Moving the Needle CICV: Admission & Financial Aid
Jore%a Nelson, Ph.D. Vice President/Owner May 24, 2011 © Performa Higher Education, LLC 2011 All Rights Reserved. Confidential Material: These materials may not be distributed without the consent of Performa Higher Education, LLC
e Enrollment Management Challenge • Public colleges are thinking and acDng like private colleges and at a much lower price • Demographic changes: current & future • College leadership conDnues to look for appropriate ways to balance mission and business realiDes • Many colleges sDll do not embrace enrollment as an insDtuDon-‐wide responsibility
www.PerformaHE.com
e Enrollment Management Challenge • There is no long lost island of full-‐pay students • No adjacent island of “best & brightest” either • “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it’s already been.” – Wayne Gretzky • And then, there is the economy
www.PerformaHE.com
Strategic Enrollment Health Strategic Planning
Student Life Experience
Academic Excellence & Reputa5on Systems and Processes
Campus Environment
Recruitment/ Admission
Strategic Enrollment Health
Campus Environment
Financial Aid
Branding, Posi5oning, Marke5ng
Strategic Planning www.PerformaHE.com
Student Success/ Reten5on
Campus Environment
e Retention Challenge
Student Life Experience
Recruitment/ Admission
What’s the big deal about retenDon? Is there really a problem? Academic Excellence & Reputa5on Systems and Processes
Campus Environment
www.PerformaHE.com
Campus Environment
Branding, Posi5oning, Marke5ng
Campus Environment
Key Retention Benchmarks NaDonal Collegiate RetenDon and Persistence to Degree Rates ACT EducaDonal Services, 2010 Selec5vity ACT Middle Level 50%
SAT Middle 50%
Highly Selec5ve
25-‐30
1710-‐2000
Selec5ve
21-‐26
1470-‐1770
Tradi5onal
18-‐24
1290-‐1650
Liberal
17-‐22
1230-‐1530
Open
16-‐21
1170-‐1480
www.PerformaHE.com
Defini5on Majority admi%ed from top 10% of H.S. Class Majority admi%ed from top 25% of H.S. Class Majority admi%ed from top 50% of H.S. Class Majority admi%ed from bo%om 50% of H.S. Class Generally open to all with H.S. diploma or equivalent
Private 4-‐year Colleges/Universi5es 2010 Survey (1,144) 99 (9%)
260 (23%) 452 (39%) 106 (9%) 227 (20%)
Freshman to Sophomore Rates Admission Selec5vity Highly Selec5ve N = 99
Mean/SD Bachelor’s Only Mean = 92.6 SD = 4.8
Bachelor’s, All Private 4-‐ Bachelor’s & Master’s, & year Master’s Doctorates Ins5tu5ons 89.1 93.5 92.4 12.5 4.8 6.9
Selec5ve N = 260
Mean = SD =
79.8 17.3
80.6 7.2
83.1 6.3
81.2 10.5
Tradi5onal N = 452
Mean = SD =
66.3 13.1
70.5 10.3
72.1 12.4
69.5 11.8
Liberal N = 106
Mean = SD =
56.9 17.3
59.4 16.8
60.5 19.4
58.2 17.1
Open N = 227
Mean = SD =
68.7 18.9
71.4 14.5
80.3 13.0
72.4 16.5
www.PerformaHE.com
6-Year Graduation Rates Admission Selec5vity
Mean/SD
Bachelor’s Only
Bachelor’s & Master’s
Bachelor’s, Master’s, & Doctorates
Highly Selec5ve
Mean = SD =
87.0 5.5
83.6 9.2
86.5 9.7
Selec5ve
Mean = SD =
72.0 10.5
66.6 11.7
69.0 8.5
Tradi5onal
Mean = SD =
45.2 14.2
52.1 11.9
57.0 12.2
Liberal
Mean = SD =
38.9 15.1
37.7 11.8
54.8 23.7
Open
Mean = SD =
49.6 25.5
51.7 17.3
62.7 19.8
www.PerformaHE.com
Our Response
“In four-‐year insDtuDons, any change that deters students from dropping out can affect three classes of students at once, whereas any change in recruiDng pracDces can affect only one class in a given year.” (AsDn, 1975)
RetenDon should not be the college’s goal, but rather should be the result – a “by-‐product” – of excellent programs and appropriate services for students.
www.PerformaHE.com
e Retention Challenge
Student Life Experience
Recruitment/ Admission
So, why do students start but then leave? Academic Excellence & Reputa5on Systems and Processes
Campus Environment
www.PerformaHE.com
Campus Environment
Branding, Posi5oning, Marke5ng
Campus Environment
Student Success: Complexity • The results of access to higher educaDon • Pressures of global society • Materialism of our culture (be%er job = be%er pay = happiness) • Cost of higher educaDon • OpDons + IndividualizaDon • Challenges faced in K-‐12 educaDon • Diversity of needs: SES, students of color, First-‐ GeneraDon www.PerformaHE.com
Student Success: Complexity
The answer is not that easy: Only 25% of the variance in first-‐year achievement can be explained by prior academic achievement.
www.PerformaHE.com
e Retention Challenge
Student Life Experience
Recruitment/ Admission
Six Common RetenDon Myths Academic Excellence & Reputa5on Systems and Processes
Campus Environment
www.PerformaHE.com
Campus Environment
Branding, Posi5oning, Marke5ng
Campus Environment
Retention Myths Myth 1 Our students are less well prepared than those who aRend other colleges or universiDes. • ACT 2010 report • 23% of private colleges are in the “selecDve” academic profile, • 9% in highly selecDve, • 68% tradiDonal+liberal+open • Increased percentages of college-‐bound students taking remedial coursework -‐ 38% of students a%ending two-‐ and four-‐ year colleges (NCES, 2009) www.PerformaHE.com
Retention Myths Myth 2 Students with beRer ACT/SAT and H.S. GPAs will automaDcally translate into beRer retenDon. • Only 25% of the variance in achievement during the first year can be explained by prior academic achievement (Robbins, 2006) • This leaves 75% of the variance to be explained (and influenced) by our intervenDons and best pracDces
www.PerformaHE.com
Retention Myths Myth 3 Students should already know how to succeed; we shouldn’t have to teach that; are we “hand-‐holding?”
• HS grade-‐inflaDon is promoDng an unrealisDc expectaDon of college-‐readiness (Carey, 2009) • Increased numbers of students who • Have documented disabiliDes (Philips, 2010) • Have needs for counseling services (Baker, 2009) • Grew up using prescripDon medicaDons (Anderson, 2010) • Differences in high schools and change of focus for high school curriculum www.PerformaHE.com
Retention Myths Myth 3 Students should already know how to succeed; we shouldn’t have to teach that; are we “hand-‐holding?” • First-‐generaDon and students of color benefit from varied and more intrusive means of support (Jenkins, 2004) • “Major” indecisiveness but vocaDon pressures • By the way…the “elite” insDtuDons offer various levels of “support”
www.PerformaHE.com
Retention Myths Myth 4 Improving retenDon means lowering academic performance standards • Single best predictor of student learning, personal development, and saDsfacDon is the Dme and energy students devote to educaDonally purposeful acDviDes. (Huh, Kuh, & Kinzie, 2010)
• ProspecDve college students indicate expectaDons of increased study hours at the collegiate level (HERI, 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005)
www.PerformaHE.com
Retention Myths Myth 5 Students leave because of money or personal problems – reasons beyond our control. • Student a%riDon is a complex issue, affected by personal and insDtuDonal variables (Bean & Eaton, 2004) www.PerformaHE.com
Retention Myths
Myth 6 RetenDon will improve without changes in insDtuDonal “behaviors” • InsDtuDons bear the responsibility to do all within their control to provide appropriate systems, programs, and resources that support student success (Berger, 2004)
www.PerformaHE.com
e REAL Question
Why do students stay?
www.PerformaHE.com
e Complexity of Student Persistence
www.PerformaHE.com
A Culture of Student Success
www.PerformaHE.com Â
What We Know From the Research • Students who persist (parDcularly from the freshman to the sophomore year) are more likely to do so when they are: – Academically integrated – Socially integrated – Encouraged by family and friends – Aotudinally posiDve about their financial investment (value proposiDon) – Commi%ed to finishing a program and a college degree – Commi%ed to the insDtuDon – Performing well academically www.PerformaHE.com
ree Levels of Student Success “Wellness”
Strategic with Leverage Strategic
Operational Transparent and logical insDtuDonal systems, policies, and processes (Berger, 2000) Data driven decision making: assessing student needs prior to and throughout enrollment. (Schreiner, 2010) Culture of teaching and learning: What will help our students learn? (Bain, 2004) www.PerformaHE.com
ree reeLevels Levelsof ofStudent StudentSuccess Success“Wellness” “Wellness”
Operational Programs, services, and systems considered operaDonal “best-‐pracDces” on campuses experiencing the most improvement in freshmen to sophomore retenDon rates (ACT, 2010; Cuseo, 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005)
• First-‐Year Programming • Academic Advising (Emphasis) • Honor’s Programs • Comprehensive Early Alert Systems • Comprehensive Academic Support Services www.PerformaHE.com
• Transfer/Commuter Student Programs • ProacDve Financial Counseling • Career/Placement Center • Peer Mentoring Programs • MulDcultural/Diversity Support Services
ree Levels of Student Success “Wellness”
Strategic
• • • • • • • www.PerformaHE.com
ResidenDal Experience Living/Learning CommuniDes Bridge Programs MulDcultural Programs At-‐Risk Programs Integrated Student Services PredicDve Modeling
ree Levels of Student Success “Wellness”
Strategic with Leverage
• • • • • • • • www.PerformaHE.com
Learning outcomes-‐based curriculum General EducaDon curriculum integraDon Strengths-‐based Advising Undergraduate Research Service Learning Pipeline RetenDon Study Abroad Sophomore Program
e Retention Challenge
Student Life Experience
Recruitment/ Admission
What can I do? Academic Excellence & Reputa5on Systems and Processes
Campus Environment
www.PerformaHE.com
Campus Environment
Branding, Posi5oning, Marke5ng
Campus Environment
How Admission & Financial Aid Respond #1. Know your data • What ARE your appropriate benchmarks? • What is the InsDtuDonal Research Agenda at your insDtuDon? • Who leaves and when? • Who stays and why? • Be absolutely sure about correlaDons between prior academic achievement and retenDon/persistence • Train your teams • Speak from the data – avoid anecdotal responses
www.PerformaHE.com
How Admission & Financial Aid Respond #2. Assess and improve areas within your responsibility Admission • Focus on best-‐fit students from inquiry through the funnel • Campus Visit • CommunicaDon Flow • Early and frequent social connecDons • Database of idenDty variables www.PerformaHE.com
How Admission & Financial Aid Respond #2. Assess and improve areas within your responsibility Financial Aid • Value ProposiDon • Team training (Financial Aid, Student Accounts, Admission) • CommunicaDon Flow • PresentaDon(s) • Support Services – Think Apple® • Aid effecDveness (pre-‐ and post-‐matriculaDon) www.PerformaHE.com
How Admission & Financial Aid Respond #3. Provide annotated “biographies” for your incoming class • • • •
Profile staDsDcs Aid staDsDcs Admission Counselor insights and/or rankings Early Alert Rankings
www.PerformaHE.com
How Admission & Financial Aid Respond #5. Work on your closest and most criDcal partnerships • Student Affairs: Handoff • Academic Affairs: IntegraDon • AthleDcs: Shared OrientaDon
www.PerformaHE.com
How Admission & Financial Aid Respond #6. Quietly, internally, rank your insDtuDon’s effecDveness in these areas: Academic IntegraDon Social IntegraDon Financial Support Development and IntegraDon of Family/Friend Influence • IdenDty strategies • • • •
www.PerformaHE.com
How Admission & Financial Aid Respond #7. Evangelize through current structures, using data • Cabinet presence • Ask quesDons • Provide benchmarks • Lobby for leadership • Commi%ee service • Faculty connecDons www.PerformaHE.com
How Admission & Financial Aid Respond #7. Drive the establishment or conDnuing improvement of a Comprehensive Early Alert system • • • • •
Personnel Roles & ResponsibiliDes Leading Indicators Lagging Indicators Technology support/data base management
www.PerformaHE.com
Final Reminder
“In four-‐year insDtuDons, any change that deters students from dropping out can affect three classes of students at once, whereas any change in recruiDng pracDces can affect only one class in a given year.” (AsDn, 1975)
RetenDon should not be the college’s goal, but rather should be the result – a “by-‐product” – of excellent programs and appropriate services for students.
www.PerformaHE.com
References ACT, Inc. (2010a). National collegiate retention and persistence to degree rates. ACT Institutional Data File. Iowa City, Iowa. ACT, Inc. (2010b). 2010 Retention/completion summary tables. ACT Institutional Data File. Iowa City, Iowa. Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters most in college: Four critical years revistied. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bean, J.P. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 215-244). Westport, CT: Praeger. Bean, J.P. & Eaton, S.B. (2001). The psychology underlying successful retention practices. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(1), 73-89. Bean, J. & Hossler, D. (1990). The strategic management of college enrollments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Berger, J.B. & Milem, J.F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(6), 641-664. Braxton, J.M. (Ed.). (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Braxton, J.M., Hirschy, A.S., & McClendon, S.A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college student departure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M.B. (1993). College persistence: Structural modeling of an integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 123-139. Davidson, R., Henderson, L.K., Knotts, G., & Swain, J. (2011, March/April). Where is the space for education? Change, 16(1), 30-36. Eccles, J.S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132. Finn, J.D., & Rock, D.A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221-234. Goodman, K.M., Baxter-Magolda, M., Seifert, T.A., & King, P.M. (2011, March/April). Good practices for student learning: Mixed-method evidence from the Wabash National Study. Change, 16(1), 2-8. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2001). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-180.
www.PerformaHE.com Â
References Hossler, D. (2009). How colleges organize themselves to increase student persistence: Four-year institutions. College Board. Hu, S., Kuh, G.D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43, 555-575. Kuh, G.D., Arnold, J.C., & Vesper, N. (1991). The influence of student effort, college environments, and campus culture on undergraduate student learning and personal development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Boston, MA. Kuh, G.D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., & Whitt, E.J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass. Le, H., Casillas, A., Robbins, S.B., & Langley, R. (2005). Motivational and skills, social, and self-management predictors of college outcomes: Constructing the student readiness inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 482-508. Linnenbrink, E.A., & Pintrich, P.R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31, 313-327. Lotkowski, V.A., Robbines, S.T., & Noeth, R.J. (2004). The role of academic and non-academic factors in improving college retention. ACT Policy Report. Retrieved from www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/college_retention.pdf Pascarella, E.T. (2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for future research. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 508-520. Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, A. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Robbins, S.B., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Peterson, C.H., & Le, H. (2006). Unraveling the differential effects of motivational and skills, social, and selfmanagement measures from traditional predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 598-616. Robbins, S.B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., & Langley, R. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288.
www.PerformaHE.com Â
References Rode, D. (2000). The role of orientation in institutional retention. In M.J. Fabich (Ed.), Orientation planning manual 2000. Pullman, WA: National Orientation Directors Association. Schreiner, L.A. (2010, May/June). The thriving quotient: A new vision for student success. About Campus, 2-9. Strauss, L.C., & Volkwein, J.F. (2004). Predictors of Student Commitment at Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions. The Journal of Higher Educaiton, 75, 203-227. Svanum, S., & Bigatti, S.M. (2009). Academic course engagement during one semester forecasts college success: Engaged students are more likely to earn a degree, do it faster, and do it better. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 120-132. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (2005, July) Student retention: What next? Paper presented at the meeting of the National Conference on Student Recruitment, Marketing, and Retention, Washington, DC. Zhao, C-M., & Kuh, G.D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45, 115-138.
www.PerformaHE.com Â