THE ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT REVIEW - College Board



THE ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT REVIEWVolume 23, Issue 2Winter, 2008Editor: Don HosslerAssociate Editors: Larry Hoezee and Dan RogalskiIndiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and PlanningSuccessful long-term enrollment management efforts require looking into the future to anticipate how demographic shifts, changes in public policy, and new competitive threats may affect the ability of enrollment management units to achieve their goals. Anticipating these potential shifts and communicating with other senior campus policy makers about the possible impacts of these changes on campus goals is one of the most important roles of a senior enrollment officer.This issue of the Enrollment Management Review examines the potential impact of competition from for-profit proprietary postsecondary institutions. In recent years, the number of associate and baccalaureate degrees and certificates awarded by proprietary institutions has experienced noteworthy increases. The number of bachelor’s degrees earned at proprietary institutions nearly doubled between 1970 and 2002. In some states, the total number of degrees at all levels awarded by for-profit institutions increased by more than 20% between 1995 and 2000 (Turner, 2006). The effects of institutions like the University of Phoenix and DeVry Institute of Technology extend beyond their simple enrollment growths. Nonprofit institutions often use a practice called creaming to lower the cost of instruction in these programs to provide cross-subsidies for more expensive undergraduate programs in the sciences and health-care fields as well as for undersubscribed programs deemed to be important, such as the classics, music, and philosophy. For-profit institutions typically offer degrees in fields that have lower instructional costs, such as education, public administration, business, and engineering-related technologies. In doing so, proprietary schools put pressure on the ability of nonprofit colleges and universities to continue to offer some of their more expensive or degree programs.In the near future it is unlikely that enrollment growth at two- and four-year proprietary institutions will put pressure on residential institutions with solid applicant pools. However, their success in increasing market share may have an impact on nonprofit, less selective, commuter four-year institutions and possibly on some two-year colleges as well. Competition from proprietary institutions not only affects the ability of institutions to achieve their overall enrollment goals; it also can affect the organizational and funding structures of two- and four-year institutions. Public and private nonprofit two- and four-year institutions with comprehensive missions always have curricula where some degree programs cost more to offer than tuition and state funding provide in income. They rely on revenue in general education programs or heavily enrolled programs in areas like education, business, and public administration for sufficient revenue for campus administrators to provide internal subsidies. If proprietary institutions are able to increase their enrollments in these program areas at the expense of nonprofit institutions in the same region, nonprofit institutions will have no choice but to re-think their internal subsidization strategies.One competitive advantage of many proprietary institutions is the manner in which they organize their degree programs. Rather than a traditional general education program that offers many courses to fulfill degree requirements (offered at many different times of the day), proprietary institutions often offer cohort-based programs which move students through the curriculum in a more structured fashion. Thus students can plan their personal lives and work schedules so as to move through a program of studies in a planned and predictable manner. While many academics might criticize this approach for limiting the breadth of a student’s education, it is likely more effective for many first-generation college students who are focused on their career goals and less familiar with the intellectual terrain of traditional institutions. This kind of structure may provide what many working students need to increase their odds of succeeding and earning a degree.It behooves enrollment managers to have an understanding of enrollment and curricular changes in the proprietary sector of postsecondary education. From a strategic perspective, understanding the business models employed by this sector can assist enrollment managers at public and private nonprofit colleges and universities to more effectively craft strategies that enable them to achieve their enrollment goals. In this issue of the Enrollment Management Review we look at the structure, strategies, and student enrollment patterns at proprietary institutions.________________________________________________________________________Breneman, D.; Pusser, B.; & Turner, S. E. (Eds.). (2006). Earnings from Learning: The Rise of For-Profit Universities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.In their comprehensive look at for-profit proprietary institutions, Breneman, Pusser, and Turner consider the mission of proprietary institutions, how the rise of for-profit institutions fit within the American tradition of postsecondary education as a public good, and how enrollments have evolved in this sector. This volume contains an interesting examination of the internal organizational structure of the University of Phoenix and how this affects that institution’s delivery of education. The authors also examine how the lobbying efforts of for-profits have increased their political clout.The first four chapters of Earnings from Learning are the most interesting for practicing enrollment managers. One of the most important elements in the first chapter, which describes various forms of for-profit education, is the authors’ efforts to disaggregate this sector. Pointing out that analysts and reporters often overestimate the size of the competition for two- and four-year degree offerings due to aggregating all forms of for-profit education including training and development, the authors note that proprietary institutions account for only 2% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded and 3% of all master’s degrees. However, the overall number of degrees awarded has increased by 30% between 1982 and 2002. Thus, it is the potential for additional growth that makes this a competitive sector that merits tracking in future years.Next, Brian Pusser provides a thoughtful essay on the shifting views of policy makers on the role of government in providing postsecondary education, observing that there has been little speculation about what kind of education can be provided with limited government subsidies. He asks the provocative question, “how higher education’s contribution to the public good can be ensured if nonprofit public production gives way to a for-profit market?” This if followed by Sarah Turner’s overview of enrollment increases in the proprietary sector.In the fourth chapter Breneman describes the organization of the University of Phoenix, noting that, while the institution does not require SAT or ACT scores and does not look at previous high school performance, once students enroll it does invest heavily in assessment, including cognitive, critical thinking, and communication tests that use pre- and post-test models. Despite this focus on assessment, however, Breneman wonders whether fewer class hours, a reliance on part-time faculty who are not paid well, often limited access to libraries, and common course syllabi in all courses around the country to achieve efficiencies may limit the quality of the education offered.Chapters 5 and 6 of this volume may also be of interest to enrollment managers with responsibilities for summer school and distance education programs. In total, Breneman, Pusser, and Turner have authored a timely, substantive, and interesting look at for-profit degree-granting postsecondary institutions.Pusser, B. (Ed.). (2005). Arenas of Entrepreneurship: Where Nonprofit and For-profit Institutions Compete. New Directions for Higher Education, No. 129. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.This edited volume expands the analysis of for-profit higher education to include a review of the entrepreneurial activities nonprofit institutions have employed in response to the growing competitive threat of for-profits, as well as changing student demographics and expectations. Many of the chapter authors utilized their work on the Lumina-funded Emerging Pathways to Access and Success project as the basis for their contributions. The result is an eclectic collection of materials that includes a foundational chapter on the factors leading to the increase of entrepreneurial activities in higher education; a discussion of the rise of the business culture in the administration of community colleges; descriptive studies on continuing education programs, summer session offerings, and noncredit course offerings; a solid analysis of accreditation activities in for-profit institutions; and a final chapter positing that as institutions become more market oriented they are moving away from their public missions.A few nuggets in this volume address specific enrollment management strategies and tactics and, in keeping with the theme of this issue, help to extend enrollment managers’ understanding of how for-profit institutions work and the nature of the competition they present. Efforts to analyze the entrepreneurial activities of for-profit and nonprofit institutions empirically are appreciated and much needed. The results are still preliminary, however, and readers are cautioned not to accept all of them as well established facts. Three of the seven chapters merit more detailed discussion here.David Breneman opens this work by providing a valuable review of the environmental factors that have led to the increase in institutional entrepreneurial activities. From decreasing public financial support to changing student demographics and the proliferation of new technologies, Breneman discusses the impact of these forces on public, private, and for-profit institutions as well as on university schools of continuing education. Breneman sets the foundation for the remainder of the volume, which shows essentially that public and private institutions have been quite innovative and successful in responding to these market forces.At the end of the chapter, Breneman turns his attention to for-profit institutions and the conclusions reached in his book reviewed above, Earnings from Learning: The Rise of For-Profit Universities (with Brian Pusser and Sarah Turner). Those conclusions were: (1) the for-profits are solidly entrenched in the education sector, and approval of such education will only increase in the future; (2) for-profits do not currently pose a significant threat for most traditional colleges and universities, as they extend the market to students who would normally not enroll at all; (3) nonprofits can learn from the for-profits in how they serve students and tightly focus their academic programs; and (4) distance learning and accreditation are not distinguishing features that can be exclusively associated with for-profit or nonprofit institutions respectively.Kevin Kinser’s chapter, “A Profile of Regionally Accredited For-Profit Institutions of Higher Education,” is the strongest contribution to this monograph and one that enrollment managers will find particularly beneficial. Kinser undertakes the challenge of trying to determine the number of regionally accredited, for-profit institutions and the characteristics of these institutions. It was interesting to learn what a difficult task that turned out to be, given the lack of consistent national data, as well as the incorrect information maintained by the accreditation associations themselves. In his final tally, Kinser determined the number of regionally-accredited for-profit institutions totaled 65 (382 separate campuses), about 2% of all institutions accredited by the eight regional commissions. More interesting was the fact that the North Central Association accredits 68% of all for-profit campuses. Given that North Central accredits a wider variety of nontraditional institutions and academic models, Kinser posits that accreditation-shopping does take place as for-profit institutions continue to seek regional accreditation as a business objective. According to Kinser, the value of accreditation takes three forms for for-profit institutions: (1) regional accreditation aids in credit transfer for students; (2) accreditation serves as a mark of distinction differentiating institutions from one another; and (3) it provides a useful association with more traditional, well-known nonprofit institutions. While accreditation shopping does take place and the number of regionally accredited for-profit institutions has increased, Kinser effectively makes the case that the number of for-profit institutions seeking regional accreditation is not likely to grow dramatically in the future. Ruch, R. S. (2001). Higher Ed, Inc. The rise of the For-Profit University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Richard Ruch is uniquely situated to provide insights on the similarities and differences between for-profit and nonprofit institutions of higher education. Over the course of his career, Ruch served as a tenured faculty member and academic dean at traditional universities before becoming the chief academic officer at a DeVry Institute of Technology campus. While the insights Ruch shares in this book will prove valuable for those new to enrollment management or new to the competitive threat posed by the large, corporate, for-profit institutions, the text is disappointingly light in detailing the admission and retention strategies, academic support services, and other policies and practices the for-profits employ to serve students. The book does, however, provide insights into the ways this sector successfully competes with the nonprofit sector for students. It is also worth noting that the literature on for-profit institutions has grown considerably since Ruch’s text was published in 2001, so some of the evidence used to support and explain the advantages of for-profit institutions will seem antiquated to enrollment managers that have spent time doing any homework on this growing competitive force.Ruch focuses his discussion and analysis on several education corporations that have taken a more prominent role in the for-profit higher education sector. The highlighted companies include the Apollo Group (University of Phoenix), Argosy Education Group (American Schools of Professional Psychology), DeVry, Inc. (DeVry Institutes of Technology), Education Management Corporation (Art Institutes International), and Strayer Education, Inc. (Strayer University). Ruch dedicates an entire chapter to providing a brief sketch of each company, its academic programs, and its student/enrollment profiles. Much of Ruch’s analysis is grounded in dispelling the notion that “for-profit” and “nonprofit” are accurate labels to differentiate between proprietary and independent institutions, preferring to use the terms “tax-paying” and “tax-exempt.” The following table outlines these and further distinctions Ruch makes between independent and proprietary institutions:Nonprofit For-profitTax-exemptTax-payingDonorsInvestorsEndowmentPrivate investment capitalStakeholdersStockholdersShared governanceTraditional managementPrestige motiveProfit motiveCultivation of knowledgeApplication of learningDiscipline-drivenMarket-drivenQuality of inputsQuality of outcomesFaculty powerCustomer power Ruch posits that for-profit institutions succeed because their business management model allows them to be more nimble and flexible in adjusting to the demands of the marketplace. Citing the 2000 HERI Freshman Survey, Ruch points out that today’s freshmen list “to be able to get a better job” and “to get training for a specific career” as the top reasons they go to college and “being very well off financially” as the top goal they hope to achieve by going to college. By focusing on high-demand academic programs and investing significant resources in career placement and employment services, for-profit institutions capitalize on student motivations for pursuing postsecondary education and structure the entire operation in meeting this demand. Ruch challenges the notion that for-profit institutions succeed at the expense of students and the quality of the academic program, noting that many corporate institutions have pursued and have successfully attained regional accreditation for their academic programs.Despite these claims, it is clear that for-profits attain their economies of scale at the expense of traditional faculty roles and structures. Most for-profit faculty members are not eligible for tenure, receive no sabbatical or release time for disciplinary research, and play a limited role in the development of curricula and the assignment of class times. In for-profit institutions the faculty are there to teach and little more. In fact, the more practical they are with their teaching, the better. By employing a business management model that limits the power of the faculty, for-profit institutions are able to add and drop academic programs quickly, target academic financial investments solely on the classroom experience, and fully utilize the physical plant by offering a greater number and greater array of class options. These advantages will come as no surprise to enrollment managers at comprehensive institutions that have a for-profit provider in their market.Ruch notes that for-profit institutions tend to draw a high number of students from traditionally disadvantaged populations (i.e., women, minority, working adults, and low-income). While he acknowledges that degree completion rates are lower at for-profit institutions, he dismisses these differences as insignificant. Such an analysis would be strengthened if information regarding graduation performance relative to the demographic characteristics of the student populations served was included. In addition, there seems to be a heavy emphasis on student retention and grade distribution data in driving accountability measures in the for-profit environment. For example, when discussing the dean’s role in faculty supervision, Ruch states, “Grade distributions and student retention data are also reviewed each semester. Wide deviations from the norm for similar courses are discussed with the faculty member and changes are expected as a result (p.128).” No elaboration is given regarding the expected “changes,” feeding the perception that academic rigor is compromised for the sake of keeping students happy and enrolled. Future editions of the text would be enhanced if Ruch provided greater depth of understanding regarding the various roles data plays in institutional decision making.Briefly Noted:Green, M.; Eckel, P, D.; Calderon, L.; & Luu, D. T. (2007). Venturing Abroad: Delivering US Degrees Through Overseas Branch Campuses and Programs. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Enrollment managers are often asked to be part of deliberations regarding the possibility of adding branch campuses for two- and four-year colleges and universities. In most instances the locations for these proposed campuses are in nearby communities. Increasingly, however, universities in the U.S. are adding campuses or offering programs in other countries. This new ACE monograph provides a very useful overview of issues for colleges or universities considering opening a branch campus in another country and includes sections on opportunities for cross-border education; descriptions of the types of providers, curricula, students, and faculty involved; global hot-spots; and key issues that institutional leaders should consider. It also contains a list of institutions and countries where cross-border U.S. institutions are currently located.Tucciarone, K. (2007). Vying for Attention: How Does Advertising Affect Search and College Choice. College and University, 83(1), 26-35.A variety of forms of advertising are now standard in admissions marketing, but we know little about their efficacy. Tucciarone’s qualitative study sheds some light on this question and reinforces the conclusions of some other studies of the factors that influence the college decision-making process. The author interviewed 69 undergraduates enrolled in advertising classes enrolled at a public university. Because of the small sample caution should be exercised in attributing too much certainty to its findings.The types of marketing the author categorizes as advertising include radio, TV, direct mail, the Web, billboards, and high school visits. Tucciarone found that none of the students identified advertising as a direct influence on either the search or choice stages of the college decision-making process. Indeed, until they were prompted by the researcher, none of these forms of advertising were mentioned as factors in their decisions. The students had to be reminded of the marketing material before they remembered their exposure to it. The author found that parents, siblings, friends, cost, and location were considerably more influential in both the search and choice stages. Although she does not provide much evidence to support her assertions, the author concludes that advertising, when targeted to specific audiences, and integrated with a holistic admissions recruitment effort can influence the enrollment decisions of students. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download