NAGAP Perspectives Spring 2015

www.nagap.org

V O L U M E 2 7

N U M B E R 2

S P R I N G 2 0 1 5

A Newsmagazine for Graduate Enrollment Management Professionals

PERSPECTIVES IN THIS ISSUE 2 From the President

4 GEM Defined: A New Kind of Rhythm

6 The Influence of Marriage and Children on Graduate Enrollment

11 The Ethics Corner

12 Supporting the Transition of International Graduate Students Pre- and Post-Arrival on Campus

14 Rethinking Admissions: Recruiting for Retention

16 Book Review: College Admissions for the 21st Century

18 Reflections on the Winter Institute for Advanced Graduate Enrollment Management Professionals

19 Understanding Trends in International Graduate Student Mobility to the United States

N A G A PS P R I N G 2 0 1 5 • P E R S P E C T I V E S2

FROM THE PRESIDENT

Dear Colleagues,

As I reflect on 2014, I’m proud of the accomplishments that your NAGAP Board and committees have achieved and I’m astonished by the abundant change that many of us have either witnessed first hand or experienced through our colleagues in GEM. I’m personally aware of five colleagues who have started new jobs in the last six months due to restructuring initiatives, growth opportunities, or concerns about support and/or vision. I’m also aware of several more who are actively looking for new roles. As we navigate the ever-changing GEM landscape in 2015, I offer my support to each of you and I invite you to take advantage of your NAGAP network and remind you that you are not alone. I don’t know about you, but I take comfort in visiting with my GEM colleagues and I value their advice and the listening ear they provide.

During unsettling times, I’m reminded of some advice my dad gave me more than once, which is that “control is an illusion, the only control we have in life is how we choose to respond as we navigate this journey we call life.” I have found this outlook to be a powerful motivator and constant reminder that when life throws me an unexpected curve in the road I can choose how I want to respond. I also find inspiration and strength in Tony Robbins’ words, “change is inevitable; progress is optional.” As we embrace 2015, I wish you all a happy and productive year and I hope that if you are presented with change or challenges, my words can provide some comfort and encouragement.

I look forward to the Spring issue of Perspectives each year because it typically includes articles from NAGAP’s Research Grant recipients. In this issue, Michelle Kronfeld discusses her GEM research and I think you will see why she was nominated and selected as a recipient of this prestigious grant. You will also enjoy an article about international recruitment from EducationUSA, a piece on retention strategies by Kate McConnell, a case study of international graduate student services at Carleton University, a book review from Pam Gustafson, and a summary of the recent Winter PDI from this year’s Fellow, Jodi Duffy.

In our discussions and interaction with the NAGAP community, ethics and integrity in GEM has been a constant topic of interest. As such, we are excited to introduce the first installment of what we hope will be a regular column on ethics led by past NAGAP president, Kristin Williams. I’m sure you will not be disappointed as Kristin and her invited guests open this important discussion.

I encourage you to circulate this issue of Perspectives to your colleagues and perhaps invite them to consider NAGAP for their professional development. For some, this issue might be the olive branch or the conversation starter with an office or a colleague you want to improve communication with or invite more collaboration.

Our annual conference will be held in New Orleans this April. I’m sure you are aware that New Orleans is known for its authentic food and live music, especially on Bourbon and Frenchmen streets. However, you may not be aware of the famous Garden District in New Orleans. Live Oaks, wrought iron, pillars and porticos are just some of the aristocratic details of this district. Neighborhoods include 19th century mansions built in styles ranging from Greek Revival to Gothic! The St.

P E R S P E C T I V E SA Newsmagazine for Graduate Enrollment Management Professionals

Editor, Jennifer KulbeckAssistant Dean of Liberal ArtsSaint Mary’s College of California1928 Saint Mary's RoadMoraga, CA 94575

[email protected]

NAGAP Perspectives is published three times per year (Fall, Spring, Summer). Articles of particular interest for publication are graduate enrollment management research/study results, how-to articles, success stories, reports of workshops/seminars, book reviews, etc.

Submissions should be sent to the editor via email. Articles should be provided in Microsoft Word, with figures and photos provided separately as high-resolution TIF or EPS files. APA style is preferred for documenting sources. Submission deadlines: August 30, January 6, May 16.

Copyright © 2015 NAGAP

NAGAP is committed to diversity and inclusiveness in all of its activities. This commitment embraces respect for differences including age, culture, disability, education, ethnicity, gender, life experiences, race, religion, and sexual orientation. NAGAP champions an open exchange of ideas in a collegial environment that embraces academic freedom, cooperation, mutual respect, and responsibility. NAGAP supports activities that promote and nurture professional development, best practices, research, and collaboration of a diverse and global community of graduate enrollment management professionals, encouraging dialogue that fosters professional growth among all of its constituents, in the U.S. and internationally.

The Leader in Graduate Enrollment Management

P E R S P E C T I V E S • S P R I N G 2 0 1 5N A G A P 3

UPCOMING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTOPPORTUNITIES

2015 Annual Conference April 8-11, 2015 New Orleans, La.

Summer Institute for New Graduate Enrollment Management Professionals July 9-10, 2015 Las Vegas, Nev.

Setting the Standard for Accessibility and ServiceProviding evaluations of international educational credentials that help you make prompt, well-informed decisions for graduate admissions.

For more information or to obtain application forms visit us at www.edperspective.org or call 312.421.9300.

Educational Perspectives is a member of the National Association of Credential Evaluation Services (NACES)

A Fresh Perspective on International Education

ALL credential evaluations completed in 5 BUSINESS DAYS (upon receipt of all necessary documentation)

Charles historic streetcar line will take you to the Garden District for exploration and wonderful food. You might also consider touring the Lafayette Cemetery, considered to be the most “photogenic necropolis” on the planet, and making a reservation to eat at Commander’s Palace, the famous Breena Family Restaurant located across the street from the tombs!

While we want you to enjoy New Orleans and experience all the culture and history it has to offer, we certainly hope that the opportunity to visit with colleagues in a GEM context will truly be the highlight of your experience. Please join over 1,000 of your colleagues and plan to engage in this important conversation and make it a priority in your professional development.

I look forward to another exciting year as president of NAGAP and working collectively with you to increase awareness of GEM on our respective campuses, strengthen and enhance the communication and collaboration among GEM services, and provide a graduate experience of real consequence for our graduate students.

James N. Crane NAGAP President


Advance your career by attending NAGAP’s 28th Annual Conference. The Conference Planning Committee has been hard at work ensuring that this year’s conference will be the best yet! Year after year we receive feedback from attendees that the annual conference is a valuable experience. The variety of sessions offered proves beneficial to those new to higher education and to the seasoned professional. Networking opportunities, vendor exhibits and dynamic speaker presentations are worthwhile for all attendees. Attendees will leave the conference motivated by what they have learned. Below is some feedback from 2014 conference attendees:

“The NAGAP national

conference is a great

way to network and learn

best practices from other

GEM professionals. I highly

recommend it for anyone in

our industry.”

“The GEM world is ever-

changing so I’ve found the

NAGAP annual conference

to be a great place to talk

with other GEM professionals

who are not only making

the strategic decisions, but

also those who are working

on the front lines. Many of

us cover both of those roles

so being able to share best

practices, and sometimes worst

experiences, is invaluable.”

“From the keynote speaker

to the session presenters, I

received valuable information

and several take-aways that will

benefit my institution!”

Sessions are packed with valuable information. Attendees have the flexibility to determine which sessions suit their personal needs and determine which will

be most useful to their office. Sessions will cover topics in a variety of formats including: presentations, panels, special interests forums and vendor presentations. The variety of session topics include, but are not limited to: recruitment and marketing, legal implications in admission policies, professional development, student services, globalization, paperless application and review procedures, online learning, graduate student funding and financial aid, and alumni engagement.

GEM DEFINED: A NEW KIND OF RHYTHM Attend the NAGAP 28th Annual Conference

Reach prospects who have demonstrated graduate-level readiness through their GRE® test performance.

Decisive Step. Readiness for Graduate-level Work. Proven Skills to Succeed.

ONLY with the GRE® Search Service.

Select from about 30 criteria to EXPAND your pool or REFINE your recruitment strategy.

• Be cost efficient in your recruitment, knowing they’ve already taken a decisive step toward pursuing an advanced degree.

• Identify potential candidates using GRE® score bands and UGPA academic performance criteria.

• Recruit a diverse class for graduate or business school programs using demographic and geographic data, academic disciplines and more!

ETS — Listening. Learning. Leading.®

Copyright © 2014 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo, LISTENING. LEARNING. LEADING. and GRE are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 26459

gresearch.ets.org

Powered by


NAGAP is a collaborative community of higher education professionals and the annual conference is the perfect opportunity to learn from one another.

This year’s conference theme is GEM Defined: A New Kind of Rhythm and we are fortunate to have two compelling speakers. Dr. Barry Posner, Accolti Endowed Professor of Leadership, Leavy School of Business at Santa Clara University, a renowned leadership expert, will be the guest speaker at the opening session. Dr. Martha Kanter, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Higher Education at New York University and former U.S. Under Secretary of Education, will share her thoughts on graduate education in the 21st century during Saturday’s closing brunch.

If it is your first time attending the annual conference make sure that you arrive in time for the First-Timers Session on Wednesday, April 8, where you can network with other first-time attendees,

meet NAGAP staff, and learn about how to get the most out of the conference sessions and events. Wednesday events will also include several chapter meetings and the Welcome Reception in the Exhibit Hall. Display your school pride by wearing apparel from your current institution. Network with fellow attendees and explore the Exhibit Hall to learn about some of the latest innovations in our field.

The annual conference will provide you with great networking and educational opportunities, and you also get to enjoy the vibrant city of New Orleans. This includes our unique off-site event at Mardis Gras World where you will dine on a New Orleans-inspired buffet, have a drink with friends, take a warehouse tour, shop for a souvenir and experience the breathtaking Mardis Gras floats up-close. We will also provide you with suggestions for local activities that you may want to take advantage of before

you leave New Orleans, i.e., enjoy local music at the French Quarter Festival, visit one of the area’s museums in the Arts (Warehouse) District, hop on the St. Charles Avenue historic street car to tour the opulent Garden District, and splurge on something special at one of the many local shops.

The conference registration deadline is March 22, 2015! You can register for the conference by visiting our Annual Conference webpage: http://nagap.org/28th-annual-conference. You will also find a special link to book your hotel room at the Hyatt Regency New Orleans on our website. NAGAP has secured a special room rate which includes wireless high-speed Internet in your guest room. You will walk away from the conference with new connections, great take-aways and feeling reenergized and motivated to return to your office. We look forward to seeing you in New Orleans!

http://nagap.org/28th-annual-conference

http://nagap.org/28th-annual-conference

Since tracking graduate enrollment began in the late 1960s, graduate students have comprised about 15 percent of all higher education enrollments and this proportion continues to rise (Snyder & Dillow, 2012). Almost one-third of degrees conferred are graduate-level degrees (Ginder & Kelly-Reid, 2013). In recent years, there are almost 4 million students enrolled in master’s, doctoral, first-professional, or post-doctoral programs (Ginder & Kelly-Reid, 2013). Recruiting and serving graduate students must be at the forefront of higher education administration.

“Recruiting and serving

graduate students must be at

the forefront of higher education

administration.”

The status attainment literature has shown that family background — a parent’s educational and occupational attainment in particular — has a strong effect on a child’s educational attainment through the presence or absence of parental encouragement to attend college (Blau & Duncan, 1967; Carter, 1999; Mullen, Goyette, & Soares, 2003; Sewell & Hauser, 1972). The Hossler and Gallagher (1987) three-phase college choice model (predisposition, search and choice) extends certain aspects of the status attainment model to further explain the decision-making process of going to college. Extant research on college choice shows family background strongly influences a student’s undergraduate college choices (An, 2010; Charles et al., 2007; Engberg & Allen, 2011; Hossler et al., 1999; McDonough, 1997; Perna, 2006). These literatures focus largely on the traditional undergraduate student without considering the different preferences and responsibilities

(context) of potential graduate students considering enrollment. Potential graduate students are often older than high school students making a college choice, are independent from their parents, and may have a spouse and children at the center of their educational plans.

This study builds on the status attainment and college-choice literature by considering post-baccalaureate (graduate) enrollment and specifically explores the effects of marriage, parenthood and any corresponding gender effects on whether and when a bachelor’s degree recipient enrolls in graduate education. Specifically, I argue that the influence of significant others and socioeconomic background on post-baccalaureate enrollment is less likely to include that of the individual’s family background and more likely to include that of the individual’s family, including spouse and children. I further argue that marriage and parenthood each have a negative effect on post-baccalaureate enrollment decisions for men and women, with a stronger negative effect for women.

To assess my claims, I first investigated whether family background, such as parental education and parental income (manifested through financial support for their child’s college expenses), directly influences an individual’s likelihood of enrolling in graduate school. I argued that family background may not have an effect on an individual’s post-baccalaureate choices since research reveals the background effect declines as an individual increases his or her level of educational attainment (Ethington & Smart, 1986; Mare, 1980; St. John et al., 2001).

Second, I investigated whether the presence of a spouse and children influence an individual’s decision to enroll in graduate school. Previous

research on the undergraduate college choice decision did not examine the influence of spouse and children, but instead considered students as dependents of their parents and guardians (McDonough, 1997).

Third, I investigated gender differences in the influence of marriage and childbearing on graduate enrollment. Even with the closing gender gap in education and the workplace, women with professional degrees continue to follow highly variable career paths due to family roles and responsibilities (Moen, 2001). Although men may help with family care responsibilities, women still assume most of the burden (Bianchi et al., 2000; Bianchi et al., 2012; Conaway, 2005; Seay, 2010). Therefore, marriage and children may influence decisions to attend graduate school more negatively for women than for men.

Fourth, I investigated the timing of life events (e.g., graduation from college, marriage and childbearing) and their relation to the timing of graduate enrollment. Studies show a relationship between the timing of school, the timing of marriage, the timing of children and the effects of any of these events on each other and on educational attainment (Mare, 1991).

“Studies show a relationship

between the timing of school, the

timing of marriage, the timing of

children and the effects of any of

these events on each other and

on educational attainment.”

To investigate these family and gender effects, I analyzed data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal


THE INFLUENCE OF MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN ON GRADUATE ENROLLMENTBy Michelle L. Kronfeld, PhD, St. Ambrose University


Study 1993/03 (B&B: 93/03) — a longitudinal study that surveyed over 11,000 students at the time of their bachelor’s degree completion and three additional times over 10 years. The B&B: 93/03 restricted-use data set included the derived variables, interview files for all four interviews, transcript data, institutional records, government data and admissions test data (Wine et al., 2005).

Using survival analysis (event history analysis), I measured the amount of time (number of months) between baccalaureate degree completion and first graduate enrollment. Using this measure, I compared differences in the odds of graduate enrollment and timing of graduate enrollment based on marital status, parental status, and gender. The event of interest in this study was first graduate enrollment. This study did not address persistence, completion or subsequent enrollments, but focused solely on the act of enrolling in graduate education for the first time. For the purpose of this study, I defined graduate education as post-baccalaureate level enrollment, including master’s, doctoral, and first-professional courses, programs and certificates.

The results showed more women than men enrolled in graduate education, and men enrolled sooner than women. Furthermore, being a parent had a negative effect on if and when an individual enrolled in graduate school. Being married also had a negative effect on if and when an individual enrolled in graduate school, with married men experiencing a slightly stronger negative effect than married women. The combined effect of being married and being a parent had the strongest negative effect on graduate enrollment for men and women, but more so for women. Respondents who enrolled in graduate education were more likely to be unmarried than married the year prior to graduate enrollment. Respondents who enrolled in graduate education were more likely not to have children than to have children the year prior to graduate enrollment.

Graduate students who were married or had children enrolled later than unmarried or non-parent graduate students. Respondents who were both married and had children were more likely than all others to postpone graduate enrollment (half of unmarried, childless respondents enrolled within 18 months, whereas half of married parent respondents enrolled within eight years). Gender moderated the effect of marriage on graduate enrollment, but not the effect of marriage on the timing of graduate enrollment. Married women were slightly more likely than married men to enroll in graduate school. Gender also moderated the effect of parenthood on graduate enrollment and the timing of graduate enrollment. Fathers (as of the year before graduate enrollment) were more likely to enroll in graduate school than mothers when considered independently. While fathers enrolled in graduate education less often than non-fathers, the timing difference was minimal, with fathers starting to enroll sooner than non-fathers after seven years following bachelor’s degree completion. Mothers delayed graduate enrollment longer than non-mothers, and this timing difference widened as more time elapsed since bachelor’s degree completion.

In summary, despite women starting with a higher chance of enrolling in graduate education, marriage and parenthood were a greater barrier for women than for men. Gender has a statistically significant difference in the effect of marriage and parenthood on enrolling in graduate education and the timing of enrollment within 10 years post-baccalaureate degree receipt.

The analysis confirmed a stronger effect of marriage and parenthood the year before graduate enrollment than advanced parental education and parental financial support. Although these family background and current family characteristics influenced whether an individual enrolled in graduate education, the current family had the strongest effects on whether but also on when he or she enrolled. Of

these variables, marriage had the strongest effect (52 percent lower odds of graduate enrollment) followed by parenthood (40 percent lower odds). Advanced parental education had a stronger role in graduate enrollment (33 percent higher odds) than parental financial support (4 percent higher odds). Neither advanced parental education nor parental financial support influenced the timing of graduate enrollment. However, marriage and parenthood postponed graduate enrollment for men and women, but more so for women.

continued on the next page

Married people and people with children (or both) are less likely to go to graduate school.

Odds of enrolling in graduate school:

• Married: 50% lower odds• Parent: 40% lower odds• Both married/parent: 60% lower

odds• Women: 6% greater odds• Married men: 4% lower odds

(v. married women)• Mothers: 20% lower odds

(v. fathers)• Married mothers: 30% lower

odds (v. married fathers)

Married people and people with children (or both) delay enrolling in graduate school.

Timing of graduate enrollment following bachelor’s degree completion:

• Unmarried/non-parent: within 1.5 years

• Married: within 5.5 years• Parent: within 4.5 years• Both married/parent: within 7.5

years


In addition, gender had a statistically significant difference for the combined effect of marriage and parenthood on graduate enrollment and timing of graduate enrollment within 10 years of post-baccalaureate degree receipt. Married mothers and married fathers experienced similar timing up until three years after their bachelor’s degree completion. After three years, married fathers enrolled sooner than married mothers. The largest timing difference was for single parents. Single mothers took twice the time of single fathers to enroll in graduate school. Marriage and, more so, parenthood occurred mostly after first graduate enrollment and after four or more years beyond baccalaureate degree completion.

With the findings in mind, higher education institutions may see enrollment and retention gains if practices are more graduate-student friendly, thereby minimizing the negative influence of having a family on post-baccalaureate enrollment (Springer et al., 2009). For example, policies may need to be revised to accommodate the enrollment delay of graduate students with families. In addition, policies and services may need to be expanded to accommodate graduate students with families. Research shows that institutional support for graduate student parents is insufficient (Springer et al., 2009). Often times flexibility occurs, but on an individual basis. Flexibility needs to be institutionalized to allow for consistency across students and departments (Springer et al., 2009). Higher education administrators may consider offering flexible and convenient courses, expanding student services, providing greater access to advisors, lengthening graduate examination expiration dates and hosting activities for graduate students’ families.

There may be an opportunity to expand the student services literature by conducting utility studies of graduate student family engagement activities. Do graduate students enroll at a higher rate when there is stronger support for their families? What types of activities stimulate graduate enrollment and improve retention the most?

By better understanding graduate college choices, institutions can more effectively use resources and improve the opportunities and experiences for post-baccalaureate students. Minimizing barriers to entry may level the playing field between master’s degree aspirants with families and those without families. The results suggest opportunities for higher education graduate enrollment administrators to influence post-baccalaureate enrollment decisions by offering services specific to graduate students with families. Institutional support for married graduate students and graduate students with children have the potential to attract and retain a further diverse and intellectually rigorous student body.

ReferencesAn, B. P. (2010). The relations between

race, family characteristics, and where students apply to college. Social Science Research, 39(2), 310–323. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.08.003

Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79(1), 191–228.

Bianchi, S. M., Sayer, L. C., Milkie, M. A., & Robinson, J. P. (2012). Housework: Who did, does or will do it, and how much does it matter? Social Forces, 91(1), 55.

Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York, NY: Wiley.

Carter, D. F. (1999). The impact of institutional choice and environments on African-American and white students’ degree expectations. Research in Higher Education, 40(1), 17–41.

Charles, C. Z., Roscigno, V. J., & Torres, K. C. (2007). Racial inequality and college attendance: The mediating role of parental investments. Social Science Research, 36(1), 329–352. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.02.004

Consider your recruitment, application and admissions procedures.

• Are there opportunities to improve?

• What outreach activities could be done to appeal to potential graduate students with families?

• Can deadlines be extended to be more accessible?

• Could “expiration dates” for entrance exams and transfer credits be longer?

• Could some pre-advising sessions or recruitment sessions be “family-friendly”?

Consider your graduate student services and experiences.

• Are there opportunities to improve?

• Offer childcare subsidies?

• Provide childcare during class and/or for study time?

• Offer affordable family health insurance for GA/TA’s?

• Offer flexible courses (times, days, formats)?

• Host “family-friendly” activities and orientations?

• Host activities and events for spouse and/or children?

• Revise policies (maternity/paternity leave)?

THE INFLUENCE OF MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN CONTINUED



Table 1. Hazard Ratios, Log-rank Test for Equality of Survival Functions

Total Males Females Diff.†

Female 1.06*

Race/Ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.63 1.29 0.33 *

Asian or Pacific Islander 1.14 1.25 1.03 *

Black, Non-Hispanic 1.06 0.96 1.07 *

Hispanic 1.12 1.36 0.96 *

White, Non-Hispanic 0.98 0.97 1.00 *

Baccalaureate Major

Humanities 0.92 1.08 0.83* *

Social and behavioral sciences 1.28** 1.22* 1.33** *

Life and physical sciences 1.88** 2.18** 1.61** **

Engineering/math/computer science 1.07 1.11 1.13 **

Education 1.30** 1.20 1.29**

Business and management 0.62** 0.59** 0.67**

Health 1.04 1.90** 0.78 *

Vocational/technical 0.49** 0.44** 0.65 *

Other technical/professional 0.73** 0.62** 0.81* *

Either parent has a master’s degree 1.33** 1.43** 1.25** *

Parental financial support 1.04* 1.03 1.05* *

Parent master’s degree, parental financial support

No master’s, no support 0.87** 0.88** 0.86**

No master’s, support 0.92** 0.88** 0.96** **

Master’s, no support 1.24** 1.35** 1.15**

Master’s, support 1.35** 1.45** 1.27**

Married year before first graduate enrollment 0.48** 0.46** 0.50**

Child year before first graduate enrollment 0.60** 0.83 0.56**

Married, child year before first graduate enrollment

Not married, no child 1.34** 1.27** 1.43**

Not married, child 0.80** 1.42** 0.75** *

Married, no child 0.50** 0.45** 0.53**

Married, child 0.39** 0.59** 0.33** **

Note. B&B:93/03. Sample size is 5,950 respondents. Each variable was tested for equality of survival function not controlling for any other variables. Chi-square test. †gender difference in hazard ratios is statistically significant *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Conaway, C. (2005). Paying the price: Evidence on how family choices affect career outcomes (working class women). Regional Review, 14(3), 26.

Engberg, M. E., & Allen, D. J. (2011). Uncontrolled destinies: Improving opportunity for low-income students in American higher education. Research in Higher Education, 52(8), 786–807.

Ethington, C. A., & Smart, J. C. (1986). Persistence to graduate education. Research in Higher Education, 24, 287–303. doi:10.1007/BF00992076

Ginder, S. A., & Kelly-Reid, J. E. (2013). In J. E. Kelly-Reid, S. A. Ginder, and National Center for Education Statistics (Eds.), Postsecondary institutions and cost of attendance in 2012-13, degrees and other awards conferred: 2011-12, and 12-month enrollment: 2011-12. first look (provisional data). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics: U.S. Department of Education.

Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62, 207–221.

Hossler, D., Schmit, J. L., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Mare, R. D. (1980). Social background and school continuation decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 295–305. doi:10.2307/2287448

Mare, R. D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56, 15–32. doi:10.2307/2095670

McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Moen, P. (2001). The gendered life course. In R. H. Binstock, & L. K. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (5th ed., pp. 179–190). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.


THE INFLUENCE OF MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN CONTINUED

Mullen, A. L., Goyette, K. A., & Soares, J. A. (2003). Who goes to graduate school? Social and academic correlates of educational continuation after college. Sociology of Education, 76, 143–169. doi:10.2307/3090274

Perna, L. W. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model: Vol. 21. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 99–157). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-4512-3_3

Seay, S. E. (2010). A comparison of family care responsibilities of first-generation and non-first-generation female administrators in the academy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38, 563–577. doi:10.1177/1741143210373742

Sewell, W. H., & Hauser, R. M. (1972). Causes and consequences of higher education: Models of the status attainment process. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54, 851–861. doi:10.2307/1239228

Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2012). Digest of education statistics 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012001.pdf.

Springer, K. W., Parker, B. K., & Leviten-Reid, C. (2009). Making space for graduate student parents. Journal of Family Issues, 30(4), 435–457. doi:10.1177/0192513X08329293

St. John, E. P., Asker, E. H., & Hu, S. (2001). The role of finances in student choice: A review of theory and research. In M. B. Paulsen, & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The finance of higher education: Theory, research, policy, and practice (pp. 419–438). New York, NY: Agathon Press.

Wine, J. S., Cominole, M. B., Wheeless, S., Dudley, K., & Franklin, J. (2005). 1993/03 baccalaureate and beyond longitudinal study (B&B:93/03) methodology report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006166.pdf

Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier survival curve stratified by marital status and parental status year before graduate enrollment.

a. Males

b. Females

Note. Sample includes 2,850 respondents who enrolled in graduate education.

P E R S P E C T I V E S • S P R I N G 2 0 1 5 11 N A G A P

Each week we hear new reports of deceptive and fraudulent practices on the part of colleges and universities, ranging from academic and research fraud to Visa and student loan scams to outright embezzlement. Among the revelations of inappropriate behavior by faculty and abuses of power by presidents and trustees, there are a variety of unethical practices related directly to enrollment management that seem to regularly appear in the media or the courts.

• Misrepresenting the institution’s student body, faculty, programs of study or resources.

• Providing fraudulent data regarding admissions, student support, costs of attendance or job placement rates.

• Revising admissions policies in mid-stream or applying admissions requirements inconsistently or unfairly.

• Admitting applicants who lack the knowledge, credentials or skills needed to succeed.

At best, these actions are simply mistakes or misguided attempts to strengthen a school’s image or ranking; at worst, they are for personal gain. Whatever the reason, such practices undermine the specific institution’s image and the public’s perception of, and trust in, higher education in general. As enrollment management professionals, we are often in the thick of these controversies, putting our personal reputation at stake – even when we’re not the key decision maker or directly involved in the implementation of these unethical practices and actions.

What can we do?First, we can watch for warning signs within our colleges and universities:

• Academic programs or groups of students who are not subject to standard processes and/or not handled by professional staff.

• Lack of transparency and documentation regarding pertinent policies and procedures.

• Faculty and/or staff unease or mistrust.• “Silo” environments in which staff have little interaction with

colleagues across the institution and within the profession.

Second, we can avoid handling an issue in a vacuum. Being knowledgeable about professional guidelines and standards is important, and there are certainly situations

you should review with your institution’s legal counsel. (NAGAP’s statements of Standards and Best Practices are available at www.nagap.org.) And consulting with reputable and respected colleagues can often be the best way to identify the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable practices and to develop appropriate responses.

This column has been created to help NAGAP members identify and make their way through ethical challenges that may arise within their institutions and to encourage them to adhere to the highest standards of ethics and professional conduct. We’ll use this space to share ideas and resources and to offer suggestions on ways to assess and respond to situations and practices that raise ethical concerns.

We encourage you to share the ethical challenges you are facing (or have faced) and ask you to send your questions or descriptions of those issues to us at [email protected]. Without identifying any individual or institution by name, we will use your input to formulate the ethics-related topics discussed and analyzed in future columns. All messages sent to this address will be held in confidence and will not be released except in imminent danger situations involving harm to self or others. Please note that we are not lawyers, nor are we a law-enforcement body, and we will not investigate any claims that are raised or situations that may be described to us. We are simply three enrollment management professionals with collectively over 100 years of experience in various institutions and a desire to use that experience to help our NAGAP colleagues.

We hope you will find this new column both interesting and relevant to your professional career. Do let us know, at any time, your thoughts regarding it.

Donald A. ResnickChief Enrollment and Success OfficerThe New School

Myron A. ThompsonAssociate Provost & Executive Director of the Graduate SchoolUniversity at Buffalo/State University of New York

Kristin S. WilliamsAssociate Provost for Graduate Enrollment ManagementThe George Washington University

THE ETHICS CORNER

With increasing frequency, colleges and universities are the subject of public concern and sometimes even outrage regarding unethical (and in some cases illegal) practices. What has led to this disconcerting state of affairs in American higher education and what should be done to confront it? NAGAP is pleased to bring you this new column whose purpose is to explore those issues and, hopefully, to raise the sensitivity of NAGAP members to such challenges to our personal and professional integrity and that of our institutions.

When I began my position as the International Graduate Student Recruitment Officer at Carleton University, I realized that an important part of my responsibility would be to help students transition to Ottawa, Canada, and specifically to Carleton University. The challenge was to develop a transition plan for a diverse student population, with limited resources. Over the last few years, the transition plan for new international graduate students coming to Carleton has grown into a robust strategy that engages students from the time they receive an admission offer and begin registering for courses to their arrival on campus. For the benefit of NAGAP members, I have outlined the strategy we deployed this year.

Carleton has a graduate student population of approximately 3,600 (master’s and PhD students) with about 13 percent of those being international students (non-Canadian citizens or permanent residents). Each academic unit is responsible for assessing applications and making recommendations for admission. These recommendations are then sent to the Central Graduate Studies Office (CGSO) and the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs (FGPA) for approval. Specific course and programmatic procedures are provided by the individual academic unit, which does so with varying degrees of success. The variation in programmatic and course details across programs means the international graduate student transition strategy adopted must be sufficiently general to be applicable across disciplines.

Carleton’s new international graduate student transition strategy is multifaceted with many tools working in tandem. It also involves the collaboration of the International Student Services Office (ISSO) and the Graduate Students’

Association (GSA) at Carleton. Recognizing the need to have all the information in a single portal, we produced an annual International Graduate Student Handbook (electronically in PDF format), which covers all of the details students would need for a successful transition to Carleton. This includes information regarding health insurance, academic integrity, transportation, etc. This document was developed in consultation with the ISSO, GSA and Carleton’s Equity Services Office and is used as the basis for all of the other parts of our transition strategy.

The strategy moves to the next level once offers of admission have been extended. Two pre-arrival or “welcome” emails are sent to international graduate students who have received offers of admission. The first email is sent at the beginning of July, before course registration is available. It provides information regarding registration, orientation and any other core information a student would need prior to making travel arrangements to Ottawa. The email doubles as a strategy to increase the conversion rate by encouraging students to accept the offer of admission and register for courses. The second email, which focuses on orientation and health insurance information, is sent late in August, just before the start of the fall term.

In addition to these emails, a pre-arrival webinar (titled “Online Presentations”) is provided. The idea for the webinar was a direct result of my attendance at a NAGAP annual conference. We also received feedback from international graduate students who wanted more information prior to their arrival in Ottawa through the first week of classes. I approached the GSA who collaborated with us on the development of two

SUPPORTING THE TRANSITION OF INTERNATIONAL GRADUATE STUDENTS PRE- AND POST-ARRIVAL ON CAMPUSBy Greg Aulenback, Carleton University, Canada

2014-16 NAGAP GOVERNING BOARDOfficersPresidentJames N. Crane Assistant Dean Graduate Studies Brigham Young University BYU Graduate Studies 105 FPH Provo, UT 84602 Phone: 801-422-1586 Fax: 801-422-0270 Email: [email protected]

Vice President Julia B. Deland Harvard Graduate School of Education

SecretaryJoshua LaFave State University of New York at Potsdam

TreasurerJeremiah Nelson UNC Chapel Hill

The Leader in Graduate Enrollment Management


mailto:[email protected]

CommitteesChapters ChairSarah Petrakos Simmons College

Conference Chair 2015Teisha Johnson Illinois College of Optometry

Diversity & Inclusion ChairValerie Robinson Miami University

Education ChairLinda Horisk Fordham University

Membership ChairKittie Pain Neumann University

Professional Development ChairKeith Ramsdell Bowling Green State University

Publications ChairJennifer Kulbeck Saint Mary's College of California

Research and Global Issues ChairMatthew Cipriano Weill Cornell Medical College

Technology ChairMarcus Hanscom University of New Haven

Publications Editorial CommitteeNicquet Blake, Ph.D. University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio

Dave Fletcher, D.Min. Barry University

Marianne Gumpper Fairfield University

Raymond Lutzky, Ph.D. New York University

Kate McConnell Saint Joseph’s University


pre-arrival online presentations. These presentations, set up as Part 1 and Part 2, were designed to be engaging and hands-on, and to specifically address areas of concern expressed to both our offices. They were delivered using GoToWebinar, which allows for registration and automatic email reminders and follow-ups. These presentations were co-presented by representatives from the GSA and the ISSO. To accommodate the many different international time zones, each presentation was offered live twice – at 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. eastern standard time (EST).

Part 1 ran twice during the month of July. It focused on information related to offers of admission, Canada, Ottawa, the weather, housing, costs and budgeting and the student experience. Part 2 ran twice during the month of August and covered transportation, employment, health insurance, and things to do in Ottawa such as festivals, holidays, etc. By breaking up this information into two parts, we were able to cover a wide spectrum of information without overwhelming students in a single presentation. It also allowed us to remain in contact with our incoming students over the summer to help them feel connected to Carleton before arriving on campus.

To make the presentations engaging, we set up a multiple-choice question and answer quiz. For example, we asked: “Canada is a bilingual country, but what is the only official bilingual province?” Potential choices would be: a) Quebec; b) New Brunswick; c) Ontario; d) Nova Scotia; e) none of the above. We would then allow students to select their response. A student may then select the answer “b” and would be prompted with additional information indicating that English is commonly spoken language in the city of Ottawa and that French was not required at Carleton.

Although our attendance was not as high as we anticipated, we were still impressed with the turnout and the engagement with these students. Interestingly, we had a higher turnout of students attending Part 1 in July than we did for Part 2 in August. It was also interesting that the registration and attendance rates were higher for the 8:00 a.m. presentations. The feedback we received on these sessions was extremely positive and we expect to grow the attendance numbers over the next couple of years.

To complete our transition strategy, the ISSO planned specific orientation sessions for incoming students as part of our general New Grad Orientation day. These focused more on information, which ISSO could provide, such as health insurance, immigration information, etc. The following week, GSA provided an international student welcome event focused on the services they provide. Over the course of the term, the FGPA facilitated a number of professional development workshops on academic integrity, health and wellness, etc. to provide assistance to all graduate students, including international students.

By diversifying our new international graduate student transition strategy as outlined above, we were able to provide an appropriate balance between the information we needed incoming students to know and the information that our students were requesting well in advance of their arrival on campus. This also helped alleviate the sometimes overwhelming amount of information international students receive once they arrive on campus. By presenting the information in multiple formats – email, publication, and webinar – we were able to provide our incoming international graduate students with a better transition. We continue to work collaboratively with other groups on the Carleton campus to help make this transition even smoother and at a low cost.

RETHINKING ADMISSIONS: RECRUITING FOR RETENTIONBy Kate McConnell, MBA, Saint Joseph’s University


For the past ten years I have worked the entire Graduate Enrollment Management (GEM) funnel starting with marketing and recruitment, then admissions and enrollment, and now retention and student success – an area in GEM many have not fully embraced nor acknowledged for its importance and relevance in driving enrollment and future admission referrals.

Graduate programs tend to focus the majority of their marketing dollars on recruitment, nurturing inquiries, increasing the applicant pool, driving acceptances and initial registration – all in order to meet institutional enrollment revenue goals.

Schools market their programs well to prospective students; promoting the value of the degree; the academic reputation of the institution; faculty credentials; and the potential for career advancement. These efforts inevitably result in new enrollment and are repeated each recruitment cycle. Enrollment goals and projections traditionally focus on new admissions, with some consideration to current student credit hours. Overlooked is an understanding of and focus on strategies to maintain continuous enrollment, timely progression and support for student persistence.

To augment recruitment goals, schools need to focus more on achieving, maintaining and optimizing their retention efforts, not only to maintain new enrollment and meet enrollment revenue goals but to ensure current student progression and timely

graduation. Schools spend a great deal of money getting students in the door, but often do not invest in the staff and support services needed to understand student attendance, track progression, analyze, identify and reduce causes of attrition and provide support to ensure persistence. By doing so, schools can more accurately predict enrollment trends, anticipate and project future enrollment and make budget revenue adjustments when needed.

Enrollment and revenue projections focus heavily on new headcount and credit hours. However, current student credit hours do not always factor in to the extent they should. Retaining students is critical to the overall financial health of the institution. It can be an integral and consistent revenue source from a student for a minimum of 24 to 36 months. As alumni, these former students are a great source of referral for new applicants. Institutions need to realize alumni potential and market to them accordingly.

As undergraduate enrollment declines, the need to manage graduate and adult student retention is beginning to gain attention. Yet for some, the jury is still out. Some administrators believe revenue is easier realized by adding students, hence, the focus on recruitment. Some see more value in adding admissions staff rather than investing in the personnel, training, resources and services needed to better understand and manage the factors that influence retention and ensure student success. Some fail to see the correlation between recruitment and retention; especially the impact retention has on revenue and future enrollment growth.

As we recruit students we may need to rethink how we measure the success of our efforts, the long-range return on investment, and if the promise made at admission is realized by continuous

student progression and consistently high program completion rates.

Here are some questions to consider as you rethink the whole GEM cycle and look at retention as measureable data for enrollment forecasting and budgeting.

• Are we confident the promise made at admission is being realized at graduation?

• Are we recruiting and admitting students who have the ability to succeed?

• Are we prepared and resourced to provide the guidance and support necessary to ensure strong academic performance and persistence?

• Are enrollment and revenue goals taking precedence over prospective students’ academic appropriateness?

• Are recruiters and program offices being faced with the ethical challenge of enrolling students who will succeed rather than accepting students in order to meet enrollment revenue goals?

Addressing these questions is central to future growth and maintaining an institution’s academic brand. Developing enrollment goals and projection models in conjunction with current, accurate and relevant institutional data is a vital part of a retention strategy. Understanding how students are coded and how data is collected becomes the foundation of a retention analytic model. Beginning with a point in time, look back at a three-year enrollment period, reviewing each program to analyze retention. This requires looking at course sequence, delivery, progression, continuous

“Overlooked is an understanding

of and focus on strategies to

maintain continuous enrollment,

timely progression and support for

student persistence.”

“Understanding how students are

coded and how data is collected

becomes the foundation of a

retention analytic model.”


enrollment, step-in and stop-out patterns and time to degree for current students.

The resulting metrics will guide further analysis and provide valuable information needed to support current students and recruit new ones. This data can help engage academic units, faculty, staff and support service offices throughout the campus around the importance of retention and the need for an interdisciplinary approach to strengthen retention.

As new students are recruited one at a time, so too are students retained. Recruitment and retention are not separate but rather work in tandem. There needs to be a shared commitment to recruitment and retention among those recruiting, advising, teaching and supporting students.

Each day we are competing for our students’ attention. How do we support and predict progression when we have so little influence on personal issues such as family problems, finances, job demands, loss of employment, health issues and childcare? All of these demands impact recruitment and retention.

Successful retention can be driven through strong academic support, professional advising, regular communication and engagement, focused registration outreach and coaching. Attention to the level of academic support, amount of

communication with students and support services available can result in lower attrition rates, as students will maintain enrollment, progress in a timely manner, graduate and refer others.

Maybe the funnel needs a redesign. Imagine an inquiry who becomes a student, builds a network of academic colleagues, then becomes an alumnus, refers others to the program, hires future graduates, and later becomes an affiliate faculty member! Now that is looking at recruitment through the lens of retention.

There’s no substitute for quality and integrity. National Association of Credential Evaluation Services (NACES)

WHO is NACES?NACES is an association of private foreign educational credential evaluation services committed to formulating and maintaining ethical standards in the field of foreign educational evaluation.

WHY choose a NACES®

member to evaluate your international credentials?Since 1987, NACES has been committed to setting the standards for the credentials evaluation profession.

NACES®

membership provides an assurance to the user that the evaluation performed is reliable.

For a list of current members, visit www.naces.org

“As new students are recruited

one at a time, so too are students

retained.”


College Admissions for the 21st Century reviews the American admissions process and offers solutions to the often uninspiring and inflexible progression of applications through an admissions office. Author Robert J. Sternberg has served a variety of upper and mid-level administrative, staff, and professorship roles in higher education, and is a past-president of the American Psychological Association. He is currently a professor of human development at the College of Human Ecology at Cornell University. In the book, he describes and critiques components of the admissions process and points to strategies to expand the pool of applicants for serious consideration using innovative methods, such as Kaleidoscope.

The book is divided into seven chapters. The first three review traditional application components and processes, including standardized tests, interviews, prior experiences, letters of recommendation, affirmative action, and open and restricted processes. Sternberg then discusses intelligence, creativity, wisdom, and when and how to assess hidden talents (vis-à-vis the Rainbow Project and Kaleidoscope Project). He concludes with a chapter on encouraging creativity, practical intelligence and wisdom through new methods in the admissions process, and wraps up the book with a reflection on these processes as a piece of a larger system and the implications for students, colleges and society. The book also includes a sample of Kaleidoscope questions used during Sternberg’s tenure at Tufts University.

In the preface, Sternberg describes his journey into higher education. Unlike many on the administrative side of higher education, his entry into the profession was intentional, beginning with his sophomore year

at Yale where he challenged the admissions procedures, drawing from his previous experiences with summer jobs at assessment companies. In short, Sternberg’s purpose is presenting options for admissions offices to do a better job at admitting students by thinking broader about abilities and “valuing, assessing, and teaching for analytic, creative, practical, and wisdom-based skills.” Indeed, this framework closely mirrors the holistic concept of Graduate Enrollment Management.

Sternberg begins with the tangible output of admissions processes. He immediately casts himself as non-elitist, and rather a thoughtful evaluator of the larger system, by noting that even schools like his alma mater graduated the likes of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton – whose major flaws included faulty evidence for war and “self destructive tendencies,” but whose admission to the school was typical. The problem of admissions, he argues, is that the admissions process is incomplete. Testing is not bad, it just doesn’t provide enough information either way, assessing for others skills is crucial to moving forward, to including a more socioeconomically diverse student body across all colleges, and ultimately to providing students, the institutions and society with the benefits.

Sternberg argues that admissions processes should account for applicants who have the potential to be leaders and active citizens. Those whose work post-graduation will add value to society in positive and meaningful ways. Those attributes cannot, of course, be determined based on standardized test scores. Additionally, those attributes cannot be assumed to be in tote with any higher education curriculum. By shifting thinking about students to a holistic approach, admissions processes can begin to shape classes with individual

students whose range is varied, cohorts whose interactions are informative and transformative, and an educational experience that mirrors the variation of intelligence, of lived experiences, and of needs across society.

Sternberg takes a critical and balanced view of past practices. He asserts that the desire for a quantifiable, precise measurement makes decisions much easier, despite the evidence that these measurements do not capture the whole picture. Sternberg wants the whole picture. Enrollment management staff and program faculty want to know that students will be able to engage with class material in meaningful ways, bring an open mind and diverse experiences to an issue, and actively participate on the level expected of students at the institution. Retention numbers, ratings and other factors plague the admissions process at any university with pressure from a varied set of stakeholders.

BOOK REVIEWReviewed by Pam L. Gustafson, Long Island University, Post Campus

College Admissions for the 21st CenturyBy Robert J. Sternberg, Cambridge/London, Harvard University Press, 2010


Sternberg’s focus is on undergraduate admissions processes in particular. However, the approach he argues for is very much in line with changes in graduate admissions offices across the country as they move toward an integrated approach that considers the whole student experience from recruitment through graduation. Graduate programs differ significantly from one another, both academically and administratively. Perhaps more so than undergraduate programs, graduate programs tend to align with a particular field, a specific orientation or an explicit school of thought. The way in which material is delivered in graduate programs may or may not fall into a single instructional method. These variations across the academic programs into which applicants are admitted must be considered when designing an admissions process that accounts for the characteristics, experiences and knowledge required for dynamic teaching and learning. Sternberg’s argument is that a room full of students with high test scores is no longer going to suffice as institutions strive to educate citizens of today’s society.

Sternberg offers an example of a graduate student whose GRE scores were weak but whose letters of recommendation and research experience were superb. Denied from the program but offered a position as a research assistant, the applicant flourished when she reapplied two years later. Notably, the systemic issue of increasing diversity in graduate education begins well before applicants apply to a graduate program. Of course, the issue isn’t just looking beyond low standardized test scores and

to the full picture of the applicant; other barriers exist such as limited access to professors for recommendation letters and limited opportunities for professional experiences that would enable applicants to demonstrate skills or potential.

This book offers two examples of solutions to the need for a broad-based approach to admissions applications. Kaleidoscope attempts to tap into varied intelligences and creativity, which Sternberg and many others in higher education argue are key to leadership and innovation in the 21st century. For teachers, the concept of assessing multiple intelligences is often called “authentic assessment.” Sternberg’s second example is the Rainbow Project, which sought to measure creative and practical skills. These solutions both require that applicants either submit an additional essay from question prompts or respond to questions in a structured interview. Both of these are meant to supplement at the institution’s existing admissions processes.

Changes in graduate enrollment management have led to an increase in workload for many staff members. Sternberg briefly mentions the issue of increased cost in terms of time and money by noting the donated funding he received to pilot Kaleidoscope at Tufts. He does not offer a solution to the important issue of time and human resources to review all of the supplemental application pieces. While he states that admissions officers were “encouraged, though not required, to provide analytical, creative, practical, and wisdom ratings for each student,” he does not describe the rating

process or the time involved. Exploring innovative approaches to admissions is a much-needed undertaking across higher education, and appropriate administrative support is a critical component in the success of any new approach. GEM staff may have already rolled their eyes at the “latest” thing one of their administrators heard about that will be implemented without considering additional staff, time or other resources. This does not mean it cannot be done. While this text does not address it, others have begun to. Future research in the field should include the incorporation of innovation management in the field of admissions.

Sternberg’s argument is that it behooves admissions offices to develop strategies that effectively bring in the students that faculty are excited to have in their classes. The ones that bring as much into the classroom as the content itself. It is important to note that Sternberg does not discuss faculty involvement in this process at all. This important component cannot be missed when developing admissions processes and criteria. Sternberg rightly calls on admissions to rethink their processes in this easy-to-read and accessible text. He offers real-world examples with a pragmatic, non-elitist approach. Sternberg argues, “Our children, and the colleges and universities they attend, deserve better than the antiquated, unevenly successful system currently in place.” Unlike other texts about admissions processes or higher education as a whole, Sternberg’s even-toned book enables a thoughtful review of the past, current, and potential future of this vital process of admitting students to programs in higher education.


Being awarded a fellowship gave me the opportunity to attend the NAGAP Winter Institute, which was an amazing experience that I would not have been able to take advantage of otherwise. They had phenomenal speakers and I was able to take away something from each of them. I can now bring this information back to my own office, and I intend to implement some changes going forward.

One of the things I discovered was that it is perfectly fine if you didn’t start out your educational journey in higher education. Many administrators who are very successful and hold top positions didn’t start out in this area. This gives me comfort since I have an accounting background and entered this field much later. I have since started a graduate program in higher education and plan to complete my EdD in this area. I look forward to the opportunity to continue to grow and learn as I advance in my career.

During the Winter Institute, we learned from CGS that although the recent graduate enrollment trends have been disappointing, things are headed back up and in the right direction ever so slightly. I believe that with a strong communication plan, which I recently revised, my school will do better than the 1 percent projected rise. The conference also gave us the skills and information necessary to develop an effective long-range strategic plan. We were provided the five steps necessary to accomplish this, along with how to write an action plan. We also shared strategies on how to make our campus more diverse and how important and valuable a diverse student body can be to enrollment management.

There are many legal issues that arise in higher education and in one of our sessions we discussed how to handle these and, more importantly, how to avoid those that might lead to litigation. The conference ended with a session that gave us the tools to track enrollment and revenue. These were invaluable because they can be customized to each individual institution. Using the spreadsheet template that was created for us, we were able to add or delete fields based on which items are tracked in each of our schools. The template includes formulas that ultimately

calculate the exact number of new students necessary to meet projected goals, including actual revenue details.

I can’t thank the committee enough for selecting me for the fellowship. I encourage everyone involved with graduate admissions and enrollment management to be a part of NAGAP and attend as many of the conferences as possible. The knowledge you will learn, plus the opportunity to network and meet representatives from other schools, is something that you can’t get anywhere else.

REFLECTIONS ON THE WINTER INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED GRADUATE ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONALSBy Jodi A. Duffy, St. Joseph’s College

Jodi Duffy, Winter PDI Fellow (center), with NAGAP Professional Development Committee members Kathryn Kendall and Keith Ramsdell, Chair


In academic year 2013-2014, nearly 330,000 international graduate students were enrolled in U.S. institutions of higher education, representing the largest number recorded since tracking began through the Open Doors Report in 1954.1 Graduate students now account for approximately 42 percent of the entire international student population in the United States. While the total number of graduate students continues to increase, their share of the total international student population has shrunk five percent, down from 47 percent in 2009-2010. Despite this decline, graduate education in the United States continues to be the gold standard for students around the world. The most talented students remain eager to join our classrooms, campuses and laboratories to learn and to contribute to our vibrant academic and educational environment. This has the added impact of simultaneously internationalizing American classrooms for the betterment of all students. Graduate enrollment management professionals may ask: Is your institution actively seeking out these students? Do you have a plan for recruiting the best and brightest to your campus? Are you focusing recruitment efforts in areas of the world with large numbers of qualified students interested in graduate education?

“The most talented students

remain eager to join our

classrooms, campuses and

laboratories to learn and

to contribute to our vibrant

academic and educational

environment.”

As with any strategy for recruiting international students, understanding the trends in international student mobility is a must for effective graduate student

recruitment. A review of the most recent Open Doors data reveals which world regions are sending larger and larger numbers of students to U.S. campuses and, among the regions where the flow of international graduate students has slowed or decreased, which countries remain bright spots worthy of the attention of graduate student recruiters. It’s important to bear in mind that these trends are always in flux, and the U.S. Department of State’s EducationUSA network is a significant resource for staying up-to-date on the latest developments.

In the past five years, the number of international students pursuing graduate education in the United States has grown by 12 percent, from almost 294,000 students in academic year 2009-2010 to nearly 330,000 students in academic year 2013-2014. These numbers give us static, comparative snapshots and set the foundation for understanding what to expect in the coming years. However, without proper context, these data cannot be used to predict the future accurately. Though some regions of the world are sending fewer graduate students to the United States, those decreases are not necessarily permanent, nor are they particularly severe. In 2013-2014, no region of the world saw the number of graduate students in the United States fall by more than 5 percentage points from the previous year. The regional analysis provided below offers some needed context and can be used as a launching pad for further research and strategizing.

In the five-year period between academic years 2009-2010 and 2013-2014, the number of international students from sub-Saharan Africa studying in the United States has decreased overall by roughly 8 percent, though the past year has shown a leveling off to just less than 1 percent. While sub-Saharan Africa as a whole

has seen an overall decline, the sub-region of southern Africa has seen nearly 80 percent growth – meaning that the continent does have recruiting hotspots, which may grow in number as the rate of decline lessens. Botswana and Madagascar are good examples of these, while Ghana and Nigeria represent solid recruiting grounds in other sub-regions of the continent.

The same five-year period saw an overall decline of 17 percent in international graduate students from Europe. At the same time, more European students are pursuing non-degree and short-term programs, as well as exercising their optional practical training (OPT) options in the United States. In addition, many European countries offer scholarship opportunities for graduate study abroad, and some countries, including Hungary, Lithuania, and the United Kingdom, are actually seeing an increase in the number of graduate students studying abroad in the United States.

“The same five-year period saw

an overall decline of 17 percent

in international graduate students

from Europe.”

Students from Latin America have also decreased in number in the same five-year period by roughly 5.5 percent. Much like Europe, however, there are several countries in the region that offer scholarship opportunities for graduate study abroad (including Brazil, Chile, and Peru), and it remains a worthwhile area of the world to tailor graduate recruitment efforts. Among the countries with increasing numbers of graduate students in the United States are Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Guyana. In addition, the White House’s 100,000 Strong in the Americas initiative, which

UNDERSTANDING TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL GRADUATE STUDENT MOBILITY TO THE UNITED STATESBy Andy Masloski, EducationUSA, U.S. Department of State



aims to significantly expand educational exchanges between the United States and the countries of the Western Hemisphere, has made steady gains in encouraging more international student mobility and is expected to continue doing so.

The number of Asian students studying in the United States at the graduate level has risen by 16.5 percent in the last five years, with the largest growth coming from East Asia. The higher education systems in this region cannot accommodate the number of students interested in graduate study, and thus thousands of students seek opportunities abroad. India, the country sending the second largest number of students to the United States, sends more graduates than undergraduates; in fact, Bangladesh, China, India, and Pakistan are sending increasing numbers of students for graduate study in the United States.

The number of graduate students from the Middle East and North Africa has increased the most in the last five years from roughly 12,800 students to nearly 27,800 students studying in the United States. Much of this growth stems from generous government scholarship programs for students to study abroad. The governments funding these programs frequently seek out partnerships and other forms of cooperation with U.S. higher education institutions to facilitate enrolling their students in the United States. Though each program is different, most place strong emphasis on educating their students at the best institutions the world has to offer with the aim of employing

them in positions where they can contribute to their country’s growth and development. Iran, Iraq, Oman, and Saudi Arabia are leading the pack in sending increasing numbers of graduate students to study in the United States.

As trends in international graduate education continue to shift, and as new opportunities arise, the EducationUSA network is a great resource for delving deeper into the data and developing a strategy for tailoring international graduate recruitment to the individual needs of each institution. In addition to Open Doors, EducationUSA produces an annual Global Guide (released in May-June each year) that outlines services, provides region-specific data and trend analysis and includes global recruiting strategies. In late June, EducationUSA hosts the annual EducationUSA Forum in Washington, a gathering of hundreds of international student recruiters, international student services professionals, leaders and administrators of international student programs at U.S. institutions of higher education and EducationUSA advisers from around the world. At the Forum, participants gain practical knowledge and strategies for expanding international student recruitment and have the opportunity to interact with other professionals in the field to expand their networks.

EducationUSA’s 14 Regional Educational Advising Coordinators (REACs), all regionally-based international student mobility experts, provide assessments, guidance, and training to the global network and serve as primary go-to contacts for graduate enrollment

management professionals developing regional strategies for increasing international student mobility.

As graduate enrollment managers consider methods for increasing or refining international graduate student recruitment efforts, EducationUSA at the U.S. Department of State welcomes outreach from any institution. Professionals wishing to become familiar with these services can visit EducationUSA online at www.educationusa.info, which provides a wealth of information and resources, including contact information for advisers, REACs and program officers. EducationUSA is focused on helping colleges and universities recruit the growing number of qualified graduate students for whom each institution is the best fit.

Endnotes1. The Open Doors Report on

International Educational Exchange is published by the Institute of International Education (IIE). IIE has conducted an annual statistical survey of campuses regarding the international students in the United States since 1919, and with support from the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs since the early 1970s. The census is based on a survey of approximately 3,000 accredited U.S. institutions. Open Doors also conducts and reports on separate surveys on U.S. students studying abroad for academic credit (since 1985), and on international scholars at U.S. universities and international students enrolled in pre-academic Intensive English Programs.

NAGAP Perspectives Spring 2015

Documents

Transcript of NAGAP Perspectives Spring 2015