Paths to Institutional Success and Sustainability

These days, my brain is full of a flurry of thoughts based on a number of reports, podcasts, and readings I engaged with.  Referencing them all here, and, from my perspective, seeing as they all intersect, the amazing part, again, from my perspective, is they all lead to a similar outcome or end on a similar path. 

The first report is the recent Art and Science Group StudentPoll that shows how students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have greater anxiety about the college selection process. 

The next is from Jeff Selingo and Michael Horn’s Future U podcast, where they interviewed the President from Montclair State, Jonathan Koppell, about the institution’s enrollment successes.  In keeping with the institutional mission, this involved the recruitment and enrollment of students from lower socioeconomic and ethnically diverse backgrounds. 

A third is a Lumina Foundation and Gallup report on the State of Higher Education where the adults surveyed are either enrolled in college, have some college enrollment history, or were never enrolled in college.  One of the primary takeaways from the report is summarized in an InsideHigherEd article, where the surveyed students communicate an understanding of the value of higher education but cite barriers that exist tied to, in part, costs and lack of flexibility. 

The last reference I will cite is from Dr. Paul LeBlanc’s book Broken.  I was fortunate enough to participate in a book club where Dr. LeBlanc cited some of his findings and experiences as an accomplished higher education professional.  Essentially, one of my primary takeaways was the need for more student driven support systems on campuses. 

Essentially, there are a number of intersecting themes from each of the above references.  Given the demographic shift in higher education, as well as the demand shift, there are a greater proportion of prospective students from lower socioeconomic and multiculturally diverse backgrounds.  As an industry, we in higher education, are not doing a good job of enrolling, facilitating their transition to our institutions, nor doing enough quality work that lends to persistence from these populations such that students complete their educational objectives – in many cases a college degree be it an associate or bachelor’s degree. 

Why is this? 

Based on my experience, institutions continue to search for the golden calf of full or near full paying students who also show a level of academic achievement that he or she is college ready.  The number of these students is declining and spending limited resources in this space is not one that lends to long term institutional sustainability.  A more worthwhile investment is working to attract college ready students who may enroll from lower socioeconomic, ethnic, or first-generation backgrounds.  This population, in proportion, is growing.  Does it take a commitment to ensuring merit- and need-based financial aid to attract students from these populations?  For sure.  However, as previously stated, this is where the prospective student proportional growth market is. 

From my perspective, this is where more regional public, and even some national public institutions, can sustain with increased enrollment.  To begin, their costs of attendance are lower for in-state students.  Federal and state financial aid, even though being cut, still covers a meaningful portion of attendance costs. 

I’ve written on this topic before, so I won’t go into the weeds on it again, but there is also an opportunity for increased transfer student course flexibility for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who earned an associate degree and are looking to earn a bachelor's degree.  Again, this is a growing population.  Note that a recent Community College Research Center report cited that 80% of community college students express an interest in attaining a bachelor’s degree.    

Once enrolled, it is critical for institutions to have systems in place that lend to successful student onboarding.  This involves advising students and providing degree seeking pathways via course progression.  It involves having student friendly systems in place tied to financial aid, registration, and billing.  It involves meeting students where they are tied to outcomes seeking opportunities via internships, professional immersion experiences, and career development.   

The amazing part to me is that none of this is too difficult.  Does it involve looking at how we enroll, onboard, and facilitate degree progress in ways subtly different than the past?  Yes.  But the changes are not insurmountable.  It involves less siloing of and increased student friendly systems and processes as well as more course flexibility.  It involves committing to recruiting students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds while ensuring merit- and need-based financial aid.  It involves a deliberate and intentional student onboarding and transitions mindset.  As I’ve said to others before – we can do this.