Enrollment or Enrolment: A Comparative Look at SEM in the U.S. & Canada

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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Why are there differences? • History • British/European vs. American models • Values • Individualism • Social Welfare • Privacy • Access • Going away to school

12. What are the differences?

13. Our Focus Today • Admission Policies • Use of Financial Aid to Support SEM • Enrolment Marketing • Student Recruitment

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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)

17. 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)

18. Financial Aid (Cont.) • Canadian universities give mostly scholarships (merit-based), 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

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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!

25. 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?

26. 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

27. 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

28. Questions or Comments Susan Gottheil susangottheil@sympatico.ca Clayton Smith csmith@uwindsor.ca