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.