Test 2

Here we are, neck-deep into the Season of Yield in the recruitment and admissions game, and many colleges and universities are showing their hand with regard to offering incentives for students to commit:

Albion College is giving away prizes, including free room and board for a semester, to encourage accepted applicants to commit within the next few weeks. To enter what the college has called the “Early Deposit Sweepstakes,” a student must commit by March 6 — nearly two months before the national deposit deadline.

Now, some colleges are experimenting with bolder marketing strategies, disrupting the admissions timeline, and toppling long-held norms. Rejoice, or mourn, accordingly.

Albion, a private liberal-arts college in Michigan, started promoting its early-deposit incentive at the beginning of February, sending emails and postcards to all accepted applicants. As of late last week, the college’s homepage featured a colorful banner advertising the coming drawing. “Our Early deposit sweepstakes ends soon,” the message said, “so make sure you are in the running.”

Now, that banner ad is gone. That’s because, Bucheli said, “we’re calling it an awards program, not a sweepstakes — it’s more indicative of what we’re trying to accomplish.” To give students considering the college some “value added” encouragement to go ahead and choose it.

According to a description of the “Early Deposit Awards Program” on Albion’s website, each student who meets the March 6 deadline will be entered into a drawing for one of 12 “awards.” One lucky student will win free room and board for a semester, and another will have the cost of a meal plan ($3,150) paid for a semester. Five contestants will each get $250 for textbooks, and five will have their vehicle-registration fees covered for one year.

But wait, there’s another incentive to commit sooner rather than later. The charge for students who pay an “early enrollment deposit” on or before April 1 is $250. After that, the fee increases to $350.

Look. I know that there are some legitimate reasons behind the Department of Justice's decision to go after NACAC (and by proxy, the institutions of higher education that are members of the association). There is certainly a strong argument that the changes to the CEPP will benefit students considering enrolling in higher education programs.

But this stuff makes my skin crawl.

Ever since NACAC voted last year to make changes to the Code of Ethics and Principles of Practice (aka, the "CEPP"), I have struggled with my own ethics on the matter.

For the record, I am - and always have been - of the mind that students need to make the choice that best fits them. Whether that is attending large, public institution; a small, private institution; a community college; a trade school; enlisting in the military; or starting into the workforce, students should understand what options are available to them. After researching said options, students should make an informed decision about post-high school plans. As I said in my last post about it:

Based on the data available to them (e.g. cost of the institution, the financial aid package that the institution offered the student, academic fit, social fit, etc.), the student was expected to make an informed decision about their plans for their own higher education.

But now, pretty much anything is fair game. And, while this might benefit students for finding a "good deal" on tuition deposits or housing, it can potentially create an environment akin to the stereotype of a used car sales lot.

EAB, an education consulting firm, is offering some first predictions at how widespread those practices may be. Its research suggests a substantial minority of enrollment officers are considering poaching students from other institutions.

Thirty-five percent of enrollment officers surveyed by EAB said they were considering offering transfer incentives to first-year students they had previously admitted but who are attending other colleges. Just under one-quarter surveyed said they were considering recruiting incoming freshmen who have committed to another college but have yet to enroll.

One hundred and fifty-nine enrollment officers responded to EAB’s online survey, which was conducted in mid-October, only a few weeks after NACAC officially changed its guidelines. Participants were given a long list of practices and asked to select those they were considering employing, said Pam Royall, head of research for EAB’s enrollment services.

The company is tentatively planning to follow up with another survey in April, Royall said.

Results did vary by the size of the institution. Respondents from very small institutions were the most likely, at 54 percent, to say they were considering recruiting rising freshmen who have committed elsewhere. Respondents from large institutions were the least likely to consider those practices.

And that's from the perspective of institutions - what about students?

Joyce Smith, CEO of NACAC, said that she and others are very concerned about what might be in store for college admissions this summer and fall. Uncertainty around whether students will show up come September, she said, means uncertainty around financial aid budgets and housing at colleges.

“When any and all of this is on shaky ground, it’s not just the admissions office that is concerned,” she said.

Students and families may also now go through the admissions process more aggressively, she said.

“I’m getting reports from counselors that families and students are playing the game, too,” she said, “that they are applying early decision but not withdrawing applications from other schools, because they want to get better financial aid or better housing or better schedules.”

“It stands to be chaotic.”

Indeed. I think that chaotic might be an understatement.

Back in the heady days of the year 2000 when I started my first job working in the admissions office at Juniata College (pronounced: "Joo-Nee-AH-Tah", not "Wah-NEE-Tah"), I attended the New York Association for College Admission Counseling Summer Institute. At this three-day workshop, I learned all about the professional association, but also the ethics behind the college admissions profession. Topics ranged from things as heavy as "removing bias in the application review process", to lighter fare like "what items should (and should NOT) be on an institution's table at a college fair".

You see, for the latter of those two topics, under the former NACAC rules you couldn't have anything but basic marketing materials on your table. No candy or food. Oh, and you were required to stand behind your table, not in front of it or in the aisle.

These things may sound a bit picayune to the layperson, but the idea was that you shouldn't use or do anything that would give your institution an advantage over others in attendance.

But with the new rules, all of that ethics stuff is tossed out of the proverbial window. The worst-case-scenario is a college fair where colleges and universities with exorbitant recruitment budgets will entice students to fill out an inquiry card to be entered to win a car (or a full tuition "scholarship"). No longer will these professional development activities include cautionary tales of maintaining strong ethics. Rather, they could include workshops on "the best strategies to woo students away from other schools". Yikes.

My fear is that the recruitment and admissions "game" will turn into the higher ed-version of Survivor, where only the most aggressive of institutions will be able to compete.

Will schools implement high-pressure tactics to sway students? Only time will tell.