DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · 2013-08-02 · ED 333 855. AUTHOR TITLE. INSTITUTION. SPONS AGENCY....

ED 333 855

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

REPORT NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 024 744

Paulsen, Michael B.College Choice: Understanding Student EnrollmentBehavior. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6.Association for the Study of Higher Education.; ERICClearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, D.C.;George Washington Univ., Washington, DC. School ofEducation and Human Development.Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.ISBN-1-878380-03-6; ISSN-0884-004090

RI88062014121p.

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, The GeorgeWashington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630,Dept. RC, Washington, DC 20036-1183 017.001.Information Analyses - ERIC Clearinghouse Products(071)

MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.College Bound Students; *College Choice; Colleges;Decision Making; Declining Enrollment; *Enrollment;*Enrollment Influences; Enrollment Trends; HigherEducation; Institutional Characteristics;Nontraditional Students; Research Needs; *StudentBehavior; Student Characteristics; Student Needs;Student Recruitment; Universities

This report discusses enrollment planning by collegesand universities as it concerns the undeistanding of why studentschoose to attend one particular college over another. First, the pastresponses of colleges to enrollment-threatening changes arepresented. Next, an explanation is given of why knowledge of studentcollege choice behavior is important for enrollment planning, studentmarketing, and recruitment. Then, the conceptual foundations for thestudy of college choice behavior (psychology, sociology, economics)are discussed, followed by an explanation of why it is importar tounderstand what determines enrollment fluctuations, such as anincreasing job market or economic recession. Micro-level studies ofcollege choice behavior, which are used to estimate the effects ofinstitutional and student characteristics on the probability that aparticular individual will choose a particular college, are examined.Finally, information related to the following questions is presentedand discussed: (1) "what factors are important to students ofnontraditional age in making college decisions?" (2) "what are thephases of the college choice process?" (3) "what factors areimportant in creating a desire to attend college?" (4) "why is .:he

college search and application phase so important?" and (5) "how canan institution more effectively manage enrollment in the selectionand attendance phase?" Contains an index and 227 references. (GLR)

U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION011 re of Educational rteseatcb and ImItrovement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER IERICI

keZs document haS been feptOduced IIreceived !rpm Me person or 0rpanitild4011originating .1

I. Minot changes have twen made to improvereproduction quality

Pomls 01 vie* Of Comong mated m this doop.

College Choice OEM positron or ouhoymenl do nol necessarily represent official

Understanding 'Student Enr011ment BehaviorMichael B. Paulsen

1990 ASHE-ER1C Higher Education Reports

rN

BESi COPY AVAILABLE

4

II

Colkge Choice:Understanding Student Enrollment Behavior

by Michael B. Paulsen

ASIIEERIC Higher Education Report 6, 1990

Prepared by

ERIC, cooperation With

ASH*/,idgmhed

The

WiliFtonnivefSityWA SH N( ION I)

Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington lInh'ersity

Association for the StutlyVf Iiigivr Education

School of Education and Human DelvlopmentThe Geo,ge Washington i'nu may

f011athall lfe, SerieS Editor

Cite asPaulsen, Michael 13. 1990. College Choice: Undmtanding Stu-dent Enrollment Behavior. kSHE-ERIC Higher EducationReport No. 6. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington Uni.versity, School of Education and Human Development.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 91-60267ISSN 0884-0040ISBN 1-878380-03-6

Managing Editor: Bryan HollisterManuscript Editor: Katharine BirdCover design by Michael David Brou,n, Rockville, Maryland

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education invites individuals to submit proposals for writing monographs for theASIIETRIC INher Education Repwt series. Proposals mustinclude:I. A detailed manuscript proposal of not more than rive pages.2. A chapter bychapter outline.3. A 75 word summary to be used by several review commit-

tees for the initial screening and rating of each pnvosal.4. A vita and a writing sample.

IV -Rd Clearinghouse on Higher EducationSchix)I of Education and Human DevekTmentThe George Washington UniversityOne Dupont Circle, Suite 630Washington, IX: 20036 1183

This publication was prepared partially with funding frinnthe Office of Educational Research and Impawement,Department of Educatio in, under contract no. El) RI.88 062014,The opinions expressed in this report do not necesxwil%reflect the positions or policies of OERI or the Dcrsar

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the 1970s, projections clearly indicated that the traditionalcollege student cohort of 18 to 21 year this would fall by25 percent between the late 1970s and the early 1990s (Wiche1988). Colleges unhappily watched the number of traditionalcollege-level jobs per college graduate decrease. Potentialstudents became consumers and flexed their newfound mar-ketplace muscle. Fears of cutbacks in important Fources ofstudent financial aid intensified as the 1970s came to an end.The higher education marketplace was changing in manyways which threatened to produce significant enrollmentdeclines.

How Did Colleges Respond toEnrollment-Threatening Changes?Faced with prospects of reduced enrollments, budget deficits,retrenchment, and institutional ekisings, many administratorspaid more attention to enrollment maintenance, became moreresponsive to market interests and more aware of the increasingly competitive nature of student recruitnlent, and beganto) engage in market.oriented activities intended to attractstudents. Each year's students became more like academicshoppers or consumers (Riesn)an 1980), preferring vo)cational,occupttional, or professional courses over courses in the tntditional arts and sciences. In response, many institutions madeprompt market oriented mo)diticatk)ns in academic programsto match student demand (Stadtman 1980).

Why Is Knowledge of College Choice BehaviorImportant for Enrollment Planning, StudentMarketing, and Recruitment?From the 19705 thnnigh today, colleges have L. Ieve.( ped tw()basic market ()dented desires. They want to plan and fitrecasttheir enrollment Mort' effectively. and they want to influencethe college going decisk in niaking pn vex.; of desired students. The study of college choice hehavkw is of great praL-tical importance kir Aiministrauirs in promoting greater eftectiveness in these two areas. The study of enn illment behaviorof students in groups ( macn) level ) indicates how changesin OM n mmental and institutional characteristk-s affect aninstitut k in's total ennillment. The study of the college chok-ebehavior of individual .students ( micro level) indicates theways in which envininmental. institutional, and student char;.icterititics ;Oleo a student's choices about whether or not to

-

'mien/WU/Mg Slutlen/ /. MI;//mt it/ Behtivito- 1/1

attend college and which college to attend. lt is the resultsof these studies which provide the fundamental knowledgebases for enhancing the effectiveness of enrollment planningactivities and sttident marketing and recruitment activities(11msler 1984).

What Are the Conceptual Foundationsfor the Study of College Choice Behavior?Most studies of student enrollment behavior have been conducted b) Qducational researchers with backgrounds in eitherpsychology, sociology, or economics. These disciplines oilersinewhat different perspectives and conceptual finindatkms

w the study of college ch(iice behavfi)r. Psychologistsemphasize the psychological environment, or climate, of aninstitution, its impact (ni students, and studentinstitution fit(Amin 1965). Sociologists view the formation of college-goingaspirations as part of a general status attainment process.Economists view colkge attendance decisfiwis as a linni ( finvestment like decision.making behavior (Jackson 1978).

Why Is It Important to UnderstandWhat Determines Enrollment at Different Levels?The mcist important contribution tithe macro level enrollment studies may be their estinlates of the probable effectsof envininmental characteristics on an institution's total ennillinent. l'nderstanding the effects of environmental changeson enrollment can pr( )ide helpful guidelines for enr()llmentfiirecasting (11oenack and Weiler 1979) and fiw making theissuniptions necessary to estimate revenue and expenditurein planning and budgeting processes. For example, the enrollment effects of changes in the economy often are unexpectedly complex, but important to understand. Positive enrollment effects can result froin increming Oh marketopportunities for college graduates or from decreasing lobmarket (ipportunities noncollege graduates.

General economic recessk)ns usually reduce j(ib marketopptwtunities in positkms miditionally held by noncolkgegraduateN more than they Lio opportunities in positions normany held by c:11k.ge graduates. As a result, general ec(nu)inicrecessi( nis can .stimulate eon )llment by making job marketopportunities fin. col lege gRiduates rdatively superior to those

w nom ollege graduates. Also, when cc mditions in the colkgeniarket (Acted( wale, enrollment tends to favor colleges

6

emphasizing professional or vmational curricula. However,when college lob market opportunities increase, enrollmenttends to favor colleges emphasizing trad'tional liberal artsand sciences curricula (Paulsen and Pogue 1988).

Why Is It Important to UnderstafiiIndividual Student Enrollment Behavior?The greatest contribution of the micro.level studies of collegechoice behavior is their ability to estimate the effects of insti-tutional and student characteristics on the pa ibability that

a particular individual will choose a particular college. Under-standing the enrollment effects of such characteristics canhelp enrollment managers tailw and target their college'smarketing mix of programs, prices, and places to those students possessing characteristics similar to those who mostoften matriculate at their college.

Some enrollment effects of the interaction between studentand institutional characteristics are especially important tounderstand. For example, student responsiveness to collegecost decreases as income and academic ability rise, and viceversa. Also, recent research has shown that students are nowabout equally sensitive to change:, in the major parts of col-lege cost: tuition, rtxnn and board, commuting, financial aid,and foregone earnings (Manski and Wise 1983).

What Factors Are Important to Students ofNontraditional Age in Making College Decisions?Students of traditkinal and nontraditional age respond similarly to some factors in their college.going behavior. Otherfactors are either uniquely important or simply more important for nontraditional students. For example, a student ofnontraditkinal age is nic ire likely to attend college: the higherthe student's own (xvtipational status, the higher the student'sown inct wile, the younger he or she is, when the student isnot married, when the student has k.wer children under 18,when working hill time, when a vetentn, when living a slumdistance frtim a college, when tuak in is 1( iwer, and whenfinancial aid is available ( Bishop and k'an Dyk 19771.

What Are the Phases of the College Choice Process?Many researchers !lave relied on some variatkm of a threephase model of tile college dunce pu )cess Jacks( m 1982 )(he ci)llege aspiration It trmation stage is the one in whk h

.ndervarichn,q student Enrullnirm licharwr

0,1

fundamental educational aspirations are formed and may lastfrom early childhood through high sch(x.)I and beyond. Thecollege search and application phase includes acquiring andexamining information about cAleges to identify a limitednumber of institutions to which to apply. The college selec-tion and attendance phase involves the evaluation of alter-natives to make a final college selection.

What Factors Are Important inCreating a Desire to Attend College?Three categories of factors may have significant influenceOn the tbrmation or college-going aspirations: socioeconomicbackground, acadellic ability, and contextual (parental encouragement, peers plans, neighborhood or high school status, self esteem, college curriculum, teacher and counselorencouragement). there are some important implications fin.early interventior in the college aspiration formation process.For example, parental encouragement, a contextual factor,has been timnd to have potentially greater impact than eithersocioeconomic status or academic aptitude. Parental encouragement is a social psychological process, open to influencethnnigh counseling of parents and their children.

Why Is the College Search andApplication Phase So Important?It is in this phase of the choice process that most collegesare eliminated front consideration by students. The mid()economic background and academic ability of students continue to influence student decision making during this phase,leading them to preselect certain colleges for applicatk'lite persistent pattern appears to he th:it as students' fiimilyinc(nne, educational aspirations, aptitude, achievement, midparental education increase, their choices become more likelyto include high (A kst, highly selective. more distant, private.fmr year colleges and universities ( Ihlanfeklt 1980; 4cmskyand Oedel 1983 1.

()1 course, potential students exist in substantial quantitiesacross all levels of s( u )ecc )11( wnic backgniunds and academicabilities. Therefore they will preselect institutional categoriesacross all levels of instiortional selmivity, cost, distance fromhonk% and so on. hach college must w(irk hard to findappropriate matches hoween the characteristics of the students it seeks u ) recruit and the luracteristk.s of its own insti

tutkm. Each college must work hard to be included in thechoices of such students.

How Can an Institution More Effectively ManageEnrollment in the Selection and Attendance Phase?Individual institutions engaged in academic market researchusually study student enrollment behavior in this final phase(Linen et al. 1983). Analysis of data collected from admittedstudent questionnaires ;)11 student characteristics and ratingsof the characteristics of a college and itti competitors allowsa college to identify its competitors, assess its image, determine its market pt)sition compared to competitors, identitYwhat determines matriculation choices, and identify studentmarket segments by enrollment yield.

Given the availability of such intimation, an institutionhas two broad enrollment strategies:

recruit students with characteristics consistent with thecharacteristics of the college;adjust the characteristk's of the college so they are nit weconsistent with the student characteristics desired by thecollege.

. _ -

I .11(hTVIllitill1g 1 PM din lent Behtl ii ir 111

()t J

ADVISORY BOARD

Alberto CalbreraArizona State Univer4ity

Carol Ever ly FloydBoard of Regents of the Regency I Iniversities SystemState of Illinois

Judy GappaSan Francisco State University

George KellerUniversity of Pennsylvania

J. Fredericks VolkweinState University of New York

Bobby WrightPennsylvania State University

Anti ZusmanUniversity of Ca Min-ilia

- - ^ . -- - _ - - - -----_-_-^ ._ ._ ^. - -- - ___ V-- - ..--MenhindiPIN student inn illnivnt 1114kii .tor

CONSULTING EDITORS

Brenda M. AlbrightState of Tennessee Higher Education Commission

Walter R. AllenUniversity of California

James H. BanningColorado State University

Margaret J. BarrTexas Christian University

William E. BeckerIndiana (Jniversity

Rita BornsteinUniversity of Miami

Paul T. BrinkmanNational Center for Higher Education Management Systems

Robert F. CarboneUniversity of Maryland

David W. ChapmanState University of New York Albany

Jay L ChronisterUniversity of Virginia

Linda ClementUniversity of Maryland

Mary E. DilworthERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Educatk )1.1

Edwarcl R. HinesIllinois State University

Don HossierIndiana University

William IhlanfeldtNorthwestern t Jniversity

Joseph V. JulianSyracuse University

Jeanne M. LikensOhio State University

(Intim latuling, Sluden1 Enro &soli lidkvlor Xl

Ii.

XII

Dierdre A. LingUniversity of Massachusetts

Sherry MagillWashington College

Jerry W. MillerAmerican College Testing

James R. MingleState Higher Education Executive Officers

Richatd W. MooreCalifornia State University, Northridge

Bernard MurchlandOhio Wesleyan University

C. Gail NorrisUtah System of Education, State Board of Regents

Edward H. O'NeilDuke University

Robert L. PaytonIndiana University

Joseph F. PhelanIniversity of New I iampshire

James). Rhatigan.ihita State University

Steven K. SchultzWestmont College

Robert L Sigtnon\Mike Medical Center

Charles LI. SmithFlorida Agricultural -ind Mechanical L 'niversity

Sharon P. SmithPrinceton I ;niversity

1

REVIEW PANEL

Charles Ada msUniversity of Antherst

Richard AlfredUniversity of Michigan

Phthi G. AltbachState University of New York

Louis C. Attinasi,Jr.liniversity of Houston

Ann E. AustinVanderbilt llniversity

RobertJ. BarakState Board of Regents

Alan BayerVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

John P. BeanIndiana tiniveisity

Louis W. BenderFlorida State I Jniversity

Carol BlandIniversity of Minnesota

Deane G. BornheimerNew York llniversity

John A. CentraSyracuse Ilniversity

Arthur W. ChickeringGeorge Mason University

Ch roast rIt iiversity of Virginia

MaryJo Clarktimlimul Community College

Shirley M. Clarit Iniversic, of Minnesota

Darrel A. ClowesVirginia Polytechnic Institute and state t Iniversity

.nilenlanditip, Fnrollment liv1;ai7or xiii

X1I'

Robert G. CopeUniversity of Wa.shington

John W. Creswelliniversity of Nebraska

Richard Duranliniversity of California

Larry 11. EbbersIowa State University

Kenneth C. Greeniversity of Southern California

Edward R. HinesIllinois State University

George D. KuhIndiana University

James R. MingleState Higher Education Executive C.-ricers

Michael T. NettlesUniversity of lennessee

Pedro Reyest Iniversity of Wisconsin

H. Bradley Sagent !niversity of Iowa

CONTENTS

ForewordIntroduction

xvil1

Studying College Choice BehaviorA Changing Higher Education MarketplaceRecruiting the New Student ConsumerEnroliment Planning, Student Recruitment, and

College Choke 6

Conceptual Foundations of College Choice 7

Co lle e Choice and Macro.Level and Micro-Level Studies 8

334

Ent ollment BehaviorNational StudiesState Studies1nsti'c:tional StudiesSummary and Guidelines for Enrollment Planners

1111

15

16

17

College Choice and Individual Students 23Marketing Concepts and Terminology 23

Student Characteristics 26institutional Characteristics 26

flow Student and Institutional Characteristics Interact 27

Environmental Characteristics 28Student Responsivilem to Cost 29College Attendance and Nontraditional Students 30

Stages of College Choice 35How Models Help 35

College Aspiration Formation 37Search and Application 44

Understanding Search and Application 46Selection and Attendance 59

Market Research and Its Role 61

Ethical Guidelines for Marketing Research 67

Gmclusions and Recommendations 71Why Understanding Enrollment and

College Choice Are Important 71

Implications for Institutions: Macro Level Studies 72

implications tbr Institutions: Mkratevd Studies 73

Recommendations for Research and lk)licy 78

References 81Index 97

lInderstanding.student liehaivw

1 3

.17

FOREWORD

It is well understood that mast colleges and universities canno longer be passive in attracting students to their campuses.In the past, having a high number of student applicants indi .cated healthy admissions. But more students are now sendingout a greater number of applications as they shop aroundfor the best academic and student aid opporttinky. Conse-yuently, more institutions are having to accept a greaternumber of applicants in order to ensure that they will havean adequate number of new students. Meanwhile, it is impor .tam for an institution to attract and admit students whose edu-cational goals and interests are compatible with the institu-tion's strengths. If this does not happen, the students willbe dksatisfied and in all probability will leave the institutkmbefore completing their education. This is a loss to both theinstitution and the ind!vidual.

Admissions officers can ensure that students will "fit" theinstitution if they have a sound understanding of the reasoning that underlies a student's enrollment deciskm.makingprocess. Some of the students' criteria arc fairly basic andobvious, such as academic programs offered, availability ofstudent residence halls, and the success graduates have ingetting certain types of jobs or in going on to graduateschools. Other issues k.oncerning choice are more subtle.To what degree are students' application decisions based onthe SUCcetis of last year's football team? Are other schools offer-ing better student aid packages? And what is the local Ivo-utation of the institution? These and many other issues afnow known to influence student decision making.

In his report, Michael B. Paulsen, instructional developmentspecialist in the Office of Instnictional Resources and anadjunct associate professor of higher education at the tJniversity of Illinois at I thana Champaign, thoroughly reviewsthe major literature addressing the factors and processes stu-dents use in choosing a college. Paulsen examines the changing marketplace, the new consumer, marketing ccmcepts, theinteractions of student and institutional characteristics, andthe stages of college choice. Hnally, he suggests proceduresand policies for institutions and makes recommendationsfor future research.

Conce!ms about student recruitment are no kmger liiiiitedto the admimions office. Deans. department chairs and indivklual faculty are increasingly being called upon to helpincrease student enrollment. Their knowledge of how and

Oulerstanding.siudent Enrollment ilehalior

t;

.17

why students make choices can greatly influence their effec-tiveness in the admissions process. Michael B. Paulsen hasdeveloped a report that will be useful to anyone concernedwith effective enrollment planning and student recruitment.

Jonathan D. FifeProfessor and DirectorERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education

-I

INTRODUCTION

In the early 1970s, the higher education community anticipated demographic changes, economic changes, and public

policy changes which threatened decreasing enrollments,excess capacity, and in.stitutional closings. In an era of rising

student consumerism, these expected changes profiled a newbuyer's market in higher education.

In the face of anticipated budget deficits and shrinkingenrollments, institutions began to focus more on changes in

the higher education marketplace. The increasing instabilitof environmental characteristics made it more difficult to

make an accurate enrollment estimate, upon which so many

budgetary decisions are based. Institutions paid more atten

tion to the characteristics of other institutions relative to their

own as concern about attracting students increased. Increasingnumbers of colleges began to engage in various forms of what

we now refer to as academic marketing activities.Among the many profes,sional practices in a comprehensive

enrollment management process, an important marketing.

related activity is the effective recruitment of desired students.

An understanding of student enrollment decision.making,or "college choice" behavior, is a primary need for effixtivestudent recruitment.

If more educators learn what many have already learned

about what determines enrollment, the college choice behavof students, and marketing research perhaps we can

increase the chances that there will still be "three thousandfutures" in American higher education.

I .nde hinding Byballor

STUDYING COLLEGE CHOICE BEHAVIOR

This report introduces readers to college choice behavior Isa valuable base for more effective enrollment planning, stu-dent marketing, and recruitment. It also outlines the concep.tual foundations and methods used in the study of collegechoice behavior. The report reviews the enrollment.-threatening changes in the higher education marketplace ofthe 1970s, the context within which many colleges and uni.versifies first became clearly market-oriented in their planning.In addition, the results of 25 years of studies in this area arereviewed and evaluated,

A Changing Higher Education MarketplaceFrom the perspective of the 1970s, the pessimistic outkxikfiir higher education enrollment in the 1980s appeared to bewell.substantiated and was quite sobering. Between the late1970s and the mid.1990s, the traditional 18 to 21-year-oldstudent group was expected to shrink by 21 percent to 25 per-cent (Carnegie Council 1980, p. 153; Centra 1980, p. 19; West-ern Interstate Commission for Iligher Education (WlCHE11988, p. 9). For some regions, such as the Northeast, projecteddecreases ranged from 35 to 40 percent (Breneman 1983p. 15; WICIIE 1988, p. 13).

The types of institutions expected to be most vulnerableto the demographic decline included the less selective privateinstitutions. Those expected to be less vulnerable were thepublic community colleges and universities and the moreselective private colleges (Carnegie Foundati( n 1975, p. 76;McPherson 1978, p. 196). While some promoted the idea ofpursuing nontraditional student sources, most were convincedthat even substantial effectiveness with such recruitmentwould fall far short of ofketting the dramatic and dismaldemographic changes ahead.

Watching increa.sing numbers of college graduates beingforced to accept jobs which were held traditionally by high

graduates convinced many eduiat(ws that even the ecowink. nuttivatk ni fin colkge attendance was waning and

aild exacerbate the expected enrollment pniblems.Between 1969 and 1974 the ratk) of college level jobs ( professional and managerial ) to college level workers fell from1.9 to 1.6 (Freeman 1976, p. 18).

Over the sante period, inflatkm adjusted starting salariesof college graduates fell by an average of 2.2 percent to 5.1percent per year, depending on the field of study, while earn

The highereducaMonmarketplace

. was changingin term ofdemogruphks,economics,pubkc policy,and studentpreferences...

I 'ailerviinding lidera Farollmeni Behavior 3

1

..

ings of other U.S. workers actually increased. During the firsthalf of the 1970s, the college participatkm rate of 18 to 24year olds fell from 35.2 percent to 27.8 percent (Freeman1975, pp. 289, 298).

Such changes made college appear a less attractive optionfor new high school graduates and threatened to decreaseenrollment. At a time when opportunities in the college jobmarket were clearly deteriorating, it was hard for the highereducation community to share the confidence of some econ.()MIMS who spoke of the great future need for college grad-uates in conjunction with the inevitable expansion of the ser-vices sector.

M cutbacks in sources of financial aid to students loomedon the horizon OS a prominent concern of administrators (Bildridge et al. 1982, p. 33), and student consumers weredentanding to call the tune whenever they paid the piper( Riesnmn 1980), fear of budget deficits, retrenchment, andinstitutional closures expanded. The higher education mar-ketplace %IN changing in terms of demographics, economics,public policy, and student preferences, and was threateningto generate enrollment declines.

Recruiting the New Student ConsumerFaced with the possibility of reduced enrollments, budgetdeficits, and retrenchment in an age of rising student con-sumerism, tinny administrators in the 1970s began to tlx theirattention on ways to maintain and effectivdy forecast theirentlillment. With a shrinking pool of traditional pr(tspects,colkges began to pay increased attention to recruitnwnt ofqualified students from pools of prospective students thatwere not shrinking, such as older students, women, part.tin.emenders, minorities, and foreign students. These latter groupstunwd out to be the primary denmgraphic sources of enrollmem maintenance in tlw 1980s (Frances 1989).

institutions also becanw more responsive to market interests, more aware of the increa.singly competitive nature of thestudent recruitment process, and began to enjoge in market(wiented activities intended to attract desired students to theircampuses. Each hmt ULM( H1 had to seek ways to make itselfmore attractive than its competitors in the eyes of desiredstudents.

one of the (..arliest and most wide spread exampks of suchmarket oriented institutional responses ux place when mam

4

. ..

students began to assert thenmelves in their role as consumersof academic programs.

In an apparent attempt to increase their chances for employ.ment upon graduation, growing percentages of studentsspurned the traditional arts and sciences majors and optedfor more explicitly occupational or joblelated programs. Onesurvey showed that between 1968 and 1974, 52 percent ofresponding institutions reported major increases in under .graduate enrollment in vocational and professional studieswhile only 27 percent reported similar incremes in traditionalliberal arts enrollment (Glenny 1976, p. 26).

Students were bectuning sh Tpers or consumers, preteringto consume vocational, occupational, or professional coursesrather than traditional liberal arts courses. The market.orientedresponses of institutions to changing preferences of studentswere both prompt and extensive. lb make themselves aurac-tive to potential students, colleges changed their academicprograms, generating major reallocations of campus resourcesand eventually, in many cases, a change in institutionalmission.

Of course, some institutions made few or no changes ofthis kind in response to market pressure. Recent evidenceindicates that philanthropy.p(x)r, tuition dependent institutions made proportionately more programmatic changes thanthe more philanthropy ridi institutions (Chaffee 19We; Paulsen1990).

Based on the 1978 Carnegie Council Survey, 43 percentof institutions added programs in engineering; 55 p.rcentadded programs in business; 67 percent akied programs inlegal, judicial, and police sciences; and 65 percent added programs in health sciences. Meanwhile, 66 percent of institutionsdropped ft weign language programs, 16 oercent droppedphysical sciences programs, and 14 percent dropped programsin the humanities (Stadtman 1980, p. 142).

In 1976, the Carnegie Commission reclassified 91 of its 719liberal arts colleges as cumprehensive colleges (CarnegieCouncil 1973, 1976). By 1987, the new Carnegie Classificationshifted many more of its liberal arts II colleges into its comprehensii,v cOlkgcs categ(fly, with many others in that gn nipconferring less than SO percent of their degrees in the liberalarts but remaining It x) small in enrollment to be classifiedas comprehensive (Carnegie Council 1987). By 1985, institutions of higher educatit H1 as a group were conferring over

1 I. pindhnent Behavior 5

21

50 percent of their bachelor's degrees in "occupational or pro.fessional fields" (Rehnke 1987, p. 1).

When suppliers become feverish in their efforts to providewhat consumers want, a buyer's market has evolved (lh lan.Mdt 1975). Many institutions clearly responded to a buyer'smarket by changing their college mission. Some may haveexperienced "a loss of a sense of their historic mission" inan effort to accommmlate the demands of the student con-sumer for more vocationallyoriented coursework (Pfnisterand Finkelstein 1984, p, 118). Perhaps they believed that sur-vival meant that they "must cater to the student customer"(Riesman 1980, p. 108).

Such marketoriented activities of colleges and universitieswere at first surprising and, in some ways, disappointing formany postsecondary educators. Today, a wide variety ofmarketlocused behaviors are common and normal at mostcolleges and universities. These behaviors often are describedas the application of academic marketing principles to thestudent recruitment component of an institution's overallenrollment management system.

Enrollment Planning, Student Recruitment,and College Choicelissentially, colleges from the 1970s through t(xiay have hadtwo basic market.oriented desi..1% They have wanted to moreeffectively plan and forecast their enrollment, and to moreeffectively influence the enrollment deciskin.making processof prospective students. This is where the study of collegechoice behavior is of great practical importance toadministrators.

Th plan for enrollments arul to manage enrollmenA, professionatc must !Agin with an understanding of the donamlfor higher education and of bow studoits decide to emv11in a specific colltwe or unitowity . . . an important sup inthe deivlopment of a specialized knoule(4 e base for enrollment managers(limsler 1984, p. 8).

Macn)-level studies of college choice behavkw show us howchanges in environmental ("actors (usually beyond an insti .tution's control ) and institutional characteristics ( usuallywithin an institution's control) can affect an institution's totalenr( llment. These often are referred to as enrollment demand

o

113 C

studies. Micro.level studies of college choke behavior showus how particular environmental, institutional, and studentcharacteristics can affect a student's choice regarding whetheror not to attend college and which college to attend. Thesetwo types of studies offer a valuable knowledge base foeincreasing the effectiveness of enrollment planning activitiesand student marketing and recruitment activities, respectively.

Conceptual Foundations of College ChoiceEducational researchers with disciplinary backgrounds fromsocblogy, economics, and psychology have conducted muchof the research on college choi, e.Scxiologists view collegechoice from the perspective of status attainment process,while economists view it as a form of investment decicion-making behavior (Jackson 1978, pp. 549.550). Psychologistsexamine college choice from the perspective of the impactof callow everiences and environments on studeim andoptimal studentinstitution

In their study of the status attainment process, the workof many sociologists has focused on the earliest stages of thecollege choice process. Perhaps their greatest contributionto college choice research has been their examination of thefactors that influence the pmcess by which a student formseducational aspirations or plans to attend college. Results con-sistently have emphasized the importance of characteristicsof the student's family and high school background, as wellas the student's academic ability.

Economists often view college-going behavior as a man-notation of an investmentlike decision-making pr()cess. Theirstudies have indicated that student backgr(mnd and ability,so important in status attainment and the early formation ofeducatiimal aspirati(m, remain important thnmghout the general pr(x.ess of college dmice, interacting in impiwtant wayswith institutkmal and envinmmental factors in colkge w)inginvestment tkviskm-making.

A series of pioneering college choice studies by psychol()gists found that

the characteristics of the students enrolled hy an institutionare highly related to measures of the psychohwical emironmem or 'climate of the institutim If as these findings sugWA the colltge enviromnent is determined to a large ement

I.the kinds of students al the inStaillion (Astin 1965, p. 3)

'ndentandnim Student Ennfriiment Behar lJV 7

0J

then perhaps the widelyobserved tendency of prospectivestudents to attend colleges with st,t lent bodies similar tothemselves is a healthy, natural process of student selldistributkm. These findings also suggest that colleges wishingto change their institutional climate and its impact on studentsmay need to begin by recruiting students with desirable attrib-utes different from those of their present students.

11w most general and consistent findings of each gmupof studies offer general guidelines which may increase theeffectiveness and appropriateness of certain essential enroll.mem planning and student recruitment practices.

College Choice and Macro-Leveland Micro-Level StudiesThe dedication of higher education scholars to the study ofhow environmental, institutional, and student characteristicsinfluence enrollments and college-going behaviors kits beena highly productive response to the changing marketplace.Each study of the higher education marketplace and college-going behavior can be classified in one of two primat}gories: Pnacru-lervl and micro-level muliex '11w two typt S ofresearch designs differ primarily in the type of data used andin the statistical procedures used to analyze the data.

Macro-level studies focus on the relationships betweenthe enrollment behavior of student groups and various emironmental, institutional, and student characteristics. These rda .tionships have been studied across lxxh groups at one pointin time and across many years for one group.

Such studies are designed to describe, explain, and predictthe total, or "aggregate," enrollment for an institution, a stmt.,a region, or a nation. linear retvesskor is the most commonstatistical pnwedure used to analyze data on the behavior ofstudents in groups. Such procedures provide estimates of theeffect on an institution's ennillment of a change in an environmental or institutional characteristic.

These studies are valuable particularly to administratorsand pohcy.makers wishing to consider the pnbable enrollment effects of environmental or institutional characteristicsin the pnwesses of policy formation, environmemal scanning,enrollment planning and forecasting (1 iossler 1984, pp. 13,28).

Micro-level studies focus on the relationships betweenthe enrc 41ment behavior of individual students and various

4 )4

environmental, institutional, and student characteristics. Theserelationships have been studied primarily across many stu.dents at one point in time. Logit, probit, and discriminantmodeLs are the most common statistical procedures used inthese studies to analyze data on how individual students make

choices.Such studies are designed to estimate the effect of vadous

environmental, institutional, and student characteristics onthe "probability" that a student will choose to pursue a par.ticular college or noncollege option from among a set ofOptions. They are useful particularly for administrators andpolky.makers wishing to consider the effects of changes ininstitutional or student characteristics on individual studentchoices among c(Alege and ncmcollege options (liossier,Braxton, and Coopersmith 1989, pp. 281.282).

For micro-level studies, excellent thmsures of strident characteristics drawn from individual student data can be coinbined with summary measures of institutional and environmental characteristics in the careful examination of individualstudent college choice behavior. A weakness of the micro-

Wel studies is that they are cross-sectional in nature and itis difficult t9 devise meaningful measures of environmentalcharacteristics which vary across individual students at onepoint in time. fkirtunately, this is the fortt of the macro-level

studies.A weakness of the macro-level studies is that they rely on

group data so that student characteristics must measuredin terms of gnnip averages which are unable to reflect varianon across individual students. I lowever, this is the forteof the mien ew! studies.

Clearly, a thorough understanding of the findings of bothresearch methods is essential for effective policy making,ennillment planning, and student recruitnwnt.

Student colltge choie is a complex phenomenon. hffonsof policymaken at the federal state, and institutimal 14..vek;

to mfhwtice the colliNe choke proixxs will h(ile to be inurecarefugy targeted if they hope to taireaSe their effectirowm

( !fussier and Gallagher 1987, p. 218).

Micro level studies of individual student choice behavioralso provide a foundation for institution specific marketingresearch studies. Such studies are based on the competitive

Hirlerstamling Noident Fhrollineill Behavior9

:"."

nature of the college choice process and offer a variety ofimplications for enrollmentInfluencing changes in institu-tional policies. An individua ! institution now can estimate theeffects of specific instiwtional and student characteristics onthe probability that an inquirer or applicant can be turnedinto a matriculant. The marketing research study provides aninstitution with the power "to see oneself through students'eyes" (Hossler, Braxton, and Coopersmith 1989, p. 281).

This report turns now to examine the nature and practicalimplications of the findings of macro.level and micralevelstudies conducted over the past 25 years.

/0

ENROLLMENT BEHAVIOR

Macro.level studies often are called enrollment demand sm.dies They help an institution plan for and forecast its totalenrollment and examine and estimate the way in ...hichchanges in environmental characteristics, such as denntgraphicor economic factors, influence its enrollment.

The "enrollment process begins with strategic planningthat .. . should address a realistic assessment of the denmndfor the college's pr(duct," states flossier 1984, p. 144). Butstrategic planning is "the process of developing and mainmining a strategic fit between the institution's goals and cap&hilities and its changing marketing opportunities," in Kotlerand Fox's definitkm (1985, p. 73).

The first step in a college's strategic planning process isan analysis of its environment. Such an analysis identifiesmalor characteristics of the environment, anticipates and e.stimates the likely impact on enrollment of changes in thesefactors, and whether this impact will be positive or negative(Kotler and Fox, 19g5, p 75). The results of this environmental analysis, or scanning, cart provide administrators withimportant initial enrollment planning aFsumptions and a ccnitext within which to consider possible institutkmal responsesto anticipated environmental changes.

This report will now review national, state, and institutionItieused studies. both separately and in combination, to ofklguidelines for m(we effective environmental scanning. institutional responding, and enn)llment planning, importantaspects of the strategic planning component of ennillmentmanagenwnt.

National Studies'table 1 presents the results of three sets of studies whichinvestigated the relationships between total, or aggregate,enrollments ( enn )ilment ratk ) and varkais environmental,institutional. and student characteristics. '11w table classifies14 studies acC(gding to whether they examined what determines enrollment al the national, stale, or institutional level.It also shows which .studies f(iund which factors to be important determinants of enrollment. A ( ) or ( ) in the table illt.11Cates whether increases in each Jr t he environmental, institutional, or student characteristics wnd to increase or decreaseennilhnent. All variable names are abbreviated, with full deliniti(ms presented bet( iw table 1.

Ildersi a 1 I ti 1 IR %Mat'? If I 11 11,111 net!! id 1/411 11

TABLE 1

MACRO-LEVEL ENROLLMENT STUDIES

TYPES OF VARIABLESENVIRONMENTAL INSITIIMONAL

NATIONAL STUDIES YRCampbell/Siegel 67Freeman 75Galper/Dunn 69Handa/Skolnik 75Mattila 82

STATE STUDIESCoranini, et. al. 72Hopkins 74Stafford et al. Szi

Tannen 78Wish/111mi lu 80

INSTITUTION STUMMHoenack/We ler 79Krakowerilaminuto 87Rnilscn/Pogiic 88Strickland et al. 84

S'I'UDEN1'

PCNSOJPOORAMI

13

SSYE

J

13

AROAM

ICF

T P I)

I.UPTSI.SORCI3

AN

AUECTR

TTI L LA

MTE

A

13

ICI)L

I

NEP

+ ++ + - +

+ ++ . - +

+ + . + + - +

+ - - + + ++ . + - + ++ + ++ + - . + + ++ + -

+ + . - + .. + + - + - +

+ + - 7+ + -

Variable Definitions_A. Environmental Charadensncs

Pop relevant populath in of traditional it illege aged cohi titCittbs = lob market opponmiit it's for tt illege graduates

ibs = 1..1) market ii)portunities for noncollege graduatesSarmy = sue of the armed servteesIrate = itvt raw interest rate in die etunonly

onp = pert ent cif enrollet I in or residing near tiingivtingFaid federal and state fithint i)Cf

B. Institutional tharactetistitIi = Iikatiun wIth fesped to the ixx ii u; itetItlat

AY.111 = ;111 Whirl hx.Alli )11

Part = perceiit (it .111 institution's enn diluent that u mo timeTutt = tuition or tuition itnd kescI Abuts...Ions selectivity of an institution

Idm = percent of degrees it inIenretl In arts and st tem esState = pert ent ol institution's enrollment from in state

C Student Cbaradensut s ((', nip Averages)Ahil = average academic :Mille: of relevant student groupInc = family Inc( wtw les etPed = parental ttlucatil ft IV% d

12

As expected, enrollment at the national level was directlyrelated to various measures such as the population of poten.tial students and the numbers of high schcx)l graduates(Campbell and Siegel 1967; Freeman 1975; Galper and Dunn1969; and Manila 1982).

The relationship between enrollment and possible job mar-ket opportunity is more interesting and informative. Whileenrollment was related directly to salaries and employmentopportunities for college graduates, it was related inverselyto wage and employment opportunities for noncollege grad.uates (Freeman 1975; Handa and Skolnik 1975; and Matti la1982). These findings highlight the importance of recognizingand measuring the two separate parts of the job market. Oneset of indicators is needed to measure job market opportun-ities for college graduates, while another is needed to mea-sure opportunities fir noncollege graduates.

For the typical high school senior or graduate, the two mea-sures of job market opportunities may have opposite effectson the likelilnxxi of college attendance. When job marketopportunities in professional and managerial positions, tra-ditionally filled by college graduates, improve, they increasethe perceived benefits of college and the likelihood ofattendance.

ilowever, when job market opportunities in positions available for noncollege graduates improve, this increases the per-ceived costs of college and decreases the likelihood of attendance. Foregone income is part of what a college studentgives up in order to attend college. When wages and empkiyment for noncollege graduates are increasing, the "opp()r-tunity cost" of college is also increasing (McConnell and lime1986, pp. 76-78).

For a high school senim or graduate who is unsure aboutcollege attendance, monetary benefits and costs can influencehis or her choice between college and noncollege. For examplc, when the economy imwes into a recemion, empkwmentin 1)ositkins available for noncollege graduates may decreasesubstantially, while empkiyment in college-level pilifemionaland managerial positions remains more stable. On average,the noncollege graduate now has less to give up to attendcollege ( k )wer opportlillity cost) and the attractiveness ofoppc nullities for ccillege graduates relative to noncollegegraduates increases along with the likelihood of colkge attendance (Manila 1982, pp. 250 251; Paulsen and Peseau 198),

Whenwages andemploymentfor noncollegegraduates areipctvasing, the

cost" of cis alsoincreasing.

lichallt

r,t)

pp. 10-11)When the economy expands out of a recession, the pattern

of incentives is reversed. Employment of noncollege grad-uates, which decreased rapidly during the rece&sion, now willincrease rapidly during the recovery. On the other hand,employment in college-level positions, having decreased lessduring the rece&sion, will now increase less rapidly duringthe recovery. As a result, the attractiveness of opportunitiesfor college graduates relative to noncollege graduates woulddecrease. At the same time, the likelihood of college atten.dance would fall, all else equal.

Public policies affecting the growth in the size of the armedforces is another important determinant of enrollment at thenational level. However, the nature of this relationship seemsto depend on whether the sample period of study includedWorld War 11 and the Korean War, or the Vietnam War.

During the earlier period, enrollment fell when the sizeof the armed forces increased, and enrollment increased whenthe number of discharges from the armed services increased(Ga lper and Dunn 1969). During the Vietnam period, how.ever, the proportion of 18 to 24 year olds inducted each yearand the number of servicemen on active duty were associatedwith enrollment increases, while only the cumulative pro-portion of 18 to 24 year okis in the armed services was asso-dated with enrollment decline (Freeman 1975; Maui la 1982).

These results indicate a shift in attitudes toward service inthe armed forces between the two periods. It appex--; )!,at inthe more recent period, avoidance of military servii.have provided incentive to attend college.

While the national studies clearly fix-used primarily onenvironmental determinants of enrollment, they also considered one institutional characteristic (tuition) and one studentcharacteristic ( income). 11()th chafacteristk-s were measuredin terms of gftnip averages.

As expected, enrollment at the national level was directlyrelated to income (Campbell and Siegel 1967; Galper andDunn 1969; Ilanda and Skolnik 1975; and Mattila 1982), andinversely related to tuition (Campbell and Siegel 1967; 11andaand Skolnik 1975).

A composite index of the benefits and costs of college canhe computed to estimate the rate of return to an investmentin a college education. Enrollnwnt at the national level wasrelated directly to such a measure of rate of return in a study

by Manila (1982). Rate of return increasedwhen earnings ofpersons with one or more years of college increased, or iffinancial aid to students increased. Rate of return decreasedwhen earnings of high school graduates with no college edu.cation increased, or when tuition and fees increased.

State StudiesWhile most factors determining enrollment examined in thestate studies also were investigated in the national studies withsimilar results, the state studies considered two additionalenvironmental factors (interest rates and proximity of cornpeeing institutions), one additional institutional characteristic(location or accessibility), and two additional student char.acteristics (parental education and student ability).

Environmental factorsInterest rate measures represent indicators of the cost of bor-rowing to attend college. As expected, enrollment at the statelevel was related inversely to market interest rates. A one per-cent decrease in interest rates was associated with nearly aone percent increase in a state's college participation rate(Tannen 1978, p. 495).

Proximity of competing institutiems. Public sector enroll .

ment at the state level was inversely related to the iwoximityor accemibility of private institutions to pools of potential students. On the other hand, private sector enrollment wasrelated directly to the accemibility of private institutions tothe population of eligible students (Hopkins 1974 ).

Those findings highlight the importance for potential st1dents of both the adverse effects on enrollment when competing institutions are nearby, and the posit/iv effects onenrollment when an institution has an advantageou.s likatk

Student characteristics\While national-level studies fi xlised most on environmentalcharacteristics, state.level studies focused most on studentcharacteristics by using measures based on group averages.Enrollment in these studies was related directly to such meawres as parental education (Corazzini, Dugan, and Grabowski 1972; Hopkins 1974; Stafford, Lundstedt, and Lynn1984; and Tannen 1978), and Prqect Mlem achievement testmeasu.es of student academic ahility t Corazzini et al., 1972 ).

'Ube effects of student characteristics on enrollment are con

?Wing 11?lit111 BOW, '1(

3 1

/5

sklered more thor)ughly later in this report where micro-levelstudies are reviewed. Since such studies rely on individualstudent data, their measures of student characteristics aresuperior to those achievable with group data in these macro-level studies.

Institutional StudiesAll of the environmental and student determinants of enroll-ment examined in the institutional studies also were inves-tigated in the national and state studies with similar results.However, the institutional studies considered the enrollmenteffects of five additional institutional characteristics:

percentage of in-state student,spercentage of part-time studentspercentage of degrees conferred in liberal arts fieldsadmissions selectivityurban versus rural kwation.

Urban location. An urban location was found to be animportant determinant of enrollment at the institutional level."The less rural 'more urban! the industrial character of thegeographical area, the greater the contribution to collegeenrollment" (Strickland et al. 1984, p.48).

Part-time students. Krakower and Zammuto (1987) studied the effects of various institutional characteristics on enroll-ment at different types of institutions. Enrollment at all typesof public institutions and enrollment at private dc)ctoral instiunions were related to the percentage of part-time students.These findings might represent, in part, the positive effectson enrollment of an urban locatim where there is a largerpotential ptx)I of students who work full V ae, or part time,for employers willing to finance education, and who are ina ix )sition to commute to attend college part time.

Admissions selectivity. Public sector enrollment wasrelated directly to admissions selectivity measured by the average frt.shman SAF score.

In-state students. Finally, enrollment at public ihmoraland private two year institutkms was related directly to thepercentage of their enrollnwnt accounted for by in statestudents.

Though they give no explanaticm for these differencesacnKs institutional types. the authtliti Stnlngly advise agaillSt

1(1

a a

making generalizations about what determines enrollmentfrom one institutional type to another (Krakower and Zam.muto 1987).

Curriculum. An institution's curriculum is an important:factor in determining enrollment. Between 1975.76 and 1980.81, enrollment at private general baccalaureate institutionswas related inversely to the percentage of degrees conferredin traditional liberal arts and teacher training fields, anddirectly related to degrees conferred in nontraditional pro .fessional or t)ccupational fields (Krakower and Zammuto1987).

Examining the relationship from a different perspective,Paulsen and Pogue (1988) studied a sample of private liberalarts and comprehensive institutions over a more extendedperiod from 1965 through 1981. The effect of curriculum(measured by the percentage of degrees conferred in traditional liberal arts and teacher training fields) on enrollmentvaried according to what was happening to conditions in thejob market for college graduates.

All else equal, when conditions in the college job marketdeteriorated, enrollment growth favored institutions conferring more degrees in professional or occupational programssuch as business, accounting, or mas.s communications. liowever, when conditk)ns in the college job market impnwed,enrollment growth favored colleges conferring greater percentages of degrees in traditional liberal arts and teacher training fields (Paulsen and Pogue 1988, p. 286).

A possible explanation k)r this interesting pattern is thatwhen conditkins in the college job market are jx)or, empkiyers are likely to find sufficient numbers of occupationallytrained graduates who may he initially better prepared formany specialized "positions fc)r which arts and sdences graduates must be furth-r trained at the employer's expense. Thismay give the mi ire specialized graduate a market advantageover his more generally educated counterpart- (Paulsen 1983.pp. 112 113 ).

Summary and Guidelines for Enrollment PlannelsStudies of what factors determine enrollment have pr( wkledus with a foundation kir more effective envinmmental analyAis. enrollment planning, ciid forecasting. These studies haveexamined the relationships between gri )up enrollment behavkw (at the nati)nal, state, or instituti( nal level ) and environ

-'11(1(1V(411(1111g, .1111(14111 1( )1*

4)

e

IN

mental characteristics, institutional characteristics, and studentcharacteristics. This research provides us with the backgroundnecessary to predict the probable direction of change in enrol.Iments associated with changes in any one of these factors,all else equal.

Noteworthy in table 1 is the fact that all factors examinedat more than one level were found to have similar effects onenrollment at each level. The greatest strength of the studiestaken as a whole may be their ability to estimate the probableenrollment effects of environmental and institutional char.acteristics. These factors are measured, appropriately andmeaningfully, using group average measures.

However, such studies are less efkctive in estimating theprobable effect of student characteristics on enrollment. Theimprecision of group average measures of student character .istics makes them clearly inferior to the measures which dataon individual students can provide.

Aggragate, or macro.lewl, enrollment studies often arereferred to as research on the demand for higher education.

A conaptual understanding of the demand for Wet. education is a part of the expertise of enrolbnent managenient. . . land/ this nwearch is an important part of the veciatized knouledge base that can professimalize and lend cred-ibility to enrollment managers ( !fussier 1984, pp. 13, 28).

The folk ming list of generalizations is drawn from the findings of the aggregate studies of ennillment determination.They represent the most consistent and dependable macro.level findings regarding the effects on ennillment of changesin envininmental and institutkinal characteristics. The list isoffered to akl institutk His in formulating basic assumptk His

enmIlnwnt planning.

Deinographic Picture. Enrollment is directly related to thesize of the relevant ppulatkm of eligible students, including the number of high school graduates in recmitmentareas.

2. job Market Benefits CI)fte. Enrol lmou is directlyrelated to job market opportunitie,. for college graduates,and inversely related to job market (pportunities for noncollege graduates.

3. Opportunity Costs of College Enrollment is inverselyrelated to the income that people attending collegeforego. During general economic recessions, foreg(meincome costs tend to decrease, whiL during general eco-nomic expansions, the opportunity to earn income tendsto increase.

4. Size of Armed Senkes. Recent research suggests thatenrollment is directly related to the annual percentageof 18 to 24 year olds inducted into the armed seMces(possibly due to avoidance of military service). However,it remains inversely related to the cumulative proportionof the traditional college-going age group which is in thearmed services.

5. Direct Costs of College.Enrollment is directly related tofactors which reduce direct costs such as federal, state,and institutkmal financial aid. It is inversely related to factors which raise direct costs such as higher tuition orhigher interest rates for student borrowing.

6. Competition. Enrollment is inversely related to the proximity of competing institutions to pools of potentialstudents.

7. Location Enrollment is directly related to having an advantageous location to potential students. An urban kx:ationis particularly advantageous because of its accessibilityto potAs of lxxential students in general, and to rkwentialpart time attenders in particular.

8. Cutrkulum. One measure of an instituti( n's curriculumis the percentage of degrees it confers in traditional liberalarts and teacher training fields as opposed to nontraditional prc)fessk)nal or occupational fields such as business,engineering, or social work. The enrollment attractivenessof curriculum in these terms depenas on what is happening in the iob market for college waduates.

When conditions in the college job market deterkwate,ennillment growth favors institutions placing greater curricularemphasis on specialized professamal or occupational curricula. When conditions in the college joh market improve,enrollment gnnyth fimws institutions placing greater curricularemphasis on traditional liberal arts and teacher trainingcurricula.

Variations in enrollment changesWhile macro level studies have been consistent in their findings regarding the "directam of change- in enrollment due

'ndtqvanding Amami Fnrullment liehatuir Jo

t)

2t)

to changes in environmental and institutional factors, esti .

mates of the "magnitude of change" vary considerably.An interesting and important study conducted by Krakower

and Zammuto (1987) demonstrated the considerable variationin the magnitude of enrollment changes due to environmentaland institutional characteristics, They observed significant vari.ations "between the same types of institutions across the pub.lic and private sectors and different types of institutions withinboth the public and private sectors" (p. 348). Their conclusionwas that generalizing the magnitude of enrolltnent changedue to environmental and institutional characteristics acrosseither institutional type or sector usually will be inaccurate(p. 352),

To obtain more accurate estimates of the magnitude of suchenrollment changes for an indivklual institution, the enroll-ment management system sluaild call upon its institutionalresearch office. For social scientists in the office, any one ofthe following approaches should be both straighthrward tocarry out and potentially effective:

Assembk. and analyve time series data on re1.2vant environnwntal and institutional factors for your college, estimating the magnitude of enrollment effects for each factorusing multiple regression.t !se cross section data on institutions similar to your ownand then proceed as above.Assemhk. and analyze both time series and cross sectiondata on institutions similar to your own and proceed asal)( we.

The third option may be the most fruitful because the range..ariahk.s fin. obtaining meaningful measures is wider and

a'so lwcause additk mai control techniques are available whenyou p()01 time series and cross section data (Krakower and4111111111k) 1987; Paulsen and Pogue 1988; and Paulsen 1989b).

An excellent example of a research office's eftectivenemin eslintiting the magnitude ()I' the effects of variables onenrollment kir a particular institutk in is found in I k wnackand Weiler (1979). They used a nu xiel of institutional enrollment deterrnination u) f(irecast the puip( irt ion of eligible highsch(S)1 graduates who attended tlie I fniversity of Minnest )ta.

limey used time series data and measures of job market

3 t)

0

opportunities for college and noncollege graduates, theopportunity costs of college, the direct costs of college(tuition and financial aid), and a measure of the accessibilityof competing institutions to eligible high schocil graduates.

Their model explained nearly 90 percent of the yearo.year variatkm in the enrollment ratio over a 29.year period,with the standard error of the estimate ranging from only .6

percent to 2.2 percent (I It kmeck and Weiler 1979, p. 100 ).

nilertianding smarm linameill litabill mt. .21

COLLEGE CHOICE AND INDIVIDUAL STUDEN1S

While the macro-level studies examine the enrollment behav

ior of students in groups, the micralevel studies focus on the

factors which influence the dedsion-making pnvesses of indi-vidual students who must choose from college and noncollege options. Micro-level studies shift the focus of research

from natkmal, state, and institutional enrollment amounts tothe estimation of the probability that an individual studentwill choose a particular option.

Using primarily multiple regression, logit, and probit estimation pmcedures, researchers seek to identifY the environmental, institutional, and student characteristics that may influ-

ence the pn)bability of a specific option being cht)sen. Next,they try to estinlate the effect that changes in each character-

istic may have on the pnktbility that a student will make a

iyarticular choice.The first set of micro level studies reviewed in this sectkm

are based tm large national n. regional damsels and ft vus pri

marily on the choices of traditional aged students. The second,

and smaller, set of studies reviewed investigate the collegegoing decision-making of students of nontraditional age.

The findings are reviewed, analyzed, and synthesized inan Am to devekT generalizable thet Kies of the influenceof various student, institutional, and environmental auributes

on individual college choice behavit)r.'1Wo of the principal researchcrs and theory builders in this

field summarized their purpt)se as follows: "Altlumgh we have

tried to give a hniael view of the determinants of college-goingbehavicw. our work has been motivated in large part by issuesof current polky concem" ( Manski and Wise 1983, p. 1 ). Find

ings from these mi I I 11.cro .eve. stue..es arc useful for policy fOr=km and effective student marketing and recruitment practices aimed at influencing a prospective student's college

deciskm making process.me practical applications of understanding college choice

behavki, can he communicated ink we clearly with the. aid of.

the he;dful concepts and tenuinoltigy of academic marketing.

Marketing Concepts and TerminologyThe "marketing concept" for educational instautic ins meansthat a college be able to all iew its goals most effectivelyby el insidering the preferences of pc gential students (1.itten,Sullivan. and lirochgan 1983, p. Ii ). "Marketing is the analysis,

planning, implementation. and control of carefully formulated

Mlervanding Anident Invullinem lieharod-

s

The primaty"task of theinstitution isto determinethe needsand wantsof targetmarkets, andto satisfythem . . . "

2.3

21

programs designed to bring about voluntary exchanges ofvalues with target markets to achieve institutional objectives"is the broader definition of marketing devised by Kotler andFox (1985 p. 7).

The primary "task of the institution is to determine theneeds and wants of target markets, and to satisfy them through

. appropriate and competitively viable programs and ser.vices" (Kotler and Fox p. 10). When these practices areapplied in higher education, Litten (1980, p. 42) refers to theproxess as "academic marketing."

One marketing goal institutkms might want to consideris to determine how the perceptions held by admitted applicants regarding its college as compared to its competitors mayhe enhanced to achieve the most favorable match betweenthe college's goals mu student preferences (Maguire and Lay19M, p. 137).

Colleges are learning to apply the marketing comcept effec-tively by pr( weeding through the fidlowing steps:

Identify the «mipetition. IdentitY the institutions with whichyour college !nom offen competes.

fle(ermine .your image and market position. l)eterminewhat !mage potential students have or your institution, andhow this compares to the images they hold of y(iur chsestcompetitors.

Market segmentation. Divide potential students into groupsaccording to student characteristics which may differentiateamong them in terms of the relative attractiveness of yourinlage and that of your competitows. In other words, iiklitifygroups possessing characteristics whkh tend to inirease thelikelihomx1 that they will rind your image attractive, therebyincreasing the pro1)abil4 they will want to matriculate at yourcolkge.

A market segnlent is -3 group of pet )ple who it characteristic.s, behavior, desires, needs, perceptk ins, or other phenomena that are .similar within the group but are distinct fromthe rest of the market or from other groups in the market"( Linen, Sullivan, and liroxligan 1983, p. IS ). Market segmentation is a Tecific market research technique which dividesputclitial altu.seimrate groups according to) specific

3 9

student characteristics or profiles of characteristics. Th.. ,s

important because student preferences on various collegeattributes often vary according to student characteristics.

Common segmentation variables include:

geographicregi(m, city or county size, pmulation density, distance from institution;demographicage, sex, family size, family life cycle. parents' educational attainment, income, parents occupa-tional status, student's occupational and employment status, religion, nice, nationality;academic.educational level, educational aspirations, aptitude, achievement:psychographic --social class, lifestyle. personality, values,attitudes, preferences for college attrihutes;behavioral--benefits sought, type of user, rate of usage,loyalty status, readiness stage;market yiek1 -primary, sec()ndary, tertiary;phase in college choice process -prospects, candidates,applicants, admitted applicants, matriculants, alumni( Ihlanfeklt 1980, pp. 77-90; Ingersoll 1988, p. 211; Kotlerand Fox 1985, p. 179).

Determining a marketing strategyKotler and KA ( 1985) define a marketing strategy as "theselection of a taiget market, the choice of a c( wnprtitive posit ion, and thy development ()f an effective marketing mix toreach and serve the ch(isen market" (p. 132). 'the marketingmix in higher educatitin is a combinati( in of college attributesarranged in the k Mowing categories: pnigrams, prices, promotions, and places of delivery

he effective college must (kTelop and promote its attributes so that they generate the 1th ist effiVtive match betweenthe preferences of students with desired characteristics andthe college's missi( ni This means klentifying target marketswhere students have desired characteristics and where enrollment it mid be increased thin iugh missi( Hi consistent adjustments and impnivements in pnigram offerings, prices. theplaces where they are offered, and the effectiveness withwhich these attributes ae accurately communicated andpninioted

The rest of this report discusses many important practicalapplicatit)lis of college choice behavi( w for effective studentmarketing and recruitnient.

^I .11(141N1illit/Ing / 1114 4/1114111 Behtitif

AU

Student CharacteristicsGeneral findings regarding the effect of student characteristicson the likelihood of college attendance or the selection ofa particular institutkm can guide recruiters in subdividingpotential student pools into gniups possessing characteristicssimilar to those who most often matriculate at their institution.Such guidelines can help institutions identify markets withthe greatest potential for recruiting students.

Based on characteristics of student background and abilityalone individuat are more likely to attend college uben:

1. they are white rather than nonwhite (Jackson 1988; Manskiand Wise 1983).

2. they are not married ( Borus and Carpenter 1984; Stephen-son and Eisele 1982).

3. family income is higher (Christensen, Weisbrod, andMekler 1975; Jackson 1978, 1988; St. John 1990).

4. parents educational attainment is higher (Kodde andRitzen 1988; Manski and Wise 1983.

5. fitther's ticcupational status is higher (Conklin and Dailey,1981; Leslic, Johnson, and Cadmin 1977).

6. parental encouragement is greater (Radner and Miller1975; nem and Medsker 1968; Conklin and Dailey 1981).

7. their own educational or occupational aspiratkin is higherMinis and Carpenter 1984; Conklin and Dailey 1981).

8. academic aptitude is higher (Andermin, Bowman, andTinto 1972; Blakemore and Low 1983; Kodde and Ritzen1988)

9. high school academk. achievement is higher (Leslie, John-SOIL and Carlson 1977; St. John 1990).

10 a college preparato wy curriculum is followed in highschool Bums and Carpenter 1981; (:onklin and Dailey1981).

11. more peers plan to attend college ( Manski and Wise 1983;Nolfi et al. 1978).

Institutional CharacteristicsAn understanding of the general and direct effects of institutional characteristics ()I1 college choice can assist enrollmentmanagers to devek)p and implement the hest marketing strategies. These strategies will include the most attractive marketing mix of programs, delivered in appuipriate places, atacceptable prices.

JO

In terms of institutional character4stia, the attractivenessof college in general, and the attractiveness of a particularcollege tend to increase when:

tuition is lower (Corman and Davidson 1984; St. John1990; Tierney 1980, 1982).when financial aid is greater (Leslie and Fife 1974; St. John1990; Stephenson and Eisele 1982).room and board costs are lower (Manski and Wise 1983;

No lfi et al. 1978).the distance from home to college is less (Anderson,Bownun, and Tinto 1972; Blakernore and 1A)AI 1983).

admksions selectivity is higher (Kohn, Manski, and Mull-del 1976; Tienwy 1980, 1982).curriculum offerings are greater (Bishop 1977; Kohn,Manski, and Mundel 1976).

How Student and Institutional Characteristics InteractOther findings of great practical importance but less widelyunderstooii and applied involve the ways in which studentbackground and ability interact with institutional characteristics in determining student selectkm of a college. Severalof these characteristics tend to either increaseor decreasethe effect of institutional cost and quality on college choice.

A better understanding of how student and institution characteristics interact and affect college choice can help enrollnwnt managers to more effectively tailor their marketing mixaccurding to students in various markets. This is importantbecause student preferences regarding Lollege vary accordingto student characteristics.

The following may serve as a foundation for such efforts:

Colkge becomes less attractilv to students obey, tuitionexpenses, room and board expenses, and distance from home

increaseHowever, these effects are significantly greater for students

at lower income levels and for those with lower aptitude. Athigher levels of student income and aptitude, these effectsbecome lem important ( Manski and Wise 1983; St. John 1990;Tierney 1982).

College becomes PPlOre attractive as the availability of financial aid increases, particularly sclxdarship aid

Ilowever, this effect is reduced kw students at higher in

ndersiwulbig Shawn bin )llment iur 27

.1

come levels because they have less chance of receiving finan-dal aid (131akemore and Low 1983; Leslie and Fife 1974;Manski and Wise 1983).

The financial aid effect is enhanced for those of high aca-demic achievement and for those who are normhite becausethese two characteristics increase the chalice of getting finan-cial aid, especially scholarship aid (Blakemore and Low 1983).

Furthermore, the higher probability of aid for nonwhitesis important because it enhances the chalices that they willhave access to higher edticatkm institutions. lt also enhancesthe possibility that they will attend since they also are morecost sensitive.

St. John and Noell (1989, pp 577 79) fitund that for blackand Hispanic minoritie,s, grants al(me or aid packages withloans and grants were more likely to promote college attendance than aid in the form of loans alone.

How selectuv an institution is in its admis.sions policy is ameasure of quality for many students.

On average, therefore, the attractiveness of college increaseswith this measure of quality.

It mever, when students select a particular institution toattend, they tend to rely on a selection process based on thedifference between their own aptitude and the average aptitude of students attending particular illstitUti0115.

Clenerally, students prefer to attend a college where theaverage aptitude of students is equal to, or only twx.lerawlyexceeds, their own aptitude ( Radner and Miller 1975). A typical student

umild be most likely to choose the cidlege with.s>17. score about HA) points bi.gber (ban btS atty. l u'ouldbe le ss. likely to choose a school with a higher al MO', (Inaalso iess likely to choose a school with (4 louvr average

. . A student does not necessarily prefer the highest qualifyschool( Manski and Wise 1983, p. 19 ).

Environmental CharacteristicsThe results of macro.level studii.s reveal that a variety of environmental facu)rs have an important impact on eimillmenthehavkw. t :nfiwtunately, in micro level studies, it is more diflicult to devise int..an1ngful measures of envinnunental lack .rssince they vary a,:ross students. lk)wever, a number of studies

t.)

have examined the influence of job market factors on collegechoice behavior,

Most of the studies examined in this section are based onlarge national or regional datasets. This means that hx:al economic conditions, which vary across different hcations, havebeen available. Micro-level studies regarding the impact ofjob market factors on enrollment behavior generally supportthe findings of macro.level studies.

A student is more likely to attend colltwo

when jcil) market opptirtunities for college graduatesincrease (Bishop 1977; Kotkk and Ritzen 1988; Leslie,

Johnson, and Carlsinl 1977). Increases in salary oremployment opportunities hir college graduates increasestheir perception of the monetary benefits of college. This,in turn, increases the probability they will attend a highereducation institution.

when job market opportunities for noncollege graduatesdecrease (Oxman and Davklson 198-1; Kodde and Ritzen198K 1, When wage and emphyment opporwnities hirnonciillege graduates decrease, the amount of Mc( Mk'students liwego while attending college also decreases.This increases the likeliht xxl students will attend.

There also is evidence that the family income of a studentinfluences this effect. In their analysis of Nati( nutl IA mgitudinalSurvey data on twer 20.000 1972 high school seniors, Nolfiet al. (1978, p. 151) finind this factor was "considerably largerfor the low inciime than for the high income group."

When lob market opportunities for noncolkge graduatesdecrease, the probability of college attendance wit mld risenit We for lower income than hit' higher income individuals.Alternatively. when job market opp(munities ft w mnlcolkgegraduates increase, the pr(bability of colkge attendancewt mld fall more for 1( Aver inc(nue individuals than for higherine(lille individuals.

Student Responsiveness to CostA review of college choice studies examined the differencesand changes in student resp( mses to five key components ofcollege cost: tuition, rt X)111 and birard, travel, cost of forep nteearnings, and financial akl ( Leslie and Brinkman 198".

- . , -- ------- _I .tulerNiwulitim Enrollment Itelktrita.

pp. 195-197). The researchers observed that Kohn, Manski,and Mundel (1976) found students resixrnsiveness to tuitionwas greater than to room and board costs, which was greaterthan their response to travel costs.

Similarly, Bis:iop (1977) found responsiveness to tuitionexceeded response to room and board and travel costs, whichgreatly exceeded response to the cost of foregone earnings.Jackson (1978) and Leslie and Fife (1974) found that studentresponse to tuition was significantly greater than their :espon-siveness to financial aid.

More recent studies have suggested that student respon-siveness to most of these components of college cost are sim-Oar. Manski and Wise's 1983 "highly regarded work . showsroughly equal student sensitivity among tuition, student aid,dormitory costs, and foregone earnings . . ." (Leslie and Brink.man 1987, p. 196).

Tierney's (1982) recent study also indicates that studentsnow respond similarly to changes in tuiticin and aid. FIciwever,while students appear to be responding more equally totuitkin, rocim and Nyard, financial aid, and foregone earnings,there is still insufficient evidence to conclude that theyrespcind similarly to travel costs.

Some of the most recent evidence comes fl'om a study ofthe class of 1982. The findings indicate that for all incomeclasses combined, students' college attendance was considerably more sensitive to financial aid than to tuition (St. John1990, p. 168). For Itiw inctnne students, an increase in grantaid increased the likelihtx l uf attendance more than two and

tine half times as much as an equal decrease in tuitk(p. 169). Such

findings seem intuitively consistent with enrollment trendsduring the 1980s, when . Many institutUms have adipk'denrollment nianagement technigiws that emphasize usinga set portion of tuition rel'enties for need based grant aidDiscount pricin,q could be evected to keep enrollnwntshigher Own projected, if in fact students were more respon.sill! to chanws in grant aid than to changes in nation(NI Iohn 1990, 1's.172).

College Attendance and Nontraditional StudentsThe largest single demographic source of cm Alme,it growthin the 1980s has come from students of nontraditional age

(25 or older). Between 1976 and 1983, two.thirds of the over-

all increase in higher education enrollment was due to

increases in attendance among students aged 25 and over.Between 1980 and 1985, enrollment among those aged 24

and under decreased by 412,000, while enrollment amongthose aged 25 and over increased by 561,000, so that total

enrollment grew by the difference of about 150,000. Between

1990 and 2000, those' aged 35 to 64 will increase by 24.1 per.cent (Frances 1989, pp. 34, 158, 159).

Clearly, it has become increasingly important for us to

understand the enrollment behavior of individuals in this

expanding grow. Unfortunately, very little research attenfionhas been given to) the study of nontraditional student

enn)Ilment.This report assembles from available research the student,

institutional, and environunental determinants of college atten

dance among nontraditional students. More detailed expla

nation of the complex effects or interaction of some variables

is provided as needed.In examining the effects of these factors, recruiters should

reflect on the practical implicatioins regarding market segmen(anon and the appropriate marketing mix for the recruitmentof women. Women accounted for 98.4 percent of the overall

increase in enrollment between 1980 and 1987 (Frances 1989,

p. 155 ).,Vomratlitional age siudems are more likely to (mewl college

when:

the student is white ( [fish( ) p and Van I )yk 197").

2. the student's own occupational status is higher ( Anderm)n

and Darkenwald 1979; BisluT and Van Dyk 1977; Colman983 ).

3. the student's previous educational attainment is greater

(Anderson and 1)arkenwald 19'91.1. the student's own 1110)111V is greater ( Anders( HI and Dar

kenwald 1979).A researcher noted some of the more specific effects of

income on attendance. For instance, income level among

W(411ell is positively related to attendance at a college. hutnegatively related to attendance at an ()ccupatit ma! sdux )1.

Those with k Aver inco MR'S may lw 111( we likely to attend tkpational sell( )( )1. AIM ), income Was finind to he negatively, hut

not significantly, related to college attendance among men.

- _ -I )nitIVanding hind/mtwi fichavuw

. . . for allincome dassescombine4students'collegeattendanceWaSCOMilierabb,more sensitiveto financialaid than totuition

3/

A possible explanation for the differences between sexes maybe that since men's incomes are higher on average, the efkctof foregone income may outweigh the effect of the abilityto pay from higher incomes among men (Corman 1983,p. 263).

5. the student is at a younger age (Anderson and Darkenwald1979; Corman 1983).

6. the student is not married. This finding was statisticallysignificant for wofnen only (Corman 1983, p. 261).

7, the student has fewer children under 18 years of age(Bishop and Van Dyk 1977).

8. the student is working full-time (Anderson and Darkenwald 1979).

9. the student is a veteran ( Bishop and Van Dyk 1977).10. the student has collegelevel educational aspirations (Hers

and Smith 1987; Rogers, (',illeland, and Dixon 1988; Wolf.gang and Dowling 1981).

This finding focuses primarily on the reasons students givefbr returning to sch(x)I. Paltrklge, Regan, and Terkla (1978)flaind that men were more likely than women to cite a degreeobjective, while women were more likely to cite personalenrichment as their primary motivatkm. Hers and Smith( 1987) finind through focus group interviews that men moreoften cited l(4) skill improvement as their primary twitivator,while w(men klentitied critical life changes such as div(wceor children leaving lune ( p. q1).

Wolfgang and Dimling observed that, overall, students list"cognitive interest" and "professiimal advancement" as theirtop reasons it H. attendance ( 1981, p. 643). Finally, Iti)gers, GilHand, and Dixon discovered the most frequently cited reasuns were degree objectives, job changes, and self.improvement. 1 lowever, students who were female, yi flinger,and had lower incomes were most likely to cite job changesaS important was( ms; and tluise with lower educational attainwent were the nu st likely to refer to self impnwement ( 1988,pp. 202 and 20.; ).

II. the student resides a sluwt distaihe frOnt a ciillege (Curman 1983; l'altridge et al. 19-8 }.

hishi)p and Van I )yk observed that the pn 0C111111 1' of a twoyear LI )11ege was partkillarly important fiw iumfraditional students ( 1977, pp. SY ;Hid 62 ). licrs and smith disci)vered ii

their focus interviews with nontraditional students that theyreally appreciated the "convenience" of having a college"minutes from their homes" (p. 41).

12. the college's tuititm is lower (Bers and Smith 1987; Orman 1983).

13. the student is receiving financial assistance through tinancial aid (Paltridge et al. 1978), veteran's benefits (Anderson and Darkenwald 1979), or on welfare (I3isht tp andVan Dyk 1977 ).

14. job market opportunities for noncollege graduates areptxtr (Iiislutp and Van Dyk 1977; O)iThan 1983).

15. job market opportunities fin. college graduates are ginkl( Bishop and V:In Dyk 1977).

Gorman found that when conditions in the job market li)rcolkge graduates are gtxxl, nontraditional students are morelikely to attend ot vupational sclunds (1983, p. 261).

16. the student is ntn in the armed services (BisluT and VanDyk 1977).

Tht)se generalizations are essentially a list of basic enn illtnent planning assumptknis abt an nontraditional studentchoice hehavitw. It putvides a context for applying academicmarketing principles to the efti..ct ive recniitment of studentsaged 25 and twer. Each item has implicatknis for identifyingtarget markets, haws for madwt segmentatkm, or talk wingan appropriate marketing mix of programs, prices, pn)modons, and places ft w attracting students fund a particula nontraditit mai student market segment.

IhItIValh1111g Slit( h'Ill 1 -111( Bch( irijo 3.3

STAGES OF COLLEGE CHOICE

The increasingly competitive and complex nature of u)llege

choice and expanshmt of the marketing approach to student

recruitment enhance the desire to better understand and more

effectively influence the college choice process. 'Ibis has led

both researchers and practitioners to devekT more detailed

specifications, or models, of the colkge choice process.

At the beginning of the 1980s,

few admission:: officers operate from a .9tswmatic model

of the influences on studem colkge choice. Lacking such a

collegi,N may overlook U'ayti to increase the effectiveness

of their recruiting or, com.ersely, overestimaw the influence

of recruiting activities in which they do engage (Chapman

1981, p. 490 ).

How Models HelpTo help meet the need, therehire, researchers developed var

ious kinds of models during the decade of the 1980s. Chap.

man, for instance, developed a causal model illustrating the

relationships between important student and institutk mai

characteristics and college choice behavior (p. 492 ).

Numerous suggestkms for multi-slage ;tux/cis of the choice

process appeared in the literature throughout the decade.

Among the first, thlanfeklt expressed the process in terms of

the useful funnel concept in which students pass through

the categories of prospects, candidates (inquirers), applicants,

admittants, muriculants, and alumni ( 1980, p. 86). A three

stage nwdel included ( 1) deciding to go to college, (2) inves

tigating colleges, and ( 3) applicathm, admi&sion and matric

ulation ( I fanson and Litten 1982, p. 75).

A nux1ified version of the three stage mckiel was inserted

into a detailed causal framework, much like a more detailed

and expanded versk un of Chapman's 1110(1e1 with environmen

tal characterktics aLkied to student and institutional factors

( Linen 1982, p. 388).In a seven stage nux1e4 students consider (1) generic alter

natives ( like oillege, work, (n. m!litary service), (2) prt)duct

hum; ,:hernatives ( like public or private, large or small ), (3)

a total college set, (4) an awareness set, ( 5) a consideration

set, (6) a choice set, and ( 7 ) deci.sion (Kotler and FOX )985,

20"; 6).Others f()CLISed rii ie ( ill broader classificatiott of the phases

of the clic iice pa X.' CM. Chapnun and Jacks( in separated the

wletvandingsttukht Immihnent Behavior5

pnxess into just two phases: colkge search and college Lilu .ice, with a more detailed spedfication of the second phase(1987, pp. 12.14 ). Davis-Van Atta and Carrier offered a three-st IA" model comprised of the inquiry decision ivocess, theapplicatkm decisitm process, and the enrollment dedskmprocess ( 1986, p. 76).

Such shorter classification schemes are quite useful forfixusing research efforts and classifying findings. However,these particular ones omit what probably is the longest andthe most powerful phase of predicting college attendance.flis is the phase in which fundamental educational aspira-tions are formed. It may la,st from early childhood throughhigh sat x )1 and beyond.

As the next sectkm explains, the formation of basic :t.spirat k ins fin' p()stsecondary education is strongly related to student background and ability fa(tors.

livt) simplified and parallel threstage mode& whichinclude the critical educational aspiration phase arc thosepresented in the work of Flossier and Gallagher ( 19871 andJacks< in ( 19821. The three stages, ( r phases, have differentnames, but the sante meaning in the tw) m(xlelsjackson'sstages are preference, exclusion, and evaluatit wi ( 1982,p. 23) 1. I hmsier and Gallagher's stages are predisposition,search, and choice (198", p. 20)4 ).

flossier. Brut( Hi. and CA xipersmith's recent review t &college choice literature is organized avording to a three stagemodt..1( 1989. pp. 2.48 9 1.

111.4 stage: represents the formatn ( )1 edwatn mal aspitwit His as described ahtsecond stage: includes the acquisitn in and examinatn Hiof ink milation about colleges to identify a limited svt ()f

%%filch t) apply.Third siige Inv( I. es the evaluatnni of alternatives tinuke a final college sukvtion for matnculation.

This section of the rep( irt will examine L.ach suge of thech, lit. U 1i kess ill lerIlls ill the findings of those studies win iisepriman. f()ClIs i ()II the nature i )f t,hoice behavior in (Me (itthus(' spet'ait stages. The f( >llowing Uiels Will be Used )

t.lest.Tilx the pr( ess and U suggest end ix nnts for each stage:1 t ilkge aspirant in U rmat i ni ( 2) college seart.h and appliail( in. and 3 ) Lollege selection and attendance

College Aspiration FormationThis section examines and interprets the findings of 16 studieswhose primary focus is on the earliest skew in the collegedioice pnx.ess. This stage involves the factors and processeswhich influence and shape a student's educational aspirations.The development, or formation, of aspirations to continueeducation beyond the secondary level can take place overa long period from early childhexxi through high school andsometimes beyond. Dbk. 2 slums the factors each of the 16studies found to be related significantly to the formation ofcollege aspirations.

The earliest stage of dioice behavior continues to be care-fully studied by sociologists, psychologists, and other edu-cational researchers. Most studies are based on micro-levelOr individual student data, and focus on the nature of factorsrelated to student family background, academic ability, andhigh school and neighborhood context. Th analyze data,researchers have relied primarily on cross tabulatiems andcorrelational studies, path analysis, regression analysis, andanalysis of cewariance structure's.

A bdter understanding of the efk.os of such student diaracteristics on their plans to attend college can assist enrollmem managers in dividing potential students into groups withcharacteristics similar to their own college or university's typical matriculating students' pre &Iles. Generalizations basedon these findings can help colleges identify student marketswith high recruitment yield potential, and are suggestive ofpossibk. early intervention strategies to encourage collegeattendance.

Background, ability, and context'Hie various ways in which student background, ability. andcontextual factors influence the process of forming collegea.spi rat ic ins are described bel(rw. First, based tin study findings.the probable direct effect of each variable on college aspiration Iiirmatit in is identified An individual is more likely towant to attend college under the following conditions:

v. hen the student is white I Kerckhoff and (:::inpbell !9";Tuttle 198 I ).

Wilet I tile student's parents are married (Stage and I fussier1989 ).

thitTqathillig %/MAW/ / allnient 37

when the student's family size is large (Conklin and Dai-ley 1981).when the parents' educational attainment is greater (Stageand Floss ler 1989; 'ffittle 1981).when the father's occupational status is higher (Conklinand Dailey 1981; Davies and Kandel 1981).when family income is higher (Stage and Flossier 1989;'Wale 1981).When student academic aptitude is greater (Conklin andDailey 1981; "Ilittle 1981).when student academic achievement is greater (Carpenterand Fleishman 1987; Davies and Kandel 1981).when parental encouragement is greater (Carpenter andFleishman 1987; Davies and Kandel 1981).When disciplinary problems in school are fewer (Kerckh)ff and Campbell 1977 ).when student sellesteem is greater (Pones and Wilson1976).when student attitudes toward school and success arepositive (Carpenter and Fleishman 1987).when student peers plan to go to college (Carpenter andFleishman 1987; Davis and Kandel, 1981).when neighhcaood socioeconomic StatUS is higher(Sewell and Amer 1966).When high schoc)l sc)ciocconomic or academic status ishigher (Nelson 1972).when a college preparatory curriculum is taken in highschool (Conklin and Daiky 1981).%vhen teachers encourage college attendance (l'ortes andWilsc )n 1976).

when schcxil counselt)rs encourage college attendance(Conklin and Dailey 1981).when perceived econtnuic benefits of college are high( I )ssler 1982 ).

tere are a number of nit We complex, interactive, or lesswell understt xi effects of certain factors on college aspirationformation which need to he considered in greater detail. Thisis critical for appnipriate interpretatk in and effective application of the above generalizatiiins to the student marketingand recruitment pri x.ess.

TABLE 2

COLLEGE ASPIRATION FORMATION STUDIES

VARIABLES

STUDIES YRAlexanikri Ecklond 75

Bla u/Dunean 67

Carpenter/Fleislmtan 87

mklin /Dailey 81

Davies/Kandel 81

lamer, et. al. 76

lossier 82

Kerckhott CampbellNelsonl'ortes.Vilson 76

Sewell/ Amer 66

Seweilif Moser 76

Sewell/Shah (:,

Sewell /Shah 7S

Stagelt ius.sler 89

Rade SI

R

AM!'CE

PS

AR

ADDCCTIINSM

EMEEEONPCE1

C

I AA PDS

CC

ETES1.1'I:

A PNHCTCEETR

STTPA

SPTRAECCN

EECNNO

xx

xxx

x

x x x x xx

xxxx x

xx

xx

xx

x x

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

x x

xx

x

xx

x

x

x x

x

x xx

xx

xxxx x

xxx

x x xx

x

xxx

xxx

xx

xxx

xxxx

x

x

x x

x xxx x

xx x x

x

VARIABLE DEFINITIONS!A. Family liackgniund

= the student's race, white t It mi Hiwhite

PMAR = the sltidenrs 'Weal+ ;Ire muncdSIAM = size of the stlidel les familyFEI) = educat u inal attainment of the student's fatherMEI) = educatitinal attainnient tmft he student's niot lief

X.0 = stiltlis of the student's latherINC = income uf the student's familyPENC = parental elle( iuragement to attend ct liege

= slf estem id the student

Academit AbilityAPI = the acatlenile aptitude 14 the studentA(:lI the a A(Iellik tit the studem in st hut ii

: I ligh hut ml and Neighlx mthmM kl Contextthe t piing platis (if Inends

NtilAT = the 14 X It X.% um mitt status ut the student's/NM' = the S4 X U x't iii ii nnk and ;Icadenm stalk's u4 high si IH X d

)1'.4 dist tplinary prubleins tit' the student in high sttttxilMT 7.- student s attitudes ti ward 14 him 4 ind %tic( ess

CPRLP littliaratury writ (Mini in high st hmxml

11 NC : = teat her ent utiragemei it tu attend k UMW= tionselur elk Ut ir:igen lent tmm .111eiki k

It )ti = the et mmmk link I witelits tut lege attendant e

/ riders/Wu/mg Viiden/ Fr/nil/men/ licharwr

4 ) t

Contradictory findings about family sizeWhile Conklin and Dailey (1981) found that college 'aspirationformation is directly related to the size of a potential student'sfamily, Stage and Hassler (1989) tbund that the extent towhich parents save for and talk about college is related inver-sely to the number of their children currently attending col-kge. Also, Bishop (1977) found that the probability of collegeattendance is related inversely to the number of siblings apotential student has.

However, Bishop (1977) used controls fix institutional andenvironmental factors in his model, and Conklin and Dailey's11981) study measured and used controls to test the effectsof the most student characteristics. Clearly, more research isneeded before one can reach a dependable conclusion aboutthis relationship. A dependable conclusion about the effectof family size on college aspiratkni would be of great practicalimportance for market segmentation and pomible enhance-ment of recruitment yield.

Parental encouragementIn spite of the statistically significant effects on college aspi .ratkm fiirmation of the abiwe factors, "parental encourage-ment" has emerged consistently as the most influential. Sewelland Shah (1978) examined the effect on college aspiration

irmation of student socioecimomic status, aptitude, and parental encouragement. The socioeconomic status variable wasa composite of factors: parental education, family income andwealth, funds available for college, and the degree of sacrificecollege expenditures would cause.

They found that student repons regarding amount of parental encouragement was more important than any other factor when it came to influencing the fixmatkni of college aspirations. A review of related literature readied a similarcimdusion (Spenner and Featherman 1978, p. 392 ). Ahotlwrreport made what is clearly a suggestkm fix parents to startearly to pr(miote college aspiratk Hi in children:

Parental encouragement is a pouvrful bum 'en ingbetuven socioeconomic clam background and intelligencer)f the child and hi's educatioual apirations. . . . Becauseparental encounigement is a socialpsycbologicalit is presionaM, subject to modification by means of cormsoling direckd at parents or parents and chiklren, I die rou

the chikh intelligence and family socioeconomic status arelikely to be mare difficult to influence at this point in thechikIc deivlopment (Sewell and Shah 1978, p. 571).

The interpersonal influences of significant others on collegeaspiration were itwestigated creatively by Davies and Kande!(1981) in a study of 762 matched adolescent.parentbestfriend triads. They found that parental aspirations for theirchildren were more influeluial than peer aspirations in shap-ing their chikk colkge plans. l'Aith selreported parentalaspirations and adolescent perception of parental aspirationhad important effects on college aspiratkin, VIhile adolescentperceptions of parental aspirations were more important thanself repined parental aspirations, the former were directlyinfluenced by the latter.

Of course, parental aspirations were determined partiallyhy tit yjocconomic status and their child's academic achievemem. In their model, the

direct effects of parental aspirations fon adolescent c.olkweaspimtions/ are gronger than the effect of any other vari-able . . . . . are approximately equal to the standardized effects (f academic performance( Davies and Kandel1981, p. 3'3).

Conklin and Dailey ( 1981 studied the effects of parentalencouragement on college plans in a longitudinal design.They questumed high scht x 1 students during their freshmen,mph( )111( we, and senitir years. They were interested panicularly in the timing, nature, and consistemy t>fparentalenctmragement to attend .ollege over the high schtiol years.

A particular innovatit Hi ()I their study was the use of a"taken fot granted" ('rR ; ) variable. Students were asked thefollowing quest ion in the 9th, 10th, and 12th grades:

sal' !hill your /hone it ho been just abouttaken pi?. "moiled that .11)11 Will continue your educationafter you ,4e1 out of high schooR (Conklin and !)jiley 1981,r 2)

MM.'S it Hilil IX' 'FR; 311li consistently Positive (",.t.'s- atall three IN )ints in time): "IVG hut consistently negative ( -no"all three times): or MIXIA ( -yes,- "no," or "don't know"

/ hind/men/ Behai 'or

55

responses at different times). Of those answering "yes" con.sistently, 90.2 percent ended up attending college. Of thoseanswering "no" consistently, only 21.6 percent attended col-lege, while of those with mixed responses, 55.4 percentattended college (p. 257).

The most recent study of college aspiration formation isa study of 9th graders and their parents (Stage and Hossler1989). The researchers found that in determining a potential9th grader's postsecondary educational aspiration, "parents'expectations (p. 301) was the strongest positive influence onstudents' aspiration for both males and females" (p. 308).

The standardized path coefficients for this factor were atlemt five times as great as any other factor in their model. Anaikiitional noteworthy feature of the study was the researchers'attempt to model what factors lead parents to save for college.Although they did not find this variable to be significantlyrelated to early educational aspiration formation, it may bethat parental saving behavior at that time still may be relatedto the probability of attendance at a later elate.

Since this is an important beginning of what could becomean important piece in the puzzle of college choice behavior,more research in this area should be strongly encouraged.

Practical implications. Perhaps the main implication ofresearch on parental encouragement and college aspiratkmis that it is so important that we must strive to find new waysof early intervention into the college aspiration formation pro-cess. 'fliese shoukl fixlis on influencing parental aspiration,expectatk in, and encouragement regarding their children'scollege plans. lit Av many pc Aential students wc mid be goingto college if it were not for the lack of this critical parentalaspiration and encouragement?

contextual factors: neighborhoodBoth the statu.s of a student's neighborl.00d and the statusof his or her high schcrol are directly related to the formationof college aspiratknis (Nelson 1972; Sewell and Armer 1966).lowever , these relat ionships are mimewhat complex and

involve interactk nis among several (ither variables.ResearcherS hypothesized that

the so( toeconomic status of the high school district sinceprvsulnably n'fleac the shared ?toms and aspira(ions of

3 t)

its memberswould hail, ass important effect on tI.7ccational aspirations of its,VOsilb OVOr and above that of fain .ily socioeconomic status or individual ability (Sewell andArmer 1966, p. 162).

The researchers found that when sex, intelligence, and indi-vidual sockwconomic status are controlled for, the variatitmin college aspiration explained by neighb(ninx.xl status waspositive, but rather small because it interacted with the othervariables related to college aspiration formatkm. Theyexplained that

lower status neighborhoods also has.e a disproportion offemales, students from knrer socioeconomic status families,and students of lower measured intelligence land! eacbof these umild tend to reduce the proportfini of those planning on college (Sewell and Armer 1966, pp. 163. 4).

Of course, the effect of being female on college aspiratkmformation has changed since that study was conducted. Torecognize this, one need only note that there are now morewomen than men attending college.

A int we comprehensive model fOund that when controlsare used for family miciovconomic background, academic ability, sex, college preparattry curriculum, and class rank, theeffects of the high sduml attended still were positive and significant.Ifowever. when "significant others' influence Iparents, teachers, and friends] is added to the equations for aspirations and attainment, the net effects of sditxils are reducedto statistically insignificant contributions" (flauser et al. 197(,p. 322).

It is noteworthy thm an analysis of the eflects of high sehoolstatus has hrought us back to an emphasis on the importanceof parental encouragement in the procem of kgming colkgeaspirations.

Race and its effectIn additk in to the general finding that blacks are less likelythan whites to aspire to attend college (Thttle 1981), thereappears to be an interesting interaction between race and thecausal pattern by which college aspirations are t wmed. Variables which appear early in the causal sequence are usefulfor explaining the ft irmatit m of college aspirations among

-tidenhinding Snidcw Hind/mem Behavior

tbevariableswhich appearto affectaspirationformationamong blacks

. arefactorswhich can beinfluenced byfocuset4early, andcontinuousintermintion.

whites, while blacks seem to rely more exclusively on var-iables which appear later in the causal sequence of aspiratkmformation (Kerckhoff and Campbell 1977; Portes and Wilson1976).

Essentially, whites seem to be influenced by all of the earlyfactors and some of the later ones, while blacks appear to beinfluenced by none of the early factors and all of the later fac.tors. For example, Portes and Wilson (1976) found that whilesocioeconomic status factors and academic aptitude arerelated directly to the educational aspirations of whites, theyare unrelated to the educational 'aspirations of blacks.

College aspirations among blacks were related directly toacademic achievement in school, the influence of significant(Alms (parents, teachffs, and friends), and self esteem.Achievement and significant others' encouragement, but notselesteem, were important in determining educational Ispiration tor whites.

Practical implications"fhe most important implicatitm of the findings is that the variables which appear to affect a.spiration tOrmation amongblacks (achievenwnt in schi)ol, encouragement of significantothers, and self esteem) are factors which can be influencedby fix:used, early, and unitinuous intervention. Our educatk mai system can and shoukl influence high school achievement, encouragement by signiP --ant others, and sdf esteemto encourage both blacks and whites to desire to attendcolkge.

Clearly, these are areas in which teachem parents, counselors, and college recruiters have a chance to make adifference.

Search and Applicationsometime after college aspirin k nis are formed, St Udents enterthe phase of the college choice proct'Sti which may bc reknedto as "search and application." in this phase, potential students begin to seek and acquire intOrmation about collegesthey may cc inskler attending. They seek intOrmation regardingthose institutional characteristics that are particularly important tl) them in determining which colleges to consider.

They seek and acquire such information from what theyperceive to be the most dependable, and therefore trustVk ()I-thy. sources. Search and applicatit Hi behavhirs are carried

5 3

Out .itccording to a somewhat predictable timing sequenceand with varying degrees of commitment, depth, and breadthof effort.

This phase ends when a student has decided to apply tocertain particular institutions, often called the application,or "choice set" (Jackson 1982, p, 239). These institutions canbe characterized in terms of such attributes as selectivity, cost,distance from home, control (public or private), level (two.year or four-year), and size.

In the final phase of the college choice processselectfimand attendancestudents apply evaluation criteria to ch(x)seone institution from their choices at which to matriculate.

But, as a researcher reminds us, during the search and application phase, while students are searching for institutfims,institutions are searching for .students. During the 1970s and1980,s, the "emphasis in admissions" has shifted from "selection" to "recruitment" (Chapman 1981. p. 491). For effectiverecruitinent, enrollment managers need to have a firm graspof the timing and nature of the search pnwess, which infiwmelon sources are preferred, and which institutional characteristics are most important when a student decides whichcollege or colleges to apply to.

This section of the report examines among other items thenature of these processes and fact( irs in general, as well asthe ways they vary acc()rding to individual student characteristics. An effective marketing mix tiw a college involves devel()ping and offering an attractive pr(xlict, effectively c()mmunicating and promoting its attributes, and delivering it inappropriate places at acceptable prices (Kotler and Fox 1985,pp. 153 154; Liken et al. 1983, p

Student characteristks can serve a.s ha.ses for market identificatk in and segmentatfim so that a college can talk w andtarget its marketing mix to the particular student markets itwishes to serve effectively.

While the search a applicalum phase pn)hably !las

received tlw least research attention of the three phases( I hissler, Braxu in, and Co( persmith 1989. p. 2491, studentseliminate many institutions from consideration in this phase.In fact. Jackson calls this phase the "exclusit in- phase ( 1982,p. 239). For this reast n. as well a.s the fact that it is a perk xiof great potential for inkwmation exchange and interactionbetween institution and student. ii may well he that -the lutistcritical phase is the sarch phase. The hest way fc w institutions

lilItIValfaing [MI /itlIal

to expand their applicant pool is to reach students at thesearch phase" (Hoss ler and Gallagher 1987, p. 218).

'the search and application phase will be examined fromfour different perspectives. These include the timing andnature of the process, the institutional characteristics or attrib-utes considered important by students, preferred informationsources, and the characteristics of the institutions chosen. Thestudies consulted here are broad in scope in the sense thattheir databases and findings are not institution.specific.

Understanding Search and ApplicationUnderstanding the timing and nature of students' collegesearch processes is important in fornlulating guidelines forthe effective timing and tailoring of the promotkm of a ct l.lege's marketing mix.

Gilmour et al. (1978) interviewed high school seniors andcollege freshmen in Pennsylvania. While students' earliestthoughts about attending college began for most when theywere in grade school, the decision to go to college was madeprimarily in either the sophomore or junior year of highschool ( p. 14). Probably as a result of the PSAT exams in thefall, or the SAT exams in the spring, 72 percent of the studentsbegan to develop "college lists" during their junior year( p. 16 ). kw 66 percent of the students, the actual applicationprocem began in the following fall (p. 20).

A k mgitudinal study of the search and applicatit Hi processincluded an interview of high school seniors every other weekthroughout their senior year. The study described the searchand application process in terms of "alternatives" ( insutulions), "fackws" ( institutional characteristics ( w attributes),and "generators" (information sources) (Lewis and Morrison1975, pp.

Nine of 13 college choice activities related to the searchand application phase: consult source; source pn wick's newschocil; source pmvides infc mint HI; evaluate source IAA'tiveness; add scluxil; dnip sclux)l; add facuir; evaluate school;apply to school.

Mullen; Lburacteristksresearchers rep( wt differences in the timing and nature

of search and applicatkin have been observed by l'ace, SCX,and aptitude of the student. Blacks request nu we int.( inflation,ct msult inure intiwination sources, consider more institutions

6 U

_V

and more institutional characteristics than whites (lkwis andMorrison 1975, p. 41). Women start and finish the search andapplication process earlier, and make more applications thanmen (Lewis and Morrison 1975, p. 41). Students with higheraptitude begin thinking about college earlier, apply earlier,and consider a larger number of schools (Gilmour et al., 1978,pp. 16-22).

Institutional characteristicsClearly, the timing of the college student search process offersimportant guidance for the tailoring of a college's marketingmix promotion. However, an understanding of which insti-tutional characteristics are nu)st influential in determiningwhich colleges students apply to offers important guidelinesfor the development of the programs, prices, and places whichmake up an optimum marketing mix ibr attracting desiredstudents.

Probably the most comprehensive and generalizable studyin this area is the major survey of 3,000 high school seniorsin six large metropolitan areas conducted by Litten and Brodigan (1982). They asked students to examine a list of 25 institutional characteristics and gave them the followinginstruction:

From the I& of institutional characterictics listed below,please rate them accmding to /heir importance to .1011 indeciding which colkges or universities .you have applied to orwill apm, tu ( Litten and Brodigan 1982, p. 248).

By drawing the students' attend( in specifically to the application prtx.ess, the researchers fix:used the question and theresponses on th(ise particular institutional characteristics considered inirxinant during the search and applicatkin pha.seOf the choice process. Students responding gave highest ranking to financial, fields of study, general academic reputation,locatkin, social atmosphere, faculty teaching reputation, academic standards, and careers to which college might lead (1.itten and Br(digan 1982, p. 250 ).

Although different terminology was used, those findingsare quite consistent with th()se of earlier studies. For exampk,Lewis and Morrison found six characteristics most frequentlyutilized to evaluate institutions: special academic pRigrams,

I 'MATSU/siding Snide ?II dinkl Beharw,r

f; I

cost, location, size, general reputation, distance from home(1975, pp. 29-30).

Another researcher found that the most important collegeattributes throughout all of the phases of the college choiceprocess were cost, location, programs, and quality (Gilmouret al. 1978, pp. 19-22).

Based on a survey of students at six Milwaukee highschools, Murphy found the most important attributes to beacademic reputation, cost, location, distance, and size (1981,p. 146). More than 1,000 high school students were surveyedin Pennsylvania and New York. The seniors were asked to listtheir most important reasons for selecting an institution ofhigher education. The factors receiving the highest rating wereacademic reputation, educational programs, relatives, financiala.ssistance, and distance from home (Leslie, Johnson, and Carl.son 1977, p. 283).

Probably the four institutional characteristics of pivotalimportance in the college search process are programs, qual.ity, cast, and location (lhlanfeldt 1980, p. 31).

Institutional characteristics: student variations. Someevidence indicates that the most imixrtant institutional char.acteristics in the search and application process vary accordingto a number of student characteristics.

Sex. Lewis and Morrison (1975) observed that while womentend to cite the most important characteristics (above) withrelatively equal frequency, men are more likely to emphasizeprograms or costs (p. 41). Women also are more likely thanmen to rate residential life as important (Litten 1982, p. 391).

Race. Blacks tend to consider a broader range of character .istics than whites when evaluating institutions. They also tendu) emphasize the importance of costs much more than whiteskwis and Morrison 1975, p. 38). Blacks also show more

interest in the social background of students at a college, andare "more likely than whites to rate financial aid Is veryimportant ( Litten 1982, p. 390).

Parental educational level. Students whose parents havehigh educational attainment are more likely to emphasize theimportance of pu)grams and high academic standards, andless likely to show concern about costs (Gilmour et al. 1978,

pp. 20, 22, 25; lAtten and Brodigan 1982 p. 256). Also, the"higher the level of parental education, the greater the interest

-An the social backgrouqs of students . . and in extracurric-ular activities," while kiiver parental education is associated

, with more interest in "rules and regulations affecting students,and the careers to which the college might lead" (Linen 1982,

>

p. 395).

Income. 1A)w -income students tend to rate "financial assis-tance" as significantly more important than either middle orhigh.income students (LeslieJohnson, and Carlson 1977,p. 283). A "higher proportion of low-income than middle andhigh-income students cite aid as being instrumental in theircollege attendance plans" (p. 280).

Parental preferences. The preferences of students' parentsregarding the importance of certain college attributes havea strong influence on the role of institutional characteristicsin the search and application process, a researcher Observed.Parents

generally defined dm cost, gtiographic, and quatity boundaries u,ithin which /their chiklren] Uwe to remain in makingtheir college seleaion. . . . landJ this boundary setting had asubtk but pervasive effect throughout . . . the college se;vctionprocess (Gilmour et al., p. 15).

Religion. Religious preference appears to influence the perceived importance of sc)me college characteristics. Kw example, Catholics tend to indicate a relatively higher interest infinancial concerns and a lesser concern for academic standards. Members of the Jewish faith tend to show much less thanaverage interest in. or concern with, finances ( Wen and Brodigan 1982, p. 256 ).

Ethnic background. Region of a student's Origin also ticelllsto have a bearing on which attributes are most important. Midwesterners show greater concern for financial matters thanstudents from either coast, and Easterners are particularly concerned about academic standards issues ( Linen and Brodigan1982, p. 256 ).

I indentanding FM41111011 Be/.4411()?*

63

T.rr.

50

Academic ability. The higher die academic ability of a stu-dent, the greater the concern about academic standards, pro.gram offerings, and awareness of "net cost" rather than just"price," and the lesser the concern al)out career outcomes,campus appearance, and financial matters (Litten 1982,pp. 392-.393; Litten and Brocligan 1982, p, 256), There is alsosome evidence that high ability students tend to have muchbroader geographic limits regarding the search and applica-tkmivocess (Gilmour et al, 1978, p. 19; Zemsky and Oedel1983, p, 34),

Information sourcesEffective student marketing and recruitment requires that themost important institutional characteristics in a college's mar-keting mix be clearly and effectively communicated to desiredstudents in target markets. 'lb promote the college's marketingmix cfleetively, it helps if college officers are aware of howstudents' rrf'6::" :o receive intimation.

The six-market study of Linen and Brodigan kientifks themost preferred information sources for l)oth students and par-ents in the search prtwess. It also links these preferred sourcesto each of the eight college attributes which the study ratedas most important (1982, pp. 252-254).

'fable 3 lists the eight college attributes which the studyrated as most important in the search and application process.Parents and students identified the same factors as important.They agreed on the order of the first twofinancial and fieldsof study offered. -but did not agree on the order of importance for the remaining five attributes.

"lith le 3 presents a number of noteworthy features. First,With only one exception, student ,. and parents identify thesame six most preferred information sources: admissknis Officers, cc)llege publications, high school counsell ws, commercialguides, alumni. and college students. The one exception isthat parents would add college faculty to the preferred listand students woukl not

Second, except for teaching quality and academic standards,students and parents identify the same preferred intimationsources aknit each college attribute.

Third, parents are more likely to seek advice from alumniabtkit teaching quality, while studous prefer to rely on highschool counselors.

Founh, parents are twice as likely as students to identifyfaculty as a preferred source of information about academic

4111.a.1111

; "-=

TABLE 3

PREFERRED INFORMATION SOURCESBY COLLEGE ATIRIBUTE

Preferred Information Sources

College Attributes Studetus AIMS1. Financial

2. Fields of Study

3, Academic

Reputation

Teaching Quality

5, Academic

Standards

6. lAration

7. Social Atmosphere

H. Czeers

Admissions Officer Admissions Officer

College Publications College Public.

College Publitations College Public.

Admi:sions Officer Admissions Officer

11.5. Coimselor H.S. Counselor

CA nmercial Guides Commercial Guides

Alumni Alumni

H.S. Counselor Alumni

College Students College Students

HS. Counselor Alumni

Col* Students Admissions Officer

College Faculty

College Publications

College Students

Alumni

College Students

Alumni

Admissions Officer

College Public.

College Students

Alumni

C.ollege Students

Alumni

Admissions Officer

standwd.s, while students prefer to discum this with highscF.00l counsekds.

Fifth, the important college attributes rmst widely citedin the literaturecost, pr()grams, quality, and locat k n LI xrespond to attributes 1 thnnigh 6 from the above list. Withthe exception of quality concerns, students and parents agreeon their most preferred information sources ( litten and Brodigan 1982, pp. 251 255 ).

Linen and fin Kligan's excellent contributions have two P.ticularly important practical implicatkins.

1. Since much evidence indicates that both students and parems take on consumer roles in college.going decisionmaking (Murphy, 19K1), it is important for effective swdent marketing and recruitment to understand what informatkm sources are preferred regarding each attribute byNMI students and parents.

Vriderstanding .tiiudoit Bilrollniesil Behavior 5

ti 5

52

Since both groups take part in consumer decision-making,enrollment managers must be prepared to communicate andclearly represent the most important attributes of their mar-keting mix using the most preferred and effective informationsources for each group. This study provides fundamentalguidelines for effectively communicating appropriate infor-mation by appropriate means to each group.

2. This is the only major study which has differentiatedamong the most preferred information sources for eachof the most important college attributes in the search andapplication process.

Enrollment managers now have guidance regarding whichinformation sources arc likely to be the most effective mediafor presenting and promoting each of the distinct features oftheir marketing mix of college attributes.

Readability of media sources. College publications appearto be among the most preferred sources of information, Forthese to be accurate and effective information media, the read-ing level should be consistent with that of the typical college-hi high school senior. Also, the terminology used toexplain academic, admissions, and financial aid policiesshoukl he readily understamlable.

Johnson and Chapman (1')79 ) examined the reading leveland understandability of teominology in 42 college catak)gsselected through a random sampling pro wedure accc)rdingto institutk)nal type. They found that the average level of read-ing in the catalogs "was appmpriate to 'an advanced collegestudent or co dlege graduate" (pp. 313 314). When comparedto national norms,

catalogues froni all Opes of instillaions are written al (4 leVeltoo diffkult for their clientele . . . land/ research universilyCalah#411(W Were significantly mor(' difficult than those Ofthe Metal arts colleges ( Johns( ni and Chapman 1979,P. 314).

The autho )rs also) o)bserved that

students are often unfamiliar with the meanin,q of the lie(la1 l'ocalnikity used by those uho admis.sions mate

t;

. fandl suggest that colleges need to evonitw theirrecruitment literature for its level of presentation, as wellas for its content"(pp. 316, 318).

Other studies of information sources have resulted in findings generally consistent with those of Litten and Brodigan(1982). Leslie, Johnson, and Carlson found the five most pre .

ferred sources of information about college attributes werecollege publications, admimions officers, parents, college students, and high school counselors (1977, p. 283).

Eight information sources which students indicate theymast frequently rely on were identified in another study.These included writing for infbrmation, campus visits, highschool counsehrs, college publications, college students,admisskms officers, parents, friends (Lewis and Mc)rrison 1975,pp. 27.28).

Gilmour et al observed frequent student use of the fol-lowing four sources: high schotA counselors, commercialguides, campus visits, writing for information ( 1978, pp. 16,20).

The studies seem to suggest that, in general, the most prefined sources of information about college attributes in thesearch and application phase include admissions officers, col-lege publications, high school counselors, alumni, collegestudents, commercial guides, campus visits, and parents. Someevidence indicates that the preferred information sources mayvary according to tionle student characteristics including sex,race, parental educatkm, income, and academic ability.

While men and women utilize college catalogs and campusvisits with similar frequency, women tend to seek the adviceof L.( )llege students more than men do, while men rely moreon high school ctiunselors than women do (Lewis and Mot..rison 1975, pp. 40 41). Blacks appear to ct insult a greatervariety of informatitin sources than whites do. Also, the prkties they hold with respect to the most preferred informationsources differ as indicated in the following lists;

PREFERRED INFORMATION SOURCESWhitesWriting for Int.( trmalkCampus Visits1 ligh Sao( CounsekCullt..ge CatalogsParents

BlacksCampus VisitsAdmissions Offk co,Writing for InformtionColk.ge StudentsCollegc Catalogs

Blacks appearto consult a,greaterunlety ofinformationsomves thanwbitm do.

'ndenlanding .11iident 1:nru4lmen1

(3 7

.'"'.-C-7-`,

'IWo particular points of interest in this comparison are thatblacks tend to acquire more information than whites directlyfrom colleges through either campus visits or visits by admis-sions officers to high schools. Blacks also receive less infor-mation than whites from high school counselors and parents.The relative reliance on parents for information is directlyrelated to the educational attainment of the student's parents(lexis and Morrison 1975, pp. 36-37).

Students with higher levels of parental education tend torely more on their parents for information and less on highschool counselors. Such students also are more inclined touse commercial guidelvoks, campus visits, admissions offic-ers, and alumni. Students with lower parental educationdepend more on the advice of high school counselors andunrequested publications (Gilmour et al. 1978, pp. 16,20;litten 1982, pp. 393-394). Students at higher income levelsalso tend to depend more on their parents for information,while lower-income studentS more often consult with highschool counselors ( Leslie, Johnson, and Carlson 1977, p. 283)..

Attributes of student college cboicest student variationsDuring the search process, students often follow predictabletiming and activity sequences while acquiring informationabout important college attributes from preferred sources.From these they form a "choice set" of institutions to whichthey will apply. There is now considerable evidence that spe .dfic characteristics of the chosen institutions interact with andvary according to various student characteristics.

If college officers understand the relatkmships betweenstudent and institutional characteristics and how they formstudent choices, they can develop more effective communi-cation and promote a inure appropriate marketing mix to themost desired students in target markets. Ultimately this canenhance student.institution fit.

This section reviews and integrates the findings of a numberof studies which have found significant relationships betweenvarious sets of institutional and student characteristics.

The ti)lkming institutional characteristics:selectivity (quality), cost, distance from home, control(public, private), and level (two-year, fouryear ),

have been found to have significant relationships with the

following student characteristics:sex, race, parental education, income, parental encourage .

ment, aptitude, achievement, college preparatory highschool curriculum, and college aspirations.

One of the first researchers to condua a comprehensiveinvestigatkm of the relationships between student and institutkm posed the question Is follows:

Students' amdicatiorts tend to resemble each other.. , land)this bornogerwity pennus me to ask whether a student's op/cal amgicationdefined here as a construct collew withcharacteristks equal to the nwan of the applicant's choices'characteristrt.s--is related to his or bcn other characteristics(Jackson 1978, p. 561).

Studies regarding application to or attenoance at highly

selective institutions, high-cost institutions, institutions at

greater distances from home, private or public institutions,and four-year or two-year institutions, reveal the following

five general relationships.

1. rin individual is more likely to amily to, or attend, a more

highly selecti e institution

the student is male (Hearn 1984the student is white (Rosenfeld and Hearn 1982).

students' parents have greater educational attainment(Tierney 1984; Zemsky, Shaman, and Berberich 1980).student family income is greater (Jackson 1978; Zemsky

and Oedel, 1983).student academic aptitude is greater (I learn 1984 ).

student academic achievement is greater (Zemsky, Sha

man, and lierberich 1980).the student a college preparattny curriculum

in high school (Jackson 1978).student educational aspirations are higher (Z:.nisky and

Ocdel 1983).

2. /in individual is more 10 apply Iu or auerid, a high

(Ds/ ins/elution uhen the:studem is kmale ( Hearn 1984).student is not white ( I learn 1984).

1 'ridenhonling Eandlineril Behavior

students' parents have greater educational attainment(Heam 1984; Tierney 1984).student's family income is greater (Hearn 1984; Zemskyand Oedel 1983).student's academic aptitude is greater (Jackson 1978; Tier-ney 1984).student academic achievement is greater (Hearn 1984;Zemsky and Oedel 1983).student followed a college preparatory curriculum in highschool (Jackson 1978).student educational Ispirations are higher (Hearn 1984).

At this point it seems worthwhile to "hear and see" whatseveral prominent scholars have observed about the findingsin these studies. As Jat kson points out, the relationships leadone to think that "students preselect colleges, which limitsthe extent to which college characteristics can change stu-dents' minds" (1978, p. 561). Another researcher developsthis hypt)tht:.-iis more fully:

'I'he basic themes of students institutional choices may my'it'll be establislied far in (avarice of ciaind colloie appli-cations . . landl student anel parent perceptions,arid knouledgeability about colliNe attendance and castsmay take on distincthv shapes for different classes andraces as wok as the tenth grade, and those differences may,in turn, prodoce differences in families'specific planningactilities re,qarding college (tlearn 1984, p. 29).

Zcmsky and Oedel express the concept succinctly in saying,"Our own experiences, our conversations with admissionsofficers, and the data we have derived .. . all point to a .singleconcluskm: the patterns of college choice are stitched deeplyinto the social and economic fabric of the nation" (1983,P. 41).

The ultimate implicaticms, or result, of the "preselection"hypothesis from a stxiological perspective may be that "inthe high school to college transition, the academically andsocioeconomically 'rich' become richer ( ie. attend schoolshaving superior intellectual and material resources), whilethe academically and stick wctinomkally 'pt >or' becomeptxirer" (1 learn, 1984, p. 28 ).

Of course, much research has indicated that institutionalcharacteristics do influence student college choice behavior.Their influence still may be limited with respect to some stu-dents' behavior due to the permive influence of socioeco-nomic and academic background factors on college aspirationformation and the search and application phases of the col-kge choice process. In spite ofJackson's "preselection"hypothesis, his research led him to conclude that one insti-tutional characteristic able to modify such patterns of predes-tination in college choice "is the award of financial aid" (1978,p. 567).

It also is interesting to observe that ascriptive characteristics,such as sex and race, reduce the likelihml of a student apply-ing to and attending highly selective institutions. However,they do not ;educe the likelihood that students will apply toand attend high-cost institutions (Hearn 1984, pp. 25, 27).

Some possible explanations for this may be that (a) femalesare more likely than males to obtain scholarships when theirincomes are low, (b) nonwhites have a greater chance of get-ting scholarships at all income levels and at all but the highestG.PA levels, and (c) scholarship awards are more often madeto reduce financial burdens of college than to reward highschool acadeinic achievement (I3lakemore and Low 1983,pp. 510-511).

3. An inditidual is more likely to apply to and attend aninstitution located a greater distance from home uhen the:

student is male (Rosenk.kl and I learn 1982).studenr.s parents have greater educational attainment(Tierney 1984 ).student family inct file is higher (Gilmour et al. 1978).student academic aptittide is higher (ihlanfeldt 1980).student academic achievement is higher (Zemsky, Shaman. and lierberich 1980; Zemsky and Oedel 1983 ).student educational aspirations are higher (Zemsky andOedel 1983).

4. Art indnulnal is more likely to apply to and attend a private institution rather than a public instindiun when the:

student is female (I ,senfeld and I learn 1982 ).

11,0er-standing .studon EnrOlment nelkiroir 5 7

1111,

4.3

student's parents have greater educational attainment(Tierney 1984; Zemsky and Oedel, 1983).student's family income is higher (Zemsky, Shaman, andBerberidi 1980).student academic aptitude is higher (lhlanfeldt 1980; Tier.ney 1984).student academic achievement is higher (Zemsky andOedel 1983).student educational aspirations are higher (Zemsky andOedel 1983).

5. An inditiidual is more likely to alply to and attend afour year institution when the:

student's parents have greater educational attainment(Zemsky and Oedel 1983).student family income is higher (Zemsky and Oedel1983),studem's parental encouragement is stnmger (Conklinand Dailey 1981),student academic aptitude is higher (Bowen 1982;Zemsky and Oedel 1983).student educational aspirations are higher (Zemsky and()cdel 1983 ).

Implications for marketingA college's marketing mix is made up of the nature and quillity of products. the L.ommunication and prong ikm of theattributes of its prIx.lucts, the times and places it offers them,and their prices. This section of the report has several aims:It identifies pr.( )duct attributes and the sources of promotionalint.( wmat ion that are most important to students in the colkgechoice process, explains the ways pn)duct attributes and infor-mation sources vary according to specific characteristics ofstudents, and analyzes the ways in which the critical characteristics of colleges vary according to specific studentcharacteristics.

'nderstanding the relal k mships is very importam for effec-tive student marketing and recruitment, which is essentiallya process of generat:ng exchanges of value between studentsand a college. Effective and appropriate exchange takes placewhen students perceive that the particular marketing mixoffered by a college has the potential to help them nieet

Aer

Important personal and professional goals. A greater under-

. :.:standing of these general relationships can guide a College

toward a better understanding of how students with sPecific

.iiilaracteriStics in the college's current markets are likely to

asSess the vatious components of the college's current mar-

Icptingihe characteristics of the students a college is currently

:trying to recruit indicate that they are likely to be attracted

thecharacteristics of the college's current marketing mix?

.:.1f there is a significant mismatch, then the college must either:

-".(a) seek students with characteristics indicating that they will

4 be attracted to characteristics of the current marketing mix,

'or (b) adjust the marketing mix so that it will be attractive

to students possessing the attributes it would prefer to see

in its student body. No college can be all things to all people,

but each college must seek to be all things to some people

(Grabowski 1981, p. 16).

Selection and AttendanceSometime after potential students have applied to and been

accepted by the colleges of their choice, they evaluate the

institutions on their acceptability in terms of the college attrib-

utes most important to them. The important socioeconomic,

academic, and contextual background characteristics of stu.

dents (which had a pervasive influence on the formation of

their college aspiratkms) influenced and interacted signi-

ficantly with institutional characteristics, almost to the point

of preselection, in determining student college choices.

In the selection and attendance phase, these student char-

acteristics remain important a.s they "play a role in students'

rating schemes, largely by serving Is criteria for evaltP.-1,-

the attributes of colleges as students make their 6( 4.-

son 1982, p. 241). At this stage of the college choice 't

students' ratings of college attributes are the "decidi.

in selecting one institution to attend.

Thus, the enrollment decision is interactional, depe.k;'1

On both the attributes of the student and the characteristi::y

of the institutions the studentperceives to be in his or her

choice wt (flossier 19144, p. 32).

Studies of this final phase ofthe college choice pnrcess usu

ally have been conducted from the perspectiv.. of individual

'Wel-Minding Niuder41 Eurollnwut

73

59

*..

6

colleges seeking to determine which institutional attributesare significant in distinguishing between those admitted, uppllcants who matriculate and those who do not. They rely oninstitutkm-specific databases often developed by the college's;institutional research oradmissions offices. Maguire and layexplain that such.research is best conducted "by analyzingcollege choice for one school, with a set populationaccepted applicants and at a single.point in time, the timeof final college choice" (1981, p. 124).

lible 4 summarizes the findings of 10 representative studiesregarding which frequently-cited college attributes signifi-cantly distinguished between matriculation and nonmatric-ulation at particular institutions in the final seketion andattendance phase of the college choice process. These studieswere selected because ot' their representativeness and thecomprehensive breadth of methodological approaches repres-ented among them. They also examine student college selec .

lion behavior at a variety of institutions including Boston Col-lege, Carnegie-Mellon, Carleton College, Mid-City College,seven Ohio universities, Northea.stern University, 'Rifts Uni-versity, nine New York area colleges and universities, Rutgers,and John Carroll University.

In the studies, the attributes which were found most oftenio determine where students decided to enroll included the1()Ilowing;

I. Cost (Kuntz 1987; 'rerkla and Wright 1986).2. Financial Aid (Seneca and laussig 1987; Welki and Navratil

1987).3. Programs (Maguire and Lay 1981; Peny and Rumpf 1984).1. Size (Dembowski 1980; Linen 1979; Seneca and "iliussig

1987).

Location (Cook and Zallocco 1983; Kuntz 1987; Terklaand Wright 1986).

6, Quality ( Dembowski 1980; linen 1979: Welki and Navratil1987).

7. social Atmosphere' (Kuntz 1987; Perry and Rumpf 1984;Terkla and Wright 1986).

8. Athletics (Maguire and Lay 1981; Welki and Navratil 1987).9. Religious Empha.sis (Kuntz 1987; Maguire and lay 1981).

10. Jobs Available (Perry and Rumpf 1984; Welki and Navratil1987).

7

TABLE 4

'SELECTION AND ATTENDANCE STUDIES

COLLEGE ATI'RIBUI

SMDIES YRCook/Zalk xto 83Chapman, H. 79Dembovski 80Kuntz 87[ken 79Maguire/lay 81Perry/IlumpfSenecatlaussig 87

trkla/Wright 86Welki/Navratil 87

CI:0S.N0Z'I

1

A

1

I)

1)

It

GItAM

S

S'IQS1

E

0CA

I1

0N

11

A

I.

1

TY.

0CH1

AL

AK.'1,

I.

E

'1'

1

C

E0LI)1

GI

0N

S

X X X

X X X X

X X XX X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

The methodologies employed in these studies includedmultiple regression, logit and plobit estimation, multidimen-sional scaling, rankorder correlation analysis, factor analysis,and discriminant analysis. These statistical procedures wereused to examine the relationship between the matriculationor attendance decision and student ratings or other measuresof college attributes.

Market Research and Its RoleSince this report is limited to the study of student enrollmentbehavior and the college choice process, it does not coverspecific marketing, admissions, and recruitment activities andtactics. flowever, it is through the process and techniques ofacademic market research that student enn)llment behavkgis studied from the perspective of individual institutions. Thisqualities market research as an essential and important topicwhich is consistent with this report's purpose.

Many colleges have come to realize that effective applica-tkm of the marketing concept depends heavily on the wellplanned process of data collection and analysis called "marketresearch" ( lily and Endo 1987). l!sing an office of institutionalresearch can facilitate the implenwntation of an appropriate

)idersiimaing .sindeni hind/mem Behar .ito-

_ '47

0c academic market research process (Davis-Van Ma and Carrier

1986). Hossler places the process of institutional research atthe very top of his model of an "enrollment management sys.tem" (1984, p. 145).

What are some common ways in which institutions havesuccessfully implemented academic market research proce.dures? This section of the report tells how these have beenused to ident4 student markets and their competition, toinvestigate institutional image and relative market position,and to determine which college attributes best discriminatebetween matriculants and nonmatriculants among itsapplicants.

Market research in practice. Appropriate questionnairesto admitted applicants can provide much of the informationneeded for investigations on a college's market segments,competition, image, and market position. Although there aremany outstanding questionnaires currently in use, good illus-trations of this type are presented in litten, Sullivan and Brod.igan (1983, pp. 26473) and lhlanfeldt (1980, pp. 41-6).

The applicatkm of various forms of Automatic InteractionDewctor(A1D) procedures has made a most impressive contribution to the practice of market segmentation in the 1980s(Wakstein 1987). For example, lay, Maguire, and litten (1982)applied this routine to Boston College data on a variety ofstudent characteristics as well Is the students' ratings on 22attributes of the college. These student characteristics and stu-dent ratings of college attributes become variables which candivide students into higher and lower admisskmsyieldgroups, or market segments.

MD is a repeating procedure that begins with all admittedapplicants and then segments and further segments the stu-dents into increasingly detailed subsets according to a spec-ified criterion. At Boston College the criterion required selecting the segmentation variable at each repetition so it couldmaximize the admissions yield differences between groups,and also coukl split the scale of that variable at the pointwhere it achieved the maximum differences in admissionsyield between groups (lay. Maguire, and Litten 1982,pp. 198-9).

After each repetition, the procedure generates moredetailed, specific segments of admitted applicants based Oncomplex interactions between student chal'acteristics and stu-

7

.dent evaluations of college attributes, Each scgmem is iden....:.'tirted in terms of all the variable subsets which define it, in

tei'ms of its size, and in tetras of its admissions yieki (Lay,Maguire, and Litten 1982, p..206).

As a result of the highly intbrmative and useful AID.basedsegmentation, market strategy devekTment could followeither of two primary methods to

influence the number and mix of prospective applkants,find more students similar to those who presently exhibit highyield rates, or improve the yiekl rates of other groups throughpromotion, program develdpment, prking, or combinationsof thaw factors (lay, Maguire and Linen 1982, p. 203).

Boston college as a model. Using application overlap infor-mation from admissions data, lay and Maguire (1980) idol.titled Boston College's (BC) top 15 competitors, ranked bytheir number of common applicants, arranged them in threegroups according to "acceptance rates" (high, medium, andlow), and computed "draw rates" tbr each competitor.

The acceptance rale mmsures the percentage accepted atcinnpetitor schools after acceptance at BC.

High acceptance rates mean that competitor collegesaccept 70 percent or more of the students BC accepts;Medium acceptance rates accept between 30 and 70percent;Ltm acceptance rates accept 30 percent or less of the students BC accepts.

The draw raw is an adjusted ratio of the number ()Ismdents chix)sing BC after being accepted at both BC and a ci nupetitor, divided by the number clunising a competitor afterbeing accepted both there and by BC (Lay and Maguire 1980,p 56).

BC outdraws the six colleges in the "high acceptance" categiny by more than two to one, indicating that these may he"safety valve" colkges for students preferring BC. However,the three competitors in the "low acceptance" group greatlyoutdraw BC, suggesting that BC may be the safety optiim forthese colleges.

Finally, in the "medium acceptance- category, sonic of thesix t olleges do, and some do not, outdraw BC. These are its

Theapplicationof unionsforms ofAutomaticInteractionDetectorproceduresbas madea mostimpressiveam:rib:Wonto the practiceof mathetsegmentationin the 1980s.

I "In lerst and( Vudeni Enrullinew Behavirir 6.3

.

closest competitors. While comparison with the six collegesin the "high acceptance" categoty shows BC's strengths, thecollege needs to improve its image with respect to the"medium acceptance" six colleges. This could help BCimprove its market position regarding the college attributesmost important to potential students in making the decisionon where to matriculate (lay and Maguire 1980, pp. 56-7).

Students were asked to "evaluate Boston College andanother school (either their alternative choice or the schoolthey plan to attend) on 28 attributes" (lay and Maguire 1980,p. 54). Discriminant analysis identified seven attributes thatcould serve to distinguish most between students who =tic-ulated at BC and those who did not. These were financial aid,parents' preference, academic programs, size, location, athleticfacilities, and social activities (p. 58).

Comparing student ratings of the attributes for BC and itscompetitors suggests clearly the dimensions, or attributes,on which BC is perceived to be inferior or superior to its competitors. These can provide guides for ways BC might changeits marketing mix to enhance its competitive viability (pp.61 63).

Next, student ratings of the seven attributes for the top 25competitors were subjected to hierarchical duster analysis,The average ratings of students on all attributes serve as a

description of the typical studelit's image of each college.Cluster analysis merely arranges the colleges into groups

(clusters) according to the similarity of their images as per-ceived by prospective students. An interesting outcome wasthat the six colleges grouped with 13C were exactly the sameones identified as its closest competitors using draw rates andacceptance rates (lay and Maguire 1980, pp. 59-60). Theimages and relative market positions of these institutions onthe seven critical attributes can serve ati useful "referencepoints for planning" (p. 61) for student marketing and recruitment efforts.

Carleton College and its competitors. 16 investigate theimage and market 1)osition of Carleton compared to its com-petitors, a researcher examined admitted applicants' ratingsof Carleton and another sch(x)l (either their alternative choiceor the school they plan to attend) on 23 attributes. "Each institution was rated on a three-point scale (poor, good, very

64

good) and the rating of the competition was subtracted fromthe rating of Carleton ... for the relative ratings" (Wen 1979,pp. 70.71).

Multldinwnsional balance sheets were used to displayCarleton's image and market position compared to its cont.petition. Each balance sheet had a horizontal line, above andbelow which extended bars indicating the extent to whichCarleton WM rated as superior or inferior to competitors oneach attribute (pp. 70.75). These balance sheets providedclear profiles of Carleton's image compared to its competitionon a wide range of attributes characterizing its marketing mix.The displays provided evidence of relative strengths as wellas areas where work needs to be done to improve the matchor fit between Carleton's marketing mix and student preferences in selected regional markets.

At Pacific Lutheran University (PLU). In academic marketresearch, multklimensional scaling is applied to a variety ofmeasures of perceived similarity or dissimilarity of colleges.Leister asked samples of MI students and menthers of thelocal Ivague of Women Voters to rate each possible pair ina set of 12 institutions in western Washington state (probablecompetitors) in terms of the degree to which they perceivedthem to lie similar or dissimilar. Multidimensional scalingprocedures viere applied to the similarity ratings, yieldinga map which displayed and located similar institutions closetogether and dissimilar institutions farther apart. The mapclearly showed that P1.11's closest competition came from threeother private universities in the state, with s( nw additionalc()mpetition fiInn two major public universities (1975,pp. 390 -1).

At Yale University. Sternberg and Davis applied the samepn)cedures to geneiate a map expressing the ratings of Yale'sadmitted applicants and students regarding the similarity ordissimilarity of 17 institutions. They went one step farther byapplying hierarchical clustering to the similarity ratings. Thisgenerated till(Vestiive clusters of colleges, grouping the mostsimilar institutions in the first trial, adding the next most similar instituticms to each group in the. seelind trial, and so forth( 1978, p. 2MY

Yak. clustered first with iiarvard; next, they were groupedwith Princeton; and in the third trial Dartmouth, Brown, and

'nde).hwiding Mralent EnnillmenI itehailor 65

4

Cornell were added. These universities represent Yale's prin-cipal competitors.

A student's ideal college. Kuntz (1987) proposed that astudent's most preferred college could be predicted from thedegree of congruence between student ratings of attributesof various colleges and their own ratings of similar attributesat what would be that stuetent's "ideal" college. Students wereasked to provide ratings of the degree of similarity betweenall possible pairs of colleges, including each student's ideal,on a list of 18 college attributes. Students also were asked torank all colleges in the particular group, expressing their pref .erences regarding selection of a college to attend.

Multidimensional scaling was used to determine the relativesimilarity or dissimilarity of students' perceptions of attributesfor the colleges they chose to apply to and their ideal college.This showed the relative similarity or dissimilarity of all thecolleges, including the ideal. The students' similarity ratingsbetween each college in the group and their ideal collegewere found to be significantly related to students' actual rankordering of each college according to their relative desire toattend it (Kuntz 1987, p. 20).

In his consulting work, Ingersoll (1988) developed theNational Student Database as part of his efforts to help institutions examine their image. One creative approach he usesis based on what he calls the "image/tit ratio" (p. 97).

High school seniors are asked to rate various institutionson selected attributes. They also are asked to rate what wouldbe their "ideal college" on these attribute's as 'Tart of a moredetailed questionnaire ( Ingersoll 1988, pp. 253 ('31). 11w ratiosof auribute ratings fin. a particular college relative to an idealcollege help measure the degree of image fit (p. 98). Theseratk)s show a college the attributes on which it is wellreceived by p(Itential students, as well as the attributes theymay need to examine in terms of their nature, promotion,

appropriatenem.Some studies have used the semantic differential technique

to elucidate college images (Iluddleston and Karr 1982; Stern-berg and 1)avis 1978). Struckmanjohnson and Kinsley (1985)combine the use of the semantic differential teclmique ardthe c(incept of the ideal college.

Three groups cltisely associated with the I iniversity of SouthDakota ( I 'SD ) --area high school students, university students,

and university alumniwere asked to rate USD and their"ideal university" on a set of scales anchored with bipolardescriptors of key college attributes. This process generatedthree "image profiles" of USD, one for each of the threegroups. lt also generated a single image profile of the idealuniversity for all three groups combined (Struckman-Johnsonand Kinsley 1985, p. 321).

From the image profiles, the researchers were able to deter.mine that the three responding groups generally rated theirideal college higher on nearly all attributes, but agreed thatUSD "is an attractive school which prov:Jes a friendly, soda .

ble environment, gooci athletic facilities and strong professional and graduate school preparation (p. 325). Results alsoshowed that USD needs to improve in terms of admissionscompetitiveness, academic reputation, and job opportunities

upon graduation.

Qualitative approaches. During the past four cn. five years,

academic market researchers have begun to apply focusgroup

interviewing to the study of institutional image. This more"qualitative" technique approaches image from a perspectivewhich is quite different from most other techniques, and prob.

ably will be used with increasing frequency to complementthe findings of other techniques. The nature of this techniqueand its merits for image and perception investigation are described as follows:

Briefly, ;focus group interviewing' is a qualitathy research

technitpw in which a small number of repondentsgeneragyeight to tenand a modcgator participate in an unstructuredgroup discussion about selected subjects. A tvical discussionsession lasts for One to two hours. Focus group interviews elicititudepth, albeit sithjective information to 134 researchers

undersitnul the deeply held peraptions øJ student, or Other,

groups of policy importance to a colkge or university. lhe

nietbOd Is best used to identify attitudinal dimensions andnot to quantify the twtent to which thew are held in any pq,

itlatUm or subgroup (Ben 1987, p. 19).

Ethical Guidelines for Marketing ResearchTiw purpose of this section on academic market research has

not been to provide instruction in the use of popular techniques. italwr, it is to demonstrate what can be learned from

nderstanding Student Phrolinieill Behavior 7

I

market research about a college's student mgrkets, its com-petition, its image, and market position in the eyes of pro-spective students, and which college attributes best discrim-inate between admitted applicants who matriculate and thosewho do not.

Academic market research is such a valuable tool for effec-tiveness in the student marketing and recruitment phase ofthe enrollment management pmcess that it is being usedmore widely every year. This Fact increases the importanceof using such techniques responsibly. Fortunately, someresearchers are interested in exploring the appropriate useof academic market research techniques. Litten, for example.

Referred to as "the conscience of the profession" of academic market research by lay and Endo (1987, p. 2), Linenhas provided a set of ethical guidelines for the practice of aca-demic market research. These include:

I. "Subterfuge" shoukl be avoided. Market research intendedto study student enrollment behavior should never be"disguised" a.s another type of study.

2. Any market research project whose findings will not bemade public should be "identified as private research"to be used for college planning.

3. Researchers should be thoroughly trained in marketresearch techniques, particularly "student or alumni labor"who should be carefully supervised.

Li. In studying the activities of other institutions, it is "uneth.kal . . . to send Ix )gus inquiries or applications In fli tict Rims students."

5. Acquiring data through the merging of files should onlybe done after involved subjects have received "at leasta general statement of potential merging."

6. Infirmation may be acquired from "thiRl-party infirmants" such as parents or high school counsefirs onlyafter the student has been infirmed.

7. "Legitimate sample frames" may be developed from listsonly after students on the list have been so informed.

8. Students must be protected from "excemive researchrequests" and "initial contacts" should be made onlythrough the leSti obtrusive mailing process (Linen 1981,pp. 115..16 ).

9. Academic market researchers must mg fall eienni to "thepoison of proprietary attitudes" about research methods

and findings. We learn much from sharing "each other'smistakes and successes. Maxinmm time limits should beestablished, beyond which al' methods and findingsshould be made public (Utten 1987, pp. 11-12).

10. We must avoid the "demon of arrogance" with respectto both the subjects of our research and the administrativeusers of that research. We must come to understand andcommunicate within their perspedives on our researchissues (litten 1987, pp. 12-13).

SummaryThis section of the retiort has reviewed and analyzed whatwe learned in student enrollment behavior in the last phaseof tile college chtkee processselection and attendance. Stu.dies of this phase usually are conducted from the perspectiveof individual colleges seeking to determine which institutionalattributes are significant in distinguishing between those whomatriculate and thow who do not. They rely on institutionaldatabases which often are developed by the college's institutkmal research or admissMns offices.

By examining th, indings of 10 studies we were able todetermine which college attributes were most important indistinguishing between students who choos.! to enroll at aparticular institution and those who do not.

'11.! marketing concept in higher education involves applying technklues of marketing research to idemilY the competition, determine the institution's image and market position,and segment student markets according to characteristics thatmay differentiate among students in terms of how attractivethey find a colkge's image compared with its competitors'images. '11w report also described specific illustrations of academic market ; ;search techniques.

'11w puipose of the report is to aid the developnwnt of afoundatii in for greater effectiveness in the student marketingand recruitment phase of the enrollnwnt management proCCM. Perhaps the report also will help increase the effectivenem (l m,,re specific marketing, recruitment, imd admisshnstactics, are not owered in this rept wt. Many fine lx mkscan pro Ade pidance in these areas (1k.der 1986; Grabowski1981; Kotler and Fox 1985; IA wek)ck 1984; IA Avery 1982;Simerly 1989; Staab and Hunt 1986).

pulcnia ?Wing Mudetil Enrcilbnetil 69

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report aims at helping administrators, policy-makers, andresearchers develop a foundation for more effective enroll

ment planning, student marketing, and recruitment. Theseare important pans of the enrollment management pnwe&s.lt is hoped that the report will make a worthwhik contribulion to "the development of a specialimd knowledge basetbr enrollment managers" (flossier 1984, p. 8).

The following outlines the evolution of the growing interest

in, and importance of, understanding enrollment and college

dmice behavior.

Why Understanding Enrollment andCollege Choice Are ImportantFrom the perspective of the early 1970s, the pessimistic expectations regarding enrollment in the higher education mar-ketplace oldie 1980s appeared to be well-substantiated andst)bering, even intimidating. Changes in dent( )graphic, eco-

tunic, and public pc)licy aspects of the marketplace environ

ment threatened reduced enrollments, budget deficits,retrenchment, and institutional closings during a time or rising

student consumerism.Many administratio in the 1970s began to concentrate

more effort on ennillment inaintenance, became moreresponsive to market interests and more aware of the in(Teasingly commitive nature of student recruitment. They ilsobegan to engage in market oriented activities intended toattract students with desired academic and nonacademic charaderistics to their campuses. 14,..-aking with the past, eachyear's students becanw ntore like academic shoppers or con

sumers. preferring v(xational, occupational or professionalcourses over courses in the traditkinal arts and sciences. Colkges and universities made surprisingly rapid and extensivewrket oriented respinmes in the form of changes in academicprograms to match student demand and attract students.

Frtml the 1970s through kiday. colkges have developedtwo fundamental market (wiented desires. They want to planand forecast their enr(Cment more effectively. 'and they want

to influence the colkge wiing decision nmking pr(vess if

students more effectively. The study of college choice hehavkir is of great practical impiirtance there+ ire for administratrswho want greater effectiven in these two areas.

The study of student enrollment hetravior at the macro level

indiyates lkiw changes in envinnimental characteristk-s

Mienhinditig tin)Un'eni 1(11

S

outside an institution's controland changes in institutionalcharacteristicswithin an institution's controlaffect an insti-tution's total enrollment.

The study of the college choice behavior of students at themicro-level indicates the ways in which environmental, insti-tutional, and student characteristics affect a student's choicesabout whether or not to attend college and which institutionto attend. The results of these studies provide the fundamentalknowledge haaes for enhancing the effectiveness of enroll-ment planning activitie z. vs well as student marketing andrecruitment activities.

Implications for Institutions: Macro-Level StudiesFrom the standpoint of the institution, the most importantcontriblgion of the macro.level studies of enrollment behavioris their estimation of the probable effects of environmentalfactors on an institution's enrollment. The enrollment effectsof changes in environmental characteristics serve as funda-mental guidelines for institutional enrollment forecasting andthe enrollment planning assumptions required to estimaterevenues and expenditures for budgeting purposes. A thor-ough appreciation of the enrollment effects of such factorsenhances the administrator's capacity for making the well-informed judgments required for e&ctive planning.

Administrators understand oihy ttio we!1 the potentially negative enrollment effects of a decreasing population of eligiblestudents, the proximity of competing institutions to largenumbers of eligible students, or cutbacks in governmentsources of student financial aid. However, the pnbable enroll-ment effects of changes in the economy may seem morecomplex.

It is important to remember that in spite of the growinglimber of colkge graduates seeking i(bs, college graduatesand noncollege graduates remain primarily noncompetinggroups in the job market. College graduates most often seekand obtain positions that are professional or managerial, whilenoncolk.ge graduates most often obtain sties, clerical, operalive lab( ger. Or farm worker jcibs (Rumberger 198.1h )

While impi( wed jiib market 4 1pportunit it's for college oactuates may have positive enr)llnlent effects. impn wed job mat-ket opportunities for noncollege graduates are likely to haveneg,niv enrollment eft. For many potential students. morejobs and better pay for how dlege graduates represent greater

7

7.

foregone inconw opportunities (one type of higher costs)when they attend college.

Economic conditions and college enrollmentGenend economic recessions tend to stimulate college enroll-ment by reducing these tbregone income opportunities forpotential students (Matti la 1982, pp. 250251). Recessions mayenhance this OW on enrollment because mployment inthe types of jobs held by noncollege graduates is more likelyto he reduced, while employment in college-level profes.sional and managerial positions tends to remain more stable.

While worsening job market opportunities for noncollegegraduates stimulates college enrollment, deteriorating ()ppm.(unities for college graduates tends to reduce enrollment.However, it appears that an institution's curriculum hal. thepotential to help insulate it from such enrollment eftects ofjob market changes. Specifically, when conditions in the col-lege job market mirsen, enrollment favors colleges emphas-izing curricular opportunities in specialized professional oroccupational curricula When college job market opportunitiesimprove, enrollment fiwors colleges emphasizing traditionalliberal arts and sciences programs. Breadth and balance inthese two types of curricular offerings has the potential tocushion the negative enrollment eilects of a poor college jobmarket (Paulsen and Pogue 1988).

Implications for Institutions: Micro-Level Studies"fhe most important contribution of the micro level studiesof individual studoit enn)llment behavior is their ability tovs.imate the effects of student characteristics. insfitutitnialcnaiacteristics. and their interaelk HIS HI tile probability thata student will chi titse a particular college or noncollegeoption. The ellfldilllent eileaS td student attributes serve asguidelines for divkling students into groups possessing characteristics similar to those who most often ennill al a panicular college. Ibis enables institutions to identilY the studentmarkets with the greatest potential ennillment yield kir a parOcular cidlege or university.

t !nolvrstanding the pnilmble enutilment effects of in ,iitutional characteristics can help faculty and administrauksdevelip the mt appuipriate marketing mix of attractive prograins, delivered in appn tpriate places, at acceptable price.".The pmbable enrollment clEcts of inuTactitnis bettNeeil stu

-oulommiling FormIlment--^---- --

St;

t is tbeenrgisnenteffeds ofintenictionsbetweenstudent andinstitutionalattributeswbids aremore complavand tbekast wellunderstood.

dent and institutional characteristics provide guidelines tohelp administrators effectively tailor and target their college'smarketing mix of institutional attributes according to studentcharacteristics in high enrollment yield markets.

Most administrators know that, in general, when certainfactors are present students are more likely to attend college,For instance, when they are white, unmarried, have highincome, and followed a college preparatory curriculum inhigh school, Administrators also are well aware that, in gen-eral, students are more likely to attend college in general, orone particular college, when tuition, room, and board costsare lower, financial aid is more available, the distance fromhome to college is not great, and the breadth of curriculumofferings is great.

It is the enrollment effects of interactions between studentand institutionu attributes which are more complex and theleast well understood. However, an understanding of theseis of critical importance in attracting the students most desiredby a particular college.

Wben student and institutional attributes meetAny thorough understanding of student college choice behavior must be intensely focused on the points of interactionbetween student and institutional attributes. For example, aparticular college becomes less attractive when tuition, roomand l)oard, and diitance from a potential student's homeincrease. However, these effects are much greater for lowerincome and lower aptitude students. They become much lessimportant as income and aptitude level rise.

A colkge beconles num.! attractive as the availability ofscholarship aid increases. However, this effect is reduced forhigh income students who have lower chalices of receivingaid; the effect is enhanced for nonwhite and high achievementstudents who have a greater probability of receiving scho.!arships. A college becomes less Atractive to students withaptitudes either well alx we or well below the average aptitudeof students .at a particular college. Students prefer to maniculate at an institution where students are similar to thentselvesnu we than they prekr to attend the colkge with the highestacademic standing.

Finally, recent research indicates that ft )r a given incomeand aptitude level. student responsiveness to changes in thetuition, room and hoard. financial aid, and foregone earnings

components of college costs are now very similar. This dispels

some old myths about different responsiveness.

College aspiration and its formationThe first phase of the college choice process involves the factors and processes which influence and shape a student'scollege-going aspirations, or plans. Studies reveal three categories of factors which may encourage or discourage the for.mation of college aspirations: socioeconomic backgroundfactors (such as race, parents' marital status, educationalattainment and occupational status, and family income), academic factors (aptitude and achievement), and contexmalfactors (including disciplinary problems, selesteem, attitudestoward school and success, and peers' college plans). Essen-tially, each of these titctors is an attribute or characteristic of

a potential student.

The case for early intervention. Mese studies' specialcontribution involves some ciear implications for early inter-vention to encourage the formation of atIlege aspiration.s.

flor example, a contextual factor, parental encouragement,has been tbund to have a greater influence on college aspi-ration fornlation than either socioeconomic status or academicaptitude. While the socioeconomic status and intelligenceof a particular student are very difficult (if not impossible)to influence, parental encouragentent is a socialsychologicalprOCCSS which may very well be open to modification throughcounseling of parents and their children.

This makes parental encouragement a powerful interveningvariable between the immutable socioeconomic status andaptitude factors and the figmation of college-going aspiratittn.s.

other implicatkins tbr early intervention in aspiration for=don involve some important differences in the fackws

which influence this procexs for blacks compared to whites.In this process, whites seem to be intluenced by nit Nt of theearliest factors such as socioeconomic background and academic aptitude, but only some of the later ones.

Ilowever, blacks do not seem to be influenced by any ofthe earliest factors and are influenced by many of the laterfactors, such as achievement in sell( xl, encouragenlent byparents, teachers, and friends, and selfesteem. Whites alsoaw influenced by some of these later factors, including sch(x)Iachievement and significant others encouragement. 'the most

'PlderStalla1104 kW' f dinlent lichariur 75

important implication here is that the later factors of schoolachievement, significant otherS' encoumgemem, and self.esteem are all ones which early and continuous interventionhas an opportunity to influence.

These are all areas in which early intervention by concernedadministrators, teachers, counselors, and parents could makea difference. How many potential students should be, andwould be, in college if even just one of these influential fac-tors were promoted: school achievement, self-esteem, par-ental, teacher, and counselor encouragement?

Searcb and applicationsecond pha.se of the college choice process mvolves stu-

dents seeking and acquiring information about differemcolleges. They do this by learning about different importantcollege attributes such as programs, quality, cost, and locationby means of their preferred sources of information, usuallyfrom such sources Is admissions officers, college publications,high school counselors, alumni, and campus visits.

Of course, the importance of various college attributes andsources of information vary according to student attributes.In fact, the student attributes represented in the socioeco-nomic background and academic factors which shape the for-mation of plans tor college have an influence in this secondphase even to the point of leading students to preselect cer-tain colleges. The general pattern seems to bethat as students'academic aptitude, achievement, educational aspirations,family income, and parental education all increase, theirchoices are more likely to include highly-sekctive, high-cmt,itkiant, private. four-year institutitins.

Lirge numbers of pcitential students are spread across theentire spectrum of pcissible siicioeconomic backgriitinds andacademic abilities. This means that tlwre are groups of potential students who will tend to preselect colleges at each ofthe many pomible categtiries of attributes such 3.4 selectivity,cost, distance, ciintnil, and level.

Each college must ask itself whether the attributes of students they currently seek suggest that these students are theHleS who Will most likely tind the college appropriate and

attractive. In the face ot a college choice process whichappears to he characteriwd by preselection according to stildent attributo and college attributes, an effective course ofaction for each college is to find an appropriate match

between the attributes of students it seeks and the attributesof its own institutkm.

Selection and attendanceDuring this final phase of the college choke process, admittedappliamts evaluate and rate the attributes of their preferredinstitutions to select one college to attend. A certain predes .

tination is evident even here aS students appear to developevaluation criteria that are influenced by their socioeconomicbackground and academic ability. College attributes whichfrequently are found to discriminate between students whoselect a particular college to attend include cost, financial aid,programs, size, bcation, quality, social atmosphere, athletics,and religious emphasis.

Institutions engaged in academic marketing research usuallyconduct studies of student enrollment behavior in the selec-tion and attendance phase. It is through academic marketingresearch that an individual college or university has the bestchance of finding the best match, or fit, between the attributesof its students and its own institutional attributes.

Statistical procedures can be applied productively to testscore submission data, application overlap data, and data fromstudent questionnaires on student attributes and studentratings of the attributes of a particular college compared tothose of its competitors. These procedures allow a collegeto identify its closest competitors, amess the college's imageaS perceived by admitted applicants in terms of variouscollege attributes, and determine its market position com.pared with its closest competitors.

The college also can examine admitted applicants ratingsof its own attributes and those of its competitors to kientifywhat determines choices between their own college and acompetitor. Another useful activity is to divide student marketsacct gding to both student attributes and their ratings ofcollege attributes, and then identify student inarket segmentsby enrollment yield.

A college's marketing mixIn higher education, a college's marketing mix is essentiallya combination of its attributes arranged in the categories ofprograms, prices, promotional activities, and places of delivery. For must colleges there are two primary' enrollmentstrategies:

lInderstunding Student Enrollment lit'ballor 77

c

Neems

seek students possessing attributes consistent with theattributes of the college's current marketing mix, or;adjust the attributes of the college's current marketingmix so they are more consistent with the student attrib-utes desired by the college.

Recommendations for Research and PolicyImportant implications for future research center on both top.ical areas and the need for special types of databases. Follow-ing are some suggestions on the next steps colleges and uni-versities need to take.

Look at the co/Awegoing behavior of students of nontra.ditional ages and from nontraditional g11)10.

While the college-going behavior of traditional-aged stu-dents has been widely studied, enrollment behavior of stu-dents of nontraditional age has received relatively littleresearch attention. This is unfortunate and even peculiar, sinceone of the greatest sources of the increasing numbers andparticipation rates of college students comes from this group.

An important part of higher education's future may dependon how efkctively colleges and universities can serve the edu-cational needs of this very large potential student population.Many well-crafted studies of the college choice behavior ofstudents of nontraditional ages are needed now. We mustbetter understand their perceptions, preferences, and be-haviors if we are to better serve their educational needs,

The same need for more research pertains to other groupswhere the potential for increased enrollment and college par-ticipation rates is great. Further investigation is needed todetermine whether the way various subgroups in the population proceed thn nigh the college choice process is unique."Me greater our understanding, the greater our ability to servethe educational needs of women, minorities, tiireign students,and other gnicips.

Oet'elop dependable mode& qf bow graduaw studentscbot..se graduate schoo&

The large number of pet ple with bachelor's degrees in thejib market has for sonw time made the pursuit d graduate

degrees much more frequent, yet we are lust beginning tostudy the patterns of graduate studentgraduate school choice.Particular departments within institutions may take on moreimportance than they did in college choice models. Devel .oping dependable models of graduate student choice behav .lor is of great importance and probably will be quite chal.lenging. So far, Ma Utley (1988, 1987) seems to be a voicecrying in the wilderness on this issue.

Learn as much as possibk about the search process.

Our present understanding about the "search" portion ofthe search and application phase of college choice is modestand inadequate. What kind of timing, and activity or eventsequences actually characterize this important period ofdecision.making? We need more well-cNfted research effortsin this area to huiki on the efforts of Imis and Morrison(1975) and Gilmour (1978). These may need to be morequalitative in approach than many of our research designsinvestigating stages of the college choice process (flossier,Braxton, and Coopersmith 1989, pp. 279.281).

Develop new databases to meet new needs

More effective total enrollment or macrolevel studies couldbe conducted with more pooling of time series and cross .section data on environmental and institutional characteristics.A premise of this report is that the changing environment ofthe higher education marketplace wa.s an important motivatorfor more market-oriented institutional responses to an increa.singly assertive and changing student consumer profile.

Micralevel studies using pooled data can investigate theinteractive effects of environmental and institutional factorson enrollment. Perhaps they could unveil mare ways in whichinstitutional attributes can he modified to effectively offsetor cushion the potential negative enrollment effects of someenvironmental changes.

Perhaps the most promising, and productive, of databaseswould be an extensive longitudinal micro dataset on individual students which would permit wellcrafted investigationof how environmental, institutional, and student characteristicsint,..mwt on the pnbability of a student's college attendanceor college choice.

Understanding Strident Enndlinent 79

Establish offices of institutional research on every colliweand universiv campus.

Every college and university, large or small, should havean office of institutional research engaged in academic marketrcsearch. In addition, interinstitutional cooperation shouldpromote multiple institution studies. All such efforts arc inthe constructive pursuit of the best po&sible match betweenstudent attributes and college attributes across the nation.

Enlist the support of government and private resources

College researchers and administrators will need the sup-port of government agencies and private foundations inter-ested in improving our capacity to meet the nation's educa-tional needs. State and federal government policymakersshould have a strong interest in supporting and encouragingboth macro and micro.level studies to clarify further whatdetermines enrollment and college choice behavior.

For example, the design and improvement (>f state and fed .

eral grant and loan programs, if based on a growing under-standing of college choice behavior, have a greater chanceof promoting the social and educational goals of equal access,equity, and socioeconomic well-being for society. Tax andtransfer disbursements in the form of subsidies to higher edu .

cation are national investments in these and other desiredoutcomes.

In conclusion, the American people place their resourcesand their trust in the hands of government policy-makershoping that they will pursue these social goals in accordancewith the most advanced state of our knowledge about studentenrollment and ct)Ilege choice behavior.

80

REFERENCES

The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouseon Higher Education abstracts and indexes the current literature onhigher education for inclusion in ERIC's data base and announcement in ERIC's monthly bibliographic journal, RC'S() lira'S in Edu-cation (RIE). Mast of these publications are available through theERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDR.5). For publications citedin this bibliography that are available from EDRS, ordering numberand price code are included. Readers who wish to order a publi-cation should write to the ERIC Document Reproductkm Service,3900 Wheeler Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22304. (Phone orderswith VIM or MasterCard are taken at 800/227.ERIC or 703/823.0500.)When ordering, please specify the document (ED) number. Documents are available as noted in microfiche (ME) and paper copy(i-C). If you have the price code ready when you call EMS, an exactprice can be quoted. The last page of the latest issue ofResourcesIn Education also has the current cost, listed by code.

Abowd, John M. 1980. "An Econonwtric Model of the I. IS. Marketfor Higher Education." In Research in tabor Economics 4, editedby R. Ehrenberg. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

Alexander, Karl 1., and Eck land, Bruce K. 1975. "Basic AttainmentProcmses: A Replication and Extension." .s'ociotogy of Mucation48: 457-95.

Anderson, C. Arnold; Bowmall, Mary Jean; and 'Vincent Tinto. 1972.Where. Colleges Are mid Who Auends. New York: McGraw Hill.

Anderson, Richard E. 1975. "Private/Public Iligher Education andthe 0 nnpetition for High Ability Students." journal of HumanReanirCeS 10(4): 500 I I.

-. 1976. "Determinants of !nstitutional Attractiveness to BrightProspective College students." Research in IIigwr Mucation.4: 361 71.

Anderson, R. E., and Darkenwald. G. G. 1979. Participation and Msl.genee in American Adult Education. New NI wk: College EntranceExamination Kurd

Astin, Alexander. 1965. Who (;(3es Where to ColltIle?Chicago: ScienceResearch Asmiciates.

1966. TheAmerican Freshman: Natioata/ Norms for Falllos Angeles: American Council on Education nd 1.!niversity iO

California at los Angeles. ED 278 296. 267 pp. ME 01, R II.11Baldrklge, j. Viitor. et al. 1982. The FnmtIment htt-tors,

Actorv, and lmpaeu MIR.: ERIC I ligher Education Rep irt No. .4.Vilashingion, D.C.: American Association for I ligher Education.El/222 158. 79pp. ME 01: PC 04.

Barton. David Jr., ed. Marketing Higher Mucanon New I /irectionsfor Iligher wat ion No. 21. San Francisco: .k issey Bass.

Becker, Gary S_ 1964_ Human Captai A 'Theoretical mu! EmpultalAnattsis. New Thrk: National Bureau of Econoruic Research.

111.

14aler54'anding Student EnmIlnient 81

'leder, IN!, ed. 1986. Marketing Continuing Education. New Direc-tions for Continuing Educatkm No. 31. San Frandsco: Jossey-Bass.

Bers, ihidy H. 1987. "Exploring Institutional Images Through FocusGroup Interviews." In Designing and llsing Market Research,edited by Robert S. Lay and Jean J. Endo. New Directions forHigher Educatkin No. 54. San Francisco: JosserBass.

Hers, 'Ihidy H., and Smith, Kerry. 1987, "College Choice and the Non-traditional Student." ammunity Cam, Review 15(1 ); 39-45.

Bishop, John. 1977. 'The Effect of Public Policies on thf! Demandfor Higher Education,"Journal of Human Resources 5(4):28-307,

Bishop, John, and Van Dyk, Jane. 1977. "Can Adults Be Hooked onColk.ge? Some Determinants of Adult College Attendance."Journalof Higher Education 48: 39-62.

Blakemore, Arthur E., and Low, Stuart A. 1983. "Scholarship Policyand Race-Sex Differences in the Demand for Higher Education,"Economk Inquity 21: 504-9.

Blau, P. M., and Duncan, 0.1). 1967. ihe Amerkan OccupationalStructure New ibrk: John Wiley and Sons.

Borus, Michael E., and Carpenter, Susan A. 1984. "Factors Associatedwith College Attendance of I ligh-School Seniors." &anomics ofEducation Review 3(3): 169-76.

Bowen, Howard R. 1974. "Higher Education: A Growth Industry?"Mucational Record 55: 147-158.

1977. Inivsimem in Learning: The Imlipidual and SocialValue of American thkher Educotion. San Francisco: Jossey-Ilam.

Breneman, David W. March 1983. 'The Coming Enrollment Crisis:Ftx..using on the Figures." (.'hame. 14-19.

Brown, Kenneth G. 1982. "Postsecondary Plans ot' High-SchoolSeniors in 1972 and 1980: Implications for Student Quality."Denver: Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the AssixiationtOr Institutional Research. El) 220 060.25 pp. ME -01; PC- 01.

Cain, Paige P., and McClintock, John. 1984. "The ABC's of Choice."Journal of Collqw Admissions Fall: 15 21.

Campbell, Robert, and Siegel, Barry N. 1967. "The Demand foriigher Education in the linked Stales, 1919 1964.- Amt.. :can Eco

monk- Review 57: 482-484.Carey, M. 1- August 1981. "Occupatif mat Emph qment Growth

1990.- Monthly labor Review. 104: .42 55.Caniegk. Council int Policy studies in I ligher Educatii in. 1973. A

(lamificalion Qf Institutions of illgber Education. Berkeley, Calif,Carnegk. Ft mndatit m lir the Advancement of Teaching.

1)76. A Clasafication of Insfilotrons Digher Education.rev. ed. Berkeley, Calif.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement

of Teak-lung.. 1980 Thwe Thwisand Fg1i,'t's ui Fralleist1): juSsey Bass.

. 1987. el Clamification of insiituumis (4 Higher ijucalion.

..5.t.

2nd. rev. ed. Berkeley, Calif.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advance .ment of Teaching. ED 291 269. 145 pp. MF-01; PC-06.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1975. MoreThan Survival: Prupects for Higher Education in a Poriod ofUncertainty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bas.s.

Carpenter, Peter G., and Fleishman, John A. 1987. "linking Intentionsand Behavior: Australian Students College Plans and CollegeAttendance." Anwrkan Eduattional ResearchJournal 24(1):79-105.

Centra, John A. 1980. "College Enrollment in the 1980s: Projectionsand Possibilities." journal of Higher Education. 51(1): 18-39.

Chaffee, Ellen Earle. March/April 1984. "Successful Strategic Man .agement in Small Private Colleges."Journal of Higher Education55: 212-241.

Chapman, David W. 1981. "A Model of Student College Choice."jour.nal of Higher Education 52: 490-505.

Chapman, David W, ed. 1980. Improving Colkwe Information for Pros-pective Students Washington: Council for Advancement and Sup-pm of Educati( n.

Chapman, David W, and Stark, Joan S. 1979. "Does Ihith flave Con-sequences? Improving Information for Better College Choice."liberal Education 65: 453-61.

Chapman. Randall. 1979. "Pricing Policy and the College SelectionPrtx:ess." Research in Higher Education 10(1): 37-57.

Chapman, Randall, and Jackson. Rex. 1987. (.1)//ege Choices of Aca-demically Able Studenk. New York: College Entrance Examinatiilkyard.

Chatman, Staven P. 1986. "Short.Term F wecasts of the Numbvr andScholastic Ability of Enrolling Freshmen By Academic DivisicRe.warch in Higher Education 25( I): 68-.81.

Christensen, Sandra; Mekler, John; and Weisbrod, Burton A. 1975."Factors Affecting College Attendance." Journal of HumanResources 10: 174-188.

Cochran, 'E, and Ilengstler, D. 1983. "Amessing the Image of a University." NACAC Journal 28: 29 34.

College Board. 1989. 'Bemis in Student Aid. New York: College BoardPublications.

College Entrance Examination Board, ed. 1976. A Role for MarketingColkwe Admissions. New York: College Eittrance Examination

Board.. 1980. Marketing in OA* Admissions: A Broadening of

Perpectims. New Mirk: College Entrance Examination 11 ard.College Placemen! Council. July 1979. Salary Surrey: A Study of

I978-7() &winning Offers Enna Report Bethlehem, CollegePlacement Council.

Conklin, Mary E.. and Dailey, Ann R. 1981. "IN ws Consistency of Parental Educational Encouragement Matter for Secmdary Students?"

Vnderstanding Student Enrollment Behavior 8.3

j 6

Socioloff of Mucation 5(4): 254-62.Cook, Robert W., and Za Homo, Ronald I. 1983. "Predicting University

Preference and Attendance: Applied Marketing in Higher EducationAdministration." Research in Hkgber Mucation 19(2): 197-2,1.

Corazzini, ArthurJ.; Dugan, DennisJ.; and Grabowski, Henry G. 1972."Determinants and Distributional Aspects of Enrollment in U.S.Higher Educatkm."Journai of Human &sour CeS7(1): 39-59.

Corman, Ilope. 1983. "Postsecondary Education EnrollmentResponses by Recent High School Graduates and Older Adults,"Journal of Human Resources 17(2): 247-67.

Corman, Hope, and Davidson, Patricia K. 1984. "Economic Aspectsof Postsecondary Schooling Decisions." Economics of EducationRet.ieu, 3(2): 131-39.

Cnissiand, Fred E. July/August 1980. "Ikmming to Cope with aDownward Slope." Clianige 18, 20-25.

Davies, Mark, and Kandel, Denise B. 1981. "Varental and Peer Influ-ences on Adolescents' Educational Plans: Some Further Evidence."American Journal of Socioloa 87(2): 363-87.

Davis Van Atta, David I., and Carrier, Sam C. 1986. "Using the Institutional Research Office." In Akmaging (:cillige Enrollments, editedby Don I lossler. New Directions for Higher Education No. 53. SanFrancisco:J(issey Bass.

)embowski, Frederick I. 1980. "A Model for Predicting Studein College Cluiice." Colliwe and t Inis.ersity 55( 2): 103-112.

Dresch, Stephen P. 1975. "Demi igraphy, Technohigy, and I iigher Edu.cation: "lbward a Formal Mi Kiel of Educational Adaptation."Journalof Political Economy. 83: 535 69.

Erdmann, David G. 1983. "An Examination of Factors InfluencingStudent Cluiice in the Colkge Selection Process." The journalof clam. Admissionstiummer 3 6.

Frances, Carol. July August I980a. "Apt icalyptic vs. Strategic Planning." Change. 19, 39 1.1.

1980b. Coiitge Enrollment lkelkls: ksting the CmitentionalWivdom /timing the Facts. Washingu in. Anierican

(Ai allIt'allOn.1986. "Changing Fnuillinent '11-ends: 11111)1W:10(ms fin. the

Future Financing of I ligher Educxiini." In tidues in ConflictFunding Priorintw for 111J41er hhicatioit edited by Mary PMcKeown and Kern Alexander. Cambridge, Mass.: BallingerPuhlishing.

1989. "t!ses and Misuses of Demographic Project k flTh: Lessons for the 1990s." In .sbaping IAgher Mucalion's hallrt'. editedby Arthur 1ANIne. San Frand.tit'u: Jossey Bass.

1:ranck, (1.. R. Anderson, and Bernard, C. 1987. Reform andIligher Education." In Finwscing Higher Education: Strattwies After'levc Reform, edited hy Richard Anders4m midi. Meyerson. NewDirections for Ifigher Education No. H. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

8.#

9

Freeman, Richard B. 1971. The Market for College.Rained Manpower.Cimbridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

. 1975. "Overinvestment in College ihtining?" Journal ofHuman Resources10(3): 287-311.

. 1976. The Chvreducakd American. New York: AcademicPress.

Friedman, R. 1984. "Questions for High Schui-,1 Students to ThinkAbout When Choosing Colleges." The Journal of Col*, AdmisStotts Spring: 23-27.

Froomkin, J. 1974. Changing Credential Objecthvg of Students inPactsecondaty Education. Washington, D.C.: tJ.S, Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare.

Fuller, Winship C.; Manski, Charles F.; and Wise, Davkl A. 1982. "NewEvidence on the Economic Dewrminants of Postsecondary Schooling Choices."Journal of Human Resources 17(4): 477-98.

Galper, Harvey, and Dunn, Robert M., Jr. 1969. "A Short.Run DemandFunction for Higher Education in the United States."Journal ofPolitical Economy 77: 765-77.

Gilmour, Joseph E., Jr.; Dolich, kill; and Spiro, IAA! M. 1978. "flowCollege Students Select a College." liouston: Paper presented tothe Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research.ED 208 705. 39pp. ME-01; PC-02.

Glenny, Lyman. 1980. "Demographic and Related Is.sues for HigherEducation in the 1980s." journal of Higher Education 51: 364.

Glenny, Lyman et al. 1976. Presidents Confront Reality San Francisco:Jossey.Bass.

Gordon, Margaret S., ed. 1974. Higher Mucatiwi and the LaborMarket New York: McGraw Hill.

Gordon, Margavet S., and Alhadeff, Charlotw. 1980. "Ilw labor Marketand Higher Education." In Three Thousanu Futures, edited hyCarnegie Council on Policy Studies. San Francisco: Jomey Bass.

Grabowski, S7,utley M. 1981. Marketing in Higher Mucation. AAtiEERIC iglwr Education Research Reixwt No. S. Wishington,American Alistwiation for I hgher Education. ED 214 +i5. 47pp.ME 01; PC 02

Hamm, MI, and qolnik, M.I. 1975. 1 nempli Tment, ExpectedReturns. and the Demand fiir l'niversity Education in Ontario;Sonw Empirical Results." Higher Mucation ,4: 27 43.

Ilansen. Janet S. September Odober 1988. "Student Assistance inl!ncertain Times.- At:Wenn. 27 31.

[Nilson, Katharine II.. and Linen. 'Ivry It 1982 "Mapping the 14 radto Academe." In The l 'ndeigiuduate ll'ionan: &nes in Kducahowl Equity. edited by Pamela Perun. Lexingtim, Maxs.: D.C. I Wadiand Gimpany

Harrington. Paul E. and sum, Andrew M. september 1988."VthatiNer I lappened to the Colkge Enrollment Crisis?" Academe,17 22.

enderNlaliallig

9 3

Hauser, Robert M.; Sewell, William; Alwin, Duane F. 1976. "HighSchool Effects on Achievement." In Schooling and Achievementin American S'ociely, edited by William H. Sewell, Robert M.Hauser, and David L Featherman. New York: Academic Pre&s.

Hearn, James C. 1984. "The Relative Roles of Academic, &scribed,and Socioeconomic Characteristics in College Destinations." Sockology of Education 57: 22-30.

-. 1988. "Attendance at HIgherCost Colleges: &scribed, Soci.°economic, and Academic Influences on Student Enrollment Pan.ems." Economics of Education Review7(1): 65-76.

Hearn, James C., and I.onganecker, D. 1985. "Enrollment Effects ofAlternative Postsecondary Pricing Policies."Journal of Higher Edu-cation 56(5): 485-508.

Hight, Joseph E 1975. "The Demand for Higher Education in theU.S., 1927-72."Journal of Human Resources 10: 512-20.

Hoenack, Stephen A., and Weiler, William C. 1975. "Cosrlielated 'na-tion Policies and University Enrollment.s."Journal of HumanRetioUrces 10: 332-60.

-. 1979. "The Demand for Higher Education and InstitutionalEnrollment Forecasting." Economic inquiry 17: 89-113.

Hopkins, Davkl S. P., and Mas.sy, William F. 1981. Planning MixteLsfor Colkges and Universities Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hopkins, 'Moms D. 1974. "Higher Education Enrollment Demand."&OPWIniC InqUily 12( 1): 53-65.

Homier, Don. 1982. "College Enrollment: The Impact of PerceivedEconomic Benefits." Caege and UnWershy 57(1): 85-96.

. 1984. Enrollment Management: An Integrated ApproachNev.. York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Hossler, Don, ed. 1986. Managing College Enrollmena New Direc-tions for Higher Education. No. 53. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

flossier, Don; Braxton, John; and Coopersmith, Georgia. 1989."Understanding Student College Choice." In Higher Education:Handbook of 'Theory and Research V., edited byJohn C. Smart.New York: Agathon Press.

Ilmsler, Don, and Gallagher. Karen S. 1987. "Studying Student college Choice: A Three-Phase Model and the Implications for Poll-cymakers." Colltge and University 62( 3 ): 207-21.

I luddleston. T., and 1<arr, M. 1982. "Assessing College Image." Colt*and Unit miry 57(4 ): 364-70.

Ihl:mfeldt, William. 1975. "A Management Approach to the Buyer'sMarket." liberal EducaUon 61(2): 133-48.

. 1980. Achieving Optimal Enrollments and Thition Revenues:el Guide to Modern Methods of Market Research, Student Recruit .mem, and institutional Pricing San Francisto: Jossey-Bass.

Ingersoll, ft(mald J. 1988. Enrollment Pmislem: Noven Managementikimiques. New NIA: American Council on Education.Macmillan.

Jackson, Gregory A. 1978. "Financial Aid and Student Enrollment."

86

93

Journal of Higher Education 49: 548-574.. 1982. "Public Efficiency and Private Choice in Higher Edu-

cation." &lucalional Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis 4(2):237-247.

1986. "Workable, Comprehensive Models of College Choice.Final and Technical Report." Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.El) 275 224,105pp. MF-01; PC-05.

1988. "Did College Choice Change During the Seventies?Ecommmia of Education Revieu,7(1): 15-27.

Jackson, Gregory A., and Weathersby, George 13. 1975. "IndividualDemand for Higher Education." Journal of Higher Education 46:

623-52.Johnson, Russell H., and Chapman, David W. 1979. "An Assessment

of College Recruitment literature: Does the High School SeniorUnderstand It?" Research in Higher Education 11(4): 309-19.

Kealy, MaryJo, and Rockel, Mark L. 1987. "Student Perceptions ofCollege Quality. The Influence of College Recruitment Policies."Journal of Higher Education 58(6): 683-703.

Kellaris, James J., and Kellaris, William K.,Jr. 1988. "An Explorationof the Factors Influendng Students' College Choice Decision ata Small Private College." C.blicge and Universio,63: 187-97.

Kemerer, ER.; Baldridge,J.V.; and Green, K.C. 1982. Strategies forEffective Enrollment Management. Washington, D.C.: AmericanAssociation of State Colleges and Universities.

Kerckhoft Alan C., and Campbell, Richard T 1977. "Iilack.W1the Differences in the Educational Attainment Process." Sociulto of EduCation 50: 15-27.

Kodde, David A., and Rirzen, Jowl M. M. 1988. "Direct and IndirectWeds of Parental Education level on the Demand fbr Iligher Educat ion." journai of Human Resourws 23( 3 ): 356 71.

Kohn, Meir G.; Manski, Charles E; and Mundel, David S. 1976. "AnEmpirical Investigation of Factors Which Influence Colk.ge GoingBehavior." Anna& of Economic and Social Measurement. 5(4 ):391 -419.

Wier. Philip. 1976. "Applying Marketing Theory to College Admisskms." In A Rote for Marketing in Colltge Adinixcions, edited bythe College Entrance Examination Board. New York: CollegeEntrance Examination fit xtrd.

---, 1982. Marketing for Nonprofit Organ izatiom EnglewixklCliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, Philip. and Fox, Karen F. A. 1985. strawvic Marketing for Educafional Instil:41(0m Englewood CliftX, NJ.: Prentice Iiall.

Krakower, Jack Y., and Zanunuto. Raymond F. 1987. "Enrollment Pn)jections: The Case Against GeneralizAtions Review f logher Education 10(4 ): 333 56.

Kuntz, Steven S. 1987. "...m.Ients' Academic Orientations and TheirPerceptkms of and Preferences fin- Colkges: Applied Market

14u/en/am/ft Student Enrolhown! 87

U

Research Using the Ideal Point Preference Model and Multidimen-sional Scaling." San Diego: Paper presented at the annual meetingof the Assodation for the Study of Higher Education. ED 281 470,3Opp. ME-01; PC-02.

lay, Robert S and Endo, Jean J., eds. 1987. Desig,ning and UsingMarket Research New Directions for Institutional Research. No.54. San Francisco: JomeyBass.

lay, Robert S., and Maguire, John. 1980. "Identifying the Competitionin Higher Education: 'Itvo Approaches." alltge and Universi055(3): 53-65.

lay, Robert S; Maguire, John; and Litten, larty. 1982. "IdentifyingDistinctive Groups in a College Applicant Pool." Roearcb inIhgber Education 16( 3 ): 195-208.

Leach, Ernest R. 1984. "Marketing to Adult Populations." NAIII4Jour.lia121(4): 9-16.

Ear, D. K., and Newton, J. M. 1978. "Time Series and CrossSectionalInvestigation of the Demand for Higher Education." EconomicInquiry 16: 411-22.

Ldster, Dougla.s V. 1975. "klemitYing Institutional Clientele." journalqf Higher Education 46(4): 381-98.

Lewis, Gordon, and Morrison, Sue. 1975. "A Longitudinal Study ofCollege Selection.n.ehnical Report No. 2." Mimeographed. Pitts.burgh: School of Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie-Mellon1 Iniversity.

Leslie, tarry I., and FifeIonathan D. 1974. "The Colkge StudentGrant Study: '11w Enrollment and Attendance Irvacts of StudentGrant and Scholarship Programs."Journal of Higher Mucation.15(9): 651-71.

Leslie, tarty I., and Miller, 11.F.Jr. 1974. Higher Mucation and theSmuly State AMIE.ERICIiiglwr Education Research ReporiNo. 4. Washington, D.C.: American Association for HigherEducation.

Leslie, larry L.:Johnson. Gary P.; and Carlson, James, 1977. 11wImpact of Need Based Student Aid 1.1pon the College AttendanceDecision." Journal of Education Finance 2: 269 85.

Leslie, larry I., and Brinkman, Paul t 1987. "Student Price Responsein Iligher Education: The Student Demand studies."journal ofHigher Education 58(2): 181 20a.

Linen, tarry I I. 1979. "Market Structure and Institutional Position inGo 'graphic Market Segnients." Research in lligber Mucatftm11(1): .10 69.

1980. "Marketing Iligher Educatk in: Benefits and Risks fortlw Amerk.an Academic System.".lourmil oflhAer Education51(1 ). 40 59.

1981. "Molding and Stemming Abuses in Academic Marketing." Collow am/ ',normal, SW 2): 105 22

. 1982. "Different Strokes in the Applicant Pool. Sonle Reline

101

ments in a Model of Student Choke." Journal of Higher Mucation53(4): 383-402.

1987, "Viewing the World Without Ivy.Covered Glasses."In Designing and Using Market Research. edited by Robert S. Layand Jean J. Endo. New Directions for Institutional ResearchNo. 54. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Uteri, Limy II. ed. 1984. Issues in Pricing Undograduate Education.Ncw Directiogs for Institutional Research No, 42. San Francisco:Jossey. Bass.

Linen, tarry IL and Brodigan, David L 1982. "On Being Heard ina Noisy World: Matching Media and Messages in College Market.log." ("Adigge and University 57(3): 242-63.

Utten, tarry II.; Sullivan, Daniel; and Brodigan, Davkl I. 1983.AjOing Market Research in College Admiaions New York: CollegeEturance Examination Iloard.

Anthony and Scannell, James. 1983. "Admissions MarketResearch: An Alternative to Decline in the Eightiet Colhwe andUnievrsity 58: 135-51.

lovelock, Chrisutpher, H. 1984. Servico Marketing Englewood Clifk,N.J.: Prenticcilall.

Lowery, William R., ed. 1982. colltwe Admksions thunseling A Hand .book for Prrilession. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

MacDermott, Kristine G.; Conn, Paula A.; and Owen, John W. 1987."11w Influence of Parental Education Level on College Choice."Journal of Colkwe Admimiwis Spring: 3-10.

Maguire, John, and lay, it ben. 1981. "%sidling the College ChokeProcess: Image and Decision." CoUtwe and Ilnirersity 56( 2)!12339.

Malaney, G. D. 1987. "Wily Students Pursue Graduate Educatit in, I towThey Find CUL Akita a Program, and Why They Apply to a SpecificSchool." College and lIniversity 62: 247 58.

1988. "Graduate Educatkin as an Area of Research in theField of I figher Eduvation." In lh,gber Education: Ilandlxx)k ofTheoty and Res4,arch IV, edited by John C. Smart. New York:Agathon Press.

Manski, Charles F. and Wise, Davki A. 1983. (.4.twe _Joke in Axerka. Cambridge: I larvard L niversity

Marshall, John F. and Delmanjeffrey M. 198+ "Researching Institutional Image: 11w Development and Implementation of a MarketResearch Plan ti)r Edtmaiimal Instautitins." 01//tge and I nu may59: 316 33.

Manila, J 1982 "Determinants of Male sciu )01 Enrollments:A Time Serk.s Analysis." /?el'it'u of kintonw and Slansno 61.2-42 51.

McConnell, Campbell It. and Brut!. stanky L 1986. cOntempromylabor Economics. New V( irk. Mc( ;raw I fill.

McMahon. Walter. 19-4 nwesunetn ltdwalum. L 'rktna:

1 'nderstandow Student Enrollmenl S9

1

University of Illinois.McPherson, Michael S. 1978. 'The Demand for Higher Education."

In Public Policy and Privaw Higher Education, edited by DavidW. Breneman and Chester E. Finn, Jr. Washington, D.C.: The Brook.ings Institution.

Metz, kS., and Hammer, C.H. 1981. Labor Force Status of Recent Cotkwe Grad..ates. Washington, D.C.: National Center for EducationStatistics.

Mishler, Carol J. 1983. "Adults' Perceptions of the Benefits of a Col.lege Degree." Research in Higher Education 19(2): 213-30.

Murphy, Patrick E. 1981. "Consumer Buying Roles in College Choice:Parents' and Students' Perceptions." Colkwe and llniversq 57:

150-60.National Center for Education Statistics. 1989. The Condition of Edw

cation: lirstsecondary Education Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern.ment Printing Office. ED 306 708. 146pp. MP-01; PC-06,

Nelson, Joel I. 1972. "High School Context and College Plans: TheImpact of Social Structure on Aspirations." Amerkan SociologicalReview 37: 143-48.

Noll'', George J. et al., ed. 1978. Experiences of Recent High SchoolGraduates Lexington, Mass.: D.C. heath and Company.

Paltridge, J.G.; Regan, M.C.; and lerkla, Dawn Geronimo. 1978. MidCareer Orange: Adult Students in Mid-Carver Thansitions andCommunity Support SyStents netVlopt,d to Meet Their Needs: FinalReport on the Project. Berkeley: University of California.

Paulsen, Michael B 1983. "An Econometric Analysis of the Relation.ship Between the labor Market for College Graduates and Enroll-ment at the Independent Liberal Arts College." Ph.D. dimertation,University of Iowa.

. 1989a. "A Practical Model for Forecasting New FreshmanEnrolinwnt During the Application Period." Colkge and Ilniversi064(4 ): 379 91.

1989b. "Nimating Instructional Cost Functions at SmallIndeiwndent GAleges." journal of Education nuanceIS( I 1: 53 66.

. 1990. "Curriculum Change at Liberal Arts Colleges: The Intluence of Financial Conditi)ns." liberal Education 76( 2): 2-5.

Paulsen, Michael B., and Peseau, Bruce A. 1989. -Ten Essential Economic Concepts Every Administrator Should Know." journal forHigher k'ducatiOn Managenwnt 5(1): 9 -18.

Pauken, Michael B., and Pt )gue, I11t mas F. 1988. "Higher EducationEnrollment: The Interactiim lab( ir Market Conditiims, Curriculum, and Selectivity." &ononiic of Education Review7():275 90.

Perry, Ronald F., and Rumpf, Davkl L 1984. "Predicting the Likelihoodof Matriculation for College Applicants." kwarci) in Higher Mucanon 21(3): 317 28.

(1)

Personick, Valerie A. 1987. "Industry Output and EmploymentThrough the End of the Century." Monthiy tabor Review 110(9):30-45.

Perun, Pamela, ed. 1982. The Undetgraduate Wiman: &ties lfl Edwcational Equity Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company.

Pfnister, Allan 0., and Finkelstein, Martin J. 1984. "Introduction."Journal of Higher Education 55(2): 117-21.

Pope,James A., and Evans,John P. 1985. "A Forecasting System forCollege Admissions." Colkw and 11sivervity60: 113-31.

Pones, Alejandro, and Wilson, Kenneth L 1976. "Black-White Differences in Educational Attainment." Amerkan Sociological Review41: 414-31,

Radner, Roy, and Miller, Wonard. 1970. "Demand and Supply in U.S.Higher Education." Anwrkan Economic Review 60: 326-34.

. Demand and Supply in Higher Education. New \ink:McGrawHill.

Rehnke, Mary Ann E, ed. 1987. Creating Career Prot.:rams in a LiberalArts Context. New Directions for Higher Education No. 57. SanFrancisco: Jossey.Bass.

Riesman, David. 1980. On ifigher Reification: The Academk Enterpis(' in an Era of R4cing Student Consumerism. San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

Rogers, Brenda H.; Gilleland, Kevin R.; and Dixon, George. 1988."Educational Motivations of Part-Time Adults as Related to Slx.ioDemographic Variables." Collme and Unirmity63(2): 198-209.

Roenwr, Robert E. 1981. "Vocationalism in Higher Educatkm: Explanations from Social Theory." Review of Higher Education 4(2):23-46.

Rosenfeld, Rachel A., and Hearn, James C. 1982. "Sex Differencesin the Significance of Economic Resources for Choosing andAttending a College." In The iltulergraduate Wbman: &nes inEduamonal Equity, edited by Pamela Perun. Lexington, Mass.:D.C. ileath and unnpany.

Rowse, Glenwtx xi. 1987. "Describing Patterns of Competitk in." InDesigning and 'sing ittarket Resmrch, edited by Robert S. Lay and

jean J. Fmk). New Directkins fi ir Institutional Research No.San Francisco: imey Bass.

Rowse. Glenwt Kid, and Wing. Paul. 1982. "Amessing CompoitiveStructures in Ifigher Education:* journal of //ip,her Education53(6): 656 86

Rurnherger. Russell W 1981. Oieredia.alion in the I'S tabor MarketNew \Awl:: Praeger.

1914ia. "The Changing Ectmomic Benefits of Colkgc Gradcrates.- Economics oil:dm:awn Review 3( 1): 3 12.

--. 198th. 'The Job Market for Ct Mew: Graduates, 1960 90Journal Higher Mutation 55( ): 33 Si.

Rusk. James J. Leslie. Larry 1.; and Brinkman, Paul T. 1982. '11w

Viiderstanding Malvin harolhnent 91

1 (Li

Increasing Impact of Economic Conditions Upon Higher EducationEnrollments." Economics of Education Review2(1): 25-48.

St. John, Edward P. 1990. "Price Response in Enrollment Decisions:An Analysis of the High School and Beyond Sophomore Cohort."Research in Higher Education 31(2): 161-16.

St. John, Edward P., and Noell,Jay. 1989. "The Effects of StudentFinancial Aid on Access to Higher Education: An Analysis of Pro-gress with Special Consideration of Minority Enrollment." Rmarchin lliglwr Education 30(6): 563-81.

Sanders, Neill E. 1986. "The College Selection Process."Journal ofCollege Admissions Spring; 24-27.

Schultz, Theodore W. 1961. "Investment in I luman Capital." Amer .

kan lkonomk Review51: 1-17.Seneca, Joseph J and Paussig, Michael K. 1987. "The Effects of 'Ibi-

lion and Financial Aid on the Enrollment Decision at a State nil.versity." &search in Higher Education 26(4): 337 -.62. Wil.

liam It, and Armer, j. Michael. 1966. "Neighborhood Context andCollege Plans." American Sociokicial Review 31(2): 159-68.

Sewell, William IL, and Hauser, Robert M. 1976. "Causes and Con-sequences Of Iligher Education; Mtxlels of the Staus Attainment

Process." In Schooling and Achievement in Anwrican Society,edited by William H. Sewell, Robert M. Hauser, and David 1. Feath-erman. New York: Academic Press.

Sewell, William H.; Hauser, Robert M.; and Featherman, David I.,eds. 1976. Schooling and Achievement in American Society. New

York: Academic Press.Sewell, William 11., and Shah, Vilna! P. 1967. "socioeconomic Status,

Intelligence, and the Attainment of iligher Education." Socio/ohoof Education 40( 1): I -23.

. 1978. "St vial Class, Parental Enuitiragenwnt, and EducationalAspirations." American Journal Of Sociology 3: 559 72.

simerly, Hobert G., ed. 1989. Handbook obtlarketing for OmtinuingEducation. San Franckco: Jossey axis.

Smith, J. 1985. me Admiviuns stratoot: Recruiting in the .198osNew York: College Entrance Examination Iltxtrd.

smith, V. C., and !loin, S., eds. 1986. TheNov Guide to StudentRecruitment Marketing Wa.shington. D.C.: Council kir theAdvancement and Support of Education. ED 266 752. pp. 107.MF 01; PC 05.

Spenner. K. I. anti Featherman, D. I. 1978. "Achievement Ambitions."In Annual Rolm. of Sociologr, edited by R. II. Tunwr. J. Coleman,

and R. C. Fox. 373 120.

Spies, Rk.hard It 191H. The kffect of Rising Costs on CAve choke.

New lbrk: College Entrance Examination Ikxird.Stadl Min Write A. 1980. Academic Adaptions. San Francisco: Jossey

Ilass.staff( nd. Kathy L. 1.undstedt, sven a; and Lynn. Arthur 11.1r. 1984.

105

"Social and Economic Factors Affecting Participation in HigherEducation."Journal of Higher Education 55(5): 590-608.

Stage, Frances K., and flossier, DOM 1989. "Differences in FamilyInfluences on College Attendance Plans for Male and Female NinthGraders." Reward) in Higher Education 30(3); 301-15.

Stark, Joan S. 1977. The Many Paco of Educationalamsunwrism.Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.

---. 1978. Inside Information: A Handbook on Heller Informa-tion for Siudeni Clxike Washington: The American Associationfor Higher Education.

Stephenson, Stanley P. Jr., and Eisele, 'Ibra W. 1982. '11w Impact ofFinancial Aid on Women's Demand for Higher Education."Research in iikgber Education 17(4): 345-61.

Sternberg, Robert J., and Davis,Jeanne C. 1978. "Student Perceptionsof Vale and its ConTetitors." College and University 53: 262-79.

Strickland, Deborah D. et al. 1984. "Effects of Social and EconomicFactors on FourNear Higher Education Enrollments in Virginia,"Research in Higher Education 20( 1): 35-53.

StruckmanJohnson, Cindy, and Kinsky, Steven. 1985. "Assessmentand Comparison of College Image Among !Ugh School Seniors,College Students, and Alumni." Culkwe and Universiv 60:316-27.

Sum, Andrew M.; Fogg, WA and Taggart, Robert. April 1988. With-ered Dreams: The Decline in the Econoink Fortunev of YoungNon .ColliNeEducated Male Adults and Their &milks Rep(KtIothe WT Grant Foundation Commimion on Family, Work, andCitizenship.

Sushiw, Sidney. 1977. "Iienetits of a Cohort Survival PnijectkModel." In Apfdying Analytic Methoci to Maiming and Akinagemew, edited by David 11opkins and R. Schroeder. San Francisco:

Josse..y Bass.

Tuinen, Michael B. 1978. "The Investment Motive for Attending College." bulustrial ami Mho. Relallow Review 31( ,489 91.

Terkla, Dawn Gen min), and Jackson, (Iregory A. 198.1a. "Appn)priateData Sets fiir Analyi.ing Stmlent Choice." Mimeographed. Calilbridge, Mass.: {{award l'itiversity.

198th. Slate of the Art in Student Choice Research."Mime( tgraphed. Cambridge, Mass.: Ilarvard Imniversity.

Terkla, Dawn (Jeronimo, and NV:ighl, Susan M. 1986. "EnrollmentManagement: Factors that Influence College Choice ()rlatta):Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Assixiation fin. Institutional Research. ED 280 389.21pp. M12 01; lk: 01.

Tierney, Michael I. 1980. 'The Impact of Financial Aid on Student1)einand fin. Public Private Iligher Educatiim." journal of HigherI:am:Wiwi 51(5): 527 -45.

. 1982. "The Impact of institwit Hial Net Price n i studentDemand tor Public and Private 1hgher Education." E«,nomks of

BehaivIr1

Education Review 2(4); 363-83.

------. 1983. "Student College Choice Sets: 1bward an Empiriml

Characterimtion." Research in Higher Education 18(3): 271.84.

1984. "Competitive Structure of Selected College Student

Markets." Colltwe and Unimrsity 59: 229-44.

lient, James W, and MecIsker, Leland L 1968, Ileond High School

San Frandsco: Jossey.Bass.Ude, Ron. 1981. "A Path Analytic Model of the College Going Devi.

skin." Boone, NC: Appalachian State University. ED 224 434. 18pp.

MF-01; PC-01.Wakstein, Julie. 1987. "Identifying Market Segments." In !Aligning

wtd Using Market Research, edited by Robert S. lay and Jean J.

Endo. New Directions for I ligher Education No. 54. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass.Wisylenko, Michael J. 1984. "Black Student Demand for Higher Edu-

cation at Large State Universities." Research in HigherEducation

21(1): 3-15.Weiler. William C. 1980. "A Model for Short-Term Institutional Enroll.

mem Forecastkig."Journal of Higher Education 51(3): 314-27.

. 1984. Enrollment Dentmd Models in Institutkmal

Pricing Decisions." In Issues in Pricing lIndergreuluate Education,

edited by kirry ii. !Awn. New Directions for Institutional Research

No. 42. San Franc.sco: joiisey-Bass.Weitischrott, D;ivkl J. 1977. Pentand for Higher Education In the

I 'tilted States: A Critical Rolm of the Empirical Literature Santa

Monica: Rand Wrporatkm.Welki. Andrew M and Navratil, Frank J. 1987. 11ie Role of Appli-

cants' Perceptions in the Choice of College." cblity and t,nirersity

62: 147 160.1);Vstern Imerstate Commission k fie lligher Education (WICI1E). 1988.

Iligh School Graduates: PnOctions by State, 1986 to 2004.

Boulder, Colo.: Western Imerstat Commission for Higher Edu

catk a El) 296 676. 61 pp. MI: -01; PC 03.

Williams, 'row F. 1984. "Reimiting Graduates: Ilnderstanding

udent Institution NC In Enrollment anagement: An Inwgrated

Approach. edited by Don limsler. New NI irk:11w College Board,

Wise, David A.; Manski, Charles E; and Fuller, Winship C. 1978. "A

Mc Klel of Pi istsect indary Choice." In liTeriences of Recentnochool Graduates, edited by Gorg J. Nolti et al. Lexington, NUM.:

D.C. fleath and Company.Wise, David A.. and Swven E 1982. l'est Scores, Educatkmal

Opp( in unities, and Individual Choice."Journal of Public Econom-

ics 18: 35 63.WishJohn It, and I lamilton, William I). 1980. "Replicating Freeman's

Recursive Adjustment Mt xlel of Demand for Higher Education."

Resarch in Higher Education12( 83 95

V;Olfgang, nail' E., and Dimling, William I). 1981. "Differences in

1 0 7

Motivation of Adult and Younger Undergraduates."JournalofHigher Education 52: 640-48.

Zemsky, Robert, and Ueda Penney. 1983. The Structutv of CollegeChoice New York: College Entrance Examination Baird.

Zemsky, Robert; Shaman, Susan; and Herberich, Mary Ann. 1980."Thward An Understanding of Collegiate Enrollments: A First Testof the Market Segment Model."Journal of Education Finance5: 355-74.

I ',Oen:witting .student Enrollment Ikbanur

INDEX

AAcademic ability

students. 7Admissions selectivity, 16

Huston aillege, 60, 62 64Brown University, 65Buyer's market, 6

Carleton College, 60, 64Carnegie Commission, 5Carnegie Council Survey (1978), 5Canwgie Mellon University, 60College aspiration formation, 75

ability, 37.39, 50background, 37-39context, 37-39, 42ethnic background, 49family size, 40inct:me, 49parental influence, 40 42, 49race, 4344, 48religion, 49search and application, 44 46, 76sex, 48

College anendanceec0110111ic 1110tiVatiOn. 3

College choice, 3, 6, 71conceptual lc nindations, 7macn) level studies, 8 9, 72micro-level studies, 8 9. 73models. 35 36selection and attendance, 59 60, 77stages, 35 36

student attributes, 54 58College participati(m rate.College recruitment. 3, 6Colleges

atwndancei0competitkm, 19

costs, 13, 19, 29 30lob market benefits, 18

Cornell University, 66Curriculum, 17

l'Iderstandmg Student Enrollment lieballor

1 0,1

07

4)8

Dartmouth College, 65Discriminant models, 9

Enrollmentcollege attributes, 61demographics, 18economic conditions, 73professional studies, 5student attributes, 60, 74variation, 19vocational studies, 5

Enrollment demand, 11macralevd studies, 12 17, 72micralevel studies, 73student groups, 23

Enrollment planning, 3, 6, 18Environmental characteristics, 7, 15, 28-29

Family characteristics, 6student.s, 7

Guidelinesenrollment planners, 17market research, 67 68

Ifigher educaum (.etuand, 6iligher education marketplace, 3

Ideal college, 66Int.( innation St AINCS, SO 53

In state students, 16Institutional characteristics, 6 7, 16, 26 2', -17

Institutionsattributes, 72implications fin etwollmem, 72location, 16

Investmcmcollege education, 1.4

Joh marketand enrollment, 13

Job market opportunitiescollege graduates, 21noncollege graduates, 21

John Carroll University, 60

LAO mule!, 9

Macro.level studiesenrollment, 72institutkms, 72

Market resorch, 61-62academic, 1

Incepts, 23ethical guidelines, 67-68qualitative apprmiches, 67strategy, 25

Market segmentation, 24Micro- kwel studies

enrollment, 73institutiolm, 73

MidCity College, 60Military serVice

and enrollment. 14Minnesota, University of

enrollment forecast, 20

Natk alai Student Database, 66Nvw student consunler,Nontraditkmal students, 31 33Northeastern 1iniversity.

0Opportunities

college graduates, 1 4

Pacific Lutheran Irniversity,Part tinie students, 16POMO( )11 Universky, tyiProbit models, 9Professional studies

enrollment. 17

Inderstandtng Student 1:nrul1nwni

I I i99

IL

Recruitment, 3Research

college enrollment, 78 80Rutgers University, 60

South DakotaUniversity of, 66

Status attainmentstudents, 7

Strategic planning, 11Student characteristics, 7, 15, 18, 26 27, 46Student-institution lit, 7Students

attributes, 74college Ispiration, 37, 75in-state, 16selldistribution, 8

"Nken for granted" variable, 41ltaditional alucation, 17

llniversity, 60

V

Vt)cational studiesenrollment, 5

Yak. I. Iniversity, 65

( X

ASHE-ERIC HIGHER EDUCATION REPORTS

Since 1983, the A.ssociation for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)and the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clear-inghouse on Higher Education, a sponsored project of the Schoolof Education and Human Development at The George WashingtonUniversity, have cosponsored the ACHEERIC Higher EducationRon series. The '.990 series is the nineteenth overall and thesecond to he published by the School of Education and HumanDevelopment at tF.e George Washington University.

Each monograph is the definitive analysis of a tough higher edu-cation problem, hand on thorough research of pertinent literatureand insitutlonal experiences. Ibpics are identified by a national sur-vey. Noted practidoners and scholars are then commissioned towrite the reports, with experts providing critical reviews of eachmanuscript Pefore publicaticm.

Eight tmatographs (10 betbre 1985) in the A.SHE-ERIC I ligherEducation Report series are published each year and are availableon Individual and subscription Pasis. Subscription to eight issuesis $80.00 annually; $60 to members of AAHE, AIR, or AERA; and $50to AMIE members. Ail Imeign subscribers must include an additional$10 per series war for postage.

order sing e copies of existing reports, use the order form onthe last page of .his book. Regular prices, and special rates availableto members of MIIE, AIR, AERA and ASHE, are as folkms:

Series Regular Members1990 517.00 512.75

1988 89 15.00 11.25

1985 87 10.00 7.50

1983-84 7.50 6.00

before 1983 (150 5.00

Price includes lxxik rate ix istage within the U.S. For foreign orders,please add $ID° per book. Fast linked Parcel Service available withinthe contiguous 11.5. $2.50 for each order under $50.00, and calculated at 5% of invoh:e total lbr orders $50.00 or alxwe.

All orders under $45.00 must be prepaid. Make check payableto ASIIE ERIC. For Visa or MasterCard, include card nunther, expiration date and signatum A bulk discount of 10% is avtilable onorders of 15 or more lxxiks ( n(t applicable on subscriptions).

Address order toASIIE ERIC Higher Educatir )11 ReportsThe George Washington liniversityI Dupont Circle, Suite 630Washington, DC 20036

Or phone ( 202) 296 2597Write or call for a complete catalog of AMIE ERIC Iligher Edu

cation Rip( ins.

!ndersiamling Student Enrollment Ikhal 'tor 101

1 1

AN.

1990 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. The Campus Green: Fund Raising in Higher EducationBarbara E Brittingbam and Thom(Ls R. Pezzullo

2. The Emeritus Professor: Old Rank New MeaningJamm E. Mauch, Jack W Birch, andJack Matthms

3. "High Risk" Students in Higher Education: Future 'RendsDionne). Jones and Bet4, Collier Watson

4. Budgeting for Higher Education at the State Level: Enigma,Paradox, and Ritual

Dankl T Layze 11 and Jan W Lpidon

5. Proprietary Schools: Programs, Policies, and ProspectsJohn B. Lee and Jamie P Merisot Lc


1. Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: The T Word inIligher Education

Meta lvi. Bensimon, Anna Neumann, and Robert Birnbaum

2. Affirmative Rhetoric, Negative Action: African-Anwrican andHispanic Faculty at Predominantly White Universities

lt4lora Washington and William Hanky

3. Pinitsecondary Developmental Programs: A 'Itaditional Agendawith New Imperatives

Louive M. 7bmlinson

4. 11w Old College 'Ity: Balancing Athletics and Academics inIligher Educatk )11

John R. Thelin and Lawrence 1.. Wiseman

5. 11w Challenge of Diversity: Involvement or Alienation in theAcademy?

Daryl G Smith

6. Student Goals for College and Courses: A Missing link in Assessing and Improving Academic Achievenwnt

Joan S. Stark, Kathleen M Shaw, and Malcolm et Lowther

7. 11w Student as Commuter: Developing a Comprehensive 1nstiRespcmse

Barbara Jacoby

R. Renewing Civic Capacity: l'reparing College Students for Serviceand Citizenship

Suzanne W Morse

1988 &SHE-ER1C Higher Education Reports

I. The liwisible Tapestry: Culture in Arnerkwi Colleges andUniversities

George D. Kuh and Elizabeth.j. Whin

102

INIMPO

2. Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and Possibilities

Joanne Gairwn KurAs

3. Developing Academic Programs: The Climate for InnovationDank! T Seymour

4. Peer Teaching: 'fb Teach is 'If,) Learn 'IWIceNeal it Whitman

5, Higher Education and State Gfwernments: Renewed Partnership,

Cooperation, or Competition?Edward R. Hines

6. Entrepreneurship and Higher Education: lemons for Colleges,Universities, and Industry

ames S Fairweather

7, Planning for Micmcomlniters in Higher Education: Strategie:ffor the Next Generatkm

Reynolds Ferrante, John Hayman, Mary Susan Carlson, andIlarfry

R. The Challenge for Research in Iligher Education: HarmonizingExcellence and Utility

Alan W Lindsay and Ruth T Neumann

1987 ASHE.ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Incentive Early Retirement Programs for Faculty: InnovativeResponses to a Changing Environment

Jay/. Chroniswr and Thomas R. Kepide, Jr.

2. Working Effectively with 'Itustees: Building Cooperative CampusLeadership

Barbara E. liolor

3, Formal Recognition of Employer Sponsored Instruction: Conflictand Collegiality in Pf)stsecondary Educatk in

Nancy S. Nash and Elizabeth M. Hawthorm

4. Learning Styles: Implications for Improving Educational PracticesCharles S Clamon and Patricia It Mum!!

5. Iligher Education leadership: Enhancing Skills through Frofessional DevekTment Programs

Sharon A. McDade6. Higher Education and the Public 'Bust: Improving Stature in. Colleges and llniversities

Richard 1.. Alfred and Julie tVi.kanuin

7. uMege Student Outomfes Amessment: A Thlem Devehipment

PerspectiveMaryann lawhi, Ak.rander Actin, and Prank Ayala, fr.

nderstanding Student Enrolbnent Behalor IO.i

1 ;;

=1/11.*8. Opportunity trom Strength: Strategic Maiming Clarified with

Case ExamplesRobert G Cope

1986 ASHEERIC Higher Education Reports1. Post.tenure Faculty Evaluation: Threat or Opportuitity?

Christine M. Licata

2. Blue Ribtxm Commissions and Higher Education: ChangingAcademe from the Outside

anet R Nmson and Laurence R. Marcus

3. Responsive Professional Education: Balancing Outcomes andOpportunities

Joan S. Stark, Makolm A. Lou1ber, and Bonnie M.K Hagerty

4. Increming Students' Learning: A Faculty Guide to ReducingStress among Students

Neal A. Wbitman, David C Spendlove, and Claire 11. Clark

S. Student Financial Aid and Women: Equity Dilemma?Mary Moran

6. 11w Master's Degree: 'Itudition, Diversity, Innovationjudo,' S Gkizer

7. 11w College, the Constitution, and tlw Consumer Student: Imph-cations for Policy and Practice

Robert M. Ilendrkkson and Annette Gibbs

8. Selecting College and University Personnd: The Quest andthe Questim

Richard A Kaplouitz


I. Flexibility in Academic Stalling: Effective Policies and PracticesKenneth 1! Mortimer, Marque Bagsbate, and Andrew "1:

Masland

2. ksmviatkms in &Mon: the Washingt( in, D.C. Higher Educatkinummiunity

Harland G. Noland

3. And on the Seventh Day: Faculty CA insulting and SupplementalIno

(Aryl M. /lover and Darrell 11 Lewis

4. Faculty Research Performance: lessons from the Silences andS4 wial Sciences

Jobn Cresuell

S. Academic Program Review: Institutional Approaches, I:Apextatitms, and Contnwersies

Clifton F Conrad and Richard F Wilson

104

6. Students in Urban Settings: Achieving the Baccalaureate DegreeWhard C Richardson, Jr. and touts W Bender

7. Serving More Than Students: A Critical Need for College StudentPersonnel Services

Peter II. Garland

8. Faculty Participation in Decision Making: Necessity or Luxury?Caml E

1984 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Adult Learning: State Policies and Institutional PracticesK Patricia Ofiis and Anne,Marie itIcCartan

2. Student Stress: Effects and Solutions

Neal A. Whitman, Datid C .Spendlmv, and Claire II Clark

3. Part time Faulty: I ligher Education at a CromroadsJudith M. Gaipa

4. Sex Discrimination law in Higher Education: The Lessons ofthe I,a.st Decade. ED 252 169.*

RaYk lindgren, Patti T Ota, Perry A. Zirkel, and Nan tanGieson

S. Faculty Erecihims and Institutional Accountability: interactionsand Conflicts

Shl vn ()twang wul liarbara A. tee

6. The fligh li.chnoh Fgy ConneLlion: Academic. Industrial Cis Fp

emit in for Eciitutthic Grttwthn Johnson

Emphiyee Educatknial Ps Fgrams: Implications for Industry andligher Educat u in. ED 258 SOL'

Suzanne IV: Morse

R. Academic Libraries: The Changing KniAvIedge Centers of Colleges and f!niversities

barbara B Moran

Futures Research and the Strategk Nanning hill-CM: Implit.atii ins for Higher Educatii

James I.. Morrison, It 'Wham I- Renfro, am! Wayne 1. liouther

in. Faculty Wi nib hid: Research, Tim Ky. and Inteipretatii iiiHarold l Fuker

9.

1983 ASHE-ERIC Higher &location Reports

I. The P-ath to Excellence Quality Assurance in I ligher Education/awoke R. Mar( us, Anita O. Leone, and Edward I). Goklberg

1 Wderstatuling Millent Enrollment liehat41ff

1 1 1IOS

2. Faculty Recruitment, Retention, and Fair Employment: Obli .gations and Opportunities

John S Waggaman

3. Meeting the Challenges: Developing Faculty Careers. El) 232516.*

Michael CT Brooks and Katherine I,. German

4. Raising Academic Standards: A Guide to Learning ImprovementRuth Talbott Keimig

5. SeMng learners at a Distance: A Guide to Program PracticesCharles E. Feaslo

6. Competence, Admissions, and Articulation: Returning to theBasics in Higher Education

Jean I. Freer

7. Public Service in Higher Education: Practices and PrioritiesPatricia H. Crosson

8. Academic Employment and Retrenchment: Judicial Revkwand Administrative Action

Robert M. Hendrickson and Barbara A Ive

9. Burnout: The New Academic Disease. El) 242 255.*snifred Albizu Mekndez and Rafael M de Guzman

la Academic Workplace: New Demands, Heightened limsionsAnn E. Austin and Zekla E Gamson

'Out ot print Available thrtiugh PARS Ca 11 t WE +13 ERIC.

1(X)

ORDER FORM 904Si

Quantity AmountPk.a.se send a complete set of' the 1989 ASHR-Hdr:Higher Education &ports at IRMA 33% off the coverprice.

Please begin my subscriptkm to the 1990 it5IIEIRK.Higher Education &ports at $80.00, 41% off tiw coverprice, starting with Report 1, 1990

Outside the U.S., add $10 per series for postage

Individual reports are avilable at tlw following prices:1990 and forward, $17.00 1983 and 1984, $7.501988 and 1989, $15.00 1982 and back, $6.501985 to 1987, $10.00

Book rale postage ulthin the VS Is included Outskle V.S, please add $1per book for postage &1st II.PS shipping is amilable withm the contaguous

at $2.50 for each order under 150.00, and calculated at 5% of intukeiota/ for ordem 150.00 or abutv. All orders under $45 must be prepaid.

PLEASE SEND ME ME FOLLOWING REPORTS:

Quantity Report No. Year Title Amount

.

1

_,

Heim. check

Subtotal,

one of the fi)llowing: Foreign or UPS!

vsed, payable to GW1I ER1C. Total Duelle Check end(1c

0 Charge my credit card indicated below:0 Visa 0 MastercArd

LI= 1111111

Expiration Date

Mune

Tide

Institution

Address

City State

Ph( me

signature 1)ate

SEND All. ORDERS TO:ASHE-ERIC Higher Education ReportsThe George Washington Univenity

One Dupont Circle, Suite 630Washington, DC 20056-1183

I Phones (202) 296-2597

PRAISE FOR PAST REPORTS

.Pekome the ASHEERIC monograph series. It is a r.-,rvketo those who need brief but dependable analyses of key issuesin higher education."

(Rev. ) Theodore M. flesh:ugh, C.S.0President Emeritus, University of Notre Dame

"Running a successful institution requires mastering detailsquickly. The ASIIEERK Higher Education Reports are valuablebecause they give a national perspective that helps me meetmy own reponsibilities."

Milton Greenberg, Provost, American University

"The first lx)oks off my shelf when I'm looking fbr answers.Keep me aware of potential problems and offer solutionsthat really work."

Kathryn M. Moore, ProfessorMichigan State University

"11e monographs make excellent textbooks, and theirbibliographies are exssential for graduate students."

Eileen Kuhns, CoordinatorEducation Administration ProgramMichigan State University

"Excellent publications, authoritative and well researched,on timely topics."

Ronald W. Collins, Promst and Vice President forAcademic Affairs, Eastern Michigan University

"A godsend to an administrator of a brand new doctoralprogram with caps on resources for course development."

Antonia D'Onofrio, DirectorHigher Mucation ProgramWidener Univmity

"Excellentscholarly, informative, enlightening .superbfor administrative and faculty development."

Robert Gleason, Director of Libraty SenicesRockland Community Collige

"An invaluable resource that gets me on top of a topic in avery efficient manner."

Donakl Reichard, Director of institutional Researchlinwersity of North Ca.vlina at Greenslwro

. t-

. .

MICSIAXL 11. PAWN is an instructional development specialistin the Office of Insructional Resources and an adjunct associate .,

profeisor of higher education at the University. of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign. Previously, he served as associate professorof higher education at the University of Alabama. He receivedhis Ph.D. from the University of Iowa, specializing in highereducation and economics. His research, teaching, andconsulting activities have focused on enrollment management,economics of higher education, and postsecondary curriculitmand instructional development. His publications have appearedin a wide variety of higher education journals.

ISBN 1-878380-03-6417.00

10

1

Date post:	01-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times