Part IV: Faculty and Student Recruitment: A Fresh Look
The Final Installment. What’s Next?
In the three previous blogs (I, II, III) on the subject of Faculty and Student Recruitment, we’ve considered the problem, the literature, and a research example in response to the question, how influential really is student engagement with undergraduate faculty during the admission process in the decision to enroll at the university?
We acknowledged Erickson’s (2015) comment, “When committed to the mission of the institution, faculty members serve as its greatest ambassadors and are able to authoritatively communicate its benefits”
We conceded the world of enrollment management is not understood in a single, uniform fashion. 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).
The research project confirmed students enrolling at the subject university where there is a well-established faculty outreach plan reported higher faculty engagement importance scores than those enrolling elsewhere.
So, what’s next?
I offer four practical, research-informed observations as the final word in this blog series.
1. Evaluate Organizational Culture: Assess campus readiness, motivation, and interest
Admission and student recruitment work is fast-paced and subject to new strategies being launched with relatively little lead time.
Whether an institution is truly ready to implement a comprehensive faculty engagement plan (including all forms of outreach discussed in this study) depends on a thorough and honest evaluation of organizational readiness.
Effective enrollment management operations embrace the process for collaborative, purposeful, and respectful dialogue to reach strategy decisions, when implemented, hold the potential for positively impacting enrollment. This is critical to the study of faculty involvement in recruitment and retention, as well as related conclusions and recommendations. Henderson (2015), expounded, “The enrollment manager's chief allies will be the academic leadership of the campus, those who understand best the academic character of the institution. Enrollment structure follows academic understanding, and therein lies the future of enrollment management” (p. 8). Therefore, the chief enrollment officer must lead, together with others senior colleagues, an assessment of the degree to which academic leadership is prepared to embrace next steps in formulating a plan for faculty engagement – which will include the argument this approach is ultimately in the best interest of students (during the prospect and applicants stages, as well as through assimilation as new students to the university).
Delaying the creation and implementation of the faculty engagement plan until there is leadership agreement and faculty who are well-informed to the rationale of the new approach is strategic in and of itself.
2. Create Clarity: Establish the rationale for a faculty engagement plan, roles, and responsibilities
While it is generally understood most new strategies intended to impact student recruitment are done with an eye on growing enrollment, net revenue, and student profile, it is critical to communicate the broader rationale – most notably ensuring institutional fit. Liedtke (2013), offered: Enrollment managers are tasked with not just finding any student to enroll, but more importantly, the right students who will matriculate and graduate. In the enrollment management industry, the ‘right student’ is the student who is considered a good fit based on the institutional mission and the enriching atmosphere provided on the institution’s campus. (p. 2)
Faculty are well-suited to aiding prospective students in this journey of discernment and beyond. They serve as trusted mentors extending from the admission process to matriculation to full engagement as enrolled students. While not attempting to be overly rigid, the communication plan must illustrate clearly when, how, and with whom faculty will engage. Critical areas should include telephone outreach, email communication, in-person interaction, and follow-up systems for student-generated questions. Admission leadership should build these plans in concert with faculty and marketing colleagues. Flexibility will be a key – it should be expected that edits to the plan will be numerous during the first admission cycle of implementation.
Timeliness will be an important guiding principle. The researcher previously contended: when once waiting days for a packet of the requested information to arrive in the mail was the norm, web-based communication and interaction have created a generation whose definition of expected communication differs radically from how their parents approached the college search. The findings presented in this chapter confirmed retained students to the sophomore year reported a faculty engagement importance score mean from the admission process of 14.35 versus 14.54 for non-returning students. While the mean difference of 0.19 may not appear significant, this was a consequential finding.
There was not a positive relationship between the faculty engagement importance score and sophomore retention, holding all other variables constant. As a result, it is recommended a review of messaging and related activities during the recruitment relationship be conducted to ensure there is coherence between what a student experiences during the admission process and the freshman year.
3. Establish Priorities: Identify where to beginGiven the faculty engagement importance scores associated with telephone outreach by faculty, it is recommended careful attention be paid to determining how best to prioritize this strategy focusing on the best possible return on investment of faculty time and resources.
Options may include an opt-in program whereby students request faculty phone outreach with a pre-determined day and time for the outreach. Further research should be pursued moving forward to shed greater light on this topic and inform strategies specific to the college or university.
The faculty engagement importance scores associated with campus visits were among the highest mean scores of all areas of faculty engagement throughout the admission process. Resources associated with prospective student visits to campus should be of the highest priority, including systems that ensure students can meet with faculty in the areas of interest (e.g., laboratories, performance venues, etc.).
As students’ ACT composite scores increased, faculty engagement scores decreased (the importance these students placed on faculty engagement). Likewise, students who were not offered a merit-based scholarship by sample university reported a higher faculty engagement importance score mean. College and universities who wish to grow their freshman class enrollment will benefit from recognizing this reality and acting upon it.
4. Ensure Vigorous Attention to Details: Monitor follow-through and metrics.
The researcher can confirm from several years of experience how critical follow through on well-developed plans, supported by leading indicators and regular strategy adjustments, are to sustainable success.
Faculty engagement as a core student recruitment activity must be employed institution-wide in order to maximize its benefits for both students and the university.
Follow up systems to ensure ongoing completion of all assigned tasks and activities is critical (especially for accurate post-admission cycle analysis). Further, institutional research and assessment colleagues should be included in all planning, ongoing analytics, and future decision-making concerning faculty engagement.
Significant findings should be shared widely with faculty as a sign of respect for their efforts and as an invitation to participate in continuous improvement for the program.
When considering the above recommendations in full context, it is clear the researcher intended to provide strategic, yet manageable, next steps in the journey toward extensive faculty engagement in the admission and student recruitment process. Of great importance will be the foundational steps – assessing institutional culture and readiness, as well as building a strong case for the efficacy of such efforts.
Enrollment leaders and faculty must view each other as equal colleagues in these endeavors; each is reliant on the other to support an exceptionally collaborative project among colleagues whose paths might not routinely intersect. Long-term sustainability of faculty engagement programs will require careful attention to closing the information loop, including results (outcomes) and potential changes to the annual strategies based on what the data suggests.
The bottom line: getting started does not necessarily mean announcing the plan. As I shared, effective enrollment management operations embrace the process for collaborative, purposeful, and respectful dialogue to reach strategy decisions that, when implemented, hold the potential for positively impacting enrollment.
Most faculty engagement plans in student recruitment that succeed do so because of the foundation built. The actual strategies are often secondary to building an environment of collaboration, prioritizing the greatest return on the investment of faculty time, and then establishing a system of leading indicators and important metrics.
(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.
