Introduction



Lesson 13: Penn State Hazleton FA16 & SP17 Enrollment PredictionsPatrice M. LombardThe Pennsylvania State UniversityAuthor NoteThe enrollment numbers and the coinciding percentages derived for this report were obtained from the Penn State Institutional Insight iTwo website and are as of week six of each semester or Census Week. Census Week at Penn State is the week that the Office of the Vice President for Commonwealth Campus (OVPCC) uses for budget modeling at the commonwealth campuses. Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc458257302 \h 3Helpful Resources PAGEREF _Toc458257303 \h 4Figure 1: Change in Number of Referrals FA11 - FA12 PAGEREF _Toc458257304 \h 5Figure 2: Change in Number of Direct Admits FA11 – FA12 PAGEREF _Toc458257305 \h 6Figure 3: Hazleton Direct Admits and Referrals FA11 – FA15 PAGEREF _Toc458257306 \h 6Figure 4: Five Year Trend of Crime for Hazleton City PAGEREF _Toc458257307 \h 7Prediction Plan PAGEREF _Toc458257308 \h 8Figure 5: Hazleton Enrollment Trend by Semester FA09-SP17 PAGEREF _Toc458257309 \h 9Figure 6: Hazleton Initial Enrollment Prediction for FA16 & SP17 w/o 1+3 Students PAGEREF _Toc458257310 \h 10Figure 7: Hazleton Final Enrollment Prediction for FA16 & SP17 w/ 1+3 Student PAGEREF _Toc458257311 \h 10Expert Intuition PAGEREF _Toc458257312 \h 11Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc458257313 \h 12Appendix PAGEREF _Toc458257314 \h 14Figure 1: Change in Number of Referrals FA11 - FA12 PAGEREF _Toc458257315 \h 14Figure 2: Change in Number of Direct Admits FA11 – FA12 PAGEREF _Toc458257316 \h 14Figure 3: Hazleton Direct Admits and Referrals FA11 – FA15 PAGEREF _Toc458257317 \h 15 Figure 4: Five Year Trend of Crime for Hazleton City PAGEREF _Toc458257318 \h 15 Figure 5: Hazleton Enrollment Trend by Semester FA09-SP17 PAGEREF _Toc458257319 \h 16 Figure 6: Hazleton Initial Enrollment Prediction for FA16 & SP17 w/o 1+3 Students PAGEREF _Toc458257320 \h 16 Figure 7: Hazleton Final Enrollment Prediction for FA16 & SP17 w/ 1+3 Student PAGEREF _Toc458257321 \h 17Table 1: Total Fall Freshman Paid Accepts by Campus, Direct/Referral Fall 2011 – Fall 2015 PAGEREF _Toc458257322 \h 17Table 2: Enrollment Data with Average Rate of Change PAGEREF _Toc458257323 \h 19References PAGEREF _Toc458257324 \h 20Lesson 13: Penn State Hazleton FA16 & SP17 Enrollment PredictionsIntroductionAfter a slight uptick in enrollment (4.5%) from fall 2009 to fall 2010, the fall and spring semesters from 2010 to 2014 saw enrollment at Penn State Hazleton decreases on average of 11.3% each fall and 10.6% each spring (iTwo, 2016). While the decline from fall 2014 to fall 2015 was less impactful, with a decrease of only 2.3% and was only slightly higher, 4.7%, from spring 2015 to spring 2016 (iTwo, 2016). However, the trend from the previous five years had already devastated the enrollment numbers of a once thriving campus that was accustom to operating with average enrollments of over 1,200 students in years as recent as fall 2000 through spring 2010 (iTwo, 2016). Looking back at the enrollment numbers while the campus was booming, administrators did not need to be overly concerned with trimming budgets and/or personnel, the biggest concern was ensuring there were enough resources to promote the success of the students. Conversely, Hazleton’s new reality consists of potential reductions in full-time and part-time faculty and staff positions, truncated course offerings, reduced co-curricular activities, and tightened purse strings.By predicting the number of students that will enroll at the campus in fall 2016 and spring 2017, administrators at the campus will be able to more resourcefully create the fall 2016 and spring 2017 student course schedule. Human Resource decisions regarding faculty and staff personnel will be supported by better, more up-to-date information and may be less invasive for the campus community. Individual departments will be able to prepare for budgetary implications that may arise based on the predicted enrollment numbers. And lastly, it is important for the OVPCC, which has oversight responsibilities of the 19 commonwealth campuses including the Hazleton Campus, to have a snapshot of the enrollment numbers in order to more effectively and efficiently allocate resources (Penn State, n.d.). The bottom line is that no matter if enrollment numbers are decreasing or increasing, predicting future enrollment is vital for campus-wide strategic decision-making, especially when it comes to earmarking staff, monies, and resources to essential academic, student, and ancillary services. More importantly, whether the Hazleton Campus is operating in times of high enrollment or low enrollment the students’ needs must be at the forefront of decision-making – at Penn State Hazleton “Every Student Counts!”Helpful ResourcesThere are several potential reasons for the decline in enrollment at Penn State Hazleton from 2010 to the present. One such reason can be attributed to high school graduation rates which were at their highest in 2011, but have been on the decline since and are expected to continue to decline through at least 2020 (Kiley, 2013). With the exception of New York, the Northeast region, which consists of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont (WICHE, 2012), is projected to see decreasing numbers of high school graduates through 2018-19 (Ruffalo Noel Levitz, 2014). Although the differences between 2013-14 and 2018-19 are not catastrophic, they are significant enough to adversely affect the enrollment at Hazleton, especially since Hazleton’s largest service areas are located in the Northeast, mainly Pennsylvania (-1,279), New York (+8,411), New Jersey (-3,440), and Connecticut (-1,660) (Ruffalo Noel Levitz, 2014). As the number of high school graduates decreases the market becomes more competitive, particularly the market for in-state students. Couple this with the following facts and it is safe to assume that the pattern of low enrollment will continue – 1) in 2014-15 per-student state funding in Pennsylvania was more than 35% lower than it was prior to the 2008 recession; and 2) tuition in Pennsylvania has increased from 2008-2015 by $2,062 (Leachman & Mitchell, 2015) – as students will either choose not to attend college or may choose a community college which is more affordable.A second factor that needs to be studied is the adverse effects of the Sandusky scandal on enrollment, more specifically enrollment at the Commonwealth Campus (CC) locations. As the news unfolded and the public learned more about the terrible and horrific acts of former university football coach Jerry Sandusky, the university needed to take swift actions to protect its reputation, which included ensuring the bad publicity did not adversely affect enrollment. In accomplishing the latter, University Park (UP) lowered its admission criteria starting in fall 2012, which decreased the number of referrals at fourteen of the nineteen CC locations (see Figure 1). A referral is a student who selects a specific campus, typically UP, as his/her first choice of campuses, but does not get accepted, and is therefore referred to his/her second or third choice of campuses for first-year admission. As you can see the number of referrals for Hazleton decreased by 36 from pre-Sandusky fall 2011 to post-Sandusky fall 2012.right24765000Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1: Change in Number of Referrals FA11 - FA12Source: The Penn State Undergraduate Admissions Office Intranet – Adapted from Table 1 in AppendixPrepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801Additionally, it can be assumed that due to the fallout of the scandal the number of direct admits went down at fourteen out of the nineteen CC locations with UP seeing the largest growth at 149 students (see Figure 2 below). Although Hazleton saw a slight rise in direct admits (9), fall 2012 would be the last fall semester in which the campus would have an increase in direct admits and the fall 2011 to fall 2012 trend in reduced numbers of referrals would only deepen (see Figure 3).Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 2: Change in Number of Direct Admits FA11 – FA12Source: The Penn State Undergraduate Admissions Office Intranet – Adapted from Table 1 in Appendix Prepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 3: Hazleton Direct Admits and Referrals FA11 – FA1585725118745Source: The Penn State Undergraduate Admissions Office Intranet – Adapted from Table 1 in AppendixPrepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801The third factor I will explore is the crime rate in Hazleton City. Although, the Hazleton Campus is not within (Hazleton) city limits, when prospective students and their parents research the campus they look at the surrounding areas as well which, of course, includes the city. On the Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reporting System website, in its “Profile of 2015 Crime Statistics for Hazleton City in Luzerne County” report (2016), the crime trend for Hazleton City from 2011-2015 as depicted in Figure 4 shows an increase in nearly all crimes from 2011 (in green) to 2015 (in blue) with the exception of arson and criminal homicide. If this trend continues parents will be more apprehensive to send their student(s) to Hazleton in fear of their safety. Each incident that portrays Hazleton City in a bad light has a trickle down affect to the Hazleton Campus. With the speed with which social media travels and the mass audiences it reaches that trickle down affect may cause students and their parents to have second thoughts as to whether or not Penn State Hazleton is the safest place for them to continue their educational careers. center24003000Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 4: Five Year Trend of Crime for Hazleton CitySource: Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reporting SystemLastly, in an unprecedented move by the Undergraduate Admissions Office at UP, 500 freshman students were offered to participate in what the university is calling the 1+3 Program. It was implemented because Admissions at UP accepted more freshmen for fall then they have housing spaces, since freshmen are required to reside on-campus they needed somewhere for the overflow to go. ?So as an incentive (and based on need) these 500 freshmen were offered a $7,000 scholarship (plus the?$3,000 tuition difference) and a $5,000 housing stipend if they live on campus to attend a Commonwealth Campus location for one year at which point they could, but are not required to, transfer to UP for the remaining three. ?On-campus students will realize a $15,000 savings and those who do not live in the residence halls will realize a $10,000 savings. From this initiative the Hazleton Campus has received approximately 80 (1+3) students. It is our hope that we can keep these students passed their first year, which will not only increase our retention rate, but total enrollment as well.The adverse factors I have outlined in this section individually may not have a great impact on the enrollment at Penn State Hazleton, however in the aggregate they create a perfect storm for the trend of lower enrollment to continue. Additionally, the campus cannot rely on programs such as 1+3 to help bolster first-year student enrollment, but it can be proactive and diligent in its retention efforts to ensure that once students enroll at the campus they find it difficult to leave because of the campus’s dedication to the success of each student – “Every Student Counts!” Prediction PlanIn order to effectively determine the enrollment at the Hazleton Campus for fall 2016, I will utilize a simple average rate of change over time method, as opposed to using a weighted multiple regression model that would incorporate the predictors I discussed in the Helpful Resources section: high school graduation rates; per-student state funding; increased tuition; the Sandusky scandal; and the crime rates in Hazleton City. Performing such a complex regression model is not in my learning curve and I do not feel I am well-versed enough in the art of prediction to portrait my conclusion accurately.By taking the average rate of change over the past five years when the decline in enrollment at Hazleton began, I feel more comfortable that my prediction will be much closer to the actual fall 2016 enrollment numbers. In Figure 5 the dotted black trendline illustrates the declining enrollment trend through fall 2016 and spring 2017 prior to calculating my prediction numbers. From the trendline, I estimated that the fall 2016 enrollment number should fall right around 700 and spring 2017 near 650. center24765000Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 5: Hazleton Enrollment Trend by Semester FA09-SP17Source: Institutional Insight, iTwo [Website]Prepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801However based on my calculations using the figures in Table 2 (in the Appendix), my initial predicted enrollment numbers are slightly higher for fall 2016 at 759 and 702 for spring. The following two figures show the predicted enrollment numbers (in red) which are based on the average decrease in enrollment from fall 2011 to fall 2015, which is -9.5% and spring 2012 to spring 2016 which is -9.4%. Figure 6 does not include the 80 students who chose to participate in the 1+3 Program, however Figure 7 does – these final prediction numbers include the 80 1+3 Program students in fall 2016 and 72 1+3 Program students in spring 2017. I calculated 72 1+3 Program students for the spring based on a 90% retention rate of these students. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 6: Hazleton Initial Enrollment Prediction for FA16 & SP17 w/o 1+3 Studentscenter24574500 Source: Institutional Insight, iTwo [Website] – Adapted from Table 2 in AppendixPrepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 7: Hazleton Final Enrollment Prediction for FA16 & SP17 w/ 1+3 Studentcenter27051000Source: Institutional Insight, iTwo [Website] – Adapted from Table 2 in AppendixPrepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801Expert IntuitionAs an employee at the Hazleton Campus for nearly 15 years and someone who was born, raised, and still lives in the Hazleton area, I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable in the history of both the campus and the city. Having this insight and a significant degree of contextual intelligence in higher education, more specifically the campus, was very helpful in predicting the number of students that would enroll at Hazleton in fall 2016 and spring 2017. Understanding and learning more about which predictors to explore and how they impact the enrollment was also very important while producing this report. In fact, I originally had more predictors in mind, but settled on the ones outlined in the Helpful Resources section. Two I left out are the growing enrollment numbers at Penn State World Campus (WC) and the effect of the overall economy. The reason for not using enrollment at WC was because, even though enrollment nearly tripled at WC from spring 2008 (when it came online) until spring 2016, over 90% of its undergraduate students are adult learners and Hazleton’s adult learner population was relatively unchanged in the same time period (iTwo, 2016). Similarly, I omitted the effect of the overall economy because according the United States Department of Labor (DOL) website, unemployment rates have been on the decline from January 2010, 9.8%, to the present, 4.6% (Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, 2016) and the median weekly income has been on the rise by nearly 11% in roughly the same time period (Economic News Release, 2016). Realizing that these two factors did not adversely affect the enrollment numbers I chose to not include them. And even though I did not use a weighted regression model, knowing how all of the factors I reference in this report can potentially contribute to enrollment leaves the door open for more advanced prediction modeling in the future.One of the last avenues I explored was to tap into one of the many available and pertinent resources that Hazleton has to offer – our insightful and knowledgeable campus staff. I spoke with Nick Tomaskovic, an Admissions Counselor, in late July. As one of the people on the front line of recruiting, Nick was more than happy to give his insight as to what he sees in regards to the high school student mentality when contemplating attending Penn State Hazleton and his opinion on the declining enrollment. The two main take-a-ways from my conversation with Nick were his emphasis on the reduction in the number of referrals the campus has been realizing and the rise in crime in the Hazleton area. He went on to say that he actually has had prospective students and parents attending college fairs say that they would not even consider Penn State Hazleton due to the reputation of the city (personal communication, July, 2016). Conclusion As I was researching the factors I thought would have an effect on the enrollment numbers, it quickly became clear that their effects were not as obvious or as impactful as I originally assumed. From this realization, I learned that my assumptions were just that – assumptions – and not indicative of the outcome. Therefore, the biggest challenge in writing this report was trying to overcome the noise emitted by my assumptions and focus on the signal (Lesson 9, 2016). Additionally, the items I would really enjoy delving into more are the predictors and regression modeling. I would like to understand more of the “how” and the “to what extent” each predictor affects the prediction outcome. I feel as if I have only scratched the surface on the reasons behind Hazleton’s enrollment decline and need a deeper understanding of it in order to expand my contextual intelligence, which is something that will only help me as I position myself to vie for the Regional Registrar position upon my boss’s retirement. As a last note: After completing my calculations and the bulk of this paper, curiosity got the best of me and I decided to look at the enrollment numbers for Hazleton. As of Saturday, August 6, 2016 there are 818 students scheduled for classes for fall 2016, which is only 21 below my final prediction number in Figure 7. Of course, this number will fluctuate from now until Census Week (week six of the semester), but I feel that my average rate of change over time prediction model is accurate as it predicted enrollment only 2.5% lower than that of the actual enrollment number for fall 2016. AppendixFigure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1: Change in Number of Referrals FA11 - FA12right15494000Source: The Penn State Undergraduate Admissions Office Intranet – Adapted from Table 1. Total Fall Freshman Paid Accepts by Campus, Direct/Referral Fall 2011 – Fall 2015Prepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 2: Change in Number of Direct Admits FA11 – FA12Source: The Penn State Undergraduate Admissions Office Intranet – Adapted from Table 1. Total Fall Freshman Paid Accepts by Campus, Direct/Referral Fall 2011 – Fall 2015Prepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 3: Hazleton Direct Admits and Referrals FA11 – FA1585725118745Source: The Penn State Undergraduate Admissions Office Intranet – Adapted from Table 1. Total Fall Freshman Paid Accepts by Campus, Direct/Referral Fall 2011 – Fall 2015Prepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801center24003000 Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 4: Five Year Trend of Crime for Hazleton City Source: Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reporting Systemcenter35242500 Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 5: Hazleton Enrollment Trend by Semester FA09-SP17 Source: Institutional Insight, iTwo [Website]Prepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801center38862000 Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 6: Hazleton Initial Enrollment Prediction for FA16 & SP17 w/o 1+3 StudentsSource: Institutional Insight, iTwo [Website] – Adapted from Table 2 in AppendixPrepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801center30861000 Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 7: Hazleton Final Enrollment Prediction for FA16 & SP17 w/ 1+3 StudentSource: Institutional Insight, iTwo [Website] – Adapted from Table 2 in AppendixPrepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 1: Total Fall Freshman Paid Accepts by Campus, Direct/Referral Fall 2011 – Fall 2015Source: The Penn State Undergraduate Admissions Office IntranetPrepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 2: Enrollment Data with Average Rate of Change476251079500Source: Institutional Insight, iTwo [Website]Prepared by Patrice Lombard, Graduate Student, HI ED 801ReferencesKiley, K. (2013, January 11). The pupil cliff. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from Leachman, M. & Mitchell, M. (2015, May 13). Years of cuts threaten to put college out of reach for more students. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from Lesson 9: Introduction to Prediction, (2016). Penn State World Campus, HI ED 801: Foundations of Institutional Research. Retrieved from Penn State, (2016). Institutional Insight, iTwo [Website]. Retrieved from State, (n.d.). On the Office of the Vice President for Commonwealth Campuses. Retrieved from Penn State, (2016). Undergraduate Admissions Office Intranet [Internal Website]. Penn State University Intranet: Report produced by Registrar’s Office, Penn State Hazleton. Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reporting System, (2016). Profile of 2015 Crime Statistics for Hazleton City in Luzerne County. Retrieved from Ruffalo Noel Levitz. (2014). 2014-24 projections of high school graduates by state and race/ethnicity, based primarily on data from WICHE. Coralville, Iowa: Ruffalo Noel Levitz. Retrieved from: Demographics United States Department of Labor, (2016, July). Bureau of Labor Statistics. Databases, tables & calculators by subject. Retrieved from United States Department of Labor, (2016, July). Bureau of Labor Statistics. Economic news release. Retrieved from Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), (2012, December). Knocking at the college door projections of high school graduates. Retrieved from ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download