That's the question I'm asking myself after a meeting this morning.
If undergraduate enrollment needs something done, our U will usually move heaven and earth to make it happen. But with graduate enrollment, the efforts are all over the place and there's not really a set, dedicated budget for graduate recruitment (that I'm aware of). Some departments essentially run their own admissions, others rely on the central College of Graduate Studies office.
I bet at some schools, graduate enrollment is probably more important than it is here. But let's be honest, when it comes down to the numbers fall semester, most are going to care more about the undergraduate numbers than the graduate ones.
I wonder why it is that we don't seem to handle this set of graduate students as well as undergrads.
Could it be that the programs they're in are just so diverse — i.e. a law degree versus a history one -- that it's too difficult to market graduate education as a whole at such-and-such a school?
Could it be that we view graduate students as the end of the gravy train? In other words, we get them into our schools as undergrads, hopefully they buy into the experience for a graduate degree already, and after that, we can't market much more to them. So our efforts wane as the years roll on ...
Or could it be -- as our graduate recruiter suggested today -- that we view prospective students as more mature? That they don't need all the hand-holding, information, and step-by-step that undergrads do. (When in actuality, maybe they do).
Just thinking out loud about this.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Why is Graduate Enrollment Not as Important?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I work at a law school, and recruiting is VERY important, but the criteria is much different. Because there are fewer law schools, it's very competitive to get into one. The problem isn't getting enrollment, but getting quality enrollment. The competition is for law schools to get a diverse group of students with the best scores and GPAs, which helps rankings, which helps the next year of recruiting, which helps recruiting...
PS--I love your blog!
I think at many institutions, there is a problem with parity between undergrad and grad students. I work at a small, private university, and while we have this problem as well, a lot has been happening recently to address it.
My office has been working closely with grad enrollment to setup AdWords campaigns, redesign grad program sites, and develop more comprehensive print materials. I'm constantly reminded to evaluate whether or not our website gives "equal time" to both sets of students.
I remember hearing somewhere that undergrad tuition pays the bills, and grad tuition is the money maker.
As far as hand-holding, as someone who just applied to an MBA program, I have no problem with too much attention. Tell me exactly what I need to do next - I'm busy and I just want the process to be as easy as possible. So perhaps grad recruitment could borrow many ideas from next door.
At many institutions, it's not that it isn't important, it just serves a different purpose. First off, you're right in that it is highly specialized. Most graduate recruitment happens at the department level and is focused on the research and activities of particular faculty. Centralized grad schools typically serve as an application clearinghouse with limited marketing functions.
Consider the financial impact undergrad recruitment has on the institution as opposed to grad recruitment. Undergrads typically take a full course load (15-18 credits). They're more likely to live on campus, eat campus food, etc. And at most institutions, there are just plain more of them paying tuition than there are grad students.
Grad students, on the other hand, are often PAID to attend. Their function is teaching and research and at many institutions full-timers don't pay a dime of tuition. Those who do pay, most likely take one or two classes a semester.
If you look at the "cash cow" programs like executive MBAs-- there is no shortage of marketing resources. Those folks are full-ride, financed by someone else.
I've marketed undergrad admissions as well as various graduate programs. From experience I would say that I can't imagine many departments wanting to give up the personal nature of their marketing and recruitment of grad students to some other group.
I'm commenting separately to all these.
Anonymous
Thanks for the compliment first off.
Second, I agree about quality enrollment. With some of the grad health programs here, that's what I hear: there's plenty of people wanting to get in the door, but they want to raise the quality of those applicants. It's kind of cyclical -- the better the current students, the better the applicants. The better the applicants, the better the current students.
Erik
I agree about hand holding. I'm in a graduate program here, and I need someone to tell me "this is what you do in these steps." I can tell others are in the same boat, because at least once a month, I get a question from a co-worker about my graduate program, what steps to take, etc. I should be on admission's payroll, too!
Todd,
To your point about undergrads more likely to live on campus, use a meal plan, etc., I have heard talk around here about developing graduate student housing. And I know this is not a new concept. I think this is another way for schools to extent that cash cow mentality -- get the grads living in our housing, eating our food, etc.
Post a Comment