For years admissions officers at nonprofit colleges have wrestled with the complexity of their jobs. They are counselors, but also recruiters. They use marketing techniques, but many don’t like to use the “m word.” They may conduct “holistic” reviews of applicants, but their enrollment goals include hard numbers and statistics.
Nonetheless, many have long seen a line—a big, bright one—that distinguishes them from their counterparts at for-profit colleges. On the one side there are “admissions professionals” who advise; on the other side there are salespeople who sell.
On Wednesday, David A. Hawkins elaborated on this distinction during his testimony at a U.S. Senate hearing on marketing and recruitment in for-profit education. Mr. Hawkins is director of public policy and research at the National Association for College Admission Counseling, known as NACAC, which represents some 1,100 nonprofit colleges and universities.
At issue is the Education Department’s proposed new “incentive compensation” rule, which would tighten a longstanding federal ban on commissions for college recruiters. The rule, applying to for-profit and nonprofit institutions, would eliminate the law’s 12 “safe harbors,” which have allowed colleges to pay commissions as long as they are not based “solely” on recruitment volume.
Both NACAC and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Officers support the Education Department’s new language. “Reducing the basis for compensation to the number of students enrolled in any circumstance,” Mr. Hawkins said at Wednesday’s hearing, “introduces an incentive for recruiters to ignore the student interest in the transition to postsecondary education.”
Mr. Hawkins acknowledges that officials at nonprofit colleges care a lot about the number of students who enroll. And, of course, they keep a close eye on the number of applications they receive. The more, the better, is a general rule in admissions.
Nonetheless, there’s a longstanding cultural difference between for-profit and nonprofit admissions offices. In an interview this week, Mr. Hawkins said the commission-based models at some for-profit colleges are a far cry from the recruiting practices within the association.
NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practice says that members are to receive a fixed salary rather than commissions or bonuses based on recruitment numbers. “If you’re striving to increase enrollment by 25 percent over the next three years, your senior admission officer’s evaluation is certainly going to be partly based on whether that goal is reached,” he says. “But under our standards, that admission officer’s pay has not been adjusted based on how many students that person recruited.”
For this reason, Mr. Hawkins doesn’t expect the department’s new language to affect the association’s members, whose performance evaluations typically include numerous elements, like how well they represent their college, manage their office, recruit staff members, and work with other administrators.
“We know that nonprofit institutions often will evaluate senior-level admissions officers based on the idea that they are to recruit a finite number of students for admission in a given year,” Mr. Hawkins says. “The key there is ‘finite.’”
In other words, the number of dorms, beds, and instructors on a traditional campus are a check on enrollment growth. Over-enrollment may be better than under-enrollment, but it’s often an unpleasant problem. Just ask any admissions dean who’s ever had to tell the campus housing director that the freshman class is 10 percent larger than expected.
“It’s very difficult for a nonprofit college to scale up—they’re just not structured that way,” says Donald R. Hossler, executive director of the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center and a professor of educational leadership and policy studies at Indiana University at Bloomington.
Mr. Hossler, former vice chancellor for enrollment services at Indiana, says it’s rare for presidents or trustees at nonprofit colleges to adjust the salary of an admissions or enrollment official (or any administrator) after setting them for a given year. “Your salary is what it is,” he says.
Recent news of recruiters earning big commissions at for-profit colleges made Mr. Hossler think about the lot of admissions representatives who work on the nonprofit side. “The road-running admissions officers, they don’t get paid peanuts,” he says. “A good case could be made, given what’s riding on admissions, that those are the people who should be paid more.”
12 Responses to On ‘Finite’ Recruitment
jsbutler - August 5, 2010 at 8:47 am
There are legitimate problems with for-profit institutions, but arguments that don’t relate to helping the the non-traditional students who use for-profit schools aren’t helpful. Argueing that nonprofits are more moral because they are limited by “the number of dorms, beds, and instructors on a traditional campus” doesn’t even apply to many urban nonprofit schools. The premise that nonprofit schools aren’t “structured” to help a growing need for education of a nontraditional student body is both false, and suggests an elitest immorality. I expect legislators to say dumb things, but hope for better among educators.
11147066 - August 5, 2010 at 10:34 am
Perhaps Mr. Hoover should comment on the whole unregulated process of college admissions, and examine the “credentials” of college admissions officers. On the whole, they do not have any specific professional training. Often they are graduates of the college who have an opportunity to be employed by an admissions office specifically because they lack training in a specific career or preparation for a graduate school path. A second issue, which has been treated by the Chronicle in a past article, is the controversial role of alumni in interviewing and offering information to prospective students, for example, at college fairs. College admissions is an amorphous process that lacks transparency and accountability. This article, as do many others, lacks perspective on the big picture. People have become accepting of the idea that admissions offices are entitled to emply a mysterious and “holistic” process in selecting students. Few of us would advocate a system based only on standardized tests, but maybe some degree of standardization should be in order. Emily NY
softshellcrab - August 5, 2010 at 11:14 am
For profit schools are largely simply money-machines, without standards and all about getting and keeping students and their tuition dollars. I keep saying this on various posts and I will continue to. My apologies to for profit faculty, as I don’t mean to be rude. But the point needs to be made that for-profit schools are basically a scam, all about making money. I won’t argue that plenty of problems don’t also exist at nonprofits and state schools, especially some hungry smaller, private schools, but there it is spotty – some are very strict with high standards, others or not. In fact it varies from program to program within non profit and state schools. But everything I see shows that basically all for profit schools are simply scans to make money. And a for-profit, online class is simply off the chart. One might as well just hand the student the grade.
ldkelm - August 5, 2010 at 12:00 pm
4. ldkelm, August 5, 2010 at 8:48 amI would like to stand up for the “for-profit” schools. It is certainly possible that the quality of education may be in question with a number of them, but I believe there are some “for-profit” schools that do a fine job of educating their students. I work for a “non-profit”, but my bachelor’s degree is from a “for-profit”, so I do have experience. I believe that both types of schools are necessary. The “for-profit” cater to the working adults (most of the time); whereas, the “non-profit cater to high school graduates, though I realize that both schools have both types of students. If the “for-profit” schools are not providing quality education, it doesn’t really matter what rules are put forth, they won’t follow them. Higher education for everyone has been touted for too long. There are certain students who should not go to college. They are ill-prepared and they usually drop out. Instead of being concerned about “for-profit” and “non-profit”, maybe we as educators and citizens should encourage the right kind of education for our students, depending on their aptitude, skills, and potential for employment.
schwnj - August 5, 2010 at 7:09 pm
@softshellcrab: Keep posting it. It needs to be said.
kimberling - August 5, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Why does NACAC continue to exclude for-profits from membership, many years after regional accreditors and AACRAO have opened their doors? Wouldn’t it help improve the ethical practices of admissions advisors in all sectors if the for-profits were invited to participate in NACAC? It would be especially interesting to see how many for-profits would (or would not) decide to subscribe to NACAC’s code of ethics. I would love to see this question posed to NACAC by Senator Harkin.
mystery345 - August 6, 2010 at 12:43 am
@ softshellcrab I think that lumping all for-profits together is a big mistake. There are most then 1000 for-profit schools in the United States yet we look at the actions of the biggest ones and assume that they are all the same. Did you know that for-profit institutions have been in existence since the 18th century? Most for-profits are small non degree granting schools. The person who cuts your hair may very likely have attended a for profit college. Your plumber, electrician, or the person who fixes your car may have as well. For profits provide training for many health professionals such as radiography technicians, medical billing specialists, massage therapists, dental hygienists. Most for profits are non degree granting and not publically traded. It might be helpful to learn a bit more about this third sector of institutions before throwing out assumptions because about 40% of all postsecondary schools are for-profits and many are providing a good education.
davh7278 - August 6, 2010 at 8:50 am
Geez – could this be why they call themselves FOR-PROFIT?
steel1970 - August 6, 2010 at 11:24 am
This is utter nonsense. Non-profit recruiters have a “bright line” and a halo because they can’t make any more dorm beds appear? All that means is that they don’t provide much for the non-traditional student. For that they get rewarded, when those are the people most in need of an education?The piling on for-profits is just insane. My undergraduate and graduate degrees are from public, non-profit universities, my spouse has a degree from a small private college and graduated from a for-profit trade college. I’ve worked for two well-run for-profit colleges. There was little discernable difference between any of them in the level of concern for their students and the quality of education offered. The small private college and the trade college probably offered the best educational experience because their programs were specifically tailored to the needs and interests of the students, the publics were the cheapest, so they all had something to recommend them. Bad practices should certainly be scrutinized and fraud rooted out. but this broad brush painting is utterly insulting to the thousands of hard-working students and dedicated faculty and staff who work hard every day to deliver a quality experience. My graduate school experience at a highly-regarded public university was chock full of lazy instructors phoning it in and pointless classes filled with students interested only in getting a credential. Should they be shut down and all students with this degree tarnished and the instructors thrown out on the street?You really have to wonder how many of these angry posters are working for the shortsellers. They obviously have no interest in seeing both sides of the story, and one has to ask why.
jesor - August 6, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Non-profits aren’t really limited by the number of beds…that was an idiotic statement. What non-profits are limited by is the ability to sell corporate bonds or issue more stock in order to raise the capital needed for expansion. Imagine the exec. director of a non-profit contacting Citigroup in order to arrange a line of financing when they tell them that their margin on cost of education is 0%. Then imagine when the CEO of a for profit goes in and meets with the same exec and they tell them that their margin is 25%. Guess who gets the better financing terms. That model is the simple reason why non-profits (many of which serve non-traditional students and do not have dorms) are not able to expand to accomodate growth.The real gap, particularly in career training isn’t at the 4 year level though, it’s at the community colleges. In some states the public 4 year systems and for-profit school lobbyists have squeezed the funding for the 2 year public systems so hard that there’s just not the funding to offer enough seats even though the tuition to the student would be 10% of what it would be at a for-profit.
steel1970 - August 6, 2010 at 1:46 pm
please explain how “for-profit schools” have taken funding away from 2-year public systems. that is an idiotic statement. for-profit colleges PAY taxes into the system — local, state and federal taxes, property taxes, etc. Community colleges are inexpensive to the student because each student is massively subsidized by the taxpayer. I’m all for expanding community college access but why pretend that without for-profits community colleges would simply pick up the slack? They can’t manage the students that they already have. It would be entirely unaffordable to expand community colleges appropriately unless we wanted to say, raise taxes. Somehow I am not seeing the American public’s appetite for that.
chrisgoou - August 25, 2010 at 11:29 am
11147066 / Emily NYI am curious if you have seen this first hand or are assuming. I am an admissions adviser in Michigan and most I have met on the road and my colleagues all have master’s degrees. A master’s was required to be hired. So, I am not sure what you mean that admissions advisers usually cannot get any other job or are not prepared for graduate school. Also, by professional training what training are you referring to? I know some are calling for admissions staff to be licensed counselors, perhaps that is what you are referring to.