Part I: Faculty and Student Recruitment: A Fresh Look

Part I: Setting the stage…

For 30 years I wrestled with the question, how influential really is student engagement with undergraduate faculty during the admission process in the decision to enroll at the university?

For decades, I participated in summer admission staff planning retreats where we asked ourselves annually without fail: how should we approach our faculty colleagues this year in hopes of making the case for their involvement in student recruitment activities?

The fact this was an annual question we asked our admission team should be enough to suggest how much progress was made.

So, what does one do with these misgivings resulting from mediocre strategic planning outcomes? You decide to turn the challenge into the focus of your doctoral dissertation. In my case, The Influence of Participation by Undergraduate Faculty in Student Recruitment Activities on Freshman Enrollment and Persistence (© 2019).

Using this doctoral dissertation topic as the foundation of this blog series (including excerpts of my writing), we will examine the issue – from an introductory understanding of the challenge, to focused research, to findings and conclusions, and then finally, what’s next?

Let’s be honest. I am just one of countless enrollment management practitioners who have at one time or another felt rudderless on how best to extend the olive branch to faculty colleagues. And that perhaps was mistake number one. It was rather perfunctory, an obligatory effort. I have been guilty of delivering inches-thick stacks of green and white striped dot matrix printer output to faculty with names of students to call (OK, that was the 1980’s). Like buying a lottery ticket, there was not much hope attached to these efforts. I just knew we needed to say we had “partnered with the faculty.”

Is addressing this challenge truly of interest to the academy? A portion of my dissertation follows to share what others have had to say on the topic. This may be a good place to begin…and to find solace.

Historically, persuading faculty to be involved in recruiting students has not been without its challenges, and many admission professionals doubt their ability to engage faculty members (Hoover, 2011). Senior administrators and faculty at some institutions have adopted the traditional view that enrollment management is the responsibility of the admission office (Reyes, 2015). While enrollment management at its inception was primarily a responsibility of admission and financial aid employees, colleges and universities with enrollment challenges have reshaped recruitment and retention strategies into a common goal to be shared by all constituents (Callahan, 2014).

Given the competitive nature of student recruitment, there has remained a prevailing need for some institutions to identify which recruitment strategies are most effective. When reflecting on this critical dilemma Johnston (2010) noted, “Universities are challenged to attract good students to enroll each year, in competition with other universities. Higher education marketing, also called enrollment management, is a big business and itself an academic field” (p. 15).

Identifying potential alignment between the student and the institution has traditionally begun in the recruitment stage and focused on likely academic success and a high degree of fit (Bontrager, 2004). In some instances, more than 70% of students choosing a subject university reported a conversation with a professor in a specific area of study during the admission process (Rocca, 2013). There has been a shift in some segments of higher education toward a more nimble enrollment management approach in which the roles of individuals and departments have adjusted based on the needs of the institution (Kalsbeek, 2001). Erickson (2015) noted, “When committed to the mission of the institution, faculty members serve as its greatest ambassadors and are able to authoritatively communicate its benefits” (Slide 6).

The race to differentiate one’s institutional brand among competitors in the marketplace for college-bound freshman has only intensified in recent years (Joseph, Mullen, & Spake, 2012). Wiggan (2015), asserted, “No longer can institutions rely on subpar marketing approaches or their historical reputation and image to attract students each year” (p. 47). Research has shown that relationship marketing strategies should focus on the lifecycle from student recruitment, to retention, to graduation, and beyond (Wiggan, 2015).

Flat or diminishing student recruiting budgets, coupled with increasingly savvy college-bound consumers, have further escalated the question of whether greater responsibility should be shared by the faculty given that traditional private institutions have been under stress for some time, including escalating tuition discount rates (Common Fund Institute, 2017). Institutions of all kinds have placed significant importance on student recruitment due to economic shifts (Callahan, 2014). Given these swings in the economy, most institutions have recognized that student enrollment cannot be taken for granted (Reyes, 2015). The concerning trend related to college completion has remained relevant, as more than 31 million students left college from 1994 to 2014 without a degree (Snyder, 2014).

Research into various forms of student recruitment messaging has found that in specific university populations, faculty and staff can be the most influential voices in the decision to enroll; in some instances, their influence may even exceed that of the parents (Johnston, 2010). Further, faculty and prospective student interaction has been shown to influence the initial decision to apply for admission (more so for private institutions), confirming the critical role of faculty members throughout the entire admission funnel (Joseph et al., 2012). Beyond engagement, admitted students’ perception of the quality and reputation of faculty influence their choice of institution, with matriculants rating quality and reputation higher than non-matriculants (Rocca, 2013).

Over time, the relationship between a student’s sense of connection to a university and the probability of enrollment has remained critical. While university officials might have previously assumed expensive investments in sophisticated recruiting technologies were most influential in the student’s decision to enroll, high-touch interaction between the institution and students remained more persuasive than high-tech strategies (Johnston, 2010). Beyond engagement with the academic area of the university during the recruitment period, purposeful engagement in activities focused on academic outcomes – represented by academic performance – have had the greatest influence on the probability of sophomore year retention (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie & Gonyea, 2008).

What does this all suggest? Let Erickson’s comment above sink in…“When committed to the mission of the institution, faculty members serve as its greatest ambassadors and are able to authoritatively communicate its benefits.”

Upcoming…

In future blog posts, we’ll take a closer look at my journey to determine the influence, if any, of faculty and academic units’ engagement with prospective students on freshman year enrollment, as well as the impact of such engagement on eventual persistence to the sophomore year. I was particularly interested in the relationship between the degree of student-reported importance placed on engagement with undergraduate faculty during the admission process and eventual yield at the university on which the study was focused.

For now, consider an ctrl-alt-delete of the admission office / faculty game of push, pull, and tug. Let’s take a fresh look. And let’s envision a new relationship built on respect, research, and results.

To be continued.

(To access the dissertation noted in this blog, including the reference list of citations included above, please visit ProQuest Central’s dissertation data base.)

David Mee, Ed.D. is Vice President for Enrollment Management at Campbell University (NC). His 33-year career has included multiple enrollment leadership positions, as well as consulting projects at more than 60 colleges and universities. Dr. Mee welcomes feedback at dmee@campbell.edu.