The Five Dysfunctions of Enrollment Management Practice Today - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
The Five Dysfunctions of Enrollment Management Practice Today AACRAO SEM November 8, 2010 Panelists Sean Ryan , Vice President for Enrollment Management, Bellarmine Univeristy David Wuinee , S enior Consultant, Maguire Associates Tim
The Five Dysfunctions of Enrollment Management Practice Today
AACRAO SEM November 8, 2010
Panelists
Sean Ryan, Vice President for Enrollment Management, Bellarmine Univeristy David Wuinee, S enior Consultant, Maguire Associates Tim Sturgeon, Dean of Undergraduate Admission, Bellarmine University Kathy Dawley, President, Maguire Associates
3
Have we lost control of EM? How can we better encourage actions
protecting silos? Why do we need more institutional collaboration? How can we make cross functional partnerships work better? Be more sustainable?
The Absence of Sustainable, Cross Functional Partnerships
Stealth Applicants
5
When more and more candidates for admission are “stealth applicants” who, having researched the school on the Internet, fly in under the institutional radar . . .
How does the school control its student recruitment and messaging?
APP
What a Wicked Web
6
When any rumor – whether true or false – can be posted by anyone, gain traction and spread virally through an ever-expanding universe of online social networks . . .
How does a school control its institutional reputation?
Rankings Tyranny
7
When third-party entities like U.S. News & World Report have so much influence over public perception of relative institutional quality that they can seduce institutional leaders to “game the system” in ways that actually undermine the school’s mission . . . .
How can a college or university control its distinctive identity and promise?
Why do we need a new formula for EM?
8
more about gaining short-term competitive advantage . . .
between school and student to the long-term benefit of each.
The Enrollment Funnel – is just making things worse.
The Traditional Enrollment Funnel
9
An image borrowed from business marketing.
become increasingly “qualified” as the move through successive stages.
increasing expenditure
them into enrolled students.
The Multi-Funnel Model
10
A considerable improvement over the single funnel model.
11
Why is it that we add and add to our portfolio of initiatives without “retiring” programs of the past? Why do we avoid decisions involving the reallocation of resources (time, money)? How can we build courage and confidence, take more risks, and be more efficient with precious institutional resources?
The Fear of Letting Go
13
2008: Search Prospects
Regular Freshmen
14
2008: Search Applicants
Regular Freshmen
15
2008: Search Enrolls
Regular Freshmen
16
Fall 2008 Selected Search Conversions
17
Why are we so stuck on the lure of consensus and certainty? Why are we so reluctant to commit to proof points about the value of our institution? Why do we say so little in favor of waiting for perfect information?
The Lack of Commitment to Proof
Top College Priorities
Quality of major Practical, career-oriented coursework and majors Academic reputation Quality of students
Total costs Availability of merit- or need-based financial aid
Students
Future
Employment opportunities after graduation Preparation for graduate/professional school
Academic facilities Campus atmosphere Campus safety and security
Students’ and parents’ overall college priorities remained consistent within recent years:
Q: Below is a list of charact erist ics t hat st udent s t ypically consider when making a college choice. Please rat e each f or it s import ance t o you in choosing a college or universit y. S cale: 1 (Not at All Import ant ) t o 5 (Ext remely Import ant )
How Do Students Assess the Quality
field of interest
graduation
Regardless of whether they prefer to attend a public or private, students tend to weigh most heavily:
How Do Students Assess Quality?
Table 4 Variables that Weigh Very Heavily in Students’ Assessment of the Quality of a College or University Prefer Public Prefer Private The variety and depth of courses in your field of interest 50% 54% Percent of students employed after graduation 50% 44% Availability and quality of academic facilities -- libraries, laboratories, studios, classrooms 43% 38% Student/faculty ratio 25% 38% Graduation rate 37% 36% The experiences of students who have attended (or are attending) the institution 28% 35% Placement rate in graduate and professional schools 30% 29% People who know and respect the institution 26% 27% Availability of academic advising and tutorial services 29% 26% Study abroad opportunities 23% 25% A rigorous core curriculum 16% 22% Comprehensive university that offers both graduate and undergraduate programs 30% 22% Focus on applied study 27% 22%
How Do Students Assess Quality?
Table 4 (continued) Variables that Weigh Very Heavily in Students’ Assessment of the Quality of a College or University Prefer Public Prefer Private Application requirements/criteria 21% 19% Academic focus on the liberal arts 9% 16% Opportunities for students to participate in research 20% 15% Average standardized test scores (SAT, ACT) of incoming students 9% 14% Content and appearance of a college or university’s Web site 15% 13% Existence of an Honors program 18% 13% The selectivity of an institution, based on published acceptance rates 13% 13% Percent of faculty with PhD's 12% 12% Rankings and ratings in US News, Money and college guidebooks 8% 11% Impressions from printed materials 9% 7% Whether institution offers classes that are conducted entirely via the Internet 8% 5% Famous alumnus/alumna have attended 3% 4%
23
How can we reduce the need for excessive bureaucracy around performance management and corrective action around student retention? Why are we so reluctant to call our peers in
that might hurt efforts to improve student satisfaction? Why do we continue to “track” more than “act”?
The Avoidance of Accountability for Student Retention (Satisfaction)
Who Is Accountable for Retention?
President’s Office Enrollment Management/ Admissions Business Office Financial Aid Academic or Student Life Full-Time Administrator/ Coordinator 44% 30% 38% 25% 31% Part-Time Administrator/ Coordinator 21% 12% 4% 9% 15% Committee 46% 52% 54% 47% 54% No one 8% 21% 15% 22% 14%
More institutions reported having a Committee assigned to tracking and improving persistence.
tracking and improving retention and persistence? Select as many as apply.
Most Pressing Institutional Issues
President’s Office Enrollment Management/ Admissions Business Office Financial Aid Academic
Life
Improved student retention and graduation rates
70% 63% 60% 59% 63%
Meeting enrollment targets (composition and size of freshman class)
49% 64% 50% 57% 51%
Addressing the decline in federal and/or state support
34% 29% 32% 34% 28%
Increasing our endowment
30% 30% 35% 30% 26%
Controlling the discount rate
27% 35% 36% 37% 20%
Curbing the growth of institutional costs
19% 19% 26% 19% 25%
Good record of student outcomes
16% 14% 8% 16% 17%
Quality of educational programs
17% 11% 17% 10% 23%
Good faculty and staff morale
13% 11% 11% 8% 15%
Curbing rising tuition
12% 10% 11% 15% 16%
Improve rankings
4% 5% 4% 7% 5%
Good student behavior
2% 2% 1% 3% 4%
pressing issues to you at your institution.
Primary Reasons to Increase Retention Rate
President’s Office Enrollment Management/ Admissions Business Office Financial Aid Academic
Life Improve quality of the student experience 60% 57% 56% 54% 60% Advance school mission 46% 25% 28% 36% 36% Increase revenue from all sources 46% 49% 57% 36% 46% Enhance institutional reputation 19% 31% 33% 37% 27% Ability to prove good outcome metrics 15% 18% 13% 15% 11% Mandate from our Board of Trustees 4% 1% 3% 1% 3% Improve rankings 4% 5% 3% 6% 5% Mandate from outside the institution (e.g., federal and state policymakers) 1% 5% 4% 9% 3% Ability to recruit faculty 0% 1% 1% 3% 1% Do not need to increase retention rate 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% Other 5% 4% 1% 1% 6%
issues.
persist.
28
ORGANIZE
to address retention issues.
DELIVER
desired experiences.
INTERVENE
to prevent attrition.
TRACK
at-risk students.
ENROLL
students more likely to persist.
PROMISE
deliver.
KNOW
why students leave.
The 8 Retention Dimensions
29 REFRAME
the significance
ORGANIZE
to address retention issues.
INTERVENE
to prevent attrition.
TRACK
at-risk students.
ENROLL
students more likely to persist.
PROMISE
deliver.
KNOW
why students leave.
Improve capacity to address retention issues.
DELIVER
desired experiences.
30 REFRAME
the significance
ORGANIZE
to address retention issues.
INTERVENE
to prevent attrition.
TRACK
at-risk students.
ENROLL
students more likely to persist.
PROMISE
deliver.
KNOW
why students leave.
Save at-risk students.
DELIVER
desired experiences.
31 REFRAME
the significance
ORGANIZE
to address retention issues.
INTERVENE
to prevent attrition.
TRACK
at-risk students.
ENROLL
students more likely to persist.
PROMISE
deliver.
KNOW
why students leave.
Increase student satisfaction.
DELIVER
desired experiences.
32 REFRAME
the significance
ORGANIZE
to address retention issues.
INTERVENE
to prevent attrition.
TRACK
at-risk students.
ENROLL
students more likely to persist.
PROMISE
deliver.
KNOW
why students leave.
Make attrition less problematic.
DELIVER
desired experiences.
REFRAME
the significance
33
ORGANIZE
to address retention issues.
INTERVENE
to prevent attrition.
TRACK
at-risk students.
ENROLL
students more likely to persist.
PROMISE
deliver.
KNOW
why students leave.
S hort – Term
Reduce Current Student Attrition
DELIVER
desired experiences.
34 REFRAME
the significance
ORGANIZE
to address retention issues.
INTERVENE
to prevent attrition.
TRACK
at-risk students.
ENROLL
students more likely to persist.
PROMISE
deliver.
KNOW
why students leave.
Long– Term
Enhance Future Student Retention
DELIVER
desired experiences.
35 REFRAME
the significance
36
Why are we not more transparent and intentional about how our institutional values flow through pricing and discounting practices? How is it that the stewardship of institutional cost of attendance revenues can be so pluralistic in nature? Why are tradeoffs not explored in more depth? Understood in more detail?
Inattention to the Consequences of Tradeoffs in Stewarding Net Revenue
38
Average SAT, Discount Rate and Yield
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 SATS 1121 1132 1149 1153 1150 1165 1166 1184 1186 1208 1202 1224 1229 1240 Discount 43.4% 43.8% 40.2% 38.2% 36.8% 33.5% 35.4% 37.2% 40.6% 36.1% 36.2% 37.5% 35.6% 40.5% Yield 32.3% 34.3% 31.0% 28.9% 29.1% 27.4% 26.4% 24.9% 23.5% 22.8% 20.1% 18.9% 16.6% 14.7% 1229 1240 35.6% 40.5% 16.6% 14.7% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400
SAT Score
Discount Yield SAT
Discount increased to 40.5% while yield declined below 15%.
The Boundaries Thought Experiment
The boundaries thought experiment compares four modeling scenarios:
students?
would lead to the maximum probabilistic contribution to net total revenue?
demonstrated financial need entirely with institutional aid?
Sample # 1 - Selective, Private University 2009 Boundaries
10 to 1 ratio
Sample # 2 - Selective, Private University 2009 Boundaries
10 to 1 ratio
Sample # 3 - Selective, Private University 2009 Boundaries
8 to 1 ratio
Discussion
For more results from
Visit Resource Room @
www.maguireassoc.com