View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Enrollment Management and Admissions Policies at Regional Public Universities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Enrollment Management and Admissions Policies at Regional Public Universities
Language: English
Authors: DeMonbrun, Matt, Warshaw, Jarrett B.
Source: New Directions for Higher Education. Sum 2020 (190):71-88.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Enrollment Management, Graduate Students, Tuition, Scores, Standardized Tests, State Universities, Strategic Planning, Student Recruitment, Student Diversity, Enrollment Trends, Case Studies, State Aid, Student Financial Aid, Trend Analysis, Educational Change, Educational Trends, Undergraduate Students
DOI: 10.1002/he.20368
ISSN: 0271-0560
Abstract: The college enrollment landscape has changed vastly in the last couple of decades. As such, regional public universities (RPUs) have had to become increasingly strategic in how they recruit new students to attend their institutions. For example, total college enrollment has declined from 2010 to 2017, and this population continues to become more diverse in race/ethnicity and socioeconomic background. This chapter highlights the strategic enrollment-related changes that these institutions have undergone across key variables. We close with two case studies, examining these changes across two state systems of higher education to better understand how these variations occur in contexts of broader state demographics and public policies. The findings from this chapter suggest that RPUs have largely experienced similar changes together over the last 10 years of this analysis, showing modest increases in tuition rates and institutional aid amid declining state appropriations and decreases in average first-year standardized test scores and graduate student enrollment.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1272930
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEMegZ47rxZjOqO_psGV1jgAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCMXJZ8n-GI7_2pfUgIBEICBmkqKtfqDkP7XkWmBKXvHvWf3rTO_bLUvYAT1r4BYlY8G54M3PCOuC5BB_48EJHSNKq05mcVl1qc_f8o9VqRnwyZRbtRItDiwJpW-GPnRsIB3K__F5rNoiJR1gG9BX8-uoU9h0F8WDP6IkyYJJ8NRCU25L7aZ0IZFkj3i08M2CLnoVGCFXIv5Oh6BMm09IU6TEbckFw0t3s6iGBE=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0146607770;ndh01jun.20;2020Oct27.03:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0146607770-1">Enrollment Management and Admissions Policies at Regional Public Universities </title> <p>The college enrollment landscape has changed vastly in the last couple of decades. As such, regional public universities (RPUs) have had to become increasingly strategic in how they recruit new students to attend their institutions. For example, total college enrollment has declined from 2010 to 2017, and this population continues to become more diverse in race/ethnicity and socioeconomic background. This chapter highlights the strategic enrollment‐related changes that these institutions have undergone across key variables. We close with two case studies, examining these changes across two state systems of higher education to better understand how these variations occur in contexts of broader state demographics and public policies. The findings from this chapter suggest that RPUs have largely experienced similar changes together over the last 10 years of this analysis, showing modest increases in tuition rates and institutional aid amid declining state appropriations and decreases in average first‐year standardized test scores and graduate student enrollment.</p> <p>The college landscape, including who goes to college and why, has changed vastly in the last couple of decades. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2019), total college enrollment increased by 8% from 2007 to 2017 (from 18.3 to 19.8 million students), but the majority of this increase occurred from 2007 to 2010 (15%). Enrollment actually declined from 2010 to 2017 (−6%). Indeed, in the last 7 years of this analysis (2010 to 2017), full‐time enrollments declined 8%, while part‐time enrollments were up 15%. From a demographic standpoint, who attends college has also shifted in the last 10 years. Both male and female enrollments have increased, and while male enrollment has swelled at a higher rate, female students are still the majority in higher education. Enrollment of students aged 18–24, sometimes referred to as "traditional students," has increased slightly (39% to 40%), as has enrollment of Hispanic and Asian students (to 19% and 7%, respectively), while enrollment of Black students has slightly decreased from 15% to 14% from 2011.</p> <p>Because of these changes in the enrolling population over the last several years, regional public universities (RPUs) have had to adapt their recruitment process for students. For example, RPUs looking to compete in enrollment markets may choose preferred candidates, such as those from out of state who are academically prepared and pay higher tuition than in‐state peers. But doing this would constrain their capacity to serve students in their region (Jaquette, Curs, & Posselt, 2016). The resource‐constrained environment in U.S. higher education is unlikely to change over the next decade. For smaller, financially constrained RPUs, state economic conditions have driven campuses to become leaner and more efficient (Titus, Vamosiu, & McClure, 2017), in some cases leading to closures and mergers. Decreasing state appropriations and population trends in many areas of the United States (e.g., the Northeast and Midwest) mean that these institutions will have to search for additional sources of revenue in order to "make ends meet" (Seltzer, 2019). Because of these and other changes in the college landscape, many researchers have proposed that RPUs have compelling reasons to engage in striving, or the pursuit of prestige in the academic hierarchy (O'Meara, 2007), often leading institutions to seek to recruit more elite student populations nationally (Jaquette & Salazar, 2018; Jaquette et al., 2016).</p> <p>In this chapter, we will discuss these enrollment shifts, as well as how RPUs have responded to serve the needs of the region and state and simplify the college‐going process to a whole new population of students. Our goal, then, is to analyze changes in enrollment over the last 10 years at RPUs in order to better understand the institutional landscape at these colleges, including how behaviors are tied to regional and urban characteristics. Specifically, we draw on data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to examine changes in admissions selectivity, financial trends, and enrollment changes in RPUs over time. We then provide two case studies demonstrating the changes that two groups of RPUs have undertaken to adapt to changing demographics in the college‐going population.</p> <hd id="AN0146607770-2">Background and Context</hd> <p>In the 1970s, campus stakeholders grew increasingly anxious about the wane in post‐World War II births and in the number of high school graduates. The impending constraints on student demand and resource‐flows amplified the need at colleges and universities to pursue strategic planning across a variety of operational domains. Efforts to tie together admissions, financial aid, registration, and retention resulted in adoption of what would come to be called strategic enrollment management (SEM). These initiatives grouped once‐functionally‐separate units and offices into a new division and aimed to streamline the sharing and exchange of student‐related information and records. Such reforms coincided with the creation of positions for Vice Presidents/Provosts for Enrollment Management, who presided over SEM‐focused divisions and usually reported directly to college presidents. SEM became widely adopted in higher education because, as advocates suggested, it helped institutions to identify and market/brand their distinctive strengths and to allocate available seats and resources to craft classes of preferred candidates (Dixon, 1995; Hossler, 2015; Saichaie & Warshaw, 2018; Warshaw & Hearn, 2018).</p> <p>As noted elsewhere in this volume, there are assumptions about SEM at RPUs. These assumptions suggest that RPUs seek to strive for prestige by becoming more exclusive for academically prepared students from higher‐income backgrounds who apply to colleges throughout the United States (Geiger, 2004; Hoxby, 2009). These institutions, according to the dominant perspective, aim to increase their SAT and ACT scores to improve their rankings in <emph>U.S. News & World Report</emph>. Yet the increase in selectivity and in test scores, due to social inequality at the K‐12 level, is likely to advantage white students from higher‐income families (Jaquette et al., 2016; Posselt, Jaquette, Bielby, & Bastedo, 2012). Thus, through their admissions policies, striving‐focused RPUs would become less representative of the broader diversity in their states and in the US as a whole. But it is important to note that not all RPUs are striving for prestige, and SEM can be applied in ways that are constructive in meeting the enrollment and revenue goals critical for financial health and sustainability. Whether used for striving or not, the details, incentives, and associated outcomes of SEM at RPUs warrant close attention.</p> <p>SEM attends to institutional "enrollment health," often captured through use of the full‐time equivalent (FTE) metrics and indicators of net tuition revenue. Given the enrollment and demographic changes noted in the introduction of this chapter, it is possible that RPUs may begin to favor nonresident, domestic and international undergraduate students in order to bolster their FTE student enrollment and resource goals. FTE student enrollment and resource goals. Analogous to public colleges and universities in general, RPUs typically assess out‐of‐state students higher tuition prices than in‐state residents. Such a pricing strategy can generate tuition revenues—net of institutional aid expended—to optimize resources critical for subsidizing lower‐income students and the campus as a whole (Hillman, 2012).</p> <p>The recruitment of nonresident, domestic and international students may come with trade‐offs for enrollment managers to consider. RPUs that recruit out‐of‐state students could experience declines in socioeconomic and racial diversity (Jaquette & Salazar, 2018; Jaquette et al., 2016). Because of inequality in K‐12 education, when they seek students from top high schools, admissions officers are likely to visit whiter and more affluent communities. Where institutions recruit, as part of SEM‐based initiatives, thus matters for access and equity.</p> <p>Whether RPUs are striving or not, many could seek to enhance their graduate student enrollment as part of their efforts to become more research‐intensive (striving‐oriented) or to expand their operations and overall number of FTE students (capacity‐building). Undergraduates tend to subsidize graduate education through their tuition and fees (Warshaw, McNaughtan, & DeMonbrun, 2019). When such funding dynamics result in higher tuition prices, equity may be further constrained due to price sensitivities/elasticities among students and families from disadvantaged backgrounds.</p> <p>The ascendance of SEM in higher education has coincided with shifts in the allocation of different types and forms of institutional aid. In addition to state and federal student aid, RPUs offer students need‐ and/or merit‐based scholarships (grant or gift aid) that makes attending college more affordable for them and their families. Need‐based aid is associated with positive, marginal gains in enrolling students from disadvantaged backgrounds, but is being supplanted by increases in the proportion of aid awarded as merit. Merit‐based aid can flow to academically prepared low‐income students and students of color (Hoxby & Avery, 2012); however, it tends to reach higher‐income students to increase their willingness to attend. To make students more willing to attend is important in the context of SEM, because it entails increasing the enrollment yield: the percentage of admitted students who enroll. RPUs may thus work to fill seats in their classes and enhance their perceived desirability as a college destination.</p> <p>Institutions award aid through restricted (endowed) and unrestricted (general) funds, which contribute to tuition discounts for students and families. Restricted funds, whether need‐ or merit‐based, must be spent in accordance with donors' wishes, while unrestricted funds are usually deployed based on institutions' strategic choices and often utilize "tuition discounting" practices rather than funding grant aid through donors or endowment sources. The astute use of various types and sources of financial aid can be leveraged to shape student enrollment yield and retention (Hossler, Bontrager, & Associates, 2015) and institutional net revenues (Hillman, 2012). Yet there has been a gradual demise of "need‐blind" admissions, such that enrollment managers increasingly factor into their decision‐making students' abilities to pay for college. The criteria by which aid officers determine financial need can be based in part on merit that cuts against diversity (e.g., merit as a function of test‐scores rather than of financial hardship in one's life).</p> <p>To fund financial aid packages, SEM‐related practices often entail employing a high‐tuition, high‐aid model. The model consists of raising, over time, the sticker price to generate adequate pools of subsidies that offset the costs of attendance for high‐ <emph>and</emph> low‐income students. When RPUs seek to generate net tuition revenues, they are assumed to increase, within any state governance restrictions, the prices for both in‐state and out‐of‐state students. Moreover, RPUs may feel strong financial pressure to enroll higher‐income students; many are lean enterprises that receive fewer state appropriations than in previous eras (Hearn, Warshaw, & Ciarimboli, 2016; O'Meara, 2007). It can be difficult, then, for RPUs to balance historical commitments to diverse student populations with resource‐based needs.</p> <p>SEM is generally associated with the rise in market‐based mentalities and competition in higher education that erodes local campus values and goals (Kraatz, Ventresca, & Deng, 2010). Yet as Hossler (2015) observes: "Manifestations of SEM may vary according to the institutional mission of a campus, the unique academic programs universities may offer, and the geographical location of a college" (p. 13). The changes in postsecondary student demand and enrollment, as described earlier, suggest that RPU stakeholders will likely increase their attention to managing enrollment and revenues. The variables and indicators of SEM at RPUs are thus important to examine.</p> <hd id="AN0146607770-3">Methodology</hd> <p>For this chapter, we utilized data from the <emph>Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System</emph> (IPEDS). We identified RPUs based on their Carnegie classification as public master's comprehensive colleges and universities. Because of issues of aggregation in how numeric data are reported for branch campuses of some RPUs, we used a "parent‐child" collapsing procedure for accuracy in the descriptive analysis (Jaquette & Parra, 2014). We excluded from the sample institutions that were founded after 2006, closed prior to 2016, were private nonprofit or for‐profit institutions, or had missing data throughout the time period of interest. This narrowed the final sample to 245 public institutions.</p> <p>We took two approaches to analyzing the data. First, we used a cross‐sectional approach to analyze a number of institutional, financial, and organizational characteristics from the years 2006 and 2016. Given population and demographic fluctuations across regions (e.g., decreased college‐aged populations in the Northeast and Midwest) and urban characteristics (e.g., city and suburban growth and rural declines), we also examined changes in these characteristics across region and urbanicity as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Second, in further examining how these above‐noted metrics shape enrollment management decisions, we used an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model to measure the association between variables in the categories of admissions selectivity, institutional characteristics, and institutional finances and resources and the enrollment yield (the percentage of admitted students who enrolled at the university) at each institution between the years of 2006 and 2016.</p> <hd id="AN0146607770-4">Variables</hd> <p>We categorized the variables of interest for this study into three groups, based on our prior analyses (DeMonbrun, Warshaw, & McNaughtan, 2019; Warshaw et al., 2019): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) admissions selectivity, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) institutional characteristics, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) institutional finances and resources. Admissions selectivity represents those shifts in the academic profile of an institution and consists of two variables, 75th percentile SAT scores for each incoming fall cohort and the acceptance rate (the percentage of all applicants who were admitted to the institution). Institutional characteristics represent student enrollment policies and behaviors and consist of total undergraduate and graduate FTE enrollment and the percent of first‐time, full‐time students paying nonresident tuition, which serves as a proxy for out‐of‐state enrollment. Finally, for institutional finances and resources, we used restricted institutional grant aid per FTE and unrestricted institutional grant aid per FTE, the amount of state grant aid per FTE, and resident and nonresident tuition prices.</p> <p>For the OLS regression model in the second part of this analysis, we used enrollment yield—a proxy for both an indicator of desirability to attend, and thus the "enrollment health" of an institution—as our dependent variable, while using the variables listed above in our three groups as our independent variables. In order to account for the independence of observations assumption in OLS regression, we clustered standard errors by the institution.</p> <hd id="AN0146607770-5">Findings</hd> <p>Table 5.1 provides descriptive statistics for the ten variables of interest across all institutions in this sample in 2006 and 2016. Neither of the two indicators for admissions selectivity saw noticeable changes in the full sample. The average total undergraduate population FTE increased by nearly 800 students (9% growth), while the average total graduate population FTE decreased by over 250 students—a 13% drop—and the percentage of out‐of‐state students saw a negligible change. Meanwhile, financial characteristics have seen skyrocketing changes, with the average amount of restricted institutional aid per FTE nearly doubling and the average amount of unrestricted institutional aid per FTE nearly tripling. State appropriations have declined by around 15%, while the average in‐state and out‐of‐state tuition price increased by 36% and 24%, respectively. The increase in tuition is perhaps a response by RPUs to create a pool of unrestricted funds by which to help support financial aid (both merit‐ and need‐based) at their institutions amidst state divestment in higher education.</p> <p>5.1 TableDescriptive Statistics for Selected Variables at RPUs in 2006 and 2016</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th> </th><th>2006</th><th>2016</th></tr><tr><th> </th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Min</th><th>Max</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Min</th><th>Max</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SAT 75th percentile</td><td>1,123</td><td>92</td><td>900</td><td>1,590</td><td>1,104</td><td>93</td><td>860</td><td>1,360</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of admittance (admitted/applied)</td><td>69.0</td><td>17.2</td><td>11.2</td><td>100.0</td><td>70.2</td><td>17.0</td><td>11.5</td><td>100.0</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of enrollment (enrolled/admitted)</td><td>45.4</td><td>16.4</td><td>13.8</td><td>100.0</td><td>33.9</td><td>13.6</td><td>9.9</td><td>88.9</td></tr><tr><td>Total UG population</td><td>8,661</td><td>5,788</td><td>1,006</td><td>31,419</td><td>9,441</td><td>7,177</td><td>1,627</td><td>57,597</td></tr><tr><td>Total grad population</td><td>2,029</td><td>2,003</td><td>32</td><td>13,613</td><td>1,774</td><td>1,824</td><td>61</td><td>18,598</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of out‐of‐state enrollment</td><td>13.3</td><td>12.9</td><td>0.0</td><td>71.0</td><td>13.2</td><td>11.9</td><td>0.8</td><td>65.6</td></tr><tr><td>Restricted inst aid per FTE</td><td>$172</td><td>$272</td><td>$0</td><td>$2,428</td><td>$280</td><td>$361</td><td>$0</td><td>$2,388</td></tr><tr><td>Unrestricted inst aid per FTE</td><td>$583</td><td>$647</td><td>$0</td><td>$4,189</td><td>$1,497</td><td>$1,062</td><td>$0</td><td>$5,659</td></tr><tr><td>State grant aid per FTE</td><td>$876</td><td>$882</td><td>$0</td><td>$5,292</td><td>$740</td><td>$1,737</td><td>$0</td><td>$24,000</td></tr><tr><td>In‐state tuition price</td><td>$6,278</td><td>$1,864</td><td>$2,992</td><td>$13,342</td><td>$8,538</td><td>$2,052</td><td>$4,986</td><td>$16,149</td></tr><tr><td>Out‐of‐state tuition price</td><td>$14,423</td><td>$3,591</td><td>$4,478</td><td>$23,265</td><td>$17,886</td><td>$4,482</td><td>$6,422</td><td>$33,819</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To understand how these changes have been impacted by the regional and/or urban features of these RPUs, we also examined the changes to each of these three groups of variables by region and urbanicity. Table 5.2 shows the changes from 2006 to 2016 across all ten variables by region (left hand portion of the table) and urbanicity (right hand portion of the table). Looking at admissions selectivity, we found that changes varied widely by region. For example, RPUs in the Rocky Mountain region declined in academic quality (SAT 75th percentile) and increased their selectivity (in this case, suggesting that they became less selective because they admitted a far greater percentage of students in comparison to who applied). Other RPUs in states in the Plains and Southwest regions also decreased in academic quality, but similarly decreased in their selectivity metrics (suggesting they admitted fewer students than applied). For urbanicity, academic quality decreased across all sectors, with the exception of rural RPUs. Acceptance rates remained relatively unchanged, except in suburban sectors, where these institutions admitted a much larger proportion of students.</p> <p>5.2 TableChanges in Selected Variables at RPUs Between 2006 and 2016</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th> </th><th align="center">Region</th><th align="center">Urbanicity</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="center">New England</th><th align="center">Mid‐East</th><th align="center">Great Lakes</th><th align="center">Plains</th><th align="center">Southeast</th><th align="center">Southwest</th><th align="center">Rocky Mountains</th><th align="center">Far West</th><th align="center">City</th><th align="center">Suburb</th><th align="center">Town</th><th align="center">Rural</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SAT 75th percentile</td><td>−9</td><td>−4</td><td>−13</td><td>−40</td><td>−19</td><td>−20</td><td>−11</td><td>−40</td><td>−10</td><td>−18</td><td>−31</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of admittance</td><td>5.5</td><td>6.9</td><td>−6.6</td><td>−4.6</td><td>1.7</td><td>−7.6</td><td>9.6</td><td>5.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>5.2</td><td>0.5</td><td>−1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of enrollment</td><td>−9.8</td><td>−9.8</td><td>−9.7</td><td>−9.5</td><td>−13.7</td><td>−16.9</td><td>−22.6</td><td>−10.3</td><td>−11.8</td><td>−11.5</td><td>−11.1</td><td>−13.1</td></tr><tr><td>Total UG population</td><td>−101</td><td>1228</td><td>505</td><td>418</td><td>77</td><td>781</td><td>3070</td><td>2154</td><td>963</td><td>1412</td><td>354</td><td>−391</td></tr><tr><td>Total grad population</td><td>−726</td><td>−62</td><td>−429</td><td>90</td><td>−169</td><td>185</td><td>−1604</td><td>−853</td><td>−288</td><td>−175</td><td>−191</td><td>−851</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of out‐of‐state enrollment</td><td>1.5</td><td>−0.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>−1.1</td><td>−0.3</td><td>0.5</td><td>1.0</td><td>−0.3</td><td>−0.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>−0.5</td><td>4.2</td></tr><tr><td>Restricted inst aid per FTE</td><td>$70.57</td><td>$44.71</td><td>$140.90</td><td>$221.04</td><td>$100.74</td><td>$145.58</td><td>$23.98</td><td>$108.02</td><td>$82.43</td><td>$63.51</td><td>$151.03</td><td>$178.22</td></tr><tr><td>Unrestricted inst aid per FTE</td><td>$1,122.89</td><td>$749.17</td><td>$909.03</td><td>$381.22</td><td>$926.37</td><td>$956.00</td><td>$1,219.31</td><td>$1,483.47</td><td>$948.11</td><td>$881.11</td><td>$855.30</td><td>$1,166.25</td></tr><tr><td>State grant aid per FTE</td><td>−$85.74</td><td>−$70.71</td><td>−$126.01</td><td>−$73.95</td><td>−$209.50</td><td>−$31.18</td><td>$209.95</td><td>−$420.64</td><td>−$138.08</td><td>$198.74</td><td>−$300.33</td><td>−$133.91</td></tr><tr><td>In‐state tuition price</td><td>$2,622.54</td><td>$1,973.46</td><td>$2,026.12</td><td>$1,452.65</td><td>$2,682.03</td><td>$2,222.43</td><td>$2,915.16</td><td>$2,636.52</td><td>$2,263.19</td><td>$2,329.89</td><td>$2,212.85</td><td>$2,399.26</td></tr><tr><td>Out‐of‐state tuition price</td><td>$3,504.69</td><td>$3,252.32</td><td>$2,232.39</td><td>$1,763.77</td><td>$4,211.50</td><td>$4,340.27</td><td>$4,893.49</td><td>$4,147.49</td><td>$3,705.48</td><td>$3,956.17</td><td>$2,941.02</td><td>$3,466.54</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>For the institutional characteristics, most regions increased their average enrolled undergraduate population (with the exception of the New England states), and for some regions like the Rocky Mountains and Far West, these numbers increased by large amounts on average (3,070 and 2,154 students, respectively). In contrast, the average enrolled graduate population decreased across all regions, except for the Plains and Southwest states. Finally, out‐of‐state enrollment percentages remained relatively stable, except in New England states where this experienced a modest increase. Across urbanicity, undergraduate enrollment increased across all sectors except rural RPUs, whereas graduate enrollments experienced sharp declines, especially across rural RPUs. Similarly, rural RPUs reflected the most drastic change in out of state enrollment, with nearly a 4% increase in the percentage of this population, perhaps as a result of decreasing undergraduate and graduate enrollments.</p> <p>Finally, for institutional finances and resources, all regions experienced increases in both restricted and unrestricted institutional aid, although the magnitude was greater in some areas than others. For example, Plains‐based RPUs saw a $221 per FTE increase in restricted institutional aid versus Mid East RPUs which only saw a $44 increase. For unrestricted sources, RPUs in New England, in the Rocky Mountains, and in the Far West increased their respective funding by more than $1,000 per FTE. For restricted sources, RPUs in areas such as the Rocky Mountains only show an average increase of $24 per FTE. This finding suggests that these institutions are funding their own scholarships to a greater extent as opposed to using sources, like endowments and restricted scholarships. Across urbanicity, restricted institutional aid revealed positive, marginal increases; interestingly, there were larger increases at RPUs in rural areas than at those in cities, while unrestricted institutional aid showed strong growth across all sectors. State appropriations per FTE decreased across all regions except for RPUs in the Rocky Mountains. These declines were particularly large in the Southeast ($210 per FTE) and the Far West ($421 per FTE). For urbanicity, state appropriations increased in suburban RPUs, while decreasing elsewhere.</p> <hd id="AN0146607770-6">Examining Enrollment Yield</hd> <p>Table 5.3 provides an overview of the OLS regression model for this analysis. Across the admissions selectivity variables, both SAT 75th percentile and the acceptance rate had a significant positive association with enrollment yield. In the case of SAT 75th percentile, every 100‐point increase in this metric was associated with a 2.3% increase in enrollment yield (<emph>p</emph> < 0.01). Similarly, every one percent increase in acceptance rate was associated with a 0.13% increase in enrollment yield (i.e., accessibility leads to higher yield; <emph>p</emph> < 0.01). Across institutional characteristics, only the total undergraduate FTE had a significant relationship with enrollment yield. In this case, a 100‐FTE increase in the undergraduate population was actually associated with a 0.05% decrease in enrollment yield (<emph>p</emph> < 0.01), suggesting that either larger RPUs tend to be less selective in their admission processes, or that lower enrollment yield may signal that institutions are having to enroll more students to meet financial goals. Finally, for institutional finances and resources, both of the tuition variables were the only significant ones present in the model. In both cases, a $1,000 increase in in‐state and out‐of‐state tuition was associated with a 1.83% and 0.6% decrease in enrollment yield, respectively (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001). In the next section, we highlight two specific groups of institutions that have undergone vastly different changes in their enrollment practices as a result of evolving student demographics and economic/market conditions (external forces) and academic and financial goals (campus preferences).</p> <p>5.3 TableRegression Analysis for Variables Predicting Enrollment Yield at RPUs Between 2006 and 2016 (n = 245)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th> </th><th align="center">B</th><th>SE B</th><th align="center">t</th><th>p</th><th>95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SAT 75th percentile</td><td>2.302</td><td>0.788</td><td>2.920</td><td>0.004</td><td>[0.75, 3.854]</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of admittance</td><td>0.133</td><td>0.043</td><td>3.070</td><td>0.002</td><td>[0.048, 0.219]</td></tr><tr><td>Total UG population</td><td>−0.001</td><td>0.000</td><td>−2.800</td><td>0.006</td><td>[−0.001, 0]</td></tr><tr><td>Total grad population</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.001</td><td>−0.440</td><td>0.661</td><td>[−0.002, 0.001]</td></tr><tr><td>Percentage of out‐of‐state enrollment</td><td>−0.021</td><td>0.051</td><td>−0.410</td><td>0.685</td><td>[−0.121, 0.08]</td></tr><tr><td>Restricted inst aid per FTE</td><td>−0.003</td><td>0.002</td><td>−1.290</td><td>0.198</td><td>[−0.007, 0.001]</td></tr><tr><td>Unrestricted inst aid per FTE</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.440</td><td>0.663</td><td>[−0.001, 0.002]</td></tr><tr><td>State appropriations per FTE</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.001</td><td>−0.320</td><td>0.746</td><td>[−0.001, 0.001]</td></tr><tr><td>In‐state tuition price</td><td>−0.002</td><td>0.000</td><td>−6.050</td><td>0.000</td><td>[−0.003, −0.002]</td></tr><tr><td>Out‐of‐state tuition price</td><td>−0.001</td><td>0.000</td><td>−2.630</td><td>0.009</td><td>[−0.001, 0]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.1986; F(<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>, 230) = 14.22; <emph>p</emph> < 0.0001.</p> <hd id="AN0146607770-7">Selected Case 1: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities</hd> <p>In November 2014, <emph>The Chronicle of Higher Education</emph> reported in their article on "The Plight of the Public Regional College" that many colleges and universities were feeling the brunt of decreased state appropriations while being asked to increase their use of online learning and administrative‐sharing responsibilities (Kelderman, 2014). As a result, these colleges and universities turned to increased undergraduate enrollment and tuition prices to help meet the gaps in higher education funding. Minnesota State Colleges and Universities[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>] experienced these pressures as a result of a 10% decrease in total state higher education appropriations in a period from 2009 to 2013. As Figure 5.1 illustrates, state higher education funding bounced back and forth, reaching some of the lowest figures for the 2013–2014 fiscal cycle. During these periods of decreased funding, institutions like MSU–Mankato, Winona State University, and Bemidji State University increased their enrollments until higher education funding increased, suggesting that these institutions were struggling to continue to maintain these enrollment figures. Other institutions decreased enrollment during this time period, including drastic declines at campuses like St. Cloud State University and MSU–Morehead, while Southwest Minnesota State University experienced a slow and steady decline.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01jun20/he20368-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20368-fig-0001.jpg" title="5.1 State higher education appropriations and undergraduate enrollment at Minnesota State Colleges and Universities." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Increased undergraduate enrollment across these Minnesota State Colleges and Universities did not reflect equal changes in the demographics in the population. In fact, all of these institutions saw decreased enrollments in students of color during the period from 2004 to 2009/2010 (Figure 5.2), despite a steadily increasing population of persons of color in the State of Minnesota, suggesting that it was mostly growth in the population of white students, rather than an equal distribution of the increasing diversity in the state. Since 2010, however, all of these institutions' enrollment in students of color has steadily increased, with institutions like St. Cloud State University and MSU–Mankato leading the way.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01jun20/he20368-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20368-fig-0002.jpg" title="5.2 URM population in the State of Minnesota and percentage of students of color at Minnesota State Colleges and Universities." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Looking at financial characteristics (Figure 5.3), the percentage change in in‐state tuition at RPUs has been volatile over the period of 1999–2016. In the early twenty‐first century, many of these institutions were averaging around 10–15% increases in tuition rate through 2003. For most institutions, these increases stabilized to the consistent 3% level (marked in red; College Board, 2019) around 2006, but again rose to maintain tuition increases around 5–7% in 2009 and 2010, which reflects responses to both the Great Recession of 2008 and the subsequent decline in state higher education funding, as noted above. The response to increases in state higher education funding in 2012 and 2013 was to limit tuition increases to small or no growth, with some institutions like Winona and Bemidji State actually decreasing in‐state tuition; however, these limits to tuition increases were short‐lived as each of these institutions increased tuition by at least 3% in 2015, while some again limited growth in 2016.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01jun20/he20368-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20368-fig-0003.jpg" title="5.3 In‐state tuition changes at Minnesota State Colleges and Universities." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146607770-11">Selected Case 2: University of North Carolina System Schools</hd> <p>In March 2006, UNC‐Greensboro announced that they had achieved their goal of reclassification as a doctoral‐granting institution with higher research activity by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education after more than 8 years of chasing the reclassification (UNCGNOW, 2006). Soon to follow, UNC‐Charlotte (2016) and UNC‐Wilmington (2018) announced that they, too, had become the latest in the UNC System to join the doctoral/research ranks and represent the growing trend of regional colleges in the twenty‐first century.</p> <p>But a question remains for campus stakeholders and policymakers: to what degree do these changes in classifications represent a shift from the historic mission of these institutions serving as higher education access points for all students in the region? First, looking at the shifts in admissions selectivity at these three schools specifically (Figure 5.4), it does appear that all three campuses have increased their average overall SAT scores for the first‐year incoming cohort (dotted lines). Acceptance rates (solid lines), meanwhile, have fluctuated wildly from 2002 to 2018. For example, UNC‐Wilmington has maintained a rather competitive acceptance rate over time—hovering between 54% and 67%—while UNC‐Charlotte has decreased their acceptance rate and UNC–Greensboro has jumped between 50% and 84% over the period.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01jun20/he20368-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20368-fig-0004.jpg" title="5.4 Average composite SAT scores and acceptance rates at selected University of North Carolina System colleges." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Contrary to the literature cited above, it does not appear that these changes have led to any signals of access‐related issues at these institutions. Figure 5.5 provides an illustration of the percent students of color, Pell, and out‐of‐state population over time for these three schools (orange, gray, and yellow lines) with respect to changes in first‐time, full‐time enrollment (red line). The findings across all three institutions remain consistent: while first‐time, full‐time enrollment has remained steady or even increased at some institutions, the percentage of Pell‐recipients and students of color has also increased, while out‐of‐state percentages have actually decreased over time. The State of North Carolina is unique, however, in that the total state population has increased at rates higher than the United States (8.5% vs. 5.8% since 2010), and the State of North Carolina has mandated cap of no more than 18% out of state enrollment. Other RPUs in areas with stagnant or decreasing state populations may not be so fortunate to experience these changes while both increasing selectivity and diversity at the institution. Thus, it may be that these changes in classification (and subsequent striving behaviors) are still nevertheless associated with stratification and inequity at other RPUs in states with enrollment challenges.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01jun20/he20368-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20368-fig-0005.jpg" title="5.5 Percentage of students of color, Pell‐recipient, and out‐of‐state and first‐time, full‐time (FTFT) enrollment at selected University of North Carolina System colleges." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146607770-14">Discussion and Conclusion</hd> <p>Taking a broader look at some of the findings presented in the prior sections, there are a number of implications from this research. First, although there are some differences across specific regions and urbanicities, RPUs have largely experienced similar changes together over the last 10 years of this analysis. Most have decreased their admissions test scores and increased their acceptance rates; undergraduate populations have mostly increased while graduate populations have decreased and out‐of‐state enrollment has remained somewhat consistent over time; and restricted and unrestricted sources of institutional aid have increased significantly, as have in‐state and out‐of‐state tuition rates, while state appropriations have largely decreased. Many of these findings are inconsistent with the prior literature, such as the striving mechanisms of RPUs to recruit additional out‐of‐state students and increase academic selectivity (Cantwell, 2015; Jaquette et al., 2016; Posselt et al., 2012), while others suggest broader issues with access and diversity using metrics (e.g., Pell recipients and underrepresented minorities) in our other analyses (see Chapter 2 and DeMonbrun et al., 2019; Warshaw et al., 2019).</p> <p>Second, results from the regression analysis suggest that behaviors such as increased in‐state and out‐of‐state tuition rates could decrease enrollment yield, making it much more difficult to meet enrollment targets and indicating that, rather than using tuition increases to meet revenue goals, these institutions may be setting themselves up for higher discount rates and lower enrollment numbers. For example, Hillman (2012) found that when public institutions exceed a 13% discount rate, they experience diminishing returns on institutional revenues. Although organizations, such as the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), typically focus on the discount rates of private colleges, consulting firms such as Ruffalo Noel Levitz (RNL) suggest that public institutions may be following suit. For example, RNL estimated in 2018 that the average overall discount rate was only 16.7% (including all cost of attendance metrics), but that the tuition and fees discount rate was 31.9% and climbing (Ruffalo Noel Levitz, 2019). This should spell serious caution for all RPUs, but especially those with state legislatures that cap tuition increases to help keep costs low for in‐state residents, as given current patterns, these institutions' discounting policies are likely to outpace any revenue gains from standard tuition increases.</p> <p>Finally, although we often treat them as behaving similarly, no two RPUs are alike. The various economic and market conditions, population demographics, and academic and financial goals differ across regions, states, and even institutions. The two selected cases above attempt to shed some light on these differences. While some systems are struggling with enrollment and declines in state appropriations, others are advancing enrollment, diversity, and research funding in order to shift to more exclusive Carnegie classifications. Thus, the enrollment strategies of one block of institutions may not work for the other block of institutions and vice‐versa (Hossler, 2015). Enrollment managers must be attuned to not only the "trade winds" of their own institutions, but those of their peer institutions, the state, the region, and even the nation as a whole.</p> <ref id="AN0146607770-15"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> This group includes Bemidiji State University, MSU–Mankato, MSU–Moorhead, Southwest Minnesota State University, St. Cloud State University, and Winona State University. The data for Metropolitan State University were incomplete, and thus this institution was not used in the analysis.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0146607770-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> DeMonbrun, M., Warshaw, J. B., & McNaughtan, J. M. (2019, April). Does striving for prestige impede access? Master's comprehensive institutions and the enrollment of underrepresented minorities. Paper presented at the 2019 Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Dixon, R. R. (1995). What is enrollment management? New Directions for Student Services, 71, 5 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Palo Alto, CA : Stanford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Hearn, J. C., Warshaw, J. B., & Ciarimboli, E. B. (2016). Privatization and accountability trends and policies in U.S. public higher education. Education and Science, 41 (184), 1 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Hillman, N. (2012). Tuition discounting for revenue management. Research in Higher Education, 53, 263 – 281.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Hossler, D. (2015). Origins of strategic enrollment management. In D. Hossler & B. Bontrager & Associates (Eds.), Handbook of strategic enrollment management (pp. 3 – 17). San Francisco, CA : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Hossler, D., & Bontrager, B. & Associates. (2015) Handbook of strategic enrollment management. San Francisco, CA : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Hoxby, C. M. (2009). The changing selectivity of American colleges. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23 (4), 95 – 118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Hoxby, C. M., & Avery, C. (2012). The missing "one‐offs": The hidden supply of high‐achieving, low income students. NBER Working Paper No. 18586. Cambridge, MA : National Bureau of Economic Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaquette, O., Curs, B. R., & Posselt, J. R. (2016). Tuition rich, mission poor: Nonresident enrollment growth and the socioeconomic and racial composition of public research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 87 (5), 635 – 673.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaquette, O., & Parra, E. E. (2014). Using IPEDS for panel analyses: Core concepts, data challenges, and empirical applications. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 29, pp. 467 – 533). Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaquette, O., & Salazar, K. (2018, April 13). Colleges recruit at richer, whiter high schools. New York Times. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/13/opinion/college-recruitment-rich-white.html">www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/13/opinion/college-recruitment-rich-white.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelderman, E. (2014, November 19). The plight of the Public Regional College. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Plight-of-the-Public/150127">www.chronicle.com/article/The-Plight-of-the-Public/150127</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraatz, M. S., Ventresca, M. J., & Deng, L. (2010). Precarious values and mundane innovations: Enrollment management in American liberal arts colleges. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (6), 1521 – 1545.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The condition of education: A letter from the commissioner. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Meara, K. A. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXII, pp. 121 – 179). Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Posselt, J. R., Jaquette, O., Bielby, R., & Bastedo, M. N. (2012). Access without equity: Longitudinal analyses of institutional stratification by race and ethnicity, 1972–2004. American Educational Research Journal, 49 (6), 1074 – 1111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruffalo Noel Levitz. (2019). 2019 discounting report for four‐year private and public institutions. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ruffalonl.com/papers-research-higher-education-fundraising/discounting-report-financial-aid-benchmarks/">www.ruffalonl.com/papers-research-higher-education-fundraising/discounting-report-financial-aid-benchmarks/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saichaie, K., & Warshaw, J. B. (2018). Pathways from academe to industry: An empirical analysis of academic marketing to prospective students. In A. Papadimitriou (Ed.), Higher education branding and marketing in a context of global competition: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 13 – 36). New York : Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seltzer, R. (2019). Squeezed from all sides: Opportunities and challenges for regional public universities. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/content/squeezed-all-sides-opportunities-and-challenges-regional-public-universities">www.insidehighered.com/content/squeezed-all-sides-opportunities-and-challenges-regional-public-universities</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Titus, M. A., Vamosiu, A., & McClure, K. R. (2017). Are public master's institutions cost efficient? A stochastic frontier and spatial analysis. Research in Higher Education, 58 (5), 469 – 496.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNCGNOW. (2006, March 7). UNCG classified a research university with 'high research activity'. University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Retrieved from https://beta-newsandfeatures.uncg.edu/uncg-classified-a-research-university-with-high-research-activity/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warshaw, J. B., & Hearn, J. C. (2018). Strategic enrollment management for emerging adults: An organizational and equity‐based perspective. In J. L. Murray & J. J. Arnett (Eds.), Emerging adulthood and higher education: A new student development paradigm (pp. 127 – 142). New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warshaw, J. B., McNaughtan, J., & DeMonbrun, M. (2019). Between two fields: US public master's institutions‐Striving for prestige or equity? Higher Education Policy, 1 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-019-00137-1.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Matt DeMonbrun and Jarrett B. Warshaw</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Matt DeMonbrun is the Associate Director and Senior Statistician of the Enrollment Management Research Group at Southern Methodist University.</p> <p>Jarrett B. Warshaw is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Florida Atlantic University.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1272930
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Enrollment Management and Admissions Policies at Regional Public Universities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22DeMonbrun%2C+Matt%22">DeMonbrun, Matt</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Warshaw%2C+Jarrett+B%2E%22">Warshaw, Jarrett B.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22New+Directions+for+Higher+Education%22"><i>New Directions for Higher Education</i></searchLink>. Sum 2020 (190):71-88.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Enrollment+Management%22">Enrollment Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tuition%22">Tuition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standardized+Tests%22">Standardized Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Universities%22">State Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Strategic+Planning%22">Strategic Planning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Recruitment%22">Student Recruitment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Diversity%22">Student Diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Enrollment+Trends%22">Enrollment Trends</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Studies%22">Case Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Aid%22">State Aid</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Financial+Aid%22">Student Financial Aid</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trend+Analysis%22">Trend Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Trends%22">Educational Trends</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/he.20368
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0271-0560
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The college enrollment landscape has changed vastly in the last couple of decades. As such, regional public universities (RPUs) have had to become increasingly strategic in how they recruit new students to attend their institutions. For example, total college enrollment has declined from 2010 to 2017, and this population continues to become more diverse in race/ethnicity and socioeconomic background. This chapter highlights the strategic enrollment-related changes that these institutions have undergone across key variables. We close with two case studies, examining these changes across two state systems of higher education to better understand how these variations occur in contexts of broader state demographics and public policies. The findings from this chapter suggest that RPUs have largely experienced similar changes together over the last 10 years of this analysis, showing modest increases in tuition rates and institutional aid amid declining state appropriations and decreases in average first-year standardized test scores and graduate student enrollment.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1272930
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1272930
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/he.20368
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 71
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Enrollment Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tuition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standardized Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Strategic Planning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Recruitment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Diversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Enrollment Trends
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Case Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State Aid
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Financial Aid
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trend Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Trends
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Enrollment Management and Admissions Policies at Regional Public Universities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: DeMonbrun, Matt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Warshaw, Jarrett B.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0271-0560
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 190
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: New Directions for Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1