Dangerous Band-Aids, Part I:

The Legerdemain of Modern “Enrollment Management”

 

Q: “When can apparently good news be bad?”  

A: “When it provides a false sense of security.”

 

A growing number of college presidents are acknowledging the higher education operating model has to change (though if TIME magazine’s reporting is to be believed, a startling number are not of that opinion, in direct contrast with their customer base).

One hopes these presidents are listening to their in-house market experts, the admissions and financial aid staff whose work bridges the gap between important on- and off-campus constituents.

Modern admissions marketing communication wizardry, global-reach recruiting campaigns, and sophisticated cost leveraging schemes continue to salve fears that change needs to come soon.  Recruiting and financial aid packing tactics at many colleges seem to be masking an “it’s later than we think” reality, making practitioners in those fields increasingly concerned.

I hosted or was part of three standing-room-only sessions at NACAC and at the New York State financial aid association meeting the following week.  In every setting I sensed an odd mixture of pride-of-accomplishment, guilt, and concern about the future.  The pride comes from making an increasingly difficult (juggling mutually-exclusive imperatives) job look too easy.  The guilt and concern come from making a tough job look too easy, thus blunting effectiveness of delivering messages many on campus don’t want to hear.

Reporting from The College Board Forum, The Chronicle’s Eric Hoover cites Pomona’s Seth Allen’s concern:  “It’s a prevalent notion in academe that recruiting more students from faraway shores can fix a college’s revenue problems. Foreign students, Mr. Allen said, are the latest incarnation of the ‘next great thing’ that promises to solve enrollment challenges. He warned his audience, however, that such thinking could distract college officials from frank discussions about their rising costs.

“’When are we actually going to have this conversation?’ Mr. Allen asked. ‘Because I don’t think the next great thing is around the corner for us.’”

Seth’s is one of a growing number of voices from the admissions and financial aid world whose embedded “market readings” urge intelligent action, sooner rather than later, as they see their tactics’n’tricks diminishing.

Across the country from Pomona, Pennsylvania’s Albright College is doing away with one such tactic, the practice of financial aid gapping.

Kevin Kiley of Inside Highered shined a bright light on the all-too-often overlooked flip side of college cost, financial aid gapping in a story this summer and recently followed-up with a report on Albright College’s eyes-wide-open, pragmatic approach to weaning itself away from gapping.  Albright’s Greg Eichhorn has succeeded in helping his college take a longer view: by “managing down” the gap, Eichhorn figures, Albright will be able to grow headcount (through improved admissions yield and subsequent retention) and increase the lifetime value of a customer, with financial and student satisfaction benefits that will more than offset the anticipated increase in discount rate (arguably one of the most dangerously misused metrics in higher education).

Professionals in the enrollment field – admissions and financial aid staff – are in an increasingly difficult position.  Trained to serve both their college and their families, many are finding what was once a normal complimentary practice is becoming untenable.  As committed, intelligent highered stakeholders, one hopes campus leaders recognize their credibility and seek their insights, soon.