Continuous Improvement

Current enrollment generates sufficient resources to allow the University to achieve its stated purposes of providing a quality education; however, the heavy emphasis on engineering and sciences exposes the University to the risk of continuing cyclical changes in the demand for engineering and science graduates. The challenge is to attract a wider array of students in targeted areas. The integrated marketing plan under development promises to achieve a balanced marketing strategy that emphasizes the University’s recognized strengths, but also highlights its other less-recognized quality programs.

A new emphasis on University-wide, as opposed to departmental, enrollment planning will help us meet our overall enrollment goals. However, individual academic departments continue to have limited authority to set or influence recruitment goals, which may not be wholly consistent with University goals. This creates some confusion for Admissions, which is held ultimately accountable for total enrollment, yet appears to have some responsibility for meeting departmental goals as well. An Admissions Advisory Team that works with Admissions to develop sound, long-term goals which realistically address our capacities and growth potential in all departments would facilitate recruitment planning.

The need to improve recruitment strategies and processes has been identified. We are just beginning to take advantage of our ability to track recruitment patterns, which is now being examined by the TQE RAISE (Recruitment Activities Increase Student Enrollment) team. However, Admissions' budget is not adequate to increase recruitment significantly in neighboring states and the University has no new internal funds to expand precollege programs for women and underrepresented students. External funds are being solicited, but these are also declining and threatened by recent rulings against affirmative programs.

Although the implementation of BANNER® has made it easier for financial aid staff to develop reports that assist in determining financial awards and to notify students of the status of their financial aid loan checks, our current financial aid process could be improved to achieve the best impact on enrollment. Prospective students receive information about our estimated financial aid packages later than aid packages from some competing institutions. Our enrollment management recruitment team working through Information Technology, have employed consultants from Noel Levitz to implement their financial aid leverage analysis program. Each of the last three years, we have adjusted our institutional criteria to maximize the yield of quality applicants. Michigan Tech began participating in the Federal Direct Lending program in Fall 1997. This program should make borrowing more convenient for students and parents to finance college costs. Hopefully, we will not see any significant increase in the relatively low debt load of our graduates or any increase in our extremely low student loan default rate (2.3% 1993/94 Official Cohort Default Rate for FFEL loans).

Integrity

Recruitment material such as the Viewbook [7.5E], department fliers [7.5], and the Student Handbook [1.2C] are generally accurate and consistent in their representation of the University and its purposes. Current materials more accurately portray the physical climate and the representation of women and underrepresented groups than did some past publications. Informational pieces such as the Commitment to Diversity brochure [7.5B] help demonstrate the University’s support for ethnic diversity.

Written procedures for the admissions process reflect the actual practice. The increased willingness by Admissions personnel and academic departments to review non-traditional admissions information (letters of recommendations, student experiences, etc.) as well as traditional measures (ACT scores, class rank, etc.) positively impacts the University’s ability to enhance its diversity.

Evidence that the University accurately represents itself to students and meets their expectations is provided by the Fall 1996 USG survey of first-year students (response rate of 30%) and the Spring 1997 USG survey of first-, second-, and third-year students (response rate of 15.5%) [6.2B2]. Eighty-five percent of students surveyed responded that their experience at Michigan Tech was about what they expected or better.

NEXT