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

Hierarchy of Student Decision Making Step 5- Will I Like it?

This is the final installment on the Hierarchy of Student Decision Making.
Introduction How they Choose click here
Installment 2- Can I Get In? click here.
Installment 3 - Can I Afford it? click here
Installment 4 - Can I Graduate? click here
Installment 5 -Can I Get a Job click here



The Hierarchy of Student Decision-Making Step 5

Will I Like It?

When the four other hierarchical steps/decisions are satisfied in one or another way, the final enroll/stay question comes into play. This is a question that is less practical perhaps but becomes the primary concern for students once issues 1-4 are resolved. This decision question - Will I like it?

Colleges and universities almost always make the answer a rather simplistic statement of a fairly complex issue. Most schools boil the enjoy issue down to one of two words – satisfaction and/or enjoyment. And they then implement these through activities the institution provides such as events or spectator sports. The belief is that if students enjoy things, they will be satisfied. But what one person likes or enjoys may not be what another does. What a school does in the belief that “they will enjoy it” often, nah, usually misses the mark by a wide margin.

Satisfaction?
Is the student satisfied? As it was put so well so many years ago by the Rolling Stones “I can’t get no satisfaction” no matter what I try. Part of the reason is that no one knows what satisfaction really is. And when found, it is quite fleeting. What is satisfying to one is not necessarily satisfying to another. Could it be pleasure? But pleasure too seems so momentary and hedonistic. Like eating a good meal or even making love. When it is being eaten or being made it may be pleasurable but when done… It’s over. Satisfaction? Fleeting at best. Not what one wants to base a service program on but so many will settle for it because it sounds right and there are even surveys that can “measure” it. So maybe satisfaction is a good indicator of….

But to give it its due, satisfaction is an important concept in customer service. We even have it in one of the 15 Principles of Good Academic Customer Service. (Click here to request a copy) It’s number 12

12. Satisfaction is not enough and never the goal.

Why not?

I’ll give a personal example. I travel a great deal as I work with schools, colleges, universities and businesses that wish to improve their customer service and success. When I returned home after a ten day trip out, my wife who is a great cook made a fantastic meal. It was an Asian delight. Hot and sour soup. Green onion pancakes. Fried dumplings. Peking pancakes with meat topping and a vegetable stir fry. This was a meal that she had really putchkeyed over; cutting the vegetables, filling the dumplings, sautéing the meat, rolling out the dough and just putting a great deal of work, preparation and emotion into it.

At the end of the meal with the sink full of pots and pans that would need attention, she asked me “How was it? I smiled and said “quite satisfying”.

I have been eating out a bit more than I used to now. (BTW, this is an imagined experience that would be true if it ever happened. Even though I was a college president, even I am not that dumb)

Shouldn’t satisfaction be more long lasting than a great meal anyhow? Well, maybe it really is happiness which we know even less about?

In his book Satisfaction: The Science of Finding True Fulfillment (Henry Holt and Company; 2005) Gregory Berns writes:

Seeking satisfaction is distinct from chasing pleasure. Satisfaction is an emotion that captures the uniquely human need to impart meaning to one’s activities. When you are satisfied, you have found meaning, which I think we all agree is more enduring than pleasure or even happiness…(p.244)

Most schools believe that intercollegiate athletics are a draw; something that will retain students since they enjoy watching sports. But the studies do not support this in most schools. For the football and basketball powerhouses, there is some entertainment value certainly but when one drops below the top tier, the stands are often empty.

Let Them Eat Football
Living in Columbus, OH, it is clear that OSU football is the center of life. When there is a home game, the city is fully animated. It would appear that students love going to a football game. Look at how the Horseshoe fills up completely every game with mostly non-students. Football tickets are for the non-student population. Football is not for the students. It is for the alumni, donors, significant supporters and administrators. In fact, when OSU was playing Florida for the national championship, only 1000 of the 16,000 OSU tickets were set aside for students. Only band members were assured a ticket. The team may have built school pride I suppose but that eroded a bit after the loss. Moreover, there was no satisfaction at all with the team’s performance and loss in the championship. And the retention numbers were not affected. Football is not a true customer service for students or the campus community as the recent testimony before the Knight Commission indicates.

Sports can indeed add to the school’s image and help with recruitment. For instance, when I was Associate Provost at the University of Cincinnati, the basketball team made it into the Final Four. The University president, Joe Steger, said we could cut the marketing budget for the next year. The sport’s success would attract more applications. And he was correct. But it did not have any effect on the retention at the University. When I was the Chancellor of a three-campus career college, I increased the number of intercollegiate sports teams from 4 to 13. Why? Because students wanted to play collegiate sports. It increased enrollment by over 140 students a year. Athletics helped our intake enrollment but did not help us with retaining population in general just as the Bearcats in the Final Four did not help UC retention. Activities like athletics do not add to retention unless the students are on the team, the band, a cheerleader or somehow involved with the team or activity.

The Engaging Feeling of Activity
There is that word activity again. And it is worth stating many times for that is the key to student’s liking or not liking, enjoying or not enjoying their collegiate experience. It is the level of engagement a student feels that really counts, but not as defined by the NSSE which looks at academic engagement alone.

Whether a student will like being at a school and likely stay has to do with how well the individual feels the institution actively engages him or her. Actively here means involving him or her in the institution is a way that makes the student feel valued and significant. That engagement that makes someone feel valuable can be as basic and as very powerful as our Good Academic Customer Service Principle 1

EVERY STUDENT WANTS TO ATTEND
CHEERS UNIVERSITY AND EVERY
EMPLOYEE WANTS TO WORK THERE!

“where everybody knows your name
and they’re awfully glad you came”

Just recall the Cheers TV show for a moment. People who came into the bar were made to feel as if they mattered; as if they had value. The simple act of welcoming Norm by calling out his name made him feel valued and important in the bar. Maybe nowhere else but there, he was NORM! The same is true for students. A school may not have everyone line up and shout out students’ names as they enter a building of course for two reasons. First, most people would feel dumb and awkward doing that. And two, we generally do not learn the names so we would get them wrong. The wrong name. Not a great welcome.

But it would be possible to at least recognize each student and employee/colleague. Not every character on Cheers received the Norm greeting but they all did get a “Hi” or Hello”, ‘Good to see yuh” and the such. Every student can and should be given a “Hi or Good Morning. How are you today?” as we pass them in the halls or on the campus. And then we should actually listen for the response and even react to it. (This is discussed in greater depth.) This simple activity creates engagement and leads to a person feeling a part of the university no matter what size it is. The more hellos from those identified with the college or university, the greater the active imprinting on the student. The result is that students become happier to be at the college and that improves their sense of liking it. They feel a valued part and thus are greatly inclined to stay where they feel appreciated and respected.

Those Who Can Engage - Do
As I have studied all levels and types of schools, another key retention factor comes through. Students who are actually active in the school through activities such as work-study, part-time jobs, band, athletics, newspaper, frats and sororities, volunteering, and clubs tend to like the college more than those who don’t. They are happier. These are all activities that provide the hello as well as an obligation and giving something. The responsibility is important since it ties the student to the activity and the activity to the school. It makes the activity important and in so doing makes the student more important. Even if the part-time job is sweeping a hall, that hall becomes “my hall.”

In fact, providing students part-time jobs to make tuition money is a better way to spend dollars than even scholarships. Scholarships may attract the student at first and help answer hierarchy concern 2 Can I afford it, but the beneficial effect of a scholarship is short-lived. Once in, it is passé. If a school gave some scholarship in the form of part-time work, and even better, part-time work that could relate to major, that investment is one in retention and happiness. Imagine a chem. major helping in a lab. A soc major assisting a sociology prof and so on. These activities would connect the students to the school much more than an initial handout.

In Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) (Hartcourt:2007) Tavris and Aronson discuss the virtuous circles that can create a spiral that starts with a deed that helps another or an organization and increases another’s attachment to the person or organization.

When people do a good deed…they will come to see the beneficiary of their generosity in a warmer light. Their cognition that they went out of their way to do a favor for this person is dissonant with any negative feelings they might have had about him. In effect, after doing the favor, they ask themselves: “Why would I do something nice for a jerk? Therefore , he’s not as big a jerk as I thought he was – as a matter of fact, he is a pretty nice guy who deserves a break.” (p.28)

Students who work at or participate in the university will also feel the institution is a positive place to be.

The truth of this can be seen and heard in what Jeffrey Docking, President of Adrian College in Michigan did to increase enrollment at the school. He added activities such as band, athletics and other co-curricular activities that would attract and retain students. Pres. Docking also did give every activity an enrollment goal which made it important for the coaches for instance to create a Cheers atmosphere in the Division III, no scholarships college. Without scholarships, the coaches had to use personal attachment and customer service to attract students so they could meet their goals. The result, a 91% increase in freshman enrollment that also translated into retention.

While some feared academic standards would suffer, the effect has been the opposite. The freshman class has a higher academic profile, and the percentage of freshmen who returned to second semester jumped from 77 to 93 -- the highest retention rate in the school's history.

Adrian is providing students the opportunity to engage in something they enjoy and the college at the same time. They get something out of playing sports, being in the band, writing the newspaper and so on. They invest in these activities. These activities also engage them in service to the activity and school thus increasing their ties to the college.

So, there is one customer service that colleges can provide the students that will also increase retention and happiness. That is the service of being active in the school and being able to serve it.

The First Step in the Hierarchy- Can I Get In?

This is part 2 of a 6 part discussion on the Hierarchy of Student Decision-Making

The first issue Can I Get In? is of course the most primary and pragmatic of the concerns. After all, if a student can’t gain acceptance to a school, all the other issues are moot. If they cannot be admitted they never have to worry at all about whether they can pay for it or if they will be able to graduate from the school. Not be admitted generally answers these questions by making them rather moot. Therefore, students put the most effort into choosing schools they believe they can gain entry into.

This does not mean they do not attempt to get into schools for which they know are long shots because if they do somehow get into a “selective college” they have still answered the question. In fact, if they are accepted into a school that was a “stretch” they feel better about their initial acceptance.

But they are also immediately thrown into an at-risk situation because they may believe they could be able to succeed and graduate, but the school may actually be less sure. Too many schools accept students who are marginal so they can assure they have the “right number” of students to start the year and revenue stream. These schools may partially delude themselves into believing they are providing a chance to the student but too very often the acceptance is to meet less altruistic goals. Keep in mind that colleges build what they believe may be the annual attrition percentage into the budget. If it is planned for then that is an “acceptable attrition number”. It may not be as acceptable to the students who either fail or decide that this college was not for them. But let’s keep in mind the budgetary needs of the school even if they could not be compatible with the financial condition of a marginal student.

As you might have guessed from the minor irony above, not only is selling the wrong school to the wrong student poor customer service, it is ethically challenged. Admitting students who really are marginal is neither fair to the students nor the school. Clearly the students who are accepted into the wrong school and drop out because of bad fit are cheated. The have wasted money, time and a more importantly, a large part of their self-confidence and emotional investment.

The school also loses. Sure, it loses money but it also is cheated out of its ability to fulfill a section of its mission. It has defaulted on its chance to improve on someone’s life and future. The college have lost the ability to make a difference in the future not just of a person but the society and culture.

So, perhaps schools should be certain that they use a variation of the primary question to assure they provide appropriate customer service to its clients, students and itself. That question that should be answered honestly.

1. Should this student get in to begin with?
   

Is an enrollment that important? Should it be?

Keep in mind that a rather steady and strongly correct argument I have been making is that retention has power. Retain more students and the admission numbers can actually become less important. Retention reduces the need to replace drops which is a major factor in the admission’s quota. Simply put, if admissions does not have to replace as many emptied slots, they and the school will have fewer students required to come in.

For the beginning installment of Hierarchy of Student Decision-Making clck here

The Hierarchy Of Student Decisions Making- how they choose

Over the past two years, we have been interviewing students to listen and better understand what they seek from going to college. We also sought to hear what motivates them to make their decisions to choose a school or leave it.

There is much we learned from the 618 students. One of the things we came to understand is that there is a five step hierarchy of student concerns that guides most of their decision-making in choosing a school, then deciding to stay or leave. These steps in the hierarchy are governed primarily by some logical decision-making. The emotional aspects of fit and all seemed to be there I am sure but it did not come up except as a last aspect of the decision hierarchy when the other four preceding, or more important steps were answered in their minds.

The hierarchy takes the form of five questions students (and parents) think about when considering a college, university or career school to attend. Can I get in? Can I afford it? Can I graduate? Can I get a job? and Will I like it?

In some ways the questions parallel the organization of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need which starts at physiological concerns such as breathing, eating, drinking, procreating – all issues that are basic to just staying alive. Also as with Maslow simply because a question or need is fulfilled at a point in time does not mean a student will not regress down the hierarchy to return to a lower-level need. This will almost always occur for example when tuition, fees, housing, meal tickets and so on come due for payment. The need to focus on Can I afford it comes back until the question is answered.

As we can see in Maslow’s hierarchy, without being alive, none of the following higher level needs matter after all. If one is dead, it is hard to worry about anything else. And so it is with the Student Decision Hierarchy. They proceed from basic issues of “being alive in a decision process” such as getting accepted to the school. They then move from lower/basic considerations of necessity and immediacy to considerations of ROI, the future and even an issue of satisfaction. But, the question of a satisfying experience is the last issue for consideration by students. This placement suggests a parallel to Maslow’s category of “esteem” but maybe not yet self-actualization. Enjoying school can only be a concern after the very practical survival issues from gaining entrance to a job are addressed. After the basic and practical considerations are resolve allowing a student to worry about having a good time as a decision point.

So what does this say to us?

It says that students start from basic and practical considerations toward their college experience as a way to a means. Granted, not every single one perhaps. There are students who may go to college for the parties and the college experience or because their parents have told them they will go. Students in these groups may not deal with the issues of the hierarchy seriously but then they are usually not serious students and have a tendency to either do something academics refer to as flunk out or finally getting with the script. Those that are going to funk out because they really do not attend the college except to participate in its social life are seldom students we can affect positively no matter what we do. So we cannot focus too much effort on them but on the major cohorts of students who can be affected positively to stay at the school through customer service

To do so a significant part of customer service needs to focus on their hierarchical concerns and how they see college. They see it, as we already know from the annual CIRP UCLA Freshman Attitudes study as a means to an end, a job/career. For students, that end is quite practical just as the hierarchy shows the beginning decision-making is. At their core, students are practical about attending higher education. From start to finish, students go to college and will stay at a school if it can supply that objective of a job.

Sure they would like to enjoy the experience but they will endure if it means they can get that job. That is the major focus They wish to enjoy their time at college but they cannot do that until we serve their other more pressing concerns – paying for it, getting what they need to graduate and finally, an assurance they can get a job or get into a good grad school on the way to a career from their college experience.

Yet, though students are practical and career-focused in the drive to attend and stay at a school what we find is that most schools spend most of their time , money and effort attempting to affect the highest-level, lowest need concern in the hierarchy – enjoying school. From the first day of orientation, “you’ll love it here” is the focus when perhaps focusing more on paying for school in the future, graduation and careers is a better investment. It may be that when we concentrate too much on trying to make students enjoy their experience, we are not serving them as well as we could. Nor are we necessarily helping retention as we will discuss in the next posting which continues the discussion on the Hierarchy of Student Decision-Making.

The Hierarchy of Student Decisions appears to me to be a bit blurred. It if looks the same to you, please contact me at nealr@GreatServiceMatters.com and I will send you a clear JPEG of it. Course, I have been working all day at this laptop and my eyes may just be blurry and not the diagram.

The ROI of Retention 2 - CSFactor 2

CSFactor 2

CSF2 = [(SL x CA = -E) + CSL1]

There is a universal law that it should take less energy to sit on a flagpole than to climb it. Seems logical. Climbing it numerous times to gain four different views would require burning more calories than shinnying up once and sitting up there to look around for the views.

Yet there are certainly those who seem to have not learned the lesson. Colleges that have not yet focused on the value of retention which can be increased through some simple customer service training rely on the old churn and burn approach. Keep bringing in ever increasing numbers of new students and don’t worry if they just drop out never to return. Just get some more.

These schools make admission folks in particular climb the pole over and over, burn calories, the late night compact fluorescents, and just plain burn out trying to meet ever-increasing admission goals. You’d think some universities had never heard of flag pole sitting on a pillow called retention. Or the stabilizing element of customer service that creates the toochas-saving cushioning in the pillow. Or ever concerned themselves with little issues like revenue, budgets and paying for things. Or the energy-saving and budget building value and cost-savings of retention. Because flagpole climbing not only burns calories and people, but piles of revenue.

Admissions Costs – Retention Saves CSF2

Another simple reality here. Every student a college enrolls costs it money to do so – big money too! Every student retained costs from nothing to quite little.

In fact a study we did two years ago found that the average cost of enrolling a student is $5,460. This study of 40 randomly chosen colleges, universities and career schools included ALL cost of enrolling a student. Most colleges just look at direct marketing costs per student and forget about all the associated costs. They divide marketing and advertising, maybe lead costs too, by the number of students and voila – a miscalculation.

The real costs of enrolling a student include the marketing costs yes, but also the marketing staff, advertising, publications, admission staff, clerical people, travel, orientation, printing, allocated time and effort from bursar, registrar, academics, counseling, advising, student services, financial aid, orientation, registration, and so on; mailings, emails, phone calls, website and so on and on and on. Fixed capital costs associated with most all of this add another 7-9% on the average. There are in fact very few parts of a college that are not involved at some point and time in admissions. We also found that schools were not including all students who had made inquiries to the college. Every time a student is responded to, there are costs. These all add to the time and costs. Considerable costs. $5,460 worth of costs. (For those who wish the full description, methodology and breakouts of research data, I am sorry to say we do not supply it. It is proprietary and not available.)

For some schools, the cost of recruiting a student actually outweighs the tuition received from them. The ones that survive are generally assisted by some public assistance based on an unduplicated headcount formula. But even with public assistance many schools still lose money on student acquisition when he or she who drops out. (I suppose they intend to make it up on volume?) This is especially so if the student leaves before providing tuition and fees at least equal to the acquisition costs. And every student who leaves must be replaced with at least another at another additional expenditure of $5,460. But it usually required more than one re[placement student and associated acquisition costs.

In fact, to obtain one FGE (full time graduate equivalent) at the average annualized attrition of 32%, it will take 3-4 students acquired to get one FGE at a two-year school. 6-8 will be needed at a four-year school, with an average graduation at 5 years. If average graduation is more than 5 years, add another admission needed to get the FGE.

By the way, annualized tuition is the number a school should use to figure its real attrition. Not the retention between the freshman and sophomore years which is a very popular one. That leaves out all the students who already dropped out before the end of the second term or semester. That number fudges failure. For instance, if a college began a year with 100 new freshman and 99 left in week one but the remaining student stayed the whole year and returned, the freshman to sophomore percentage would be 100%.

Annualized attrition includes all students who left. It does not look at a starting class such as the freshman class as an isolated entity. It recognizes the Sophomore Bubble, the junior jump, senior slide, super senior slump and the “I’m not sure what I am except outta here” slump. Students leave at all times and should all be counted in the attrition number to be able to not just be real but to really understands how a college and its budget are actually performing.

The cost of retention at one school was reported by a participant during a workshop I was presenting at the Snowmass Institute (a very good enrollment management conference by the way). She said her university spent an average of $35 per retained student.

The Growing Importance of Retention to Graduation

The public, employers and legislatures (local, state and federal) are starting to catch onto the fact that the number of students who start or attend a college or university at headcount day is a meaningless statistic. Granted it may improve a person to get some education and even a drop out may have added value before leaving a university. But it is the diploma that is the real indicator of the success of a student and a school. That is the certification that everyone uses to determine someone has been educated and trained enough to contribute to the economy, the culture and society. It is the diploma, indifferent to whether it really indicates the holder is truly educated or really capable, that is the sign this person can be considered for a job and add to the economy.

This is our own fault to some extent. We keep telling society and legislatures that higher education is the fuel for the engine of the economy. And they have started to believe us to the point that they want to put the emphasis on the number of graduates that schools put into the economy. This is where political accountability is starting to move. The number of grads, not just attendees. Support formulas are going to start moving to the number of graduates and work backwards to entering students.

Starting with the number of graduates will make retention and even more important issue than it is now. This is due to retention rule 4 – students who drop out from the school tend not to graduate.

CSFactor 2 Using the formula.

CSF2 = [SL x CA = -E) + CSL1]

SL - # of students lost
CA – Cost of acquisition
-E – Enrollment $ lost
CSF2 – Total revenue lost

So using the numbers from the prior CSF1 example:

[198 x $5,460 = $1,081,080 + $2,574,000) = -$3,655,080.

This school has lost $3,655,080 along with almost 200 students. If it had retained the 198 students, it would have saved the $3.6 million. Even if it did cost $35 a student to retain them, that would have cost them $6,930. Even if we wish to extend that out of four years, the $27,720 is still just a bit less than $3.6 million.

Seems again that retention saves while attrition costs. And one hell of a lot of money.

But let’s not forget the human costs of people working very hard to bring students into the school just to see them leave. We have not even worked in the costs of replacing admissions and enrollment people who simply burn out from the ever-increasing new student goals and the psychological pain of climbing the ever-growing flagpole every start when they should be able to just sit there every so often and enjoy the retention view.

Serve Customers When They Are Hungry

Want a positive response from students?

Easy. FILL THEIR BELLIES.

We have found that colleges are like fast food restaurants in the minds of students. They are places they go to learn when they are hungry for knowledge.

When they are hungry. These are the key words. Not when the restaurant feels like serving but when the customers are hungry.

Sure we older academic folk still adhere to notions of breakfast, lunch and dinner. But then we love traditions and traditional structure.

Not so the students we seek to recruit and retain. Breakfast. Not time for that. Lunch. Gotta run. I’ll grab something. Family all gathered around the table for dinner. Ahhhhh, that Norman Rockwell picture will not be seen on SaturdayEveningPost.com.

And the old burgers with the ketchup, mustard and pickle sitting wrapped under the warmer? Nope. I want it my way not the way it is easiest for your production line and workers. Won’t do it my way? Someone else will and I will go there. I will think beyond the bun.

Yet oddly enough the product is basically the same. The thin, high fat, low nutrition burger in a bun or ground up, seasoned in a taco shell. Quality is not the issue as Mickey D found out a few years back when it tried to sell a low fat, more nutritional burger. Health? Certainly not. Just try to find a veggie burger even at B’King which tried to launch them a few years back.

“When I want it” is the issue. Have you noticed yet how the fast food places have expanded their hours to serve those burgers and fries when the customer is hungry? Fourth meal anyone? Two a.m. at the take-out window? Ready when they want it.

Why? Because they like long inconvenient hours for management and workers? No. Because that’s when they want to eat. If restaurants want to sell burgers they have to do so when the customer is hungry. Not simply when they feel they would like to serve.

Okay. A true example, observed a few months back while at a client college that is trying to increase its retention but will likely fail if it doesn’t recognize the time needs of its client students.

An adult student was talking to an advisor. Students could not register for courses without the okay of an advisor. The student explained that “my job is changing and I need a tech writing course as soon as possible.”

“No problem. We have an excellent one.”

“Great. When can I start?”

“Well, let me see. The next semester starts in June.”

“JUNE! No you don’t u8nderstand. I need the course now. I need to the course now. I need it for my new job. I can’t wait until June.”

“Well, I’m sorry but it’s too late for this semester. June is the earliest. We had to cut back on sections because of financial issues….” She said to his back as he walked out.

Where did he go? To another educational restaurant ten miles down the road that would serve him when he’s hungry.

Would you stay in a restaurant that said it decided to not serve lunch today co come back later for dinner? No. You’d find somewhere else that’ll serve you lunch now, when you are hungry. When you want it. And distance is not the question anymore as much as time is. If the commute is within 15 to twenty minutes, maybe up to half-an-hour and the place has the course when I want to be there… Give me the car keys.

An example. I taught in an executive MBA program that met all day, one weekend a month. Students drove over two hours to get there. Stayed overnight. Were in class all day. Gave up their weekends because the timing fit their schedule. It met their educational appetite.

Our campus customer audits have found college menus (i.e. course schedule and offerings) are not designed to meet student hunger at most schools. For instance, we offer the wrong courses at the wrong times. You can get an introductory appetizer in the fall in early morning but in the spring, the next course in the sequence is available for brunch and the student just has twenty minutes for lunch because other required course were scheduled in overlapping times. Or even worse, the first required course is offered in the fall but the second half of the required sequence is not even offered in the spring.

One thing we have realized is that if courses are not offered, students cannot sign up for them. And if they are hungry enough to learn and graduate, they will go elsewhere to get the course. Especially if that is one course that they will need to graduate.

So what to do? Here are some suggestions.

Learn more about your students’ educational eating habits. Find out when they may be hungry rather than simply when you might wish to serve. And you may even wish to find how long they feel they want to feed as well. It may surprise you.

Stagger the start of some basic courses like English composition. They do not have to all start on the same day. Try offering a start every two weeks with varying time commitments and class lengths that match student hungry times.

Schedule to the customer. People want education when they need it ad the hunger is there. Some colleges have realized this and schedule to need. They offer staggered starts throughout the semesters, condensed programs, variable formats, in class and on-line, fully digitized and hybrid. They are succeeding with their students, building market, enrollment and a reputation for great customer service that will lead to even greater success.

Study your offerings and schedule. Se if you can provide students an educational menu with the right choices in the correct order for proper nutrition and pleasure. And oh yuh – do not substitute candy for real leaning meat. Don’t weaken content in an attempt to say you are meeting student needs.

Oh yes, to those who shake their heads and say “learning is not like fast food. It takes time to develop and maintain quality. Anything less than a semester length in normal times will lack integrity.” Right! What about the three, four, five and six week summer courses we are offering to students to try and maintain some enrollment during the summer? If we can do it in the summer, why not all year round? And if the summer courses are not as good as “regular semester courses” why do we offer inferior education in the summer? Hypocrisy anyone?

Bottom line here – if you want a positive gut reaction. Schedule offerings to meet the customer’s hunger.

Parking - Losing Enrollments in C -Lot- 1of3

Losing Enrollment in C-Lot
part 1 of 3 (Full article is at University Business)

Maybe I shouldn't be writing now. I have always been told not to go food shopping when I am hungry, or swim right after eating, or take action when upset. I am upset. But then is writing really action? Just for my fingers I think. So I will let my fingers do the squawking and write this while distraught. Besides, I don't want to lose the immediacy of the moment.

I was at a school to conduct a customer service audit. The school was losing enrollment and population was dropping. Sure, they planned on a 32 percent attrition rate in the budget. I think that a 68 is a D+. Passing but not by much.

And when translated into dollars and jobs, it seemed they were actually planning for failure. Easy to hit that goal-- a goal to fail, that is. Maybe failing to budget but failing nonetheless. So I was hired to come on campus with my team to find out why this college was failing so badly.

When doing an audit, my team studies every service and marketing aspect of a school. We act as would potential students and see what it feels like to attend the institution. So we do everything a student would do when coming on campus for the first time. Then once we're "in" we check out, explore, and measure every aspect of the service at the place except one--teaching. That's the one area that is most important, the central customer service finally, but almost always not open for review. I wonder why schools would not want potential students to preview or try out a primary aspect of their purchase? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

This particular college is primarily a commuting college with very little public transportation access. So, almost everyone drives his or her car to come to the campus. We started out in our rental car to find the place. Turns out, that was a real chore. The directions on the website were not clear. They included the usual false assurance that, "Oh, you know the way.-You'll find it." There was no indication of the correct exit off the highway or the correct road that leads to the college. There were no clear directional signs pointing the way once we did figure out what exit we should have taken.

Students cannot get to a school if they cannot find the way! Keep in mind that many students are quite tentative about college and are actually seeking reasons not to come. The surest way to be sure a student doesn't come is to keep them from getting there. "Uhhh Mom, I tried to go and register but I couldn't find the place. I drove around and around and finally saud the hell with it."

Try driving the route yourself as if you do not know where the school is. Just use signs along the way. Can you do it? Didn't think so. Just like the first time you tried to find your way for that job interview. Recall the anxiety? The angst? The distress? Potential students don't need any additional stress.

Make it easy for them to find their way to the school.

By the way if you wish to learn more about a campus customer service audit, just let me know. nealr@greatservicematters.com

Starbucks and Enrollment Increases

The way students look at the world has changed. What they are looking for has changed. How the act and interact with their environment has changed. Colleges and schools have.....not changed. And they wonder why enrolling and retainingh students is getting tougher. Duh!

I have been preaching that we need to get away from old worn out admission and retention approaches. They are not helping. The market mind hs shifted and we have not kept up... and create an atmosphere that is more informal; one in which a potential student can relax yet still feel as if it can be a formal, getting business done arrangement. As I studied high school and college students to see where they seem to be comfortable yet able to do school related work. I needed to find a model that would convey to students that this is a place in which I can see myself and also create an affective bond to from my own experience. A place that feels like what I know and with which I can identify.

The answer- Starbucks or a coffee shop.

If you observe the target market for schools, these locations are where the potential enrollees go and spend large amounts of time talking with friends, reading, doing homework, tutoring or getting tutored, IM’ing, WIFI-ing and generally hanging around. It is surprising how much work, often collaborative work, is done in a Starbucks-like atmosphere.

So it became obvious that this should be the structure. Get out of the cubicles. Dump the formal desk that evokes negative affective responses. Set up a Starbucks-like zone area. Small intimate round tables (or small squares/rectangles) where potential students can sit with an admissions rep or even better, two and just talk. Create a Starbuckian-like atmosphere with colors that relax, photographs that will set a calming atmosphere and even music playing quietly in the background. Keep in mind that today’s students have grown up enveloped in music so much that it is de rigueur in all they do – even watching TV. It will not intrude. It will enhance.

Get a multi-purpose coffee machine than can make lattes, and other frou frou drinks they are used to having. They are available in numerous formats from school owned to vended and a range of costs. And use a premium grade of coffee. Potential students have grown up on Starbucks, Seattle’s Best, Pete’s and other quality brands, Sorry Maxwell House and Folgers. Also, for non-coffee or tea drinkers, get a small fridge so you can offer soft drinks. Oh yes, a cookie or some nosh will certainly be a value-added.

To those who are saying, he’s nuts, maybe I am. But to create an affective connection and increase the A-ROI, we need to connect not to our values and world but to theirs. Starbuck-like places are where they connect so bring that to them. And reap the increased enrollments as Herzing is.

By the way, also think about setting up student lounges in a similar way if retention is of any concern. These can be set up as profit centers too. Want to learn more on how to increase enrollment and revenue through changing the correlative function of your physical set-up, just call me 413.219.6939 or email me. Be glad to tell you how.

Herzing College Got Out of the Admission Cubicle and Increased Enrollment

I had the pleasure of talking with Roger Gugelmeyer today. Roger is the VP of Operations for Herzing College, a college system with 12 campuses in the US and Canada that focus on career education. Roger was telling me about a new admission’s structure that is a variant on what I have been advising colleges to go to for over a year now. And Roger says the new approach is working very well. (i.e., increasing enrollments & starts).

What the College is doing is getting out of the cubicle/individual office approach to admissions. That’s where an admissions person sits in a cubicle or office behind his or her desk. In the cublicle mode, the potential student generally sits to the right or left side in a typically non-descript office chair. Both have to strain a bit to look at one another and make good eye contact. This traditional set-up almost always reminds students of Dilbert or a movie favorite of theirs, Office Spaces. A space that is connotative of a dull, business-like, corporate, uncaring, undesirable work situation.

Potential students have told us they also relate the cubicle to negative k-12 experiences like a high school student would do when called down to the vice-principle’s office (i.e. in trouble) or when a teacher is tutoring or explaining something. They are recalled as superior/inferior situations. And the student is the inferior. Not a good memory to evoke.

Neither is felt as a positive experience yet we in college admissions do all we can to recreate it.

Herzing is doing away with the individual offices for admissions advisors. At Herzing, all the admission advisors share a “bullpen space” rather than have private offices. The private territories were replaced with nicely appointed interview rooms that are used by all the admission reps on an as-needed basis. The interview rooms are more relaxed, intimate and less corporate in their furnishings (round table, floor lamp, plants, etc.) and design. Much in the way that some companies like Steelcase, and many of their clients, have done away with cubicles and replaced them with common workspaces and shared meeting rooms to create a greater sense of community and cooperation.

The result has been that Herzing admission advisors have enjoyed an increase in applications and enrollments; greater cooperation and increased success, personally and by teams. It is not quite the zone approach discussed in an earlier posting (Basketball as Admissions Metaphor), but it is a variant with solid success

Herzing is headed in the right direction. No question. Tomorrow, we'll discuss combining some of what they are doing, with the objective correlative of Starbucks to "vente-size" admissions. (Not sure that is a real word but then again I'm not sure most of the coffee-related terms are real. I am sure of Starbucks's success and how it can help school admissions. Tomorrow or email me know at nealr@greatservicematers.com.

Greatest Gift of All - Saving Student Enrollment

Give a student, the school and yourself a present.

If you believe that students get a great education at your school, better than elsewhere. you should do all you can to keep students at your school. You don’t wish them an inferior education do you?

To really give students a present, give the school the population it needs for next term and to make yourself feel as if you really have accomplished something, start by getting a list of every student who has indicated he or she may or is leaving. Call every one of them personally but as if you do not know they are dropping out. A personal call is often all they need to change their mind.

Here’s a script that works. Change it to your tastes.

“Hi _________, this is ___________, president, dean, professor at _________________. Just calling to wish you a happy holiday and thank you for the honor of having you as a student at ____________. If it weren’t for you, we would not have meaning and value as a college/school. We exist for you students. So I look forward to seeing you next term/semester. Oh by the way, if I can help make next term/semester better, just email me at ______________ or call at _______________. Look forward to hearing from you and seeing you on campus .”

Call every one on the list and sit back. Wait for replies. You’ll get some and every one you get is an opportunity to retain a student in the college where they will get the best education any where.

Yes you can send a similar automated message to every student that is coming back But for the drops, a personal call is needed.

Oh by the way, if you feel that personally calling students I not for you or below your position, you really don’t care about students or the school. Get over yourself and call. If you don’t believe students get the best education at your school, you better be doing everything you can to change that. If you don’t think it will happen, why in the heck are you staying there?

If students and their education are not important enough for you to take the time to personally call them, you’re in the wrong job.

Web Sites, Signs, Objective Correlatives Hurt Enrollment

Let’s take one of the first correlatives students see – the web site. Most school websites are, well since it is the holiday season I’ll say they are not as good as they can be in working as objective correlatives for students. Why? Because they were created by people who believe in words and in linear realities. Not metaphoric leaps based on correlating objects and images.

We create webs as if they were documents, packed with words and minimal graphics or pictures. We even include entire catalogues on web sites as if anyone would want to read them online. Students hate catalogues and their page after page of, you guessed it, words we believe are important. They don’t nor do they believe catalogues are helpful or speak to them. That’s why catalogue personalization programs such as Leadwise are being adapted by schools. They speak to each student’s personal world and provide graphics and photos students can identify with.

Just look at where students go to on the web-YouTube, Facebook, Shoutwire - and you’ll see few words and almost all visuals. Moreover, the pages are packed with small boxes and thumbnails of choices to click on and download. We may have some trouble with this visual overload. They do not. Nor do they have trouble with the crawls at the bottom of screens during TV shows that can drive us nuts. Not them.

And the web is one of the first contacts with a school. Thus it is a very strong objective correlative. It has the power of the law of primacy – that which is first encountered is first and most powerfully to come to mind. And what most college websites do is create a picture of a school as very “old school.” Not good.

Another powerful, primary objective correlative that is almost universally overlooked is the signage, a fancy way of saying signs. When a potential student first comes to a school or campus, the first material object they see are the signs used to direct them, to inform and to welcome them. If the signs are unattractive, too small or not quickly and easily informative, they generate a negative metaphor for the school’s concern for people.

When we do a college service audit, we find that schools usually don’t even have adequate or enough signs to guide people to locations. It is sort of like a test to see if you can find your way around to qualify for going there. After all, we who live at the school now got lost at first because there were no signs for us and we found our way around. If we could do it, new students can too. Dumb belief.

The lack of signs, uninformative signs, outdated signs and so on, create a very powerful correlative to how much the school cares about helping and assisting. So much so that we have found poor signage such a very dominant force in forming early metaphors that we would rank poor signs as a major negative factor leading to lost enrollment. We have found that if students can’t find their way around with signs, they often just trace their way back to their car and leave. Remember that as posted earlier, as much as 12% of enrollment is lost when students make actual contact with a school.

These are just a few examples of the objective correlative in customer service leading to loses in enrollment and retention. It is a topic we will come back to in later postings.