- Scott Jaschik, the editor of Inside Higher Ed
- David Hawkins, Executive Director for Educational Content and Policy for NACAC
- Mary Ann Willis, the Director of College Counseling at Bayside Academy (Alabama)
This was quite surprising, and led to an interesting discussion. Scott observed that “if you didn’t meet your goal by May 1 you’re the norm in higher ed”. He noted that the joke in the field is that “June 1 is the new May 1” and that some have argued that SEPTEMBER 1 is the new May 1. The panelists tried to discuss this development and the conclusion seemed to be that the enrollment goals that are being set (sometimes by offices higher up the chain from admissions) are unrealistically high. Plus families seem to be waiting longer to send in deposits (perhaps to try to play institutions off each other). Regardless of why, Scott noted that he feared that “some institutions will be pressured to do unwise things” to meet their goals by May 1. In response to an audience question, Scott noted that they will ask more questions next year to try to elicit just how “realistic” admission goals are.
The only sector that overwhelmingly met their enrollment goals was public doctoral institutions. Reasons could range from the large number of in-state students for whom these are the “first-choice” schools to the (perceived) prestige of these universities by international students and their families. Scott noted that even as states have eroded their support for universities, these institutions have great advantages in fundraising, donations, applicant pool and federal grants for research.
One question in the poll was “which group(s) will be the target of increased recruiting?” and the results were quite interesting:
I was very surprised to see the increased attention that private colleges plan to pay to transfer students; I mean, the pool of college age students may not be growing as rapidly as it was a few years ago, but overall enrollment in colleges continues to grow year over year. This effort to harvest transfer students represents almost a Malthusian world view that seems to reflect a zero-sum competition that I’m not sure exists. Also telling is the comparative de-emphasis on the part of private colleges and universities on veterans and minority students. It almost seems that public colleges and universities are more comfortable with diverse student populations compared to the privates.
At this point I want to point out that I was impressed by Scott’s willingness to inject politics into the discussion. I personally believe that every topic is a political topic, but I can imagine that some people might have been nonplussed by this. Scott passionately addressed the data on the preceding chart by saying “We should think about these priorities. If private college’s emphasis is non-need based merit aid, are they really going after the population not currently represented in American higher ed? Colleges measure demonstrated interest by favoring those who visit. But this has an obvious, unstated economic meaning–wealthier kids can afford college visits more.” Especially since the topic of access to higher ed was a major theme of the conference, I welcomed Scott’s focus on this issue.
You’ll notice that the last item in the table shows a remarkable divergence on expected focus on international students. They went into more detail later on:
This was quite interesting to me. I was a college counselor for eight years at a boarding school with a substantial international population and in many cases their default was to consider large public universities. But the leaders in the field clearly seem to be ceding international students to private institutions who in turn are preparing to pay heavily to increase international enrollment. Could this be due to a backlash against international kids at publics? Or could it be a “Trump Effect” that predicts a generally more hostile environment for immigrants? It was noted that international enrollment was flat this year, and expectations are for it to fall this year; apparently some schools are down 20-50%. Considering how many places depend on full-pay international students to help finance their discounts to American students, this could be a looming financial disaster for some schools.
Related to this is another side of the “Trump Effect”: a concern that too many colleges (and college towns) are “excessively liberal”. Apparently, independent consultants have reported that more parents are vetoing college choices due to a worry about the political views of the campus and area. Scott asked us to consider what it means when people perceive higher education this way. Personally, I don’t think this is new. Deriding someone as a “college boy” (implying an effete elitism out of touch with common people) goes back for at least a century. That said, it is no secret that college populations (and university towns) are often isolated blue islands in the overwhelmingly red American landscape; this of course explains Republican efforts to disfranchise college students.
The twin topics of liberal arts colleges and student debt were addressed in an interesting way. Apparently, only 8% of students and 9% of parents “understand the value of liberal arts”. As a result, there is overwhelming pressure to focus on college as a “pre-professional” education. Tied with this is the idea of getting one’s money’s worth and fear of graduating with debts no honest man can pay (as Bruce Springsteen would say). 36% of public institutions and a startling 78% of privates believe that “public discussion of student debt has discouraged applications to my college”. Wow.