Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Retention Matters

November 2, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The past academic year has been a roller coaster ride for those of us who work at colleges. Increasing costs, the economic meltdown, and high unemployment have many in the higher-education sphere wondering what the future will bring. Indications are that by 2020 some institutions may not be in business.

In the small liberal arts college world (aka privates), the cost of our product is already near the highest in the marketplace, and unfortunately the demographics of potential clients near the lowest. What we can do to improve the odds that our institutions not only survive but thrive in the next 10 years? Solutions seem elusive. But one key means of improving the picture already lies within our grasp. It can be summed up in one word: retention.

Consider the cost of a college degree from the frame of the strategic service concept: "The benefits perceived by the customer against total price in the context of alternatives." While the product is excellent at most small liberal arts colleges, the competitors’ product is also outstanding. Large privates, small and large publics, and community colleges are all good choices today. The problem for many privates is that their price is already out of reach for most Americans, and going in the wrong direction – while many publics charge much less .

The total annual cost at many privates is between $40,000 and $50,000; while tuition costs tend to go up an average of 4 percent a year, the increase barely covers the concomitant increase in fixed expenses (salaries, fuel, inflation, debt depreciation, etc.).

By 2020, then, the total cost for most privates – if current trends continue -- will be $60,000-$70,000 per year. The current average yearly cost at many publics -- $10,000-$20,000 -- should rise by 2020 to about $17,500-$27,500 – still a lot of money for students and families, but clearly a significant price break from the privates.

Many students emerge from college with major debt. It is commonplace for students to graduate from privates with $50,000, $75,000, or over $100,000 in loans. This is not a sustainable model as costs continue to increase. At what price point do families determine that the cost/benefit analysis does not make sense?

The clear challenge is to hold costs in higher education. It may be clear but it is far from simple. To hold or decrease expenses without limiting the product has so far seemed impossible. To increase revenues without raising tuition has been equally daunting.

Institutions need to look within first -- and retention is the place to start.

Out of approximately 2.8 million first-year college students each year, more than 450,000 do not return to the college or university they started with for their second year, according to 2008 statistics. In other words, 25 percent of first-year students do not return to the institution where they began their college career. What other industry do we know that successfully recruits 25 percent new clients each year, plans for an average loss of 25 percent of those new clients, and accepts this as business as usual?

Significant improvement in the retention of current clients is the low-hanging fruit of revenue increases for colleges and universities.

For privates, improving retention rates is one of the best solutions for reducing cost increases and maintaining revenue streams. Though the retention rates on average for privates are better than for large publics, the financial impact of each student lost is greater. A 20 percent attrition rate for a private can mean 100 or more students lost, at $30,000 or more per student. So long as freshman classes have remained sufficiently full, the strategy has been to replace lost students rather than commit more resources to retain them.

First-year students are the key to significant retention improvement, and based on the available data, the first six weeks is the most critical time for a successful transition to the college environment. It is the make-or-break period for many students regarding their academic, social, and emotional engagement with their chosen institution.

Unlike corporate America, which long ago discovered the benefits and return on extensive job-training prior to engagement, many institutions of higher education attempt to teach new students the keys to success after they arrive on campus and while they are fully immersed. The majority of transition education is similar to teaching one to swim while in the deep end.

The call is for privates to redefine the orientation and preparation process for first-semester students, and to commit sufficient resources to preparing their newest clients for success prior to their arrival on campus. Privates can and should shift attitudes and perceptions, by minimizing doubt and uncertainty, and increasing the confidence of entering first-year students. Freshman orientation is a blur of information and indoctrination, compressed into a few days, not a training process for preparing students. Colleges should shift their emphasis toward the months preceding each new academic year, and commit to providing new students with effective college-readiness training. For most colleges this will require utilizing new technologies and resources to reach their cohort in flexible ways, with minimal impact on time, energy, and resources for both the students and the colleges.

The intent is to empower students with information for success, and ultimately to improve retention rates. Pennsylvania's public college system long ago committed to improved retention, including performance indicators and rewards for retention outcomes. In October 2007, Kenn Marshall, chair of the system's board, noted that system universities received a combined $38.7 million in performance funding as a reward for showing improvement in key areas related to student achievement and efficiency.

Traditionally, many in the privates have felt that this is not their role, and have lacked the will to fully commit to efforts for improved retention. They can no longer afford the luxury of that attitude. As 2020 and $70,000 per year costs approach, and institutions look for new revenue streams, it is time for privates to reconsider their strategies to retain more of their current students. Privates may find that significant improvement in the retention of their students is one of the only solutions to cost containment and financial survival.

Bryan Matthews is director of athletics and associate vice president for administrative services at Washington College.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Retention Matters

  • Retention requires will power, not capital
  • Posted by Christoph Knoess , Founder and President at Engaged Minds Inc. on November 2, 2009 at 7:45am EST
  • The author is correct: student retention is the "lowest hanging fruit" to navigate an institution through the great recession. Independent colleges have the student data, the staff and faculty responders and the retention resources to increase student success. What they often lack is the will power at the top to challenge some established notions of what first year instruction should look like and what can be expected of their faculty and staff.

    More than academic preparedness, many students at private colleges lack the life skills, independence and maturity to succeed in a higher ed environment. The resources, advising models and pedagogies to teach those exist. The will power to implement them unfortunately is lacking at many institutions.

    If the current economic downturn turns out to create permanent constraints for revenue growth of higher education, the currently predominant inward-looking leadership style of "at all cost do not rock the boat" will be substituted by a more pro-active approach that asks "what do we have to change to stay relevant and to stay in business?"

  • Student individuation
  • Posted by David Shupe , Chief Innovation Officer at eLumen Collaborative on November 2, 2009 at 9:15am EST
  • Matthews and Knoess both have good ideas. Here is another: if private liberal arts colleges are going to attract and retain students in a context of much higher tuition costs, they are going to have to justify themselves by actually, intentionally and systematically attending to the personal, professional, and intellectual development of each individual student. Three years ago my daughter graduated from such a college, and I was well aware that the college knew less about her on graduation day than on the day they had admitted her. Smaller classes and the personal attention that professors give to a few of their students (I was one of these; my daughter was not) are not sufficient approaches. As Knoess correctly points out, there are now available ways to be different, and privates need to realize that they need to change if they are going to thrive or survive.

  • balance
  • Posted by The Teach , Client Satisfaction Specialist at MidSized U on November 2, 2009 at 3:00pm EST
  • I understand that retention is important. After all, tuition dollars pay the bills. However, what I struggle to grasp is how retention efforts and academic excellence may comfortably co-exist.

    Where I teach (a mid-sized state university in the northeast), I see a proliferation of administrators and staffers hired to offer student services. Sure, these services (e.g., mental health counseling, student leadership programs) are nice. What is more, as one administrator told me, they are designed to push retention rates above 80 percent.

    At the same time, I perceive that the academic side of the university suffers. Like at other schools, we have too many adjuncts, and full-time faculty are asked to do too much service. Of course, in today’s economic environment, that’s normal. However, few administrators talk about student performance *in* the classroom. Someone I know was on a committee to investigate academic rigor (e.g., number of assignments, grade distributions). The report was buried.

    So, the student-services side of the university (which is getting $$$) wants to keep as many tuition-paying “customers” or “clients” as possible. And some of us on the academic side (which isn’t getting $$$) wish we were encouraged kick out students who don’t know how to submit papers on time. How do we strike a proper balance?

  • Can Higher Ed change fast enough?
  • Posted by Belinda on November 2, 2009 at 5:15pm EST
  • All of the other posters make good points. I wonder if some families are making the calculation that $50k, $75 or $100k is too much. If an average starting salary is $50k can you afford the $593 monthly payment for a $50k stafford loan debt?

    I graduated from a small private liberal arts college and feel that my investment has more than paid off. But if I had to make the investment again, it would be a tough sell at $50k cost of attendance.

    I also understand that higher education is slow to change and adapt. I worry that they won't be able to make the big changes fast enough and instead will settle for "death by a thousand cuts".

  • The Role of Student Services in Retention of Students
  • Posted by Parc , Student Life at mid-sized public institution on November 2, 2009 at 6:15pm EST
  • I understand where "The Teach" is coming from. Since following my once noble calling to work with students on the administrative side of the university, specifically in so-called student services, I, too am abashed at the absurd imbalance that has occurred as the field has grown. The business end is so cumbersome, it seems to me that the "customers" are getting short-changed. I didn't get into this racket so that I could "serve customers", but so that I could be a part of making students into citizens of the world. There are still some in this field who get to do that, but many of us are mere underlings doing drudgery grunt work with little sense of purpose or real accomplishment.

  • poor analogy
  • Posted by Jack at Small LAC on November 2, 2009 at 9:45pm EST
    • What other industry do we know that successfully recruits 25 percent new clients each year, plans for an average loss of 25 percent of those new clients, and accepts this as business as usual?

    What other industry do we know that turns over its entire client base every 4-6 years? This is a silly analogy.

    Also why assume that the clients intend to stay for four, or even two years? There are hundreds of privates out there. How many of them get >90% retention? Are they all doing it wrong? Or could it be that students simply don't know well enough what they want? By the time they've they've enrolled, it's already too late to prepare them effectively, or at least a fairly sizable minority of them. Which is not to say that we shouldn't do anything, but expectations have to be in line with reality.

    BTW, didn't we just read a piece recently on how low historic retention rates were?