Building a SEM Organization as a Data Driven Consultant

Building a SEM Organization as a Data Driven Consultant

Jay W. Goff

Vice Provost and Dean for Enrollment Management

Larry Gragg, PhDHistory Department Chair and Professor

Robert Montgomery, PhDPsychology Professor & former Department Chair

www.enrollment.mst.edu

Enrollment Planners Conference, Chicago, ILJuly 15, 2009

OVERVIEW1. 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 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 Fundamentals

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 SEMSteps fundamental to starting SEM

1. Determine the institution’s capacity to serve students by degree program and types of students (traditional, non-traditional, graduate, etc.)

2. Establish Goals: need to be agreed upon by all involved3. Formulate Strategies based on data4. 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. Strategic Framework: Mission, Values, Vision2. Overview of Strategic Plan Goals & Institutional Capacity 3. Environmental Scan: Market Trends & Competition Analysis4. Evaluation and Assessment of Position in Market5. Enrollment Goals, Objectives, & Assessment Criteria6. Marketing and Communication Plan7. Recruitment Plan8. Retention Plan9. Student Aid and Scholarship Funding10. Staff Development and Training11. Student/Customer Service Philosophy12. Process Improvements and Technology System Enhancements13. Internal Communication and Data Sharing Plan14. 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 PlanI. 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 PlanI. 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

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

SEM Research Plans

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

“Succeeding while Swimming Against the Tide”

RECORD GROWTH DECLINING INTEREST

SEM at Missouri S&T2001-2009

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

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.

S&T’s Strategic plan

Fall 2008 All Students by Academic Field

Missouri S&T: 90% Engineering, Science, & Computing Majors21st in Nation for Largest Undergraduate Engineering Enrollment (Prism 2008)

23rd in Nation for Number of BS Engineering Degrees Granted (Prism 2009)

Fall 2008

RI

49

7

4

1

2

51

2258

21

254

124

43

3

26

4,433

61

9115

11

5

21

16

43016

15

21

16

23

19 16

6

12

9

17

5

11

12

22

3

151

5

14

40 or more students

10 - 39 students

Legend

1 - 9 students

No students

Total Enrollment

» 47 states & 51 nations

» 70% Missouri residents

» 10% minority students

» 9% international students

DC 2

2

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 UniversityMissouri 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 12th on Forbes magazine’s list of “Best Public Colleges for Getting Rich”

(www.forbes.com, Aug. 2008)

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 CampusesMissouri S&T ranked #27 in Reader’s Digest’s “Campus Safety Survey” (www.rd.com, 2008).

Top 50 Engineering SchoolMissouri S&T ranked 48th among the nation’s best engineering schools (U.S. News & World Report,

2007 America’s Best Colleges Guidebook, September 2006).

One of America’s great universities

Average enrollment is 6,457Life as a National Outlier

California Institute of Technology

Polytechnic University

Colorado School of Mines

Georgia Institute of Technology and State

University

Illinois Institute of Technology

Michigan Technological University

New Jersey Institute of Technology

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology

Stevens Institute of Technology

Missouri S&T

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Clarkson University

Florida Institute of Technology

New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%

% Engineering, Business, Science & Math Enrollment

% E

ng

inee

rin

g E

nro

llmen

t

Average enrollment is 5,615

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…

DATA SOURCE: CIRP

Ongoing interest declines in key fields Changes in Intended Major 1976-77 to 2006-07

0%

7%

14%

21%

28%

Business Engineering Education BiologicalSciences

ComputerScience

SocialSciences

Art, Music,Drama

HealthProfessions

76-77 86-87 96-97 06-07

CHART SOURCE: College Board, 2007

SOURCE: ACT EIS 2008

> 5%

SOURCE: US Dept. of Education 2005

Missouri’s 2008 Student Funnel for All Engineering Fields

• High School Senior : 72,467• High School Graduates: 61,752• ACT Testers/College Bound: 47,240• Any Engineering Interest (all testers): 1,768• Any Engineering Interest, (+21 testers): 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: 681

SOURCES: MODESE 2009, ACT EIS 2008, PeopleSoft

Minimal Markets for Female & Minority EngineersMissouri’s 2008 ACT Tested Seniors, +24 ACT and

Interested in Engineering

• High School Senior Cohort: 72,467• High School Graduates: 61,752• All Engineering Interest, +24 comp. score: 961

(24 = UM minimum for auto admission)

• Female Engineering, +24 comp. score: 176• African-Amer Engineering, +24 comp. score: 21• Asian-Amer Engineering, +24 comp. score: 25• Native Amer Engineering, +24 comp. score: 7• Hispanic Engineering, +24 comp. score: 24

SEM Orientation & Structureeffective June 1, 2001

Since 2004: 60% of growth due to increased retention

STUDENT RETENTION

70

75

80

85

90

Per

cen

t S

till

En

rolle

d

Status in Fall Semester After One Year

Graduation Rates 2000 2005

General Student Body: 52% 64%

Since 2004, 60% of Growth due to Retention Increase

#1 Question:

How did you do it?

Silver Bullet

Strike of Lightening?

OR

SEM at S&T

1. Established a Vision

2. Aligned Systems

3. Created and Executed Plans

4. Integrated the Vision

5. Regularly review the Process

“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, IIIMissouri S&T Chancellor

SEM in ACTION:Why Change the University Name?

7 Years of Strategic and Dramatic ChangesJanuary 1, 2008 University Name Change

2007 Academic Reorganization by Eliminating Schools and Colleges

2003 and 2007 Updated the Mission, Vision and Strategic plans.

2004 Office of Technology Transfer and Economic Development

2001 to 2005 New Student and Business Information Systems

2002, 2004 & 2007 Three New Homepages and Platforms

2003 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 New School of Management and Information Sciences

2002 Center for Education Research and Teaching Innovation (CERTI)

2002 - 2006 12 NEW Degree Programs and 19 Certificate Programs,

128 hour limited for BS Engineering Degrees

2001 Administrative Restructuring and Formal Enrollment Management Program

» Enrollment Management, » Distance and Continuing Education» Research and Sponsored Programs» Undergraduate and Graduate Programs

Actual Goals

2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2012

Total Enrollment 4,626 5,602 5,858 6,167 6,371 6,550Undergraduate Students 3,698 4,313 4,515 4,753 4,912 4,800Graduate Students 928 1,289 1,343 1,414 1,459 1,750 Freshmen Class 696 914 977 1,051 1,056 975International Freshmen 15 21 36 16 35 49Transfer Class 210 314 266 276 286 300International Transfers 9 17 25 17 17 15 American Indian/Alaskan Native 24 20 20 33 33 36Asian-American 117 131 198 198 191 240Black, Non-Hispanic 159 200 245 271 299 335Hispanic-American 53 104 137 139 132 190Undergraduate International 96 80 98 105 127 240 Total Female 1,071 1,224 1,326 1,391 1,419 1,500Undergraduate Female 860 945 1,016 1,052 1,101 1,135Graduate Female 211 279 310 339 318 365Freshman Female 196 168 221 215 273 275Transfer Female 45 91 70 74 67 90 On-campus 4,393 5,101 5,389 5,649 5,768 5,825Distance Education 233 501 469 518 603 725

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.

Strategic Plan

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 5% international

Gender: 30% female 70% male

Ethnicity: 13% under-represented minority studentsMajors:

70% Engineering (all programs) 5% Liberal Arts (psychology, history, English, technical communication, philosophy)8% Business, Information Technology and Economics9% Natural Sciences and Mathematics (biology, chemistry, physics)8% Computer Science

Success Rate:90% first to second year retention rate80% return for third year65-70% graduate in six years

Strategic Enrollment Management Plan 2007-2011

• Increase Success of Students– Retention Rates– Graduation Rates

• Increase College Going Rate & Access1. Access & Affordability2. Pipeline of College Ready Students3. Strategic Partnerships4. Outreach/Education5. Scholarships

• Expanding Current Markets & Capturing New Markets1. Out-of-state students2. Transfer Students3. Female Students4. Underrepresented Minority Students5. International Students6. Graduate Students7. Nontraditional Students

We Learned About Our Students• Average Age: 21.8 years old

• Gender: – 23% Female– 77% Male

• 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%

• From a Community <40,000: 53%

• 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%

10 Core Recruitment Changes1. Creation of Data and Market Driven Strategic Plan

2. 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 EnhancementsII. Programming

III. Policy Changes

1. Creation of a formal Institutional Research Office, 20012. Started annual retention audit of academic (cognitive) and demographic factors,

20013. Identified classes with very low student success rates (DFW), 20014. Creation of Standardized Retention and Graduation Reports by gender and

ethnicity, 20025. Instituted a new student profile and expectations survey, 20026. Re-instituted the HPI assessment to track students by Non-cognitive factors,

20027. Revised withdraw surveys & interviews, 20028. Started non-returning follow-up telephone surveys, 20029. 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, 200311.Revised nationally normed student profile, attitude and engagement

assessments (CIRP & NSSE), 200312.Revived student satisfaction survey (switched from ACT to Noel Levitz), 2007-

08

I. ASSESSMENT ENHANCEMENTS

II. PROGRAMMING: Focus on Advising, tutoring, learning communities, faculty training and support

1. 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

2. Learning Enhancement Across Disciplines (LEAD) tutoring program expanded beyond Physics, Fall 2002

3. Address group building (making friends) and study skills (not flunking out) in all orientation activities, 2002-2003

4. Online tutor request program, 20035. Distribution of student profiles and survey summaries to create a better

understanding of faculty and student expectations. Actively embrace the “social norming” concept. 2003

6. Distribution of student profiles and survey summaries to create a better understanding of faculty and student expectations. Actively embrace the “social norming” concept. 2003

7. 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

8. Provided ACT’s EIS & AIM student profile data bases to all academic departments for more intrusive advising, 2003

9. Joint Academic Management (JAM) Sessions (student to student tutoring) to assist low performing students, 2004

II. Programming Continued11. New on-line Early Warning System, 200512. Strategic Retention Intervention: Focus on a rapid response “Academic Alert

System” (2005), on-line student communication system “Success Chain” (2005-2006), 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)

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Expanded Experiential Learning Programs: Focus to promote greater campus-wide “learning by doing” student engagement through student design teams, undergraduate research (OURE expansion), and service learning participation, 2002-ongoing

17. Creation of formal first-year experience office and staff, 200818. Creation of formal second-year experience office and staff, 2008

III. POLICY CHANGES

1. Incomplete grade time limit change, 20022. Repeat course GPA adjustment policy, 2002 3. Scholarship Reinstatement Policy, 20024. All BS degree programs reduced to between 124 to 128

hours, 2002-20035. Added 3 degree programs most often requested by exiting

students: Business, IST, Technical Communication, Architectural Engineering, 2002-2003

6. 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 college-bound 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

Source: The College Board

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Private 4-Year Public 4-Year Per Capita Income

Published Charges

Percent For Whom Financing was a Major Concern 1992-93 to 2006-07 (Selected Years)

Source: CIRP

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

92-93 94-95 96-97 97-98 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

Public Univ Private Univ Public 4-Yr Private (Non-Sect) 4-Yr

College Board, 2007

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


Approximately 68% of households indicate that they will finance their child’s college education through cash

generated from family income.


76% indicated they would be “somewhat” or “very likely” to consider the more expensive

institution if it could deliver greater value


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

So

me

Tre

nd

s th

at h

ave

no

t C

han

ged

:

Th

e G

ol d

en C

ircl

e fo

r R

ecru

itm

ent

+70

% e

nro

l l w

i th

in 1

40 m

ile s

of

ho

me

+80

% e

nro

l l i

n h

om

e st

a te

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

Source: CIRP

Change in Intended Major 1976-77 to 2006-07

0%

7%

14%

21%

28%

Business Engineering Education BiologicalSciences

ComputerScience

SocialSciences

Art, Music,Drama

HealthProfessions

76-77 86-87 96-97 06-07College Board, 2007

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

55.7% US College-Going Rates of High School Graduates - Directly from HS

College Board, 2007

NATIONWIDE HS SENIORS ACT TESTED BY ETHNICITY

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

African American

American Indian/Alaskan

Asian American

Mexican American

Multiracial

Other

Prefer NR

Puerto Rican/Cuban/Hisp

SOURCE: ACT EIS

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 2-year, 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

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Reasons for discontinuingpostsecondary education

Financial reasons

Other

Family responsibilities

Class not available / schedulinginconvenient

Dissatisfaction with program / school /campus / faculty

Completion of degree / certificate

Academic problems

Finished taking desired classes

Personal health reasons

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

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

All Students

Female

Male

SOURCE: ACT EIS

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. History 2. Physical Therapy 3. 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

[email protected]

Larry Gragg, [email protected]

Robert Montgomery, [email protected]



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. Increase the College Going Rate2. Increase Retention3. Reach-out Further4. Increase College Participation in Primary

Markets5. Look for Post Retirement Student

Opportunities - Certificate Programs6. Focus on Transfers from 2-year Colleges7. 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


Phases of Consulting ProcessSUSTAINABILITY THROUGH A PROCESS FOCUS

1. Engaging in initial contact and defining the work2. Formulating a contract and establishing a helping

relationship 3. Gather all decision makers and discuss the plan, their

roles and what they can contribute4. Identifying problems through diagnostic analysis 5. Set goals and planning for action with all decision makers6. 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


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 - Marketing– Diversity - Financial Aid– Distance Education - Student Market Research– Strategic Planning - 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 AgentsWho 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 RolesConsultant vs.. SEM Leaders

Consultants

1. A track record of presenting workable solutions to clients

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

SEM Leaders

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

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.

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: a SEM performance concept

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

• 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?

How to Engage Faculty

Student Services SEM NeedsBuilding 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 IsolatedIHC 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

Building a SEM Organization as a Data Driven Consultant

QUESTIONS?

http://enrollment.mst.edu

SEM Organization as a Data Driven Consultant

Jay W. Goff

[email protected]

Larry Gragg, [email protected]

Robert Montgomery, [email protected]



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 2004-2007.

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.

Building a SEM Organization as a Data Driven Consultant

Documents

Transcript of Building a SEM Organization as a Data Driven Consultant