View
215
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Understanding Graduate Enrollment Management
Presented by:Joshua LaFave, SUNY Potsdam
Christopher Connor, SUNY BuffaloErinn Lake, Edinboro University
Ariana Balayan, Sacred Heart University
Introductions Joshua LaFave; Director, Center for Graduate
Studies at SUNY Potsdam; NAGAP Research and Global Issues Chair
Christopher Connor; Assistant Dean for Graduate Enrollment Management Services, SUNY Buffalo, NAGAP Research and Global Issues Committee Member
Erinn Lake; Assistant Dean, School of Graduate Studies and Research and School of Education, Edinboro University of PA
Ariana Balayan; Assistant Director, Graduate Admissions, Sacred Heart University, NEGAP VP
Agenda Introduction of the project (scope, progress) Ambiguity in GEM Literature Review Project (Integrated Interdependence)
Overview Survey Responses Qualitative Feedback Two Models – small/medium & large
institutions Bringing it all together (second hour
exercises)
Learning Objectives Recognize the need for GEM professionals
to think beyond working in a silo Aspects of GEM are both dynamic and
interdependent Learn the benefits of integrating and
improving services for graduate students through cross-training and organizational structure
Evaluate own operations through exercises to see where there might be opportunities to be a catalyst for change
Ground practitioners in academic literature on EM and SEM as it relates to GEM
Scope and Context How this project began
Practitioner oriented view Learning from individuals in our profession (benchmarking)
NAGAP and its role Change of our membership Evolution of our profession
Graduate student needs and differentiated student experience
Changes in resources (i.e. budgets, staffing) Hypothesis to “best practices”
Can we continue the dialogue, adapt the way we do business to improve graduate student experience and define key best practices of GEM?
Can this be accomplished in constrictive environments where resources continue to be squeezed?
Ambiguity in GEM Practice of service silos for both
incoming and continuing graduate students- The blurry line of where the onboarding process of a student is admitted/enrolled where they go next can be confusing and problematic. Who’s responsible? The hand off “across the line in the sand” can create confusion for graduate students. In fact, this can even be problematic within a Graduate School or Academic unit’s graduate recruitment and students services where the two pieces operate independently.
Ambiguity in GEM SHOULD there be an established encompassing
Graduate Enrollment Management Services operation to cultivate a initial awareness to alumna(us) approach?
Driving Factors Changes in resources
Do more with less Increased reliance on graduate and professional
enrollment Structures not in-sync with pace of change More competition Changing landscape of expectations
Retention as a critical component of recruitment Faculty are getting younger
Research focus for tenure more reliance on support services Need for concrete identity and presence on
campus
Literature Review in GEMA short analysis
Literature Review in GEM Dissertation study
Enrollment Management Era of accountability in higher education Origin of the concept (Henderson, 2012) Collaborative, systems process-can lead to
sustainable change, growth (Ingersoll & Ingersoll, 2012)
Building on the traditional admissions funnel
Literature Review in GEM
Significant gap in academic literature on GEM
Academic literature on GEM specifically
Apply concepts from EM/SEM to GEM
Next steps in to bridge the gap call to action
surveymonkey.com/s/NAGAP360v2
Comparing Existing StructuresUndergraduate and Graduate Enrollment Management
Comparing UEM and GEM Undergraduate Models
Primarily centralized recruitment
Coordinates all aspects of student lifecycle under one umbrella
Higher staffing levels
Definitive starting and stopping point of staff roles/responsibilities beyond primary function
Campus leadership in tune with enrollment issues/needs
Graduate Models Primarily decentralized recruitment Some coordination and oversight but
generally fractured/complex Do more with less
Evolution to increasing responsibilities of staff roles beyond primary function Clarity?
Perceived lack of knowledge/support from the campus leadership
Comparing UEM and GEMUndergraduate Models
History Academic quality: Institutional Service oriented
Current models based on long standing enrollment management
Enrollment Management Division*
Primary
Graduate Models Emerging/Evolving Academic quality: Program External student service
resources outside primary graduate enterprise
Current models based on admissions
Enrollment Management Division* Secondary
*See cited works
Comparing UEM and GEMUndergraduate Models
SEM Holistic/homogenous
Emerging Model: Bridging gap to academic
enterprise Capitalizing on uniqueness
of academic programs Re-examining recruitment
practices
Graduate Models SEM
Fractured at institutional level /specialized Moving towards central
graduate coordination Emerging Model:
GEM Model Seamless service/full
service orientation prospect through
graduation Academic units or
Institutional Relationship cultivation
Preliminary Assessment Much of GEM operates in one direction Collaboration with interdependence exists –
Integrated within the student lifecycle by necessity
Differentiated service delivery & the graduate student
Institutional impacts on GEM How do you define a true GEM model?
Integrated in the sense of functional core Interdependent in that each core to enrollment
management works through the entire student experience as one unified entity
Project OverviewThe creation of a hypothesis and proposals
Our Analysis and Research Plan
Phase I: Focus groups with attendees at the winter institute in January 2013
Phase II: Focus groups at NAGAP’s annual conference in April 2013
Phase III: Survey attendees at NAGAP summer institute in July 2013
Phase IV: Multiple NAGAP state chapter participation Phase V: Survey distributed to NAGAP, NASPA and other
organizations Phase VI: Distribute a publication of findings, usable
practices, and an understanding of Graduate Enrollment Management for today’s professionals in Summer 2014 Identify and plan follow up research based upon key
findings
Potential partnership with EAIE for global analysis of GEM
Comparative Structures and Hypothesis Models
Serving Higher Education Since 1636
Interdependent Model in GEM
Enrollment
Planning
Admissions & Recruitment
Financial
Aid/Grants/Scholarshi
ps
New Studen
t Service
s
Academic
Advising
Graduation
Practice of “silo’ing” aspects of the student lifecycle
Awareness
Alumna/Alumnus
Hypothesis: Integrated Interdependence
Emphasis the student experience in constrictive resource environments while improving productivity and nurturing efficiency
Encourage stakeholders to be engaged at every part of student lifecycle experience
Cross trained team – holistic support Build bridges beyond the academic units to key
strategic administrative leaders Planning and Budgets SEM Unified as a single entity can bring issues to the surface to
increase awareness of campus leadership
Integrated Interdependent Model of GEM
Integrated Interdependence Critique
Model makes sense for smaller schools and academic units but what about large institutions?
Concerns of senior leadership’s buy-in at the graduate level
Is it utopian to expect individuals to be cross-trained?
Role definition Staffing levels
Integrated Interdependence “Nexus” model
Nexus Model of Integrated Interdependence Academic units within single institution may have
varying levels of dependency on central support Infrastructure
Business School vs. Arts and Sciences Central GEM office serves as nexus between senior
leadership and academic unit Coordination Collaboration and partnerships between academic units Graduate Education Advocacy
Unify all aspects of the graduate student life cycle as one coordinated entity Increase awareness of graduate enrollment
management to campus leadership Evolution of our profession
Analysis of ResponsesWhat organizations membership is saying
The audience responding
Location in Institution
Operational Location by Level
Univers
ity/Coll
ege L
evel
Schoo
l/Divis
ion Le
vel
Depart
ment/O
ffice Lev
el0
40
80
120
160
200
CentralizedDecentral-izedHybrid
Type of Institution
Job Responsibilities
Yes82%
No19%
Increasing Graduate Education Re-sponsibilities
Current Role Responsibility GridUnderstanding Graduate Enrollment Management
In your current role, what is the percent of time you spend on the following categories (should add up to 100%)
Percentage
Answer Options I do not work in this area 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-
50%51-60%
61-70%
71-80% 81-90% 91-
100%Response
Count
Admissions/Recruitment 20 52 60 68 51 56 30 22 15 14 3 391Communication and Marketing 29 147 114 49 23 5 5 2 2 2 1 379Diversity and Outreach Initiatives 98 216 27 10 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 357Enrollment Planning 89 166 59 33 7 3 2 1 1 2 0 363Financial Aid (i.e. Scholarships/Fellowships) 175 148 26 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 359Graduation/Degree Audit/Commencement 221 95 17 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 347New Program and Curriculum development 203 115 29 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 357Onboarding for New Students 108 178 44 21 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 356Program Reviews 241 90 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 344Reporting and Data Analytics 50 183 79 29 16 5 4 0 3 1 0 370Student Services/Success and Retention 111 131 45 42 5 8 5 1 5 5 3 361Other 75 48 17 14 5 4 1 1 0 0 0 165
Question
Totals
Job Responsibilities
23%
21%
17%
13%
5%4%
4% 2% 11%
Student Services Af -fairs, and RetentionNew Program/Curricu-lum DevelopmentMarketing and CommunicationsEnrollment Man-agementAcademic/Admissions Policy OversightBudget and Planning
Testing Hypothesis of Integrated Interdependence Model
34%
54%
6% 5%
Please select the answer you most strongly identify with
This Model was very clear and I understand what it representsSome of the model makes sense, however it is not 100% clearI don't understand wha the model represents, however I agree with the conceptsI am confused by this model
Generalized Outcomes
Differences between undergraduate and graduate enrollment management
Strategic alignment of GEM by institutions’ senior leadership revealed a disconnect Strategic enrollment management remains at
Dean’s level Higher-level involvement reserved for headcount
issues or short-term situations Communication between functions vs.
collaboration between departments Partnerships
Bringing it all Together“The start of important research and conversations”
What does all of this tell us? Admissions and recruitment appears to no longer
be the primary focus of our roles and responsibilities
Change of our membership parallels those at institutions Dynamic
Emergence of strategic accountability/responsibility at the operational level
Need for increased partnerships with niche sister organizations in GEM student lifecycle (EAIE, NASPA, AACRAO, NASFA, CGS, etc.)
Growing pains of GEM Identity struggles on our campuses
Working Definition of GEM
Graduate Enrollment Management (GEM) represents a comprehensive approach to the methods by which an institution recruits, admits, supports, retains, and graduates post-baccalaureate students in their respective degree programs. This dynamic paradigm includes codependent functions working congruently to strategically manage overall enrollment levels and the student experience. These include enrollment planning, marketing, recruitment and admissions, advisement/coaching, financial aid, student services, retention, and alumni relations.
Working Definition of GEMRegardless of staffing levels, Integrated Interdependence in GEM will ideally create an environment whereby a cross-trained professional from a graduate office is able to support a student throughout their time at the institution. This approach creates an environment that sustains differentiated student experiences. GEM organizational structures have multiple models that range from decentralized to centralized, including a number of hybrid models (options). Two emerging concepts support institutional priorities that address budgetary constraints and structure/staffing limitations, while simultaneously focusing on the student’s experience and the institution’s competitive advantage.
The “elevator” version
Graduate Enrollment Management (GEM) is a comprehensive approach to managing the
graduate student lifecycle from initial awareness to alumna/alumnus by integrating
the core functions associated with the enrollment and support of a graduate
student.
Where do we go from here?
Closer examination of individual organizational structure Senior Leadership Key Stakeholders Technology and systems Responsibility to act as change agents and advocates by
increasing the visibility, knowledge, uniqueness and importance of graduate education Better define what we do Participation in campus committees, projects, new initiatives
etc. Case Studies & Survey
(surveymonkey.com/s/understandingGEM)
*Cited works
Campbell, R. 1980. Future enrollment goals via traditional institutional strengths. Presentation made at the annual conference of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, on April 22, in New Orleans.
Caren, W.A., and F.R. Kemerer. 1979. The internal dimensions of institutional marketing. College and University. 54(2):173–88.
Fram, E. 1975. Organizing the marketing focus in higher education. Paper presented at the annual forum of the Association of Institutional Research, in May, in St. Louis.
Henderson, S. E. (2012). Integrating evolving perspectives: The roots and wings of strategic enrollment management. In B. Bontrager, D. Ingersoll, & R. Ingersoll (Eds.), Strategic enrollment management: Transforming higher education (pp. 1-21). Washington, D. C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Hossler, D., and J.P. Bean. 1990. The Strategic Management of College Enrollments. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. Hossler, D. 2005. The enrollment management process. In Challenging and Supporting the First-year
Student, edited by M.L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner, and B.O. Barefoot, pp. 67–85. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ingersoll, R., & Ingersoll, D. (2012). SEM and change management. In B. Bontrager, D. Ingersoll, & R. Ingersoll (Eds.), Strategic enrollment management: Transforming higher education (pp. 253-269). Washington, D. C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Kreutner, L., and E.S. Godfrey. 1980–81. Enrollment management: A new vehicle for institutional
renewal. College Board Review. 118(Winter):6–9, 29.
Contact Information Josh LaFave, lafavejj@potsdam.edu Chris Connor, cconnor@buffalo.edu Ariana Balayan, ariana.balayan@gmail.com Erinn Lake, lake@edinboro.edu
Hour Two – Sharing and ReframingBreakouts and Networking
Breakouts Goals for this half of the session Table Breakouts
Large graduate population = >5,000 Small populations = <5,000
Each table needs a moderator and recorder (PLEASE!)
With the last exercise, please wait to get your picture taken
Round Table Discussions In reviewing the GEM model, please identify
those areas where your current institution performs well Please list examples of your success in those
areas Feel free to include any performance
benchmarks/data that may be available In reviewing the GEM model, please identify
those areas where your current institution is challenged or needs to improve Please explain those challenges Feel free to include benchmark data which
could explain the challenges
Round Table Discussions Do you think the GEM model could be
adopted by your institution? If yes, why do you think it can be easily
adopted? If, no, why not?
What do you like best about the GEM model? Why?
What do you like least about the GEM model? Why?
Please list areas where you think the model can be improved
The Working Definition of GEM Review the document at your tables
outlining a draft working definition of Graduate Enrollment Management. Provide the following: Critiques What’s missing? What does GEM mean to you? Your institution?
Working Definition of GEM
Graduate Enrollment Management (GEM) represents a comprehensive approach to the methods by which an institution recruits, admits, supports, retains, and graduates post-baccalaureate students in their respective degree programs. This dynamic paradigm includes codependent functions working congruently to strategically manage overall enrollment levels and the student experience. These include enrollment planning, marketing, recruitment and admissions, advisement/coaching, financial aid, student services, retention, and alumni relations.
Working Definition of GEMRegardless of staffing levels, Integrated Interdependence in GEM will ideally create an environment whereby a cross-trained professional from a graduate office is able to support a student throughout their time at the institution. This approach creates an environment that sustains differentiated student experiences. GEM organizational structures have multiple models that range from decentralized to centralized, including a number of hybrid models (options). Two emerging concepts support institutional priorities that address budgetary constraints and structure/staffing limitations, while simultaneously focusing on the student’s experience and the institution’s competitive advantage.
Recommended