completing the plan. The initial group shifted focus to tracking progress on
initiatives and identifying opportunities for continuous improvement. In implementation mode, the
team added representatives from Information Technology, Academic Advising, and Marketing and
Communications. This small group drove action and solved problems that were not readily
apparent when functional teams worked only in their own areas.
Factor Four: Planning and Prioritization
Chancellor Cheek wanted tangible actions to emerge from the planning process. Broad
assertions, “wish list” ideas, and nebulous timelines would not suffice. Therefore, UT’s
undergraduate action plan included specific actions, timelines, resource plans, and success
measures. Dr. Cheek also required the team to prioritize the most important actions, recognizing
the reality of the university’s financial constraints. By forcing tradeoffs and acknowledging funding
challenges during the process, the plan was not a far-fetched goal, but an achievable course of
action.
7
The team developed a five point strategy summarized below:
Figure 5 - Undergraduate Action Plan Priorities
Foundation: Elevate Quality and Use of Undergraduate Student Data.
Access to student data was a constraint to developing long-term strategies. Student
information was housed in different systems and data bases across campus, a data environment
that mirrored its organizational fragmentation. At its foundation, the action plan committed to
integrating available student data to gain a comprehensive picture of the issues before using this
information over time to improve graduation and retention.
By making the quality and use of student data a foundational priority, the University chose to
invest in capabilities that would yield future dividends. Several of the early resource allocations to
the Top 25 plan focused on developing and fine-tuning information systems that support the
tracking of students and assessment of programmatic outcomes.
Faculty talent became a major asset during this process and, as a result, the culture of
collaboration extended to faculty. An economics professor conducted a regression study in order to
compare UT to the top 25 peers. This research resulted in a coaching program that identified
students at risk of dropping out before graduation. Similar initiatives involving faculty from the
Colleges of Arts and Sciences, Engineering, and Business provided new analytical insights
uncovering important root causes and constraints to timely graduation.
Priority 1: Expect Graduation in Four Years.
Comparison to Top 25 Target peers showed greater gaps in graduation rates (15 percentage
points) than retention rates (6 percentage points). Therefore, the team anchored the first priority of
the plan on four-year graduation and committed to the success of all admitted students, not only
freshmen.
UT’s top action was an effort to ensure that courses were available for students when needed.
Many course sections were operating at or above 95 percent of capacity, creating bottlenecks that
delayed students from taking required courses. Students either abandoned academic interests or
8
postponed enrolling in entry-level classes until late in their college careers. UT’s registration data
research revealed bottleneck courses and prompted the leadership team to open up new sections
of the course. The data unexpectedly showed that Introductory Spanish had the longest waitlist.
As a result, funds were secured to hire new instructors for Spanish and other high-demand
courses. In addition, UT increased accessibility to summer classes.
The University also shifted to a technology-forward model of education and creatively used
technology to cater to student’s changing needs. The development of new on-line courses
provided flexibility and additional course capacity for students. A custom graduation tracking tool,
uTrack, was created to help students track their progress to graduation and flag students who may
be “off track” for additional assistance. The technology emphasis extended to the physical learning
spaces. A newly constructed classroom facility was one of the first in the country built specifically
to foster collaborative teaching and learning. These technology initiatives contributed to graduation
improvement by increasing efficiency and student satisfaction.
UT addressed incentives inherent in its tuition structure to support on-time graduation. The
previous tuition structure gave full-time status for students taking 12 hours per semester despite
the fact that 15 were required for four-year graduation. Students were not charged for any hours
that they took beyond 12. A new 15/4 tuition model was adopted that charges full-time students for
15 hours and thus encourages them to graduate in four years.
The new attention to graduation progress of sophomores, juniors and seniors led to impressive
gains. Both second-to-third and third-to-fourth year retention increased, in addition to improvement
in first-to-second year retention. In the three years that followed the creation of the action plan, the
four-year graduation rate increased by 7 percentage points.
Figure 6 - Retention Rates; 2002 to 2012 Cohorts
1st Year Retention
2nd Year Retention
3rd Year Rention
90%
Retention Rate
86%
80%
78%
70%
68%
79%
73%
66%
60%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Incoming Freshmen Cohort Year
9
Priority 2: Provide Adequate Core Support.
Previous budget cuts had forced UT to make tough choices. Analysis showed that advising
and academic support services were staffed at lower levels than UT’s peers and lacked the latest
technologies to improve efficiency. The team believed that progress would be stagnant until
student support improved. Accordingly, the second priority of the action plan emphasized the
hiring of essential staff and modernization of core services.
The University pinpointed staffing gaps and actively looked to fill these positions in order to
give students access to staff that could help them chart their academic progress and future
coursework. In the first year following the action plan, UT allocated resources to add more
academic advisors and counselors, expand tutoring resources, and implement on-line scheduling
of advising appointments.
As physical evidence of the new culture of student-centric collaboration, UT re-conceptualized
the library as a hub of student services such as Student Success, Registrar, Bursar, Financial Aid,
and new tutoring and advising services. The library was also selected as the site of the “one-stopshop” to integrate and streamline student administrative processes.
Priority 3: Support Transition into the First Year.
Despite gains in first-to-second year retention, the University continued to lose more students
after the first year than at any other time in their academic careers. If students were able to
progress through the first year, their likelihood of graduation increased. The third priority targeted
first-year students and looked to create new ways to connect, engage, and inspire them to become
a part of the University community.
Since previous investments had been made to address first-to-second year retention, the
action focused on assessing progress and expanding the most effective programs. In the 2000s,
UT added several programs for first-year students such as freshman seminars, peer mentor
programs, learning communities, and a first-year transition programs. However, some programs
yielded better results than others. Retention data on past participants suggested that students who
participated in a summer transition program, Ignite, were retained at 94%, which was almost ten
percentage points higher than the university average of 84% at the time. Accordingly, UT
expanded this program.
UT also reached out to its students to identify any exiting program gaps. Feedback indicated a
desire for leadership learning and holistic experiences amongst transitioning freshman. UT
addressed this deficiency through the creation of the Center for Leadership & Service, which
provided robust leadership opportunities to supplement academic pursuits. An Office of New
Student & Family Programs was also established to oversee first-year transition programs for both
students and their families. These initiatives, concentrated specifically on first-year retention, were
made possible by a reorganization of existing departments.
UT’s comprehensive effort to expand existing programs, increase the number of first-year
classes offered, and create targeted services resulted in an engaging and supportive landscape for
students who may have otherwise struggled during their first year. UT’s first-to-second year
10
retention rate increased 8 percentage points over ten years, from 78% with the 2002 freshmen
cohort to 86% with the 2012 cohort.
Priority 4: Engage Students Based on a Changing Profile.
The average ACT score of incoming freshmen at UT steadily increased through the 2000s.
With this change, UT experienced an increasing demand for new, challenging academic
experiences. The fourth priority intended to fill this gap and develop new programs to engage highability students. UT explored opportunities to increase grants and scholarships for honors and
study abroad programs, implement new leadership and service learning programs, and develop
systems to match faculty mentors to undergraduate students involved in research.
Scarce financial resources forced the University to evaluate trade-offs and prioritize its
investments. Heeding its access mission, UT made the decision to first improve service and
support for all students before heavily investing in programs for the small group of high-achieving
students. Modest, but meaningful, investments were made in programs specifically targeted to
engage this group.
As major changes were made to improve course capacity and core support services in the
near term, the University structured innovative programs that set a foundation for long-term
progress. The honors program was revamped to improve the student experience, and funding
increased for undergraduate research. These programs are in early stages of change and leaders
expect them to be expanded in the near future.
Factor Five: Action with a Sense of Urgency
As the team developed its action plan, Dr. Cheek worked in a parallel with the Vice Chancellor
of Finance and Administration Chris Cimino and Provost Martin to secure financial resources for
priority investments. A Strategic Investment Fund was established to immediately allocate onetime funding. Since the action plan outlined specific investment needs, the executive team could
quickly make decisions and secure resources to alleviate the most pressing issues. Before the end
of 2010, UT allocated funding to hire new instructors and academic advising staff.
At the same time, the need for investment in both physical and technology infrastructure
challenged UT. The University again disciplined itself to prioritize and invest. Within the first year,
UT committed to much-needed upgrades in its physical infrastructure. Capital projects included
significant renovations or construction of a new engineering building, music school, student center,
and sorority village. Technology investments were made to support the development of uTrack
and advance integrated student data initiatives.
UT also invested in its people. After four years without raises or cost of living adjustments, the
University developed a multi-year plan to adjust salaries. As a departure from across-the-board
raises, UT adopted performance-based compensation model to reward faculty and staff who made
the greatest contributions to the university. The new compensation philosophy provided incentives
to those who were integral to progress.
11
A never-ending “wish list” of resource requests with no cohesion or prioritization can paralyze a
university’s ability to identify the right investments. UT’s attention to resource requirements during
the planning process combined with the leadership team’s resolve to fund important initiatives
supported an environment of action and accountability. As resources were allocated to the most
important priorities, results soon followed.
Closing the Gaps, Reflections, and Next Steps
The University of Tennessee is closing the graduation gap. An update of the initial gap
analysis revealed that the 15 percentage point gap in six-year graduation gap in 2010 shrunk to a
11 percentage point gap by 2012. However, the first-to-second year retention gap remains
consistent at 6 percentage points as both UT and the Target Group improved by a percentage
point.
Figure 9 – Comparative Retention and Graduation Gaps; 2010 vs. 2012
Retention (First-to-Second Year)
UTK
Six-Year Graduation
Top 25 Target Group
UTK
95%
80%
90%
85%
91%
90%
Top 25 Target Group
75%
70%
85%
84%
65%
60%
80%
77%
75%
66%
60%
55%
2010
2012
2010
2012
Today, students at the University of Tennessee are progressing more efficiently through the
system. In the two years since adopting the action plan, UT increased the number of
undergraduate degrees conferred per 100 students from 20.9 in 2010 to 23.7 in 2012.
Degrees Conferred per 100
Undergraduate FTE
Figure 10 - Undergraduate Degrees Conferred per 100 Undergraduate FTE, 2010 to 2012
24.0
23.5
23.0
22.5
22.0
21.5
21.0
20.5
20.0
19.5
19.0
23.7
22.3
20.9
2010
2011
12
2012
Ultimately, UT seeks to increase first-year retention rates to over 90% and six-year graduation
rates to exceed 75%. Though more work is needed to reach these goals, UT has learned valuable
lessons over the past three years that continue to shape its journey to becoming an even better
university.
First, it is essential to look at priorities, policies, and processes from multiple perspectives.
Cross-functional teams are critical for driving improvement. Student voices are also an integral
part of the process.
Second, it is important to have a holistic plan. Students must be supported throughout their
life-cycle -- from a pre-orientation web site that prepares them for intensive advising, to programs
such as Ignite, students can experience UT even before they begin classes. During the first year,
students need the support of living and learning communities outside of the classroom and firstyear focused topics in the classroom. All of these programs can help with retention, but support
must continue after the first year. Tutoring, counseling, mentoring, advising, and academic
planning tools are all part of the core support that students need throughout their undergraduate
experience.
Third, it is clear that programs that focus on improving the student experience can have a
positive impact – even for students who began their college experience before some of the new
programming began. Enhanced tools for keeping students on track for graduation might be applied
only to incoming freshmen, but they change the conversation for all students. They also reduce
“bottlenecks” in scheduling and availability of classes for all students.
Finally, it is important to recognize that in a student body of more than 21,000 students there is
no “magic bullet” that solves all problems for all students. Tracking and analyzing data to identify
the most effective mix of programs is imperative to making sound investment decisions. For the
many high-ability students on campus, universities need to push and support their learning through
honors programs, undergraduate research, and study abroad. For the many first-generation and
low-income students who are core to the University’s access mission, schools need to provide
support such as scholarships, coaching, and tutoring. UT continues to refine its data, analysis, and
assessment to better match students and programs so that all can experience the educational
excellence of a Top 25 university.
After years of undisturbed stability and prestige, higher education institutions face a turbulent
stage of transition. A vast number of the nation’s students are slipping through the cracks. When it
comes to the critical task of graduating students, it appears that colleges and universities are
underperforming.
UT’s story offers an important message for those institutions striving to improve their
graduation and retention rates. UT employed a simple yet effective strategy: commit to support all
students on their quest for a degree. With this focus, UT was able to develop a student-centric
culture to make graduation more achievable.
In a time when graduation rates revolve around student satisfaction, it only makes sense to
build a culture in which student needs are the focus. UT has demonstrated that improved
graduation and retention rates can and should be accomplished through the combined efforts of an
institution’s leadership, faculty, and, most importantly, its students.
13