The Adoption of Enrollment Management Practices in Higher Education

928 Words2 Pages

The desire to expand and improve existing resources is not a new phenomenon within higher education, (Hossler, 2004) but is one that has begun to gain attention as institutions increasingly adopt enrollment management (EM) practices. EM is both an organizational concept merged with associated practices that help institutions exercise control over the characteristics of their student bodies (Hossler & Bean, 1990; Hossler, 2004; Kraatz, Ventresca, & Deng, 2010). EM is a controversial trend with varying definitions, values, and drawbacks.
Hossler and Bean (1990) view EM through a far more holistic lens than do Kraatz, Ventresca, & Deng (2010). Kraatz et al. (2010) focus on the organizational structuring of EM and the “consolidation of various administrative functions that have the potential to affect enrollments and tuition revenues” (p. 1524). Hossler and Bean (1990) too see EM as a strategic planning initiative, but know that its practices extend far beyond just admissions and financial aid. Included within their definition of organizational practices are “student college choice, transition to college, student attrition and retention, and student outcomes” (p. 5).
The largest variance in viewpoints between Hossler and Bean (1990) and Kraatz et al. (2010) lies within their perceptions of the goals of EM. It is evident throughout Precarious Values and Mundane Innovations that Kraatz et al. (2010) see EM as an inherently negative practice with questionable values. Kraatz et al. (2010) believe that institutions value the prestige accompanied by enrolling high-achieving wealthy students and tuition revenue most, and use enrollment management to further these agendas. Hossler and Bean (1990) on the other hand, view ...

... middle of paper ...

...is not solely about getting students in the doors but also retention, The University of Arizona must ensure a commitment to co-curricular and supplemental instruction programs to support students in their persistence to graduation.
Kraatz et al. (2010) caution universities implementing EM systems that centralizing this process will lessen the autonomy of each department and cause them to lose the ability to perform their specialized functions. The more centralized an EM unit is, the more power is held by a single individual who may be using enrollment management as a tool to leverage questionable values. The EM Matrix (Hossler & Bean, 1990) is most appropriate for the U of A as it is a way of uniting EM practices through a shared vision but also allows departments to utilize their specialized knowledge and remain within their existing reporting structures.

Open Document