SACRAO Journal

The SACRAO Journal

THE SACRAO JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD

C ontents

EDITOR Ronald G. White, Ed.D Columbia College EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Assessment in the Registrar’s Office ..........................5 Reta Pikowsky

Bobbie Latham Brown, M.A. Texas Tech University Senora R. DeCosta University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Jennifer Hardy, M.A. University of Tennessee, Knoxville Dorinda Harmon, M.Ed. College of Charleston Monica Terrell Leach, Ed.D. North Carolina State University Matthew P. McCrickard, Ed.D. Belmont University Judith McKeon, M.A. Jefferson College of Health Sciences Richard D. Skeel, B.B.A. University of Oklahoma

The SACRAO Journal is published annually by the Southern Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, a professional association to promote and advance the improvement of admissions, registration, records, data management, international education and financial aid management practices through study, education, and research; to advance professional knowledge and techniques by fostering the exchange of experiences and information; and to develop and advance standards of competence in the profession. The Editorial Board is responsible for the selection and acceptance of manuscripts which are the responsibility of the author.

The opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the views of SACRAO. SACRAO does not endorse the products or services described by authors.

The SACRAO Journal is printed by Capstone Office Solutions, 1820 University Boulevard, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401.

Previous volumes of the SACRAO Journal are published online at http://sacrao.org/sacrao/journals/journals.asp

2012 VOLUME TWENTY-FIVE

Usability Testing: Is Your Web Site Easy to Use? ....13 Sandra Martinez

The University Registrar’s Role in the 21st Century: A New Emphasis on Advising ..................................21 Sherry Benoit

Back to School: Baby Boomers in the Classroom ...25 Rodney L. Parks and Jonathan W. Rich

Unexpected Profession: A Discussion with Joe F. Head ................................................................31 Dorinda Harmon

SACRAO Focus: Registrar...................................................................34 Brenda Martinez Enrollment Management ........................................35 David Mee Technology ...............................................................36 Rick Skeel

The SACRAO Journal

Information for Authors The Editorial Board welcomes manuscripts for publication in SACRAO’s academic, refereed publication, The SACRAO Journal. Members of SACRAO are encouraged to submit articles which pertain to their professional experiences regarding issues and innovative practices in the profession.

Preparing Manuscripts Manuscripts should be submitted in accordance with the stylistic rules and guidelines delineated in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed., 2010). For information, visit http://www.apastyle.org. Manuscript pages should be numbered consecutively. All manuscripts are accepted for publication with the understanding that The SACRAO Journal Editorial Board reserves the right to edit for clarity, syntax, and style. The need either to shorten or request the author to lengthen articles is at the discretion of the Editorial Board.

The editor will acknowledge receipt of manuscripts and will forward them to members of the editorial board for review. The board will consider the appropriateness of the articles for SACRAO’s membership and reserves the right to reject articles submitted for publication.

Author Identification The complete title of the article should be placed on the first page of the text, with the author’s name excluded. The author should provide an address, phone number, email address, and fax number. Unless specified otherwise, the principal (first-named) author will be sent all correspondence.

Manuscript Submission Manuscripts submitted for publication must be original material which has not been simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. Length of the manuscripts, including references and tables, should range from about 8 to 20 typed, double-spaced, 81/2 x11-inch pages. Abstracts are limited to 125 words.

Brief reports of research are discouraged. Authors should retain a copy of the manuscript to guard against loss.

Please email or send your manuscript to: Ronald G. White, Editor, The SACRAO Journal, Columbia College, 1301 Columbia College Drive, Columbia, SC 29203 or rwhite@columbiasc.edu.

Copyright and Permission An author may reproduce an article for use. Other individuals must request permission from the editor to reproduce tables, figures, and more than 500 words of an article text.

2

The SACRAO Journal

E ditor’s Reflections In The SACRAO Journal for 2011, I reflected on the rich journalistic heritage that began with Margaret Ruthven Perry, founding editor of the Journal, which continues to present day through the support of our membership. The SACRAO Journal for 2012 that you hold in your hands is yet another milestone for our organization because it is the 25th volume of the Journal that we have published. As members of SACRAO, we feel deep appreciation to those who have served over the years as editors and board members. Their collective guidance has produced Journal volumes on topics of great interest and importance to the membership. In addition, they have spent countless hours reviewing and editing potential articles for publication. Also, we owe a debt of gratitude to the authors who have labored to present timely articles across twenty-five volumes of the Journal.

The SACRAO Journal for 2012 is another great example of SACRAO journalism. In this issue, Rita Pikowsky reveals the results of research on the topic of assessment in the registrar’s office that offers clear direction and guidance to those who desire to create effective assessment programs.

Sandra Martinez’s article describes a process for Web site usability testing that makes sites more user-friendly and improves their performance. Sherry Benoit presents a model for advising in the 21st Century that is both theoretical and practical. Rodney Parks and Jonathan Rich offer an intriguing essay on the topic of Baby Boomers in the classroom, and what colleges and universities can do to accommodate them. Finally, we present an interesting interview with one of the pioneers of enrollment management, Joe Head. Please express your appreciation to these authors and contributors.

We continue to use The SACRAO Journal to help us improve our understanding and communication of relevant ideas, practices, and technologies. We urge the membership to help us discover those who are either planning or implementing research of interest to our readers as well as those who may be able to produce stimulating essays and case studies that focus on best practices, ethics, operational philosophies and more.

If you have never considered doing research, why not do it now? There are so many topics that have unanswered questions, so many things that we wonder about, so much more we wish we knew about our work. Why not launch a research project in an area that interests you most? If you have great ideas or have implemented successful initiatives, why not share those with a broader audience, the SACRAO audience?

I would enjoy having conversations with any of our membership about potential research projects and articles for the 2013 Journal. If you are interested in submitting an article or if you know of someone who may have an interest, please contact me at rwhite@columbiasc.edu. Thank you for your support of The SACRAO Journal. Enjoy!

The SACRAO Journal editor, Ronald G. White, is vice president for enrollment management at Columbia College (SC). He has served SACRAO as a member on the editorial board and on program committees. Over the years he has made numerous session presentations at SACRAO annual meetings.

3

The SACRAO Journal

THE MARGARET RUTHVEN PERRY DISTINGUISHED SACRAO JOURNALISM AWARD This award is presented annually to the author whose article promotes and advances knowledge, techniques, and standards of competence in the profession. The award was initially established by Margaret Ruthven Perry, who served as the first editor of The SACRAO Journal. It was named in her honor following the completion of her service as editor. Listed below are the recipients of the award.

1989 - Diane Freytag The Evolution and Maintenance of an Enrollment Management Program 1990 - T. Luther Gunter Image Technology in the Information Age: Is Microfilm Really Dead?

1992 - Bruce W. Cunningham Students Versus Registrars: Opponents or Partners in the Educational Process 1994 - David H. Stones On the Strategic Nature of SPEEDE/ExPRESS: Scalability, and Applicability of EDI in the Workplace 1996 - James Lynch African-American Undergraduate Recruitment Strategies 1997 - Michael E. Malone SACRAO’s “50th”: A Tint of Gold 1998 - Cynthia J. Farrier Electronic Grades: From Professor to Student Information System 1999 - Edward L. McGlone Primer on Outcomes Assessment for Academic Administrators 2000 - Rick Skeel How to Find Funding for EDI: Oklahoma’s State-wide Grant Approach 2001 - Angela J. Evans Home School Education: Its Impact on a State University

4

2002 - Paul Taylor The Future of Higher Education in the 21st Century 2003 - Bradley W. Johnson and Sheldon L. Stick Application of Strategic Planning to Enrollment in a Community College 2004 - Louis D. Hunt What’s Your Social? Replacing the Social Security Number 2005 - John Fletcher Get Ahead and Stay Ahead: Summers at Auburn Creating a Program to Maximize Your Summer Enrollment 2006 - Magdalena H. Williams Achievement and Retention Patterns in a Predominantly Hispanic Serving Institution of Higher Education 2007 - Matthew P. McCrickard Adapting Solution Focused Advising: Effective Communication Strategies for Registrars 2008 - Ronald G. White Experience Marketing: Putting Students on the Frontline...Again 2009 - Lisa B. Harris The Enrollment Manager as a Change Agent 2010 - Holly Swart Strategic Training and Communication: The Keys to Our Successful System Implementation 2011 - Matthew P. McCrickard Accent the Positive: Identifying Opportunities in Enrollment Services through Appreciative Inquiry

The SACRAO Journal

Assessment in the Registrar’s Office

Reta Pikowsky is the registrar at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She holds a BA from Monmouth College and the MEd from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Pikowsky has 30 years of experience in higher education primarily in the registrar’s office with some time spent in admissions and financial aid earlier in her career. She has been a frequent presenter at AACRAO and SACRAO annual meetings.

Good Assessment There are some generally accepted concepts as to what constitutes good assessment practices. What you will hear and see over and over again in the literature, presentations, workshops, and such, is that assessment is first about improving the quality of services and programs that you provide, and then about maintaining that quality (Rice & Taylor, 2003). You can and should build on what you are already doing, and not feel that you have to work from a blank slate through each cycle.

Getting buy-in from your constituents, who will appreciate your commitment to quality service and programs, is important. Conducting your assessment activities on a regular schedule ensures that the feedback loop is not broken or interrupted, and that you remain in a frame of mind to make informed decisions that are driven by good and timely information (Suskie, 2006).

Other professionals seem to agree that this process, if conducted properly, encourages looking at old questions in new ways and seeking better or more complete answers. It encourages risktaking in terms of being open to discussion about procedures, policies, services, or programs that once may have been Assessment in the Registrar’s Office

ABSTRACT Institutional effectiveness and accountability have become common terms in recent years as escalating costs and shrinking budgets have forced administrators in higher education to re-examine programs and services on campus to determine whether resources are being used to their full and appropriate potential and to determine whether desired outcomes are being achieved. The registrar’s office provides a wide array of services and programs to the campus community where shifting needs require on-going assessment of whether the goals and objectives of this central administrative unit are being met and whether they remain relevant to the needs of the institution. It is the assessment process that enables effective planning and decision making which are necessary for targeted, sustained improvement in the registrar’s office.

perceived to be untouchable or of unimpeachable value (Johnston, 2008).

Purpose of Assessment Nichols (2008) described four purposes of assessment at the University of Central Florida in his institution’s administrative unit assessment handbook: 1. To improve – The assessment process should provide feedback to determine how the administrative unit can be improved.

2. To inform – The assessment process should inform department heads and other decision-makers of the contributions and impact of the administrative unit to the development and growth of students.

3. To prove – The assessment process should encapsulate and demonstrate what the administrative unit is accomplishing to students, faculty, staff and outsiders [Nichols (2008) adapted this idea from WEAVE (2010) and from the University of Wisconsin (2007)] .

4. To support – The assessment process should provide support for campus decision-making activities such as unit review and strategic planning, as well as external accountability activities such as accreditation.

Nichols (2008) provides some insight as to the potential costs of not measuring performance in administrative units.

Making decisions based on assumptions rather than fact, failure to meet customer expectations in regard to reliability, efficiency, quality, cost and delivery, failure to identify potential improvement areas, and lack of optimum progress toward the organizational vision were listed as possible results of not engaging in the assessment process (Nichols, 2008).

Assessment Plan The annual assessment plan for the registrar’s office should include mission and vision statements consistent with those of the institution. The plan should include goals, objectives, desired outcomes, measures, a “benchmarking” statement about what level of productivity or effectiveness you wish to achieve, a statement about how you are going to keep track of the things you learn in the process (your findings), and a statement about how you are going to use what you learn in the process.

A statement about interactions that you will need to have with offices and personnel outside the registrar’s office would also be very useful as well as what kinds of communication and with 5

The SACRAO Journal

whom need to occur throughout the cycle. An explanation of the likely implications on the office of making the assessment plan goal a high priority will enable you to better explain to your staff and others what kinds of adjustments may need to be made along the way to achieve success.

If you have more than one area of your office that needs to improve, it is very important to be realistic and sensible about your assessment plan. There is no formula or rule that requires you to set more than two or three goals. You have to do what makes sense for you and your office and you have to set goals that are attainable. Circumstances allowing, it is much better to make real progress in smaller steps than to “hit and miss” as you try to take larger leaps.

By having a clear and sensible plan in place each year, you will be better able to discuss your vision with your supervisor and will be better able to respond to critics and other concerned parties about what you are doing to improve your overall operation. You will also be better able to help them understand what priorities you have set and why, as well as demonstrating that you are collecting input and acting on it. Table 1 offers some examples of assessment plan templates and reports at a variety of colleges and universities.

Standards The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education offers a self-assessment guide for registrar programs and services that is thorough. The worksheet lays out the areas that need to be addressed in your report such as your mission, a description of the programs and services that you provide, how your leadership team is structured, how many and what types of positions you have, your statement on ethics, your legal responsibilities, and how you are addressing

equity and access.

Further, under the Self-Assessment Guide (SAG) worksheet format, the CAS standards and guidelines are organized into fourteen components that include areas such as diversity, organization and management of your office, how you manage internal and external relations, what types of financial resources you have and their sources, the status of your technology applications, a description of your facilities and equipment, and a description of how you have been addressing assessment and evaluation (for more information, visit http://www.cas.edu/).

AACRAO publications that summarize best practices for functions such as academic records and transcripts and other organizations such as the North American Association of Commencement Officers, the National Consortium for Continuous Improvement in Higher Education, the Association for Information Communications Technology Professionals in Higher Education, the Association of American Universities, and the Association of American Colleges and Universities offer meetings and seminars where best practices, legislation, and results of recent research, among other things, are showcased.

There are listservs and publications of these professional organizations that give us all a sense of trends and emerging issues. Publications such as the Successful Registrar provide practical guidance on everything from the latest technology to improving customer service (for more information, visit http://www.thesuccessfulregistrar.com). Comparing your goals and objectives to those of registrars at similar institutions is a good way to gauge your relative position and performance aspirations. In many ways, we are setting performance standards as we go along, with innovations at one institution setting the pace for the rest of us.

Table 1. Assessment Plan Templates and Reports

6

Capital University

https://www2.aacrao.org/sandiego/thursday/TR1_100.pdf

Dartmouth College

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~reg/annualreport

Keene State College

http://www.keene.edu/registrar/assessment-plan.cfm

Oklahoma State University

http://system2.okstate.edu/documents/stw/Registrar.pdf

University of Texas

http://registrar.utexas.edu/docs/about/rg.strategic.plan.08.pdf

Assessment in the Registrar’s Office

The SACRAO Journal

Gathering Information and Data The basic premise of the assessment process in the registrar’s office is that you have to gather the information that you need to target appropriate areas for improvement, take action to impact the targeted area, and determine whether the actions that you took made a difference and resulted in achieving the desired outcomes. You then need feedback loops to ascertain whether performance in the key areas is being maintained at the desired levels. Through every cycle, you are then able to make informed decisions about future goals and objectives.

Gathering the information can occur through formal and informal means. We gather informal feedback continuously.

On an almost daily basis, someone is offering commentary on things that we should be doing better, such as an area of the Web site that is unclear, a regulation in the catalog that is confusing, or some aspect of our technology that is cumbersome and needs to be streamlined. We also serve on committees and attend meetings on campus where we receive informal feedback on our office’s operations.

As useful as the informal feedback is to our sense of operational effectiveness, it is typically neither documented nor organized in any way that would help to paint a comprehensive picture of our strengths and weaknesses. It is also not validated in a systematic way.

Without the documentation and validation, the informal and internally useful feedback will not suffice to meet generally accepted expectations for good assessment practices. It likely also will not meet institutional, state, regional, board of regents, or other critical entity expectations for how or whether we are holding ourselves accountable for delivering services and programs in a quality manner.

In order for your assessment process to serve you effectively, it must include both informal and formal methods of gathering input from your constituents. Formal methods include approaches such as surveys, reports from consultants, and reports from peer reviews. Surveys can take many forms and are useful even if asking for feedback on a limited number of questions.

There are many examples of customer service surveys in the registrar’s office. Some registrars also conduct comprehensive customer service surveys for students, faculty and staff. If possible (or available), take advantage of other survey instruments that already exist on campus. Many institutions conduct a graduating student survey and even if there is only one question included regarding student overall satisfaction with services and programs provided by the registrar’s office, you will have consistent and formal feedback at least twice a year. As service providers in the registrar’s office at Georgia Tech, we are concerned about survey fatigue, particularly as related to graduate students, and are working to consolidate some of our survey instruments. Careful attention is needed to avoid reducing the effectiveness of a survey by changing the timeframe or by putting together disparate types of questions that might result in confusion or conflate areas that really need to be addressed separately.

Assessment in the Registrar’s Office

Many campuses engage in the CIRP (heri.ucla.edu) and/or NSSE (nsse.iub.edu) surveys and although these instruments do not provide data on registrar services, they do give us a sense of things that are important to the student population which, in turn, might assist us in forming a vision of what the registrar’s office needs to look like in the future.

Another aspect of your information gathering methodology that is important to consider is whether you are actively or passively seeking the feedback. There are several very welldesigned customer service surveys on Web sites around the country. Good and insightful questions are asked, but there is little incentive for students, faculty, staff, or the public to respond. Comment cards suffer from a similar issue. It is also typical for those who are unhappy with the service or program to be more inclined to respond than those that received the needed help and were happy with the outcome. Passively awaiting for input will likely not put you in a position to provide the kind of data you need for good assessment.

Where students are concerned, an incentive can increase the response rate on surveys. Where faculty and staff are concerned, the important factor is brevity, which means that the questions on the surveys must be very carefully crafted. It is important to work with other campus leaders to enlist their help in prompting faculty and staff to respond to your surveys.

The important goal is to seek ways in which you can actively elicit input.

Assessment at Georgia Tech In 2005, the planning and assessment process at Georgia Tech was re-envisioned. An assessment and strategic planning document produced in Spring 2004 included a statement of purpose, an assessment plan and description of factors, internal and external, that would likely affect the opportunities and challenges that the office would face in the near future. This document served as the jumping-off point for the 2005 activities.

Utilizing the AACRAO Registrar Self-Audit in Fall 2005 to get a sense of strengths and weaknesses in all of the key areas, we met with staff in groups by area and performed SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analyses to obtain specific input on a smaller scale. By the end of Fall 2005, we had a good, general sense of where we stood as an office and felt ready to proceed with the next step, an external review. It was clear by that time that conducting a survey of technology in use at similar institutions would be beneficial in benchmarking this critical area of our operation.

In Spring of 2006, we began meetings with our Office of Organizational Development to discuss the external review of our office. The external review process conducted by the Office of Organizational Development included internal surveys of staff, external surveys of other offices, interviews with other registrars around the country, and benchmarking exercises in key areas of operation.

7

The SACRAO Journal

With funding assistance from the Georgia Tech Athletic Association, we hired the AACRAO consulting office to conduct a survey, focusing primarily on NCAA Division I institutions, to gather information about the use of technology in the Registrar’s Office. We were concerned about athletic certification and technology applied thereto, but we also wanted some general information about the kinds of student information systems in place and how certain related duties were assigned at those institutions.

The AACRAO consultants visited campus, conducted interviews with key stakeholders, and conducted a survey of other institutions. The report that resulted was very helpful to us in requesting and receiving budget support to address issues related to technology applications in the Registrar’s Office. In fall of 2007, we implemented the first in a series of customer service surveys designed to gather feedback in key areas of operations and to support our efforts to target and improve specific processes and functions.

position was reclassified. The remodeling had to occur before we could address traffic patterns in the office and establish the ROSS. The Registrar One-Stop Shop was implemented to address some overarching concerns gleaned from the fall 2007 walk-in survey and the spring 2009 comprehensive survey (described in the next section). Although our marks overall were good in both surveys, we came to the conclusion that we needed to improve the efficiency with which we were connecting the student to the right staff member who could assist them, regardless of how the contact with our office was made. The ROSS was implemented to ensure that the front line customer service staff would be broadly and deeply enough trained to not only serve an effective triage function, but also to deliver the actual service without referring the student up the line. The improvement in our ratings from the 2007 walk-in survey to the 2010 walk-in survey may have been impacted by the physical remodel itself in addition to customer reaction to the new staff and approach taken to training and development within the ROSS.

The Walk-in Customer Service Survey

The Comprehensive Customer Service Survey for Students

We were interested in a survey of walk-in traffic for several reasons. We wanted to know for what purposes the walk-in traffic occurred, how visitors felt about the service they received immediately after it was rendered, and we needed a cost-effective way to implement measurement tools.

In summer and fall 2008, we collaborated again with the Office of Assessment to develop an on-line comprehensive survey for students. Assistant registrars assigned to assessment activities worked with the Office of Assessment to design the survey. The on-line comprehensive survey is conducted on a 5year interval for graduate and undergraduate students. It was completed for the first time in spring 2009 and is due again in spring 2014. In order to encourage completion of the survey, we offered $50 gift packs from the bookstore as an incentive.

Students who responded to the survey were entered by the Office of Assessment into a lottery to win the gift packs.

Although a modest incentive, we feel that it did have some impact on the number of responses for the minimal cost of $200 for the four gift packs.

Two of the assistant registrars were given the assignment of working directly with the Office of Assessment at Georgia Tech to develop the walk-in survey questions (see Figure 1). The survey questions were prepared on Scantron forms and were handed out and collected from walk-in customers by student workers. At the conclusion of the process, the Office of Assessment processed the forms and prepared the report. In the 2007 walkin survey, we paid the student workers a very nominal amount, similar to compensation for proctoring an examination for which our office was responsible. In 2010 when we repeated the survey, we used our work-study student staff at no additional office cost, and they seemed to enjoy the assignment.

The walk-in customers responded very well to the students who were conducting the survey. We deliberately kept the walkin survey simple and concise, so that we would not take up too much of participants’ time and so that as we handed it to them, they would see that it was simple and straightforward. We set a goal of collecting 100 surveys for each cycle. The survey is repeated every three years. Table 2 shows the results of the 2007 walk-in survey and Table 3 shows the results from 2010.

Since the fall 2007 walk-in survey, which kicked off our formal attempt to gather baseline data, several changes have occurred in the Registrar’s Office. Physical remodeling of the office was completed in June 2010. Additionally, we implemented what we now refer to as the Registrar One-Stop Shop (ROSS) to serve as the main take-in point for all walk-in, telephone, and email traffic for the office. The focus of this group is customer service and is managed by a staff member whose 8

In spring 2009, we used a stratified-random sample of students (2,413 undergraduates and 1,187 graduates). A total of 843 students completed the survey for an overall response rate of 28.1 percent. Table 4 reveals that respondents were largely satisfied with staff members, giving high marks to knowledge, professionalism, and problem solving abilities. Chi-square tests for sample representativeness revealed no significant differences by ethnicity, college of enrollment, student level, and citizenship status.

Additional questions on the comprehensive survey assessed specific services including verifications, registration, residency (tuition classification), transcripts, transfer credit, graduation, general information, and petitions to the faculty (see Table 5).

We asked the students if they had any suggestions or comments on other areas of the office where they felt improvements were needed. A total of 89 students responded to this last question with many of the comments involving services that are not provided by the Registrar’s Office including financial aid and financial services (Bursar’s Office).

Assessment in the Registrar’s Office

The SACRAO Journal

Figure 1. Customer Service Survey

Assessment in the Registrar’s Office

9

The SACRAO Journal

Table 2. 2007 Walk-in Survey Results Very satisfied-5, satisfied-4, acceptable-3, needs improvement-2, not acceptable-1

N Valid

Mean

Std. deviation

Missing

Satisfaction with timeliness of service provided

282

1

4.78

0.543

Satisfaction with courteousness of the office staff

281

2

4.72

0.577

Satisfaction with knowledge of the office staff

281

2

4.64

0.646

Satisfaction with help provided by the office

280

3

4.64

0.735

Overall satisfaction with services rendered by the office

282

1

4.66

0.628

Table 3. 2010 Walk-in Survey Results Very satisfied-5, satisfied-4, acceptable-3, needs improvement-2, not acceptable-1

N

Mean

Std. deviation

Valid

Missing

Satisfaction with timeliness of service provided

97

0

4.77

.530

Satisfaction with courteousness of the office staff

97

0

4.91

.325

Satisfaction with knowledge of the office staff

97

0

4.87

.448

Satisfaction with help provided by the office

97

0

4.91

.325

Overall satisfaction with services rendered by the office

97

0

4.89

.350

Table 4. 2009 Comprehensive Customer Service Survey - Overall Results

Registrar Web site provides useful resources and materials Staff members are knowledgeable Staff members are professional Staff members treat me with courtesy Staff members are good at solving problems

10

Undergraduate (n-547) Disagree Agree or or somewhat somewhat agree disagree

Graduate (n=296) Disagree Agree or or somewhat somewhat agree disagree

77.0

4.3

74.6

5.1

82.0

1.7

76.8

1.5

83.4

0.7

78.0

1.4

81.8

2.6

77.8

2.1

71.4

3.6

70.0

3.2

Assessment in the Registrar’s Office

The SACRAO Journal

Table 5. 2009 Comprehensive Customer Service Survey - Service Items Verification (n=82)

Registration (n=171)

Residency (n=32)

Transcripts (n=231)

Agree or somewhat agree

Disagree or somewhat disagree

Agree or somewhat agree

Disagree or somewhat disagree

Agree or somewhat agree

Disagree or somewhat disagree

Agree or somewhat agree

Disagree or somewhat disagree

I was treated courteously

94.9

2.0

89.9

2.5

92.6

0.0

95.9

0.5

Response time was acceptable

93.0

5.0

86.6

6.4

96.6

0.0

93.7

1.4

Staff spent necessary time to address my questions

98.9

1.0

86.3

5.0

92.6

0.0

94.5

1.1

Staff was able to refer me to correct resources if they were unable to provide assistance

95.1

2.4

85.3

4.9

96.3

0.0

92.6

1.3

Table 6. 2009 Comprehensive Customer Service Survey - Interaction Preferences In person Email Telephone Self-service via Web site

Undergraduates 27.1 37.5 7.3 28.2

Graduates 19.9 37.5 7.4 35.1

Respondents were asked how they preferred to interact with the Office of the Registrar. Responses were evenly divided between in-person visits, email contact, and use of the Web site/OSCAR system (see Table 6). Although no significant differences were seen between undergraduate and graduate student preferences, we have continued to work with the Office of Graduate Studies to improve and refine both information and forms that are available on the Web sites.

Program Review and Assessment in the Future We began this current journey in fall 2005. By fall 2010, we felt that we had enough information to determine what the long-term overall strategy would be for the Registrar’s Office at Georgia Tech. Our assessment process thus far has confirmed that we are, generally, providing high quality customer service. With this baseline information, we can now collect data on a regular basis to use in targeting specific areas for improvement where we feel we can and wish to achieve “world class” customer service, and to maintain the overall high level of service that we currently enjoy. We know from this process that staff must possess a wide array of knowledge to problem-solve effectively, and we know that silos of information cannot be allowed to exist. Tools such as job rotation

Assessment in the Registrar’s Office

will ensure, at least for the managers, that their knowledge base is sufficiently broad. Implementation of core competency modeling for all staff and managers in 2008 was done to ensure targeted improvement in specific skills and areas of knowledge.

Use of the new leader transition process was also implemented in 2008 to facilitate communication among the managers and among the managers and their direct reports. Core competency modeling is a yearly process and the new leader transition process is used periodically, especially when a new manager joins the team. We also know from this process that technology needs to be leveraged more effectively. This knowledge led to the formation of the Registrar’s Office Technology Team in 2007 and to additional staffing with technical backgrounds.

These processes have informed us in two general areas: the need for highly skilled, highly trained staff, and the need for more effective use of technology.

The Institute’s strategic planning process continues to challenge us to look ahead 25 years. Our Web site clearly states: “Released in 2010 as the culmination of a year long process bringing together hundreds of members of the Tech community, the Strategic Plan outlines a vision for where Georgia Tech aspires to be in the year 2035, the Institute’s 150th anniversary” (Georgia Tech, 2010, para.1).

11

The SACRAO Journal

In fall 2015, it will be time to conduct another comprehensive program review. At that point, I would expect to use the CAS Self-Assessment Guide for Registrar Programs and Services (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2009). In order for us to be the registrar’s office that Georgia Tech will need in 2035, we will continue to reflect, evaluate, and target areas for improvement.

Role of the Registrar in Student Learning Outcomes The CAS self-assessment guide includes a statement on the role of the registrar: The overarching role of the registrar is increasingly that of an educator, defining student needs through learning outcomes and identifying assessment strategies that involve innovative learning techniques including those provided through distance education. The registrar wears multiple hats and must juggle many roles on a daily basis, serving as collaborator, connector, initiator, and a prominent leader within the institution. The standards...in addition to providing basic functional guidelines, are designed to assist the registrar to navigate and respond to

the complexity of issues and ever-challenging assigned duties. (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2009, p. 4) The role of the registrar in supporting student learning outcomes is, in a way, an “undefined territory.” How is the registrar’s office actively participating in the students’ learning process during their time on campus? How can we measure our effectiveness in doing so? How do we incorporate this aspect of our operations into our goals and objectives? These are questions that we may be called upon to answer with greater frequency in coming years.

We have a unique opportunity and a unique perspective from which to engage with campus leaders in the process of determining how the institution operates and what our role in that process is now and needs to be in the future. By engaging in effective assessment practices, we will remain connected with those we serve and, in doing so, we will be poised to march confidently into the future, adapting as needed, and continuing our cherished tradition of supporting our institution’s mission and vision as one of its key administrative units.

References Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2009). CAS self-assessment guide for registrar programs and services. Washington, DC: Author.

Georgia Institute of Technology. (2010). A strategic vision for Georgia Tech. Retrieved from http://www.gatech.edu/vision/ Johnston, R. (2008). Continuous process improvement in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.scup.org/blog/scuplinks/2008/12/continuous-process-improvement-in.html Nichols, J. O. (2008). The administrative assessment handbook: Guidelines for planning and implementing. Retrieved from http://oeas.ucf.edu/doc/adm_assess_handbook.pdf Rice, G.K. & Taylor, D.C. (2003). Continuous-improvement strategies in higher education: A progress report. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0320.pdf Suskie, L.A. (2006). What is “good” assessment? A variety of perspectives. Retrieved from http://outcomes.lbcc.edu/pdf/GdAssessPerspectives.pdf University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2007). Accelerated improvement guide: A concentrated approach for continuous improvement. Retrieved from http://oqi.wisc.edu/resourcelibrary/uploads/resources/Accelerated_Improvement_Guide.pdf WEAVEonline. (2010). Weave: Assess to enrich. Retrieved from http://www.weaveonline.com

12

Assessment in the Registrar’s Office

The SACRAO Journal

Usability Testing: Is Your Web Site Easy to Use?

Sandra Martinez is a senior software developer/analyst in the admissions office at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas. She received her PhD from Texas A&M University in adult human resource development.

What is Web site usability?

A usable Web site is one that users are able to navigate easily, find information and assistance quickly, and enter and retrieve data without undue stress. The International Organization for Standardization defines usability as “the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use” (Barnum, 2010).

There are many concerns which can make Web sites difficult for users to navigate. To avoid these, Web site developers can follow general guidelines for usability. In his book Don’t Make Me Think, usability consultant Steve Krug (2006) defines five important guidelines of Web site development.

First, the most important information should be displayed prominently. This can be done by creating a clear visual hierarchy on each page using placement, font size, and color. The more important the information, the larger, brighter, and more conspicuous it should be.

Logically connected items should also be related visually, and items should be visually “nested” to show their relationship to a larger heading (Krug, 2006).

Usability testing

ABSTRACT In the spring of 2010, the University of Texas at Austin School of Information performed a usability study on Apply Texas, the Texas common admissions application.

Usability testing was done to ensure that the over one million applicants who use Apply Texas every year can quickly and efficiently navigate the Web site to find information and enter data. This article discusses the features that make a Web site usable and how usability testing is done. It will also examine the results of the usability testing done on Apply Texas, showing some recent changes based on the 2010 study.

Second, product developers should take advantage of conventions with which users are familiar and comfortable. The Web site identity and page name should be apparent to users on every page of the Web site. Menus should use clear, commonly-used wording, avoiding overly technical names and terms which can make it difficult for users to navigate the Web site (Krug, 2006).

Third, the major sections of the site should be easy to determine so that users can quickly and efficiently find the section of the site to fill their particular needs. Within the site, pages should be broken into clearly defined areas of interest (Krug, 2006).

Fourth, clickable areas should be obvious. Non-clickable links and buttons can cause users to become confused or frustrated, either preventing them from achieving tasks or causing them to spend unnecessary time and effort to reach desired goals (Krug, 2006).

Fifth, developers should attempt to minimize “noise” on the site. Users should be able to easily determine their location within the Web site and their options for local navigation (Krug, 2006).

Website development with these guidelines in mind leads to self-explana-

tory web pages. Users spend less time navigating and searching. Increased ease of use makes the Web site more efficient at delivering information and receiving data because most users will be able to perform tasks without additional help from Web site administrators or a help desk (Krug, 2006).

What is usability testing?

Usability testing assesses the ability of the product to meet user needs. It is an important part of product development, as it helps to ensure that the desired tasks can be accomplished quickly and easily by a variety of users. Usability tests are done on Web sites, but also on hardware, software, and other related products (Dumas & Redish, 1999).

During a test, representative users are asked to complete common or problematic tasks using a realistic scenario.

Observers capture user impressions of the product through observation, interviews and participant comments as well as through data provided by keystrokecapture software.

The time and money spent on usability testing is balanced by the benefit of enhanced design and increased user satisfaction. Ease of use results in less time 13

The SACRAO Journal

wasted by users and employees, and reduced man hours spent on fixing design flaws. An effective usability study will also provide design recommendations which can reduce time and effort spent on future product development.

What are the goals of usability testing?

Usability testing evaluates a product by testing it on actual users or people similar to actual users. Dumas and Redish (1999) indicate that usability testing should uncover the most serious problems that users encounter. The goal of usability testing is to discover areas for improvement by observing people using the product. In general, data are gathered by measuring the efficiency, accuracy, recall, and emotional responses of the subjects. These data are then used by developers to eliminate design problems and reduce user frustration (Rubin & Chisnell, 2008).

There are two types of usability tests. Formative testing is done as part of the development process. Small studies are repeated during development. The number of users tested and the data gathered may not be statistically significant. Rather, the goal of formative testing is to identify and diagnose problems so that they can be fixed by developers before launching the product (Barnum, 2010). When the product is finished, summative testing is done to establish a baseline of user metrics for the Web site. Summative testing can also be done to validate product requirements. This type of testing requires a larger number of users for statistical validity (Barnum, 2010).

How are usability tests done?

Usability testing begins with the development of research questions or test objectives. A representative sample of users will be asked to perform a list of tasks (Rubin & Chisnell, 2008). User tasks are presented as a part of a realistic scenario representing the actual work environment (Barnum, 2010). One user at a time will be presented with a scenario and asked to perform a task (Krug, 2006). These tasks should reflect actual tasks that will be performed by users. Participants are asked to “think out loud” as they go through the scenario, and observers watch and take notes. Observers may audiotape or videotape participants. This may also be combined with extensive interviewing of the test participants (Rubin & Chisnell, 2008).

When should usability tests be done?

The way to develop a great Web site is to test throughout the project. Usability testing is most effective when it is an iterative process. Iterative testing, or the process of repetitive testing, allows Web site developers to learn from the data gathered, make changes based on what has been learned, and then test again to determine whether the problem has been addressed (Barnum, 2010). Formative testing of a small number of users through the early stages of development can guide the development process. Testing a smaller number of users on multiple 14

occasions as the project progresses from pre-design to later steps of the development process is effective because it allows developers to identify and fix concerns before they become major issues (Krug, 2006). Obviously, this is more effective than waiting to do one statistically significant summative test post-development, only to find that there are critical flaws in the Web site. In fact, testing as little as one user throughout the process can be cost-effective and prevent the need for major redesign of the Web site (Krug, 2006).

Who should do a usability test?

When testing a small, non-statistically significant number of subjects, it is important to create a methodology which tests the product rather than the user. In usability testing, the mantra is “We are testing the product, not you” (Barnum, 2010).

Usability testing is based in classical experimental methodology (Rubin & Chisnell, 2008). However, in usability testing, the data may be qualitative as well as quantitative, measuring the subject’s description of the experience as well as other more qualitative measures.

Ideally, usability tests should be conducted by an independent third party rather than developers or administrators. There are several reasons studies conducted by third party researchers are more effective. A third party researcher has less personal involvement in the Web site, which prevents the researcher’s emotional response from influencing the subject’s level of frustration or confusion with the product. Also, third party researchers are not biased by over-familiarity with the Web site, so they can accurately judge the level of difficulty the user has with the task.

A third party researcher can also approach the task from the user’s perspective. This is more effective as a user will have different expectations from the Web site than the developer.

Although not statistically significant, a small number of research participants can expose most of the usability issues of a Web site. In fact, studies have shown that only four or five participants may detect 80% of the usability problems in a product, and that studies of ten participants in some cases detected 90% of usability issues (Dumas & Redish, 1999).

Testing just one user can identify up to a third of usability issues in the early stages of design; however, the most costeffective number of participants is from three to four (Barnum, 2010). Testing users from different backgrounds or categories, such as new and returning users, can help to identify the different types of usability issues each group may experience (Barnum, 2010).

The Apply Texas Study In the spring of 2010 at the University of Texas at Austin, the School of Information performed a usability study for Apply Texas, the common admission and scholarship application used by most colleges and universities throughout the state. It is written and maintained by analysts from the University of Texas at Austin through a contract with the Texas Usability testing

The SACRAO Journal

Higher Education Coordinating Board, a state agency tasked with providing leadership and coordination for the Texas higher education system. Apply Texas changes yearly based on requests from the Apply Texas Advisory Committee, a statewide group whose members are from both public and private, 2-year and 4-year schools.

error” approach to correcting the problem. The recommendation for error handling was to highlight the errors at the location in the page where they had occurred, as well as at the top of the page. In the spring of 2011, error handling was initiated to identify the errors at the top of each page, providing a link to take users to the site of the problem.

The goal of the Apply Texas study was to find and fix simple errors, as well as more urgent, global problems. After a team brainstorming session, the Apply Texas development team focused the usability study on five questions:

The second major concern dealt with confusion and frustration with the terminology used when users attempted to navigate to their main account page or attempted to logout. Demonstrating that not all problems found are technical, this issue was quickly remedied by changing to more consistent terminology.

1. Can a user navigate the application easily?

2. Can a user copy an application to one school to a new application to another school?

3. Is the help feature adequate and easy to use?

4. How much confusion and frustration do the users express?

5. Are users able to complete the tasks adequately?

A total of fifteen users were chosen to participate in the study. Eight were postsecondary-bound Texas high school students, two were postsecondary-bound students from other states, two were current college students, one was a prospective graduate student, one was a nontraditional adult returning to school, and one was a pilot participant. Users were given tasks by group. Group A consisted of new users who were asked to create an account, input profile information, start and complete a new application, enter essay information, enter scholarship information, and then logout. Group B consisted of returning users who were asked to retrieve a forgotten password, view or edit a saved profile, view or edit a saved application, view or edit saved essays, and copy an existing application.

There were two major concerns found in this study. The first dealt with the way errors were handled. In Apply Texas, error messages were grouped at the top of the page, but not highlighted within the page itself. Observation showed that participants tended to skim over error messages and use a “trial-and

Usability testing

Five moderate concerns were found by the usability study.

These included difficulty with the school name search (Figures 1 & 2), helper text being too inconspicuous (Figures 3 & 4), important information showing up off-screen or “below the fold” of the page (Figures 5 & 6), a top menu bar that was overlooked by users (Figures 7 & 8), and terminology not being consistent across the Web site.

Several minor concerns were the result of inconsistent or confusing terminology. Applicants were unsure what was meant by the term “mini or short semester.” This was corrected by the addition of an informational paragraph. Participants were also unsure of the difference between “community and volunteer service” and “extracurricular activities,” and some other terms used in the Web site.

The Apply Texas team worked to correct these concerns, including rewriting the school name search and creating a more obvious side menu bar to replace the one being missed.

Overall, Apply Texas was found to be a useable product. Many improvements to reduce frustration were implemented quite easily, while some improvements required reworking certain modules or processes. The time and effort involved in a usability study may be an initial deterrent to some colleges and universities; however, the benefits of greater efficiencies and better user satisfaction may be well worth the effort.

15

The SACRAO Journal

Figure 1. Before: Applicants were often confused about which fields to fill in for the school search.

Figure 2. After: Limiting the number of choices to fill in made the search easier for applicants.

16

Usability testing

The SACRAO Journal

Figure 3. Before: Errors were only listed at the top of each page.

Figure 4. After: Errors are still listed at the top of the page, but link to the actual site of the error. The error message is also repeated near the error.

Usability testing

17

The SACRAO Journal

Figure 5. Before: Continue buttons were often “below-the-fold,� confusing some applicants.

Figure 6. After: Buttons were changed to the top of the page where needed.

18

Usability testing

The SACRAO Journal

Figure 7. Before: The green navigation bar was usually ignored by applicants.

Figure 8. After: Navigation bar removed.

Usability testing

19

The SACRAO Journal

References Barnum, C. M. (2010). Usability testing essentials: Ready, set‌test. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufman.

Dumas, J. S. & Redish, J.C. (1999). A practical guide to usability testing (revised ed.). Exeter, England: Intellect.

Krug, S. (2006). Don’t make me think: A common sense approach to web usability (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: New Riders.

Rubin, J. & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.).

Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

20

Usability Testing

The SACRAO Journal

The University Registrar’s Role in the 21st Century: A New Emphasis on Advising Sherry Benoit served as a university registrar for nine years. She is currently the associate vice president for strategic enrollment management at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas and is a member of SACRAO. She holds a graduate degree in interdisciplinary studies and is currently completing a doctoral degree in educational leadership.

The Registrar’s Role The role of the university registrar has become increasingly diverse. In this ever shifting role, the registrar is not only dealing with records retention but also involved in student retention. In an effort to retain students, colleges and universities have implemented different strategies to stem the tide of attrition.

According to ACT (2010) the retention rate, defined as an eligible student returning for enrollment the next year or term, averages 29 percent for all first year students, both fulltime and part-time, enrolled at four-year colleges and universities. According to another survey of postsecondary institutions, more than 25 percent of all first time students, both full-time and part-time, transferred to a second postsecondary institution prior to earning a degree (Yale, 2010).

This same survey reveals that 46 percent of the students who left after their first year in college never returned to any institution to complete a degree (Yale, 2010). When surveyed, 258 chief academic officers at public four-year universities in the United States responded that one of the highest ranking factors affecting student attrition at their institutions was the number of entering students who were scholastically underprepared (ACT, 2010). Consequently, one of the key elements in preventing student attrition is skilled academic advising.

Technology

ABSTRACT The role of the university registrar has become increasingly diverse in the 21st century. In order to achieve greater effectiveness, the registrar should employ tools of technology, communication and collaboration. This article discusses the role one registrar played in the advising process of a fouryear public institution in Texas. This example brings an updated view of the role of the university registrar as an important supporter of student retention and success.

audit system. This online system can be accessed by the faculty member or by the student. The same system is also used by team members in the Office of the Registrar to clear students for degree conferral.

This degree audit software allows the student and advisor to look at current requirements for a degree and also utilize a modeling feature to review requirements if the student changes majors or effective catalog year. If an advisor approves a course substitution on a student’s degree plan, this information is entered into the degree audit system so that the correct requirements are reflected. The degree audit system keeps the process transparent to all affected – student, advisor, dean and administrator.

Figure 1. Registrar’s Advising Tools

CommunicaƟon

CollaboraƟon for Accountability

Technology

Advising Tools

Technology plays a key role in the advising process (see Figure 1). In this case study, the student information system of the office of the registrar provided an automated degree The University Registrar’s Role in the 21st Century

21

The SACRAO Journal

In order for the degree audit function to be effective, the office of the registrar must work very closely with the academic departments and colleges. Any changes approved to degree programs must be communicated in order to keep the degree audit software programmed correctly and thereby prevent misadvising. Training is necessary for all current advisors as well as any newly hired faculty, administrative assistants, department chairs and academic deans. New faculty orientation includes a brief description of the degree audit process. Advisors receive expanded training in small groups or in individual sessions at a later time that is convenient for the new faculty or staff person. When maintained effectively by the office of the registrar, the degree audit system can be a valuable asset to advisors and students. This system not only prevents errors in information needed for advising, but also frees the advisor from the task of manually creating a degree plan for each advisee. This enables the advisor to spend time actually advising the student on different degree options, discussing academic and career goals, or introducing them to other campus resources.

Communication Communication is another advising tool (see Figure 1).

The academic advising process is communicated in a variety of ways on the university campus in this case study.

Undeclared majors are advised by professional advisors in one centralized academic advising center. Students with a declared major or interest are advised within the college in which that major or interest falls. Some advisors within the colleges use a centralized advising center, but others rely on faculty to perform academic advising for their students.

Because faculty are not professional advisors at this institution and may not be prepared for the task, the director of the academic advising center along with the university registrar developed a series of advising workshops for the faculty at the request of the University Teaching Excellence Center.

These workshops are segmented into three types: new faculty workshop, basic advising workshop and advanced advising workshop.

The University Teaching Excellence Center schedules advising workshops and advertises them to the faculty. As an added incentive to attend, faculty members are given credit during the tenure and promotion process for workshops and seminars they attend through the University Teaching Excellence Center. The workshops are traditionally offered twice each fall or spring term to accommodate participants’ teaching schedules. Workshop attendees receive a variety of information, ranging from advising theory to advising skills. The challenge is to effectively communicate with new faculty members who are just beginning as well as with the seasoned veterans looking for new tips.

22

Feedback has been positive from both the presenters and the attendees.

During these workshops, the director of the academic advising center takes the lead while the university registrar assumes a supporting role. One of the first things covered in the workshop is correlating advising and teaching. This is a deliberate effort to show faculty members their roles in the advising process because some do not always place a high priority on advising. The benefits of academic advising are conveyed first. Three theories regarding advising style and content are then explained and discussed: Prescriptive Theory, Developmentally Centered Theory, and Academically Centered Theory. Not being professional advisors, some faculty members have not seen these theories before and find the information most interesting.

Prescriptive Advising Theory is a style of advising in which the student is not an active participant. The advisor simply acts as the expert and gives the student the information he or she feels the student needs to know. In prescriptive advising there is a very hierarchical relationship between the advisor and the student (Crookston, 1972).

This type of advising is considered the traditional or oldest form of advising.

In the 1970s, a move away from prescriptive advising led to two new theories: Developmentally Centered Theory and Academically Centered Theory. Developmentally Centered Theory is the opposite of prescriptive advising. It focuses on the student’s intrapersonal growth and development as well as on the information he or she needs from the expert – the advisor (Fielstein, 1994). Academically Centered Theory focuses on advising in the context of the student’s chosen major (Fielstein, 1994). During the advising workshops some faculty advisors realize that while their advising style may be prescriptive, they see the value in focusing more on the needs of the student.

In the workshops for faculty, leaders give specific examples of how advising and teaching are similar. For example, both require preparation, assess student progress, create interest through enthusiasm, require clear communication, emphasize building rapport, have long-term influence on students and are intrinsically rewarding. The director further explains that advising is an instructional process just like teaching. Advising helps students accomplish several things: • Clarify their goals and values • Understand the nature and purpose of higher education • Gain accurate information about options, requirements, policies and procedures • Plan an educational program consistent with their interests and abilities

The University Registrar’s Role in the 21st Century

The SACRAO Journal

• Monitor and evaluate their progress • Integrate university resources, policies and procedures.

During the workshop, the faculty members are given tips on how to have effective advising sessions with their students. This includes setting expectations for themselves as well as for their students. A few of these expectations are as follows: • To be punctual and prepared and to expect the same from the student • To clarify the goals of the meeting as well as the student’s personal goals • To become knowledgeable about programs, policies and procedures • To gather needed decision-making information.

Three types of advising conversations are discussed in these training sessions: conversations to share information, conversations about the individual, and conversations about the future. Advisors not only hold advising sessions where they impart their professional opinions to their advisees about which courses would fit best in their schedules, but also gather personal information regarding the student.

Advisors are encouraged to take basic notes during these sharing discussions so that they can review them prior to the next advising appointment. By opening the next advising conversation with this kind of personal information, the advisor is able to show genuine care and concern for the success of the student. While taking notes is a good idea, discretion should be used on what information is written in the student’s file. Part of the workshop at this point allows the registrar to discuss the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the protection it affords student records.

The director also shares a list of “secret weapons” for advisors including the following: • Creating a routine for conducting an advising session that stays on task • Using a consistent approach for documentation including what types of information are appropriate to record • Keeping print resources organized and handy • Cultivating a resource list of references, people, and Web sites for quick help during advising.

The workshop wraps up with the point that advising does matter. It matters to the university because it is an effective tool in the student retention effort. It matters to the academic department because without effective advising, students may change majors or even transfer to different institutions.

The University Registrar’s Role in the 21st Century

It matters to students because it helps to keep them on track toward achieving their educational goals.

Collaboration for Accountability While retention and graduation rates are ways of assessing the productivity of colleges or universities, they are becoming a very popular way of measuring accountability (Yale, 2010). In an effort to create greater accountability, the U.S. Department of Education publishes statistics for several performance measures of colleges and universities including the percentage of freshmen who drop out and the amount of money spent on them (Kelderman, 2010). Anyone can access these data on the College Navigator Web site (IPEDS, n.d.). Other sites also provide similar data (Collegemeasures.org, n.d.). In a recent five-year span from 2003-2008, over nine billion dollars were spent by state and federal governments on students who were not retained after the freshman year (Kelderman, 2010). Due to the public nature of these data and the desire for greater accountability by all stakeholders, retention and graduate rates are of great importance (Kelderman, 2010). In order to comply with accountability measures, collaboration must exist across divisions within colleges and universities (See Figure 1).

The registrar has a role to play and should effectively collaborate on the different aspects which ultimately affect advising such as course approvals and scheduling, degree audit requirements and implementation, review of policies and procedures, appropriate training of advisors and any other process which might affect advising and ultimately retention and graduation rates.

Summary Student success must be a priority. When students do not succeed, neither does the college or university. University registrars and academic advisors, whether professional or faculty, need each other in order to build a strong student base. The university registrar must play an active role in supporting faculty and students in the advising process. Without resources provided by the registrar’s office such as class scheduling and degree audit, advisors would not be able to function effectively. Without effective advising, retention would be negatively impacted and institutions would lose not only headcount and revenue, but the human potential of the students who leave. Effective advising is one factor among many that helps students be successful and persist to graduation. The registrar and his or her staff must keep this in mind and continually find ways to have an active and a supportive role in the advising process.

23

The SACRAO Journal

References ACT. (2010). What works in student retention? Fourth National Survey. Public Four-Year Colleges and Universities Report. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/droptables/PublicFour-YrColleges.pdf Collegemeasures.org. (n.d.). Improving higher education outcomes in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.collegemeasures.org Crookston, B. (1972). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. Journal of College Student Personnel, 13(2), 12-17.

Fielstein, L. (1994). Developmental versus prescriptive advising: Must it be one or the other? NACADA Journal, 14(2), 76-78.

IPEDS. (n.d). College Navigator. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/ Kelderman, E. (2010, October 11). College dropouts cost taxpayers billions, report says. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/College-Dropouts-Cost/124883/ Yale, A. (2010). Expanding the conversation about SEM. College and University, 85(3), 21-29.

24

The University Registrar’s Role in the 21st Century

The SACRAO Journal

Back to School: Baby Boomers in the Classroom Rodney L. Parks is a senior associate registrar at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia and is a member of SACRAO. He holds a PhD in counseling and student personnel services as well as graduate degrees in adult education and sociology.

Jonathan W. Rich is a research assistant with the office of the registrar at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia.

Introduction As World War II came to a close in 1945, millions of veterans returned to the United States and began to settle down with their families. The resulting spike in birth-rates became known as the “Baby Boom.” During this time, the birth-rate rose from 18.4 per 1,000 women during the Great Depression to 25.3 per 1,000 in 1957 (Coontz, 1992).

Members of the Baby Boom generation were too young to remember WWII but old enough to recall the years of post-war prosperity. The U.S. Census Bureau defines a Baby Boomer as anyone born between 1946 and 1964 (Hellmich, 2009). Demographers divide Boomers into two separate birth cohorts, the first born between 1946 and 1955 and the second between 1956 and 1964. An estimated 78 million Americans alive today were born during the boom, making up 26.1% of the U.S. population (Hellmich, 2009).

Although the first cohort of Boomers is approaching the eligible age for social security benefits, they are reluctant to define themselves as Back to School

ABSTRACT As members of the Baby Boom cohort begin to approach the age of retirement, they are increasingly returning to the classroom to pursue degrees for encore careers. Baby Boomers’ economic insecurity, youth culture, and commitment to lifelong learning are principle motivators of this demographic shift. With two million Boomers currently enrolled in college courses, academic institutions are exploring a number of changes to better accommodate and encourage Boomers. Academic planners must pay careful attention to the specific concerns of Boomers to help ease their transition into a university setting after decades of absence. Potential problem areas identified include time management issues, financial planning, health concerns, technology, and age discrimination. A number of policy changes are recommended for institutions to serve the growing Baby Boom demographic.

“retired” or “elderly” (Callimachi, 2007). Twenty-five percent of Boomers say they will never retire, a quarter envisions retiring between 66 and 70, and two-thirds of those envision working at least part-time after retirement from their primary careers (Fram, 2011). Boomers are changing the way Americans conceptualize retirement. No longer a time of relaxation and inactivity, Boomers are beginning to view retirement as an opportunity to live a more engaged, meaningful life in which they can experience new adventures. This change in attitude has led many Boomers back to the classroom after decades of absence to pursue degrees for “encore careers” (Wofford, 2008).

Many institutions offer free or reduced tuition to students aged 62 and older returning to school. Returning students face many unique challenges ranging from communication to the impact of technology. Little research has been conducted on what academic offices can do to integrate this growing population of Boomers back into the campus setting. An overview of the culture

and historical background of the Baby Boomers can provide universities keen insight into the challenges of integrating Boomers back into the classroom.

Background The unique characteristics of the Baby Boomers are largely defined in contrast with their parents’ generation, often referred to as the “Greatest Generation.” In stark contrast to the turmoil and hardships faced by their parents in the Great Depression and World War II, Baby Boomers grew up during a period of affluence and privilege in which quality of life was expected to continually improve. The postwar economic boom bolstered this optimism. The gross national product increased by 250 percent and per capita income grew by 35 percent between 1945 and 1960 (Coontz, 1992). The G.I. Bill allowed WWII veterans to purchase their own homes and pursue higher education, leading to a flight from cities to the newly constructed suburbs. Although only 43 percent of families owned their own homes in 25

The SACRAO Journal

1940, this ratio increased to 62 percent by 1960. The paving of interstate highways further increased suburbanization, resulting in 85 percent of new homes being built in subdivisions (Coontz, 1992).

For millions of postwar families, life was simple, jobs were plentiful, consumer spending was rampant, and the American Dream seemed to be thriving. The Baby Boom generation grew up during these happy times of prosperity, saturated with consumer products and television programs marketed towards youth. Advertisers began to target products to the youth market, bypassing parents and appealing directly to the children. Manufacturers of children’s toys, clothing, television programs, and food products quickly learned that the Baby Boomers were big business (The Economy, 1948). The resulting marketing attention instilled a sense of generational distinctiveness in the Boomers, thus planting the seeds of rebellion that led to the 1960s social movements (Gillon, 2004).

Lurking beneath the surface of post-war prosperity were the specters of poverty, racial discrimination, gender inequality, war, and homophobia. Despite the economic prosperity, 25 percent of America was living in poverty during the 1950s (Coontz, 1992). The absence of public assistance programs such as food stamps, Head Start, or housing projects meant that the poverty was brutal. Blacks in the South faced institutional segregation, police brutality, and mob violence. Women, despite making significant gains during the war years, were forced into subservient roles as homemakers, financially dependent upon their husbands.

Heteronormativity reigned supreme as gay men and women were purged from government jobs by President Eisenhower in 1953 (Eskridge, 1999).

Growing up in this milieu left many Baby Boomers keenly aware of the inherent contradictions of 1950s life. This awareness influenced the first Boomer cohort as they came of age during the 1960s. They explicitly challenged the values of their parents’ generation and celebrated youth culture.

Rock bands such as The Who captured the spirit of the time with their hit My Generation, which contains the lyrics “I hope I die before I get old.” Bob Dylan’s The Times They Are A-Changin’ told the elder generation that “Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command,” and “your old road is rapidly aging.” The Vietnam War was raging, Civil Rights and Women’s Rights struggles were at their peak, and traditional values were being questioned like never before.

Baby Boomers led the debate on all these issues, insisting that America listen to the voice of the youth.

Surveys conducted in the 1970s illustrate the intensity of the generation gap (Davies & Love, 2002). Sixty-one percent of the parents in the 1970s said their children had more liberal attitudes toward sex while ninety percent of Boomers said they had more liberal attitudes toward sex than their par26

ents. Eighty-six percent of parents said their children had less personal responsibility compared to older generations but 51% of Boomers disagreed. Sixty-nine percent of parents thought that young people had less respect for their elders while only fifty-four percent of Boomers felt they disrespected their parents. Even well into the 1990s, surveys showed that Greatest Generation majorities opposed interracial marriage, working mothers, and gay marriage, while clinging to the notion that young people should be taught to obey their elders, not think for themselves (Louv, 2006). For better or for worse, the 1960s changed America and the Greatest Generation’s values were being left behind.

The optimism of the 1960s counter-culture slowly gave way to a sense of pessimism and cynicism among the Boomers as they began to age through the 1970s and 1980s.

The postwar economic boom came to a halt by the end of the 1970s with rising inflation and gas shortages. Many Boomers became jaded with 1960s radicalism and disillusioned with government following the Watergate Scandal.

The disillusionment with liberal government and 1960s radicalism led to a conservative shift in America by the 1980s.

Many former hippies of the 1960s became Yuppies (Young Urban Professionals) in the 1980s, pursuing social status through high-paying jobs and conspicuous consumption. As Boomers progressed from youth to maturity, they transformed from young rebels to guardians of the status quo (Cheung, 2007).

In the new millennium, economic recessions, vanishing pensions and stagnant wages led many Boomers in full circle back to the 1960s values of their youth. Senior oriented organizations like the American Association of Retired Persons and the Gray Panthers have had trouble recruiting Boomers, who are reluctant to define themselves as “retirees,” “seniors,” or “middle-aged” (Callimachi, 2007).

Additional evidence of Boomers’ youthful attitude is the vanishing generation gap (Davies & Love, 2002). Opinion polls show that Boomers are much closer to their children than they were to their own parents. In 2002, the same percentage of Boomers and their children (86%) agree that young people have more liberal attitudes on sex. Seventy percent of Boomers and their children agreed that young people are less personally responsible than older generations, and seventyseven percent of Boomers and their children agreed that young people have less respect for their parents today. The commonalities Boomers share with younger generations represents a significant advantage for universities working to integrate Boomers back to the classroom.

Baby Boomers Return to the Classroom Throughout their lifetimes, Baby Boomers have undergone a continual process of learning and relearning for career changes, intellectual growth, and to compensate for the Back to School

The SACRAO Journal

changing role of technology in society (Grabinski, 1998).

Roughly two million Boomers are currently enrolled in college classes. This accounts for 56% of adult learners and 20% of all students in higher education (Palazesi & Bower, 2006).

A substantial number of Boomers are enrolled in community colleges which offer flexible schedules and online classes, while others prefer the setting of a traditional university. To date, little research has been conducted concerning the motivations Boomers have for returning to school. However, preliminary analysis reveals many potential explanations for the phenomenon of Boomers in the classroom.

Motivation for Returning to School Economic Interests In American political discourse, Baby Boomers are often framed as a social problem due to the “burden” they will place on younger generations as they begin to collect Social Security and Medicare (Firey, 2001). However, Boomers have numerous financial burdens themselves. Not only are many Boomers caring for their elderly parents, but they are also acquiring substantial debt from their children’s education.

Boomers do not see retirement as a time of relaxation, but as an opportunity for a fresh start. Encore careers are not simply a way to pass the time; many Boomers are finding that work is a necessity. Forty-four percent of those in encore careers say they are working because they need the income and 42% are working for the benefits (Vien, 2010).

Acquiring a college degree is an important step for Boomers transitioning to encore careers. A degree can either help Boomers transition into new fields or allow them greater upward mobility in their own field. Although personal enrichment is a motivator for returning to school, most Boomers take classes with career goals in mind. Seventyfive percent of older students are in school to prepare for a new career and acquire new work-related skills (Vien, 2010).

Despite stereotypes to the contrary, Boomers are not economic burdens. Rather, they are determined to live productively during their retirement years, both as students and in encore careers. Boomers can continue to make valuable contributions to society throughout their lives.

Personal Enrichment For many Boomers, economic self-interest is a peripheral concern, taking a back-seat to personal motivations. Many Boomers feel that the college atmosphere keeps them young.

Having been brought up with a sense of generational distinctiveness, Boomers see college as an opportunity to impart their unique wisdom onto younger generations. Other Boomers maintain a commitment to lifelong learning and therefore see college education as a value in and of itself.

Unfortunately, researchers have paid little attention to the

Back to School

personal motivations Boomers have in returning to the classroom. Therefore, a number of potential hypotheses will be explored below. Future research into this area will likely prove fruitful to academic offices seeking knowledge to better integrate and attract Boomers to universities.

Baby Boomers’ emphasis on youth culture is one potential explanation for their return to the classroom. College campuses are a reflection of this “forever young” attitude. Surrounded by mostly 18 to 22 year old traditional students, Boomers in the classroom have the opportunity to learn from and contribute to youth culture. This has the potential to create a positive intergenerational dialogue. What Boomers may lack in technological skills can be more than made up for by their extensive life experiences. Boomers bring to the table experiences in the workplace that many younger students lack, giving them the opportunity to simultaneously learn from and educate future generations. This exchange of ideas could potentially result in invaluable changes to the campus culture.

Nostalgia may also be an important motivational factor in Boomers’ return to college campuses. As Boomers grow older in America’s youth culture, many desire to relive the glory days of their college years. This is a potential explanation for why many Boomers choose to attend traditional universities rather than community colleges, which may remind them of the campus environment they experienced in their youth. By engaging in an open dialogue with the past, Boomers have the opportunity to reinvent themselves within the framework of the university setting, forging a congruency between their past self and ideal self, the person they would like to be after graduating from college (Malhotra, 1988). As Boomers become more commonplace in University settings, negative stereotypes will be replaced by positive ideals of aging based on improved health, independence and active lifestyles (Palazesi & Bower, 2006).

A commitment to lifelong learning may also be an important factor in Boomers’ decision to return to school. Many Boomers are seeking knowledge for its own sake. In this framework, education is not viewed as solely a path towards a career, but as a virtue in and of itself. Boomers returning to the classroom who are already financially secure for retirement may simply desire new knowledge for a sense of pride of accomplishment or as a way to maintain self-esteem.

Lifelong learning can also be seen as an obligation on the part of citizens living in a democratic society, where knowledge is a pre-condition for political participation.

Challenges for Academic Institutions Despite economic and personal motivations for returning to school, many Boomers experience difficulties in transitioning back to a classroom setting. Academic institutions must pay careful attention to the specific concerns of Baby

27

The SACRAO Journal

Boomers to help ease their transition into a university setting after decades of absence. Potential problem areas include time management issues, financial planning, health-related issues, and age discrimination. These problems, fortunately, are not insurmountable. A number of changes can be put into place to better allow universities to accommodate and encourage Boomers to return to the classroom.

Time Management Most Boomers returning to school work at least part-time and have family obligations such as caring for elderly parents or supporting children. Eighty percent of Boomers cited time constraints as the single largest obstacle to their academic success (Vien, 2010). Most university curricula and schedules accommodate traditional students over nontraditional students. Universities schedule most of their classes during workdays, making it difficult for Boomers to balance work and school. Many states offer full-tuition scholarships for students with high grade point averages but limit them specifically to high school students. Numerous financial aid programs also require students to take a minimum of two courses a semester, which is difficult for older students with full or part time jobs.

To help attract Baby Boomers and other nontraditional students, universities can begin offering more flexible class schedules to students. This can be achieved in a number of ways. Online classes could be helpful to Boomers, since it would relieve them of burdensome time constraints and allow them to attend classes from home. Boomers could also be accommodated with night courses. This will give Boomers the ability to attend class after work hours.

Weekend classes could also entice working students. A more flexible course offering will send a clear message that universities care about the needs of their nontraditional students. This will allow Boomers to feel more welcome in a university setting, allowing for an easier transition back into the student role.

Financial Planning In many ways, school bureaucracies and government financial aid programs effectively discriminate against older students, especially those who work (Clark, 2007). Most financial aid programs focus on 18 year old high school graduates. Since many Boomers are still paying off their children’s and their own college debt, the additional burden of tuition is unsustainable. Many companies have filled the void by offering their own tuition assistance programs to employees. In 2005, IBM launched a corporate benefit program that pays up to $15,000 for tuition and allows time off for older staffers interested in becoming teachers (Clark, 2007). Several other major employers have begun to offer similar programs to their workers who are interested in pursuing additional degrees. United Technologies Corporation

28

pays full tuition and up to three hours off per week for any accredited college class. Older workers who earn a degree are given $10,000 in United Technologies Corporation stock.

The employees who have taken advantage of this program stay with the company at a 4% higher rate than other employees (Clark, 2007). For private companies, investing in their older employees’ education is a win-win because it keeps them active in the workforce instead of simply retiring. University administrators can begin to offer free or reduced tuition to older students as an incentive to get them back to the classroom.

Health-Related Issues In making the decision to return to school, Boomers must be conscious of their health and physical well-being. Many people remain in good health well into old age. Others are saddled with expensive and painful health conditions that may limit their ability to attend classes or complete course work.

Considerations of present and future health are an important factor affecting Boomers’ decision to return to class.

For some, getting around campus may prove to be difficult. Many Boomers may find it difficult to walk long distances across large campuses. Course materials, such as syllabi and schedules, might need to be printed in larger type.

Boomers with vision or hearing problems may need to sit at the front of the classroom. It might also be difficult for some students to stay awake and focused throughout a long school day. This could be alleviated by offering more survey, hybrid, and online courses. Universities can offset potential health problems by making campus more accessible to older students. This can be achieved by requiring academic advisors to schedule older students’ classes closer together, offering access to public transportation to reduce the long walking distances, and offering older students access to parking spaces closer to buildings.

Age Discrimination As Boomers re-enter the classroom, they may encounter stereotypes and discriminatory treatment because of their age. Although 76% of Boomers reported positive classroom experiences with younger students, many also reported various types of age discrimination (Vien, 2010). Many Boomers felt that professors geared their entire classes towards 18 year old freshmen, which alienates older students. Two-fifths of respondents reported that the faculty did not understand their needs as older learners. And many Boomers were disappointed with their college’s academic advisors, who were often unprepared to help older students.

It may be beneficial for universities to offer special classes and programs to help integrate Boomers back into the campus community. Older students may have gaps in certain areas compared with younger students, particularly in the area of technology. Specialized “refresher” courses, one-on-

Back to School

The SACRAO Journal

one tutoring programs, and career workshops aimed at nontraditional students can help fill these gaps. Professors and academic advisors can be trained on how to accommodate the needs of older students as well.

Conclusion Baby Boomers have been making valuable contributions to society since reaching adulthood and as they enter their twilight years, they show no signs of slowing down.

Determined to remain active in their later years, Boomers are changing the meaning of retirement. Universities face many

challenges in the shifting demographic tide as more and more Boomers return to the classroom. Boomers are motivated to pursue higher education by economic necessity and a cultural commitment to youth and vitality. Boomers’ presence in the university setting represents many problems for academic offices to overcome – particularly in the areas of health problems, time management, financial aid, and age discrimination. With a number of substantial changes in academic planning, universities can fully integrate Boomers into a classroom setting in a way that is beneficial to Boomers, traditional students, and the university as a whole.

References Callimachi, R. (2007). Baby Boomers in denial over aging. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/05/national/main604287.shtml Cheung, E. (2007). Baby Boomers, generation X and social cycles, volume 1: North American long-waves. USA: Longwave Press.

Clark, K. (2007, November 5). Heading back to college. U.S. News & World Report, 143(16), 68-73.

Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New York: Basic Books.

Davies, C., & Love, J. (2002). Tracing Baby Boomer attitudes then and now. Washington, DC: American Association of Retired Persons.

Eskridge, W.N. (1999). GayLaw: Challenging the apartheid of the closet. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Firey, T.A. (2001, December 12). Boomers fleece Generation X with Social Security. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3818 Fram, A. (2011) Baby Boomers turn 65 with retirement prospects uncertain. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2011-04-05-baby-boomers-retirement-poll.htm Gillon, S. (2004) Boomer nation: The largest and richest generation ever, and how it changed America. New York: Free Press.

Grabinski, J. C. (1998). Cohorts of the future. New Directions for Adult Continuing Education, 77, 73-83.

Hellmich, N. (2009, November 10). Baby Boomers by the numbers. USA Today, 4d.

Louv, R. (2006, June 13). For aging Boomers, denial is destiny. The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Malhotra, N. K. (1988), Self-concept and product choice: An integrated perspective. Journal of Economic Psychology, 7, 1-28.

Palazesi, L.M., & Bower, B.L. (2006). Self-identity modification and intent to return: Baby Boomers reinvent themselves using community college. Community College Review, 34(1), 44-67.

Time Magazine. (1948, February 9). The economy: Baby boom. Time, Inc. Vien, C.L. (2010, March 23). Baby Boomers are changing the face of retirement through second careers and higher. Retrieved from https://www.phoenix.edu/uopx-knowledge-network/articles/working-learners/baby-boomers-changing-retirement.html Wofford, H. (2008). Why colleges should welcome the return of the Boomers. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(22), A36

Back to School

29

The SACRAO Journal

30

The SACRAO Journal

Unexpected Profession: A Discussion with Joe F. Head Interview facilitated by Dorinda Harmon Dorinda Harmon is the director of transfer and adult student admissions at the College of Charleston and a member of the The SACRAO Journal Editorial Board.

Having had the good fortune to be mentored by Joe Head in my own professional activities, I thought it would be interesting to ask him to share his background and thoughts on the enrollment management profession. What follows is our conversation that includes his unique background and how he became a very successful leader in this field. Joe Head has “retired” from Kennesaw State University as the Dean of University Admissions and Assistant VP for Enrollment Services. He has been at KSU since 1984 and in the field of enrollment services for 40 years having served both public and private colleges.

Joe, you have enjoyed a wonderful career in higher education, more specifically in enrollment management.

Knowing that relatively few enter college planning to work in an admissions or registrar’s office, can you explain your “fall” into the profession?

You are right! Enrollment Services is a relatively recent addition to the ever changing inventory of 21st century jobs.

Few deliberately plan to enter the EM field because it does not enjoy a classic high profile brand such as “doctor, lawyer, fireman, policeman, nurse, teacher, minister, engineer, etc”.

However, in the galactic scope of careers…neither are the likes of appraisers, nutritionists, programmers, environmental technicians, news anchors, actuaries, facility managers and thousands of other less known, off the radar occupations. Frankly, most of the workforce drifts unglamorously toward some occupation because of an early life experience, family influence, convenience or place-bound curse options.

Personally, I “fell” into a set of circumstance that put me on the shores of this noble field. When in my junior college years of the late 1960s, I became the president of my local fraternity.

Each fraternity and sorority was sponsored by a campus office.

Coincidently, my fraternity was sponsored by the office of admission. We were often pressed into service as unofficial admission officers and easy tour guides, testimonials, overnight hosts, volunteer service group, phone-a-thon team and so on.

As a result, I bonded with the admission office staff very quickly. Upon graduation I was offered a temporary roadrunner job, but declined as Vietnam and the military draft were still raging and I needed to retain my 2-S deferment. Following my Unexpected Profession

four-year graduation I was contacted again by the former admission office and advised that a new office of admission was being established at a private woman’s college in Georgia and they had recommended me for a job. This opportunity offered a prized “critical field” waiver to keep my military 2-S deferment, if I worked as a dedicated “Admissions Counselor” and met certain conditions. As a result, I accepted the position, thus launching my unexpected career in the emerging field of college admissions and enrollment management.

At what point did you know that this was to be a life-long career path?

Sometime between my 5th and 7th year in the business, I realized that I had become an anchor to others and I enjoyed the fact that they were depending upon my performance.

Certain academic department heads were collaborating with me to help sustain enrollment in selected majors. Additionally, professional associations were inviting me to share success stories and innovations. This led to my being nominated to state committees, professional association boards and invited to serve as faculty for consulting opportunities such as CASE, Southern Bell and speaker to graduate classes.

This reinforced my confidence and posed evidence to stay my course. It was fulfilling and offered reasonable professional status. A combination of other reinforcements added value such as offers to work elsewhere, travel, a voice at top levels, positive reputation in the field, opportunity to grow a division. I discovered that I relished the larger aspects of meeting goals, competition, production, working with youth, energy, counseling and offering life-changing options to students who needed guidance. This was enormously rewarding to see that I was making a difference. As I look back, I can point to students who I admitted, advised and who are now successful physicians, NASA engineers, Secret Service agents, financial managers, dentists, teachers, etc. I am proud of these contributions to our society.

What qualities should someone in this field possess? What professional skills?

Enrollment Services is actually composed of four primary functions: 1. Student marketing/outreach/recruitment, 31

The SACRAO Journal

2. Admission/evaluation/processing, 3. Registrar/records/graduation and 4. Financial aid/scholarships.

It is configured differently among colleges depending on campus politics and not all may be grouped [this way] and in fact could report to various vice presidents.

Common strengths which are apparent among EM leaders include: relationship building skills, a streak for innovation, a style for public speaking, ability to write, eye for graphic design, statistical “savvyness”, a passion to compete, strong organizational skills, an understanding of demographics, some talent for research, eye for detail, technologically fearless, strong grasp for policy compliance, work ethic, punctuality and a love of reaching goals. This package may seem imposing, but these are the ingredients which shape a strong enrollment services manager.

What training did you undertake/receive to be successful in enrollment management?

As an early pioneer of this field, I would confess that little formal training was available, and I am more of an “OJT” (onthe-job-training) product. However, I did pay attention to those who seemed to be respected! I watched honorable performers who produced. I listened, studied styles, visited them in their workplaces and attended sessions or wrangled to sit on committees they chaired. Also, I entered the Student Personnel Higher Education program at UGA with the understanding that I could shape my program in the area of enrollment services. My program was built around an “in-service” learning style. I did EM research, visited shops in the field, wrote papers and conducted interviews to build my platform of experiences. Specifically, I earned a graduate degree in adult and higher education, I took two postgraduate computer classes, enrolled in public speaking classes and was very selective about what professional sessions I attended to garner the best of the best information in the field.

Can you identify some of the key mentors in your journey?

I can easily think of national icons and legends I admired such as Don Hossler, Michael Dolence, Vincent Tinto and regional personalities such as Ray Stines, Luke Gunter or Ernie Beals, but the most influential are those that touched my life directly and consistently.

My wife and daughter by far were the greatest mentors and I would have to begin in the middle of this question by citing the value of my family first. No doubt the inspiration of my wife and her ever encouraging words, devotion, trust and love somehow equated to mentoring me in the wholesomeness of our home life to keep me balanced in the workplace. This was an immeasurable source of support, especially when you know that she also served as director of institutional research and we so often joked, “we each slept with the enemy.” We

32

collaborated at home about issues that were common to our careers. My family gave me a reason to drive forward.

Lessons learned at home worked in the office, too. My daughter also served as a reality measure of how youth would react.

Bill Smith (Reinhardt College) was perhaps the genesis to my career as he recognized my fit. He was the advisor to my fraternity, director of admissions at my two-year college and remained in touch with me until I “fell into the business.”

Thank you Bill!

Glenn Small (Tift College) was my first role model in the field and my inaugural director of admission. He was a Presbyterian minister, very stern, expected accountability and taught me discipline in the field for production. I learned from him the most fundamental, time tested outreach basics of salesmanship and travel. He taught me the importance of performance regarding private college recruitment, related outcomes and sobering consequences of insufficient headcount and how it impacts budgets and revenue. He was, in the long run, a fine instructor of this field.

Bill Edmonds (Gainesville College) was perhaps the tenderest and most encouraging spirit in my entire career. He was a colleague, registrar and director of admissions. I regarded him as a big brother, being approximately 10 years my senior.

Bill was highly intelligent, well connected, well spoken, triple-lingual and always found good in everything. Life with Bill was always upbeat and you wanted to be around him. Bill pushed me and my ideas forward. He corrected me as I needed it and navigated me to significant opportunities.

Don Coleman (Georgia Southern University) was my first constructive registrar role model who took a balanced interest in my future regarding expanding my reach into the matriculation arena beyond admission. He gave me my initial awareness for comprehensive enrollment, retention, progression, transfers and gatekeeping complexities beyond freshmen recruitment. He was a highly ethical practitioner with keen commitment to a full day’s work without watching the clock.

Nancy King (Kennesaw State University) was my final supervisor and vice president. She was without question my favorite all time “boss” for nearly 17 years. She was flawlessly supportive, trusting and ingeniously talented by forcing me to reflect on the strengths/weaknesses of my initiatives. I found her to be a subtle mentor even though she was not directly a veteran of enrollment services, being a former English professor.

I have encountered talent among staff members on all three campuses where I served for over 39 years. It would be foolish not to recognize embedded champions who added to my success. One is wise to see strengths, talents and character among employees and be open to learn from those around them. I think specifically of two administrative assistants (Cindy and Marcie), two associates (Susan and Mark) and even several student assistants who displayed a work ethic that kept my moral compass focused.

Unexpected Profession

The SACRAO Journal

On mentoring people who are new to enrollment management, what would be your advice if they wish to make this a career?

Learn a worthy amount about all EM roles, share the credit often, praise people often, show you are willing to get your hands dirty, deliver on time, be creative, keep good company, find the movers and shakers, be willing to take calculated risks and make it fun!

How have you kept your “spark” of leadership and risktaking moves at the forefront of your approaches to reaching enrollment goals through the years?

I found that innovation and blazing new trails fueled me. It did not bother me if resources were not available to tackle a project as it only flavored the challenge. I recognized that I thrived on the competitive element in this business. It gave me a certain excitement and drive. Developing new processes, designing energetic graphics, fresh outreach techniques, fitting people to tasks, creating cutting edge technology, more efficient systems, boundary monitoring and empowering staff kept me in front and rewarded.

What do you feel are your most significant contributions to the profession?

As I consider this question, I see it is focused on what “I think” are my best contributions to the profession. Perhaps this is a better question for others who know my work. However, I immediately think of my efforts to raise professional standing such as with the state SEM [strategic enrollment management] endorsement movement, so practitioners may earn a credential, my development of Phone Power for College Admissions and the telecenter concept, founding the Georgia High School Guidance Counselor Directory, introducing document imaging to the state of Georgia college community, the introduction of the print-on-demand e-brochure, video recruitment productions and the Freshman Admission Predictor all would qualify for an answer to this question.

What aspect of this profession is most enjoyable to you?

I would have to say counseling students, developing outreach marketing techniques and the opportunity to be innovative to resolve challenges.

What positive changes do you see on the horizon for folks entering the realm of enrollment management? What should we be wary of?

The most consistent thing is change and that in itself offers positive and negative grounds. One should pay attention to advantages and disadvantages created by change.

Unexpected Profession

1) It seems with each year more institutions are moving toward one stop shops, centralized enrollment services or a standing division of enrollment management. This phenomenon is further galvanizing the enrollment management career field and points to deeper reasons for leadership preparation, training, and to seek these new executive positions.

2) Technology is also promising and offers enormous frontiers to enhance our jobs for an ever changing market place. An example is the newly launched “apps” software technology, iPads, smart phones and “virtual data warehouse” in the “Cloud.” These are tools that will shape the future of what we do.

3) Our professional organizations are beginning to take some ownership of offering “in-service” programs that target preparation in the absence of graduate programs. These are custom experiences that will eventually carry recognized stripes in our field.

In contrast…

1) We should be vigilant of state and federal government “over-legislating” our business. Abrupt financial aid changes, interference of transfer credit practices, funding constraints, immigration implications, FERPA compliance and gatekeeping intrusion. EM officials will find these issues will challenge our mission and add hurdles to operations. Additionally, international competition/access will become more complex regarding enrollments.

2) The expansion of postsecondary “for profit” enterprises that are less well managed, motivated by the bottom line and do not seem to have a responsible concern for student selection, readiness, progression, graduation and placement.

These instances can potentially blemish our profession because they are perceived as similar. They scream “head hunters or hardcore recruitment for commission and bounties” designed to reach enrollment quotas.

3) Also, the naive political creep of “organizational collegiate push down” trends to silo or poorly embed enrollment services in departments such as student services, public relations, development or even defragmented roles among territorial agenda which dilute its mission and effectiveness.

4) And finally, I would be concerned about the rise of negative voices among some captains of industry who have recently berated (Tassel is not worth the Hassel) or suggested the value of college and its financial return for the investment is not worth it. The rising cost of higher education is under attack and difficult to explain. These are deterrents to our business.

My personal motto is “Leave things better than you found them.” In the end… this is an honorable profession that allows for a good living and the added benefit to do benevolent work for the good of society. It provides moments that inspire those we help to eventually, “Pay it forward!”

33

The SACRAO Journal

SACRAO Focus

REGIST RAR Creative Flexibility: Gumby as Registrar

by Brenda Martinez

It is hard to imagine that people who have chosen to pursue a career in record-keeping must exhibit the type of flexibility equal to that of a Gumby toy left on a hot sidewalk in Texas during the summer. Registrars are people who like order and rules.

We live by operational policies and catalogs. Everything should be documented and filed. We have a system, and unless you wish to face the wrath of the registrar, you will NOT mess with it.

Unfortunately for our type-A personalities, we are living in a time where flexibility is the norm. Technological advancements force us to reevaluate our business processes regularly (We’ve always done it this way. What do you mean we don’t have to maintain paper files?). Financial constraints require us to make difficult choices and decisions (Should we fill that open position or upgrade our 10-year-old computers?). Each federal and state legislative session concludes with bills and laws that consume resources we do not have (We have to notify students that they need to notify us that they plan to deviate from their degree plan? Really?).

So, how do people who feel more kinship with accountants than with performance artists combat the panic attacks brought on by these influences on our offices? We must remember that we are an important cog in the giant mechanisms of our institutions. We provide the reality-check and knowledge of policies and systems that can be leveraged to help accomplish the overarching goals of our head administrators and boards. Active listening and positive approaches to challenges can provide us the opportunity to lend our talents for accountability and sustainability to aid in the design of systems that satisfy our need for order and usability in a climate of chaos created by changing initiatives and needs of the institution.

The perception of the registrar as record keeper has been evolving for many years now and will continue to do so as we move toward meeting the changing demands of the populations we serve. We can and will lead the charge in efficiency, communication, cooperation, and flexibility as we work with our fellow administrative offices to provide the quality and accuracy of service that we hold as the hallmark of excellence among our peers. We are the “make it happen people”.

So, let the sun beat down on us! We can adjust to the times and stretch our creative muscles to accomplish goals and design processes with built-in flexibility, all while retaining our love for a standard of correctness. Gumby’s got nothing on us!

Brenda Martinez is associate registrar at Texas Tech University.

34

The SACRAO Journal

SACRAO Focus

ENROL LMENT MANAG EMENT Core Admission Truths

by David Mee

As I reflect on the current admission cycle – my 26th – I am tempted again to look for something unique about our most recent round of crafting a class of new students. And yet I find myself concluding that the principles of admission success change little from year to year. Certainly technologies come and go. Federal and state aid programs are modified. But when I pause to weigh another year of weekly reports, budget management, and countless meetings, I find comfort in what I have come to appreciate as Core Admission Truths which have helped me when the plethora of good ideas require prioritization.

Build, rather than gather, the class. Institutions are often too focused on single targets. We implore staff to “work hard” toward realizing targets, when in actuality few consider how the class is actually built piece by piece. When we embrace a portfolio mindset to building the class, we quickly see that success is a matter of reaching several sub-targets. Students enroll through only one of two “pipelines” – they either have a leveraged relationship (i.e., academics, athletics, co-curricular) that enhances the admission counselor connection, or they have an unleveraged relationship where the institution’s entire prospective student engagement rests with the counselor. Admission counselors are most effective and empowered when viewed as relationship brokers – professionals who draw many people across campus into conversations with students and parents. These are more than casual conversations; they are strategies that require dynamic business plans. One measure of enrollment health is a decrease in new students enrolling through the unleveraged pipeline. Retention suffers when students enroll without connections that transcend the recruitment relationship.

Prioritize communication. It is not uncommon for 10% of the prospect pool to produce 40% of the first-year class (and approximately 50% of the pool to produce essentially zero). The challenge is determining a student’s probability of enrollment at the beginning of the relationship. Some admission offices use predictive modeling to determine which prospects are more likely to progress to the applicant stage and beyond – thus allowing for prospect pool segmentation and emphasis on those most serious about the institution. Whether through formal modeling, or less complicated means, the fact remains: prospect pool growth rate has outpaced the growth of resources and our ability to communicate at heightened levels with every student. When spreading our limited communication resources thin, we may “under recruit” the strongest percentage of our pool.

Understand transfer market significance. Suffice it to say that with an ever-increasing number of academically talented students beginning their collegiate journey at community colleges, four-year institutions will be well served to move from reactive to proactive processes. This includes preliminarily evaluating likely transfer credit early in the admission process, not burying articulation agreements in catalogs, and actively collaborating with community college colleagues.

Communicate with one institutional voice. Lay out all the pieces of printed and electronic communication that a student receives from your institution during the entire admission cycle. Many institutions will quickly conclude that the appearance, tone, and “message” across multiple pieces do not emanate from one institutional voice. Does the warm student-centered and mission-laden feel of the initial admission publications quickly migrate toward process checklists at the expense of cementing the often fragile commitment between enrollment deposit and matriculation? Every piece of communication has the potential to influence enrollment.

Campus “guest” rather than visitor. I have joked over the years that a visitor is someone you are looking forward to leaving, and guest is someone you hope will return again soon. Campus guest program leaders routinely ask themselves, “How can we craft an experience on campus that leaves students and parents wanting to return to our campus?” Quite simply, the answer is your people.

Engagement with faculty should be a top priority. Campus tours should promote student tour guides who are “walking brand promises” above simply a guide leading a walk through attractive buildings. Outstanding programs anticipate what guests need in advance, rather than answer questions only when they arise. We need to take the lead. Are you telling your guests a well-articulated story, or providing facts and figures?

Pay ferocious attention. Partnerships between the offices of admission and institutional research may not be the first cooperative that comes to mind, but it is nonetheless critical. IR professionals offer wonderful insight beyond producing regular admission reports.

They can also help enrollment leaders envision a dashboard that leads to a culture of leading, rather than lagging indicators. We don’t have a choice when deciding between the art and science of our field. They both matter. And, often we have untapped resources on campus to assist with finding the balance.

David Mee is associate provost and dean of enrollment at Belmont University. He most recently served as senior consultant and director of enrollment solutions at Performa Higher Education.

35

The SACRAO Journal

SACRAO Focus

TECHN OLOGY Technology’s Unintended Consequences

by Rick Skeel

The use of, and need for, technology in higher education continues on at a seemingly breakneck pace. All of us that are in the business of providing services for our students, staff and faculty have a front row seat for this evolution. And, many of us are directly involved in decisions about the technology used to provide these services. We are surrounded with issues of build or buy, of data exchanges, of networking services, cloud computing, and on and on. And, with each of these new processes comes questions of both security and privacy. If we are lucky we have several people on our campus to help direct the institution’s movement forward in these new arenas and services.

At a recent meeting of registrars, however, I was reminded of an often forgotten problem with this drive to provide more and better services to our campuses. Before I go on, let me say that I am not suggesting or advising that we should hesitate to provide the best possible services to our students, faculty and staff (with all of the necessary security and privacy, of course).

Rather this is a reminder and warning that having all of the focus on new services, on new technologies, on more and better access can have some unintended consequences with long term ramifications.

The forgotten problem is the lack of attention to the infrastructure of all of the student systems at the institution. Usually this term is mentioned in regard to hardware, servers, routers, and such. But, what was discussed among the registrars I was meeting with was the basic, underlying programming and processing structures that support the myriad of systems we all maintain. While we are so busy adding new functionality and new technology, often our underlying programming is in an old, outdated language. As long as the systems are working, nothing is done to keep the underlying structures up to date. If everything is working, why bother? It is dull work and programmers would rather work on something new and innovative. But, over time this problem grows and can become so large that it is difficult to maintain the base systems, let alone add new technologies that connect to that system. This can be particularly true of home grown systems, but is also evident in packaged systems as well. And, for those schools with packaged systems, it is also an issue for the many interfaces between packages to make those varied systems work together.

I am not, ultimately, someone that wants to warn you about an issue you have no chance to impact or help correct. So what can any of us do to avoid these issues and ramifications? Some of you may be in positions or situations to make decisions about resource allocations that can have a direct impact on upgrading the programming infrastructure of your systems. Those not in a direct position to make those decisions can certainly raise questions about how well the infrastructure can support yet another new technology or service. And, we can all be aware of the issue and its dangers as we help prioritize the next technology efforts on our campuses.

Rick Skeel is the director of academic records at the University of Oklahoma and a member of The SACRAO Journal Editorial Board.

36