Prospect Survey Research

1. Prospect Survey Research College Board Middle States Regional Forum 2008 Daniel J. Rodas, Long Island UniversityHeather Gibbs, Long Island UniversityHerman Kane, Kane-Parsons & Associates Thursday, February 14, 2008

2. Outline • Overview of prospect survey research • Case Study: Brooklyn Campus • Case Study: C.W. Post Campus • Campus Comparisons • Discussions & Questions

3. Overview

4. Objectives • Understand what students expect from attending college and what benefits they hope to receive • Chronicle the reasons for choosing a particular college or university • Clarify institutional image and how well it matches a college’s/university’s sense of itself

5. Objectives • Improving the Numbers • Higher yield from admitted applicant to matriculant • Higher conversion from inquiry pool • Greater selectivity • More effective recruiting of targeted populations (by race/ethnicity, academic caliber, geographic region, socio-economic subgroups, etc.)

6. Sample Selection • Students and parents, segmented by level of interest in the college/university • Candidates not in the inquiry pool • Non-applicant inquirers • Admit-declines • Incoming matriculants

7. Sample Selection • Influencers • Parents • High school guidance counselors • High school teachers (especially when targeting students with already defined specialized interests, e.g., art, music, engineering, etc.)

8. Methodologies • Telephone vs. self-administered electronic surveys • Advantages • Disadvantages

9. Survey Content • Academic quality dimensions • Quality of student life • Experiential learning • Student-faculty interaction • Outcomes • Cost and financial aid • Location

10. Survey Content • Background information • Institutional image • Comparative numerical ratings • Identification of attributes with college/university and its key peers • Testing of positioning options

11. Information Sources • The influence of counselors, parents, institutional communications, third-party assessments, in making inquiry, application, campus visit and final selection decisions

12. Findings • Creation or modification of positioning and core messages • Recommendation of programmatic and communications initiatives • Marketing and communications priorities

13. Findings • Closing the gap between external perceptions and reality in: • Web • Viewbook • College fairs • High school visits • Campus tours

14. Long Island University Market Research

15. Purpose • To survey Long Island University’s student prospect constituencies • To understand better their • demographic profile and other background characteristics • academic and career direction • perceptions of the University and Campuses • To provide an empirical basis for academic planning, enrollment communication, program marketing, and student recruitment

16. Long Island University • Founded in 1926 as a private, co-educational, non-sectarian institution • Mission of “Access and Excellence” • 18,600 degree-seeking students • 600 degree and certificate programs • $360 million operating budget • $100 million endowment • $1 billion replacement value/physical assets

17. Long Island University • Two residential campuses: • Brooklyn • C.W. Post • Four regional campuses • Brentwood • Riverhead • Rockland • Westchester • 653 full-time faculty • 162,000 living alumni

18. Approach • “Blind” telephone interviews with three samples

19. Approach • Representative sample, including: • Applicants who are likely to enroll (“likelies”) • Applicants who may enroll (“possibles”) • Inquirers who are not likely to apply (“unlikelies”)

20. Case Study: Brooklyn Campus

21. Background of First-year Prospects • Unlikelies • 90% non-white • 69% female • 57% of fathers and 63% of mothers do not have college degree • Median household income of $30,000 • Likelies • 91% non-white • 71% female • 53% of fathers and 54% of mothers do not have college degree • Median household income of $36,000

22. Highest Rated Selection Criteria Among First-year Prospects

23. Lowest Rated Selection Criteria By contrast, the lowest-rated college selection criteria are: • An outstanding athletic program • Availability of online classes • Opportunity to join a religious organization

24. Findings • Academic ratings much stronger today, e.g., among admit-declines, now ranked #2, but was ranked #6 in 1987 among closest competitors. • Strong identification with health-related programs parallels earlier finding Incidence of males is lower today (possibly related to pharmacy inclusion and omission) • Incidence of whites is also lower

25. Findings • Greater emphasis today on outcomes, especially jobs, as indicator of excellence. • Faculty teaching quality, while the #3 measure today, was #1 in 1987 • Greater competitive prominence of certain institutions • Accessibility to public transportation continues to be the strongest locational attribute

26. Other Findings • Scarcity of non-science liberal arts candidates, especially in the arts and humanities • Most expect to work and will count on assistance in finding employment. • Post-graduate job placement and academic program considerations are paramount.

27. Ratings of Educational Quality Among First-Year Prospects 1.0 = poor 5.0 = mediocre 10.0 = outstanding

28. Other Findings • The Brooklyn Campus is often perceived to be a public university – less than 50% of first-year, non-matriculants are aware that Long Island University is a private university • The Brooklyn Campus competes overwhelmingly with public institutions

29. Recommendations & Opportunities • Counter the public/private confusion • Increased emphasis on the business/financial/communications opportunities in downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan • Accentuate Brooklyn’s cultural and artistic saturation • Document and emphasize the reciprocal relationship between Brooklyn and the Brooklyn Campus

30. Recommendations & Opportunities • Capitalize on the Campus’ strong image in the health sciences • Highlight the potential for post-college connections and networking • Reinforce outcomes • Expand assistance programs to help students find attractive term-time jobs • Address language barriers of prospect parents, especially Asian and Eastern-European communities

31. Case Study: C.W. Post Campus

32. Background of First-year Prospects • Unlikelies • 50% white • 30% male, 70% female • 50% of fathers and 55% of mothers do not have college degree • Median household income of $68,000 • Likelies • 75% white • 48% male, 52% female • 54% of fathers and 46% of mothers do not have college degree • Median household income of $74,000

33. Highest Rated Selection Criteria Among First-year Prospects

34. Lowest Rated Selection Criteria Consistent with results from the Brooklyn Campus, the lowest-rated college selection criteria are: • An outstanding athletic program • Availability of online classes • Opportunity to join a religious organization

35. Findings • The Campus enjoys a strong image in: • Education • Business • Criminal Justice • C.W. Post’s attractiveness: • Location • Campus attractiveness • Reputation for individualized attention • Affiliation with Long Island University

36. Findings • Prospective liberal arts majors, although still a minority, are more numerous than they were in 1987 • Interest has risen in: • Criminal Justice • Education • Interest has declined in: • Business

37. Findings • Jobs obtained by graduates is perceived to be a much more important measure of educational excellence. • Long Island is a primary source of transfers but other areas, including NYC, are becoming prominent. • More students, including transfers, expect to live on or near campus.

38. Program Appeal • The Campus has had limited success attracting prospective majors in: • Liberal Arts and Sciences • Natural and physical sciences • Humanities • Social sciences (except Psychology). • More prestigious pre-professional programs • Pre-medicine • Pre-Law

39. Ratings of Educational Quality Among First-year Prospects 1.0 = poor 5.0 = mediocre 10.0 = outstanding

40. Recommendations & Opportunities • Reduce public/private confusion • Enhance the academic image by further emphasizing faculty and programmatic quality • Focus on specific, measurable outcomes • Recruit high-ability women • Recognize the prominence of the Web site. • Target guidance counselors.

41. Summary of Findings:

42. Similarities • Public / private confusion • Levels of parental education • Focus on professional studies, but different mix of fields • Importance of program quality and job outcomes as primary college selection criteria • Relative lack of importance of athletics, online class and religious organizations in college choice

43. Differences • Ethnic/racial makeup • Geographic source of students • Socio-economic status • Incidences of preferred on-campus living • Academic reputation relative to competitors among non-matriculants • Locational attributes • Prominence of public sector competitors

44. Discussion & Questions