When Andrew Wright worked at Eastern Michigan University, he helped plan big receptions for admitted students each winter. Such events have long been considered essential rituals in college admissions, and the university’s enrollment data indicated that they had a high “yield” (the percentage of students who ultimately enroll).
But one day Mr. Wright looked more carefully at the numbers and discovered something interesting: Over the years, about 90 percent of the students who attended those receptions had already signed up to visit the university and register for classes. The data told him that no-shows for those visits were rare and that nearly all students who attended went on to enroll in the fall. So what did this mean?
“They were already hooked,” Mr. Wright said. “We were spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on a program that was unnecessary.”
Mr. Wright, now assistant vice president and director of admissions at Missouri State University, has encouraged his colleagues to look beyond yield when evaluating the effectiveness of recruitment strategies. On Monday, Mr. Wright was among three panelists who spoke during a Webinar sponsored by the National Association for College Admission Counseling. The topic: evaluating the return-on-investment of student recruitment during a tough economy.
That’s easier said than done during an era of cutbacks. For one thing, there’s a data gap within the admissions profession. Some enrollment offices have sophisticated statistics on every aspect of the recruitment process, right down to the kind of shoes their applicants wear (OK, not that). Yet other offices lack the sophistication to answer micro-level questions about what works — and why.
Another challenge is that admissions types tend to be creatures of habit, reluctant to change things that may not have much recruitment value. That includes college viewbooks, which cost a lot of money to produce and mail.
When Mr. Wright came to Missouri State last May, he discovered that the university’s viewbook still came with a four-page paper application stapled inside. Yet he could see that 85 percent of the university’s applicants applied online — and only about 1 percent used the application from the viewbook. So Mr. Wright removed the application and a perforated “tell-me-more” card from the viewbook, which saved his office $30,000.
“You’ve got to be ready to slay sacred cows, and that’s where the importance of a data-rich environment comes in,” Mr. Wright told me in an interview. “When you go before your supervisors and give them the facts, they are much more likely to allow you to make the decision you want to make if you have that data.”
Recently, Mr. Wright learned that he will have to cut $75,000 from his $650,000 operating budget next year. What to trim? For starters, he has been eyeing the glitzy receptions the university holds for admitted students in St. Louis, Kansas City, and Hannibal, Mo. “I could find a much better way to spend $25,000,” Mr. Wright said.
And, yes, he has the numbers to prove it.
3 Responses to The ROI of Student Recruitment
sullivab - April 20, 2010 at 10:09 am
Kudos to Andrew Wright for having the guts to take on time-honored activities that have outlived their usefulness. I can tell you from experience, however, that having good data does not always sway superiors, especially when they were responsible for creating the innovations (10 or 20 years ago) that you now seek to terminate. Some examples from my personal experience: I had to put my job on the line (that is, guarantee that applications would not decline) when I wanted to discontinue our listings in Peterson’s Guide in order to save $45,000 annually. When that was successful, I went after the faculty research interest book, which cost $25,000 and .5 FTE annually to print and distribute to applicants, students and faculty. My boss was very critical of the decision & predicted a revolt by his fellow faculty members. When I asked him what he used the publication for, he told me that it was primarily a way for him to look up phone numbers and email addresses. (I showed him how to use the university’s electronic directory.) The protests from the faculty did materialize, but they disappeared after 8 weeks. In both these cases, the Internet had made existing activities superfluous, but inertia prevented our institution from recognizing those facts & redistributing resources.I gave up recruiting recruiting responsibilities before I was able to go after the next sacred cow on my agenda, recruiting fairs at undergraduate institutions. My data showed that they were not effective. (Ross & other offshore medical schools will disagree with this assessment. These fairs work for them, but they probably hit 250+ a year, while we were doing 25.) My boss ignored my parting advice and my successor has increased the number of recruiting trips. While this has actually increased the number of applications, the additional applications seem to be in the lower part of the applicant pool, below the cutoff for admission. The number of individuals matriculating the past two years has actually decreased to only 75% of the target. (The target had been exceeded in the previous two years.)If there is anything good to come out of the recession, it is that educational institutions have had to look at what they are doing & eliminate inefficient practices. I am troubled when they make decisions that compromise their academic mission, but believe that driving inefficiencies out of other areas is not only good, but is also essential.
arrive2__net - April 20, 2010 at 2:59 pm
I don’t think there is anything to argue with in Hoover’s article, or in the supporting points made by sullivab. It is a rational decision to use ‘the numbers’ to look objectively at the impact of your funding on your goals, and see if they are getting you there or not. Re-examining the role of printed media at a time when communication is dominated by the internet, and the college is spending already on maintaining the internet information, seems like a logical result of updating the college’s approach to recruitment, and information distribution in general. Bernard SchusterArrive2.net
tveazey - April 21, 2010 at 3:24 pm
We like to look at the cost to recruit a student – from initial engagement to enrollment – and then look at the average net revenue a student generates…for one year and 4 years. You can see the return for the dollays spent….