Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Weeding Out Should Take Place Before Planting a Cohort


The fable of the events at College of the Garden (now Garden University) led me to thinking about the words and phrases we use to discuss students and our roles in their lives. Many of them seem to also come from biblical source material (puritan heritage?) from farming (agriculture attachment?)and the natural world (been watching the excellent BBC series Nature?).

We also talk of intellectual growth which is also a farming or natural image. Sort of like the riddle I was given by a senior faculty member when I first became a dean. “Why are deans like mushrooms? They thrive in manure, exist in the dark and when they are mature and viable, we cut their heads off, put them in the frying pan and eat them” . I was also told that when I was first a president along with the three envelopes story.

In any case, looking at three of the most common phrases about how we look upon our role with students leads me to want to go and sit in the dark because they too grow out of a fertilizer similar to what mushrooms grow in. And they seem to be fresh in too many minds and we all know what fresh manure can smell like. Yuh. (“C’mon. Tell them what you really think.”)

Now as always not all administrators or faculty think this way. Just too often the vocal ones. I want to be very clear, there are some spectacular people in higher education. It’s just that they seem to be becoming a minority voice on most campuses, especially baccalaureate ones and especially those with a research agenda. Research does appear to be the natural predator of a focus on student success. It seems that it is harder and harder for both to live together on the same campus. This is especially so as the natural resources that revenue from state support , endowments and tuition provided are shrinking and thus being more heavily competed for. The academic community is becoming rather Darwinian with research seen more and more as the better and fitter thing to do; teaching as a weaker activity and students as the natural food of both. Or rather, the revenue the students and their families provide is the food for the academic animal. We don’t consume students as such. We do devour them and the money they bring with them.

But we do more or less chomp through students. Metaphorically that is. Seldom seen roasted freshman on the menu in the cafeteria though in the classroom… All we need to do is realize that we graduate just barely over 50% of all students who start college to see how the image of consuming students, their savings, hopes, dreams and better futures is derived.

“That’s not what we do. We have an obligation to weed out the weaker students who don’t belong here. Thin the ranks. You know, separate the wheat from the chaff. The strong from the weak… We need to be able to make sure the better students have the space to grow and learn. To get the attention and care they deserve. Don’t we have an obligation to do that?”

Partially, yes. But the obligation is not just to the better students. It is to all the students we admit to the school. To all the students in whom we have planted the seed of promise for a better life by coming to the college. And it is we who plant the seeds of hope and promise in the students we decide to let into our school; to the students we have selected to grow.

The winnowing out process, the thinning of the rows should have already taken place when we admit the final crop of new first year students. We have determined what it is we want in our students. The characteristics we want in the student body has been conclude We have set the level of intellectual strength, viability, ability needed to grow until they finally blossom into a full graduate of the school. We know the capacity of the field, (the campus) has been determined so we can know how many students we can select so each has the resources needed to grow strong. We should not have selected any students who will not be able to benefit and grow to be harvested as alumni. We surely would not select students who we know will fail. That would be poor use of resources, time and effort after all.

No farmer wants to select, plant and tend a crop that will fail.

So barring a natural problem or disaster like illness or financial failure the odds should be that most all the students selected will succeed. And at some schools they do. Harvard, Yale, Notre Dame, Stanford, Cornell, UVA and another 34 colleges and universities consistently graduate over 90% of their students. Unfortunately, over 800 other schools have “crop failures”. They harvest 50% or fewer of all the students they admitted. That’s over a six year period; not four. And there are hundreds of others that barely make it through the six-year growing season. (More on this in the next week or two when we finish a longitudinal study on graduation, attrition, the cost of attrition and academic customer service at over 1400 colleges and universities.)

This level of failure should not take place if we really did what we claim to do every year. We claim to select and admit students who can succeed. Yes, we also realize the sense of selectivity at some schools is mostly like “you want to come? Can you pay, get a loan, take out a payment plan….Then we select you and anyone who can help make our numbers.” I mean there are a few hundred colleges and universities that graduate less than 25% of all the students they admit yet I am willing to bet most all of them got as close to 100% of these students’ tuition and fees as they could. And I am not even including some predatory schools in the group.

“But you said ‘No farmer wants to select plant and tend a crop that will fail.’ Isn’t that an argument for weeding out those students who we believe do not belong, who will fail?”

I don’t think so. First off weeds are just flowers or plants that a person does not want. For example, to many farmers, morning glory is an invasive weed. Others grow it as a beautiful flower. There are even some folks who grow goldenrod as a garden flower while others would be horrified at the idea. When we plant a garden, we select the plants. When we create an entering cohort of students, we select the students. Unless, we want weeds, we should not select them. We make the decisions.

Sure there may well be a few students who may prove to be too weak to succeed just as there may be a flower or vegetable or two that will not produce. That is natural. But a New England farmer will not plant anything that requires a long growing season or consistently hot temperatures. A southern farmer will probably be wary of some lettuces since they will bolt in the heat. A smart farmer picks his or her seeds carefully since they costs money to buy and even more to grow – like students.

The successful farmer weeds out plants that will not succeed in his or her climate and demands. Farmers winnow down the list of crops they might grow before they plant them. Much less costly and will produce greater likelihood of a successful harvest. The least expensive way to succeed is to choose the right crop and the right seeds for that crop before planting them. Can’t control natural disaster but one can control the selection of seeds.

It now costs over $6,000 per student to attract, enroll and process each entering student. For most schools it is considerably higher. So to enroll and seat a cohort of 100 students it will cost a school $600,000. That is not a small sum especially if a school loses most of the students. And that is the low point of cost per student. And though the cost is quite high for a school, it costs the students much more so getting into college may not be a great achievement.

Agreed, it is quite possible that every student may not be right for a college. It may even be that some people should not even go to college. Not everyone can succeed in college and not everyone needs to go. Just as some plants should not be grown in some areas, there are students who are best suited for the some choices and not others and that may not be a two-year or four-year degree.

But when we do choose students, the winnowing, weeding and cutting out should be done before we admit them. Once we accept them we are saying we have selected them because we believe they can grow, succeed and graduate at our school. If we admit students who we know or believe cannot succeed, that is unethical, stupid business and as bad as Goldman Sachs selling a product they knew would fail and take down the investors with it. It is as wrong as Bernie Madoff talking a person into his pyramid scheme knowing they would lose their money but he would get his.

Am I saying that all schools are bad farmers or unethical. No. There are many colleges and universities that do a very good job of selecting their student body. Not just the 306 brand name schools either. There are schools such as Bentley, Shorter, Stephen Austin State and Gustavus Adolphus whose names may not just flow off the lips when naming name brand schools that graduate in the 85&-plus range.

These and many others are colleges and universities that grow and produce successful yields in the seeds they select and grow to harvest and beyond. If the rest of us could just get the message out that the job is not to weed out, to winnow but to provide the rain, the nutrients and the care needed to grow hundreds of thousands of students to fruition at graduation. The weeding out should happen before the field is planted.

IF THIS MAKES SENSE TO YOU, CONSIDER BUYING A COPY OF MY BEST-SELLING NEW BOOK ON RETENTION AND ACADEMIC CUSTOMER SERVICE

THE POWER OF RETENTION:MORE CUSTOMER SERVICE IN HIGHER EDUCATION by clicking here


The author of the is Dr. Neal Raisman the president of AcademicMAPS, the leader in training, workshops and research on increasing student retention, enrollment and revenue through academic customer service solutions for colleges, universities and career colleges in the US, Canada, and Europe as well as businesses that seek to work with them.

We increase your success

CALL OR EMAIL TODAY
www.GreatServiceMatters.com
info@GreatServiceMatters.com
413.219.6939

Neal is a pleasure to work with – his depth of knowledge and engaging, approachable style creates a strong connection with attendees. He goes beyond the typical, “show up, talk, and leave” experience that some professional speakers use. He “walks the talk” with his passion for customer service. We exchanged multiple emails prior to the event, with his focus being on meeting our needs, understanding our organization and creating a customized presentation. Neal also attended and actively participated in our evening-before team-building event, forging positive relationships with attendees – truly getting to know them. Personable, knowledgeable, down-to-earth and inspiring…. " Jean Wolfe, Training Manager, Davenport University

“Neal led a retreat that initiated customer service and retention as a real focus for us and gave us a clear plan. Then he followed up with presentations and workshops that kicked us all into high gear. We recommend with no reservations; just success.”
Susan Mesheau, Executive Director U First: Integrated Recruitment & Retention University of New Brunswick, CA

“Thank you so much for the wonderful workshop at Lincoln Technical Institute. It served to re-center ideas in a great way. I perceived it to be a morale booster, breath of fresh air, and a burst of passion.”
Shelly S, Faculty Member, Lincoln Technical Institute

“We had hoped we’d improve our retention by 3% but with the help of Dr. Raisman, we increased it by 5%
.”
Rachel Albert, Provost, University of Maine-Fort Kent

Monday, April 19, 2010

Eat Not from That Tree- How the College Became a University

Eat Not from That Tree
translated from the Aramaic by Neal A. Raisman, PhD


All was rather calm at the College of the Garden. The ground crew had again done an impeccable job of keeping Garden as beautiful as the founding trustee had designed it. The trustee had set aside the land for Garden as a bequest “to all mankind”. (The trustee would have had to say “peoplekind” today in the mission statement but, well, they were different times.)

The administrators and faculty were allowed to study and do as they wished to learn and teach. The pay was not much but the benefit package was outstanding. And the job came with an extremely generous housing and food allowance. They could eat all the chocolate and bonbons they wanted and never gain any weight. It was heavenly. The only stipulation they had to comply with was to focus on teaching. Oh yes, they were also not required to publish or perish. They could do some research and publish of course. That would help them teach it was believed. Tenure was extremely generous at the College.

Then one day an administrator got the latest copy of the Universal Schools News and Report listings of colleges and found that his school was considered really divine but not as blessed as Celestial University. So he fumed and envied as well as coveted his neighboring school’s reputation. It was also reported to have more luxuriant grounds and facilities. (Computing power was not an issue since it was all housed in the cloud.)

So the administrator wandered the campus of Garden wondering how to boost the school’s reputation. Then he bumped into a faculty member who was waving a copy of the USNews and Report listing in the administrator’s face. “This is an outrage! Celestial better than us. And it is your fault. Do something about it or I will lead a move for a vote of no confidence.”

“Wait. We need to be unified in this if we are to succeed moving up in the rankings. This is not something we should let divide us.”

“Okay. But can we vote about something negative in the future?”

“Sure” the administrator said. “In fact, I need a vote. There are some who think I am too faculty-oriented and wasn’t tough enough in the last negotiations when I agreed to summers and it's the only season here.”

“Okay. Got any ideas?”

“Nope. I’m stumped. Faculty senate come up with anything.”

“Yes. We found a punctuation error in the last senate report. An ad hoc committee is studying it now. Let’s try just walking and talking. See if we come upon something.”

And before they could take two steps, a sibilant snake (aren’t they all?) sidled up and sincerely said “Sssssssssay. I have a ssssugesssstion. See the ssstately shhhhrub ssssstanding to our ssssouth….Uh, can I drop the sss thing? We get the idea and it is getting a bit ssssil…I mean silly?”

After a discussion and the decision that no decanal-level study committee would be needed, the administrator and faculty joined in a rare quick and unified “yes”.

The snake continued. “Look, the tree over there is the one the trustee’s mission statement does not really mention much in favor of all that palaver about teaching and learning and students when we get some. Well, that is the shrub of Real Education Society Esteems And Rewards Heartily. It is what you should eat of.”

The faculty member went over to study the tree while the administrator devised the acronym from the first letters of the name of the shrub.

“It does look tasty and juicy" reported the faculty member. "Like a fruit I would really enjoy rather than those from the Tree of Educational Activities Causing Healthy Intellectually Noticeable Growth. That fruit is getting tough to prepare and succeed with. Takes a lot of time and effort too. I have to grade over ninety berries a week just to see if the seeds of knowledge are being prepared properly. The stuff here looks like one of these juicy fruits could keep me busy and well taken care of for a while. No need to grade those other…..What did you guys come up with as a name for that by the way?”

“The Tree of Educational Activities Causing Healthy Intellectually Noticeable Growth? OH, yuh. We came up with TEACHING.”

“Yuh, yuh TEACHING! Lot of work for that. Not many rewards. Maybe a text book but no patents or prizes or rewards there. But with this shrub, the shrub of….”the snake turned to the administrator for a catchy title.

“Shrub of RESEARCH. Used the first letters from each word in the name. Pretty clever huh?” The snake and faculty member looked at each other, smiled slightly sardonically and nodded.

“Yah, that’s it the Shrub of Research. Eat of it and you’ll soon be number one.”

“Wonderful” the faculty member and administrator said in what would be the last statement on unanimity for a while.

“Just take a bite of the fruits of research and you’ll not worry about the bitter berries of teaching much more. Hey, I can even get a few hungry animals who need a job to come in and take your place professor. You know, part-time profs. They can even bring in some expertise you might really want in the classroom like tool use to get ants out of holes in stuff. Got a great chimp whose dissertation was on that very subject. Got an extended family to feed so he’ll take the work for a banana or two. No need to feel any guilt at not teaching much anymore. Besides, you’ll love research and think of the prestige. The national recognition. Almost as good as a winning football team….”

“A what?” the administrator asked.

“Oh yuh…Don’t worry about it. I won’t get you into that until there is some real dough in alumni donations and TV appearance money…”

“Alumni? TV? Are they trees too?”

“No” the snake said. “They’ll come later but don’t worry, their roots will go real deep into the campus. Uh, take a bite of the fruit over there. I’m telling you, you’ll really go big with it.”

And the administrator and the faculty member pluckethed a fruit from oft the shrub and found it was much to their liking. And they declareth research good. Very good. Then from their work they resteth. And this was the last day of the College for the next it was renamed Garden University.

Also on the next day they complained about students, degraded teaching in the tenure and promotion process, invented release time, developed Centers of all sorts of stuff, gained dominion over the adjuncts and made research the aim of the University while leaving the words about teaching in the mission in case the trustee asked if they tasted the shrub.

And to this day, the trustee has not kicked them out of the University. In fact, he gives away the Teacher of the Year Award at graduation each year and actually believes the University still focuses on students and teaching.

The end..........to a real focus on students and their success I fear.

IF THIS FABLE MAKES SENSE TO YOU, YOU WILL WANT
A COPY OF THE BEST-SELLING NEW BOOK ON
RETENTION AND ACADEMIC CUSTOMER SERVICE

THE POWER OF RETENTION:MORE CUSTOMER SERVICE IN HIGHER EDUCATION by clicking here


The author of the fable (?) is Dr. Neal Raisman the president of AcademicMAPS. He is the leader in training, workshops and research on increasing student retention, enrollment and revenue through academic customer service solutions for colleges, universities and career colleges in the US, Canada, and Europe as well as businesses that seek to work with them.

We increase your success

CALL OR EMAIL TODAY

Neal is a pleasure to work with – his depth of knowledge and engaging, approachable style creates a strong connection with attendees. He goes beyond the typical, “show up, talk, and leave” experience that some professional speakers use. He “walks the talk” with his passion for customer service. We exchanged multiple emails prior to the event, with his focus being on meeting our needs, understanding our organization and creating a customized presentation. Neal also attended and actively participated in our evening-before team-building event, forging positive relationships with attendees – truly getting to know them. Personable, knowledgeable, down-to-earth and inspiring…. " Jean Wolfe, Training Manager, Davenport University


“We had hoped we’d improve our retention by 3% but with the help of Dr. Raisman, we increased it by 5%.” Rachel Albert, Provost, University of Maine-Farmington



“Neal led a retreat that initiated customer service and retention as a real focus for us and gave us a clear plan. Then he followed up with presentations and workshops that kicked us all into high gear. We recommend with no reservations; just success.” Susan Mesheau, Executive Director U First: Integrated Recruitment & Retention University of New Brunswick, CA


“Thank you so much for the wonderful workshop at Lincoln Technical Institute. It served to re-center ideas in a great way. I perceived it to be a morale booster, breath of fresh air, and a burst of passion.” Shelly S, Faculty Member, Lincoln Technical Institute

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Customer Service Needed for Adjuncts Too


academic customer service, universities, colleges, student services, retention, graduation

A letter to the editor with a follow-up letter point up an extremely ethics-free, perhaps scandalous, example of excessively poor customer service to a large segment of the internal academic community. They also point to a reality that has yet to embraced. Higher education has changed, perhaps permanently, and we need to deal with it – properly.

Here are the letters in order of publication:

Overuse of part-time instructors hurts Columbus State students

Publication: The Columbus Dispatch (Ohio)
Date: Saturday, March 13 2010

…The editorial points out that Ohio Board of Regents Chancellor Eric D. Fingerhut firmly believes that students and taxpayers must get their money's worth when investing in higher education. How do we measure their money's worth? Certainly the components of students' success in college -- retaining students from one term to the next, obtaining degrees, attaining jobs upon graduation, and/or successfully transferring to other colleges -- are all good indicators.

Students' success in college is the primary goal for faculty at Columbus State, but it is made far more challenging when approximately 70 percent of our classes are being taught by part-time instructors, who receive no health benefits, do not accrue sick leave, have no job security from one term to the next and may be teaching at several other colleges in central Ohio to earn a living. For some of them, the office where they keep student records, textbooks, lesson plans and other classroom materials is the trunk of a car.

Meanwhile, the college's provost essentially was banned from campus and told to "work from home," while getting paid more than $64,000 to produce a grand total of four reports totaling just over 23 pages. For that money, the college could have paid the salaries of 43 part-time faculty members each to teach a three-credit-hour course for an entire quarter.

The unbalanced, ineffective ratio of full-time to part-time faculty is not taken seriously by the college's administration nor the board of trustees. Curriculum, program planning and leadership at a college are accomplished primarily by the work of the full-time faculty. And with the upcoming transition from quarters to semesters in 2012, the opening of our Delaware campus this autumn and faculty-driven student-success initiatives mandated by the state, full-time faculty members increasingly will be pulled from their focus on the classroom while low-wage, part-time faculty members teach more and more of our students, as enrollments increase…

DARRELL MINOR

President

Columbus State Education Association

Then the follow-up letter:

Adjuncts work hard and are underpaid

Publication: The Columbus Dispatch (Ohio)

Sunday, March 21, 2010 4:55 AM

The March 13 letter "Overuse of part-time instructors hurts Columbus State students," from Darrell Minor, president of the Columbus State Education Association, made some valid points on adjuncts and the need for more full-time faculty at Columbus State Community College. But he missed his own points. Having adjuncts teach around 70 percent of classes is not bad learning or even a bad educational practice, as such. A good adjunct can teach as well as a good full-time faculty member.

The scandal is that adjuncts are the indentured serfs of higher education. They must have the same academic credentials as full-time faculty yet are paid worse than Wal-Mart workers, have less job security and have no benefits at all. They deserve recognition and they need to be paid a living wage and get some job security and benefits.

The argument for more full-time faculty is simple: Without them, there is no one to keep curricula up to date, create new courses, develop new programs, evaluate courses, maintain institutional history and hold administrators' feet to the fire on issues such as the multiple provost quittings and firings and subsequent payments.

Neal Raisman


Three Adjunct Realities Higher Education Needs to Face

Here is the inexorable reality. Adjuncts are now teaching more sections than full-time, tenured and tenure-track faculty. Adjuncts and other non-tenured or tenure track faculty such as graduate assistants now make up 73% of all faculty nationally. This is an almost total reversal of what was the situation in the 1960’s when 75% of all college faculty were full-time. Adjuncts teach most undergraduate sections in the nation’s four and two year colleges and universities. This situation is unlikely to change given three factors:

1. Colleges and universities do not have the funds to hire more full-time faculty.

2. When funds are available, they will not be spent on teaching faculty.

3. Full-time faculty do not want to teach the courses anyhow.


Public colleges, universities, and community colleges are having a horrible time trying to make their budgets work. Public sector schools have lost millions of dollars in support from their states. This is not going to change soon. State revenues depend on real estate and income taxes. Both of these sources have plummeted along with housing assessments and employment. Private colleges complain of endowment losses taking their toll on their revenues though this could change going forward as the Dow hovers around 11,000. Both have to deal with increased costs of operations whether those go to teaching students or not; and many do not.

It is perceived budgeting ad fund raising “wisdom” that a new tenure track position costs a school $1,000,000 over the employment of the faculty member. Considering that the future is unclear, it is likely that few schools will want to invest that much in a teaching faculty member; in a researcher, maybe.

Most schools can hire enough adjuncts to cover almost 27 classes for the cost of an average faculty member which the AAUP stated is $80,368 in 2009-2010. Oh wait. Forgot the benefits which usually run at about 30% of salary so that’s another $24110 or another eight sections. So, for the cost of a full-timer faculty member, a school can get 35 sections covered by adjuncts who are too willing to take them just to be able to eat and pay rent.


Furthermore, not having a faculty member committed to a specific department and most usually a sub-specialization in that department (English, American Lit, 19th century, fiction, Melville, Moby Dick, lack of boat shoe images…) allows the institution greater latitude in putting funding where the demand is – like composition which no sensible faculty member seeking tenure or promotion would want to spend time teaching.


Hiring adjuncts provides administrators and managers with much greater flexibility too. Adjuncts really have few if any rights so they can be maltreated so much more easily than full-time faculty. Full-timers have these pesky unions and representation they can fall back on to fight for them. Faculty can be persuaded to take up the cause of even a faculty member they do not like, respect or feel should be teaching/researching/taking up space if there is a precedent that might affect them at some point. But adjuncts can be hired by the semester or term so if there is any reason not to rehire an adjunct, it is simple to not do so. Once a full-time faculty is in place, moving him or her is a cause for real problems even if the faculty are excoriated by students as appears to have been the case at the University of Missouri which had to pass a Board policy to be able to take questionable faculty from the classroom.


Adjuncts will also be willing to take the sections of courses that others do not want like a required math, English, history, social science even science course or for that matter most any course before 10 in the morning, after 2 in the afternoon and surely not in the evening college. And if an adjunct should balk at an early morning or late night section, drop hi or her from the list and get another.


Many of the reasons why administrators like adjuncts are shared by full-time faculty. Full-timers prefer Tuesday-Thursday or at worst Mon, Wed, Friday schedules but not with sections too early or late in the day. Adjuncts will take the large or work intensive required courses that full-timers prefer to avoid. Cheap adjunct labor can allow for more release time for full-timers so they can pursue their research/publication/tenure/promotion agendas.


One More Reality about Full-timers and Adjuncts

Let me be very clear here too about the reality that there are very fine, dedicated full-timers who do like teaching, teaching required courses and are not at all afraid or aversive to work. They are the wonderful people that have made American higher education what it used to be. I was fortunate enough to have had some of them as teachers at the University of Massachusetts in Boston and in grad school at UMass-Amherst. They deserve all they get/got and much, much more.


But then so do adjuncts. We need to accept the reality that they are here and they are dear to students everywhere. They can teach as well and sometimes better than full-timers as study after study has established. They are the backbone of the core mission of higher education – teaching and learning. They are the ones that support the reason why students come to college, people pay for it and our taxes support it.


Yet, we do not support them well. They are the pariahs of higher education. We are totally dependent on adjuncts yet treat them as if we do not care about them much at all or wish they would go away while not wanting that to happen. They are grossly underpaid and under-appreciated.

Granted some adjuncts teach because they wish to do so; to give back, earn some flat screen TV money or just enjoy teaching. They are independent of the earnings they get from adjunct teaching. But the majority of adjuncts are dependent on the college or university for their livelihood and sense of professional self. These are the people higher education created and pushed to go to grad school, become a credentialed professional. These are the same people we encouraged to take our grad classes, get an MA or even a PhD so they could become a…an adjunct? Didn’t we know the situation in the job market? Maybe but we do need the dependent adjunct class.


The reality is also that we created the dependent adjunct class, an academic serf class that depends on the gleanings from the fields of academe. We thus need to accept this reality too and start to realize the world we once knew or imagined or pine for is gone. The world we created, the one of the adjunct is here and we need to find ways to not just make peace with it but cut out a fair piece of it with the adjuncts who make today’s and tomorrow’s academia work at all.

IF THIS ARTICLE MAKES SENSE TO YOU, YOU WILL WANT
TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE BEST-SELLING NEW BOOK ON
RETENTION AND ACADEMIC CUSTOMER SERVICE




THE POWER OF RETENTION:MORE CUSTOMER SERVICE IN HIGHER EDUCATION by clicking here


AcademicMAPS is the leader in increasing student retention, enrollment and revenue through research training and academic customer service solutions for colleges, universities and career colleges in the US, Canada, and Europe as well as businesses that seek to work with them

We increase your success

CALL OR EMAIL TODAY

Neal is a pleasure to work with – his depth of knowledge and engaging, approachable style creates a strong connection with attendees. He goes beyond the typical, “show up, talk, and leave” experience that some professional speakers use. He “walks the talk” with his passion for customer service. We exchanged multiple emails prior to the event, with his focus being on meeting our needs, understanding our organization and creating a customized presentation. Neal also attended and actively participated in our evening-before team-building event, forging positive relationships with attendees – truly getting to know them. Personable, knowledgeable, down-to-earth and inspiring…. " Jean Wolfe, Training Manager, Davenport University


“We had hoped we’d improve our retention by 3% but with the help of Dr. Raisman, we increased it by 5%.” Rachel Albert, Provost, University of Maine-Farmington



“Neal led a retreat that initiated customer service and retention as a real focus for us and gave us a clear plan. Then he followed up with presentations and workshops that kicked us all into high gear. We recommend with no reservations; just success.” Susan Mesheau, Executive Director U First: Integrated Recruitment & Retention University of New Brunswick, CA


“Thank you so much for the wonderful workshop at Lincoln Technical Institute. It served to re-center ideas in a great way. I perceived it to be a morale booster, breath of fresh air, and a burst of passion.” Shelly S, Faculty Member, Lincoln Technical Institute

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Starting the Attrition Process- Overselling, Overpromising, Underproviding

Retention, Academic Customer Service, student services
Here’s a real life example from the “real world” of business that helps illuminate a critical point in the attrition process. Yes the attrition, not retention process. I am calling it that because we often work harder to push people out the door than we do to keep them once they have enrolled.

This critical point comes just after Admissions has made a successful sale. Yes, it is a sale. Call it an enrollment if it makes you feel better but Admissions is the college sales department. That’s why we spend so much on marketing and brand building. To make a sale.

As a way to get the word out ever more strongly about the need for colleges and universities of all types to become more focused on academic customer service, we decided to work with a company that provides software and services to help promote our blog/zine and its articles. I had been contacted by the company and since it offered a $50 credit at Barnes and Noble if I listened to its schpiel and I was looking for a service, I figured okay. I listened and did the demo with the sales person. It sounded like what I needed so I decided to try it and bought a contract for a year. The sales person did a great job of selling and getting me to buy. Enthusiastic, caring, compassionate, helpful, promising assistance, training, continuing support and probable success.

I was promised assistance, a personal account executive and training to be sure I would be successful. It is overt two weeks later and I have not been contact by the account exec I was promised, training which was stated as daily is not, the technical and training staff I called yesterday could not find my account. And it appears I was sold one product when I thought I was buying another. Oh I won’t name the company right now but will if I am not able to get resolution to the problems.

Oh yes, I did not get my Barnes and Noble card either.

I have contacted the company and let them know that after two frustrating weeks of no contact from them to help me, train me or just help me get started I want out. They did a great job of selling but follow-up simply hoovered…..vacuumed….. You know what I mean. There is more to it but this should be enough to help illuminate how we in higher education do very similar things.

Admissions sells the student through presentation, promises of help and assistance and whatever needs to be done (within the rules and regs….of course though there are cases on enrollment ethical deficit syndrome – that dreaded disorder that hurts everyone). Then once the sale is made, the application obtained…. Bupkis. Admissions sends the information along to…to…. to the IMS system and the student is now on his own.

There is no clear handoff to assure that the promises made, the service promised and the help assured actually take place. Most schools do not employ a set stitch-in process to assure students who apply actually enroll and show up for classes. Just as the company I am dropping did not realize that the sale is not completed with the salesperson getting the agreement, many too many colleges, universities, community colleges and career colleges seem to erroneously believe enrollment ends with the application. It does not.

In fact, there is a new report that speaks to some of this issue though does not recognize that this is an academic customer service issue. The report Benchmarking and Benchmarks based on the Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE) Published by the Center for Community College Student Engagement at the University of Texas in Austin discusses how students get a great sales pitch and initial welcome but little real follow-up or promised assistance in community colleges. The report tries to focus on best practices at some schools but also realizes that


Less than half of respondents (45%) agree or strongly agree that at least one college staff member (other than an instructor) learned their names, compared with 37% who disagree or strongly disagree.


Less than a quarter of students (23%) say that a specific person was assigned to them so they could see that person each time they needed information or assistance. (page 7)

This year’s survey finds that most institutions are doing a good job rolling out the welcome mat during orientation. Almost three-quarters of students agreed or strongly agreed “that they felt welcome the first time they came to their college.” Beyond the hospitable air, however, students did not find much substance. Just under half of them agreed or strongly agreed “that their college provided them with adequate information about financial assistance” and “that at least one college staff member (other than an instructor) learned their names.” Also, less than a quarter reported that a specific adviser was assigned to them “so they could see that person each time they needed information or assistance.”( InsideHigherEd.com March 29, 2010)


There are some examples in the report of some schools that are at least making an effort to try to bring students in closer and help them feel welcome but these are not quite enough. For example, the report mentions Johnson County Community College.


The Welcome to Campus program at Johnson County Community College (KS) encourages staff members to help new students feel welcome. Participating employees —including the president — commit to calling entering students the week before classes begin and to wearing special T-shirts while greeting students from 7:30 a.m. to the start of evening classes at 6:00 p.m. for at least the first two class days. Employees are positioned in high-traffic areas to give students necessary information. In spring 2010, approximately 160 employees participated in the program.


This is a start and perhaps a fairly good one but for the first two class days! That is not enough and there is no evidence of a clear hand-off that continues throughout the student’s full career. Remember that community colleges have a less than 30% graduation rate so the first two classes just will not cut it. A start yes but just a start as part of the sales process not the retention process. Enrollment is not just the first week but through to graduation.


Colleges need to be sure to develop a systematic approach to retention that includes definite and assured handoffs from admissions to an individual who will accept responsibility for the student not just for the first two classes days or even the first week but throughout the career.


I can assure Johnson County that if those 160 employees maintained contact with at least one student throughout the student’s career, the college would see at least 134 more students cross the stage at graduation. Just as I could assure the company I am dropping I would be a continuing customer if they had stayed with the sale after the sale. It is as important in higher education as in the so-called “real world” to provide full service and stitch the customer in; not lose him.


If the PR company had done that, I would not have even been concerned I didn’t get the Barnes and Noble card. But now….


If this article makes sense to you
you will want to get my new book
The Power of Retention
:
More Customer Service for Higher Education

by clicking here


AcademicMAPS is the leader in increasing student retention, enrollment and revenue through research training and customer service solutions to colleges, universities and career colleges in the US, Canada, and Europe as well as to businesses that seek to work with them
We increase your success

CALL OR EMAIL TODAY
TO INCREASE YOUR SCHOOL'S RETENTION

www.GreatServiceMatters.com
info@GreatServiceMatters.com
413.219.6939 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 413.219.6939 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 413.219.6939 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Neal is a pleasure to work with – his depth of knowledge and engaging, approachable style creates a strong connection with attendees. He goes beyond the typical, “show up, talk, and leave” experience that some professional speakers use. He “walks the talk” with his passion for customer service. We exchanged multiple emails prior to the event, with his focus being on meeting our needs, understanding our organization and creating a customized presentation. Neal also attended and actively participated in our evening-before team-building event, forging positive relationships with attendees – truly getting to know them. Personable, knowledgeable, down-to-earth and inspiring…. " Jean Wolfe, Training Manager, Davenport University

“We had hoped we’d improve our retention by 3% but with the help of Dr. Raisman, we increased it by 5%. Rachel Albert, Provost, University of Maine-Farmington

“Thank you so much for the wonderful workshop at Lincoln Technical Institute. It served to re-center ideas in a great way. I perceived it to be a morale booster, breath of fresh air, and a burst of passion.” Shelly S, Faculty Member, Lincoln Technical Institute

“Neal led a retreat that initiated customer service and retention as a real focus for us and gave us a clear plan. Then he followed up with presentations and workshops that kicked us all into high gear. We recommend with no reservations; just success.” Susan Mesheau, Executive Director U First: Integrated Recruitment & Retention University of New Brunswick, Canada