Monday, May 19, 2008

Selling Failure for All


Today’s Doonesbury cartoon in the local paper takes us back to the fictional Walden College. In it, a potential student is being given the “money walk” a traditional college tour. The College tour guide Zipper explains that “for the next hour I’ll be walking backwards through the campus of Walden College”. Not fictional.
Walking backwards is a required ability for a tour guide. Zipper goes on to add that Walden is the nation’s number one safety school. “In fact,” Zipper states to the potential student “I am authorized to admit anyone who completes this tour.” Again not fictional. For most colleges and universities the goal of admissions is to “make the numbers and pay the bills.”

In fact, I would argue that for most schools nowadays being selective means they select most everyone who applies. There are very few schools that have the luxury of actually being selective. They are the 306, maybe 310 name brand schools which actually get more applications than slots open. And of course, if your school is an open door institution, selectivity is anathema to its mission. But for most schools, even open door institutions, admissions is a numbers game especially now that budgets are not matching expenditures.

Schools will sell a spot in an in-coming class to most anyone who shows interest. And it is selling no matter what euphemistic academic label we may give it. Maybe it is not selling a used car but it is not really that distant from it when one looks at the tactics, approaches and pressures to hit the numbers that an admission’s officer – salesperson faces. The major difference is that a car salesman gets a commission and can earn more money while we in academia settle for the belief that we are engaged in a more humane sales job and work longer hours for less pay. And a car salesman does not have to travel as much to attend those oh so glorious and wonderful Admission Fairs. Wahooooo!

One of the earlier versions of the Principles of Good Academic Customer Service used to have a statement that there must be a match between the school and the student. In other words, don’t sell a student a college or university he or she can not succeed in or will be unhappy attending. If you do, you can also count on losing that student. When you do, all the costs of recruiting, admitting, enrolling, entering, orienting, and processing that student will be lost. This is not an inconsiderable sum either. We have figured it at an average of $5460 per student. So every student you lose costs you not just tuition but the acquisition costs.

This is not just good customer service advice; it is very important and solid retention law. But it is a law that butts up against the divided priorities and accountabilities within an academic institution. Admissions goals are not necessarily equal to those of enrollment management or academics for example. If you are one of the very few schools to have a person whose title indicates a responsibility for retention, then you are acutely aware of the conflict. But not to worry, so very few schools have yet realized that retention is important that they have not put anyone in this untenable role of worrying about keeping the students the school worked so hard and spent so much money to acquire. I mean why worry about keeping students when there is an unending supply of new potential students out there and so little competition for them. Besides, what ethical responsibility to the students we accepted?

Ethics?

We are a college. Students have to study that in a required course perhaps but we know that is a requirement for them. We already got through that course many years ago. We don’t need to worry about ethical responsibilities to students. We have faculty to worry about and my increasingly large salary. Ethics? Philosophy department which is all adjunct anyway so it can’t really be all that important and they can’t complain anyhow of we replace them.

Just because we accept them and in so doing tell them either directly or by implication that they should be able to succeed here and that means learn and graduate does not mean we have to coddle them with attention and tutoring in areas they may be having difficulty in. They are college students after all. They should be able to do the work we present to them even though we know they are weak and not up to our standards. They simply aren’t of real college quality but that does not mean I have to spend extra time to help them learn and grow. They are in college for g-d’s sake and should be able to do what we know they could not do when we accepted them.

Besides odds are very good I am either an adjunct or a full time faculty member (duh) so either way, I really do not have time for students. If an adjunct, I need to drive to my next class at another school at a gasoline cost that exceeds my adjunct pay. If I am a full-time faculty member, the rewards for me are not in teaching or spending time with students but in publishing and research to get a promotion or even better something I can patent and make a lot of money from while using my college position as a fall back guaranteed income and health benefits. I mean, my goals are not well aligned with undergraduate teaching or students.

The faculty are right too. I have been looking at the budget and the welfare of the college. We need to cut back on services and some positions if we are to make the budget for the year. Since I know that I must pick my battles wisely, I will avoid doing what may be right and do the least harmful to me. After all, I don’t want to draw fire what with my evaluation and salary increase on the line. Besides, rile the wrong people and I could get a vote of no confidence. Of that I am confident. So where to cut….counselors. They have little power. And tutors, even less. More adjuncts. Library but not research collections if we are to get the grants… And yes, we can not replace admissions people and still up their goals. That’s it bring in more students and provide fewer services for their success. Then we can hit our numbers.

Goals. Good in soccer. Maybe not admissions

Admissions has a simple number to achieve. X number of new students. Now I must and want to say that most admissions people want to do a good job but there are times when doing something as silly as keeping a job does get in the way. If I am an admissions rep at the average school and my given goal is to recruit and get applications from 100 students but I am only at 50 with three weeks to go…. Well, I may become a bit less concerned about their ability to succeed. I will start to take applications from only those we select to go here. We select you if you have the application fee.

Oh but wait. The admissions committee will never accept weak students. Uhuh. Who is the committee at your school? At more and more colleges, the admissions committee have become rubber stampers since they know that if the college does not meet its enrollment numbers, there will be problems and they could come home to roost on them. It is easier to blame admissions for recruiting weak students and “just take the best of what we are given.” No matter if the students accepted are very likely to quit. I wrote fail first but there are so few students who fail because of poor grades that this was not a good choice of words.

This is all part of why the country and its colleges and universities whether they be public, private or for-profit have such horrendously high non-graduation rates. NCHEMS 2006 graduation rates (2006 is the most recent available) show two year students graduation at a rate of 29.1% in three years and four year students graduating nationally at a rate of 56.4% in six years. Oh yes, I am aware that students take longer to graduate and some take as long as 13 years. But c’mon, these rates are embarrassing and indicative of our own failings. Especially failing at recruiting students and then helping them to succeed.

I am 5’5” tall, overweight and getting to feel old some days. If I were sold an entrance to a camp that stated it was to prepare people to get into the NBA, you would quickly see I was sold a false dream. “Boy that camp ripped you off. What an unethical group of @#$%I am 5’5” tall, overweight and getting to feel old some days. If I were sold an entrance to a camp that stated it was to prepare people to get into the NBA, you would quickly see I was sold a false dream. “Boy that camp ripped you off. What an unethical group of @#$%$&s. Or you can rationalize it and say”well, at least the camp would allow him to try and achieve his dream. It gave him the chance.” Or you can rationalize it and say”well, at least the camp would allow him to try and achieve his dream. It gave him the chance.” Or you can blame me for trying to do something that I should have known I was not capable of doing. But I do not think any of us would believe the camp was right in taking my money and accepting me as potential NBA material.

Well, too many of our colleges, universities and career colleges are NBA camps. And that is not what we should be.

Quick pitch: We are quickly filling up our dates for school pre-opening convocations and workshops as well as customer service week (Oct6-10). We would like to be able to help you too so please contact us ASAP for a date. info@GreatServiceMatters.com

AcademicMAPS has been providing customer service, retention and research training and solutions to colleges, universities and career colleges in the US, Canada, and Europe as well as to businesses that seek to work with them since 1999. Clients range from small rural schools to major urban universities and corporations. Its services range from campus customer service audits, workshops, training, presentations, institutional studies and surveys to research on customer service and retention. AcademicMAPS prides itself on its record of success for its clients and students who are aided through the firm’s services.www.GreatServiceMatters.com 413.219.6939 info@GreatServiceMatters.com

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

NSU Idea of Retention Does Not Add Up


Assistant Professor of Mathematics has left a new comment on your post "Schools Budgets Aren't Flush":

Ummm...what, exactly, is "CSF1 = [(P x A = SL) x T]"? I can tell you one thing for damn sure: it isn't an equation. Hell, it isn't even a well-formed mathematical statement.

Assistant Professor of Mathematics has left a new comment on your post "Schools Budgets Aren't Flush":

By the way, this is also complete gibberish:

CSF1 = 1565 X 52.1% = 815 headcount x $18,190 = $14,824,850

So, you mean to tell me that 52.1% of 1,565 (of anything, apparently...units, please?) amounts to $14,824,850?!

The above comments have given me a great deal of pause the past week. I have been determining what to do with them. Not because they criticize what I wrote because they do not. The explanation of the formula was in the article as well and could be more fully explained in the short, yet valuable book Customer Service Factors and the Cost of Attrition. (Picture included) Besides, I was a college president and was a rather source of pin the typo on the donkey. That is the game we academics play when we cannot find an honest basis for disagreeing with an idea. I was, and am a good source for pin the typo since I am a horrid typist. Anyone who has received an email from me has already read my disclaimer. For those who haven’t here it is.

DISCLOSURE: In high school, Mrs. Burns, the typing teacher, told me I would not need typing when I signed up for it to be the only man in an entire class of young women. She said I would be an executive or something of the sort with a young woman doing my typing for me. I would be better of with something like philosophy to get into a good college. As a result, I went to Umass-Boston. I never learned to type as such and use a quite fast, yet at times creative, two finger typing method often leading to interesting neologisms (i.e. typos). I am my secretary. And spell check can be as bizarre as my typing. So if you are bothered by typos, tell Mrs. Burns.

I have no issue with the comments on the formulas outside of their being incorrect and unhelpful to the discussion of the issue. My math endowed colleagues tell me the formulas are fine. They work. I concur I was not an algebra whiz as discussed in the article on Dr. Tafi Tanimoto, a wonderful professor who was an exemplar of academic customer service, but years of Excel have helped me put together working formulas.

What kept me from posting the comments for a while was my sincere disappointment that the comments had nothing to do with the ideas. They did not say anything about the concepts expressed in the article on how colleges need to focus more on retaining students than simply bringing them in. That is deeply disappointing.

The issue is an important one that goes against deeply embedded academic beliefs that have hurt many colleges, faculty and students. Colleges lose revenue. Faculty lose jobs and the feeling of success from being effective teachers. Students lose most of all. They lose the chance to become a more productive and successful member of our society. They also lose some of their self-value and esteem when they leave a college. Even if they leave because we failed them, they recognize they made a mistake somewhere along the line. And finally, they lose the money and time invested which will make it ever more likely they will not complete at another college. But there are times when leaving can be better than staying.

All this came to me ever more strongly after reading Students Fail and a Professor Loses a Job, a piece in today’s Inside Higher Ed. The piece discusses how Steven D. Aird lost his job teaching biology at Norfolk State University because he failed too many students. It is important to note that nowhere in the piece did anyone make any claims that giving passing grades to students who did not deserve them was considered customer service. That’s good because it isn’t as has been previously discussed in other articles here for example.

What was discussed is how an administrator turned down Professor Aird for tenure because he failed students for violating University attendance policies and/or failing tests and quizzes. It appears that Dean Sandra J. DeLoatch turned down his tenure because he failed her unwritten rule that that 70 percent of students should pass a course. The University’s position is that it is a school of opportunity for students of color who it will “whip into shape” according to its spokesperson Sharon Hoggard.

Whip them into shape by not making sure they attend classes and learn anything? Whip them into shape by coddling them and making them believe they are prepared for the world ahead? Whip them into shape by rewarding them with passing grades for doing the very things that will get them fired in their jobs after college? That’s not whipping anything except some cover to keep students in school to meet bills under the guise of helping them.

This is an issue that could have been raised by the anonymous comment maker. (Oh by the way, why do so may people hide behind that anonymous or in this case Assistant Professor label? That is just such a symptom of our basic academic cowardice. We love to make comments but seldom have the fortitude to let people know we are making them. Why is it that academics claim a love of academic freedom when and only when you agree with me? This is especially so in comments on the internet though after decades as a college administrator I was sort of getting used to unsigned notes, accusations, allegations and disagreements slipped under my door or into my mailbox by Professor Anonymous. C’mon folks. If you have something to say, say it. And then stand behind your comments with your name. If you are so afraid that someone will disagree with you or each through the internet and grab you, you may have bigger problems than perhaps even basic spinelessness.)

Anyhow, back to the topic. The use of methods such as those employed by Norfolk State University are not what honest, sincere folk who talk about retention are referring to. Norfolk State is not retaining. They are deferring. They are cheating students and the society. This is not serving students. It is serving them, their families and their future a lie. They are also giving all other schools that serve a primarily student of color or neo-traditional students a large brush that educational bigots can and will use to paint all of them as inferior and their graduates will have their diplomas tainted as well. This will be especially so for those graduates of Norfolk State who earned their success through study and dedication.

So my friend Assistant Professor, if you wish to disagree with me go ahead and do it. I welcome comments especially ones that make me rethink my ideas since they open dialogue that can make whatever I or anyone else put forward better through contrariety and even compliment. I wish for comments, thoughts and examples. But falling back on math formulas….c’mon. The issues are bigger than that. Just ask the students at Norfolk State.

AcademicMAPS has been providing customer service, retention and research training and solutions to colleges, universities and career colleges in the US, Canada, and Europe as well as to businesses that seek to work with them since 1999. Clients range from small rural schools to major urban universities and corporations. Its services range from campus customer service audits, workshops, training, presentations, institutional studies and surveys to research on customer service and retention. AcademicMAPS prides itself on its record of success for its clients and students who are aided through the firm’s services.www.GreatServiceMatters.com 413.219.6939 info@GreatServiceMatters.com

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Schools Budgets Aren't Flush


There is an article in the current edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education that begs for a comment. The piece “In Turbulent Times, 2 Small Colleges Brace of the Worst” ( 5/09/08, P. 1, and A12-14) discussed how Tiffin University and Heidelberg College are going about their financial issues in what I have to consider traditionally dumb ways. They are trying to increase admissions, primarily by increasing their tuition discounting, trying to raise donations, cut costs and build perhaps a new building. You know,” if we build it, they will come” as if The Field of Dreams was a recruitment training film and not a well scripted fiction. The only thing that is guaranteed by a new building is increased debt load and more belt tightening. I can hear the budgets flushing now.

They are using a traditional frontloading approach, i.e. recruiting more and more students. Spend more and more money to do that. Cut more and more costs to cover the recruitment and discount costs. Sort of a Payday Loan approach for academia. Keep borrowing up front to keep spending more and more to try and stay afloat when the answer is not in taking out more loans but in conserving what they already have.

Not recruitment but RETENTION.

Heidelberg College has a 47.9 four year graduation rate and a 51.7% six year graduation rate. Tiffin University a 24.2% four year graduation rate and six year graduation rate 31.1% according to the Educational Trust. This means that each of them lose at least half of all the students who start at the schools prior to graduation. All the money they are spending to increase the size of incoming classes is going out the back door with the students who leave the school without graduating.

Let’s use some of the formulas in the new book Customer Service Factors And The Cost Of Attrition that help calculate the losses schools suffer from attrition to clearly see the folly of frontloading without retaining. Formula 1 states CSF1 = [(P x A = SL) x T] or population times attrition equals the number of students lost times tuition which tells us how much money has been lost by a school.

So for Heidelberg’s current year it can look forward to a loss of at least $4,800,950 from its annual budget.

(using the figures from the four year graduation rate from the Educational Trust CSF1 = 1565 X 52.1% = 815 headcount x $18,190 = $14,824,850 over the four year period. Even if students left in an equal rounded down attrition distribution of 203 students a year that would mean Heidelberg is losing $3,692,570 a year by not focusing on retention.

By the way, every one of those students would need to be replaced and at least the average recruitment cost of $5460 (which is low for Heidelberg since it is using consultants and many people and money to recruit students). CSFactor 2 lets us know that Heidelberg is then losing another $1,108,380 in wasted recruitment cost just to bring in the students who have left and double that to replace them.

Tiffin University (using 6 year graduation rates since they have a fairly large non-traditional on-line population) loses an annualized $13,479,263 a year from attrition.

If either could cut their attrition rate, they would realize a significant increase in revenue and fiscal relief.

When will schools realize that the success comes not from bringing in more and more students to replace the ones they lose but from retaining the ones they have? And it costs a heck of a lot less and results in a self-perpetuating situation.

Students who stay become alumni.

Student who stay recruit other students.

Students who stay help build the strength of a school.

Students who stay do not have to be recruited again and again and again.

Students who stay are key to the long term stability and growth of a college or university.

If schools want to spend money, spend it on programs and assistance to keep the enrollment they have. That is the smart thing to do.