next »

[latinwords]

Have you used Noel-Levitz consulting on your campus? Was it worth it? I've heard both very positive and very, very negative comments from people on our campus. We really want an unbiased evaluation of our retention. Would you recommend Noel-Levitz, some other consulting, internal committee/taskforce, something else? Thank you!

[entwife]

We really want an unbiased evaluation of our retention.

Forget it, then. N-L will try to sell you their "advising improvement" program regardless of whether you have a problem with advising or not. They are in it to make money. 

[sirkdn]

We really want an unbiased evaluation of our retention.

Forget it, then. N-L will try to sell you their "advising improvement" program regardless of whether you have a problem with advising or not. They are in it to make money. 

We have looked into several consultants - but through comparisons with our peers/aspirants it seems that our retention is not that bad.   However, our NSSE data seems to show that we have a "Student Engagement" problem, so we decided to use the "internal task force approach" to identify ways to get students more involved (living-learning communities, etc).

That is a long answer to a shorter: "no, we have not used them."

[latinwords]

OK, thank you. We have NSSE data too and a lot of other data, so I personally would go with the internal taskforce, but some other people really want a consultant.

[betterslac]

A negative vote here for Noel-Levitz. I have been at a place where a consultant did make a difference for recruiting, but the name of the firm escapes me. N-L was long on promises and bullsh!t posturing, rather short on results.

[latinwords]

A negative vote here for Noel-Levitz. I have been at a place where a consultant did make a difference for recruiting, but the name of the firm escapes me. N-L was long on promises and bullsh!t posturing, rather short on results.

I hope you can remember the name of the good one! Yes, BS posturing is my gut feeling about the N-L, but some people here really want them...

[zharkov]

OK, thank you. We have NSSE data too and a lot of other data, so I personally would go with the internal taskforce, but some other people really want a consultant.

The "real" reason for many (or most) consulting interventions -- whether in education or or non-profits or business -- is to enable those in the know to communicate to those with the power, and thus motivate those in power to act.  So given that you already have the data, what is preventing those in power from taking action?   I'll suspect issues that an outsider can help overcome, perhaps with the trapping of objectivity. 

[torshi]

Noel-Levitz is our consultant.  I'm faculty, and I read the reports but am not part of the problem-identification and decision-making processes in any real way--so I don't know if this will be helpful.  We have a very good institutional research team.  I don't know how they feel about N-L.

On my campus, there are two kinds of student issues.  One is the kind that everyone (or almost everyone) agrees is a problem, such as enrollment quantity and quality, and retention.  Since N-L got involved, enrollment has improved steadily in terms of numbers, predictability, students' satisfaction with billing, and some other measures.  Student quality is steady, but not up.  Retention is steady at a typical level for our institutional type, not improving or getting worse.

The other issue is the kind that not everyone agrees is a problem, especially a handful of student satisfaction items.  It's an issue in itself, not related to retention.  N-L have been commissioned to document and develop solutions for that problem.  However, when you look closely at the NSSE data, these don't support the claims being made.  Most faculty don't prioritize student satisfaction over learning outcomes, where there is a consensus about problems and solutions.  The proposed solutions don't closely fit the problem.  And the solutions would create massive new problems.  The consultant is being used to cloak an attempted power play in the fabric of objective need.

N-L are getting big bucks for their work describing and planning for this second type of problem while my spring student evaluations are full of "fix the broken chairs in our classroom" comments.  Classroom and campus maintenance is a cutback area, and it shows.  It's not part of any of the surveys so it does not exist as a problem, no solutions are planned, and there are no mechanisms for getting the information to decision-makers--despite its relationship to student satisfaction and perceptions that their college cares about them.  That's an example of the pattern:  big-picture, aspirational problems are more appealing to some key players than small but plentiful, mundane, ongoing problems.  N-L is part of a dynamic in which our institutional focus has shifted to the former sort of problem. 

I don't know how much of that shift is attributable to them because it was already underway.  But their central role in selling  problems and solutions, made to look like a campus-wide process, has changed the way decisions are made.  As a result, faculty-administration friction and distrust have increased. 

I have the impression that N-L have know-how and can be used effectively to fix unproductive processes on campus.  However, I also think they "discover" problems that they can fix.  This latter area should be viewed with caution, especially in  terms of mission and budget priorities.  And process may be at least as important as short-term outcomes.

[plunkett]

My campus managers used N-L  as a "magic bullet" to address many "student success" issues.  Managers signed the contract and then tried to lasso faculty into administering lengthy N-L questionnaires to students.  It was a disaster from beginning to end, and it was very, very expensive.  No one on campus speaks about it anymore because it was such an embarrassment.
Beware of managers being brainwashed into the N-L sales-pitches of how they will help your campus.  The soft underbelly is (in this particular vehicle) that students must fill out extremely lengthy and extremely tedious questionnaires --- which result in the "information" that the students will benefit from additional tutoring and writing center help, and hands-on faculty advising.  (Duh.  We paid tens of thousand of dollars to ascertain THAT information which we clearly knew before the entire painful process.)
Do your own research work in-house.  Thinking that N-L will help you with your problems is akin to thinking that buying a Dyson vacuum cleaner will solve all your house-keeping problems. It's magical thinking at an egregious level.
I think Noel-Levitz' time/star is passed.  They were part of the boom-times, now disappeared.  May they R.I.P.

[homelessscientist]

My university regularly brings in Noel-Levitz to help set tuition rates.  The administrators are pleased enough with their service to keep bringing them back.

[latinwords]

Thank you all for responding! Our experience so far: both in-house and N-L surveys point to the same problems. However, the "big bosses" refuse to accept the data and instead of fixing things that really, badly need fixing keep trying to "fix" areas in which we are excellent. The N-L consultant we got supports the "big bosses" agenda despite the fact that it contradicts N-L own findings!!!

So messed up....