Transcript Slide 1

Enrollment or Enrolment: A
Comparative Look at SEM in
the U.S. & Canada
Susan Gottheil, M.A.
Mount Royal College
Clayton Smith, Ed.D.
University of Windsor
Your Presenters
Susan Gottheil – 17 years at Carleton
University (Ontario), 12 in senior student
services and enrollment management
positions; now at Mount Royal College
 Clayton Smith – 20 years in SEM at 3 U.S.
institutions in Maine, Florida & New York;
the last 2 years at the University of
Windsor (Ontario); Senior Consultant,
AACRAO Consulting Service

Definition of SEM
Enrollment management is an organizational
concept and a systematic set of activities
designed to enable educational institutions to
exert more influence over their student
enrolments. Organized by strategic planning
and supported by institutional research,
enrollment management activities concern
student college choice, transition to college,
student attrition and retention, and student
outcomes.
-Don Hossler
Why This Topic?
Many Canadian institutions are looking to adopt
SEM
 There is a difference in how SEM is practiced in
the U.S. and Canada
 A comparative review provides perspectives on:

– Why are there differences?
– What are the differences?
– What can we learn from each other?

It’s time to stimulate conversation and reflection
Methodology

List serve queries:
– American Association of Collegiate Registrars &
Admissions Officers (AACRAO)
– Association of Registrars of Universities & Colleges of
Canada (ARUCC)
– National Association of College Admission Counseling
(NACAC)
Interviews of leading SEM practitioners in
Canada and the U.S.
 Our experience doing SEM in Canada and the
U.S.

The Canadian Context




Degree of discomfort with SEM’s market orientation…the focus of
higher education is to serve the public good.
Many fewer institutions leads to less choice; thus more homogeneity
(vary in size, but not in quality); although some growing move
toward distinctiveness
Being a university graduate is more valued than where you go to
university
Increasing competition
–
–
–
–
–
–
Expansion of institutional capacity in urban centres
Development of stronger integrated marketing techniques & materials
Universities seeking new markets (out-of-province, international)
U.S. institutions beginning to recruit in Canada
Increasing financial aid competition (scholarships & bursaries)
Impact of Maclean’s University Rankings and the introduction of some
tiering
The Canadian Context (Cont.)

Competition different in West and East:
– Atlantic Canada demographic decreases coupled with large
number of institutions
– BC: more demand than seats; now more university colleges
being created and declining high school population
– Alberta: changing competition due to high school demographics

Increasing higher education participation rates
– Since 1995, university registrations by students aged 18-24 have
risen 27.5%
Collaboration between colleges and universities
developed unevenly
 Increasing tuition (nearly doubled in past decade);
moving toward more tuition dependency
 Financial aid system out of sync with higher tuition levels

The Canadian Context (Cont.)
More public accountability (e.g., KPI’s, NSSE)
 Introduction of SEM driven by funding cuts, lack
of revenue, heavier reliance on tuition income

– Opening of a Noel-Levitz Canadian Office (now
closed)
– Many Canadians now attending AACRAO’s SEM
conference (10% of participants)

Focus on students from “the neck up”; less
concern for holistic student development
The U.S. Context





Regional differences in student demand
U.S. News & World Report rankings: further
tiering of 4-year colleges and universities
Community colleges building residence halls and
delivering 4-year programs
On-line learning & proprietary institutions
(Phoenix et al)
Decreased state support of public institutions
and increased accountability
The U.S. Context (Cont.)
Increasing tuition costs, especially at
private colleges
 Increasing need to stay on the cutting
edge of SEM to remain competitive
 More funds committed to SEM
 SEM is a mainstay at most institutions

Why are there differences?

History
– British/European vs. American models

Values
– Individualism
– Social Welfare
– Privacy
– Access
– Going away to school
What are the differences?
Accessibility
Admission Policies
Recruitment, InCountry
Recruitment,
International
SEM Organization
Financial Aid
SEM Plans
Educational Systems
Student Culture
Geographic Draw
Student Retention
Marketing
Student Services
Accountability
Our Focus Today
Admission Policies
 Use of Financial Aid to Support SEM
 Enrolment Marketing
 Student Recruitment

Admission Policies

Basis of admission:
– High school marks primarily in Canada
– In U.S., an array of indicators used (high school average, SAT/ACT
scores, essays, AP; exploration of non-cognitive factors); increasingly
moving away from SAT/ACT requirement…optional now at 24 of the top
100 liberal arts colleges; still used widely at research universities
– Competition in U.S. is more pronouced within application segments
(athletics, legacy, ethnicity, international)

Admission cycle/timing of offer
– Most offers made between March and June in Canada, with some early
offers to top candidates; increasing number of universities offering
earlier admissions, some based on Grade 11 marks
– Early Admission, Early Action, Rolling Admission used in U.S.

Regulation/collaboration of admissions calendar (offer dates &
confirmation deadlines)
– May 1 NACAC reply date in U.S.
– June confirmation date in Ontario
Admission Policies (Cont.)

Self-admission successful at UBC
– Led to a change in philosophy from the gate
keeper to facilitating enrolment
Move from a common year admission to a
direct year entry (University of Calgary)
 Centralized application centre in Ontario
(in discussion for Alberta)
 Well-designed transfer programs in U.S.,
Alberta, BC

Financial Aid
Cuts in public funding coupled with large tuition
increases (both countries)
 In-state and out-of-state tuition in U.S. (only in
Quebec)
 Growing perception (both countries) by low
income students that they can’t afford to
continue their education after high school…In
Canada, 75% overestimate the costs and 40%
underestimate the value (Ipsos-Reed, 2004)
 Athletic scholarships (both countries), but more
limited in Canada (BC, Ontario, Atlantic Canada)

Financial Aid (Cont.)
Tuition-freeze (Manitoba, Quebec,
previously in BC & Ontario; also in many
areas of the U.S.)
 Size of endowments much smaller in
Canada
 Leveraging and discounting used
extensively in U.S.; not used in Canada
(tends to impact negatively underserved
students)

Financial Aid (Cont.)

Canadian universities give mostly scholarships (meritbased), although an increasing number of bursaries
(need-based aid)
– Fueled by tuition reinvestment fund in Ontario and “oil money”
in Alberta



U.S. institutions use a mixture of need and merit aid
(only 10% pay the published tuition rate), with the focus
being more toward merit and less toward need
Athletic scholarships; nothing comparable in Canada for
top tier athletes
Canadian federal government does needs assessment
(same award no matter what university the student
attends); aid varies in U.S. based on institutional student
budgets
Financial Aid (Cont.)
In Canada, complete financial aid
information isn’t available to students until
after the enrolment decision
 Educational Policy Institute (2006) reports
4-year post-secondary education more
affordable in U.S. on 5 out of 6 measures
 Despite 4-year post-secondary education
being less affordable in Canada, youth
from low income families still more likely
to attend than U.S. counterparts

Enrolment Marketing

Direct mail used extensively in U.S.. Not possible
to purchase names in Canada due to privacy
laws, but:
– Plan events to capture names (grades 9-11)
– Well developed request for info cards/on-line requests
– Much use of student e-mails/phone calls
Some Canadian institutions buy names of U.S.
students
 Little use of geodemographic profiling in
Canada; used at most private and some public
institutions in the U.S.

Enrolment Marketing (Cont.)



Advertising in Canada is mostly “feel good” marketing,
not necessarily geared to student recruitment; marketing
in the U.S. is often in support of recruitment; very little
use of mass media in Canada
Most Canadian marketing is focused on high school
students; in U.S., marketing is more broad-based toward
other market segments
More collaboration between institutions in Canada
(Ontario, Atlantic Canada; U of T, McGill, Queens –
international travel); some collaboration in U.S. by types
of institutions, but very limited
Student Recruitment
“Recruitment” not used until recent years…use of liaison
instead; many institutions in transition from liaison to
recruitment
 Historic collegial approach to recruitment in Canada
(Ontario Universities’ Fair, UIP, Atlantic consortium)
 Gentlemen’s agreement to stay out of the major
catchment areas of other universities
 Up to recently, recruitment was regulated in Ontario
 Use of current students and alumni limited in Canada,
but used extensively in the U.S.
 Canadians not as open to telecounselling – see it as
intrusive; more accepted in the U.S.

Student Recruitment (Cont.)





Beginning to move to 1:1 marketing with web portal
systems in Canada; much more common in the U.S.
Development of web and e-recruiting (virtual tours,
blogs, e-newsletters, etc.) in both countries
Printed materials (e.g., viewbooks) very important to
recruitment efforts in both countries
Use of predictive modeling in U.S.
Increasing out-of-province recruitment; U.S. has
engaged in out-of-state recruitment extensively
SEM – More than Awards &
Recruitment

It is also about enhancing the student
experience:
– Student Support Services
– Residence
– Athletics & Student Activities
– Student Retention

…More about that in another session!
What can we learn from each
other?

SEM works in different cultural contexts
– Application of SEM must account for differences

Do the same/similar strategies work in both
cultures?
– Some do, some don’t (e.g., accessibility, collaboration,
direct mail, financial aid, student life)
How is NSSE being used differently in each
country?
 What mistakes have been made in implementing
SEM?
 Are there excesses/pitfalls to avoid?

What Next?


Keep the conversation going
Keep networking with each other to share and compare
– At the AACRAO annual and ARUCC bi-annual meetings and SEM
Conferences
– Participate in list serve conversations (e.g., AACRAO, ARUCC,
NACAC)
Write about our experiences in AACRAO’s College &
University journal and SEMSource
 Consider taking advantage of the AACRAO Consulting
Service to learn more about how to do SEM at your
institution
 Work together to develop national SEM research for
Canada

Summary

SEM developed differently in the U.S. &
Canada due to:
– different higher education systems (e.g., tiers,
costs, values)
– timing of competition
It is now an important tool in both
countries
 It is timely to learn from each other’s
experiences to see how SEM can still be
improved in both countries

Questions or Comments
Susan Gottheil
[email protected]
Clayton Smith
[email protected]