Part II: Faculty and Student Recruitment: A Fresh Look
What does the literature suggest?
In Part I of this blog series, I shared a question with which I have wrestled for decades: how influential really is student engagement with undergraduate faculty during the admission process in the decision to enroll at the university? (Click here to read Part I: Setting the stage…)
Among the more poignant observations on the topic was offered by Erickson (2015): “When committed to the mission of the institution, faculty members serve as its greatest ambassadors and are able to authoritatively communicate its benefits.”
The world of enrollment management features a history of emerging strategies.
Understanding the history and theories associated with enrollment management is foundational to developing a research agenda focused on identifying increasingly effective methods to positively impact student recruitment and retention. The structure of enrollment management, while simplistic in name, is rife with varied interpretations of its meaning, core concepts, and infrastructure principles (Bontrager, 2004).
A thorough consideration of the literature reveals key components.
Enrollment Management Construct: The structure of enrollment management, while simplistic in name, is rife with varied interpretations of its meaning, core concepts, and infrastructure principles (Bontrager, 2004).
Student Recruitment Practices: Furukawa (2011), argued, “Despite the amount of communication provided by the institution, the final decision of institution comes down to how well the student feels they fit with a particular institution” (p. 33).
Student Persistence Practices: University administrators have become increasingly aware that students have not been connecting well with faculty who would serve as advisers, and as a result were leaving school (Confessore, 2003).
Emotional Intelligence of Prospective and Current College Students: Enrollment managers can also view EI and its relation to social intelligence, including interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence (Garg & Singh, 2016).
University Roles and Responsibilities: It is further understood that enrollment managers’ success in gaining the respect of faculty is critical (Liedtke, 2013). Central to this strategy, then, is the notion that enrollment leaders must first be viewed as peers – administrative colleagues who both respect the traditional work of the faculty and understand their potential role in recruitment and retention may, at least partially, be a voluntary activity.
Data, Technology, and Research Support in Enrollment Management: Dupaul (2012) shared what has become common knowledge in the industry, namely that, “Admission officers use historical data to predict how students’ progress through the search and enrollment process. The traditional admission funnel model tracks the movement of prospective students through specific stages: prospect, applicant, admit, and matriculant” (p. 9).
So, as we move closer to studying a given university’s admitted student pool in order to shed light on whether faculty do indeed play an important role in student yield and persistence decisions, what do the above six components suggest?
How the enrollment management division is organized is critical. Perhaps more important than the organizational chart is the explanation given to key academic and administrative colleagues across campus of the how and why of EM’s desire to strategically influence faculty and academic outreach as a constant in the student recruitment and retention plan. In fairness to my academic colleagues, they deserve clarity and a focused effort - not random, last minute pleas to “call these students.” Academic leadership should be in the trenches with their enrollment colleagues in forging the plan; it should be a shared effort with joint partnership.
The three most important letters in the college search journey are not SAT (or ACT). They are F-I-T. All plans for faculty outreach should have this as the driver for messaging. It is not about “convincing.” Remember, student recruitment with a view on persistence is a hallmark of a healthy enrollment environment.
Connecting with faculty as advisors and mentors does not need to wait until the first day of classes. The admission to matriculation process on most campuses is likely not as seamless as it should be. Engagement with faculty during the admission cycle helps to reduce the notion that academic advising is merely transactional.
Institutions that ignore knowledge gleaned through broader research on emotional intelligence do so at their own risk. College choice is a complex matter.
Enrollment managers who garner the respect of the faculty will benefit immeasurably. Delaying the creation and implementation of a new academic outreach and communication plan may be necessary to address lingering matters of trust, etc. (A future blog post will expand on this point.)
We need to rethink the funnel approach and help our partners across campus better understand conversion, yield, etc. trends. Simply pouring more names in the top of the funnel will not cure all ills - and we know that. So, let’s frame the conversation based on solid research and the impact of 1% and 2% gains in key stages. And if you are operating in a primarily lagging indicator environment, the opportunity to adjust strategies to respond to surprises during the recruitment cycle will be limited at best. We should build our data-informed foundation on the basis of leading indicators – aka the daily view.
My previous blog post and this post’s discussion have set the stage for the next conversation where we will consider a set of research questions and the results of the given study…leading to recommendations and next steps.
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.
