Upload
daniella-young
View
214
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Multiple Uses of ASQ DataCollege Board ForumNovember 2006
André Bell, Vice President Midwest Regional Office, The College BoardBecky Brodigan, Director of Institutional Research,
Middlebury College
Background on the ASQDeveloped by the College BoardSent to all admitted studentsTwo different options for ASQ – regular and PLUS, both provide
Paper or web optionsThe dataa highlights report, a detailed report, with all the documentationa Norms report (based on all ASQ users)PLUS gives you detailed information on your competitors, and allows limited customization
The Tale of Two Colleges:Bentley and Middlebury Examples
Standard usesImportance of factors in enrollment decision processImage definition and evaluationPrice sensitivityDefinition of competitive setService issuesEtc.
The Tale of Two Colleges:Bentley and Middlebury Examples
Use in shattering myths about competitors
(3-5 colleges or groups?)
• Further analysis of price sensitivity
Is the real group your overlap in applicants or admitted students?
Raising issues as priorities (housing)
Perceived Quality
Price
liberal arts
UCONN, UMASS,UNH, SUNY-Binghamton
Berkeley, MichiganMaryland, etc.
BUBabson
BC
Stonehill, Fairfield, BentleyProvidence, Northeastern,
Merrimack, Bryant
Salem St., West. Conn., SUNY-Platts
top 20
The Competitive Environment, 1997-- undergrad
Perceived Quality
Price
prestige
“national”state univs.
regionalstate univs.
Bentley,1997
localstate univs.
The Competitive Environment, 1997 -- the next level
2002?
Pursuing the Next Level-- the Strategic Challenge
• The Competition: 1600 colleges and universities with business programs
– not just Babson, Bryant
• The Problem: nearly every competitor is inherently broader and deeper
Undergradonly
Undergradthru PHD
Specialized Across the Board
B
Liberal ArtsColleges
ComprehensiveUniversities
Tech.Univs.
Pursuing the Next Level:-- The Strategy
Focus on students interested in business
In business education & IT, lead (if we tie, we lose)
In arts & sciences, equal quality and better suited to business students
In student life, equal qualityUndergrad
only
Undergradthru PHD
Specialized Across the Board
B
Liberal ArtsColleges
ComprehensiveUniversities
Tech.Univs.
The Next Level, Undergraduate-- Results, 2002
We made our move:
Applications and Selectivity
Quality
Geographic Diversity
Competition
Rankings
Revenue
Factors that are Very Important in the College Selection Process
Computer software used in industry (62% to 48%)
Modern computer labs (65% vs. 53%)
Computer access from dorm room (64% vs. 51%)
Integration of computers in the curriculum (57% vs. 44%)
Access to the internet (49% vs. 42%)
Enrolling Students Less Likely to Use a Personal Computer for…
E-mail (23% vs. 30%)
Word processing (68% vs. 85%)
College courses (45% vs. 59%)
College search (30% vs. 43%)
Home computer (70% vs. 77%)
Competitor strength and priceCategories Cross
AppsAverage
PriceBentley Yield
Competitor Yield
Public 1,726 $14,000 ($9,943)
26% 17%
Regional Private College
1,374 $21,000 22% 20%
Regional Private University
1,372 $25,200 22% 24%
Business 1,157 $23,000 29% 28%
Very Selective 400 $26,000 18% 32%
On-campus housing Academic Facilties Cost (net)
Rated HigherBoston College Boston College U Massachusetts
Bryant Babson Bryant
Babson Boston University Northeastern
Rated LowerU Massachusetts U Massachusetts Babson
Boston University Bryant Boston College
Boston University
BENTLEY
The Tale of Two Colleges:Bentley and Middlebury Examples
Standard usesImportance of factors in enrollment decision processImage definition and evaluationPrice sensitivityDefinition of competitive setService issuesEtc.
The Tale of Two Colleges:Bentley and Middlebury Examples
Use in shattering myths about competitors
(3-5 colleges or groups?)
Is the real group your overlap in applicants or admitted students?
Adjectives for image on the ASQIsolatedPrestigiousFun IntellectualCareer-orientedNot well knownComfortableBack-up schoolSelectiveAthletics
FriendlyPartyingAverageChallengingManageable academicsAcademic PressureCosmopolitanSchool for the wealthyDiverseOther
Internal Images of Midd and Admitted Student Images
AdministrationSelectiveAthleticSchool for the wealthyPrestigiousChallengingIsolatedFriendly
Admitted StudentSelectiveChallengingPrestigiousIntellectualFriendlyIsolatedFunAthletics
Admit Rates for Freshmen Applicants
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Amher
st
Will
iam
s
Pomon
a
Swarth
mor
e
Mid
dlebury
Bowdoi
n
Haver
ford
Wes
leyan
Vassa
r
Was
hingt
on &
Lee
Bates
Carlet
on
Well
esley
Oberlin
Connec
ticut C
oll.
Hamilt
on
Colby
Trinity
Bryn M
awr
Smith
Mou
nt Holy
oke
Percent receiving financial aid
39%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Mt Holyoke Wellesley
Smith Carleton
Bryn Mawr Vassar
Pomona Oberlin
HamiltonBowdoin
SwarthmoreWesleyanAmherst
ConnecticutWilliams
Haverford Trinity
Bates Middlebury
Colby Washington & Lee
Middlebury Image of Competitors
College A College B College C
Prestigious Prestigious Prestigious
Selective Selective Selective
Challenging Challenging Challenging
Intellectual Athletics Isolated
School for the Wealthy
Internal Images of Midd and Admitted Student Images
Administration1. Selective2. Athletic3. School for the
wealthy4. Prestigious5. Challenging6. Isolated7. Friendly
Admitted Student1. Selective2. Challenging3. Prestigious4. Intellectual5. Friendly6. Isolated7. Fun8. Athletics
Sources rated as “Excellent” 2000
Middlebury AmherstContact with
coachesCollege websitePublicationsFinancial Aid
Communications
Sources rates as “Excellent” 2005(improvements in mass communications but not individual
communications)
MiddleburyCollege websitePublications
AmherstHigh School VisitsContact with
GraduatesContact with FacultyPost Admit
Communications
Availability of Majors (Academic emphasis in publications)
2000Williams
DartmouthBrown
AmherstMiddlebury
Bowdoin
2005Williams
DartmouthBrown
MiddleburyAmherstBowdoin
Quality of Majors (Academic emphasis in publications)
2000Williams
DartmouthBrown
AmherstMiddlebury
Bowdoin
2005Williams
Dartmouth Brown
MiddleburyAmherstBowdoin
Quality of Academic Facilities
1998 2002 2006Amherst Brown Dartmouth
BrownDartmouth Middlebur
yDartmouth Williams Amherst
WilliamsMiddlebur
yBowdoin
Middlebury
Amherst Dartmouth
Bowdoin Bowdoin Williams
1996 2001 2006
Personal Attention Personal Attention Personal AttentionAttractiveness of the Campus Attractiveness of the Campus Undergraduate Teaching Commitment
Environment of Academic Excellence Quality of Academic Facilities Attractiveness of the CampusAcademic Reputation Environment of Academic Excellence Quality of Academic Facilities
Extra-Curricular Opportunities Academic Reputation Environment of Academic ExcellenceSurroundings Extra-Curricular Opportunities Academic Reputation
Extra-Curricular Opportunities
Quality of Academic Facilities Quality of Social Life Availability of MajorsAvailability of Majors Availability of Majors
Quality of Majors Quality of Majors
Middlebury Rated Higher on these…
Longitudinal Comparison of Characteristics Rated as "Very Important" by all students admitted to Middlebury
Middlebury Rated Lower on these…
1996 2001 2006
Personal Attention Personal Attention Undergraduate Teaching CommitmentExtra-Curricular Opportunities Environment of Academic Excellence Personal Attention
Environment of Academic Excellence Attractiveness of the Campus Quality of Academic Facilities
Availability of Majors Quality of Academic Facilities Student DiversityQuality of Majors Academic Reputation Quality of Social Life
Quality of Academic Facilities Availability of Majors Availability of MajorsAcademic Reputation Quality of Majors Academic Reputation
Extra-curricular Opportunities Extra-Curricular OpportunitiesEnvironment of Academic Excellence
Middlebury Rated Lower on these…
Middlebury Rated Higher on these…
Longitudinal Comparison of Characteristics Rated as "Very Important" by high-achieving students admitted to Middlebury
Enrollment competitors38%
14%18% 17%
13%
28%
21%
6% 7%
32% 31%
23%
4%
10%
37%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Group of 21 Ivy League PrivateUniversities
FlagshipPublics
Liberal Arts
199219962005
Change in competitors since 1996New
George WashingtonUSCClarkScrippsUniversity of WashingtonOccidentalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Conn.University of MarylandVillanovaRPIMiami Univ. (Ohio)
No longerRutgersBinghamtonSUNY GeneseoLoyola (MD)DrewTrinity (TX)HartwickProvidenceFordhamUniversity of Denver
Midd Response Rates1997
2000
2001
2002
2005
All 1380114
3120
6127
4127
6
Respondents 763 749 707 962 730
% 55%66%
59%
76%
57%
Enrolling 552 478 528 603 581
Respondents 394 399 394 519 412
% 71%83%
75%
86%
71%
Non-Enrolling 828 665 665 671 695
Respondents 369 350 350 443 318
% 45%53%
53%
66%
46%
Work in Progress
Used ASQ adjective lists to look at images of Midd and competitors at DC student focus groupsWill test against our images and viewbook
http://www.collegeboard.com/highered/ra/asq_res.html
Supplemental Reports and Data FormsASQ Supplemental Reports and Data Files order form (.pdf/85K)ASQ Plus Supplemental Reports and Data Files order form (.pdf/87K)Manuals and GuidesASQ/ASQ PLUS User Manual (.pdf/553K)ASQ User Guide (.pdf/2.3M)ASQ PLUS User Guide (.pdf/668K)Sample Questionnaires and ReportsASQ 2005 Sample Questionnaire (.pdf/23K)ASQ PLUS 2005 Sample Questionnaire (.pdf/38K)ASQ 2000 Sample Highlights Report (.pdf/152K)ASQ 2000 Sample Detailed Report (.pdf/91K)Research and Articles