NAGAP Perspectives Spring 2016

www.NAGAP.org

V O L U M E 2 8

N U M B E R 1

S P R I N G 2 0 1 6

A Newsmagazine for Graduate Enrollment Management Professionals

PERSPECTIVES IN THIS ISSUE 2 From the President

4 Graduate Marketing Soup for the New Year

7 Interview with Kimberly Ramacciotti: Winter Institute Fellowship Recipient

8 A Road Map for Measuring Graduate Enrollment Management Success

13 Desperately Seeking SEVIS: A “Cheat Sheet” for GEM Professionals

15 The Ethics Corner

17 Book Review

21 Member Spotlight

22 29th Annual Conference

23 The Graduate Application: What Signals Are We Sending?

27 Degrees for Sale: The Diploma Mills Problem Continues

http://www.NAGAP.org

The Leader in Graduate Enrollment Management

N A G A PS P R I N G 2 0 1 6 • P E R S P E C T I V E S2

FROM THE PRESIDENTDear Colleagues,

As I reflect on the past two years from my perspective as NAGAP President, I’m proud of the accomplishments that our board and committees have achieved, and I’m especially proud to say that this volunteer-run association has worked diligently to keep pace with the abundant change in the GEM landscape. As I move into the role of Past President, I offer my support to each of you and I invite you to take advantage of your NAGAP network for educational opportunities and for collegial support. I don’t know about you, but I always learn something new when visiting with my GEM colleagues and I value their advice and the listening ear they provide.

I look forward to the Spring issue of Perspectives each year because it typically includes articles from NAGAP’s Research Grant recipients. In this issue, Pamela Gustafson discusses her GEM research and I think you will see why she was nominated and selected as a recipient of this prestigious grant. You will also find snapshots of two NAGAP members: Pennsylvania chapter member Dr. Stephanie Gibbs and Winter PDI Fellow Kimberly Ramacciotti. The issue also includes an article about diploma mills from IERF, a detailed roadmap for measuring GEM success by Joe Paris, a piece on marketing by Marcus Hanscom, and a SEVIS “Cheat Sheet” by members of the International Relations Committee. We are also proud to include a double book review by Dan Bennett and another installment of The Ethics Corner from Donald Resnick, Mick Thompson and Kristin Williams.

The articles in this issue represent a range of areas across GEM, and I encourage you to circulate this issue of Perspectives to colleagues in the related offices on your campus and perhaps invite them to consider NAGAP for their professional development. This issue might serve to start a productive conversation with an office or a colleague and lead to stronger collaboration.

Our annual conference will be held in Nashville this April. You may already know that Nashville is knows as the country music capital of the world. However, you may not be aware of the many unique Nashville neighborhoods, such as 12South with its boutiques and art galleries, or the antiques district of 8th Avenue/Melrose, or Germantown, Nashville’s oldest neighborhood.

While we want you to enjoy Nashville and experience all the culture and history it has to offer, we certainly hope that the opportunity to visit with colleagues in a GEM context will truly be the highlight of your experience. Please join over 1,000 of your colleagues and plan to engage in this important conversation and make it a priority in your professional development.

I look forward to working collectively with you as Past President to increase awareness of GEM on our respective campuses, strengthen and enhance the communication and collaboration among GEM services, and provide a graduate experience of real consequence for our graduate students. n

James N. Crane NAGAP President

P E R S P E C T I V E SA Newsmagazine for Graduate Enrollment Management Professionals

Editor, Jennifer KulbeckAssistant Dean of Liberal ArtsSaint Mary’s College of California1928 Saint Mary's RoadMoraga, CA 94575

[email protected]

NAGAP Perspectives is published three times per year (fall, spring, summer). Articles of particular interest for publication are graduate enrollment management research/study results, how-to articles, success stories, reports of workshops/seminars, book reviews, etc.

Submissions should be sent to the editor via email. Articles should be provided in Microsoft Word, with figures and photos provided separately as high-resolution TIF or EPS files. APA style is preferred for documenting sources. Submission deadlines: August 30, January 6, May 16.

Copyright © 2016 NAGAP

NAGAP is committed to diversity and inclusiveness in all of its activities. This commitment embraces respect for differences including age, culture, disability, education, ethnicity, gender, life experiences, race, religion, and sexual orientation. NAGAP champions an open exchange of ideas in a collegial environment that embraces academic freedom, cooperation, mutual respect, and responsibility. NAGAP supports activities that promote and nurture professional development, best practices, research, and collaboration of a diverse and global community of graduate enrollment management professionals, encouraging dialogue that fosters professional growth among all of its constituents, in the U.S. and internationally.

mailto:NAGAPpublications%40gmail.com?subject=

Reach prospects who have demonstrated graduate-level readiness through their GRE® test performance.

Decisive Step. Readiness for Graduate-level Work. Proven Skills to Succeed.

ONLY with the GRE® Search Service.

Select from about 30 criteria to EXPAND your pool or REFINE your recruitment strategy.

• Be cost efficient in your recruitment, knowing they’ve already taken a decisive step toward pursuing an advanced degree.

• Identify potential candidates using GRE® score bands and UGPA academic performance criteria.

• Recruit a diverse class for graduate or business school programs using demographic and geographic data, academic disciplines and more!

ETS — Measuring the Power of Learning.™

Copyright © 2016 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo and GRE are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). MEASURING THE POWER OF LEARNING is a trademark of ETS. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. 33008

gresearch.ets.org

Powered by

UPCOMING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

NAGAP Graduate Fair at Belmont University

April 12, 2016 • 4:00pm – 6:00pm Nashville, Tenn.

Pre-Conference Institute 2016

April 13, 2016 • 9:00am – 1:30pm Nashville, Tenn.

29th Annual Conference

April 13–16, 2016 Nashville, Tenn.

Summer Institute for New Graduate Enrollment Management Professionals

July 14–15, 2016 Las Vegas, Nev.

P E R S P E C T I V E S • S P R I N G 2 0 1 6N A G A P 3


Marketing to graduate students is about as straightforward as figuring out how to properly order a drink at Starbucks for the first time. You know what you want, but the amount of choices and flavors to get there can be overwhelming. The biggest mistake we can make, however, is to even start the process without a proper foundation of understanding who we are, what we want, and how we will measure results.

It’s easy for us to bypass the basics when we have a few dollars to spend. Perhaps we run a Google search for the latest marketing trends or check the current issue of Inside Higher Ed to see what channels we should consider, only to drop our money into a single marketing channel praying for some results. You may have even received some unsolicited advice on campus about what you should do—we’ve all heard that we need a newspaper ad or that we should have a giant ad on the side of the city bus driving by campus every day.

IntrospectionThe fact of the matter is that any marketing we do is useless unless we know what we truly provide, and that includes not only our programs, but also our campus environment, our classrooms, our faculty, our culture, our experience, and so on. Once we know all of that, does our marketing reflect each of these attributes? For example, we’ve all seen a well-executed marketing campaign toting a high quality product and great service followed by a really poor customer service experience once we buy the product. If your marketing says any of our favorite buzz phrases like “student-focused,” “personalized experience,” or “students first,” and your students experience something different, your campus is exactly what I’m talking about. This includes the student experience on your website before students even contact you or visit campus—and we all know that many students these days aren’t contacting us until they apply.

Take a moment and inventory all of the data you have about your programs. Do you know the average age of the student in your classroom? Or, at the very least, do you know the average age of your applicants? How about gender? Ethnicity? Work Experience? Geographic origin? The list goes on. All of these data points can give you something really helpful to inform your marketing efforts. And better yet, if you can identify both the characteristics of your applicants and your enrolled students, you can find out which applicants have a higher propensity to enroll.

Audiences and MessagingOnce we take the time to focus on who we are, we can begin to craft a genuine message that adequately serves our prospective students. Remember those different “flavors” of students I alluded to earlier? They’re as varied as the Starbucks menu, all want different things, and have competing priorities. Whether our students are juggling jobs, families, or the last season of Downton Abbey, your marketing has to help students address those priorities. And all of this gets back to who you are—who do you have in your classroom and who do you want in your classroom? For example, if you’re trying to attract mid-level working professionals, it might be a good idea to talk about convenient scheduling or the ability for students to advance in their current careers and earn more money. The universal need across all audiences that we have to address in our marketing—creatively—is cost.

If you really want to be ahead of the game and have a strong marketing strategy, look into developing marketing personas. They’re essentially the “John Doe” profiles of your target students and they provide a roadmap for your outreach efforts, particularly online. Talk to the folks at Carnegie or Direct Development for some great tips on how to do this. The critical pieces you need to evaluate are your target audience(s), how they make buying decisions, and their needs.

Selecting ChannelsThe next step on this dizzying marketing road is channel selection. You know, let’s throw a billboard up on the highway and see what happens. Okay, so it’s not quite that simple (but it’ll sure appease your faculty as they perceive you’re doing a great job marketing). We can sum up the key idea in one word—integration. It’s a vague word for a really simple idea—drop your marketing dollars in multiple baskets to make sure your message is seen and heard in different ways.

Now I’m not saying put money into just any marketing channels. Remember that message above about your prospective audiences? Not only do they act and look different and have different needs, but they also consume messages differently through various media. For a more seasoned executive, I might try a radio ad on WNPR, a newspaper ad in the Wall Street Journal, and a digital ad on a network of business and finance websites. For a 20-something millennial, I’d head straight to Facebook and other social media channels and consider some banner ads through the Google display network or some targeted online radio ads with Pandora or Spotify.

The underlying theme here is that I’m pushing my message on multiple relevant channels to my target audiences through various media. In a perfect world, my

GRADUATE MARKETING SOUP FOR THE NEW YEARBy Marcus Hanscom, Roger Williams University

“Once we take the time to focus

on who we are, we can begin

to craft a genuine message that

adequately serves our prospective

students.”

continued on the next page


GRADUATE MARKETING SOUP CONTINUED

target student would see my billboard and hear my radio ad on the way to work, open up my open house mailer in his/her mailbox, and see my text ad or banner display on a Google search, all in a similar time period. And if I’m targeting correctly, prospective students will see and hear these messages repeatedly, creating a subconscious awareness of my institution’s brand and hopefully leading the student to want to learn more about us.

Measuring ResultsAll of this means very little if you have no way to find out if your efforts were successful. And what does success look like exactly? It’s a little different for each of us and ultimately relies on what we’re hoping to achieve. For some, success may simply mean more prospects, applicants, and enrollments. For others, success comes in the form of enrollment growth in a specific program, a more diverse student population, or a higher quality applicant pool. Regardless of the objective, our marketing efforts cannot exist without a clear idea of the desired outcome.

Defining success is only one piece of the puzzle. We know what success looks like and how we anticipate getting there, but we need a means for actually measuring our results. Sadly, our campuses can be slow at adopting technology that can automate much of this process for us, so we sometimes have to get creative.

What’s worse is many of us are so busy and resource-strapped, even if we can get data on how our marketing efforts are doing, we hardly have the time to sit down and truly digest it.

Regardless of the multitude of excuses we can conjure up about why we don’t know the results of our marketing, measuring and analyzing everything we can is critical to a successful marketing plan. Do you remember the last time you bought a car and never picked it up? I don’t either. When we spend our money on something, we expect to get something in return, generally of high quality and providing some sort of utility to us. Why wouldn’t we expect the same from our marketing dollars?

Do yourself a favor and leverage every opportunity to measure your efforts with easy-to-use tools on the web or even on your own website (your marketing team is your friend). Set up custom landing pages on your website to serve as destinations for banner ads, create custom tracking URLs with Google’s free URL builder, make a vanity URL to uniquely track a print ad (i.e., www.yourinstitution.edu/nytimes), or use email tracking in your CRM or communication software to track metrics like open rates and even further target students who clicked a link. Much of the data in these examples can be easily compiled in web analytics software like Google Analytics or in your CRM. Easy solutions, limited time required, right at your fingertips.

Final ThoughtsUnderneath it all, remember that students will choose to attend your institution because they are looking to fulfill a need. Whether students want to ensure they have a roof over their heads, a better future for their families, a change of scenery from their dreary desk jobs, or simply want personal enrichment, they need to view you and your institution as an agent for that change. Be intentional and strategic in your marketing efforts, but above all else, be authentic.

Action ItemsOver the years, I’ve had a number of opportunities to present to colleagues at various conferences on marketing and I always try to include a series of “homework assignments.” As you’ve read this article, I hope you’ve gained some ideas for thoughtful planning in your own marketing efforts. To help you frame some of this work, here are a series of assignments for you:

1. Conduct a program demographic assessment Collect as much data about your current and prospective students, by program, as you can. Use this to inform your planning for both your “low hanging fruit” marketing opportunities as well as aspirational audience targeting.

2. Complete a website audit for your area Simply sit down and comb through your website and determine if your prospective students’ most common questions can be answered easily. If possible, include students in this process. Your website should be able to answer the basics so that you’re focusing your time and efforts on students who call with specific and detailed questions.

3. Complete a “directory listing audit” Do you know everything that is out there in the various directories (Carnegie, GradSchools.com, Graduate Guide, Petersons, and others) about your school? Who is responsible for editing content? Take an inventory of where you’re featured, what you’re paying for, and what is written about your school. Update your content based on the various points I discussed in the article.

4. Design an e-mail optimized for mobile It sounds simple, but you’d be

“For some, success may simply

mean more prospects, applicants,

and enrollments. For others,

success comes in the form of

enrollment growth in a specific

program, a more diverse student

population, or a higher quality

applicant pool.”



GRADUATE MARKETING SOUP CONTINUED

surprised how many of us aren’t already doing this. Your CRM likely has a way to make this easy or you can use a service like Constant Contact to automatically optimize your emails for mobile consumption.

5. Create an automated plain text email from you in your CRM Too often we put together flashy, graphic-laden emails in our CRMs and forget that sometimes students just want a quality note from a person. And remember, most students are opening our messages on a mobile device. Try stripping out all the nice colors and graphics for a simple plain text email. You’ll see your open rates and email responses jump almost immediately.

6. Audit your inquiry form(s) When is the last time you went through your inquiry forms on your website? Take a moment and read them and fill them out. Do you need all of the information you’re asking on there? Friendly reminder: students are generally filling these out on a mobile device. Less is more.

7. Set up unique source landing pages for print sources You know that vanity URL I mentioned earlier? Create a page on your site that can just be a landing page for a specific source (ie. Your New York Times Sunday print ad) and cover it up with a friendly URL.

8. Create a landing page on your website or with your CRM to collect leads from online sources Are you advertising on Google? Or do you have a directory listing with

services like Carnegie, GradSchools.com, Graduate Guide, or Petersons? Make your tracking easier by creating landing pages to serve each of these sources so that you can monitor traffic in Google Analytics and even attribute specific sources to students through a web form or your CRM.

9. Do a lead generation audit Do you know everywhere that your institution is marketing to graduate students? Perhaps you’re new to your position and getting the lay of the land, or you’re seasoned at your school and have multiple hands in the marketing pot. Either way, take stock on where you are, what is being said, and what you’re paying. It doesn’t take much for your online listings to get stale simply because someone forgot to do an annual update.

10. Create a referral source policy Do you have a guideline on how you’re tracking student sources? For example, a student may fill out a landing page form serving a Google ad, but the student answers the proverbial “How did you hear about us” question by saying s/he learned about you from a billboard. Which source wins in your tracking efforts?

11. Use the URL builder to create tracking URLs Head over to Google and type in “URL builder” in the search box. Google has created this great tool to append tags to a URL you provide to allow you to track a marketing campaign source, medium, content, and more, all within the free Google Analytics software.

12. Assign revenue to lead sources and determine estimated ROI Do you know your net revenue per student? An exact number is often difficult to obtain, but if you can estimate an average revenue per student, you can start evaluating your return on your marketing investment. For example, if an average student yields approximately $25,000 in tuition revenue and you enroll four students from a marketing source you paid $100,000 for, you’ve broken even on your investment. Sounds good, right? It’s a start, but you’ll learn that by just putting this simple math in play you’ll be able to yield much higher returns with various marketing sources. Just be sure that your average revenue per student is the same across your sources for an apples-to-apples comparison. n

“Underneath it all, remember that

students will choose to attend

your institution because they are

looking to fulfill a need. Whether

students want to ensure they have

a roof over their heads, a better

future for their families, a change

of scenery from their dreary desk

jobs, or simply want personal

enrichment, they need to view you

and your institution as an agent

for that change.”


INTERVIEW WITH KIMBERLY RAMACCIOTTI: WINTER INSTITUTE FELLOWSHIP RECIPIENTBy Jennifer Kulbeck, Saint Mary’s College of California

Kimberly Ramacciotti was selected to receive this year’s Fellowship to attend the NAGAP Winter Institute for Advanced Graduate Enrollment Management Professionals, which took place January 21–22 in Palm Springs, California. In a brief interview in early January, Kimberly shared some of her thoughts in anticipation of attending the Winter Institute.

How long have you been working in Graduate Enrollment Management, and what is your current role?I have been working in Graduate Enrollment Management for over five years. My current position is Director of Student Services at Kansas State University Olathe and in this role I am charged with growing enrollment and providing services and support to current students.

What are some things you're particularly interested in, as you look forward to attending the Winter PDI?

There are many things that I am very excited about at the Winter PDI. The first being the keynote speaker Mr. Trent Gilbert speaking about recruitment strategies and current issues facing higher education. I am eager to hear from an expert and learn from his experience. The second topic of the conference that most interests me is the session addressing whether graduate school is still worth the cost and the future of graduate education. I am in a new position at a relatively new campus, so I feel that this information will be extremely helpful in developing plans for enrollment growth in the next few years.

What inspired you to apply for a Fellowship to the Winter PDI?

I applied for a fellowship because I believe attending the Winter PDI will be a significant benefit to my university and my development as a professional. I am thrilled to receive this fellowship and I am so thankful for the opportunity that NAGAP has provided. I have attended the NAGAP annual conference several times for my previous institution and the resources I gained were extremely valuable in providing new strategies to successfully grow graduate programs. Working at a campus that was recently established provides tremendous opportunities for growth and the Winder PDI will provide the chance to network and collaborate with experienced professionals that have faced similar challenges in their careers. n

“Kimberly Ramacciotti was

selected to receive this year’s

Fellowship to attend the NAGAP

Winter Institute for Advanced

Graduate Enrollment Management

Professionals.”

“I am thrilled to receive this

fellowship and I am so thankful

for the opportunity that NAGAP

has provided.”


The dynamic and complex landscape of higher education requires colleges and universities to annually achieve enrollment goals to fulfill institutional objectives and sustain economic vitality. Data-driven decision making supports the ability of institutions to attain success in a highly competitive marketplace. As such, campus stakeholders have placed significant emphasis on the measurement of enrollment outcomes.

While it has been suggested that “enrollment management is as much an art as it is a science” (Ward, 2005), a scientific approach to strategic enrollment planning is the focus of this article. Frequently absent from comprehensive enrollment plans is a methodology for measuring strategic enrollment indicators (also referred to as key performance indicators) as well as determining whether goals have been achieved. This article provides a road map for enrollment management leaders to effectively define, measure and articulate enrollment successes and challenges. Figure 1 offers a graphical representation of this process which will be discussed in detail below.

DEFINE SUCCESS: On What Basis Will Success be Measured?Before an assessment methodology can be constructed, enrollment goals and priorities should be defined. Every institution has a unique set of enrollment drivers which depend on a variety of factors including an institutional vision and market niche (Ward, 2005). The vision of an institution informs enrollment and tuition revenue targets for funding strategic priorities and its direction for the future. Therefore, the process of establishing goals should be collaborative and include campus leaders with a vested interest in enrollment and financial outcomes. The market position of an institution also contributes to the process of establishing realistic and attainable enrollment goals given the competitive climate for attracting and enrolling prospective students.

Strategic Vision and PrioritiesA vision statement articulates strategic priorities and sets the trajectory for what an institution aspires to become. Continuing and prospective students are commonly the focal point of institutional vision statements. Therefore, enrollment leaders have the opportunity to support their institution in fulfilling its vision each

term for which it enrolls new students. For example, an institution that aims to enter an emerging or niche market, advance its global footprint, or better serve specialized student populations should define enrollment goals for accomplishing these objectives. Well-defined enrollment goals position the institution to effectively allocate financial resources for funding institutional priorities.

BenchmarksSurveying the competitive marketplace helps to identify internal and external threats, challenges, and opportunities that impact the potential for enrollment success. Changes in the local, national, or international marketplace can significantly impact enrollment outcomes. Economic, regulatory, or demographic conditions can impact the potential for enrollment success. Similarly, internal conditions within the institution, such as the introduction of new academic offerings or instructional delivery systems, can contribute to enrollment gains. A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis should be conducted to identify these conditions and set enrollment goals accordingly. Additionally, a SWOT analysis is useful for evaluating the market position of an institution and

A ROAD MAP FOR MEASURING GRADUATE ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT SUCCESSBy Joseph H. Paris, Temple University


Figure 1: Road Map for Measuring Success in Graduate Enrollment Management

Figure 2: SWOT Analysis


A ROAD MAP FOR MEASURING CONTINUED

for capitalizing on emerging market opportunities. Figure 2 offers an example of a SWOT analysis conducted for a public, research university.

While assessing the external environment may prove challenging, secondary data sources are widely and publically available. Sources such as the Integrated Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS) and those maintained by state departments of education provide comprehensive enrollment data for benchmarking against competitor, peer, and aspirant institutions. Additionally, the data published by ranking agencies such as U.S. News & World Report can be used to conduct comparative analyses using metrics such as faculty to doctoral student ratio. For instance, an institution may wish to influence this ratio by increasing the admission selectivity of doctoral program applicants in an effort to enhance its ranking. Doctoral student admission and enrollment goals would then be reflective of this strategy.

Resource Allocation and Expenditure per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)As enrollment grows so does the expenditure related to services and resources required to support student success, satisfaction, and retention. To ensure a sustainable rate of enrollment growth, the capacity and expenditure required for the institution to provide these critical services should be considered. Enrollment growth that exceeds the capacity to provide adequate services and quality learning outcomes can lead to an increased rate of student attrition. Detrimental economic and reputational effects may also result from reduced student satisfaction.

In the example presented in Figure 3, an institution plans to increase new graduate student enrollment by 300 students over a three year period, while maintaining the employment of 50 full-time faculty. This increase in enrollment results in six additional full-time equivalent (FTE) students per full-time

faculty member. An increased FTE to faculty ratio may threaten the quality of instruction and learning outcomes of students. Thus, the capacity to provide quality learning experiences should be considered when setting a goal to achieve exponential enrollment growth.

Figure 4 further demonstrates the impact of enrollment growth on net profit when an institution invests in faculty hiring to maintain a ratio of 10 FTE students per faculty member during this timeframe. In this example, enrollment management leaders should consider the increased expenditure required to maintain quality of instruction (represented by FTE to faculty ratio) when establishing enrollment targets. Although net profit has increased from Year 1 to Year 3, additional faculty must be hired to maintain quality instruction thus increasing compensation expenditure. Although this example admittedly oversimplifies the costs of educating students, the impact of enrollment growth on the campus community (both faculty and students) should

be considered when setting goals. In summary, the cost of education per FTE lends critical insight into the net benefit of enrollment gains.

Enrollment PatternsAn evaluation of the overall continuing student population provides valuable insight when setting incoming student enrollment goals. A better understanding of continuing student enrollment patterns such as time to degree (average number of terms to graduate), anticipated graduation cycles, and the rates of degree completion and retention should be measured and used to inform incoming student enrollment goals. This information helps establish goals that offset potential enrollment declines from student attrition.

It is also useful to determine the percentage of continuing students enrolled on a full-time or part-time basis. Institutions may wish to establish a goal to enroll more full-time students


Figure 3: FTE: Faculty Ratio as Enrollment Increases

Figure 4: Net Profit as FTE: Faculty Ratio and Resource Allocation Increases

1Tuition rate is $1,000 per credit hour at 18 credit hours per FTE.2 Compensation is $100,000 per faculty member (Faculty Salaries, 2014).



to enhance credit hour generation and shorten time to degree. Furthermore, the analysis of student enrollment patterns provides evidence whether progress is being made toward achieving learning outcomes and minimizing student indebtedness (Ward, 2005).

Admissions FunnelThe ability to accurately project enrollment is invaluable for effective financial decision making and campus planning. When forecasting enrollment, past performance serves as one of the best predictors for future success (Ward, 2005). To enhance the accuracy of enrollment projections, goals should be set at each stage of the admissions funnel. This allows for incremental monitoring to determine if there is unexpected deviation from the goal at a specific stage of the funnel. A standard admissions funnel, as represented in Figure 5, illustrates the stages by which a student enrolls.

Additionally, targets should be established for key metrics such as the rates at which prospective students submit a complete application and admitted students become enrollees. Both metrics are critical for determining the successful progression of prospective students throughout the admission process. Historic rates of application completion and enrollment yield serve as the optimal baseline for goal-setting and projections for future admission terms. Figure 6 offers a method for tracking admission metrics and comparing actual performance against the established goal.

Frequently absent from strategic enrollment management plans are acceptance rate targets. Understandably, acceptance rates are contingent upon the volume and quality of complete applications submitted. However, there are several noteworthy reasons acceptance rate targets should be set. Acceptance rate is the only stage of the admissions funnel which is fully controlled by the institution. While there are many

effective strategies for increasing the number of students who progress through the admission process, only acceptance rate can be influenced by application evaluation and rendering admission decisions. Additionally, admission selectivity is a perceived quality indicator to prospective students and ranking agencies such as U.S. News & World Report. Figure 6 provides an example for recording the rates of application completion and admitted student yield.

Graduate Enrollment Management and Organizational Structure

The enrollment management and organizational structure of an institution may require goals to be defined at the academic program, department, school or college, and/or institution-wide level. “Micro-level” goal-setting helps to better facilitate collaboration and support mutual understanding between all those involved in enrollment management


Figure 5: Standard Graduate Student Admissions Funnel

Figure 6: Goal-Setting at Stages of Admissions Funnel



activities. For example, institutions with decentralized budget models place financial responsibility for enrollment goal attainment at the school or college level. In these models, enrollment goals should be established at both the academic program and school or college levels. Additionally, goals should be set in collaboration with academic units responsible for financial decision making and tuition revenue generation.

MEASURE SUCCESS: Have Enrollment Goals Been Achieved?Once enrollment goals have been well-defined and a strategic plan has been executed, analysis can be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of enrollment management activities and determine whether goals have been achieved.

Key Performance IndicatorsWhile the diversity and quantity of available metrics may seem overwhelming, key data points that lend critical insight for effective strategic and financial decision making should be selected for measurement. Both quantitative and qualitative measures should be used to provide a comprehensive understanding of the behavior of applicants throughout the admission process as well as the demographics and academic profile of enrollees. Figure 7 provides an example of student-centered key performance indicators and a process for assessing enrollment outcomes. This dashboard can be used for determining what will be assessed, the methodology to be utilized, and how frequently the assessment will occur (Ward, 2005). While the metrics presented in Figure 7 are not inclusive of all data points that lend insight as to the effectiveness of enrollment management activities, this example offers an approach for recording the assessment process and evaluation of key performance indicators.

Application Completion Rate

In addition to student-centered key performance indicators, other quantitative metrics help to identify areas of success

in managing the stages by which prospective students progress through the admission process. Evaluating the rate at which students submit complete applications for admission helps to determine whether students are experiencing difficulty completing the application process. For instance, students may fail to complete applications if they are unable to successfully submit supplemental admission documents. If completion rates are lower than expected, steps should be taken to streamline the application process or enhance communication sent to incomplete applicants to encourage completion. Additionally, the application completion rate is important for estimating the interest level of applicants. Increasingly, the submission of an application is a student’s first source of inquiry. Therefore, assessing the application completion rate can more accurately inform whether submitting an application demonstrates general interest or strong interest in enrolling.

Admitted Student Yield Rates

Evaluating the rate at which admitted students decide to enroll offers critical information about the effectiveness of yield management strategies, competitiveness of admission offers, and perceptions of institutional quality. Conducting focus groups

and/or surveying admitted students (both enrollees and non-enrollees) are effective methods for gauging the influence of these factors on a student’s decision to enroll. Qualitative assessments can provide useful insight regarding the competitiveness of admission offers and effectiveness in leveraging tuition discounts (e.g. scholarships, tuition remission) as a yield management strategy.

Financial Key Performance Indicators

While achieving enrollment headcount goals is important, net tuition revenue goals must be met for institutions to effectively sustain economic vitality. Thus, enrollment leaders should understand and embrace the importance of net tuition revenue for measuring successful enrollment outcomes. Net tuition revenue is calculated as follows:

Net Revenue = Gross Tuition - Discount

The discount is any institutional tuition dollars or other funding sources used to support student financial aid. When the tuition net revenue goal is achieved or exceeded, an institution has available financial resources to fund strategic priorities for the fulfillment of its vision. However, when net tuition revenue goals are not met, an institution must


Table 7: Assessment Process Using Student-Centered Key Performance Indicators (Ward, 2005)



make difficult decisions in deciding how to reduce expenditures to offset the financial shortfall (Ward, 2005).

In addition to tuition discounts, other expenditures should be taken into consideration when measuring enrollment success. Return on investment (ROI) is a financial calculation that compares net revenue against the total costs required for the revenue to be generated. Return on investment is calculated as follows:

Figure 8 offers an example where net tuition revenue and return on investment are calculated for a graduate college at a large, public institution.

COMMUNICATE SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES: How Should Successes and Challenges Be Shared and Articulated?The measurement of enrollment outcomes is not only important to enrollment leaders, but to key stakeholders who depend on enrollment data to make informed strategic and financial decisions. A high level summary of progress towards enrollment goals should be provided to collaborators whose buy-in and support is essential for future success and continuous improvement. Additionally, challenges and roadblocks that impede future successes should be identified and communicated to promote transparency, mutual understanding, and shared expectations. In doing so, enrollment leaders will discover common goals among key campus partners (Ward, 2005).

REFINE FOR FUTURE SUCCESS: What Improvements Must Be Made to Achieve Success in the Future?Enrollment leaders should seek opportunities to refine enrollment

management strategies. To plan future direction, goals should be monitored annually and strategies assessed to determine whether adjustments or resources may be required to improve performance. An assessment plan should occur annually with regular monitoring throughout the admission cycle. When annual assessment becomes part of the institutional fabric, the outcomes can be used to inform and influence decision makers. This information may result in the redistribution of existing resources or the investment of new resources (Ward, 2005).

ConclusionIn the competitive and ever-evolving marketplace of higher education, demonstrated results will continue to drive the success of colleges and universities. Therefore, enrollment leaders must be equipped with a step-by-step model for developing, tracking, and assessing the enrollment and

tuition revenue outcomes. These results should be synthesized and articulated to key campus stakeholders to foster shared understanding and support for enrollment management initiatives. n

ReferencesAbout the best graduate schools

rankings. (2015, March 9). U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/rankings-methodologies.

Faculty salaries (2014). Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://data.chronicle.com/category/ccbasic/17/faculty-salaries.

Ward, J. (2005). Enrollment management: Key elements for building and implementing an enrollment plan. College and University, 80(4) 7-12. Retrieved from https://aacrao-web.s3.amazonaws.com/files/H86ERoobQbaYlQD8nbqz_spring2005.pdf.

Ward, J. (2007). Forecasting enrollment to achieve institutional goals. College and University, 82(3) 41-46. Retrieved from https://aacrao-web.s3.amazonaws.com/files/M4yaLTqoSIuo82FMTfkq_CUJ8203.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds.

“In the competitive and ever-

evolving marketplace of higher

education, demonstrated results

will continue to drive the success

of colleges and universities.”

Figure 8: Example of Net Tuition Revenue and Return on Investment (ROI) Calculations

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/rankings-methodologies



http://data.chronicle.com/category/ccbasic/17/faculty-salaries

http://data.chronicle.com/category/ccbasic/17/faculty-salaries

https://aacrao-web.s3.amazonaws.com/files/H86ERoobQbaYlQD8nbqz_spring2005.pdf




https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds

https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds


DESPERATELY SEEKING SEVIS: A “CHEAT SHEET” FOR GEM PROFESSIONALSBy Matthew Lisko, Saint Louis University and Dr. Ray Lutzky, New York University

Many GEM professionals work with international students in various ways; some are involved only in the recruitment of international students, while others manage the entire international student enrollment process. Whether you are the former or the latter, having a working familiarity with the Student Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) can help you navigate the often-confusing world of J1 and F1 student visas. The U.S. government agency that administers this system is referred to as SEVP, or the Student Exchange Visitor Program. This article is designed to be a quick and easy resource for GEM professionals to understand some SEVIS basics. That being said, it’s important to know when to refrain from answering questions—you should always seek out your college or university “DSOs,” which stands for “Designated School Official.” Each college or university is given a limited number of DSOs, and these are usually the only folks who have SEVIS access and are responsible for signing documentation for international students.

SEVIS uses two types of visas; the “F1” visa is for students who are admitted to a specific program or educational objective. The “J1” visa is for exchange

students or visiting students attending as part of a specific program. There is also a “non-student” category for visiting professors and researchers.

Here is an overview of the process for applying for SEVIS:

1. Student applies for admission.

2. Department and/or university admits the student.

3. Student turns in financial document showing they can support themselves for 1 academic year with tuition and living expenses. (If student is receiving assistantship or scholarship, they must provide a letter stating this and what the assistantship/scholarship will cover. If assistantship only covers tuition, student must submit financial document to cover living expenses for 1 year.)

4. Student is sent I-20 from issuing institution.

5. Student goes to www.FMJFee.com to pay the $200 SEVIS fee ($180 for J1s).

6. They are issued a receipt from the U.S. government.

7. Student takes I-20 or DS-2019, SEVIS receipt, financial document and admit letter to the U.S. Embassy to apply for a student visa.

8. Depending on country of origin, this process could take a couple of weeks or more than a month (expedited/emergency appointments are also available, depending on the country).

9. When the student arrives on campus they must report for immigration check in.

10. International students office or admission office lets SEVIS know that the student has checked in.

11. Every semester, the international office or admission office must verify enrollment, SEVIS registration and report continuing enrollment.

12. Students must report to office if they change address, change program, go from MS or MA to PhD program, withdraw or end program.

13. Student must be enrolled full time each semester. The university or academic program defines “full time” at the graduate level.

There are many rules governing whether or not an international student on a visa can work in the United States. An F1 student is allowed to work on campus (only) up to 20 hours per week. Students may work more than 20 hours per week between normal academic semesters or during break periods.

In order to work off campus students must have special authorization:

1. Curricular Practical Training (CPT): CPT would take the form of a program internship/externship; it must be either an internship that is required of all students in the degree program or related to a course for academic credit (for example a Public Health program may require students to do 300 hours of internships before they can grant degree). If the degree program does not require an internship, students can also enroll in Internship course during semester, and/or be a part of a CPT cooperative agreement with employers.

“Having a working familiarity

with the Student Exchange Visitor

Information System (SEVIS) can

help you navigate the often-

confusing world of J1 and F1

student visas. The U.S. government

agency that administers this system

is referred to as SEVP, or the Student

Exchange Visitor Program.”


http://www.FMJFee.com


2. Optional Practical Training (OPT): Every student on an F1 visa is eligible for up to 12 months of employment in the United States after graduation. For some STEM programs students are eligible for an additional 17 months (this is in dispute at the moment, but may result in an even longer STEM extension).

3. J1 Exchange program visitors in student categories are eligible for off campus work authorization under “Academic Training”. This allows exchange students to remain in the U.S. and work for a period of time up to the amount of time they were enrolled in coursework, but not to exceed 3 years.

In addition to your college or university office for international student programs, here are some other places GEM professionals can go for additional information about SEVIS and international student issues or to ask questions of colleagues:

• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: https://www.ice.gov/sevis

• NAFSA’s SEVIS Resource Portal:

http://www.nafsa.org/Find_Resources/Supporting_International_Students_And_Scholars/SEVIS_Information/SEVIS_Resource_Portal/

• NAGAP’s International LinkedIn Discussion Group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3868463/profile

A number of colleges and universities also have great resources about SEVIS:

• University of California Berkeley: http://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/sevis

• Arizona State University: https://students.asu.edu/international/immigration

• New York University: https://www.nyu.edu/global/visa-and-immigration/students-and-alumni/newly-admitted/before-you-arrive/get-a-us-visa.html

• Boston University: http://www.bu.edu/isso/immigration-status/maintaining-status/sevis/

• University of Florida: https://www.ufic.ufl.edu/ISS/newstudentsVisaApplication.html

As government rules around student visas change from time to time, it is important for GEM professionals to

remain up to date on this crucial part of the enrollment process and maintain a positive relationship with their campus international student services staff. By familiarizing themselves with the available resources, government information, and best practices of other institutions, GEM professionals can navigate the challenges of SEVIS to help international graduate students successfully obtain their student visas and enroll. n

Special thanks to Saint Louis University for providing their SEVIS Cheat Sheet for this article.

DESPERATELY SEEKING SEVIS CONTINUED

“As government rules around

student visas change from time

to time, it is important for GEM

professionals to remain up to

date on this crucial part of the

enrollment process and maintain

a positive relationship with their

campus international student

services staff.”

https://www.ice.gov/sevis

http://www.nafsa.org/Find_Resources/Supporting_International_Students_And_Scholars/SEVIS_Information




https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3868463/profile

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3868463/profile

http://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/sevis

http://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/sevis

https://students.asu.edu/international/immigration



https://www.nyu.edu/global/visa-and-immigration/students-and-alumni/newly-admitted/before-you-arrive




http://www.bu.edu/isso/immigration-status/maintaining-status/sevis/



https://www.ufic.ufl.edu/ISS/newstudentsVisaApplication.html




THE ETHICS CORNERCoping with the Digital Age: The Ethical Use of Social Media in the Graduate Admission Process

In 1997, 18 years ago, AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) was launched. Ever since, social media has exploded and now permeates everyday life on a global scale. Society’s desire and expectation to engage digitally has become a given.

Most applicants to our graduate programs have long been comfortable communicating and sharing in this digital world. Nevertheless, it is fair to suggest that when many of them post information “publicly” through social media, they do not consider how, when or where it might be viewed and used in the future. For instance, when preparing applications for graduate study, these same people often wish to leverage social media in such a way as to augment their applications (highlighting research, showcasing presentations, demonstrating their social justice commitment, etc.). At the same time, they often do not realize how the total range of their social media entries, including those not intentionally created for use in the admission application process, may be inadvertently or deliberately accessed by those involved in that selection process.

Corporate human resource operations have, for quite some time, used the digital space to assess skills and strengths

of applicants for employment. When and how institutions of higher education choose to leverage the digital world, and engage it in a positive way in the admission process, is (and should be) front of mind for GEM professionals. Similar to the process GEM professionals go through when designing applications and determining the questions to be posed in those applications, when delving into the digital world we must ask ourselves (a) why we want to use social media, and (b) how best to assure both ourselves and our institutions that our motives are rational, legitimate, and ethical. The first step is to determine and transparently define our purpose(s) in incorporating an applicant’s social media presence in the admission process:

• Are you seeking to reinforce a positive admission decision or searching for a reason to deny an applicant?

• Are you looking for applicants’ opinions about your institution and/or their experiences with your staff and faculty?

• Are you hoping to learn to which other schools they’ve applied and how likely they are to enroll at your institution?

Once an institution has confirmed its purposes in engaging in the strategic use of social media and has decided that its use is both appropriate and desirable, there are a number of steps that should serve as ethical benchmarks:

1. Proactively inform prospective students that you can, and may, reach out to third-party, non-traditional sources (including social media) as part of the admission process and that the information collected through those means may be considered in the admission decision process.

2. Carefully consider who will be doing the exploration. Should such activity be limited to GEM staff and appropriate faculty, or do you have sufficient

privacy policies established for your student employees to responsibly involve them in the process?

3. Once identified, those individuals should be trained in the appropriate use (and potential misuse) of such information. It is strongly recommended that official published guidelines regarding the use of social media in admission decision-making be part of a comprehensive GEM SOP manual. These statements should be clear about all aspects of social media use. Does information obtained through social media become a part of an applicant’s official record? Will access to social media information be restricted to the actual admissions committee or extended to academic advisors and others who may have access to the file after the student enrolls?

We have purposefully raised more questions than we have answered, intending to prompt your consideration of the purpose of your digital explorations, enhance awareness of all pertinent issues, and ensure that information secured through social media is collected and used appropriately and in an ethical manner. The direction you take needs to be both thoughtfully guided by your admissions philosophy and process and by the needs of your graduate programs, and answers to these questions cannot be static. Much like the digital landscape

“The direction you take needs to be

both thoughtfully guided by your

admissions philosophy and process

and by the needs of your graduate

programs, and answers to these

questions cannot be static.”


“Most applicants to our graduate

programs have long been

comfortable communicating

and sharing in this digital world.

Nevertheless, it is fair to suggest

that when many of them post

information “publicly” through

social media, they do not consider

how, when or where it might be

viewed and used in the future.”

The Leader in Graduate Enrollment Management


of which they are a part, social media avenues and resulting information are dynamic and constantly changing. GEM processes need to be cognizant and reflective of this ever-evolving environment.

As always, we invite and genuinely welcome your comments as well as your thoughts regarding what you would like to see discussed in future editions of The Ethics Corner. Please send your input to [email protected]. n

ColumnistsDonald A. Resnick Chief Enrollment and Success Officer The New School

Myron A. Thompson Associate Provost Executive Director of the Graduate School Emeritus University at Buffalo/State University of New York

Kristin S. Williams Associate Provost for Graduate Enrollment Management The George Washington University

Check out the

NAGAP Online Resource Center

Featuring

Book Reviews

GEM Articles

Archived Webinars

Doctoral Research

…and more!

www.bitly.com/NAGAPresource

THE ETHICS CORNER CONTINUED

2014-16 NAGAP GOVERNING BOARDOfficersPresidentJames N. Crane Assistant Dean Graduate Studies Brigham Young University BYU Graduate Studies 105 FPH Provo, UT 84602 Phone: 801-422-1586 Fax: 801-422-0270 Email: [email protected]

Vice President Julia B. Deland Harvard Graduate School of Education

SecretaryJoshua LaFave State University of New York at Potsdam

TreasurerJeremiah Nelson UNC Chapel Hill

mailto:[email protected]


CommitteesChapters ChairSarah Petrakos Simmons College

Conference Chair 2016Renanda Dear Georgia State University

Diversity & Inclusion ChairValerie Robinson Miami University

Education ChairLinda Horisk Fordham University

Membership ChairKittie Pain Neumann University

Professional Development ChairKeith Ramsdell Bowling Green State University

Publications ChairJennifer Kulbeck Saint Mary's College of California

Research and Global Issues ChairMatthew Cipriano Weill Cornell Medical College

Technology ChairMarcus Hanscom Roger Williams University

Publications Editorial CommitteeNicquet Blake, Ph.D. University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio

Dave Fletcher, D.Min. Barry University

Marianne Gumpper Fairfield University

Raymond Lutzky, Ph.D. New York University

Kate McConnell Penn State Great Valley

BOOK REVIEWReviewed by Daniel J. Bennett, Assistant Dean Emeritus, UCLA, Senior Consultant, World Education Services (WES)

Will College Pay Off? A Guide to the Most Important Financial Decision You’ll Ever MakePeter Cappelli, New York: PublicAffairs, 2015

The Graduate School Mess: What Caused It and How We Can Fix ItLeonard Cassuto, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015

“Jorge Villalba was a construction worker when the housing market began slowing in 2006, so the Glendale resident changed jobs and decided to invest in his future by going to college. So far the investment hasn’t paid off. Villalba, 34, owes $158,000 in student loans for his four-year degree in multimedia, 3-D animation, and graphic design at ITT Technical Institute. He figured he’d get a great job and pay off the loan…Mr. Villalba said most companies don’t value his degree from ITT. He’s earning $15 an hour in a graphic design job and trying to figure out how to pay off his student loans, including some private ones with interest rates of about 20%.” [From a headline story in the Los Angeles Times Business section]

Peter Cappelli, a management professor in the Wharton School, has written a book designed to help readers understand and avoid situations like the one above. Although scholarly and documented, the book is a guide for students and parents, as suggested in the subtitle and by a writing style that is approachable and often colloquial (“There is a ton of evidence suggesting that college improves the lives of graduates in many ways.” [emphasis added]). The book’s focus is on the value of undergraduate degrees but some of the findings and recommendations are also pertinent to those entering the job market with graduate degrees.

The financing of undergraduate degrees is under strong public scrutiny. With escalating college costs, many students

are becoming increasingly dependent upon loans to fund their education. Consequently there is significant pressure on graduates to obtain “good” jobs to validate the expenditure on their education and facilitate the repayment of these loans. Colleges and universities, whether public, private, or for-profit, are competing for students on the basis that their degrees will produce good jobs.

Cappelli suggests:

“Public policy plays a role in these developments. The cutback in funding for public colleges, which most U.S. students attend, pushed the problem of paying for college onto families and continues to do so as the run-up in state college tuition vastly exceeds that of their private school counterparts. The more serious concern going forward may be the effort at state and local governments levels to make college increasingly vocational, to push students toward degrees that sound like jobs employers are trying to fill.”

The author also notes the growing effort by for-profit colleges to profit from this lucrative market, as in the case of Mr. Villalba above. Most of these for-profit colleges charge high fees, have poor graduation rates, and poor job/career outcomes. Indeed, this push toward job training in the university continues despite the fact that “there is no evidence that it works.”



BOOK REVIEW CONTINUED

Cappelli, a human resources expert, points out that hiring for jobs is a messy, complicated process. Despite this, many firms have trimmed the budgets of the human resources department so severely that “an executive who has no training in human resources and no real data on whether his or her hiring practices are working” often influences hiring decisions. He laments the lack of data available at the national level to help determine the payoff for college: “A lot of people move around in the United States, especially when going to and leaving colleges. So it would be important to follow them across states.” However, laws like the Family Education

Rights and Privacy Act prohibits the federal government from collecting data on students across states, which often negates serious analysis of educational outcomes. “As such, only individual states can examine the relationship between students’ performance and their outcomes in the job market, and they can only do it for those students who remain within the state college.” Although the Obama administration’s Department of Education required colleges and universities to produce some data on costs, performance and outcomes in order to prepare an informative database for students and parents, the project ultimately was aborted. Many believe the remaining data sets are of specious value and may lead to invidious comparisons

between colleges and universities (e.g., time-to-degree and graduation rates for minority-serving institutions may not fare well against those of other institutions but should they be punished for their service to disadvantaged students?).

The inability to predict the availability of certain kinds of jobs and careers four years out in a dynamic employment market remains a major concern. Indeed, students who select narrow training/majors for a “hot” profession may see those positions disappear upon graduation. Thus, avoiding trendy, vocationally driven majors is one of the author’s recommendations.

In the final analysis, by any measure, obtaining a college degree does pay off. As John Cassidy notes in a New Yorker essay on the “real value” of higher education, “There’s no doubt that college graduates earn more money, on average, than people who don’t have a degree.” And N. Gregory Mankiw writes in The New York Times, “Today’s economy leaves little doubt about the value of college. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2014 the median worker with a bachelor’s degree (and no advanced degree) earned $69,260, compared with $34,540 for the median worker with only a high school diploma. Over a lifetime, that difference accumulates to about $1.5 million.”

How then do students and parents make wise decisions based on all of these factors? Cappelli recommends a traditional liberal arts degree for a solid educational background and the chance to develop relationships and benefit from the social and cultural experiences of a residential campus. The author also notes:

“Surveys from employers indicate that the most important attributes in their hiring decisions all have to do with work experience. They pay very little attention to academics. Employers are much more interested in what students have done outside the classroom—

internships, volunteer experiences, even extra curricular programs—than what they’ve done in the classroom.”

And while a degree from a prestigious school can be important in gaining admission to graduate and professional schools, this is not necessarily the case for landing the first job (Lauren Rivera provides some new research on this subject, noted below). Finally, Cappelli recommends carefully considering costs, amount and types of loans, and quality of support services when selecting a college or university.

Cappelli stresses that “Parents with good social networks who can obtain interesting summer jobs for their kids may not have to worry as much about the marketability of the majors their kids choose.” However, overall his book lacks emphasis and research on the impact of affluent families on the ability of the child to land a good job upon graduation. As readers may recall from my earlier review of Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality the authors Elizabeth A. Armstrong and Laura T. Hamilton provided solid research in support of this phenomenon. The students in the study who were from affluent families benefited from the financial and advising infrastructure inherent in having parents with degrees and the networks from their


“The inability to predict the

availability of certain kinds of

jobs and careers four years

out in a dynamic employment

market remains a major concern.

Indeed, students who select

narrow training/majors for a “hot”

profession may see those positions

disappear upon graduation.”



professional backgrounds. The research demonstrated the effectiveness of these networks in helping the children to gain prized positions in the workforce, irrespective of major or grades. A recent study by Lauren Rivera, a professor of management and organizations at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, also provides data that illuminates the role of socio-economic status in the job market. Rivera investigated “hiring processes in some of the nations highest-paying entry-level jobs: positions in top-tier investment banks, management consulting firms and law firms.” Her analysis of the actions by elite gatekeepers demonstrates “how these decisions help explain why socioeconomically privileged students tend to get the most elite jobs.”

Cappelli places the value of a college education in determining job success in an overall context: “The combination of a serious, broad academic degree and practical job experience in the summer, possibly combined with some skill classes taken elsewhere, might allow graduates to land that first BIG job.” Some might argue that this has been the case for many decades but it continues to be good advice, and along with the author’s cautionary notes on selecting a major, college, and amounts and types of loans, make the book a useful guide to higher education today.

Representatives from Amazon and Microsoft participated in a plenary session, “What Employers Know, What Employers Need: Relationships that Work,” at the 2015 Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) Annual Meeting. Some of their recommendations were similar to those of Professor Cappelli but the main focus was on those entering the job market from graduate school. A well-rounded education in the liberal arts, communication skills, the ability to work as part of a team, adaptability, and problem solving skills were some attributes deemed important for employment in their companies.

The subject of graduate students and the job market is one issue covered in a book by Leonard Cassuto, a columnist for the Chronicle of Higher Education and a professor of English at Fordham University. While the title refers to “the graduate school mess,” the main focus is on graduate study in the humanities with his primary audience being “teachers of graduate school.” The author further notes that the book will be of interest to graduate students, administrators, “and quite a few non-academics who are interested in the workings of the university.” Cassuto’s concerns mirror the agendas of the recent CGS annual meetings. We are all too familiar with problems that plague the humanities: time-to-degree, high attrition rates, student debt, scarcity of jobs in academia, and unhappy Ph.D. graduates. Cassuto provides a summary of these issues and offers some ideas for change that constitute a wake-up call to the professoriate in terms of teaching and advising graduate students.

Of particular interest to graduate enrollment management professionals is an opening chapter on “Graduate Admissions.” Expressing surprise that no one has written a full history of graduate admissions, the author provides a condensed version. His focus is primarily on the academic rather than the administrative. Indeed, in the beginning of graduate admissions in the U.S., there was little process and not

much administration. Instead, faculty, independently or in small groups, made decisions based on individual judgment on who should study (and hence join their ranks in the professoriate). By the late 1930’s there was concern about the big spike in graduate admissions applications caused by the Great Depression. Admissions offices became gatekeepers and began to use letters of recommendation, undergraduate grades, and institutional reputation as a guide for faculty in the selection process. Also, there was the beginning of a move toward standardized testing. The GI Bill of 1944 enabled an even larger number of individuals to seek graduate study and “By the end of the 1940’s, the graduate admissions process had developed into the form we recognize today.”

Julie Posselt’s recently published book on graduate admissions is favorably mentioned in Cassuto’s book; he had access to a copy of the manuscript. This reviewer attended a plenary session at the 2015 CGS annual meeting in which Posselt presented her findings and recommendations for change. The upshot of the study, which focused on 10


“We are all too familiar with

problems that plague the

humanities: time-to-degree,

high attrition rates, student debt,

scarcity of jobs in academia,

and unhappy Ph.D. graduates.

Cassuto provides a summary

of these issues and offers some

ideas for change that constitute a

wake-up call to the professoriate

in terms of teaching and advising

graduate students.”



Ph.D. programs in three universities, is that faculty admissions committees tend to search for values and attainments that look like their own (homophily), consensus in decision-making, and “fit” with their programs. An overemphasis on GRE scores and bachelor’s institutions of elite university status discourages diversity of thought and diversity in many other categories that institutions say matter. As Cassuto indicates, “We need to broaden the profile of the graduate students we seek.”

Cassuto recommends a rethinking of the coursework, comprehensive examination, doctoral dissertation, and the master’s and Ph.D. degrees, all within the framework of what students need to be practitioners in academe. This is particularly relevant since the likelihood of attaining a tenure-track position in a research university upon graduation is relatively low. He urges that faculty advise students to be more attentive to teaching and assisting students to complete their degrees and compete for employment in a timely manner. To do so, the author recommends creating a collaborative environment, helping those who will never finish the dissertation leave in a positive manner, and supporting decisions for different kinds of employment outside of pure research and associated teaching. This could include teaching at a community college, a state university, or working in public or private sector positions where Ph.D. skills and training are of value.

Cassuto recommends that departments and institutions offer communications courses, and professional development seminars. He encourages career services partnerships and emphasizes the importance of tracking placement outcomes.

Cassuto notes that we need “A higher education ethic [that] would define a relationship between the university and the community.” This means that the university must rebuild its relationship to the world outside of the ivory tower in a manner that makes its research and teaching more connected and meaningful for students and faculty and the public at large. In so doing, Ph.D. students will have a better opportunity to engage with the community at large and gain meaningful careers leading to more fulfilling lives.

For experienced professionals in graduate education, these findings and recommendations are likely quite familiar. Indeed, graduate programs in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), not the subject of this book, have been engaged in self-examination and rethinking of doctoral (and master’s) programs for the last couple of decades. For example, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has done a considerable amount of research and issued reports with recommendations similar to those

in this book. Cassuto recognizes this work and recommends rethinking the comprehensive examination in the humanities in the direction of a defense of a research proposal, a format now widely used in STEM fields. In recent years CGS has brought attention to these issues through research, publications, and public discussion. Finally, the title of the book, while attention grabbing, is a bit overstated, particularly given that the book focuses primarily on the humanities. U.S. graduate study, while not perfect, continues to be a model for the world, as exemplified by the huge number of domestic and international students who apply for graduate admission in these institutions. n

ReferencesCassidy, J., “College Calculus: What’s the

real value of higher education?,” The New Yorker, September 7, 2015

Mankiw, N., “3 Reasons for Those Hefty College Tuition Bills,” The New York Times, December 20, 2015

Posselt, J., (2016), Inside Graduate Admissions: Merit, Diversity, and Faculty Gatekeeping. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Puzzanghera, J., “Degree of Debt, Soaring Student Loan Burden Poses Risk to Economic Growth,” Los Angeles Times, September 6, 2015

Rivera, L., (2015), Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015


NAGAP MEMBER SPOTLIGHT: STEPHANIE GIBBS, ED.D.By Stanley J. Kania III, Marywood University

If you ever needed to pick someone’s brain about GEM strategies or upcoming industry trends, this doctor is always in. Dr. Stephanie Gibbs began her career in higher education as a Resident Hall Coordinator at Lincoln University, in 2009. After working in Residence Life, she changed fields and entered enrollment management as an Undergraduate Admissions Counselor and Joseph E. Coleman Coordinator at Albright College. In 2011, her focus at Albright turned to Graduate Admissions. Most recently, in May 2014,

Stephanie advanced her career with a move to Cabrini College as Director of Graduate Admissions. At Cabrini, she supervises four recruiters and oversees recruitment for the graduate and doctoral programs. In addition she collaborates with other administrators and deans to ensure strategic goals

are accomplished through effective and efficient measures. Stephanie is an active member of PAGAP, the Pennsylvania chapter of NAGAP, and sits on the PAGAP Executive Board as the organization’s treasurer.

Throughout her professional career, Dr. Gibbs has focused on education and professional development, obtaining her M.S. in Higher Education and Organizational Leadership from Drexel University; and most recently her Ed.D. with a focus on education and innovation. She defended her dissertation titled “An Analysis of Social Media and Website Usage by Historically Black Colleges and Universities” this past February after years of hard work and dedication to her studies and scholarly research. n

“Stephanie is an active member

of PAGAP, the Pennsylvania

chapter of NAGAP, and sits on

the PAGAP Executive Board as the

organization’s treasurer.”

The NAGAP Board held their winter meeting January 22–23 in Palm Springs, in conjunction with the Winter PDI. On the agenda were committee activities, policies & procedures, media relations and other association business.


29TH ANNUAL CONFERENCENotes from Nashville — Making the Most of the Exhibit Hall

Mention the exhibit hall to a conference attendee, and it brings to mind rows of smiling vendors who give away intriguing trinkets and fabulous raffle prizes. While it is true that NAGAP exhibitors are pretty creative in the ways they draw interest to their booths, it would be a mistake to limit exhibit hall time to a quick stroll to fill up on freebies or grab a snack. Attendees of past NAGAP conferences report one of the highlights of the conference is the education and networking opportunities afforded them year after year. So, why not consider extending this to the exhibit hall and make the most of your time at the conference?

NAGAP is unique in that no other professional association specifically addresses the broad needs of GEM professionals. The conference planning committee ensures exhibitors represent a variety of products and services that are current and useful resources. The exhibitors can help attendees to function more effectively and efficiently with the resources they currently have, as well as introduce new tools for consideration that can take a GEM operation to the next level. Even if you aren’t the “decision maker” for your program or school, being up to date on the latest technologies and services will increase your knowledge of GEM, inform you of industry best practices, and educate you on a vast array of tools available to assist your school to meet and exceed enrollment and retention goals.

Many of the exhibitors are leaders in the field of GEM-related technologies and services, who financially support the NAGAP conference by attending year after year. By getting to know them, you are expanding your professional network to include all GEM professionals. What could be better than a name and a face

to turn to for help when your operational needs grow and change?

This year in Nashville attendees will have several opportunities to learn and network in the exhibit hall. A welcome reception will be hosted in the hall, which provide attendees plenty of time to get to know the exhibitors. In addition, there will be daily refreshment breaks to give attendees a chance to follow up with shorter one-on-one conversations with vendors and other conference attendees. Some of the presenters at educational sessions are also exhibitors, and will be present at lunch and

at the offsite event at the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum, providing time for everyone to get to know each other “away from the booths”.

In 2015 the exhibit hall sold out and we expect to do the same this year in Nashville. This means there will be even more opportunity to both meet and learn from our exhibitors. If you make the most of your time there, you may very well come away with something far more valuable than a great trinket.

See you in Nashville! n

P E R S P E C T I V E S • S P R I N G 2 0 1 6 23 N A G A P

THE GRADUATE APPLICATION: WHAT SIGNALS ARE WE SENDING?By Pamela Gustafson, Long Island University, Post Campus

In 2013, the Council of Graduate Schools reported that graduate enrollment in U.S. universities was 1.74 million students in the fall of 2012 (Council of Graduate Schools, 2013). However, 50% of doctoral students will not complete their degrees (Cassuto, 2013). Those numbers are staggering when one considers how much time, effort, and expense goes into applying to graduate school, enrolling in classes, and paying back student loan monies.

When a student leaves a program, they may be saddled with debt and no useable degree. Likewise, faculty members invest time and effort in their students, which cannot be recovered when a student leaves. Thus, the intended purpose of the application, enrollment, and training process in a graduate program is lost along with the time, effort, and money involved for both students and faculty (Gardner, 2009; Smith, Maroney, Nelson, Abel, & Abel, 2006).

The graduate admission application is the entryway into a graduate program. The purpose of the admission process should be to find the best match between applicant and program. Finding the best match might mean considering things as broad as discipline, location, or cost. The best match might consider more specific things like

learning environment, program size, diversity, available concentrations, faculty research interests, mentorship or advising models, or graduates’ placement. Logistical concerns like location, timing of classes, access of resources, and other applicant-specific issues might also be part of finding the best match between applicant and program. However, many application processes are generic—including a basic application form, a personal statement, an undergraduate transcript, and some letters of recommendation. This article will look at ways in which the graduate application can be better utilized to signal accurate information to applicants and thus receive accurate information (signals) from applicants about their fit with the specific program or institution.

FitFit with a particular program can mean a number of things, including, but not limited to: the student’s learning style is in line with the program’s curriculum and training model; the program has the remedial resources available for students needing additional help; the program is very hands-on (or very hands-off); the student’s interests and aptitudes are in line with faculty members’ interests and abilities; and the program’s available

clinical or research experiences are aligned with the student’s prior work, clinical aptitude, and abilities. A lack of fit may lead to an unsatisfactory level of competence development or attrition from that program. Importantly, a student may do poorly in one training environment but thrive in another because of the program’s fit with that student and vice versa (Gardener, 2008; Fu, 2014).

Applying Theoretical Frameworks: Signaling and Market Matching TheoriesSignaling theory focuses on the information that an individual communicates about themselves to a receiver and that the receiver communicates back concerning preferences (Spence, 1973, 2002; Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011). It has been used in human resources, business, economics, and admissions. Signaling theory works well to explore the admission process in that applicants send signals about themselves to programs and programs also send signals about themselves to applicants due to the structure of the admission process. Throughout the admission process, programs and applicants relay


“This article will look at ways in

which the graduate application

can be better utilized to signal

accurate information to applicants

and thus receive accurate

information (signals) from

applicants about their fit with the

specific program or institution.”


signals to one another, developing and/or cementing preferences about one another (Chade, Lewis, & Smith, 2013; Coles, Kushnir, & Niederle, 2009; Lee & Schwarz, 2012). Thus, a set of credentials is presented by an applicant in response to the desired student type that the program signaled for within its admission process.

Theorists have argued that since colleges (or firms) cannot focus solely on one applicant at a time, signaling mechanisms are established to facilitate matchings (Coles, Kushnir, & Niederle, 2010). These mechanisms might include question prompts for recommenders or personal statement topics for applicants, among other items, and may or may not be related to program-specific characteristics such as program mission, training model, learning environment, faculty-student relations, training goals, or sub-field focus. These signaling mechanisms attempt to elicit information about applicants in a truthful and systematic manner, inasmuch as that information relates to programs’ preferences (Chakraborty, Citanna, & Ostrovsky, 2010). When programs establish signaling thresholds (or admission criteria) that equal the programs’ desired fit, they are establishing signaling mechanisms designed to elicit a “stable match” and thus limit the possibility of unstable matches (Chade, Lewis, & Smith, 2009, 2013; Chakraborty, Citanna, & Ostrovsky, 2010). This process occurs at every recruitment and enrollment cycle at universities to varying levels of success.

Gale and Shapley theorized that providing stable matchings between colleges and applicants is possible (1962). Using a continuum framework, Azevedo and Leshno built on this theory and argued that there is a finite number of colleges that are matched to a continuum of applicants (2011). Notably, theorists point out that the screening processes of programs are imperfect for a number of reasons (Chade, Lewis, & Smith, 2009).

For instance, while applicants may express their preferences by way of the established signaling process of a program, an applicant may alter their preferences as they either begin to learn more from programs’ signals or when they realize an undesired outcome and therefore shift their preferences (Chade, Lewis, & Smith, 2009; Nagypal, 2004). Therefore, designing signaling mechanisms that are resistant to updated preferences is key to stable market matching between applicant and program (Chakraborty, Citanna, & Ostrovsky, 2010).

Throughout the admission process, programs may send signals to applicants about both the program and its desired student body characteristics (Chade Lewis, & Smith, 2013). Applicants’ responses to these signals are based on their preferences, as well as their perception of the individual program’s perceived preferences, therefore potentially altering the focus of applicants’ applications or the effort they put into the process (Medina & Torres, 2010). Thus, signaling and matching markets theories will provide the framework for this study by looking at whether the use of program-specific criteria results in limiting student attrition due to fit. In this case, the program-specific criteria would signal to applicants certain information about the program, thus enabling applicants to respond with relevant information about their fit with those unique program characteristics. Signaling theory suggests that when programs utilize the opportunity to signal to applicants, they will achieve better outcomes in terms of a more stable match between student and program.

Throughout the process, applicants signal information about themselves to programs. Applicants may act outside of the established signaling mechanisms to provide additional information to programs (Chade, Lewis, & Smith, 2009, 2013; Dearden, Meyerhoefer, & Yang, 2011). The majority of their signals for a program must remain within the program-established set of signaling mechanisms, in this case, the application criteria. As such, signaling theory suggests that applicants who truthfully relay information about themselves through the signaling process will enable a stable match between themselves and the program that best suits them in terms of mission, model, and intended outcomes.

What Does Your Application Signal?So who are you to your applicants at the admission stage of the process? Applicants may spend hours researching your program, looking up faculty articles, reading program reviews, getting a sense from alums and peers of the reputation and fascinating aspects of your program. But then they get to your application and you are nowhere to be found. Your application is indistinguishable from the next—and so they have no way to show you how they match with your program. Here are some things to consider as you review your application to find yourself in it.

Look at your application with fresh eyes.

• Go to your application page and apply.• Think about how an applicant would

see the application—Remove all information you know about your program(s) from your mind.

• Think about what your application prompts are telling the applicant. Does an applicant completing your application get a sense of the program or the institution as they complete the forms?

THE GRADUATE APPLICATION CONTINUED


“Signaling theory suggests

that when programs utilize

the opportunity to signal to

applicants, they will achieve better

outcomes in terms of a more

stable match between student

and program.”


• Try to write a personal statement using the question prompts. Are you able to signal to the program why you would be a good fit for that program, or why you would be a good fit for the field of XYZ?

• What does the next year or two or five look like to your students? Are they prepared to enter into that experience? Are they telling you that based on the information you’re asking them to complete in their application?

What information does your program need to know about an applicant in order to determine whether there is a fit? What experiences have prepared them for your specific program? Think about the nature of higher education and experiences your applicants have had:

• Previous success in varied learning environments

• Advisor-advisee relationships• Specific research/academic/

clinical skills• Independent/group work• High/low level of writing • Critical thinking• Hands-on experience • Passion for working with a certain

population

All of these and more, if prompted to talk about them and provide evidence, might allow applicants to better signal to programs how they fit with that program. Your program might not have a high level of mentoring for an applicant who is accustomed to a strong mentor-mentee relationship. You might not have a large available writing center for poor writers. Your program might use a lot of group work, whereas a student works best independently. Those variables can alter a graduate student’s experience and either enhance or put a strain on your program’s resources.

While reviewing your application think through what your application signals to your applicants. Does it help the reviewers to signal something more

specific? More broad? Does it need to do more (or less) for reviewers?

Using a Program-Specific Application to Shape the Incoming CohortAn important piece of the revamping admission procedures to better match applicants and programs is thinking logistically about what is possible for a college or university overall, as well as for individual programs. First ask the question: Can we have program-specific graduate applications or do we need an institution-wide application?

Once you have determined which of these categories your process must fit into, you can begin to determine in what ways you can change your admission processes to better match applicants and programs.

Institution-Wide Considerations• What is the mission of the institution?

How do programs achieve that mission?

• What type of learning environment does the institution provide (class size, faculty to student ratios, resources)?

• How are you different than your competitors? What does your graduate school experience provide to students (beyond academics)?

• Who are you as an institution? Who aren’t you?

Program-Specific Considerations• What is the program?• What is the specialty? What does that

train students for?• Who are your faculty? Not just their

names—their mentoring style, their interests, their subfields, their working relationships with other faculty.

• How does advisement/mentorship/assistantships work?

• What can students expect from their peers in the cohort?

• What is the training model?• What resources do students have

available to them?• What resources do they need to find

access to themselves?

• What is the university mission? The program mission? How do those two come together in the classroom?

• What is the most remarkable thing about this program?

• Who are you as a program? Who aren’t you?

These considerations will help you frame the conversation you want to have with applicants. Who are they? Who do they want to be? And how does that fit with who you are as an institution or program and what you can do for them? For instance, if your program does not have access to a Writing Center for graduate-level writing, you cannot take in a student who has not shown aptitude in academic writing or who is not self-described or described by recommenders as a solution-finder. Another example might be a graduate program that requires a lot of discussion in classes about prior experiences in the field. If applicants need to have that experience to participate in their classes then you need to cull out that experience at some point in the admission process.

Next, you will have to decide where in the process to place the program-specific signals.

• What can the questions on the application form signal?

• What are the statement prompts?• What are the Letter of

Recommendation prompts?• What are applicants being asked

on interview? Is it related to broad field topics? To program-specific foci? To learning environment and program culture?

• What do your scholarship essays say about what is important to your program(s)?

Why Change the Process?Establishing comprehensive and effective admission policies to best ensure retention of students is an ethical issue for the field of professional psychology. This is




evidenced by numerous requirements at the accreditation and state levels to provide information about admission processes and to provide sound, ethical training for future psychologists. Indeed, on a more general level, the White House has taken the topic of accountability as an issue of importance in terms of attrition, retention, debt, and employability (White House, 2014). Importantly, admission policies and procedures are the first piece of doctoral-level training and one that is addressed on national and state levels in different ways.

By strategically recruiting and admitting those whose criteria match more than baseline academic and interpersonal skills needed to be successful as a graduate student, graduate education might innovate and strengthen its diverse core. n

ReferencesAzevedo, E. M., & Leshno, J. D. (2011, June).

The college admissions problem with a continuum of students. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on Electronic commerce (pp. 333-334). ACM.

Cassuto, L. (2013). Ph.D. Attrition: How Much is Too Much? The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Chade, H., Lewis, G., and Smith, L. (2009). A supply and demand model of the college admissions problem. Faculty working paper, Department of Economics, Harvard University.

Chade, H., Lewis, G., and Smith, L. (2013). Student portfolios and the college admissions problem. Arizona State University, Harvard University, and University of Wisconsin.

Chakraborty, A., Citanna, A., & Ostrovsky, M. (2010). Two-sided matching with interdependent values. Journal of Economic Theory, 145(1), 85-105.

Coles, P., & Niederle, M. (2009). Signaling in matching markets. Harvard Business School, Penn State University, and Stanford University.

Coles, P., Kushnir, A., & Niederle, M. (2010). Preference signaling in matching markets (No. w16185). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67.

Council of Graduate Schools, (2013). Graduate Schools Report Slight Growth in New Students for Fall 2012. Council of Graduate Schools, Press Release.

Dearden, J., Li, S., Meyerhoefer, C., & Yang, M. (2011). Demonstrated interest: Signaling behavior in college admissions. Working paper, Lehigh University.

Fu, C. (2014). Equilibrium Tuition, Applications, Admissions, and Enrollment in the College Market. Journal of Political Economy, 122(2), 225-281.

Gardner, S. K. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33(2), 125-138.

Gardner, S. K. (2009). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-completing doctoral programs in the United States. Higher Education, 58(1), 97-112.

Kenkel, M. B. E., & Peterson, R. L. (2010). Competency-based education for professional psychology. American Psychological Association.

Lee, R. S., & Schwarz, M. (2009). Interviewing in two-sided matching markets (No. w14922). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. Caruso, D. (2000). Emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396–421). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Medina, A. R., & Torres, A. S. (2012). College Admissions with multiple applications and observable effort. Working Paper.

Nagypal, E. (2004). Optimal application behavior with incomplete information. Manuscript, Econ. Dept., Northwestern Univ.

Smith, R. L., Maroney, K., Nelson, K. W., Abel, A. L., & Abel, H. S. (2006). Doctoral programs: Changing high rates of attrition. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 45(1), 17-31.

Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3):355 374.

Spence, M. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, 434-459.

Sternberg, R. J., The Rainbow Project Collaborators, & The University of Michigan Business School Project Collaborators. (2004). Theory-based university admissions testing for a new millennium. Educational Psychologist, 39(3), 185-198.

White House. (2014). Improving Transparency and Accountability. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education


“By strategically recruiting and

admitting those whose criteria

match more than baseline

academic and interpersonal

skills needed to be successful as

a graduate student, graduate

education might innovate and

strengthen its diverse core.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education


DEGREES FOR SALE: THE DIPLOMA MILLS PROBLEM CONTINUESBy Emily Tse, International Education Research Foundation (IERF)

In 2010, a study identified 23 individuals on LinkedIn who claimed degrees from Almeda University, a known diploma mill (Prouix, 2010). Just two years later, in a separate study published in 2012, the number catapulted to 2,500 individuals on LinkedIn claiming qualifications from the same institution (Ezell and Bear, 2012). In 2015, in a third study, the number increased again to 4,000 individuals listing credentials from Almeda University (Neifer, 2015). While this trend speaks to the overall growth of the professional networking site, it also draws attention to the alarming growth of degrees issued from diploma mills. And yet, this pattern represents only one among the estimated 5,000 diploma mills that exist today (Ezell, 2015), suggesting that the overall collective number would be exponentially larger. Also, although Almeda University’s website is no longer in operation, it is evident on LinkedIn that their degrees continue to be used and cited.

In this context, diploma mills, also commonly referred to as degree mills, are entities that offer substandard or illegitimate academic degrees for a fee. As such, they are not regarded as true institutions of learning and are not accredited by a recognized authority. These businesses differ from counterfeit operations that issue fraudulent degrees from legitimate universities. Depending on the diploma mill, the cost of a degree

can range from several hundred dollars to several thousand.

Confusion Breeds OpportunityDespite the dubious locations of many diploma mills, the United States has been established as the most popular site for degree mill operators. Nevertheless, wherever the location may be, their global reach is far and wide. For instance, a diploma mill may operate in one country, present itself as existing in another, and sell credentials to a customer in a third country. The borderless nature of these enterprises makes it easy to escape discovery. Yet, if detected, these entities often simply move to another state or country, particularly small island nations, where there is little oversight of private institutions.

Diploma mills are known to thrive in the U.S. in large part due to existing loopholes in state authorization and regional accreditation. States typically issue degree-granting authorization to educational institutions; however, the standards vary greatly. For this reason, accreditation is viewed as a significant additional authorization, despite being a purely voluntary measure. For example, accreditation is frequently used as a requirement in the provision of financial aid and transfer credit. This division between degree-granting authorization and accreditation, along with the separation between state and federal oversight of education, serves as

a source for much confusion and as a loophole for diploma mills in the U.S.

The rise of alternative forms of education, and the recognition of these various forms, have also added to the confusion. For instance, online degree programs have become commonplace, particularly with advancements in technology. Equally common is awarding credit based on examinations (e.g., CLEP) and recognition of prior learning experiences that take place outside the classroom. Examples include independent study, internships and volunteer work. While credit may be granted for such experiences, entire degrees cannot. Yet, diploma mills confer degrees based solely on life experience. Upon receipt of payment, the customers’ life experiences are converted into degree certificates and transcripts showing courses, credits and grades.

Tricks and GimmicksDegree mill operators employ many tactics to create an air of legitimacy, such as using names that sound similar to existing reputable universities, producing brochures and websites that closely resemble those of legitimate universities, and using edited photos of university campuses. They often advertise in well-established publications, such as The Economist, Forbes, and USA Today; and create faculty profiles on LinkedIn and other


“In this context, diploma mills,

also commonly referred to as

degree mills, are entities that

offer substandard or illegitimate

academic degrees for a fee.

As such, they are not regarded

as true institutions of learning

and are not accredited by a

recognized authority.”


sites, using stock photos or images gathered from the Internet. Operators also present their universities as being accredited; however, they do so by creating fraudulent accrediting bodies, known as accreditation mills. To feign legitimacy, accreditation mills often place themselves on lists that they fabricate, which include other known, recognized accreditation authorities. Additionally, they cite recognition of other known, respected schools. Collectively, these strategies shape a false sense of credibility as institutions of learning.

Another popular tool is the Apostille or State Authentication Certificate, frequently issued to accompany the fraudulent diploma and transcript. These certificates serve to authenticate notarized documents to be used abroad. However, like the notarized documents themselves, the stamp and signature of the authenticating office do not attest to the veracity of the contents of the documents. The office would not have the capability to do so, as it typically does not have any ties to the educational authorities that would be able to provide such verification. Yet, the official look of the Apostille and Authentication Certificate contributes to the perception of authenticity, particularly when issued by the U.S. State Department’s Office, bearing the signature of the Secretary of State.

The Largest Diploma Mill Operation KnownIn May of 2015, The New York Times published an exposé, uncovering what is arguably the largest diploma mill operation to date (Walsh, 2015). Axact, a software company in Pakistan, was discovered to be behind more than 370 websites for fraudulent high schools, universities, accreditation bodies, and educational search portals. Using round-the-clock phone agents, it is estimated that Axact generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue each year.

Based on information provided by previous employees, one frequent tactic

for phone operators was to upsell. For example, one might have posed as an American official and advised customers that State Authentication Certificates were required. While the cost to obtain such a certificate is less than $100, Axact operators would charge up to several thousand dollars for this additional service.

Many of Axact’s degrees were sold to residents in the Gulf countries and the U.S. Yet, Axact employees did not target consumers in Pakistan, helping to avoid detection until recently. Prompted by the release of The New York Times article, an investigation is now being conducted by Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency. After several raids, approximately two million blank certificates belonging to various fraudulent high schools and universities were discovered, along with servers containing details of sales made.

Combatting Diploma MillsDespite the mercurial nature of diploma mills, it is of paramount importance that efforts to combat them continue. In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to award and issue British degrees unless authorized to do so. In this way, degree mill operators are targeted and discouraged from selling their wares. Additionally, the Higher Education Degree Datacheck (HEDD) provides a website that allows users to look up recognized degree-granting institutions in the UK, including the former names of educational institutions, with dates of recognition specified, and indications of any subsequent mergers and name changes. The database also furnishes definitive information if an institution is not recognized. When degree mills are uncovered, the HEDD works with enforcement agencies toward their prosecution and closure.

In the state of Texas, the tactics differ somewhat, despite similar objectives. Instead, the consumers of diploma mill qualifications are targeted. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating

Board (THECB) targets consumers of diploma mill qualifications, stating that it is illegal to use fraudulent degrees, whether in spoken or written form, to gain employment, a promotion, or admission into a school. The THECB website also includes a comprehensive list of institutions whose degrees are designated as illegal to use in Texas.

These HEDD and THECB lists are helpful tools to identify substandard institutions and degree mills. When reviewing an applicant’s educational background for admission, it is important to confirm that the school is recognized by the proper authorities in the originating country and that it has the authority to grant degrees there. Such measures help safeguard the value of genuine degrees and protect the public from services being provided by individuals who are not appropriately qualified. n

ReferencesProiux, S. (2010, February). Online

Diploma Mill Credentials in the Working World. Online Degree Finder. Retrieved from http://www.onlinedegreefinder.com/2010/02/18/online-diploma-mill-credentials-in-the-working-world/

Ezell, A. and Bear, J. (2012). Degree Mills: The Billion-Dollar Industry That Has Sold over a Million Fake Diplomas. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Neifer, A. (2015, October). LinkedIn is Filled with Fake Degrees. Motherboard. Retrieved from http://motherboard.vice.com/read/linkedin-is-filled-with-fake-degrees

Ezell, A. (2015, November 10). The “Axact” Scam and the Big Business of Credential Fraud [webinar]. American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Walsh, D. (2015, May). Fake Diplomas, Real Cash: Pakistani Company Axact Reaps Millions. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/world/asia/fake-diplomas-real-cash-pakistani-company-axact-reaps-millions-columbiana-barkley.html?_r=0

DEGREES FOR SALE CONTINUED

http://www.onlinedegreefinder.com/2010/02/18/online-diploma-mill-credentials-in-the-working-world/



http://motherboard.vice.com/read/linkedin-is-filled-with-fake-degrees



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/world/asia/fake-diplomas-real-cash-pakistani-company-axact-reaps-m





NAGAP Perspectives Spring 2016

Documents

Transcript of NAGAP Perspectives Spring 2016