GROWTH OF PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS IN THE NOTHERN …



GROWTH OF PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS IN THE NORTHERN VIRGINIA AREA

[pic]

Research Report No. 15-05

Office of Institutional Research

Northern Virginia Community College

March 2005

NORTHERN VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH

The purpose of the Office of Institutional Research is to conduct analytical studies and provide information in support of institutional planning, policy formulation and decision making. In addition, the office provides leadership and support in research related activities to members of the NVCC community engaged in planning and evaluating the institution’s success in accomplishing its mission.

ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Dr. George E. Gabriel

STAFF MEMBERS

Margret Chang

Johan Dennett

Laura Henderson

Ingrid Resch

4001 Wakefield Chapel Road

Annandale, VA 22003-3796

(703) 323-3129

nvcc.edu/oir

GROWTH OF PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS IN THE NORTHERN VIRGINIA AREA

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 4

Competition and Market Share 4

Section 1: Characteristics of Institutions of Higher Education 6

A. Enrollment Trends 6

B. Tuition Trends 7

C. Areas of Specialization 8

Section 2: Direct Competition 9

Section 3: Factors That Could Result in Low Growth Rates at NVCC 10

A. High school graduation rates……………………………………………..………10

B. Number of graduates attending two-year colleges …………………………...10

C. Other community colleges in the area …………………………………………11

D. For-profit institutions ………………………………………………………………11

Section 4: The Appeal of Proprietary Schools 13

A. Accelerated programs……………..………………………………………...……13

B. Practical programs…………………..………………………………………….…13

C. Individualized attention………………..….……………………………………….14

D. Convenience in schedule and location.. .…………………………….…………14

E. Flexible admissions standards…………..……………………………………….14

F. Focus on provision of services………….….…………………………………….14

G. Job placement rate…………………………..……………………………………15

H. Alternative to traditional schools……………...………………………………….15

I. High degree attainment rates…..…………………………………………………15

J. Breadth of appeal………………………………...………………………………...16

Section 5: Marketing at Institutions of Higher Education 17

A. Consulting firms…………………………………………………………………....17

B. Integrated marketing………………………………………………………………17

C. Branding…………………………………………………………………………….17

D. Tag lines……………………………………………………………………….……18

E. Internet and e-mail………………………………………………………………...18

F. Personalized web recruiting………………………………………………………18

G. Free online courses…………………………………………………………….....19

H. Proprietary schools' approaches to marketing………………………………….19

I. Summary…………….....……………………………………………………….....21

Appendix 22

References………………………………………………………………………………………30

List of Tables

Table 1: Enrollment Trends 6

Table 2: Average Tuition Costs Per Academic Year 8

Table 3: Characteristics of Direct Competitors 9

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1: Enrollment Growth, 1999 to 2003 7

Figure 2: Average Annual Tuition: 2000-2004………………………………………………8

GROWTH OF PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS IN THE

NORTHERN VIRGINIA AREA

Executive Summary

This report was compiled in an effort to evaluate competition among institutions of higher education for students in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, with special attention given to the segment of northern Virginia. Institutions of higher education are compared in terms of enrollment, tuition and areas of instruction. Data was gathered from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Integrated Post-Secondary Education System (IPEDS) and individual institutions.

Through this evaluation, proprietary schools are identified as a likely contributor to the drop in enrollment at NVCC over the past five years. In the remainder of the report, proprietary schools are themselves considered in further detail, in an effort to understand in what ways and how they appeal to prospective students. The information gathered derives from a survey of the literature, selected proprietary school’s SEC filings, and school website information.

Introduction

• The population of Northern Virginia as well as the number of students graduating from high schools in Northern Virginia has increased over the past 14 years.

• Enrollment at Northern Virginia Community College has grown at a slower than expected rate.

• NVCC may be losing students to other institutions of higher education.

Competition and Market Share

• In order to examine competition for students in the Northern Virginia area, a list of institutions of higher education in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. within 75 miles of Tysons Corner, Virginia was compiled.

• Forty-six institutions of higher education were examined for this study: 13 community colleges, 12 non-profit four-year institutions, and 21 for-profit institutions.

Section 1: Characteristics of Selected Institutions of Higher Education

• On average, enrollment at community colleges in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area increased by 15.94% from 1999 to 2003. Enrollment at non-profit four-year institutions increased by an average of 15.6% and enrollment at three for-profit institutions of higher education (Strayer University, The University of Phoenix, and ITT Technical Institute) increased by an average of 92.3%.

• From 1999 to 2003, enrollment at Northern Virginia Community College increased by 1.1%.

• The average annual cost of tuition in 2003 was $2,306 at community colleges, $14,144 at non-profit four-year institutions and $12,657 at for-profit institutions.

• Tuition at Northern Virginia Community College increased by 63.2%, from $935 to $1,526 per year, from 1999 to 2003.

• Twenty-one institutions included in the study were found to concentrate on one or a few specific types of programs, largely with a career-training emphasis. Of these, nine specialize in continuing education or business, six offer technical or computer training, and six offer medical assistant training programs.

Section 2: Direct Competition

• For the purposes of this report section, four institutions are examined as “direct competitors” of NVCC: Germanna Community College, George Mason University, Lord Fairfax Community College, and Strayer University.

• Enrollment growth at Germanna Community College, Lord Fairfax Community College, and George Mason University was in line with population growth in the area. In contrast, enrollment growth at Strayer University was 75.05% from 1999 to 2003 and growth at NVCC was only 1.1%.

• In 2003, Lord Fairfax Community College had the lowest tuition rates of any institution in the study at $63.40 per credit hour. Tuition at NVCC was only slightly higher at $63.58 per credit hour.

• Tuition at Strayer University in 2003 was more than six times the tuition at NVCC at $391.50 per credit hour.

Section 3: Factors that could result in low growth rates at NVCC

• Four possible situations that, if found to be true, could result in a low growth rate at NVCC are explored in this section. These possible situations are 1) the number of students that are graduating from Northern Virginia high schools is decreasing, 2) fewer high school graduates are attending community colleges, 3) high school students are attending other community colleges, and 4) NVCC is losing students to for-profit educational institutions.

• The number of students graduating from high schools in Northern Virginia increased by 12.05% from 1999 to 2002.

• The number of high school seniors who plan to attend a two-year college increased by 16% from 1999 to 2002.

• For-profit institutions such as Strayer University and the University of Phoenix cater to older, working students. Enrollment of students over the age of 24 and part-time students is decreasing at NVCC.

• Several for-profit institutions offer specialized training in the areas of business and technology; NVCC has experienced decreased enrollment in computer science, accounting, and information technology programs.

Section 4: The Appeal of Proprietary Schools

• Proprietary schools offer accelerated programs, with such offerings as extensive transfer and credit for life experience and modular course structure.

• Proprietary schools have designed practical programs with few liberal arts “core” course requirements, which seem to appeal to career-oriented students.

• Proprietary schools stress individualized attention and small class size, projecting from within this a concern to see students through their entire program(s) and an understanding of the challenges working adults face.

• Proprietary schools offer great flexibility in both location and convenience.

• Proprietary schools are more flexible in their admissions standards, requiring fewer aptitude or placement tests.

• Proprietary schools tend to excel in the provision of services such as career placement and counseling.

• Proprietary schools can often boast very high job placement rates for their graduates.

• Proprietary schools seem to be appealing to some otherwise marginalized students, by virtue of being different from traditional colleges and universities.

• Proprietary school students have high degree attainment rates.

• While many of these qualities are particularly desired by working adults interested in going back to school, some research exists suggests that so-called “traditional” students often value these same qualities.

Section 5: Marketing Techniques Employed by Institutions of Higher Education

• Despite the stigma given to the idea that colleges and universities should market themselves, the idea of marketing has become increasingly accepted in higher education.

• Marketing trends in higher education include:

▪ The use of consulting firms to design comprehensive marketing programs

▪ Implementation of the concept of integrated marketing in program design

▪ The use of branding, including the design of tag lines

▪ Use of the Internet and e-mail as marketing tools, including those of personalized web recruiting and the offering of free online sample courses

• Proprietary schools exhibit strength in the area of marketing, as they “trust the market” as well as spend large sums of money in marketing.

• Examples of how proprietary schools market themselves shows that they use a full complement of methods, some of which could be considered innovative.

GROWTH OF PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS IN THE

NORTHERN VIRGINIA AREA

Introduction

The population of Northern Virginia has grown steadily in recent years, increasing 20% between 1990 and 2000. This trend is projected to continue, with the population growing by approximately 17% between 2000 and 2010. The Virginia Department of Education reported that the number of students graduating from Northern Virginia public high schools increased from 15,820 in 1999 to 17,726 in 2002, a 12.05% increase. Furthermore, the number of Northern Virginia high school seniors indicating that they plan to attend a two-year college increased from 3,563 in 1999 to 4,132 in 2002, a 15.97% increase. In comparison, 3,341 Planning Districts 8, 9, and 16 high school graduates enrolled at NVCC in 1999-00 and 3,462 high school graduates enrolled in 2002-03. This represents 94% and 84% of 1999 and 2002 high school seniors, respectively, who planned on attending a two-year college(.

While overall population growth statistics only present a partial picture (e.g., some growing segments of the population might not be eligible to attend NVCC), it would still be reasonable to expect that the enrollment at Northern Virginia Community College would experience some degree of growth that would reflect the fact of a burgeoning population. This has not been the case. From Fall 1999 to Fall 2003, student headcount at NVCC increased by only 1.14%. Significantly, this average growth rate encompasses a shift in the age distribution of the College’s population; the number of students between the ages of 18-21 has increased by 5.4%, whereas the number of students between the ages of 30-44 has decreased by 4.7%.

Why are enrollment rates at Northern Virginia Community College not keeping up with population growth and high school graduation rates? One explanation may be that NVCC is losing students to competing institutions.

Competition and Market Share

In order to examine the competition that Northern Virginia Community College faces, a list of institutions of higher education in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area was compiled. This list is composed of institutions within 75 miles of Tysons Corner, Virginia with the restriction that they must be located in Virginia, Maryland or the District of Columbia. Although some institutions in Pennsylvania and West Virginia are within 75 miles of Tysons Corner they were not included in the study. Furthermore, with the exception of George Mason University, only institutions that offer programs of study leading to a certificate or an associate’s degree were included in this analysis.

There are 46 institutions of higher education that meet the above-mentioned criteria. Those institutions having more than one campus were only counted once. Of the 46 institutions, 13 are community colleges, eight are four-year, not-for-profit colleges, and 21 are for-profit/proprietary institutions.

Data was gathered from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and individual institutions. Section 1 examines the Fall undergraduate enrollment trends, annual tuition rates and areas of specialization for each institution. Section 2 focuses on the growth and tuition at four institutions that are direct competitors of Northern Virginia Community College. Section 3 discusses possible explanations for low growth rates at Northern Virginia Community College. Section 4 explores what aspects of proprietary schools’ programs and structures appeal to prospective students. Section 5 presents various marketing strategies used by proprietary schools, discussed within the context of marketing trends in higher education.

Section 1: Characteristics of Institutions of Higher Education

In the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area

A. Enrollment Trends

A summary of the average single-year growth rates for community colleges, non-profit four-year institutions, and for-profit institutions is shown in Table 1. Table A-1 in the Appendix details the fall semester enrollment data and growth rate at institutions of higher education in the greater Washington D.C. area.

As shown in Figure 1 and Table 1, two-year colleges offering programs similar to NVCC experienced increased student enrollment from 1999 to 2003. The average increase in fall semester enrollment during this time was 15.9%. Hagerstown Community College had the largest increase in student enrollment (see Table A-1 in the Appendix). Fall enrollment at this institution increased by 28.5% from 1999 to 2003. Growth at Northern Virginia Community College was the lowest of all community colleges studied. Fall enrollment at NVCC increased by 1.1% from 1999 to 2003.

Fall semester enrollment at non-profit four-year institutions increased by 15.7% from 1999 to 2003. It is important to note that one institution, Capitol College, saw a 55.6% decrease in enrollment during this time. Because this institution was an extreme outlier in the data it was eliminated from the data set for purposes of this analysis.

While increases in enrollment at community colleges and four-year institutions were proportional to increases in population and high school graduation rates, enrollment at for-profit institutions was much higher. Fall semester enrollment at three of the area’s most prominent proprietary institutions increased by an average of 92.3% from 1999-2003 (Strayer University grew 75.1%, ITT Technical Institute 39.8% and the University of Phoenix 162%). This reflects the overall trend in the growth of proprietary schools; of the 14 area proprietary schools for which enrollment information was available, the average growth rate from Fall 2001 to Fall 2002 was 24.3%.

Table 1: Enrollment Trends

Figure 1: Enrollment Growth, 1999 to 2003

[pic]

B: Tuition Trends

Table 2 summarizes the average cost of tuition at each type of institution. The average cost of tuition at community colleges in 2003 was $2,306 ($96.08 per credit hour). The average cost of tuition at a four-year institution in 2003 was $14,144 ($589.33 per credit hour). Tuition at proprietary schools averaged $12,657 ($527.38 per credit hour) in 2003. The cost of tuition at each individual institution is detailed in Table A-2 in the Appendix.

Figure 2 illustrates patterns of tuition increase at institutions of higher education in the Northern Virginia area. Although the percentage of increase in tuition at NVCC is the highest of any institution, (a 61.5% increase from 2000 to 2003), the actual cost of tuition at NVCC remains one of the lowest of all 48 institutions included in this analysis.

Table 2: Average Tuition Costs Per Academic Year

Figure 2: Average Annual Tuition: 2000-2004

[pic]

C: Areas of Specialization

Table A-3 in the Appendix describes the areas of specialization for several institutions included in this analysis. Twenty-one of the 46 institutions in this analysis concentrated on one or more specific, career-oriented areas of study such as Computer Science or Business, as opposed to offering a full complement of courses in the traditional arts and sciences disciplines. Of these 21 institutions (which are predominantly proprietary), nine specialize in continuing education/business, six primarily offer technical or computer training, and six offer medical assistant training programs.

Most institutions, such as DeVry University, ECPI College of Technology, and Lincoln Technical Institute, offer evening classes. Others, such as Sanz School, offer both evening and weekend classes. Additionally, a growing number of institutions such as the University of Phoenix, Strayer University, DeVry University, ECPI College of Technology, and ITT Technical Institute offer courses on-line. Some institutions such as Strayer University, ECPI College of Technology and ITT Technical Institute offer special military programs and/or scholarships.

Section 2: Direct Competition

Table 4 focuses on four of the 46 institutions selected for the study as direct competitors for Northern Virginia students. These schools are Germanna Community College, Lord Fairfax Community College, George Mason University and Strayer University.

Strayer University, which offers Associate’s, Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programs as well as certificates in such fields as Computer Information Systems, Business, and Accounting, has 25 campuses in the United States. Thirteen of Strayer’s campuses are located within 75 miles of Tysons Corner. Although enrollment rates for individual campuses are not available, nationwide enrollment at Strayer University has grown from 11,504 in Fall 1999 to 20,138 in Fall 2003, a 75.05% increase.

From 1999 to 2003, enrollment at Germanna Community College and Lord Fairfax Community College increased by 15.4% and 24.3% respectively. At Germanna Community College student enrollment increased from 3,822 in 1999 to 4,520 in 2003. Similarly, enrollment increased from 3,836 in 1999 to 5,070 in 2003 at Lord Fairfax Community College.

Undergraduate enrollment at George Mason University increased at a rate of 12.1% from Fall 1999 to Fall 2003. The number of students enrolled at George Mason University increased from 15,262 in 1999 to 17,102 in 2003.

Northern Virginia Community College had the lowest enrollment growth rate when compared with its direct competitors. The number of students enrolled at NVCC increased from 37,669 in Fall 1999 to 38,097 in Fall 2003, a 1.1% increase.

The cost of tuition at the three community colleges was very similar. Tuition for the Fall 2003 semester at Germanna Community College was $64.25 per credit hour. Tuition at Lord Fairfax Community College was $63.40 per credit hour and tuition at NVCC was $63.58 in Fall 2003.

Tuition at George Mason University and Strayer University in Fall 2003 was considerably higher than tuition at the community colleges. For example, tuition at Strayer University was more than six times the tuition at NVCC at $391.50 per credit hour. Tuition at George Mason University for the Fall 2003 semester was $213.00 per credit hour.

Table 3: Characteristics of Direct Competitors

Section 3: Factors that could Result in

Low Growth Rates at NVCC

Northern Virginia Community College offers a wide variety of programs at six campuses in Northern Virginia. In addition to day, evening, and weekend courses, NVCC offers many distance learning courses. Furthermore, the tuition at NVCC is among the lowest of all institutions of higher education in the area. So, why is Northern Virginia Community College experiencing lower than expected growth rates?

This section presents four possible situations, which if they were found to exist could account for NVCC’s low enrollment growth rate from 1999-2003. These potential situations are 1) fewer students graduating from high school with diplomas, 2) fewer recent high school graduates attending two-year institutions, 3) NVCC losing students to other community colleges and 4) NVCC losing students to proprietary schools.

A. High school graduation rates

A decrease in high school graduation rates could explain the relative lack of growth at NVCC. If fewer students graduated from Northern Virginia high schools then fewer students would have entered post-secondary educational institutions. An analysis of high school graduation rates from 1999 through 2002 indicates, however, that the number of students graduating with high school diplomas has been increasing in Northern Virginia. From 1999 to 2002 the number of students graduating from high school in the Northern Virginia Community College service area (Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, Arlington, Alexandria, Falls Church, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City) increased by 12%, from 15,820 to 17,726 students. This suggests that low high school graduation rates are not a significant cause of declining enrollment rates at Northern Virginia Community College.

B. Number of graduates attending two-year colleges

Another factor could be a decrease in the number of high school graduates attending two-year colleges. An analysis of the number of high school seniors indicating that they plan to attend a two-year college after graduation indicates that this is not the case. According to a survey by the Virginia Department of Education, the number of high school seniors in the Northern Virginia service area who reported that they planned to attend a two-year college increased from 3,563 in 1999 to 4,132 in 2002, a 16% increase.

Furthermore, analysis of enrollment at NVCC by age group shows that the number of students between the ages of 18 and 24 has increased by 19% from 1999 to 2003. In 1999-2000, a total of 3,341 high school graduates from Planning Districts 8, 9 and 16 enrolled at NVCC, and in 2002-03 the number rose to 3,462. In contrast, the number of students over age 25 that are enrolled at NVCC has decreased by 13% during that same time. This suggests that the number of recent high school graduates enrolled at NVCC is increasing and is not a significant cause of declining enrollment rates at Northern Virginia Community College.

C. Other community colleges in the area

Losing students to other community colleges in the area could contribute to a decreased growth rate at NVCC. Lord Fairfax Community College and Germanna Community College have campuses located close to some of NVCC’s campuses. It is possible that students close to both colleges could have chosen to attend another community college instead of NVCC. In order to determine if NVCC is losing students to nearby community colleges an analysis of enrollment at each of NVCC’s individual campuses was done. Analysis of enrollment rates from 1999 to 2003 at each NVCC campus indicates that enrollment has increased at every campus except Alexandria. Enrollment at the Loudoun Campus has increased the greatest amount from 1999 to 2003 (23.5%). Enrollment at the Woodbridge Campus increased by 8.7% followed by the Manassas Campus (6.6%), and the Annandale Campus (3.2%). In contrast, enrollment at the Alexandria Campus decreased by 16% (a loss of 1,718 students) from 1999 to 2003. Given that it is 42 miles from the Alexandria Campus to the nearest non-NVCC Virginia community college campus (Lord Fairfax Community College-Fauquier Campus), it seems unlikely that NVCC would have lost such a large proportion of Alexandria students to another community college. In fact, Manassas Campus is only 17 miles from the LFCC Fauquier Campus and enrollment at the Manassas Campus has increased. Based on this information, it appears that low growth rates at NVCC cannot be largely attributed to losing potential students to other community colleges.

D. For-profit institutions

Another possible explanation for low enrollment rates may be that Northern Virginia Community College is losing students to for-profit educational institutions. This could be a cause of decreased enrollment at the Alexandria Campus as seven proprietary school campuses are located within 7 miles of NVCC’s Alexandria Campus. Furthermore, the combined enrollment at five of these campuses increased from 1,100 in Fall 2001 to 1,607 in Fall 2002, a 46.1% increase.

Research indicates that enrollment at proprietary schools is growing nationwide. For example, between 1990 and 2000 for-profit institutions’ share of the two-year college market grew from 19% to 28% (Kelly 6). Current enrollment rates at for-profit institutions suggest that this trend is continuing. For example, Strayer University’s nationwide enrollment has increased by 75.05% between 1999 and 2003. Similarly, ITT Educational Services, which offers technology-oriented postsecondary degrees at two campuses within 75 miles of Tysons Corner, experienced nationwide enrollment increases of 39.8% from 1999 to 2003. Finally, the University of Phoenix, which offers courses and degrees similar to those offered at NVCC, but allows students to complete their degrees completely on-line, saw its nationwide enrollment grow from 66,783 in 1999 to 174,939 in 2003, a 161.95% increase.

One reason for the success of proprietary schools is that they tend to “cherry pick” the most profitable programs. Most for-profit institutions focus on fields such as information technology and business that are appealing to older, non-traditional, working students. Although demographics of students at the individual local campuses of for-profit institutions were not available, a review of the nationwide demographics suggests that proprietary schools are attractive to older students and working adults. For example, in 2000, 61% of the students attending Strayer University were over the age of 29. Similarly, the average age of students at the University of Phoenix was 35. Strayer University also reports that most of its students work full-time while attending classes.

While it seems that for-profit institutions are attracting older, working students to programs in technology and business, enrollment data from NVCC suggests that these are precisely the areas in which student enrollment is declining. For instance, enrollment in the computer science program decreased from 1,691 in 1999 to 1,136 in 2003, a 32.8% decrease. Similarly, the number of students in the accounting program decreased from 749 to 509, a 32% decrease. Finally, enrollment in the Information Systems Technology program decreased from 2,540 in 1999 to 1,694 in 2003, a 33.3% decrease.

The number of older students attending Northern Virginia Community College is also decreasing. The number of students over the age of 24 has decreased from 20,774 in 1999 to 18,092 in 2003, a 13% decrease. Furthermore, the number of part-time students has decreased from 27,197 in 1999 to 25,936 in 2003, a 4.6% decrease. This pattern is particularly striking at the Alexandria Campus where part-time enrollment has decreased by 19.5% and enrollment of students over the age of 24 has decreased by 25.6% from 1999 to 2003.

Older, non-traditional, part-time students are a crucial market for Northern Virginia Community College. From 1999 to 2003, part-time students accounted for an average of 70% of the college’s students. Likewise, an average of 51% of NVCC’s students over the last five years have been over the age of 24. Loss of these students to other institutions could result in further decreases in the enrollment at Northern Virginia Community College.

Section 4: The Appeal of Proprietary Schools

Because of the strong growth in proprietary schools in recent years, a good deal of attention has been given to the question of what qualities these schools have which draw in the applicants. From surveying secondary sources addressing this question, several reasons why proprietary schools have the potential to appeal to prospective students have been identified and are outlined below. The services, educational structure, and climate that proprietary schools are often noted for are explained in this section. The question of how they appeal, through the tools of marketing, is offered in Section 5 of this report, and is explained within the broader context of marketing within higher education generally.

A. Accelerated programs

First, many for-profit institutions are able to offer accelerated programs. A number of them use a “modular” approach to classes, in which students take classes one at a time for four to six weeks each. With this approach, new courses are started often, providing greater convenience for students and avoiding the problem of needing to wait for the next semester to begin as one would encounter at a traditional school (Rutherford 29).

Students can often accelerate the process of obtaining a degree through gaining credit in ways other than completing courses. This offer is marketed to prospective students on proprietary schools’ websites. For instance, Strayer University’s website includes a page with the header, “Maximizing credits, because you deserve credit”. Options for gaining credit include challenge exams, transfer credit from institutions that are not regionally accredited, credit for work/life experience, and the registration of military experience through ACE for credit. The University of Phoenix lists several options for accruing credit under its website’s “transfer information” page, including credit for corporate training programs attended, and the rendering of “learning outcomes”, gained through such things as volunteer work and hobbies, into credit.

There are strong indications that the amount of time needed to complete a degree is an important factor for many prospective students. In a 2001 study of the appeal of proprietary schools, students at ten large multi-campus proprietary schools were interviewed. Most students said that they chose a for-profit institution for their education because they could attain a degree more quickly than they could at a community college or traditional university (Kelly 29).

B. Practical programs

Potential students are also drawn to the practical nature of programs, designed to directly pertain to their career goals. Most proprietary schools do not require students to take “core” classes that don’t relate directly to their program of study. Students at for-profit institutions think that this allows them to learn the skills they need to get a job without taking classes that may be irrelevant. Therefore, students looking for training in particular skills rather than a full degree may be more likely to leave with formal credentials than they would if they enrolled at a community college.

The practical nature of these programs seems to appeal especially to people who are already in the workforce, who want to move up in their current field or change careers. This practical orientation affects career development as well as pedagogy in proprietary schools’ services. For instance, ITT works to teach their students about the need to stay up to date with technological and industry changes and “take macro views of their fields” (Milshtein 25). At DeVry, Strayer, ITT and other schools, a strong emphasis is placed on lab work and hands-on experience. Ronald Taylor, CEO of DeVry University, asserts that this is also the most appropriate pedagogical strategy for many “nontraditional” students (Milshtein 26).

C. Individualized attention

Proprietary schools create settings that provide personalized attention to students, and prospective students are made aware of this strength when considering the schools’ merits. Class sizes, whether virtual or traditional, are smaller than many of those at large public universities. Faculty are known to work hard to be directly encouraging, articulating an understanding that real life issues for working adults can make getting an education challenging (see “Private”). University of Phoenix’s CEO Brian Mueller described his institution’s goal as “…to grow as fast as necessary to meet demand but keep the student experience small, warm, and comfortable” (Shea 54). UOP’s use of technology including online classes is also in accord with its stated strength: “…small classes emphasizing interaction, writing, and application” (Shea 54).

D. Convenience in schedule and location

Convenience, in terms of schedule and location, is also an appealing quality of proprietary schools’ programs. The flexible scheduling of classes is of course an important benefit of proprietary schools, particularly those that target the working adult population, and is a feature that is used to attract prospective students. Attuned to the large market of minorities who might not have been able to attend traditional four-year institutions, proprietary schools also carefully locate their campuses in the major metropolitan areas where a great many minorities live (Farrell A35).

E. Flexible admissions standards

Many students may prefer for-profit educational institutions because a number of these schools do not evaluate potential students by high school GPA or placement tests. Many for-profit institutions instead focus on a student’s commitment and motivation. Proprietary school administrators suggest that these factors are more important indicators of a student’s ability to succeed than test scores.

F. Focus on provision of services

Concentrating on the provision of services, such as counseling and job placement, and giving them a central role, is one component of a broad approach of applying a market-based understanding of education and approaching students from a customer-service orientation. In a case study of one proprietary school student, the student had originally wanted to major in one field, took several community college courses but then left out of frustration because “her plans became muddled” – she didn’t feel she was getting the courses she needed, and it was difficult to get the help of a counselor (A35). She switched majors as well as schools – transferring to DeVry University – largely because a DeVry representative sat down with her and clearly outlined the courses she would need for a degree. DeVry University’s career placement office helps students to make contacts and write résumés. The office also videotapes mock interviews with their students for practice and review (Milshtein 25).

In the case of ITT, at one time the school identified that a large impediment to their student enrollment numbers stemmed from students’ difficulties in completing the financial aid application process. Students had a lack of information about financial aid, and many did not enroll because they believed they could not afford it. ITT responded by hiring more financial aid counselors and having financial aid offices remain open on evenings and weekends (Farrell A35).

G. Job placement rate

Many for-profit institutions attribute part of their success to their ability to help students get jobs after graduation. As one writer notes, “in many ways, it is placement that drives the whole system, for placement (or, in some cases, career advancement) is both the goal of the student customer and the tangible indicator of the value of the degree in the marketplace” (Ruch 80). Many institutions monitor job trends and involve local employers in program development. They are therefore able to offer extensive job placement services. Most for-profit institutions surveyed in a study conducted by the Education Commission of the States reported job placement rates of 85% to 95%. Current students are often well aware of the school’s placement rate for their programs (Kelly 25).

H. Alternative to traditional schools

Proprietary schools seem to sometimes strike a special chord with people who have experienced some form of alienation from traditional colleges, whether because of their minority status or unsuccessful school experiences. The alternative which proprietary schools present to conventional higher education and its attendant barriers has been particularly noted to appeal to minority students. Indeed, enrollment and graduation numbers bear this out, in that for-profits are among the top producers of minority graduates in numerous fields nationwide. Ruch reframes this idea, stating,

…because proprietary schools are themselves marginalized by the higher-education establishment, students who are marginalized by society may be drawn to them. Indeed, research into the social and psychological dynamics of student success as they relate to race and culture appears to provide support for this assertion (Ruch 72-3).

The fact that other minority students constitute a presence at proprietary schools is likely to itself become part of the appeal for prospective students as well. Even in cases where the minority student population is not a big factor in the decision-making process of whether to attend the school, the benefit of having a diverse cohort was very positively remarked upon by students of color in a recent study (Farrell).

I. High degree attainment rates

Finally, for-profit institutions have higher degree attainment rates than community colleges. Forty percent of students enrolled in associate degree programs at for-profit institutions attained their degree after three years. In contrast, only 10% of students enrolled at public two-year institutions obtained their associates degree within three years. Similarly, 54% of students enrolled in a certificate program at a for-profit institution had earned their certificate in three years compared to only 30% of those at public institutions. While it is true that students enroll in community colleges for a broader array of reasons, some of which do not concern completing a degree, this rate difference may still be, in part, due to for-profit institutions’ focus on student success. Such degree attainment rates constitute an appeal through the ever-increasing ranks of graduates, who spread the schools’ reputation through word-of-mouth and direct referrals.

J. Breadth of appeal

An important question related to the issue of proprietary institutions’ appeal is that of what kinds of prospective students respond to such appeal. While many of the factors discussed above – career-development focus, flexible schedules to accommodate work, accelerated programs, etc… have been noted widely as appealing to the “non-traditional” older, working student, these same strengths may also appeal to college students who are considered to be “traditional” students (recent high school graduates).

In a study conducted at the University of Toledo, Klein, Scott and Clark (2001) concluded that the traditional/non-traditional distinction produces certain assumptions, based on student age, which might obscure commonalities between age groups. They assert that a more useful distinction would be between “community-centered” and “campus-centered” students, and that especially in urban areas many students of the “traditional” age group “have employment or family obligations that translate into needs and behaviors comparable to those of so-called ‘non-traditionals’” and that in the course of their undergraduate years many students who might start out as campus-centered “migrate” to being community-centered (47). Community-centered students “base their selection/persistence decisions on cost, the ability to pursue and complete a preferred program of study at a time and location convenient to work and home, and on convenient access to support services” (51). Aside from cost, these are some of the

same appealing aspects that proprietary schools tend to offer.

Section 5: Marketing Techniques Employed by Institutions of Higher Education

It is widely apparent from their presence on billboards, the Internet, and many other places, that for-profit colleges and universities place much emphasis on marketing their institutions. This is an important component of how they have successfully attracted new students in recent years, and reflects their financial ability to emphasize marketing to a greater degree than can non-profit institutions (Ruch 68). This section provides a review of the marketing trends of institutions of higher education generally, discusses the marketing strategies of for-profit institutions specifically, and also outlines what local area colleges are doing in their marketing campaigns.

Among colleges and universities, the attention given to marketing has grown significantly in recent years. This has happened despite the fact that within academia, marketing has traditionally been viewed as representing “a kind of self-promotion antithetical to the culture of non-profit education” (Ruch 68). The context of this increasing concern for marketing includes declining enrollments and cuts in funding among non-profit colleges and universities (Kittle 37). The increasing competition for students reflects several significant changes, including the growing sophistication of students who are ever more aware that they can be demanding customers (Futures Project 3).

A. Consulting firms

One manifestation of the surge in interest in marketing is institutions’ increase in the use of consulting firms, such as Noel-Levitz and Stamats Communications, Inc., to aid them in developing comprehensive marketing plans. Community Colleges, while slower to employ the services of consulting firms than four-year schools, have in recent years been doing so in greatly increasing numbers. From 1997 to 2000, the number of community colleges to do so increased to approximately 500, more than five times the number a decade earlier (Lords A65). Locally, Anne Arundel Community College and Montgomery College have hired Clarus Corporation to conduct “Market Scans”. Anne Arundel also hired Clarus to do a “Community Scan” and a “High School Scan”.

B. Integrated marketing

The priority given to marketing also can be seen in the widespread development (often with the help of those same consultants) of integrated marketing strategies, which orient numerous different college departments and services towards meeting a unified goal, through strategic, organizational, and message integration (Sevier 4). While having become a buzzword in the 1990s on college campuses, integrated marketing was being practiced by a majority of institutions by 1999 (Morris 45).

C. Branding

Even branding is gradually losing its taint as a tool of supposed crass commercialism, with institutions increasingly recognizing the value of name recognition and the need, especially in the context of growing competition, to stand out in the crowd (Pulley A30). According to Stamats Communications, Inc., well-designed branding moves the institution away from “interruption marketing”, consisting of unfocused message inundation, and into “permission marketing”, in which audiences have been segmented, offers have been refined, and messages are employed to carefully build a relationship over time (Sevier 3).

The case of University of Maryland at College Park offers an illustration of the effects a marketing campaign can have, especially one that emphasizes branding. The drug overdose of an athlete in 1986 caused a dramatic drop in enrollment as the school’s reputation spiraled downwards. The incident seemed to confirm the school’s reputation as a party school with low academic standards. Branding efforts since that time have conveyed the image of “a great research university whose commitment to discovery and learning is a catalyst for fast-acting economic development and social and cultural vitality” (Pulley A30). The author notes that as a result of these marketing efforts, Maryland has found much success in terms of surging numbers of applications for admission, membership in the alumni association, and an enlarging donor pool.

D. Tag lines

An important component of branding is the design of tag lines. Many proprietary schools’ tag lines emphasize their flexibility and/or show their focus on adults and working students. For example, the University of Phoenix’s tag lines are “The University for Working Adults” and “One University. Many Ways to Earn Your Degree.” Strayer University uses the tag line “We Fit Your Life”. DeVry’s tag line is “Your Best Career Move” and ITT’s tag line is “Education for the Future.”

E. Internet and e-mail

The mediated means through which marketing is accomplished has also shifted in recent years, particularly reflecting the ways that communication has been transformed by the Internet and e-mail. This trend was jump-started in 2000 with the College Board’s decision to sell e-mail lists of students who had taken the SAT (Gose A51), but has continued through a proliferation of forms.

According to a leading consultant of Stamats Communications, Inc., the use of e-mail as a form of direct media is being used by some schools for targeted recruiting. The communication with prospective students by e-mail is sometimes done in conjunction with the use of “catch pages” on college websites, which are dedicated to the admissions process (Damrow 6). Damrow argues for the use of interactive media technology “to generate qualified inquiries from prospective students who may not respond to traditional ‘search mailings’”. Furthermore, the use of e-mail instead of “snail mail” reduces “cycle time” and costs much less (Damrow 9).

F. Personalized web recruiting

The University of Dayton’s personalized web recruiting is an example of this trend. UD uses software designed by LiquidMatrix, which “sells and customizes software to help colleges use the web to ‘engage students and endear them’ to specific colleges” (Foster A37). Prospective students are encouraged to personalize their subsequent visits to the site by filling in a brief student profile form. When students next visit the university’s website, the information that is displayed is geared to their academic and extracurricular interests. This includes a welcome from the chair of the relevant department, an e-mail message box enabling the prospective student to write directly to the chair, and profiles of both students currently majoring in the prospective student’s area of interest and successful graduates of the program. UD reports that since implementing this tool, the number of applications for admission has significantly increased, students from a broader geographic range and with higher qualifications are applying, and the average cost of recruiting new students has decreased (Foster A37).

G. Free online courses

Another example of using the Internet for institutional marketing is found at the University of Washington. There, free online courses are also offered in greatly shortened versions through the university’s Educational Outreach department. Topics range from the history of New Orleans jazz to HTML basics to genetics techniques. These are designed to be simultaneously a marketing strategy, a way of bolstering the reputation of online learning, and a method of promoting lifelong learning (“U. of Washington” O26).

H. Proprietary Schools’ Approaches to Marketing

According to Ruch, the overall marketing edge that for-profit institutions have over non-profits is that the for-profits “trust the market” (69). This entails approaching the market as if it were a benign force, believing in the free-market economy, and having a willingness not to change the market but rather to change in accordance with the market. Ruch states that all of the resources of the for-profit institution are ultimately aligned with these market demands (70).

For-profit educational institutions invest a significant proportion of their revenue in marketing. In their latest 10K filings with the SEC, Strayer Education, Inc., reported that for fiscal year 2003, they spent $22.8 million on selling and promotion, a 36% increase from the previous year. This amount represented 15.5% of their revenue for 2003. Consolidated financial information for the Apollo Group, Inc. (University of Phoenix) for the same fiscal year lists selling and promotional expenses at over $272 million, representing 20.3% of their total revenue.

Limited information exists on how for-profit schools market themselves, particularly since the interest in profit making and maintaining a competitive edge take precedence over collegiality. For instance, when contacted for information on the marketing strategies his institution employs, one University of Phoenix representative responded, “…most of our own information regarding marketing is not subject to public release. It would simply have too much competitive value in the hands of numerous institutions that want to replicate the success of institutions like ours.” However, some information is available through direct observation, anecdotal reporting in journals such as the Chronicle of Higher Education, and from 10K filings or annual reports.

As described in their 10K report for fiscal year 2003, Strayer Education, Inc. uses a combination of marketing techniques, including direct mail, internet marketing (including banner ads, pop-up ads, and advertising on search engines websites), marketing to existing students, print and broadcast advertising, student referrals and corporate and government outreach, information tables at conferences, expos and transfer days at community colleges, distribution of information through corporate intranets, human resources departments and on-site information meetings. Locally, it has been observed that Strayer uses television and radio ads, newspaper ads in special sections of the Sunday newspapers, and ads in Metro stations and on Metro buses.

Strayer’s marketing objectives include: strong branding, targeted marketing with a sharpened focus on working adults, and rapid response to changes in market conditions.

Their brand positioning entails conveying the image of being a single purpose institution for working adults that offers a university education with flexibility and convenience, and is delivered through: a tailored university experience, a family-like support structure, career-focused teaching, and in an atmosphere that treats adults like adults.

The alignment of university services referred to by Ruch in their overall support of responding to market demands is shown in a number of Strayer’s strategies. The corporation actively works with faculty and staff so that all employees support the brand. Physical facilities are developed according to consistent design between campuses. Strayer has also developed corporate alliances with such entities as AT&T, Raytheon, and the Department of Defense, providing “targeted services, employee benefits, and job development” for their partners and receiving in return a large volume of student enrollment.

ITT Educational Services, Inc. directs its television advertising to a combination of the national market and the local markets where the institutes are located. Their direct mail campaigns are targeted at certain segments of the population, such as graduating high school students. ITT employs approximately 800 sales representatives for local recruiting efforts, to follow up and meet personally with individuals who have expressed interest in the institute. In fact, visiting with an ITT representative is a required component of the admissions process, and appears to be necessary in order to even obtain basic information such as tuition rates. Students who express interest in online programs are given further information through the mail and by phone. ITT has also been noted for marketing in Spanish, running commercials and translating brochures and informational materials; these materials are designed with the parents of potential Latino students in mind: “In the majority of instances…the parents didn’t understand much about the school and were confused. It made them more comfortable with supporting their students’ decision…” (Farrell A35).

The Apollo Group, Inc. uses the Internet extensively to market the University of Phoenix and its other institutions, through the use of banner advertisements and paying other web sites fees on a per-lead basis through the establishment of links. For their direct mail activities, education-related mailing lists are purchased so that people in specific fields such as Nursing and Information Technology are targeted. Leads have the option of responding to the mailings through sending in a postage-paid reply card, calling a specific 1-800 number, or accessing a specific URL address “to track individual marketing campaigns for reach and effectiveness” (“Apollo Group” 14). Re-marketing is accomplished through both direct mail and e-mail. Print and broadcast advertising are used both to target new prospects and build brand recognition. Despite the enormous amount of energy and resources invested in marketing, the Apollo Group estimates that approximately 50% of new students arrive as referrals, by employers, co-workers, current students and others.

I. Summary

The relatively recent rise to prominence of for-profit institutions of higher education has introduced new challenges to traditional institutions. Growing alongside the expansion of online degree programs, these schools constitute a significant addition to the increasing latitude of educational choice that students confront in higher education. It is apparent that proprietary schools employ a host of strategies to position and present themselves as attractive pathways for the attainment of postsecondary degrees, appealing to a broad spectrum of the population of prospective students.

Appendix

References

Apollo Group, Inc. Form 10-K Annual Report: United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 2004. 19 July 2004. < >

Bailey, Thomas, Norena Badway, and Patricia J. Gumport. "For-Profit Higher Education and Community Colleges". 2001. 7 July 2004.

Blumenstyk, Goldie. "Biggest for-Profit Education Company Makes a Bid for the Youth Market." The Chronicle of Higher Education 50.33 (2004): A33.

Borrego, Anne Marie. "For-Profit Colleges Adapt to a Skilled-Trades Renaissance." The Chronicle of Higher Education 48.32 (2002): A29.

Collison, Michele N-K. "Proprietary Preference." Black Issues in Higher Education 15.10 (1998): 30-34.

"The Consultant's View: One-to-One Marketing at Work on Campus". 2000. Noel-Levitz, Inc. 27 July 2004.

Damrow, Dick. "Growing Pains: What Enrollment Management and Admissions Marketing Professionals Want Their Presidents to Know About the Challenges of the Student Search Process as It Continues to Evolve". White Paper. Stamats Communications, Inc. 8 July 2004.

de Alva, Jorge Klor. "Remaking the Academy in the Age of Information." Issues in Science and Technology 16.2 (2000): 52-59.

Farrell, Elizabeth F. "For-Profit Colleges See Rising Minority Enrollments." The Chronicle of Higher Education 49.38 (2003): A35.

Foster, Andrea. "Colleges Find More Applicants through Personalized Web Recruiting." The Chronicle of Higher Education 49.34 (2003): A37.

---. "Online Ads for U. Of Phoenix Irk Officials at Other Colleges." The Chronicle of Higher Education 49.24 (2003): A28.

Gose, Ben. "Colleges Plan to Use E-Mail as a New Tool for Recruiting." The Chronicle of Higher Education 46.42 (2000): A51.

Hesel, Richard. "Know Thyself: 5 Strategies for Marketing a College." The Chronicle of Higher Education 50.34 (2004): B9.

ITT Educational Services, Inc. Form 10-K Annual Report. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 2004. 19 July 2004.

Kirp, David L. "Education for Profit." Public Interest 14 (2003): 100.

Kittle, Bart. "Institutional Advertising in Higher Education." Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 9.4 (2000): 37-52.

Klein, Thomas A., Patsy F. Scott, and Joseph L. Clark. "Segmenting Markets in Urban Higher Education: Community- Versus Campus-Centered Students." Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 11.1 (2001): 39-61.

Kriger, Thomas J and William E. Scheuerman. "Edubusiness Comes to the Academy: The Virtual University and the Threat to Academic Labor." WorkingUSA 4.2 (2000): 39-55.

Lords, Erik. "Community Colleges Turn to Consultants to Help Them Recruit and Retain Students." The Chronicle of Higher Education 46.37 (2000): A65, 2 pp.

MacNeil, William. "Proprietary Rights." Community College Week 13.3 (2000): 6-11.

"Marketing Institutions and Recruiting New Students: What Works Best?" The Chronicle of Higher Education 50.34 (2004): B12.

Milshtein, Amy. "What Makes for-Profits So Successful?" College Planning & Management 6.4 (2003): 24-27.

Morris, L. Michelle, and Brent D. Cejda. Integrated Marketing in Higher Education. West Texas Higher Education Research Consortium, 2001.

Newman, Frank and Lara K. Couturier. "The New Competitive Arena: Market Forces Invade the Academy." Change 33.5 (2001): 11.

Office of Institutional Research, Northern Virginia Community College. “1999 Northern Virginia Public High School Graduates at NVCC: 1999-2000 Academic Year.”

-- “2002 Northern Virginia Public High School Graduates at NVCC: 2002-2003 Academic Year.”

Outcalt, Charles L. and James E. Schirmer. "Understanding the Relationship between Proprietary Schools and Community Colleges: Findings from Recent Literature." Community College Review 31.1 (2003): 56-75.

"Private for-Profit Colleges, Universities Build Presence in Mesa, Ariz. Area." Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, 2003.

Project, The Futures. "A Briefing on for-Profit Higher Education". Providence, RI, 2000. The Futures Project. 2004. 28 July 2004.

Pulley, John L. "Romancing the Brand." The Chronicle of Higher Education 50.9 (2003): A30.

Ruch, Richard S. Higher Ed, Inc: The Rise of the for-Profit University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Rutherford, Gregory Franklin. "Academics and Economics: The Yin and Yang of for-Profit Higher Education. A Case Study of the University of Phoenix." University of Texas, 2002.

Sevier, Robert A. "Acting Strategically: A Handful of Breakthrough Strategic Moves That Will Strengthen Your Position in the Marketplace". White Paper. Stamats Communications, Inc. 15 July 2004.

---. "Brand as Relevance". 2000. Stamats Communications, Inc. 16 July 2004.

---. "Much Ado About Something: Understanding the Strategic Opportunities Afforded by Integrated Marketing". 1999. Stamats Communications, Inc. 15 July 2004.

Shea, Rachel Hartigan. "E-Learning Today." U.S. News & World Report October 28, 2002: 54.

Stone, Adam. "For-Profit Schools up Market Pressure." CityBusiness 19.40 (2002): 19.

Strayer Education, Inc. Form 10-K Annual Report. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 2004. 19 July 2004.

"U. Of Washington to Use Short Versions of Distance Courses as Marketing Tools." The Chronicle of Higher Education 47.43 (2001): O26.

Zemsky, Robert. "Have We Lost the "Public" in Higher Education?" The Chronicle of Higher Education 49.38 (2003): B7.

NVCC Mission and Strategic Goals: 2005 – 2015

Mission

The mission of Northern Virginia Community College is to respond to the educational needs of its dynamic and diverse constituencies through an array of comprehensive programs and services that facilitate learning and workforce development in an environment of open access and lifelong educational opportunities.

Strategic Goals

I. STUDENT SUCCESS - Northern Virginia Community College will move into the top tier of community colleges with respect to the retention, graduation, transfer, and career placement of its students.

II. ACCESS – Northern Virginia Community College will increase the number and diversity of students being served to mirror the population growth of the region.

III. TEACHING AND LEARNING – Northern Virginia Community College will focus on student success by creating an environment of world-class teaching and learning.

IV. EXCELLENCE — Northern Virginia Community College will develop ten focal points of excellence in its educational programs and services that will be benchmarked to being the best in the nation and strategic to building the college's overall reputation for quality.

LEADERSHIP – Northern Virginia Community College will serve as a catalyst and a leader in developing educational and economic opportunities for all Northern Virginians and in maintaining the quality of life and economic competitiveness of the region.

PARTNERSHIPS – Northern Virginia Community College will develop strategic partnerships to create gateways of opportunity and an integrated educational system for Northern Virginians who are pursuing the American Dream.

V. RESOURCES – Northern Virginia Community College will increase its annual funding by $100 million and expand its physical facilities by one million square feet in new construction. This includes the establishment of two additional campuses in Western Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, as well as additional education and training facilities in or near established population centers.

( Source: Fact Sheet on 1999 and 2002 High School Graduates of NVCC

-----------------------

[pic]

Table A-3 Cont.

[pic]

Table A-3 Cont.

[pic]

Table A-2 Cont.

[pic]

Table A-1: Five-Year Undergraduate Enrollment Trends

(Institutions of Higher Education Within a 75-Mile Radius of Tysons Corner, Virginia)

C=Certificate A=Associate’s B=Bachelor’s M=Master’s D=Doctorate

[pic]

Table A-2: Five-Year Undergraduate Tuition Trends

(Institutions of Higher Education Within a 75-Mile Radius of Tysons Corner, Virginia)

C=Certificate A=Associate’s B=Bachelor’s M=Master’s D=Doctorate

[pic]

[pic]

- Four-year colleges and universities that do not offer an Associate’s Degree or Certificate Program (with the exception of George Mason University) were not included in this data set.

- Only Institutions in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia were included in this data set.

- Note that data for each year is not available for some institutions

Table A-3: Specializations and Programs Offered

(Institutions of Higher Education Within a 75-Mile Radius of Tysons Corner, Virginia)

C=Certificate A=Associate’s B=Bachelor’s M=Master’s D=Doctorate

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

* Four-year colleges and universities that do not offer an Associate’s Degree or Certificate Program (with the exception of George Mason University) were not included in this data set.

** Only Institutions in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia were included in this data set.

*** Due to the large number of programs offered at many institutions, areas of specialization were not listed for four-year and community colleges.

Table A-1 Cont.

- Four-year colleges and universities that do not offer an Associate’s Degree or Certificate Program (with the exception of George Mason University) were not included in this data set.

- Only Institutions in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia were included in this data set.

- Note that data for each year is not available for some institutions

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download