Building a SEM Organization
as a Data Driven Consultant
Jay W. Goff
Vice Provost and Dean for Enrollment Management
Larry Gragg, PhD
History Department Chair and Professor
Robert Montgomery, PhD
Psychology Professor & former Department Chair
www.enrollment.mst.edu
Enrollment Planners Conference, Chicago, IL
July 15, 2009
OVERVIEW
1. SEM Primer: What is Strategic Enrollment Management
2. Creating the SEM Plan
3. SEM Case Study & Results
4. Environmental Scan
5. Positioning SEM for Success: the In-House Consultant (IHC)
Performance Paradigm
6. Using SEM to Build Stronger Faculty and Staff Collaboration
7. Q&A
The External Environment Colleges and
Universities Operate is Changing Quickly
• Dramatic changes in student markets.
• Public expectations for a wide variety of high
quality student services.
• Greater needs for an institution-wide
understanding of how to best react to the emerging
student trends, needs and markets.
What is SEM?
• Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) is defined
as “a comprehensive process designed to help an
institution achieve and maintain the optimum
recruitment, retention, and graduation rates of
students where ‘optimum’ is designed within the
academic context of the institution. As such, SEM is
an institution-wide process that embraces virtually
every aspect of an institution’s function and culture.”
Michael Dolence, AACRAO SEM 2001
• Research
• Recruitment
• Retention
Today’s Enrollment Manager
• “Successful senior enrollment managers
have to operate simultaneously on multiple
levels. They need to be up to date, even
on the cutting edge of technology,
marketing, recruitment, the latest campus
practices to enhance student persistence,
and financial aid practices.”
SOURCE: THE ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT REVIEW Volume 23, Issue 1 Fall, 2007, Editor: Don Hossler
Associate Editors: Larry Hoezee and Dan Rogalski
ROLE OF THE
CHIEF ENROLLMENT MANAGER
• Enrollment leaders serve many roles
throughout the change management process,
such as that of a visionary, encourager,
storyteller, facilitator, arbitrator, problem
solver, manager and coach. (Black, 2003)
• CEMs are Systems Thinkers Adept at
Influencing Change
Adopted from SEM WP Works 2009
The only person who likes
change is a wet baby.
Attributed to Mark Twain
Core enrollment principles
• No Enrollment Effort is Successful without QUALITY
Academic Programs to Promote
• Recruitment and Retention is an On-going, Multi-year
PROCESS with Strong Access to Research and DATA
• +80% of Enrollments come from REGIONAL student
markets for BS/BA degrees
• The Most Successful Recruitment Programs Clearly
DIFFERENTIATE the Student Experience from
Competitor’s Programs
• The Most Successful Retention Programs Clearly
Address Students’ Needs and Regularly ENGAGE
Students in Academic and Non-Academic Programs
SEM Fundamentals
 SEM is part of Strategic Planning
 Context of Setting Enrollment Goals
• Alignment with the College’s/University’s Vision,
Mission, Values, and Goals
•
Factors of Enrollment Planning
 Enhancing the Educational Experience for Students
SEM Strategies
• Stabilizing Enrollments
• Reducing Vulnerabilities
• Aligning EM with
Academic Programs
• Stabilize Finances
• Optimize Resources
• Evaluate Strategies and
Tactics
• Improve Services
• Improve Quality
• Improve Access to
Information
Adapted from Jim Black, 2003
SEM Organizational Structure
and Orientation
STRUCTURE:
• What type of leader and units are
included in a SEM organization
ORIENTATION:
• Academic vs. Student Affairs vs. Budget
vs. Marketing/Development vs. ????
SOURCE: Bob Wilkinson
Organization Structure Demonstrates
Commitment to SEM
SOURCE: Bob Bontrager, AACRAO SEM 2003
SEM/CEM Officer:
a Cabinet-level Position
Enrollments and projections influence:
•
•
•
•
•
Profile & appeal of academic programs
Budgets and fiscal stability
Faculty positions and morale
Need for staff and types of support programs
Ultimately enrollments serve as a prime
measure of how well an institution is ful-filling
its mission.
SEM Teams
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Faculty from each division
Admissions
Registrar
Financial Aid
Campus Housing
Student Activities
Counseling Center
Orientation
Teacher Training Director
Faculty Senate Leaders
• Execs: Academic,
Student & Enrollment
Affairs
• Advising
• Info Tech
• Institutional Research
• Minority Programs
• International Affairs
• Cashier/Billing
• Pre-College Programs
• Reporting Services
NOTE: SEM Teams do not replace the campus recruitment & retention committees
Key Components to SEM
Steps fundamental to starting SEM
1. Determine the institution’s capacity to serve students by
degree program and types of students (traditional, nontraditional, graduate, etc.)
2. Establish Goals: need to be agreed upon by all involved
3. Formulate Strategies based on data
4. Develop action plans with tactics & operational calendar:
–
–
–
–
–
What exactly is going to be done
When will it be completed
Who is responsible
How much will it cost
How will you know if it has been accomplished (evaluation)
What is included in a SEM Plan?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Strategic Framework: Mission, Values, Vision
Overview of Strategic Plan Goals & Institutional Capacity
Environmental Scan: Market Trends & Competition Analysis
Evaluation and Assessment of Position in Market
Enrollment Goals, Objectives, & Assessment Criteria
Marketing and Communication Plan
Recruitment Plan
Retention Plan
Student Aid and Scholarship Funding
Staff Development and Training
Student/Customer Service Philosophy
Process Improvements and Technology System
Enhancements
Internal Communication and Data Sharing Plan
Campus wide Coordination of Enrollment Activities
CHART SOURCE: Noel-Levitz
Traditional Core SEM Objectives
• Establishing Clear Enrollment Goals and Determining
Capacity to Serve
• Promoting Student Success
• Determining, Achieving and Maintaining Optimum
Enrollment
• Enabling the Delivery of Effective Academic Programs
• Generating Tuition
• Enabling Financial Planning
• Increasing Organizational Efficiency
• Improving Service Levels
Basic Analysis for SEM
•
•
•
•
•
•
Capacity Study
Preferred New Student Profile
Primary Market Penetration
Price Elasticity
Un-met Need Gap (key for fundraising)
Student Need/Support Alignment
Recruitment Plan
I. Introduction and Objectives
1. Institutional Mission, Vision and Goals
2. Institutional Desired Student Profile &
Capacity
3. Strategic Plan/Overall Institutional Enrollment
Goals
4. Recruitment Leadership and Organization
II. Environment Scan and Market Analysis
1. Recruitment Data of last Five Cohorts
2. Yield Data by Effort, Student Type, Region
and Degree Program
3. Situation Analysis
4. Competition and Market Data
5. Demographic and Psychographic Trends
II. Goals
1. Key Target Markets
2. New Student Enrollment Goals by Student
Market, Type and Profile
3. Department and Program Goals
III. Tactics and Action Plans
1.
Technology Use & Media Strategy by Target
Market
2.
Inquiry Management
3.
Territory Management
4.
Financial Aid and Scholarship Distribution
5.
Communication Plans and Relationship
Management
6.
Campus Events, Tours and Activities
7.
Faculty and Campus Involvement Plan
8.
Alumni and Volunteer Involvement Plan
9.
Yield Strategies & Orientation Services
10.
Resource Requirements
IV. Assessment and Evaluation
1.
New Student Enrollment Comparison Reports
2.
Annual Enrollment Yield Studies (inquiries to enroll,
admit to enroll, also by market, recruitment activity,
degree program, etc)
3.
New Student and Graduating Student Surveys
4.
Enrollment Compared to Competition
Retention Plan
I. Introduction and Objectives
1. Institutional Mission, Vision and Goals
2. Institutional Commitment to Student Success
3. Institutional Desired Student Profile & Capacity
4. Retention Committee Charge
5. Philosophy of Student Success
6. Persistence Data of last Five Cohorts
7. Campus Assessment Data
II. Goals
1. Institutional Enrollment Goals (size, profile,
financial aid/revenue, etc)
2. Recruitment Goals
3. Student Retention Goals (1st-2nd year, 2-3rd year,
3 or 6 year graduation rate)
4. Course Goals (% of students passing)
5. Student Outcomes Goals (% employed or
continuing education w/in 6 months)
6. Student Satisfaction Goals
III. Tactics and Action Plans
1.
Messaging and Communicating Expectation in
Recruitment Phase
2.
Orientation Services
3.
Financial Aid and Scholarship Distribution
4.
Academic Advising and Academic Support
Programs
5.
First and Second-year Support Programs
6.
Early Warning System and Mid-Term Grade Policy
7.
Interventions for Classes & Majors will high failure
levels
8.
Student Activities & Campus Life
9.
Engagement and Community Building Programs
10.
Resource Requirements
IV. Assessment and Evaluation
1.
Annual Retention/Attrition Studies
2.
New Student and Graduating Student Studies
3.
Student Satisfaction Studies
4.
Institutional Priorities Studies
5.
Exit Interviews and Non Re-enrollee Studies
6.
Program Audits and Reviews
7.
Academic Standards Review
ADAPTED FROM: Successful Retention Planning, Lana Low, June 28, 1999, noellevitz.com
SEM Research Plans
1.
To improve retention
2.
To build relationships with high schools and community colleges
3.
To target admissions efforts and predict enrollments
4.
To recommend changes to admissions policy
5.
To examine issues of how best to accommodate growth
6.
To improve the educational experience of students
7.
To identify needs of unique student groups
8.
To project and plan for student enrollment behavior
9.
To determine financial aid policies
10.
To assess student outcomes
Easy Benchmarking
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Determine Competitors & Comparators
www.collegeresults.org
College Board: Institutional Comparison
US News (United States)
McCleans (Canada)
Higher Ed Times (Great Britain)
Shanghi Jiaotong (China)
Comparative sources
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IPEDS: nces.edu.gov/ipedspas
U.S. News & World Report
Common Data Set: www.commondataset.org
AAU Data Exchange: www.pb.uillinois.edu/AAUDE
HEDS: www.e-heds.org
The Consortium for Student retention Data Exchange:
www.occe.ou.edu/csrde
HigherEdInfo.org: www.higheredinfo.org
Measuring Up: measuringup.highereducation.org
National Student Clearinghouse:
www.studentclearinghouse.org
ACT: www.act.org
College Board: www.collegeboard.com
PERL: perl.mhec.org
Outward-looking data
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
State Offices of Economic and Demographic Research
U.S. Census, American Fact Finder
U.S. Census Bureau, County-to-County Worker Flow Files
Internal Revenue Service, State and County Gross Migration
Files
U.S. Immigration Service, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics
Milken Institute (2003), The Best Performing Cities.
www.milkeninstitue.org/research
County Office of Urban Planning and Redevelopment
State Transportation Departments
Measuring Up, The National Report Card on Higher Education
Early College High School Initiative, www.earlycolleges.org
SEM at Missouri S&T
2001-2009
RECORD GROWTH
DECLINING INTEREST
70000
65000
60000
55000
50000
45000
“Succeeding while Swimming Against the Tide”
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
40000
Rolla, Missouri
“The Middle of Everywhere”
What is Missouri S&T?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A Top 50 Technological Research University
6300 students: 4900 Undergrad, 1400 Graduate
90% majoring in Engineering, Science, Comp. Sci.
Ave. Student ACT/SAT: upper 10% in nation
+60% of Freshmen from upper 20% of HS class
20% Out of State Enrollment
95% 5 Year Average Placement Rate
Ave. Starting Salary in 2009: +$57,000
S&T’s Strategic plan
Mission
The mission of Missouri S&T
is to integrate education and
research to solve problems for our state and
the technological world.
Vision
The vision of Missouri S&T is to be one of the
top five premier technological institutions.
Missouri S&T: 90% Engineering, Science, & Computing Majors
21st in Nation for Largest Undergraduate Engineering Enrollment (Prism 2008)
23rd in Nation for Number of BS Engineering Degrees Granted (Prism 2009)
Fall 2008 All Students by Academic Field
49
1
Fall 2008
5
Legend
7
2
21
4
3
15
26
43
5
1
430
16
22
58
124
14
5
4,433
54
2
No students
2
9
61
6
19
2
17
16
11
115
1 - 9 students
DC
23
21
3
21
10 - 39 students
RI
5
11
40 or more students
15
1
12
16
2
2
Total Enrollment
16
» 47 states & 51 nations
9
12
» 70% Missouri residents
» 10% minority students
» 9% international students
One of America’s great universities
U.S. News: Best colleges as ranked by the High School
Counselors at America’s Top 800 high schools:
Missouri S&T ranked 45th Overall
 #12 public university
 Ahead of, or tied with, every “Big 12” institution
 #5 technological research university
 #2 in Missouri behind Washington University
One of America’s great universities
A Top Public University
Missouri S&T ranked 54th among the nation’s top public universities (U.S. News & World Report,
2008 America’s Best Colleges Guidebook, September 2008).
Top 15 Public Colleges for Getting Rich
#1 in the Midwest!
Missouri S&T ranked
on Forbes magazine’s list of “Best Public Colleges for Getting Rich”
(www.forbes.com, Aug. 2008)
12th
Top 20 STEM Research University
Missouri S&T named in Academic Analytics’ “Top 20 Specialized Research Universities - STEM”
(www.academicanalytics.com, Jan. 2008)
Top 25 Starting Salaries
#1 in the Midwest!
Missouri S&T named in payscale.com’s list of highest average starting salaries for graduates (www.payscale.com, Aug. 2008)
Top 25 Entrepreneurial Campus
Missouri S&T ranked 22nd on Forbes ‘s list of “America’s Most Entrepreneurial Campuses” (www.forbes.com , Oct. 22, 2004).
Top 25 Connected Campus
Missouri S&T named in Princeton Review’s “America’s 25 Most Connected Campuses” (www.forbes.com, Jan. 19, 2006).
Top 30 Safest College Campuses
Missouri S&T ranked #27 in Reader’s Digest’s “Campus Safety Survey” (www.rd.com, 2008).
Top 50 Engineering School
Missouri S&T ranked 48th among the nation’s best engineering schools (U.S. News & World Report,
2007 America’s Best Colleges Guidebook, September 2006).
Average
is 6,457 Outlier
Life as
a enrollment
National
75%
Missouri S&T
Average enrollment is 5,615
70%
% Engineering Enrollment
65%
South Dakota School of
Mines and Technology
60%
Colorado School of Mines
Michigan Technological
University
Worcester Polytechnic
Institute
Georgia Institute of
Technology and State
University
55%
Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute
Polytechnic University
50%
Clarkson University
45%
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
New Jersey Institute of
Technology
40%
35%
California Institute of
Technology
New Mexico Institute of
Mining & Technology
30%
Florida Institute of
Technology
Illinois Institute of
Technology
25%
50%
55%
60%
65%
Stevens Institute of
Technology
70%
75%
80%
85%
% Engineering, Business, Science & Math Enrollment
90%
95%
PROMOTE OUTCOMES: Starting Salaries
Undergraduate
Graduate
2003
$ 47,305
$ 52,744
2004
$ 46,567
$ 52,945
2005
$ 49,181
$ 53,042
2006
$ 51,059
$ 58,120
2007
$ 53,669
$ 62,751
2008
$ 55,975
$ 63,640
Problem…
Missouri S&T (UMR) Enrollment 1980-2000
35% decline in enrollment
Loss of over 2,400 students
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Female
Male
Ongoing interest declines in key fields
28%
Changes in Intended Major 1976-77 to 2006-07
21%
14%
7%
0%
Business
Engineering
Education
76-77
CHART SOURCE: College Board, 2007
Biological
Sciences
86-87
Computer
Science
96-97
Social
Sciences
Art, Music,
Drama
Health
Professions
06-07
DATA SOURCE: CIRP
20,000 Fewer Potential Engineering Majors
College Bound ACT Tested Students Interested in Any Engineering Field
70000
65000
60000
55000
50000
> 5%
45000
40000
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Number 63653 66475 67764 64571 64937 63329 63601 65329 65776 61648 54175 52194 51445 48438 45049 42738 43198
SOURCE: ACT EIS 2008
SOURCE: US Dept. of Education 2005
Missouri’s 2008 Student Funnel
for All Engineering Fields
•
•
•
•
•
High School Senior :
High School Graduates:
ACT Testers/College Bound:
Any Engineering Interest (all testers):
Any Engineering Interest, (+21 testers):
72,467
61,752
47,240
1,768
1,256
(21 = MO average score / 50%)
• Engineering Interest, +24 comp. score:
961
(24 = UM minimum for auto admission)
• Missouri S&T Freshmen Engineering
Enrollees:
SOURCES: MODESE 2009, ACT EIS 2008, PeopleSoft
681
Minimal Markets for Female & Minority Engineers
Missouri’s 2008 ACT Tested Seniors, +24 ACT and
Interested in Engineering
• High School Senior Cohort:
• High School Graduates:
• All Engineering Interest, +24 comp. score:
72,467
61,752
961
(24 = UM minimum for auto admission)
• Female Engineering, +24 comp. score:
• African-Amer Engineering, +24 comp. score:
• Asian-Amer Engineering, +24 comp. score:
• Native Amer Engineering, +24 comp. score:
• Hispanic Engineering, +24 comp. score:
176
21
25
7
24
SEM Orientation & Structure
effective June 1, 2001
Total Enrollment 2000 - 2008
1414
1343
1289
1287
1391
1127
4000
928
5000
1370
6000
1459
38% Total Enrollment Growth: 2000: 4626, 2008: 6371
33% Undergraduate Growth: 1,214 Additional Students
57% Graduate Growth: 531 Additional Students
Graduate Students
Undergraduate Students
2004
2005
2006
4912
2003
4753
4515
2002
4313
2001
4120
3849
2000
4089
3756
2000
3698
3000
2007
2008
1000
0
Since 2004: 60% of growth due to increased retention
STUDENT
RETENTION
Since 2004, 60% of Growth due to Retention Increase
Percent Still Enrolled
90
Status in Fall Semester After One Year
85
80
75
70
Graduation Rates
General Student Body:
2000
52%
2005
64%
Enrollment Diversity
35% increase in Female Students
86% increase in Minority Students
1391
1,400
1419
1,326
1,248
1,200
1,209
Total Minorities, NonCaucasian US Citizens
1,224
1,133
Female
1,097
800
655
600
600
508
456
400
641
542
483
414
377
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
200
2000
Axis Title
1,000
1,050
#1 Question:
How did you do it?
Silver Bullet
OR
Strike of Lightening?
SEM at S&T
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Established a Vision
Aligned Systems
Created and Executed Plans
Integrated the Vision
Regularly review the Process
SEM in ACTION:
Why Change the University Name?
“Missouri S&T will better define the university as a leading technological
research university. We believe the new name will help to differentiate this
university in a highly competitive university market and provide a national
competitive advantage.”
Dr. John F. Carney, III
Missouri S&T Chancellor
7 Years of Strategic and Dramatic Changes
January 1, 2008
2007
2003 and 2007
2004
2001 to 2005
2002, 2004 & 2007
2003
University Name Change
Academic Reorganization by Eliminating Schools and Colleges
Updated the Mission, Vision and Strategic plans.
Office of Technology Transfer and Economic Development
New Student and Business Information Systems
Three New Homepages and Platforms
Student Diversity Initiative
The new goals resulted in three new units and champions:
» Student Diversity Programs,
» Women’s Leadership Institute
» Center for Pre-College Programs.
2002
2002
2002 - 2006
2001
New School of Management and Information Sciences
Center for Education Research and Teaching Innovation (CERTI)
12 NEW Degree Programs and 19 Certificate Programs,
128 hour limited for BS Engineering Degrees
Administrative Restructuring and
Formal Enrollment Management Program
» Enrollment Management,
» Distance and Continuing Education
» Research and Sponsored Programs
Strategic Plan
GOAL 2.1: Grow overall enrollment to 6,550 by 2011-12 with diversity that reflects the
State of Missouri and the global environment in which we compete.
Actual
2000
Total Enrollment
Undergraduate Students
Graduate Students
2005
2006
Goals
2007
2008
2012
4,626
3,698
928
5,602
4,313
1,289
5,858
4,515
1,343
6,167
4,753
1,414
6,371
4,912
1,459
6,550
4,800
1,750
Freshmen Class
International Freshmen
Transfer Class
International Transfers
696
15
210
9
914
21
314
17
977
36
266
25
1,051
16
276
17
1,056
35
286
17
975
49
300
15
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian-American
Black, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic-American
Undergraduate International
24
117
159
53
96
20
131
200
104
80
20
198
245
137
98
33
198
271
139
105
33
191
299
132
127
36
240
335
190
240
Total Female
Undergraduate Female
Graduate Female
Freshman Female
Transfer Female
1,071
860
211
196
45
1,224
945
279
168
91
1,326
1,016
310
221
70
1,391
1,052
339
215
74
1,419
1,101
318
273
67
1,500
1,135
365
275
90
On-campus
Distance Education
4,393
233
5,101
501
5,389
469
5,649
518
5,768
603
5,825
725
The ideal Missouri S&T new student class would have 990 to 1030
freshmen and 300 transfer students with the following profile:
Academic Preparedness:
27 average ACT score (upper 10% in nation)
90% having completed the full Missouri college-prep curriculum
50% from the upper 20% of high school class
Geography:
70% in-state
25% out-of-state
30% female
70% male
5% international
Gender:
Ethnicity:
13% under-represented minority students
Majors:
70% Engineering (all programs)
5% Liberal Arts (psychology, history, English, technical communication, philosophy)
8% Business, Information Technology and Economics
9% Natural Sciences and Mathematics (biology, chemistry, physics)
8% Computer Science
Success Rate:
90% first to second year retention rate
80% return for third year
65-70% graduate in six years
Strategic Enrollment Management Plan
2007-2011
•
Increase Success of Students
–
–
•
Increase College Going Rate & Access
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
•
Retention Rates
Graduation Rates
Access & Affordability
Pipeline of College Ready Students
Strategic Partnerships
Outreach/Education
Scholarships
Expanding Current Markets & Capturing New Markets
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Out-of-state students
Transfer Students
Female Students
Underrepresented Minority Students
International Students
Graduate Students
Nontraditional Students
We Learned About Our Students
•
Average Age: 21.8 years old
•
From a Community <40,000: 53%
•
Gender:
– 23% Female
– 77% Male
•
Average Family Income: $73,000 USD
•
Average Indebtedness at Graduation:
– $21,000 USD approx.
•
High Financial Need (Pell qualifier): 24%
•
Freshmen with Credit Cards:
– 24%
– 6 arrive with over $1000 USD
standing balance
•
Students with PCs:
– 94%
– +70% laptops
– 9% Macs
•
Students with Cell Phones
– 97%
•
First Generation College Students:
– 2005-06: 37%
•
Residency:
– Missouri Residents: 76%
– Out-State Students: 22%
– International: 2%
•
Ethnicity:
– African-American: 4%
– Asian-American: 3%
– Caucasian: 83%
– Hispanic: 2%
– Native-American: 1%
– Non-resident, International: 2%
– Not Disclosed: 5%
10 Core Recruitment Changes
1.
2.
Creation of Data and Market Driven Strategic Plan
Assigning Executive Officers to be in Charge of Enrollment, Recruitment,
Retention, and Student Assessment
3. Embracing an Integrated Branding Program and New Communication
Series focusing on Outcomes and Fun, without reinforcing science and
engineering stereotypes
4. Engaging the entire campus (unit by unit) in worthwhile recruiting activities
5. Creation of Reward Balanced and Yield Focused Scholarship Program to
Lower the Discount Rate, Raise Enrollment, and Maintain Student Quality
6. Providing accurate and timely processing of inquiry requests and
applications
7. Collaborating with Outreach and Public Relations Efforts
8. Expanding Campus Visit and Summer Camps
9. Campus Signage, Beautification and Landscaping Plan
10. Replacing and Updating Core Campus Buildings and Facilities ($140 M)
“the list of 35”
Changes to Improve Retention
Retention Strategies and Tactics
2001-2009
I. Assessment Enhancements
II. Programming
III. Policy Changes
I. ASSESSMENT ENHANCEMENTS
1. Creation of a formal Institutional Research Office, 2001
2. Started annual retention audit of academic (cognitive) and demographic
factors, 2001
3. Identified classes with very low student success rates (DFW), 2001
4. Creation of Standardized Retention and Graduation Reports by gender and
ethnicity, 2002
5. Instituted a new student profile and expectations survey, 2002
6. Re-instituted the HPI assessment to track students by Non-cognitive factors,
2002
7. Revised withdraw surveys & interviews, 2002
8. Started non-returning follow-up telephone surveys, 2002
9. Started collection and campus-wide distribution of freshman academic profile,
specifically new student survey data: expectations, social activities,
GPA,ACT/SAT scores, 2002
10. Started measuring stop-out rate: students who withdraw and return, 2003
11. Revised nationally normed student profile, attitude and engagement
assessments (CIRP & NSSE), 2003
12. Revived student satisfaction survey (switched from ACT to Noel Levitz),
2007-08
II. PROGRAMMING:
Focus on Advising, tutoring, learning communities, faculty training and support
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Provided a public expectation of student success (VERY IMPORTANT).
Addressed expectations of student success in all recruitment and orientation
speeches (Chancellor – look to your left, look to your right), 2001-02
Learning Enhancement Across Disciplines (LEAD) tutoring program
expanded beyond Physics, Fall 2002
Address group building (making friends) and study skills (not flunking out) in
all orientation activities, 2002-2003
Online tutor request program, 2003
Distribution of student profiles and survey summaries to create a better
understanding of faculty and student expectations. Actively embrace the
“social norming” concept. 2003
Distribution of student profiles and survey summaries to create a better
understanding of faculty and student expectations. Actively embrace the
“social norming” concept. 2003
Restructured Opening Week activities around a group project activity and to
address core learning objectives and student fears (Making Friends and
Flunking Out) , 2002 & 2003
Provided ACT’s EIS & AIM student profile data bases to all academic
departments for more intrusive advising, 2003
Joint Academic Management (JAM) Sessions (student to student tutoring) to
assist low performing students, 2004
II. Programming Continued
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
New on-line Early Warning System, 2005
Strategic Retention Intervention: Focus on a rapid response “Academic Alert
System” (2005), on-line student communication system “Success Chain” (20052006), advisor engagement (training sessions and awards, 2002) and more
quantitative knowledge of S&T student strengths (Sharing of student profiles and
new student survey data prior to beginning of academic year, 2002)
Creation and expansion of Learning Communities & First Year Experience
Programs: Focus to address student academic skills development and social
engagement through group student life oriented events, 2002-2003
Pre-College Transition Programs: Focus to promote greater student preparation to
meet student and S&T academic expectations through a 3-week intense course –
Hit the Ground Running (HGR) and creation of the Center for Pre-College
Programs (CPCP) to expand the K-12 student workshops and STEM summer
camps, 2003-04
Creation of the Center for Educational Research and Teaching Innovation
(CERTI): Focus to address improving the S&T learning environment and student
learning outcomes through collaborative learning, experiential learning, technology
enhanced learning and educational research practices, 2003-04
Expanded Experiential Learning Programs: Focus to promote greater campuswide “learning by doing” student engagement through student design teams,
undergraduate research (OURE expansion), and service learning participation,
2002-ongoing
Creation of formal first-year experience office and staff, 2008
Creation of formal second-year experience office and staff, 2008
III. POLICY CHANGES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Incomplete grade time limit change, 2002
Repeat course GPA adjustment policy, 2002
Scholarship Reinstatement Policy, 2002
All BS degree programs reduced to between 124 to
128 hours, 2002-2003
Added 3 degree programs most often requested by
exiting students: Business, IST, Technical
Communication, Architectural Engineering, 2002-2003
Revised S&T Advising Program: Focus on faculty
development for student formal and developmental
advising, advisor recognition and advising program
evaluation, 2002-2004
A National
Environmental Scan
Shifting Student Populations
“The demographic shifts we are beginning
to experience are largely the result of
welcome advances in technology and
public health that have extended life
expectancy, improved living standards,
and reduced population growth.”
SOURCE: Jane Sneddon Little and Robert K. Triest. (2001) SEISMIC SHIFTS: THE
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE.
Future Students: Demographic
and Population Changes
• Fewer first-time, traditional students in the
overall pipeline until between 2015-2017—
while older population is growing
• More students of color
• More students of lower socioeconomic status
• More students unprepared college level work
WICHE, 2003 & 2008
NATIONAL Shift Impacts on Higher
Education
1. Nationally, in 2009-10 the number of high
school graduates will begin a gradual decline.
2. The proportion of minority students is
increasing and will account for about half of
school enrollments within the next decade.
3. High school graduates in the future will include
higher percentages from families with low
incomes.
Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School
Graduates by State, Income, and Race/Ethnicity,
WICHE 2008.
Challenge: changes in the collegebound student markets

The Midwest and Northeast will experience a 4% to 10% decline in
high school graduates between 2009 – 2014 (WICHE)

The profile of college-bound students is rapidly becoming more
ethnically diverse and female dominant (NCES, WICHE, ACT,
College Board)

The number of students interested in engineering, computer science,
and natural science degrees has declined to record lows (ACT)

More full-time college freshmen are choosing to start at two-year
colleges (IPED, MODHE)

More students are enrolling in more than one college at a time
(National Student Clearinghouse)

Future student market growth will include more students requiring
financial aid and loans to complete a degree (WICHE)
Other Shifts to be Aware of…
• First Generation Participation Rates
• Increased Competition for International
Students
• Increased numbers of students with identified
mental Illnesses
• Changes in Work Force needs and training
development
• Communication/Technology patterns:
o +90% with cell phones
o 63% using Social Networking Facebook and
MySpace prior to freshmen year
RESOURCES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
www.act.org
www.ama.com
www.collegeboard.org
www.collegeresults.org
www.educationalpolicy.org (retention calculator)
www.nces.gov (2007 Digest of Education Statistics)
www.higheredinfo.org
www.noellevitz.com
www.stamats.com
www.wiche.org
www.educationtrust.org
www.lumina.org
www.greentreegazette.com
www.pewinternet.org
www.postsecondary.org
www.communicationbriefings.com
Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education
Factors Most Noted in
Choosing a College
•
•
•
•
•
Majors & Career Programs Offered
Location/Campus Characteristics
Cost/Affordability
Campus Size/Safety
Characteristics of Enrolled
Students
• Selectivity
By 2015
• All States will have a structural budget
deficit
• Higher Education will likely lose funding
to health care, transportation, prisons
and K-12 education.
• Tuition revenue will become the majority
source of operational income
COLLEGE COST COMPARISON
SOURCE: The College Board 2006, MAP: TIME, November 6, 2006
College Costs and Disposable Per Capita
Income, 1996-97 to 2006-07
$35,000
Published Charges
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
19992000
Private 4-Year
2000-01
2001-02
Public 4-Year
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
Per Capita Income
Source: The College Board
Percent For Whom Financing was a Major Concern
1992-93 to 2006-07 (Selected Years)
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
92-93
94-95
96-97
Public Univ
College Board, 2007
97-98
99-00
Private Univ
00-01
01-02
Public 4-Yr
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
Private (Non-Sect) 4-Yr
Source: CIRP
56% the Economy has Changed
Which College Students will Attend
SOURCE: Longmire & Company, Inc. 2009 “Study of the Impact of the Economy on Enrollment”
27% planning to submit fewer
applications
SOURCE: Longmire & Company, Inc. 2009 “Study of the Impact of the Economy on Enrollment”
Approximately 68% of households indicate that they will
finance their child’s college education through cash
generated from family income.
SOURCE: Longmire & Company, Inc. 2009 “Study of the Impact of the Economy on Enrollment”
76% indicated they would be “somewhat” or
“very likely” to consider the more expensive
institution if it could deliver greater value
SOURCE: Longmire & Company, Inc. 2009 “Study of the Impact of the Economy on Enrollment”
Over 4200 Colleges & Universities:
Heavy Competition for Students
Number of Colleges and Universities
SOURCE: U.S. Education Department
http://chronicle.com Section: The 2007-8 Almanac, Volume 54, Issue 1, Page 8
MOBILITY OF COLLEGE STUDENTS: Percentage of freshmen who had graduated from high
school in the previous 12 months attending a public or private not-for-profit 4-year college in their
home state: Fall 2006
NOTE: Includes first-time postsecondary students who were enrolled at public and private not-for-profit 4-year degree-granting institutions that participated in Title IV federal financial aid programs.
See supplemental note 9 for more information. Foreign students studying in the United States are included as out-of-state students. See supplemental note 1 for a list of states in each region.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fall 2006 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2007.
In-state vs.. out-of-state freshmen
recruitment funnel ratios
SOURCE: Noel Levitz 2006 Admissions Funnel Report
Labor Demand vs.. Student Interests
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
www.bls.gov/emp/home.htm
28%
Change in Intended Major 1976-77 to 2006-07
21%
14%
7%
0%
Business
College Board, 2007
Engineering
Education
76-77
Biological
Sciences
86-87
Computer
Science
96-97
Social
Sciences
06-07
Art, Music,
Drama
Health
Professions
Source: CIRP
SOURCE: College Board, 2007
Constant Growth in One Demographic Market: Adults Over 60
SOURCE: US Census Bureau
The Trends are Diverse: Regions within Regions
WICHE, 2008
WICHE, 2008
National vs.. Regional
Trends
WICHE, 2008
WICHE, 2008
WICHE, 2008
55.7% US College-Going Rates of High
School Graduates - Directly from HS
College Board, 2007
College Board, 2007
NATIONWIDE HS SENIORS ACT TESTED BY ETHNICITY
180000
160000
140000
African American
American Indian/Alaskan
120000
Asian American
100000
Mexican American
Multiracial
80000
Other
60000
Prefer NR
Puerto Rican/Cuban/Hisp
40000
20000
0
2001
SOURCE: ACT EIS
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
College Board, 2007
HOMESCHOOLED STUDENTS: Number and distribution of
school-age children who were homeschooled, by amount
of time spent in schools: 1999 and 2003
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Homeschooled children are those ages 5–17 educated by their parents full or part time who are in a grade
equivalent to kindergarten through 12th grade. Excludes students who were enrolled in public or private school more than 25 hours per week and students who
were homeschooled only because of temporary illness.
SOURCE: Princiotta, D., Bielick, S., Van Brunt, A., and Chapman, C. (2005). Homeschooling in the United States: 2003 (NCES 2005–101), table 1. Data from U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 1999 and Parent
and Family Involvement in Education Survey of the NHES, 2003.
PARTICIPATION IN REMEDIAL EDUCATION: Percentage of
entering freshmen at degree-granting institutions who enrolled
in remedial courses, by type of institution and subject area:
Fall 2000
NOTE: Data reported for fall 2000 are based on Title IV degree-granting institutions that enrolled freshmen in 2000. The categories used for analyzing these data include public 2year, private 2-year, public 4-year, and private 4-year institutions. Data from private not-for-profit and for-profit institutions are reported together because there are too few private
for-profit institutions in the sample to report them separately. The estimates in this indicator differ from those in indicator 18 because the populations differ. This indicator deals with
entering freshmen of all ages in 2000 while indicator 18 examines a cohort (1992 12th-graders who enrolled in postsecondary education).
SOURCE: Parsad, B., and Lewis, L. (2003). Remedial Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions in Fall 2000 (NCES 2004–010), table 4. Data from U.S. Department of
Education, NCES, Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS), “Survey on Remedial Education in Higher Education Institutions,” fall 2000.
What is the name of your institution?
email address
What type of institution are you?
How many full-time, full-year freshman students do you have?
What percentage of your FT/FY cohort is from out-of-state?
%
What is the average tuition and fee charge per student? (in-state)
What is the average tuition and fee charge per student? (out-of-state)
Average annual tuition and fee percentage increase
%
What is the average government or external subsidy that your institution
receives for each student?
Percent of Year 1 (freshman) students who returned in Year 2 (sophomore)
%
Percent of Year 2 (sophomore) students who returned in Year 3 (junior)
%
Percent of Year 3 (junior) students who returned in Year 4 (senior)
%
Percent of Year 4 (senior) students that completed Year 4 (senior)
%
Student Success Trends
ACT, 2007
SOURCE: http://www.postsecondary.org/archives/Posters/192Chart1.pdf
Financial considerations the most
common reason for leaving college
Financial reasons
40%
Other
35%
Family responsibilities
30%
Class not available / scheduling
inconvenient
Dissatisfaction with program / school /
campus / faculty
Completion of degree / certificate
25%
20%
15%
Academic problems
10%
Finished taking desired classes
5%
Personal health reasons
0%
Reasons for discontinuing
postsecondary education
Traumatic experience
Military service
SOURCE: ELS:2002 “A First Look at the Initial Postsecondary Experiences of the
High School Sophomore Class of 2002 (National Center for Education Statistics)
NATIONWIDE HS SENIORS ACT TESTED 2001-2007
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
All Students
Female
Male
600000
400000
200000
0
2001
SOURCE: ACT EIS
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Female Enrollments Exceed 57% of All College Students
SOURCE: NCES, The Condition of Education 2006, pg. 36
Today’s Teens and Social Media
• The use of social media gains a greater
foothold in teen life as they embrace the
conversational nature of interactive online
media
• Some 93% of teens use the internet, and
more of them than ever are treating it as a
venue for social interaction – a place where
they can share creations, tell stories, and
interact with others.
• SOURCE: PEW 12/19/2007
Girls continue to lead the charge
as the teen blogosphere grows
• 28% of online teens have created a blog, up from 19% in 2004.
• Overall, girls dominate the teen blogosphere; 35% of all online teen
girls blog, compared with 20% of online teen boys.
• This gender gap for blogging has grown larger over time. Virtually all
of the growth in teen blogging between 2004 and 2006 is due to the
increased activity of girls.
• Older teen girls are still far more likely to blog when compared with
older boys (38% vs.. 18%), but younger girl bloggers have grown at
such a fast clip that they are now outpacing even the older boys
(32% of girls ages 12-14 blog vs.. 18% of boys ages 15-17).
•
SOURCE: PEW 12/19/2007
Psychographic FACTOID:
Landline telephones are still a lifeline for teen social life
Top Twenty Graduate Degrees
Searched for on gradschools.com since 2004
1.
2.
3.
History
Physical Therapy
Journalism
Communications
4. Social Work
5. Fashion & Textile
Design
6. Clinical Psychology
7. Law
8. Architecture
9. Biology
10. Creative Writing
11. Physician Assistant
12. Sports Administration
13. MBA
14. Fine Arts
15. International Relations
16. Art Therapy
17. Counseling & Mental Health
Therapy
18. Public Health
19. Educational & School
Counseling
20. School Psychology
HIGHEST ADVANCED DEGREE ATTAINED: Percentage of 1992–93
bachelor’s degree recipients who had earned an advanced degree by
2003, by bachelor’s degree field of study and highest degree attained
# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Master’s degrees include students who earned a post-master’s certificate. First-professional programs include Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.), Pharmacy (Depart), Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.),
Podiatry (Pod.D. or D.P.), Medicine (M.D.), Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.), Optometry (O.D.), Law (L.L.B. or J.D.), Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.), or Theology (M.Div., M.H.L., or B.D.). Detail may not
sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993/03 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/03), previously unpublished tabulation (September
2005).
Positioning SEM for Success:
the In-house Consultant Model
Jay W. Goff
goffjw@mst.edu
Larry Gragg, PhD
lgragg@mst.edu
Robert Montgomery, PhD
bobm@mst.edu
www.enrollment.mst.edu
Enrollment Planners Conference, Chicago, IL
July 15, 2009
Core enrollment principles
• No Enrollment Effort is Successful without QUALITY
Academic Programs to Promote
• Recruitment and Retention is an On-going, Multi-year
PROCESS with Strong Access to Research and DATA
• +80% of Enrollments come from REGIONAL student
markets for BS/BA degrees
• The Most Successful Recruitment Programs Clearly
DIFFERENTIATE the Student Experience from
Competitor’s Programs
• The Most Successful Retention Programs Clearly
Address Students’ Needs and Regularly ENGAGE
Students in Academic and Non-Academic Programs
SEM Strategies for Success
1.
2.
3.
4.
Increase the College Going Rate
Increase Retention
Reach-out Further
Increase College Participation in Primary
Markets
5. Look for Post Retirement Student
Opportunities - Certificate Programs
6. Focus on Transfers from 2-year Colleges
7. Further develop Graduate Outreach and
Graduate Certificate Programs
Primary SEM Functions:
• Setting and establishing linkages, shared goals,
improved communication, and synergy across all
institutional units. Rather than functioning as stand-alone systems,
unit objectives need to be tied directly to enterprise-wide goals.
• Using an analytical, empirical, data-driven approach to
problem solving and decision making. Intuition is important
but not sufficient. The “culture of evidence” is a cornerstone of effective
enrollment management.
• Providing critical leadership. Enrollment management almost
always means changes in structure, reporting lines, communication,
goals, etc. The challenges and risks of change should never be
underestimated. Effective enrollment leaders are willing to accept risks in
areas where they see the need for change.
SEM’s complexity can foster the belief
that external expertise is needed
•Core planning activities
•Environmental scans
•Assessment of strategic needs
•Development of marketing plans
•Execution of plans and training
Fundamental Question:
“What is an effective approach to
implementing SEM that is
sustainable and likely to be
embraced by the entire campus?”
There is a time and place for
colleges and universities to seek
outside help.
FACT: Many schools need a SEM “road map” that only an
external agent can help construct.
Why Hire a Consultant?
• You are faced with a task or problem that
won’t go away
• You have a complex project that creates
additional work for the existing employees
• You want to save time and money by
temporarily employing someone with a
special expertise that can help you move
forward on overcoming an obstacle
SOURCE: Barbara Kibbe & Fred Setterber (1992) Succeeding with Consultants, Packard Foundation
Consultants HELP by..
•
•
•
•
•
Providing and Sharing a Variety of Skills
Supplementing Staff Expertise
Objectivity
Credibility
Providing Advise on Political and Legal
Issues
SOURCE: Barbara Kibbe & Fred Setterber (1992) Succeeding with Consultants, Packard Foundation
Phases of Consulting Process
SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH A PROCESS FOCUS
1. Engaging in initial contact and defining the work
2. Formulating a contract and establishing a helping
relationship
3. Gather all decision makers and discuss the plan, their
roles and what they can contribute
4. Identifying problems through diagnostic analysis
5. Set goals and planning for action with all decision makers
6. Taking action and cycling feedback
7. Completing the project
ADAPTED FROM: Gordon L. Lippitt, Ronald Lippitt (1994).The
Consulting Process in Action, 2nd Edition
Today’s Consultants embrace Change
Management and Rarely take on just one Task
•
•
•
•
•
•
Diagnosis & Assessment
Problem Solving
Research and Analysis
Strategic Planning
Organizational Process
System Development
•
•
•
•
•
Training
Mediation
Facilitation
Systems Development
Search for Potential
Employees
SOURCE: Barbara Kibbe & Fred Setterber (1992) Succeeding with Consultants, Packard Foundation
The professional SEM consulting
field has become highly valued
• Over 200 consultants with focuses in 50 different
categories
• Over 130 firms were noted for their abilities to assist
universities with implementing SEM
– Change Management
– Diversity
– Distance Education
Research
– Strategic Planning
- Marketing
- Financial Aid
- Student Market
- Communications
Primary Characteristics of
Successful Consultants:
1. Ability to bridge goals and build trust among different
departments
2. Respect earned through demonstration of an expert
knowledge base
3. Understanding and communicating institutional vision
4. A high profile throughout the organization
SOURCE: Lawrence and Lorsch (1967)
Consultants are Help Agents
Who can Unite the Campus
Familiar Scenario?
•
•
•
•
a problem is identified
a consultant hired
a plan written, and…
THE CONSULTANT LEAVES
• The task of supporting the external consultant and
carrying out the plan is often left to the very individuals
who had the training and capacity to write the plan; but
were disregarded because of their internal position.
The fundamentals of SEM are aligned
with Successful Consulting Practices,
they focus on:
• the use of research
• cross-unit collaboration to drive student
recruitment and retention activities
• Use of analytics and tactical skills to engage
the entire campus community in knowledge
and activities that spur student success and
optimize institutional resources.
Comparing Roles
Consultant vs.. SEM Leaders
Consultants
SEM Leaders
1. A track record of presenting
workable solutions to clients
1. Solid foundations in job experience,
education and a record of enrollment
successes
2. Strong organizational and analytical
skills
3. Ability to collaborate with faculty and
staff
4. Provide a team-work philosophy
2. Ability to diagnose problems
3. Ability to lead teams and generate
consensus
4. The ability to implement solutions
(systems, training, budget
distribution, etc.)
5. Facilitate consensus and
commitment to the plan of action
6. Strong interpersonal and public
communication skills
5. High energy and passion for student
success and higher education
6. Strong communication, budgeting and
personnel development skills
ADAPTED FROM: Barbara Kibbe & Fred Setterber (1992) Succeeding with Consultants, Packard Foundation
Embracing Consulting Expectations
Similarities between external consultants and current expectations of
SEM professionals is only one step in embracing the IHC approach.
• Both Structure and Orientation are important
• Philosophical orientation (e.g., administrative, student
focused, academic, or market-centered) can impact how
the SEM units operate
• Due to the manner in which universities actually work,
neither structure nor orientation fully optimizes the SEM
units’ impact on the overall function of the university if
the POSITIONING of SEM processes and its leaders are
not commonly appreciated and valued.
IHC: a SEM performance concept
The “in-house consultant” model (IHC) is a means to more
clearly position the chief enrollment officer, and SEM units, as
a campus wide support team focused on helping most offices
achieve and sustain core institutional strategic initiatives.
The IHC metaphor would address the mind- and skill-sets
required by enrollment management professionals to
help their institutions operate in a more efficient and
proactive manner.
IHC Model in a Nutshell
The In-House Consultant is expected to:
• Actively engage and inform the campus
• Regularly “take the plan off the shelf”
and…..
• Help the rest of the campus put the plan
into action.
The IHC concept is not new,
but seldom publicly embraced by executive leaders
•
Michael Hovland’s (2006) “Experts Close to Home: How to work Like a
Consultant on Your Own Campus”
– many traditional consulting tactics can be systematically applied by SEM
professionals.
•
Jim Black’s SEM framework papers (2003) and SEM business practices
workshops (2002) promotes:
– using diagnostic tools,
– establishing staff technical competencies & training systems
– using key performance indicators (KPIs) for cross-campus data sharing
– outcomes assessment.
Getting Started with
the IHC SEM Model
The IHC Orientation to SEM
Institutions embracing SEM must start with:
• Organizational Structure
• Philosophical Orientation (Academic vs.. Student Affairs)
• IHC Positioning cannot happen until the first
two are established.
The Entire Campus Must be
Engaged in the Solution
“Changing demographics is not simply an issue for
enrollment managers—and enrollment managers cannot
“do magic” to perpetuate the status quo.
Trustees, presidents, deans, faculty, and other
administrators need to engage in some serious strategic
planning to project manageable goals, not only from the
institution’s perspective, but also from the perspective of
providing access and opportunity to this new group of
students.”
SOURCE: College Board. (2005). “The Impact of Demographic Changes on Higher Education”
“Management of student
enrollments is one of the few
functions that cuts across units
at any college or university.”
SOURCE: Goff & Lane 2008
Using SEM and IHC Model
to Build Stronger
Faculty and Staff Collaboration
The Power of An Aligned & Informed Vision
No Enrollment Plan
Enrollment Management
SEM
A Significant Challenge
• Creating a unified SEM structure is
complicated by the fact that the university is
structured to be decentralized and protect
academic units from environmental shifts
(such as what occurs in enrollments).
• Most faculty do not know about (and even
more do not understand the importance) of
strategic enrollment management.
• The faculty need to know the difference!
How SEM Can Help Faculty &
Academic Leadership
•
•
•
•
Planning & Understanding Challenges
Preparing for New Students
Profiles (AP/Transfer Credits)
Projecting #s and Course Needs
Engaging Faculty in SEM
Addressing Key Audiences
• Deans & Chairs
• Faculty
• SEM Leaders
Faculty SEM Needs
• Faculty need information/data: start with Deans/Chairs.
EX: student demand for general education courses
• Help predict workload (# of student by program)
• Admissions and Student Profile Trends: What are their
learning needs and classroom expectations?
• What are issues with international recruitment and
admissions?
• Identification of roadblocks or obstacles keeping students
from graduating.
• Effective recruiting strategies and the faculty’s role
How to Engage Faculty
• Reach out, invite, feed
• Provide information:
– Understanding Current Students needs/activities
(psychographics)
– Understanding “Helicopter” Parents
• Ask for Department & Faculty Input:
1. Their capacity to serve with current resources?
2. Ask for a desired student profile?
3. GRAD PROGRAMS: Ask for preferred top 10
feeder schools?
Student Services SEM Needs
Building the “Caring Campus” atmosphere depends on Student Services
understanding of the students’ needs and the institution’s performance goals
•
The Campus Visit’s impact on Recruitment
•
Retention implications: Outside of the classroom, largest interaction with
students
•
Learning New Students’ Profile and College Expectations and Needs for
Outside of Class and best matching the campus services…plus dealing with
Helicopter Parents 
•
Understanding how to serve the Needs of Institution’s Targeted Student
Markets
•
Knowing new students’ previous co-curricular experiences in high school, at
the community college, or through work.
IHC’s Use and SHARE Data
• Become a data expert
• Translate the data into a form and with
messages attached that engage the
interests of faculty and administrators
• Train your staff to use data and expect
them to use it
• Share data and invite others to help you
interpret it
Michael Hovland, 2006
What do IHC’s Read?
In addition to ACT pubs & AACRAO SEM updates…..
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chronicle of Higher Education
Greentree Gazette
University Business
Inside Higher Ed (like Chronicle, but free)
ACT News You Can Use (www.act.org)
Google News Search: “University Enrollment”
• Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY
• State Economic & Demographic Reviews (OSEDA)
• Anything by Michael Dolence, Tom Mortenson, Bob
Bontager, David Kalsbiek, Bob Sevier, Richard Whitesides,
Bob Johnson, Stan Henderson, and Jim Black
• Much, much more
What Reports Do IHCs Produce?
• Weekly “Funnel” Reports
• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and
Enrollment/Course Demand Projections
• Annual Environmental Scans & SWOT
updates
• New Student Profiles Prior to Start of Classes
• Student Profile after Census Date
Core IHC Assessments
1. New Student Survey (prior to start of classes)
2. Withdrawal Survey (prior to cancelling classes)
3. Phone/Email Survey of Non-Returning Students
(2-4 weeks prior to start of semester)
4. Student Satisfaction Survey (all returning students)
5. Graduating Student Survey (prior to
commencement or within the first six months after
graduating)
Review:
In-House Consulting SEM Model
1. a rhetorical strategy: “providing help to all
constituents”
2. a values-based training philosophy for EM staff
3. an institutional expectation for collaboration
4. a push for a heightened sense of
professionalism.
5. continuity – the consultant does not leave!
Unite the Isolated
IHC builds an organizational culture that:
•
better motivates staff and faculty collaboration
•
demonstrates a dedication to intelligent planning
and strategy execution
•
promotes a stronger passion for academic and
student success through shared governance
•
embraces the regular use of solid analytical and
data-driven skill-sets.
Long-Term Benefits of
IHC Model
.
• Cost savings
• Greater organizational unity and engagement on
core business practices.
• Increased likelihood for sustainable change due
to a stronger understanding of the culture that
exists on campus.
• Establish better internal linkages and trust
needed to create a stronger and more
coordinated strategic plan through regular
communication and requests for unit input.
Conclusion
• IHC model is an ideal for strategic levels of
performance and professionalism.
• IHC: an ideal performance model for SEM
professionals, not an argument against using
external consultants.
• Promoting the idea of internal, experienced
SEM practitioners developing institution-wide
partnerships and plans to better ensure the
university lives up to its promises to students,
families, faculty, and alumni.
Learn More about SEM
• SEM: AACRAO’s 19th annual Strategic
Enrollment Management Conference
November 9-11, 2009, Dallas, TX
www.aacrao.org/sem19
QUESTIONS?
Building a SEM Organization
as a Data Driven Consultant
http://enrollment.mst.edu
SEM Organization as a Data
Driven Consultant
Jay W. Goff
goffjw@mst.edu
Larry Gragg, PhD
lgragg@mst.edu
Robert Montgomery, PhD
bobm@mst.edu
www.enrollment.mst.edu
Enrollment Planners Conference, Chicago, IL
July 15, 2009
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and
Leadership. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco.
Black, J. (2002). Excelling in the Core Business Functions of Strategic Enrollment
Management. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Enrollment Planners Conference.
Chicago, IL
Black, J. (2003, October). Defining enrollment management: The symbolic frame. Accessed
September 28, 2007 from
http://www.semworks.net/content/resources/jim_black_publications.php.
Bontager, R. (2004). Strategic Enrollment Management: Core Strategies and Best Practices.
College and University Journal, 79 (4), 9-15.
Dolence, M.G. (1993). A Primer for Campus Administrators. Washington, D.C.: American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.
Dolence, M.G., Lujan, H.D., & Rowley D.J., (1997). Working toward strategic change: A
step-by-step guide to the planning process. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco.
Habley, W. & McClanahan, R. (2004) What Works in Student Retention – All Survey
Colleges. ACT, Inc.: Iowa City, IA.
Henderson, S. E. (2004). Refocusing Enrollment Management: Losing Structure and Finding
the Academic Context. Paper presented at the 14th Annual SEM Conference. Orlando, FL.
Hossler, D. (1986). Managing College Enrollments. New Directions for Higher Education.
No.53. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hossler, D. (2005). Managing Student Retention: Is the Glass Half Full, Half Empty, or
Simply Empty. Paper presented at the 15th Annual SEM Conference. Chicago, IL.
References Continued
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hovland, M. (2006). Experts Close to Home: How to Work like a Consultant on Your
Own Campus. Paper presented at the 2006 GACRAO Conference. Kennesaw, GA.
Institute for Management Consultancy. (2002). Introducing the New Management
Consultancy Framework. Accessed September 3, 2007 from http://www.imc.co.uk.
Kalsbeek, D.H. (2006). Some Reflections on SEM Structures and Strategies. College
and University Journal, 81(3), 3-10.
Kurz, K. & Scannell, J. (2006). Enrollment Management Grows Up: Enrollment
Managers Share Their Current Approaches. University Business, 5(5), 34-38.
Lawerence, P.R. & Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and Environment: Managing
Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration,
Harvard College.
Lencioni, P. (2006). Silos, Politics, and Turf Wars. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Noel Levitz, Inc (2007) 2007 National Research Report-Student Recruitment Practices
at Four-Year and Two-Year Institutions. Author: Coralville, IA.
Tuchtenhagen, A. (June 2007). Enrollment Management Position Descriptions 20042007. Unpublished compilation. University of Wisconsin – River Falls.
University Business. (June 2007). Consultants, Dealers, Services & Products. Insert.
Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational Institutions as Loosely Coupled Systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
WICHE. (2003). Knocking At the College Door; Projections of High School Graduates by
State, Income and Race/Ethnicity, 1988 To 2018. Author: Boulder, CO.