 

. #755. If

mesa;

Q obi

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Undergraduate Student Recruitment:
The Role of the Faculty

presented by

Kevin Alexander Pollock

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D Higher, Adult, and

 

 

degree in

Lifelong Education

    

Major professor

 

Date May 31/ 2'00/

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Universlty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

91 1JBL91§3 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRClDdoDuepes-pjs

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT RECRUITMENT: THE ROLE OF THE FACULTY
By

Kevin Alexander Pollock

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education

2001

ABSTRACT
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT RECRUITING: THE ROLE OF THE FACULTY
By

Kevin Alexander Pollock

Admissions ofﬁcials nationwide, under pressure to reach enrollment goals, now ask
faculty members to actively assist in the recruiting of undergraduate students to their
institutions. Faculty members, attempting to balance teaching, research, and service
activities, are trying to determine their role in recruiting students. While the overall role
of faculty member’s teaching and research has been intensely studied, there has been a
signiﬁcant gap of information concerning the faculty role in recruiting students. This
study begins to ﬁll that gap of information by conﬁrming the participation of faculty in
recruiting activities and addressing the question of what factors might influence the

involvement of the faculty in student recruitment.

Copyright by
KEVIN ALEXANDER POLLOCK

2001

This dissertation is dedicated to my wife D’Lynn, my children Sean and Brendan, and in
memory of my parents Alexander and Irene Pollock, and an inspirational teacher, Dave

Cobb.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the time and effort of my original advisor Dr. Moses Turner,
and my dissertation committee members: Dr. John Dirkx, Dr. Michael Mintrom, and Dr.
Steve Weiland. I would especially like to acknowledge the time and effort of my advisor,
Dr. James Fairweather. This dissertation would not have been possible without his

guidance and expertise.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... .v
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... . 1
Chapter I]
Literature Review and Project Model ................................................................................ .9
Institutional Goals, Faculty Roles, & Faculty Rewards ................................................ 22
Chapter III
Variables, Instrumentation and Data Collection ................................................................ 40
Deﬁnition of Survey Measures ...................................................................................... 40
Sampling and Design ..................................................................................................... 42
Sampling Framework .................................................................................................... 44
Sample #1: Admissions Directors ...................................................................... 44
Sample #2: Faculty ............................................................................................. 45
Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 47
Telephone Interview with Admissions Directors ................................................ 47
Mailed Survey to Faculty Respondents ............................................................... 50
Chapter IV
Results ............................................................................................................................. 58
Results of the Admissions Director Telephone Surveys ............................................... 58
Results of the Faculty Survey ........................................................................................ 67
Description of the Faculty Respondents ............................................................. 67
Faculty Perceptions of Institutional Trends and Priorities
Overall Enrollment .............................................................................................. 71
Faculty Participation in Undergraduate Student Recruiting ............................... 73
Faculty Perceptions of the Faculty Role in Undergraduate Recruiting ............... 75
Responses of the Participants in Undergraduate Recruiting ............................... 75
Origination of Requests for Assistance ............................................................... 76
Conﬂicts .............................................................................................................. 77
Motivation ........................................................................................................... 78
Rewards ............................................................................................................... 78
Regression Analysis ...................................................................................................... 79
Chapter V
Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 82
Research Question 1 ...................................................................................................... 82
Research Question 2 ...................................................................................................... 84
Research Question 3 ...................................................................................................... 90
Perception of the faculty role in recruiting ......................................................... 9]
A service activity ................................................................................................. 9]

vii

A Responsibility .................................................................................................. 96

Not a faculty function .......................................................................................... 99
Non-enrollment factors ................................................................................................ 102
Requests for faculty participation in recruiting ................................................. 102
Conﬂicts ............................................................................................................ 103
Motivation ......................................................................................................... 105
Rewards ............................................................................................................. 109
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 1 l4
Admissions Directors ........................................................................................ 114
Faculty ............................................................................................................... 1 l7
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... I 19
Appendix A .................................................................................................................. 120
Cover letter for Admissions Directors ...................................................................... 120
Consent form ............................................................................................................ 121
Survey for admissions directors ............................................................................... 122
Appendix B .................................................................................................................. 123
Cover letter for faculty ............................................................................................. 123
Second cover letter for faculty ................................................................................. 124
Faculty survey .......................................................................................................... 125
Appendix C .................................................................................................................. 129

Please check ALL of the activities in which you have participated that
assisted in recruiting UNDERGRADUATE students to your institution

over the past three years: .......................................................................................... 129
Appendix D .................................................................................................................. 131
Means and Standard Deviations ............................................................................... 131
Appendix E .................................................................................................................. I32
Correlations .............................................................................................................. 132
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 133

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table I

Study Population ............................................................................................................... 43
Table 2

Total Population by Department ........................................................................................ 46
Table 3

Mailed Survey Response Rate ........................................................................................... 56
Table 4

Response Rate by Institution ............................................................................................. 57
Table 5

Response Rate by Program ................................................................................................ 57
Table 6

Tenure ............................................................................................................................. 68
Table 7

Rank ............................................................................................................................. 69
Table 8

Years of Service at the Current Institution ........................................................................ 69
Table 9

Number of Classes Taught ................................................................................................ 71
Table 10

Faculty Perception of the Overall Undergraduate Enrollment .......................................... 71
Table 11

Faculty Perception of Departmental Enrollment ............................................................... 72
Table 12

Has your department launched any new programs in the past three years? ...................... 72
Table 13

Faculty Respondents Participation in Recruiting .............................................................. 74
Table 14

Number of Recruiting Activities ....................................................................................... 74

viii

Table 15

Is your perception of faculty assisting in undergraduate recruiting a: .............................. 75
Table 16
Ofﬁce or individual that originated the request for faculty assistance .............................. 77
Table 17
Did recruiting cause a conflict with other duties? ............................................................. 77
Table 18
Key motivating factor for participating in recruiting activities ......................................... 78
Table 19
Were you rewarded in any manner for your participation in recruiting activities? ........... 79
Table 20
Variables in the equation ................................................................................................... 80
Table 21
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients ............................................................................... 80
Table 22
Model Summary ................................................................................................................ 80
Table 23
Classiﬁcation Table (a) ...................................................................................................... 81

ix

I. INTRODUCTION

Admissions ofﬁcials at public comprehensive colleges and universities nationwide,
under pressure to reach enrollment goals, now ask faculty members to actively assist in
the recruiting of undergraduate students to their institutions. This means that many
faculty members are now expected to add student recruitment to their list of
responsibilities, along with teaching, research, and other service activities. In turn, this
has created a difﬁculty among faculty as they try to determine what their role should be
in recruiting students, or if they should even have a role. Although the overall role of
faculty members’ teaching and research has been intensely studied, there has been a
signiﬁcant gap of information concerning their participation in student recruitment. This
study begins to ﬁll that information gap by conﬁrming the participation of faculty in
recruiting activities and addressing the question of what factors might inﬂuence the

involvement of the faculty in student recruitment.

To study this problem from a regional context, rather than nationally, faculty from
selected Michigan institutions were surveyed and asked about their role in undergraduate
student recruiting. In addition, the admission directors from each of the selected
institutions were interviewed to provide information concerning the enrollment situations
at each institution and additional information concerning faculty involvement in

recruiting activities.

The institutions studied were bachelors and masters public universities in Michigan.
These institutions had undergraduate populations between 3400 and 17,529 students and
full-time faculty headcounts from 114 to 707 members. They were selected for this study
because they faced similar challenges related to their enrollments. These institutions
were “under pressure from legislators and faced with growing competition from distance-
education and for-proﬁt institutions. Their enrollments (would) rise and fall with the
local population and economy. They faced increasing challenges as costs rose for
colleges and universities” (Gilmour, 2000). “They lacked large endowments and had less
ﬂexibility to retrench or create new programs to meet the needs of job seekers in the new
economy due to their population of heavily tenured faculty” (Selingo, 2000, p. A- 40). In
addition, they faced a shifting marketplace, competition among themselves for the same

student population, and sometimes, questionable enrollment objectives.

These institutions had to actively recruit students to their campuses. Dependent upon
the revenue generated by tuition they were at risk ﬁnancially if they were unable to
attract enough students to their campuses. In Michigan, only about 56 percent of the
operating budgets of public colleges is ﬁnanced by state revenues, with the remainder of
the operating budget coming from tuition (The Chronicle of Higher Education,

September 1, 2000).

In 2000-2001 budget requests to the state of Michigan, the average requested increase
for the four-year public institutions was 12.2 percent. This request exceeded the actual

increase, 7 percent (Schmidt, 2000). This ranged from a 6.3 percent increase request

from the University of Michigan to a 29 percent increase request from Ferris State
University. However, the governor “may initially propose giving the public colleges just
enough additional money to stay ahead of inﬂation, and then add to their appropriations
in the spring” (Hebel, 2001, p. A27). Again, this puts pressure on administrators at the
institutions to raise a substantial amount of revenue through tuition, which is tied directly

to enrollment.

The ﬁnancial future for Michigan’s public universities could become bleaker. The
2000-2001 budget remains intact, but the revenue growth for the state has slowed
dramatically. Indications are that the next ﬁscal budget will be ﬂat and that state ofﬁcials
are “watching Michigan’s economy ‘month by month’ to determine which way it is

heading” (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2001, February 2).

Therefore, the institutional enrollments at these colleges and universities, as well the
size of tuition increases, plays a role in the amount of money each institution receives in
state appropriation money. Appropriations for Michigan public four-year higher
education institutions for 1999 were approved in Enrolled House Bill No. 4302,. The bill
stated that appropriations were, in part, determined by whether or not the institution kept
tuition hikes at 3 percent or below (1999, Enrolled House Bill No. 4302). It should be
noted that institutions that kept tuition increases below 3 percent needed to increase their

student body to raise additional funds.

The public universities in Michigan were divided into ﬁve separate groups,
representing the funding ﬂoors for each institution. The funding ﬂoors ranged from
$4,500 to $9,000 per ﬁscal-year—equated (FYE) student. The FYE was determined by a
formula based, in part, on the enrollment ﬁgure provided each institution (1999,

Enrolled House Bill No. 4302). The funding ﬂoors, and respective universities were:

Funding ﬂoor of $4,500 for Grand Valley State University, Lake Superior State

University, Northern Michigan University, Saginaw State University, and the

University of Michigan-Flint.

0 Funding ﬂoor of $4,600 Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan
University, Ferris State University.

0 Funding ﬂoor of $4,700 for Oakland University, the University of Michigan-
Dearbom.

0 Funding ﬂoor of $5,700 Michigan Technological University, Western Michigan
University.

0 Funding ﬂoor of $9,000 for Michigan State University, the University of

Michigan-Ann Arbor, Wayne State University (1999, Enrolled House Bill No.

4302)

With such a diverse funding base, and competition for the same student population,
the administrators at public bachelors and masters institutions faced additional challenges
in enrolling students: “Hyper competition, smarter and more active customers, advancing

technology, and a quickening pace of change force today’s institution to focus on

‘sensing and responding’ to rapidly changing market forces” (Alfred, 2000, p.1). For

these institutions the recruitment of students was potentially a matter of survival.

These universities have largely moved beyond the “good old days” of being in the
role of “gatekeeper”, picking through more applications than needed to fulﬁll their needs.
They face questions concerning the quality of their programs (Sperber, 2000). These
selected Michigan universities, according to their admissions directors, recently have had
difﬁculty meeting speciﬁc departmental needs or goals that were set for minority
enrollment. They also faced a constant battle in student retention; the national freshman-

retention rate for these types of institutions was 73 percent (Selingo, 2000).

In all senses they were competing among themselves, as well as other institutions, for
the same pool of students. They also competed with more “prestigious” institutions for
the elite students, where it was more difﬁcult for a student to be admitted. For example,
one competitor for students, the University of Michigan, a research-based state
institution, had 23,000 applicants for the fall 2000 freshman class and only enrolled 5,400

new students (Lords, 2000).

These universities also competed with the local community colleges where lower
tuition costs attracted students. They were ﬁghting new competition for students by
colleges and universities that had instituted distance-leaming programs to offer courses

practically anywhere (Farrington and Roland, 2000; Hawkins, 2000). In Michigan, two

 

 

private for-proﬁt schools, The University of Phoenix and Baker College, offered a variety

of online courses and degree programs (Wowk, 2000).

The University of Phoenix, “the fastest growing educational institution in the world”
(Alfred, 2000, p.3) and a recognized threat to established four-year institutions,
(University Business, 2000) directly competed with Michigan public institutions for
students. The University of Phoenix used articulation agreements, special recruiting
efforts, scholarships, and systematic placement of “campuses” in an effort to draw

students away from public four-year institutions (Blumenstyk, 2000).

Another problem facing these Michigan four-year public universities was increasing
applications for admission, but smaller yields of enrolled students from their applicant
pools. In many cases the Internet allowed students to apply at multiple institutions with

the push of a button (Raisman, 2000).

Interviews with the admissions directors at the selected institutions revealed diverse
enrollment situations, and unique challenges, even for institutions that were able to record
an enrollment increase. For example, one university in the study had a single year new
student enrollment increase of 19 percent, only to experience a 20 percent decrease in

new students the following year.

An admissions director at another of the selected universities, after successfully

completing the enrollment goal that was set for this year, now found her ofﬁce

challenged by a goal to increase the student body by 5000 students, or roughly 60
percent, by the year 2005. Another university, with a declining enrollment and located in
an isolated regional area, had an enrollment goal set by the president to increase the

student population by over 40 percent over a three—year period.

The admissions directors were pressured to become more innovative in their
recruiting methods. To help accomplish their enrollment goals several admissions
directors saw their admission’s budgets exceed a million dollars. This did not include
additional money that the institution had set aside for marketing purposes under a
separate budget. The admissions ofﬁcers, under pressure to meet enrollment goals and
attract new students, were venturing down less explored avenues of recruiting techniques
such as enrollment management. Enrollment management is best described as a total
effort by an institution to inﬂuence the size and shape of its enrollment by utilizing all
possible resources on the campus to recruit and retain students (Hossler, 1986). This
includes the use of faculty members to recruit students. The concept of enrollment

management is explored in more detail in the literature review section of this paper.

As faculty members were asked to assist the institution in meeting enrollment goals,
what factors inﬂuenced the involvement of the faculty in student recruitment? This
research examined this question. This research also addressed the question of whether
enrollment concerns were the main motivating factor for faculty involvement in

recruiting activities and reviewed other factors that inﬂuenced faculty participation.

Chapter 2, the Literature Review and Project Model, reviews the literature pieces on
enrollment management, including faculty involvement in student recruiting. The
literature review also includes information related to recruiting activities, a listing of
actual recruiting events in which faculty participated, faculty inﬂuences on students,
factors that inﬂuence a student’s decision to select a college, and top recruiting activities.
The chapter culminates with the Project Model, which examines factors potentially

related to faculty participation in undergraduate student recruiting.

In Chapter 3, Variables, Instrumentation and Data Collection are examined. This
includes measurement issues, the sampling and design used for the project, the telephone
and the mailed survey used for the data collection, and the response rates for each data

SCI.

Chapter 4, Results of the Surveys and Statistical Analysis, examines ﬁndings from the
telephone interviews with the admissions directors and the mailed surveys to faculty
respondents. Chapter 5, Conclusions and Recommendations, presents conclusions about
the project’s model, and makes recommendations concerning future studies in the area of

the faculty role in undergraduate student recruiting.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND PROJECT MODEL

For the past ﬁfteen years there has been a growing call for admissions ofﬁces to ask
faculty members to assist in the recruiting of undergraduate students. Initially, this call
began as administrators realized that faculty might affect prospective students’ selection
of a college or university. Later, the faculty/prospective student connection was actively
promoted as a new concept called enrollment management. This concept surfaced during
the increasing competition for students among the public and private sectors, selective

and less selective institutions, and two— and four-year institutions (Hossler, 1986).

Enrollment management is “a process or an activity that inﬂuences the size, the shape,
and the characteristics of a student body by directing institutional efforts in marketing,
recruitment, and admissions, as well as pricing and ﬁnancial aid. In addition, the process
exerts a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on academic advising, the institutional research agenda,
orientation, retention services, and student services” (Hossler, 1986, p. 6). This process
meant that administrators at universities and colleges in the United States should use all
of the “tools” available to them on their campuses, including faculty, to control and

inﬂuence enrollment (Williams, 1986; Ingold, 2000).

Faculty members have the largest contact with the student body through teaching,
advising, and course placement (Hossler, 1987). Most of the available literature focused
on the faculty impact on areas other than the recruitment of students. Many of them dealt

with such areas as diversity (Bents and Haugen, 1992), enrollment stability (Erdmann,

1990; Merante, 1987), the enhancement of quality (Krotseng, 1992), advising (Hardee,
1970; Hossler, 1987), attrition (Bean, 1986), retention (Dunply, Miller, Woodruff and
Nelson, 1987; Graff, 1986; Stodt, 1987), leadership (Astin, 2000), and the ability to

inﬂuence institutional marketing strategies (Gilbralter, 2000).

However, in 1985 Frank Kemerer (1985) published an article detailing the role of
Deans, department chairs, and faculty in enrollment management. The concept of
enrollment management was still fairly new and Kemerer’s concepts speciﬁcally targeted

the use of faculty members to assist in recruiting undergraduate students.

Kemerer stated the need for faculty participation in enrollment management as
follows: “It is essential that the faculty be involved with enrollment management for
success over the long haul. There can be no substitute for faculty involvement because it
is the faculty that develops programs, establishes articulation agreements with feeder
institutions, publicizes departmental programs, and is directly involved with students
daily through teaching and advising” (Kemerer, 1985, p. 5). It was this familiarity with
the programs, and the contacts with faculty at other institutions, that made the faculty
members a prime resource for recruiting new students. This thought was echoed by
Craig Green (1990), who noted that, when higher education institutions target new
markets, “the faculty is at the center of any successful marketing effort” (Green, 1990, p.

89).

10

 

Kemerer suggested that key faculty members engage in activities in feeder
institutions of potential students, such as high schools and community colleges (Dennis,
1998; Keller, 1997; Kemerer, 1985). These simple contacts with potential students,
teachers, and counselors might inﬂuence a student’s choice of college. The faculty
member had the opportunity to discuss the overall concepts, ideals, and programs of his
or her particular institution. In essence, the faculty member potentially could recruit

students.

For example, say a college or university wanted to increase the enrollment in the ﬁne
arts. Direct faculty contact with the local high-school teacher in charge of the drama
department might yield a better result then an admissions counselor contacting the high
school counseling department. A high school counselor with between 400 and 600
counselees would probably not know each individual student as well as the teacher that
saw a smaller number of students for a speciﬁc class every day. Once initial contact was
made with the high school teacher, follow-up arrangements could be made for the
students and teacher to visit the campus, meet with faculty, and tour the ﬁne arts
department. The faculty member, preferably from the same academic discipline, should

make the initial contact with the teacher (Mudie, 1978).

In addition, Kemerer suggested that faculty should review publications, work with
alumni, host student events on campus, write letters and make phone calls to prospective
students, and establish contacts with counterparts in feeder institutions (Kemerer, 1985).

These recruiting activities were not as subtle and involved direct faculty members in

11

more “traditional” admissions ofﬁce recruiting methods. These concepts put faculty on
the “front lines” of recruiting and took them out of more traditional faculty roles that

allowed for interaction with prospective students.

Potential roadblocks to this concept of faculty involvement in recruiting abounded
(Ross-Black, 2000). Kemerer mentioned the lack of credit in a campus reward system for
faculty efforts to assist in student recruitment and retention. He stated that, “often it is
younger, non-tenured faculty who realize that their job security depends on sustained
enrollment but are so pressed with community service, research, and publication that they
cannot devote much time to enrollment management” (Kemerer, 1985). Kemerer raised
the question about the importance of tenure status or seniority in inﬂuencing faculty
participation in undergraduate student recruiting. Kemerer (1985) also suggested that the
reward system be altered to include student recruitment and retention activities as one
category for merit pay and tenure decision-making. Kemerer’s article effectively touched
on a multitude of activities that faculty could do to assist in undergraduate recruiting.

Many of these activities were a reality for some programs and are reviewed later in detail.

Charles Pollock and WC. Wolf, Jr. (1989) noted that advocates of enrollment
management recommended that it focus on campus-wide student recruitment,
admissions, and retention. There was a strong implication that all members of the campus
community, including faculty, become involved in the enrollment concept, which would
include recruiting students. Campbell went so far as to suggest that faculty become

adjunct members of the admission ofﬁces (Campbell, 1978, p.57).

12

Some evidence suggested that undergraduate student development could be
substantially affected by interactions with both peers and faculty (Astin, 1993, p.4).
Based on this type of evidence, one could ask if it was possible that faculty could
positively affect students even before they enrolled at an institution. Some studies
indicated the answer was yes. One such study, conducted at Washington University in
St. Louis, indicated that faculty members could be extremely inﬂuential in their impact
on prospective students: “faculty and the students that make up the heart of the collegiate
experience, and prospective students are rightfully concerned about the nature of their

prospective faculty” (Turner, 1978, p.34).

Additional articles reinforced the notion that faculty could assist in undergraduate
student recruitment. Departmental faculty members could write letters to prospective
students or make telephone calls and provide students with comprehensive information
on departmental offerings and career opportunities. The driving force behind this thought
behind was that faculty members had the greatest knowledge about their own programs
and, thus, interested students could ask more probing questions concerning curriculum
and course offerings (Barton and Treadwell, 1978; Enrollment Management, 2000;
Kemerer, 1984; Kreutner and Godfrey, 1980; Walker, 2001). Why have admission’s
counselors place calls to students and attempt to provide answers to speciﬁc questions
about programs, when faculty members could provide more in-depth information and
answers to prospective students? Faculty member’s responses to telephone requests
could make a difference in the successful recruitment of an undergraduate student

(Green, 1990, p. 89). In sum, the “greater college community (students, faculty,

13

administrators, and alumni) multiplied the reach and inﬂuence of the admissions ofﬁce”

(Barton and Treadwell, 1978, p. 82).

By the 19808 service on enrollment or recruitment teams was more common for
faculty members (Kreutner, 1980). In some cases, this service involved utilizing faculty
expertise in marketing and marketing research to supervise staff research into enrollment,
recruitment, and institutional marketing (Green, 1990). In addition, faculty could
contribute to student recruitment by attending Open Houses, Scholarship or Honors Days,
hosting Departmental Open Houses, attending prospective student receptions, hosting
campus programs for high school teachers, and organizing departmental Phon-a-thons

(Keller, 1997).

Again, the idea was that faculty members could provide more detailed information to
students about their programs than others on the campus (Ihlanfeldt, 1980). After all,
what would have more impact on a prospective student and his or her parents, a meeting
with an admissions ofﬁcer or a tour of a laboratory by the faculty member that would
actually teach the course the student would take? This also held true for visits by high
school counselors as they met faculty members and learned in-depth information about

speciﬁc academic programs (Turner, 1978).

An additional method of recruiting students by faculty focused on the adult, or non-

traditional, student population (Enrollment Management Report, 2000, November).

Marguerite Dennis suggested that faculty who had contacts in the corporate world reach

14

out to employees that might need technological or remedial training. In particular, the
“non-traditional” or adult student represents the largest growth segment in college

enrollments (Jacobs, 1990, p. 49; McKinley, 2000; Paulsen, 1990, p. 30).

By 1990, for example, the population of traditional 18 to 24 year old students on
campus had fallen from 70 percent in 1970 to 57 percent. The rest of the students were

older, commuted, or studied part time (Green, 1990, p.79).

As faculty involvement in undergraduate recruiting grew, some questions arose. Did
faculty members actually affect a student’s decision about attending one particular
institution above another? Did different types of recruiting efforts have distinct results?
The difﬁculty in answering these questions was the complexity of student choice of

college.

A 1976 study showed that the most common reason student’s gave for selecting a
college was the importance of getting a good job. Secondary reasons mentioned by
students included academic reputation and special education programs (Brown, 1978,
p.5). More recently, students tended to select a college and university based on a number
of reasons: cost, ﬁnancial aid, availability of a speciﬁc program, size, safety, quality of
faculty, quality of teaching, friendliness of the campus, the location, family ties to an
institution, social atmosphere, athletics, and religious inﬂuence (Huddleston and Batty,
1978; Kappler, 1997, p.14-16; Paulsen, 1990; Wilcox, 1991). Vincent Tinto’s retention

model identiﬁed family background, skills and abilities, prior schooling, student intention

15

and goals, academic performance, extracurricular activities, faculty and peer interactions,
and academic and social integration as important factors in student’s decisions to remain

in school (Wilcox, 1991, p. 49). These reasons can be broken down into two categories:

environmental factors beyond the institution’s control and institutional characteristics

controlled by the institution (Pagano and Terkla, 1991; Paulsen, 1990). 1

Environmental factors include demographic shifts in the programs that student’s
desired. Such a shift occurred between 1968 and 1972 when the traditional arts and
sciences programs became less desirable to students then vocational and professional
studies programs (Paulsen, 1990, p. 5). Other external factors include interest rates that
affect a student’s ability to pay for college, parental encouragement, and student
characteristics such as race, sex, and ability to learn (Paulsen, 1990, p. 13). One study
showed that, “among individuals who potentially inﬂuence a student’s college selection,
parents have the strongest inﬂuence, particularly mothers” (Pagano and Terkla, 1991, p.
39). Speciﬁc student characteristics that inﬂuenced the decision process included ability,
socioeconomic background, input from inﬂuential advisors, aspirations and values,
geographic considerations, high school characteristics, and expectations (Dolence, 1991,

p. 14).

When marketing the institution, administrators realized that the interpretation and
promotion of a college’s program, the “marketing”, was as important as the content and
structure of the program. It played a vital role in attracting and keeping students (Brown,

1978, p.2). Institutional characteristics that affect a student’s decision making included

16

the percentage of students that were part-time, the percentage of in-state versus out-of-
state students, and the percentage of liberal arts degrees. In addition, the admission’s
selectivity and the school’s urban or rural setting could inﬂuence a student’s decision to
attend an institution (Paulsen, 1990, p. 13). Finally, other institutional characteristics that
inﬂuence student choice include price (Litten, 1978), location, reputation, academic

program orientation, sponsorship and control, and physical plant (Dolence, 1991, p. 14).

Given the complexity of student choice, targeting faculty involvement in recruitment
is difﬁcult. Christopher Keller stated that “personal contact from college faculty
members now more than ever plays a critical role in inﬂuencing student decisions
regarding college choice, particularly among the best students and among those pursuing
difﬁcult programs of study” (Keller, 1997, p. 10). He also noted that, “unfortunately, the
number of faculty members at most colleges that truly understand the admissions process
and are willing to invest the time and effort to assist are relatively few” (Keller, 1997,

p.10).

An article by Leonard Kreutner and Eric S. Godfrey (1980) detailed a successful
enrollment management program at California State University, Long Beach. In the
article the authors provided several examples of how faculty members at Long Beach
assisted in the recruitment of students. Fifty-eight academic departments made use of
applicant listings and contacted potential students, extending invitations for visits and on-

campus advisement. In addition, the faculty provided applicants with factual and

17

comprehensive information on departmental offerings and career opportunities (Kreutner

and Godfrey, 1980).

The authors stated that the driving belief motivating those activities was that
individual faculty members were the most effective recruiters of students. In addition,
Kreutner and Godfrey stated that it was much more difﬁcult for a student to break ties
with a department that he or she felt a part of than it was to leave a university. The
departmental connection with the student was much stronger then the student’s

connection with the university as a whole (Kreutner, 1980).

William Ihlanfeldt (1980) reported that about 150 Northwestern University faculty
members were involved in on-campus programs. He stated that faculty members
appeared to be most effective in discussing their disciplines, not as interviewers or as
general representatives of the institution. In addition, he questioned the use of faculty
members in any capacity other than to represent their disciplines. “They can best assist
the institution’s marketing efforts by meeting the intellectual needs of students”

(Ihlanfeldt, 1980, p. 128).

Marguerite Dennis (1998), Vice-President for Development and Enrollment at
Suffolk University in Boston, provided evidence that faculty members did contact
prospective students through phone calls and letters. She described a funnel of contacts
with students, where the funnel was a systematic ﬂow of information to prospective

students including faculty letters, departmental newsletters, and faculty phone calls to

18

accepted students. She noted that this “funnel” was one that she has used over the years
and had modiﬁed to suit the needs of the students and the market position of the school
(Dennis, 1998, p.48-49). Dennis later remarked, “Throughout the recruitment cycle. . .the
admissions ofﬁce should send to each departmental chairperson a list of prospective
students in their major. Faculty can contact applicants and play a signiﬁcant role in the
admissions process while at the same time helping to increase the number of students in
their major” (Dennis, 1998, p.57). Dennis also stated that there was no enrollment and
retention success without faculty input and cooperation. “Without faculty support for
new ideas and programs and without faculty willingness to assist in the recruitment and
retention programs, the best enrollment and retention managers will undoubtedly fail.
One thing is certain: enrolling students and retaining them cannot succeed without faculty

assistance and cooperation” (Dennis, 1998, p.56-57).

Don Hossler (1999) supported the concept that faculty affect student college choice.
Hossler suggested that when potential students were ready to choose a college they would
want speciﬁc, detailed, information. At this point “campus visits and opportunities to
visit with faculty or learn more from student affairs staff become important parts of the
conversion process” (Hossler, 1999, p.19). In his view, “The admissions ofﬁce should be
the expert in developing the applicant, but that once prospective students are ready to
apply, the faculty, student affairs, and other campus representatives can play a key role in

converting the applicant pool” (Hossler, 1999, p. 19).

19

A simple form of faculty involvement in undergraduate student recruiting happened
at North Dakota State University. The faculty developed departmental fact sheets that
were used by the admissions ofﬁce in mailings to prospective students. The academic
departments were responsible for providing the basic subject matter for the fact sheets
and identifying post-college accomplishments of alumni (Kuh and Wallman, 1986). This
relatively simple task was one method of assisting in undergraduate student recruiting.
The faculty members in the department were able to provide more detailed information
concerning their programs than admission ofﬁcers. This detailed information was then

dispensed to potential students.

In May, 2000, DePaul University initiated a high tech form of faculty involvement in
recruiting undergraduate students, a Virtual Open House: “The Virtual Open House
consisted of 22 chat rooms, representing each of the colleges and schools plus student
life, admissions, ﬁnancial aid and career services. They were staffed by 63 faculty and
staff members, some of whom participated in shifts, others worked all six hours” (Kahn,
2000, p. 4). The admissions director noted that, “It was a very easy sell internally”.
Visitors could post questions, watch a discussion, and interact with faculty and students.
“In a subtle way, it helps to demonstrate that DePaul is a technologically savvy

institution” (Kahn, 2000, p.4).

An evaluation of institutional contacts with prospective students by Marian Pagano

and Dawn Geronimo Terkla in 1991 reviewed the usefulness of a variety of recruiting

contacts made by Tufts University. A speciﬁc type of contact used by Tufts included

20

letters from faculty to students. Institutions that had students visit classes, or meet
faculty, ran the risk of having a negative experience (Pagano and Terkla, 1991). Tufts
administrators learned to carefully select the faculty members that meet prospective

students.

Studies that rank the top ten recruiting strategies used by colleges and universities
suggested that a campus visit, along with meeting faculty, was the top recruiting tool for
an institution in search of larger class sizes (Keller, 1997). Admissions ofﬁcers and
enrollment managers were asking faculty members to create time to meet with students
that took campus tours. In addition, faculty members were being asked to make use of
application listings and extend invitations for on-campus visits to prospective students

(Kreutner, 1980).

Joyce E. Smith (1998) noted that successful on-campus visits by students only
happened when faculty members were part of the program. To support this statement
Smith charted the increase of the campus visit as a recruiting tool used by admissions
personnel. In 1979 she noted that 38 percent of institutions surveyed reported a very
frequent use of this “tool”. By 1992 the percentage of institutions that used on-campus
visits as a very frequent “tool” increased to 82 percent (Smith, 1998, p.129-131).
Another study, the 1997 Annual Stamats National College Choice Study, a survey of
admissions ofﬁces, listed letters written by faculty to students as one of the top ten

recruiting tools utilized by institutions (Kapper, 1997). In most cases, faculty were asked

21

to help with recruitment because of declining enrollment, (Hossler, 1986) or potential

enrollment problems (Krotseng, 1992).

Concerns over enrollment were the one constant that ran through each article that
suggested faculty could assist in undergraduate recruiting, yet little was written about
enrollment problems, which made it difﬁcult to judge the effectiveness of faculty efforts.
Accordingly, I reviewed additional literature areas, including institutional goals or
missions, historical faculty responsibilities, motivation and vitality of faculty members,

and rewards for the faculty.

Qtitutiml Goals, Faculty Roles, & Faculty Rewards

What would happen if enrollment concerns became a major part of an institution’s
mission statement? Chait (1990, p. 25) suggests that attention to enrollment becomes a
greater part of an institution’s mission as trustees intensify calls for “accountability that
promote ‘business-like behaviors’ such as marketing, strategic planning, and performance
appraisal, areas where trustees have considerable expertise”. This pressure is most
evident when colleges and universities are in direct competition for resources — students,
dollars, faculty, and equipment. Consider Sterling College, which faced an enrollment
crisis that threatened the institution. Administrators and faculty reviewed the institution’s
mission, including Sterling’s residential model, liberal arts curriculum, and religious
makeup. Programs were altered or dropped, lowering the number of offerings from thirty

majors to seventeen. Part of the new mission statement indicated that, “faculty members

22

and even the president are also expected to call potential students to encourage them to
come” (Van Der Werf, 1999, p. A34). This episode suggests that an institutional

enrollment crisis might inﬂuence the faculty role in recruiting

Since most academics lack a detailed job description, the best way to see how
institutional missions and goals affect faculty is to examine university policies and
procedures for academic appointments, tenure, promotion, and dismissal (Knapper, 1997,
p. 41). Robert Diamond noted that the system for promotion and tenure of faculty
members ideally should be compatible with the mission statement of the institution. He
also stated that colleges and universities differ in their goals and that their reward
structures should reﬂect these differences (Diamond, 1993, p.8). John Centra stated that
the “goals of the institution and the responsibility of a particular faculty member
determine the importance given to research, student advising, and public service”
(Centra, 1979, p. 119). Centra implies that faculty involvement in recruiting
undergraduate students must be made part of stated expectations and policies for faculty
members. Moreover, if goals shift over time the faculty must support these changes or

internal conﬂict will result (Kashner, 1990, p. 24).

Diamond also noted that an institutional mission statement “should (1) describe the
desired institutional balance of teaching, research, and service activities; (2) identify
major characteristics, strengths, and priorities of the institution; and (3) deﬁne the
operational philosophy of the college or university” (Diamond, 1993, p.14). In this

context, enrollment shifts at an institution could result in changes in the identiﬁcation of

23

institutional strengths, and priorities, especially for colleges and universities whose
budgets are tied to enrollment. Diamond (1993) continued by stating that recent studies
suggest that tying mission and priorities to rewards can increase faculty productivity in

high priority tasks.

Diamond also postulated that unit or department-speciﬁc missions statements were
needed to identify discipline-speciﬁc criteria and procedures for use in the promotion and
tenure process (Diamond, 1993, p.16-18). Bronwyn Adam and Alton Roberts
demonstrated the wide range of goals set by various departments. They noted “scholars
are not all the same” while reporting details of departmental goals from such areas as
Chemistry, the Arts, and Geography (Adam and Roberts, 1993, p.24). Of particular
interest was the statement that “some disciplines value professional service or outreach
activities because they serve a critical function in the life and development of the ﬁeld.
One notes that the departmental goal set by the Chemistry task force included an outreach
program that targeted minority and gender-based recruitment and retention of students
(Adam and Roberts, 1993, p.47). Their ﬁndings suggest the possibility of including
speciﬁc departmental expectations for a faculty member’s participation in student

recruitment.

The assumption that shifts in institutional priorities, goals, or mission, result in a shift
in a faculty member’s job responsibilities rests on faculty perceptions about their jobs.
Richard Chait (1979) noted that faculty work in a freedom ﬁeld: “Independence and

autonomy are hallmarks of the academic profession. Personnel practices have been

24

traditionally slipshod and supervision historically loose. Organizational demands for
conformity are few. There are no dress codes and no time clocks. More fundamentally,
there is no insistence upon allegiance to institutional goals as determined by
management” (Chait, 1979, p. 38). Frederic Jacobs also commented, “For a generation,
college and university faculties have been unusually stable, in role and responsibility, in
size, and in membership. There has been a pervasive feeling that the faculty’s role,
variable as it may be from institution to institution, is known and knowable, stable and
stabilizing, predictable to individual faculty members and their institutions” (Jacobs,
1990, p.43-44). However, the 19903 brought new expectations for faculty, new
requirements for activity and involvement, and changes in institutional resource
allocations (Jacobs, 1990). Translating these shifts into new faculty responsibilities
requires faculty cooperation. For any success, faculty must “have a clear idea of what is

going on and why” (Jones, 1990, p.54).

In particular, additions to faculty work that affect traditional functions are most
suspect: This historical review of the faculty role is necessary to gauge the impact that
changes in institutional conditions and goals might make in faculty assistance in
recruiting students. “Policy speciﬁes that the primary responsibility of faculty is teaching
and research and scholarship, and in most cases teaching is listed ﬁrst” (Knapper, 1997,
p. 41). The debate over how much time is allocated for these three functions is one that
has raged for years. The debate over faculty time recently has focused on enhancing the
value of teaching and learning (Boyer, 1990; Chait, 1979; Diamond, 1993, Fairweather,

1996; Knapper, 1997; Shuster, 1990; Ward, 1998).

25

A 1997 study of the teaching workload of full-time postsecondary faculty revealed
that in 1992 faculty members spent 54.4 percent of their work hours teaching, 17.6
percent conducting research, and 13.1 percent performing administrative tasks.
Professional growth accounted for 4.6 percent of the faculty’s time. Outside consulting or
freelance work represented 2.7 percent of the faculty work experience. Service and other
work accounted for 7.4 percent of faculty time, an increase from 5.4 percent in 1987

(http://nces.ed. gov/pubs/ce/c9743a01 .html).

The debate over faculty time has spilled into a critique of the faculty reward system.
Rewards reﬂect institutional priorities. They determine which faculty are promoted or
granted tenure, and serve as the basis for judging job performance. “With fewer faculty
members being awarded tenure and promotions, research and scholarship as well as
teaching performance are receiving close scrutiny, focusing in particular on the quality
and impact of an individual’s wor ” (Centra, 1979, p.119). Junior faculty members, in
particular, learn that they must “publish more and publish quickly” (Wilson, 2000, p.
A12). Perhaps Ernest Boyer was best able to cut to the heart of the matter: “Almost all
colleges pay lip service to the trilogy of teaching, research, and service, but when it
comes to making judgements about professional performance, the three rarely are
assigned equal merit" (Boyer, 1990, p.15). Robert Diamond echoed the same sentiment:
“No process in higher education receives more attention, generates more debate on
individual campuses among faculty and administrators, or creates more frustration than
the promotion and tenure system” (Diamond, 1993, p.5). Diamond also commented that

faculty assignments and workloads needed to be equitable to allow faculty members

26

“adequate time to provide effective instruction, advise and evaluate students, continue
professional growth, and participate in scholarship, research, and service compatible with
the mission and purpose of the institution” (Diamond, 1993, p. 10). These ﬁndings
suggest that faculty participation in recruiting undergraduate students depends, at least in

part, in the activity being acknowledged in personnel decisions.

In 1985 Shelia Slaughter suggested that university and state leaders change the role
expectations they held for faculty. She raised three questions: 1) what kinds of new role
behaviors are involved in increasing productivity; 2) how do faculty respond to shifting
expectations; and 3) how do changing expectations affect the traditional tripartite faculty
role - teaching, research and service (Slaughter, 1985)? Slaughter deﬁned Eternal
service within the university as faculty participation in academic governance. She noted
that in 1972 many faculty members refused to participate in this type of service until
institutions began to include it in the merit structure (Slaughter, 1985). Might faculty
also balk at assisting in undergraduate student recruitment if it is not recognized by their

institutional administration as an internal service and part of the merit structure?

Service has not been at the forefront of the argument over faculty work allocation
when compared with research and teaching. Service is mentioned in a majority of
college and university-mission statements but can cover a wide variety of possible
responsibilities for faculty, both on and off the campus. One thing seems certain:
institutions continue to require more from their faculties in their service commitment

(Jacobs, 1990, p. 48).

27

External service includes efforts by faculty that can beneﬁt the local community, or
professional outreach such as consulting in the ﬁeld of the faculty member’s expertise
(Ward, 1998). External service also means service to the discipline or profession and
includes such tasks as serving on committees related to a faculty member’s professional
afﬁliation (Ward, 1998, Knapper, 1997). Internal service often means taking on
administrative duties such as serving on committees on the faculty member’s campus
(Knapper, 1997, Ward, 1998). Boyer noted that service covered “an almost endless
number of campus activities—sitting on committees, advising student clubs, or
performing departmental chores. It is not unusual for almost any worthy project to be

dumped into the amorphous category called ‘service’” (Boyer, 1990, p.20).

One wonders whether placing faculty assistance in recruiting students under “service”
can be effective. Service is but a small portion of the faculty role, compared to teaching
and research. Faculty members might balk at this responsibility if it takes time away

from teaching or research.

James Faiweather’s (1996) work reinforces this concept. He noted the public
perception of faculty as teachers spending too much time doing research, all the while
being protected by the tenure system. He also recognized that academics have “invented
and reinforced a reward system and socialization process that increasingly encourages
faculty to think more about research than teaching, that stresses publishing volume more

than quality, and that treats the publication of research as the principal, perhaps the only,

28

measure by which faculty can claim to have achieved high status” (Fairweather, 1996, p.

xiii).

The premise of Fairweather’s 1996 work was that teaching, research, and public
service compete for faculty time. Administrators and faculty that want to increase the
value of teaching and public service must recognize that there will need to be a
compensatory decrease of faculty time spent on research to achieve this goal
(Fairweather, 1996). Yet this shift runs counter to reward structures that increasingly

emphasize research and scholarship regardless of type of four-year institution.

In 1994 Larry A. Braskamp and John C. Ory deﬁned faculty work as teaching,
research and creative activity, and practice and professional service (Braskamp and Ory,
1994). A fourth category, citizenship, reﬂected many types of faculty work, including
memberships, interactions, interdependencies, and partnerships. Braskamp and Ory

deﬁned three speciﬁc forms of citizenship:

0 Institutional contributions including work that facilitated and promoted the growth
and development of the institution.

0 Disciplinary/professional contributions including work in professional, scholarly, and
disciplinary associations and organizations.

0 Private and community contributions including work in community, political,

religious, and civic organizations. (Braskamp and Ory, 1994, p. 49-50)

29

It is the ﬁrst form of citizenship that best ﬁts institutional service for those that assist in
student recruitment. Their assistance in undergraduate recruiting could be considered

work that facilitates and promotes the development of the institution.

Jack Shuster noted that, “faculty performance is the most inﬂuential factor bearing on
an institution’s efforts to fulﬁll its teaching, research and public service missions. All
that is accomplished by the Academy is a product of the competence, enthusiasm, and
energy of its faculty” (Shuster, 1990, p.33). Motivation and vitality of the faculty
member also might inﬂuence faculty participation in student recruitment. For example,
age, job responsibilities, and departmental concerns could affect a faculty member’s
motivation to participate in such non-traditional work as student recruiting. This might
be especially true today, when nearly half of the respondents to The American Faculty
Poll indicated that their academic work is impinged by their workload (Leatherman,

2000).

Robert T. Blackburn and Janet H. Lawrence deﬁned motivation as the “tendencies to
initiate and sustain a given activity” (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995, p. 18). They
examined the motivational process for faculty members through a variety of historical
theories including personality and career development, reinforcement, dispositional,
expectancy, attribution, efﬁcacy, and information processing (Blackburn and Lawrence,
1995). Blackburn and Lawrence presented a theoretical framework for faculty role

performance and achievement with four key premises:

30

0 Academic institutions are achievement-laden environments in which the
evaluation of faculty, student, and administrator performance is ongoing;

0 Faculty use assessments of themselves and their social contexts to make
meaningful decisions about their actions;

0 Experience over time leads individuals to modify their understandings of their
work environments as well as their self-images. These changes can affect the
subjective incentive value of engagement in different facets of work, and
consequently a faculty member’s level of engagement in different activities can
shift;

0 Some types of self-referent thought and perceptions of the work environment are
fairly enduring, whereas others change frequently on the basis of personal

feedback and vicarious experience. (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995, p.26)

Blackburn and Lawrence deﬁned work allocation for faculty members by breaking
down job responsibilities into three basic areas: Research, Teaching, Service and
Scholarship. They determined that research was equated with the number of published
materials created by the faculty member and that teaching was deﬁned as the number of

classes taught.

Service was deﬁned as “the catchall name for everything that is neither teaching,

research, nor scholarship” (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995, p.222). External and internal

service was speciﬁcally deﬁned without reference to requests for faculty assistance in the

31

recruitment of students. Blackburn and Lawrence deﬁned scholarship as keeping up-to-

date with literature and intellectual activity (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995).

In their research concerning faculty incentives and vitality, Baldwin and Krotseng
deﬁned vitality as “those essential, yet intangible, positive qualities of individuals and
institutions that enable purposeful production” (Baldwin and Krotseng, 1985, p. 7). They
noted that for faculty members, vitality is characterized by enthusiasm and curiosity. The
authors also stated that faculty motivation was complex and could not be explained by a

simple materialistic view (Baldwin and Krotseng, 1985).

Braskamp and Ory suggested that setting goals based on expectations signiﬁcantly
affects continuing faculty motivation. By setting attainable, challenging goals,
administrators can enhance faculty motivation to excel by “examining their challenges
and skills and the competencies that are required to meet the challenges” (Braskamp and
Ory, 1994, p. 67). The authors then listed several suggestions and guidelines that might

assist in the setting of goals and increasing faculty motivation. Among them:

0 Remember, not everybody can be judged by the same yardstick. Different criteria
and standards of excellence are needed for different faculty members;

0 Campuses should consider their culture and ethos in determining how faculty
develop and communicate their expectations and how they are reviewed by others;

0 Formative assessment during the beginning years of a faculty members career is

critical;

32

0 Allow the opportunity for each faculty member to meet with the chair or academic
head to discus plans to contribute to the departmental mission, provide a framework
and context for the assessment of work, and establish a means for self-development
and improvement. Perhaps a short-term and a long-term professional development

plan can be established (Braskamp and Ory, 1994, pg. 68-71).

Unfortunately, none of these recommendations anticipated new faculty
responsibilities such as involvement in student recruiting. One could question whether
or not Braskcamp and Ory’s suggestions would change if recruitment were taken into
account. For example, one wonders about the opportunity of making sure that creative
formative assignments during the beginning years of a faculty member’s career is

possible if they are asked to assist in student recruiting.

No studies related enrollment pressures with faculty motivation. Would enrollment

pressures decrease or increase faculty motivation and vitality?

Rewards and incentives inﬂuence a faculty member’s decision to assist in
undergraduate recruiting (Fairweather, 1996). Frank Kemerer touched on this subject
when he raised concerns that the reward mechanisms on campuses did not emphasize
faculty efforts to assist in the recruiting of students (Kemerer, 1985). Christopher
Knapper suggested that rewards could be extrinsic or intrinsic. Extrinsic rewards include
such things as money or a larger ofﬁce while intrinsic rewards come in the form of job

satisfaction. Additional forms of faculty rewards could include such things as tenure,

33

promotion, academic appointment, the awarding of a sabbatical, or teaching awards

(Knapper, 1997, p. 42).

Baldwin and Krotseng noted that incentives are tangible and intangible. Most
tangible rewards take the form of extrinsic rewards such as salary increases, promotions,
more interesting assignments, fringe beneﬁts, and status symbols (Baldwin and Krotseng,
1985, p.11). Additional rewards come in such forms as a ﬂexible teaching schedule, or
release time, that allows time for research or service (Baldwin and Krotseng, 1985). This
thought is echoed in the observation that deans and department chairs have a major
inﬂuence in the motivation and rewarding of faculty members. They can inﬂuence
faculty member’s perceptions of priorities and rewards, development departmental norms
concerning the importance of teaching, and allocate institutional resources (Roberts,

1993,p.75)

Knapper postulated that it was more likely that subtle rewards play “a signiﬁcant role
in motivating faculty behavior and that extrinsic and intrinsic rewards interact with each
other to affect faculty values and effort”. In addition, Knapper noted that “studies of
human motivation show that we will often strive for such overt rewards (such as ﬁnancial
compensation), but that the most powerful reinforcers are psychological, in particular

prestige and self-esteem” (Knapper, 1993, p. 42-45).

Baldwin and Krotseng noted the impact of rewards on faculty members as they

referred to studies that showed that faculty found incentives in the belief of inﬂuencing

34

others minds, contributing to student development, and enjoying the intellectual
interchanges characteristic of academic life. Faculty members also enjoyed the freedom
and autonomy available in the faculty position. Baldwin and Krotsen noted that these
types of awards were often intangible. Other intangible rewards included approval,
praise, and feelings of competence or self-actualization generated by their work (Baldwin

and Krotseng, 1985, p.8).

Craig Green stressed the importance of recognizing faculty involvement in
undergraduate student recruiting by stating that, “whatever faculty members do that is
helpful needs to be valued and publicly recognized” (Green, 1990, p. 89).

W.J. McKeachie, in “The Rewards of Teaching”, suggested that “intrinsic satisfactions
are derived from such things as satisfying relationships with students and colleagues,
from intellectual stimulation, and from a sense of freedom and autonomy in carrying out

one’s job with a sense of personal control and efﬁcacy” (McKeachie, 1982, p. 12).

Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi wrote that intrinsic motivation comes not from some
outside goal such as becoming a good teacher, or making more money, but from the
experience that is an end in itself. “The point is that for a professor, intrinsic motivation
is both the product of the activity and the means by which the product is realized. The
intrinsic rewards and the meaning of the activity must be discovered on one’s own”
(Czikszentmihalyi, 1982, p. 16 and 21). Robert Froh suggested that intrinsic motivation
was perhaps the higher of the two motivators for faculty members. He noted that, “many

faculty chose careers in academia for reasons other than ﬁscal rewards. They enjoy

35

working with younger people, they ﬁnd the vigor of scholarly activity stimulating and the
work with colleagues in their disciplines challenging, and they love teaching” (Froh,
Menges, Walker, 1993, p. 87). In all of these discussions one fact remains clear: faculty

are not homogeneous.

No literature examines rewards for faculty that assisted in undergraduate recruiting.
It seems highly doubtful that many colleges and universities have altered their reward
systems to include the efforts of faculty in recruiting students. It does seem possible that
some faculty members need some form of acknowledgement to encourage participation

in recruiting.

The most likely rewards for faculty that assist in recruiting are intrinsic. The self-
satisfaction of making an impact on the departmental enrollment, meeting new students,
or helping the university might be the only reward available to the faculty. This is not to
say that an institution requiring faculty to assist in recruiting, such as at Sterling College,
might not have found some method of rewarding faculty by altering workloads, or
providing time off from teaching responsibilities. However, at this time, there was no
evidence that administrators at institutions are altering the reward structures on campuses

to include the work faculty members might be doing to try and increase enrollment.

Starting with the previous literature, I developed a model to explain faculty

involvement in recruiting students. This literature suggests four potential inﬂuences on

faculty involvement:

36

Institutional goals or mission: The detailed description of the university’s mission
and faculty responsibilities. This included the university’s plan to recruit
undergraduate students.

Historical faculty responsibilities: Teaching, Research, and Service. This included
such traditional faculty areas as tenure, rank, and number of classes taught.
Motivation and vitality of the faculty: Tendencies to initiate and sustain a given
activity (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995, p. 18). In this case that would include
recruiting undergraduate students.

Rewards — extrinsic and intrinsic: Something that stimulates action or effort
(Baldwin and Krotseng, 1985, p.6). Extrinsic rewards included such things as money
or a larger ofﬁce while intrinsic rewards included such things as job satisfaction, or

the satisfaction of a job well-done.

This initial model did not address the question of why faculty members were asked to

assist in the recruiting efforts of undergraduate students. To ﬁll out the model I

developed three enrollment scenarios that potentially could inﬂuence a faculty member’s

decision on whether or not to assist an admissions ofﬁce.

The ﬁrst scenario involved uncertain institutional enrollment. This uncertainty may

take one of many forms. For example, there may have been a decline in the overall
institutional enrollment. This institutional vulnerability might have caused a
ﬁnancial problem. Perhaps the overall enrollment of the institution was sound but

the institutional administration desired an increase in enrollment. Another possibility

37

“~\_

,/

was that the institutional administration wanted to attract a higher quality of student,

a or increase a targeted population. Perhaps there was a drive to enroll more

valedictorians, or students with a higher grade point average or standardized test
score. Many institutions have been attempting to increase the number of minorities
or women that enroll.

The second scenario suggested there was a departmental decline in enrollment, or a
departmental struggle to maintain a desired enrollment. This might have included
the actual survivability of a program and could have impacted a faculty member’s
employment.

The third scenario suggested that the department might have been launching a new
program and had a desire to begin classes with a minimum number of enrolled

students.

These enrollment situations might inﬂuence a faculty member’s decision to assist in

the recruiting efforts to attract undergraduate students. For example, a faculty member
may have felt more loyalty to the department, and willingness to help, if the enrollment
problem was situated in the home department. If the enrollment problem was located
across the campus the urgency to assist might have been diminished and the faculty

member may not become involved in the recruitment process.

Perhaps the launching of a new program in the department was tied to a speciﬁc

faculty member or colleague. This might have motivated the faculty member to assist in

recruiting students to make sure the launching of the program was successful. As noted

38

earlier, faculty attitudes about campus goals were a contributing factor to the success or

failure of an enrollment plan (Hossler, 1986, Dennis, 1998).

The ﬁnal model incorporated institutional and departmental enrollment scenarios with
institutional goals, faculty responsibilities, motivation and rewards. I also added whether
or not the faculty member was asked to participate. This model formed the basis for

subsequent analysis.

39

III. VARIABLES, IN STRUMENATION AND DATA COLLECTION

Admissions directors at the selected institutions were surveyed to verify faculty
involvement in undergraduate student recruiting and to provide information concerning
institutional enrollment and enrollment goals. I surveyed faculty members to gather data
on faculty involvement in undergraduate student recruiting, perspectives on institutional

and departmental enrollment, job responsibilities, motivation, and rewards.

Three research questions guided data collection and analysis. These were:

0 Research Question 1: Do faculty members assist admissions offices in the

recruitment of undergraduate students?

0 Research Question 2: Do enrollment concerns motivate faculty members to assist in

recruiting students?

0 Research Question 3: Besides enrollment concerns, what inﬂuences faculty

participation, in recruiting undergraduate students?

Deﬁnitions of Survey Measures

The following deﬁnitions were used in this study:

0 Faculty workload: The area of work allocation for faculty members broken down into

research, teaching, service and scholarship as identiﬁed by Blackburn and Lawrence

40

(1995). In addition, professional growth, administrative duties, and outside work
were considered as part of the faculty workload.

Historical faculty responsibilities: Teaching, research, and service and scholarship as
identiﬁed by Blackburn and Lawrence (1995). Also included were: tenure, rank,
years of service at an institution, and the number of classes taught.

Faculty motivation: Tendencies to initiate and sustain a given activity (Blackburn and
Lawrence, 1995).

Faculty rewards: Extrinsic rewards such as the recognition of faculty involvement in
student recruiting through the realignment of the faculty workload, the reduction of
other faculty responsibilities, or the recognition of student recruitment as part of the
promotion and tenure process. Additional extrinsic faculty rewards for assisting in
student recruitment could be as little as a token gift from the admissions ofﬁce.
Rewards could also be intrinsic and involve such things as satisfaction for a job well-
done, enjoyment of working with students, or pride in assisting the institution.
Faculty Participation: Identiﬁcation of involvement in at least one of the sixteen
recruiting related activities identiﬁed in the literature review. These included visiting
high schools or community colleges, calling prospective students, serving on
retention or enrollment committees, attending receptions or open houses, or creating
recruiting materials that are used by the admissions ofﬁce (Dennis, 1998, Green,
1990, Hossler, 1999, Ihlanfeldt, 1980, Keller, 1997, Kemerer, 1985, Kreutner, 1980,
Kuh and Wallman, 1986, Smith, 1998).

Faculty Participation Level: The number of recruitment activities in which the

faculty member participated.

41

0 Valid Response: Returned surveys from full—time faculty members. Invalid surveys
were those where the faculty member was not longer at the selected institution, had
moved into an administrative position, did not work with undergraduate students, had

incorrect addresses, or had died.

Sampling and Design

This study focused on public universities in Michigan facing the greatest likelihood of
enrollment competition and decline. Among the challenges faced by these institutions
was competition for the same student population, concerns over state funding, a shifting

marketplace, and questionable enrollment objectives.

Overall, Michigan has ﬁfteen public four-year institutions of higher education. Five
of the universities are considered research-oriented institutions based on the Carnegie
classiﬁcation system. These institutions face different enrollment situations then the
other ten based on name recognition, state funding, and other factors. Because of these
factors they were eliminated from the study. The remaining ten fell under the Master’s
Comprehensive Colleges and Universities I and II in the Carnegie Classiﬁcation system
and constituted the population understudy. These ten institutions are considered
predominantly teaching-oriented. The undergraduate student population varied by
institution and ranged between 3400 and 17,528 students. The undergraduate student
population was determined by the self-reported enrollment ﬁgure provided by the

institution for the 1999 edition of Peterson’s Guide (Peterson’s Guide, 1999).

42

The number of faculty in these institutions ranged froml9l tol202. The range of

self-identiﬁed full-time faculty members was lower and ranged from 114 to 707 faculty

members. The combined number of full-time faculty members, at all ten institutions was

3733 (Peterson’s Guide, 1999).

The selected institutions, with Carnegie classiﬁcation, total number of undergraduate

faculty, and total number of full-time faculty are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1

Study Population

 

 

Institution Carnegie Total number of Total number of
Classiﬁcation Faculty Full-time Faculty

Central Michigan Masters 1 859 707

University

Eastern Michigan Masters I 1202 707

University

Ferris State Masters II 494 434

University

Grand Valley State Masters I 818 508

University

Lake Superior State Masters II 191 114

University

Northern Michigan Masters I 354 296

University

Oakland University Masters I 666 355

Saginaw Valley Masters I 466 191

State University

University of Masters I 411 230

Michigan-Dearbom

University of Masters I 242 191

Michigan-Flint

43

Sampling Framework

_S_2_Imple #1: Admissions Directors

The purpose of sample #1 was to use a telephone survey to identify, from the
institutional (i.e., administrative) perspective, factors related to faculty involvement in
recruiting students as well as university enrollment concerns and objectives. The
admissions directors at the ten selected institutions were selected as representatives of the
institutional perspective. Data from these administrators also provided additional
veriﬁcation of faculty perceptions about being requested to assist admissions in recruiting

activities. Speciﬁcally, Sample #1 addressed eight areas:

0 Did the admissions directors in the sample request faculty to assist in undergraduate
student recruiting?

0 Why did the directors request faculty assistance?

0 If the directors did not request faculty assistance, had others on campus done so?

0 If the directors did not request faculty assistance, would they be doing so in the
future?

0 How did the admission directors utilize the faculty members to assist in the recruiting
process?

0 Did faculty members decline the invitation to assist in recruiting?

0 What were the reasons that were given by faculty members that declined the
invitation to assist in recruiting?

o What types of enrollment goals and objectives were identiﬁed at the institution?

Sample #2: Faculty

The purpose of the second sample was to use a mailed questionarie to obtain
information directly from the faculty about their participation (or lack of it) in recruiting
undergraduate students. This information was compared and contrasted with the results

of the administrative perspectives obtained in sample #1.

The total number of 3733 available full-time faculty members representing the ten
selected institutions was too large a number for the study because of time and ﬁnancial
constraints. I selected a subset of departments at each institution that represented the full
range of disciplines, based on a method devised by Anthony Biglan. Biglan used a
multidimensional scaling of subject matter to determine if academic areas could be
grouped based on the characteristics of subject matter. His study viewed the subject
matter in various forms such as “hard”, or science-orientated areas and humanities, pure-

applied, and areas concerning living or organic objects of study (Biglan, 1973).

Biglan’s study compared large and small college data. Three characteristics of
academic subject matter held for both the university and small college setting. The ﬁrst
distinguished hard sciences, engineering, and agriculture from social sciences, education
and humanities. The second dimension viewed academic areas with application to
practical problems. Education, engineering, and agriculture were distinguished from hard
sciences, social sciences, and humanities. The ﬁnal dimension distinguished biological

sciences and social areas from those that dealt with inanimate objects (Biglan, 1973).

45

For this study I used two groups: -- (1) hard sciences, engineering, and agriculture
and (2) social sciences, education, and humanities -- as a basis for selecting faculty
members. The selected departments, as identiﬁed by Biglan in his research, were for
Group 1, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering. For Group 2 I included

Business, English, History, and Education.

The number of faculty members in those disciplines at the ten selected institutions
resulted in a total population of 1431 members. (Table 2) Forty percent of that
population created a sample size of approximately 575 faculty members. I used a forty
percent sample because of budget constraints and because a presumed ﬁfty-percent return

rate from the 575 surveys would equate to a twenty-percent sample.

Table 2

Total Population by Department

 

Eng. Hist. Educ. Bio. Chem. Phys. Bus. Engin. Total

 

CMU 51 20 27 21 18 7 62 0 206
EMU 44 24 58 20 21 10 74 0 251
FSU 33 3 5 14 5 4 66 0 130
GVSU 36 15 24 l3 l4 5 49 15 171
LSSU 8 3 4 9 5 3 l3 13 58
NMU 29 9 19 12 8 4 22 0 103
0U 18 12 43 19 22 10 32 30 186
SVSU 23 8 12 8 6 4 21 9 91
UM-D 13 7 15 12 10 6 20 66 149
UM-F 19 5 13 14 8 4 20 3 86
TOTAL 274 106 220 142 l 17 57 379 136 1431

 

46

Faculty members were proportionally randomly selected from each of the eight
selected programs from each of the ten identiﬁed institutions. The survey results were
used to represent the faculty population as a whole, rather then institution or by

department.

To achieve maximum response from the mailed survey I used Dillman’s (1978) M
and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method, with modiﬁcations from Rea Parker’s
Designing and Conducting SurLev Research (Parker, 1997). One week after the initial
survey was mailed I sent a postcard to each potential respondent as both a reminder and a
thank you. Three weeks after the initial mailing I sent a letter and replacement survey to
non-respondents. This second mailing had a shorter cover letter then the original mailing
(Dillman, 1978, p. 183). One week after the second mailing I sent an e-mail to all non-
respondents reminding them of the survey and requesting their assistance in the project
by returning a completed survey. The use of the Total Design Method (TDM), when
followed without modiﬁcation generally generated a return rate range of ﬁfty to seventy-
ﬁve percent. Dillman recognized that the TDM, when modiﬁed, generally generated a

ﬁfty- to sixty -percent return rate (Dillman, 1978).

Data Collection

Telephone Interview with Admissions Directors

There were two separate sets of data collection. Telephone interviews with the

admission directors at the ten institutions provided information about the ﬁrst two

47

research questions, evidence of, and motivation for, faculty participation in
undergraduate student recruiting. These interviews also provided veriﬁcation of

enrollment goals and objectives of the institutions.

An initial consent form was sent to each of the ten admissions directors with a cover
letter outlining the study. Upon the return of a signed consent form, I conducted a
telephone interview with the director concerning that particular institution’s use of
faculty in undergraduate recruitment. The cover letter, consent form, and questionnaire
used for the admissions directors survey can be found in Appendix A. It is important to
note that this group of admissions directors drives the requests for undergraduate student

recruitment assistance at each campus.

The admissions directors from all ten of the selected Michigan universities positively
responded to the request to be interviewed by telephone. The interviews took place over

the course of ﬁve weeks, from March 13‘“, 2000 to April 18‘", 2000.

The interviews ran in length from twenty minutes to approximately an hour. Each
interview began with a description of the project and a reafﬁrmation of the conﬁdentiality
statement. In addition, I veriﬁed that any information collected would be presented in an
aggregate format. Each director was also provided with the phone numbers and e-mail
addresses of the interviewer and the chair of the University Committee on Research

Involving Human Subjects at Michigan State University.

48

The interviews gathered information about the type of recruiting assistance requested
of faculty, tasks actually performed by faculty, the perceived amount of time faculty were
involved in each project, as well as why faculty were asked to participate. The telephone
interviews were broken into three segments covering personal data, overall institutional
enrollment information, and the use of faculty to assist in undergraduate student

recruitment.

Questions about faculty participation in undergraduate student recruitment included a
question that asked if faculty participated in undergraduate student recruitment at the
request of the admissions ofﬁce. If answered positively, I asked the director why faculty
members were asked to participate in undergraduate student recruitment, as well as the
speciﬁc tasks were assigned. The directors were read a list of sixteen potential tasks that
might involve faculty members and asked to indicate if they did or did not use faculty for
each task. The directors were allowed to comment on each task listed. They were also
asked if they had faculty participate in any other recruiting activities, other then those
listed. In the event of a negative response to the question concerning faculty
participation, I asked why faculty did not participate, and if there were plans for future

participation on the campus.

Prior to the interviews I carried out two pre-test interviews with selected directors of

admissions at other Michigan colleges and universities not part of the study. I modiﬁed

the interview protocol based on the pre-test ﬁndings.

49

I did not record the interview but took notes during the conversations with each
admission director. At the end of the interview I read the written responses to the

director for veriﬁcation of the data.

The results of the interviews were entered onto a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and
compared and contrasted with the second data collection from the faculty surveys. In
addition, comments made by admissions directors were entered onto a Microsoft Word
document so that they could be retrieved and used to augment the numeric data. I
compared administrator and faculty responses on faculty participation and tasks, and the

reasons that faculty were or were not involved in undergraduate student recruiting.

Mailed Survey to Faculty Respondents

The second data collection was a mailed questionnaire sent to sampled faculty. The
survey was designed following a method that combined suggestions by Rea Parker, in
Designing and Conducting Survey Research, Don Dillman in Maud Telephone
Surveys: The Total Design, Earl Babbie’s Survey Research Methods, and Arlene Fink’s

How To Conduct Surveys (Babbie, 1973, Dillman, 1978, Fink, 1985, Parker, 1997).

Parker suggested that written surveys should follow several rules. First among those
suggestions was that there should be clear instructions. In addition, there should be
adequate spacing between questions, with no questions divided by pages. The

questionnaire should have an identiﬁcation number for purposes of non-respondent

50

follow-up. There should also be a cover letter that explained to the respondent the use of
the identiﬁcation number, along with assurances of privacy and conﬁdentiality (Parker,
1997, p. 68). I followed all of these suggestions in creating the survey and cover letter

sent to the selected faculty members.

To provide for a maximum response rate to a mailed survey Parker suggested that,
two weeks after the initial mailing, a postcard be sent to non-respondents encouraging
completion of the survey. Four weeks after the initial mailing a second mailing should be
sent to non-respondents. Additional processes past the second mailing could include a
reminder phone call or a third mailing sent certiﬁed mail (Parker, 1997, p. 69). This
process followed very closely that of Dillman’s in Liail and Telephone Surveys: The
Total Design Method, and reinforced the modiﬁed version of the format used for this
project’s survey. The ﬁnal mailing method was described in the Sampling Methods

segment of this paper for Sample #2.

I pre-tested the survey with ten faculty members that were not included in the ﬁnal
faculty selection. These ten faculty members were asked to complete the survey and
return it. In addition, they were asked to comment on the questions and layout design of

the survey. I modiﬁed three questions based on their responses.

The test subjects were also asked to time how long it took to complete the survey.

Their responses showed an average time of ﬁfteen minutes or less. I incorporated the

51

information about the amount of time required to complete the survey in the cover letter

for the survey.

After modiﬁcation, the mailed survey was four pages in length broken into four
sections: Instructions, Background Information, Enrollment, and Activities. A cover
letter described the project and provided contact phone numbers and e-mail address for
questions about the survey or about being a research subject. In addition, the cover letter
explained the use of an identiﬁcation number on the survey for follow-up with non-
respondents. It also provided assurances of privacy and conﬁdentiality. A postage-paid
reply envelope was provided with each survey. The cover letter, survey, and follow-up

contact information for the faculty survey can be found in Appendix B.

The background segment of the survey consisted of six questions concerning the
respondent’s tenure status, rank, age, and number of years at the current institution. In
addition, the respondent was asked what percentage of time was spent on teaching,
research, service, professional growth, administration, and outside consulting or freelance
work. Another question asked about employment status and was used to verify that the

respondent was a full-time employee.

The enrollment segment of the survey consisted of seven questions about the
respondent’s perception of departmental and institutional enrollment trends and about
undergraduate enrollment goals of the institution. In addition, questions were asked

concerning the faculty member’s perception of assisting in undergraduate student

52

recruitment including institutional mission statements and goals, and whether or not the

respondent was required to partake in the undergraduate recruiting experience.

The activities segment of the survey contained eight questions. It began with a list of
sixteen potential recruiting activities. Faculty members were asked to mark all the
activities on the list in which they had participated. Respondents were given the
opportunity to add activities not listed. The respondents indicating they participated in
recruiting activities were also asked where requests for undergraduate student recruitment
assistance originated, if participation created a time conﬂict with other responsibilities,

and their motivations for participation.

The ﬁnal survey questions, asked of all faculty members sent the survey, asked for
information concerning feelings towards recruiting undergraduate students. They also
allowed for the respondent to express opinions to an open-ended question concerning the

topic.

The results of the surveys were entered into an SPSS software package for statistical

analysis. To prepare these variables for the regression analysis I created a new code

system for study variables as follows:

0 PARTICIP (Participation)
Did the faculty member participate in recruiting? 0=no, l=yes

53

OVERALL (Overall institutional enrollment)
The faculty member’s perceived institutional enrollment trend: -l=declining,
0=stable, 1=increasing

DEPART (Departmental enrollment)
The faculty member’s perceived departmental enrollment trend: -l=declining,
0=stable, 1=increasing

PROGRAMS (New programs)
Did the faculty member’s department launch a new program? 0=no, l=yes

TENURE (Tenure status of the respondent)
Was the respondent tenured? 0=No, 1=Yes

YEARS (Years of service)
Number of years the faculty member has spent at the current institution: (actual
number)

CLASSES (Classes taught)
The number of classes taught per semester: (actual number)

CONFLICT (Conﬂict with other duties)
Did recruiting cause a conﬂict with other duties? 0=no, l=yes

MOTIVATE (Motivation of the faculty member)
The main motivating factor, as identiﬁed by the respondent, for participating in
recruiting activities: 1=enrollment, 2=service, 3=other

REQUEST (Where the request for participation in recruiting originated)
From where did the request for participation originate? 1=Department (Dean,
chair, other faculty member, departmental secretary) 2=Admissions, 3=other

PERCEPT (Respondent’s perception of the faculty role in recruiting)
What was the faculty member’s perception of the faculty role in recruiting? 0=not
a faculty function, l=is a faculty function

REWARD (Reward, either intrinsic or extrinsic, given to the respondent)
Was the respondent rewarded for participating in recruiting activities? 0=No,
1=Yes

The variables TENURE, RANK, CLASSES, YEARS, PERCEPT, represented

institutional goals and missions and historical faculty responsibilities, the ﬁrst two of the

additional inﬂuencing factors put forth in the model. The variable MOTIVATE

54

represented faculty motivation in the project’s model and REWARDS represented faculty
rewards. REQUEST, CONFLICT, and REWARD were omitted from the regression
model because they only applied to individuals who participated in the recruitment of
students. The variables used in the regression analysis were TENURE, RANK, YEARS,
CLASSES, OVERALL, DEPART, PERCEPT, and PROGRAMS. The dependent

measure was PARTTCP, or participation in student recruitment.

In addition to coding the variables used in the statistical analysis, the faculty
responses were entered onto Microsoft Excel spreadsheets to track participation in
activities, time allocated at work, perception of enrollment goals, and the origination of
the requests for recruiting assistance. The data from the surveys was then compared and
contrasted with those answers provided by the admissions directors. Written comments
of faculty members were compiled on a Microsoft Word document and used to augment

the numeric data that was collected.

The initial mailing of the survey to the 575 selected faculty generated 224 valid
responses. A second mailing of the survey to non-respondents, with a shorter cover
letter, generated an additional 68 returned surveys for a total of 292 valid responses. A
follow-up e-mail to all non-respondents of the second mailing generated an additional 20
returned surveys for a combined ﬁnal total of 312 valid responses. The ﬁnal response
rate to the 575 mailed surveys was 54.26 percent. The 312 responses equated to 21.80

percent of the overall population of 1431 faculty members. (Table 3)

55

Table 3

Mailed Survey Response Rate

 

 

Response Total Percent Overall Percent of Overall
Response Response percent total percent of
(575 (575 response population total
Mailed) Mailed) (575 (1431 population
Mailed) Faculty) (143 1
Faculty)
First 224 224 38.95% 38.95% 15.65% 15.65%
Mailing
Second 68 292 1 1.83% 50.78% 7.83% 20.40%
Mailing
E-mail 20 312 3.48% 54.26% 1.40% 21.80%
Total 312

 

Twenty-four surveys were not valid (e. g. death, moved, changed positions). When the
twenty-four non-valid members were subtracted from the 575 overall number used for the
study, the number of available faculty members became 551 and the 312 valid responses
equated to a 56.62 percent return rate (Babbie, 1973, p. 165; Fink, 1985, p, 62). When
the twenty-four non-valid members were removed from the overall population the
number of potential faculty members dropped from 1431 to 1407. The return of 312
valid surveys then represented 22.18 percent of the overall population. This response rate
falls between adequate and good according to Babbie (1973, p. 165) and Parker (1997,

p.69).
The response rate to the survey varied by institution and department. The average

institutional response rate was 57.12 percent. The response rate by institution is found in

Table 4.

56

Table 4

Response R@ by Institution

 

 

Institution Response Rate
Central Michigan University 45.12%
Eastern Michigan University 45.55%
Ferris State University 42.31%

Grand Valley State University 60.87%
Lake Superior State University 91.30%
Northern Michigan University 62.79%
Oakland University 65.33%
Saginaw Valley State University 55.55%
University of Michigan-Dearbom 50.84%
University of Michigan-Flint 51.42%

 

The departmental response rate to the survey varied by program. The lowest response
rate was from the physics faculty members at 41.66 percent. The highest response rate
was 71.74 percent from the Chemistry faculty. The average response rate for the eight

programs was 54.03 percent. Response rates for each program are found in Table 5.

Table 5

Respopae Rate by Program

 

Program Response Rate
Biology 63.79%
Business 54.61%
Education 64.04%
Engineering 44.44%

English 43. l 1%
Chemistry 71.74%
History 48.83%
Physics 41.66%

 

57

IV. RESULTS

Results of the Admissions Director Telephone Surveys

The directors had a wide range of work experience in the admissions ﬁeld. Two of
the directors worked in admissions for ﬁve years, representing the low end of the
experience range. At the high end one institutional representative had twenty-eight years
of admission’s experience. The average tenure of the ten directors was fourteen years of
experience in admissions. Most admissions directors felt they had sufﬁcient experience
to provide current data about faculty assistance in recruiting, as well as relating the

information in a historical perspective.

Only one director reported an overall decline in the number of undergraduate students
over the past three years. Two other respondents described their institution’s enrollment
as stable. The enrollments at seven other institutions had increased over the past three

years.

Eight of the admissions directors indicated that the main enrollment goal for their
institution was to increase the overall number of undergraduate students. One respondent
stated that the enrollment goal at his institution was not to increase the student population
but to maintain the overall size of the institution. The tenth admissions director noted
that he had never received direction from his superiors concerning enrollment goals.
However, he suspected that the answer would be to increase the overall number of

students.

58

The most mentioned secondary enrollment goal of the directors was the desire to
increase the diversity of the entering student body. Increasing the quality of the incoming

students followed diversity as another secondary goal.

The admissions directors from all ten universities acknowledged that faculty members
were asked to assist in recruiting undergraduate students. All ten directors veriﬁed that he
or she had faculty that worked with the admissions ofﬁce in some recruiting capacity. In
addition, the directors noted that faculty involvement in recruiting students was
increasing. One went so far as to acknowledge that faculty involvement with recruiting

had become a “hot topic” on her campus.

Each director was read a list of sixteen potential faculty activities. The list included
such items as faculty visits to high schools and community colleges, calls to prospective
students, attendance at open houses and receptions, the writing of letters to students,
service on enrollment or retention committees, assistance in the application process, and
review of admissions literature (Dennis, 1998, Green, 1990, Hossler, 1999, Ihlanfeldt,
1980, Keller, 1997, Kemerer, 1985, Kreutner, 1980, Kuh and Wallman, 1986, Smith,

1998).

The recruiting activities were discussed one at a time and the directors were allowed
to comment on each activity. The data collected from the admission’s directors revealed

the following:

59

0 50 percent of the institutions had faculty visit high schools;

0 100 percent of the institutions had faculty visit community colleges;

0 60 percent of the institutions had faculty place calls to prospective students;

0 100 percent of the institutions had faculty attend open houses;

0 90 percent of the institutions had faculty members attend admission’s receptions for
prospective students;

0 Faculty served on enrollment committees at 60 percent of the institutions;

0 Faculty served on retention committees at 70 percent of the institutions;

0 50 percent of the institutions had faculty members involved in the admission decision
process for new students;

0 90 percent of the institutions had faculty members review, and provide input, on the

admission’s literature pieces.

The information provided by the admissions directors conﬁrmed that many of the
suggested recruiting activities and ideas noted in the literature were occurring. The data
supplied by the directors supported Williams’ (1986), and Ingold’s (2000) beliefs that the

resolution of enrollment issues required a campus—wide effort.

The data also supported recommendations from the literature about having faculty
participate in writing letters to students (Barton and Treadwell, 1978; Enrollment
Management 2000; Green, 1990; Kemerer, 1985; Kreutner and Godfrey, 1980,), serving

on enrollment and recruitment teams (Kreutner, 1980), visiting high schools and

60

community colleges (Dennis, 1998; Keller, 1997), and attending Open Houses (Keller,

1997).

The directors also listed recruiting activities other than those listed. One noted that
faculty on his campus worked on creating a CD Rom sent to prospective students.
Several directors commented that faculty assisted with high school and junior high school
students’ visits to campus. This involvement included organizing tours of classrooms
and providing laboratory demonstrations for students, as well as meeting with parents and
teachers that toured with the students. Four directors also noted that faculty members

provided valuable input as they sat on scholarship committees and career panels.

Seven admission directors felt that the role of faculty assisting their ofﬁces had grown
over the past three years, while three directors felt that it had stayed fairly stable. One of
the latter three directors remarked that because the university already had faculty

involved in so much, it would have been difﬁcult to ask them to do more.

The directors provided a variety of reasons for why they asked faculty to participate
in undergraduate student recruiting activities. Several of the admissions directors said
that they that considered faculty members effective recruiters, especially when dealing
with students interested in their academic programs. These comments supported
Kreutner and Godfrey’s (1980) assertion that faculty were the most effective recru iters,
as well as Dennis’ (1998) and Hossler’s (1999) points that faculty could effectively

recruit students. One director stated that, “We use faculty because it helps in the

61

conversion of applicants to enrolled students. The role of faculty is very beneﬁcial to

converting a student, particularly in the faculty’s own ﬁeld of interest”.

The directors felt that faculty members who assisted in recruiting were more
believable than admissions ofﬁcers in relating information to students, had more
credibility than admissions ofﬁcers, and had more impact than anybody else in
inﬂuencing students and parents. A director noted, “We ask faculty to assist because of
their experience of working with undergraduate students, their interest, and their high

school contacts. They are eager to recruit the best students”.

Another director stated, “Our University recognized that student relationships with
faculty were critical and thus an important reason for requesting faculty help. We can
have the faculty meet students earlier and build an advising relationship with them”. He
continued, “I wish I had a commitment from a faculty member to speak to parents and
students for every campus tour we give. Nothing underestimates the impact of the

faculty. Schools our size need faculty involvement”.

The admissions directors provided a number of reasons for why they felt that faculty
assisted in the recruiting process. The issue of enrollment (Krotseng, 1992, Hossler,
1986), especially departmental enrollment (Diamond, 1993) was a major factor for
faculty participation in the eyes of the directors. The director of one of the larger
institution stated that, for his university, “enrollment and departmental survival is the

reason for faculty giving time. There are programs that are not here now where faculty

62

were asked to assist but believed the role of recruiting to be solely the admissions ofﬁce
responsibility. Unfortunately those faculty are no longer here since their programs didn’t
survive”. One director commented that the faculty members at his particular university
were “being held more accountable for their (enrollment) numbers”. The admission
director at another large institution was straight to the point: “They help because they are

building their programs. It’s very Darwinian with self-preservation in mind”.

One respondent mentioned enrollment concerns as an issue, but also brought out
several other reasons why she believed faculty assisted her ofﬁce. “Some faculty
members do it because it is important to the survival of the institution. Other faculty
members are involved due to program conservation, but many are involved because they

believe recruiting is everybody’s job. Some do just because they enjoy it”.

When asked why some faculty members turn down requests for assisting in
recruiting, one director from an institution whose enrollment had grown by more then 33

percent over the past three years said:

The faculty don’t see it as their mission. They turn us down due to time constraints

and ask why would I beneﬁt from this? They say it is not their role. Sometimes they
don’t understand the impact they have in the selling of the school and the image they
project. If I have a blue-chip prospect I go for it and contact faculty immediately. It
is hard when it is the same faculty members over and over again but people that care

will always participate, it is part of their make up.

63

These thoughts were echoed by other directors who noted that time constraints were
an issue with faculty. They replied that many faculty members stated they were just too
busy. They also noted that some faculty negatively refused requests to assist with
recruiting by stating it was not their job. At one university this response was especially
common among the senior faculty. The director at that particular institution said, “They
say no because they believe recruiting is the job of the university. When pushed they ask
‘What’s in it for me?’ We in admissions need to inform our colleagues on campus why

enrollment is important to them”.

One director believed that faculty sometimes refused the requests to help with
recruiting because of “latent hostility towards administrative types”. At another
institution where the admissions director received good faculty assistance requests were
very open-ended. This ﬁnding raised the possibility that the manner in which faculty

members were asked for assistance affected their response.

The respondents noted that most requests for recruiting assistance came directly from
the admissions ofﬁce. It was not uncommon, however, for the requests to come from the
president, vice president of student affairs, or a chancellor. The latter administrators were
more likely to make requests during a special event or program, or during a critical

recruiting time.

At one institution faculty became involved in recruiting because assistance was made

part of the academic review process. At this university an academic affairs committee

identiﬁed programs with enrollment “stress”. The committee, staffed predominantly by
faculty members, had a pool of approximately $50,000 that it could award to programs in
need of additional funding to assist in recruiting students. The programs identiﬁed as at

risk had the opportunity to present a plan to the committee to bolster their enrollment.

The committee would then select ﬁve or six programs and allocate $4000 to $6000
per program, sometimes not using their entire pool of money. The faculty members of
these programs could then initiate their proposed recruitment plan to augment the
admissions ofﬁce’s effort and bolster their enrollments. The committee would also try to
partner with faculty members that had done outstanding recruitment efforts in the past to

recognize their work publicly and present evidence of the need for faculty participation.

The directors all lamented that there were no signiﬁcant rewards that came directly
from either the admissions ofﬁce, or from the administration, for faculty members that
assisted in recruiting. One director commented, “We are not rewarding them for this kind
of service. We give appreciation lunches and some trinkets but it is not enough. As a
university, to be successful with this endeavor, we need to have this written into the

tenure or promotion process”.

Several directors used the opportunity to provide additional feedback during the open
comment segment of the survey. All mentioned communication difﬁculties with faculty.
Among the concerns was the inability to provide the faculty with detailed information

explaining the need for faculty assistance in recruiting. In addition, some directors felt

65

that many faculty members had misconceptions of the recruiting process and didn’t

understand the reasons certain recruiting events or programs were held.

The lack of an opportunity to train the faculty members for the recruiting activities
was mentioned, as was a problem with allowing the faculty to volunteer for programs.
“Let’s be realistic here,” stated one director, “there are certain faculty that I would not
want to talk to students or parents. Of course, those are the ones that sometimes
volunteer the most. They then spend their time with students and parents complaining
about the school, or venting their frustrations. The problem is, how do tell them you

don’t want their help, without causing an even bigger problem?”

Another director had a different problem:

Sometimes, my biggest problem is dealing with departments when I call and ask for
somebody to talk to a parent or student. They don’t understand that, many times,
parents and students just walk into our ofﬁce without an appointment. When they ask
to talk to a faculty member I really can’t say no to them. This is especially difﬁcult
when parents mention that they are visiting several colleges and you worry that your
school won’t provide the same level of service as the other colleges. This is a

situation that has caused some grief.

Overall, however, the admission directors were grateful for faculty participation in

recruiting activities, and appreciated the assistance given by their faculty.

66

Results of thcﬁaculty Survey

The ﬁrst section of the survey provided background information about the
respondents. Among the data collected were the respondent’s tenure status, rank, and
number of years of service at the current institution. In addition data were collected on
the faculty members’ job responsibilities and the number of classes they taught. Lastly,

the respondent’s participation, or lack of participation, in recruiting activities was

 

.9-

tracked.

The second area of data collection provided the faculty member’s perception of
institutional and departmental enrollment trends. The respondent’s perception of the role

of the faculty in undergraduate student recruiting was also recorded.

Finally, the respondents that indicated they had participated in student recruiting
activities identiﬁed the ofﬁce that asked for their assistance in recruiting, and the primary
motivation for assisting in recruiting activities. They also provided data concerning
conﬂicts caused by their participation, and whether or not they were rewarded for their

work.

Description of the Faculty Respondents

The data collected from the faculty members ﬁrst veriﬁed that all of the respondents

were full-time faculty members at their institutions. All of the respondents to the survey

67

answered the questions concerning tenure, rank, and the number of classes they taught. A
few skipped the question concerning the faculty member’s number of years at their

current institution.

The data concerning the background information about the faculty showed that about

three-quarters of the respondents, nearly 78 percent, were tenured. (Table 6)

 

 

Table 6
Tenure
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Non-tenured, tenure not 10 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%
available
Non-tenured, on tenure 63 20.2% 20.2% 23.4%
track
Tenured 239 76.6% 76.6% 100.0%
Total 312 100.0% 100.0%

 

Faculty members from all ranks participated in the project. Nearly 42 percent of the
respondents had achieved the rank of professor, while 55.1 percent were associate or

assistant professors. (Table 7)

68

 

Table 7

 

 

m

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Professor 130 41.7% 41.7% 41.7%
Associate Professor 108 34.6% 34.6% 76.3%
Assistant Professor 64 20.5% 20.5% 96.8%
Instructor 0 0% 0% 96.8%
Adjunct Faculty 2 .6% .6% 97.4%
Lecturer 4 1.3% 1.3% 98.7%
Other 4 1.3% 1.3% 100.0%
Total 312 92.3% 100.0%
Missing 0 0%
Total 312 100.0%

 

Slightly less than half of the faculty respondents, 43 percent, had been at their current
institution for ten years or less. Ten faculty members were in their ﬁrst year of service at
their current university while one faculty member was in his thirty-seventh year at his

institution. (Table 8)

Table 8

Years of Service at the Current Institution

 

 

Years at the current Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
institution

1-10 124 39.7 43.0 43.2

11-20 89 28.5 31.0 74.0

21-30 48 15.4 16.6 90.6

31 or more 27 8.7 9.4 100.0

Total 288 92.3 100.0

Missing 24 7.7

Total 312 100.0

 

69

The faculty members were asked “Please give the percentage of your time spent on
the following activities: Teaching, Research, Service, Professional Growth,
Administration, Outside Consulting or Freelance work, and Other (The total should be
100%)”. The results for the average time spent for each activity for the respondents is

presented below:

0 Teaching represented an average of 52.45% of the faculty’s time;

 

0 Research comprised an average of 15.84% of the faculty’s time; . i
0 Service comprised an average of 13.71% of the faculty’s time;
0 Administration represented an average of 11.96% of the faculty’s time;
0 Professional growth only represented an average of 4.17% of the faculty’s time;
0 Outside Consulting or Freelance Work comprised an average of 1.37% of the
faculty’s time;

0 Other duties comprised an average of .41% of the faculty’s time.
Twenty-two respondents were not teaching during the time they completed the

survey. A majority of the respondents, 44.6 percent, were teaching three classes. (Table

9)

70

Table 9

Numﬁr of Classes Taught

 

 

Number of classes Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
0 22 7.1 7.1

1 28 8.9 16.0

2 47 15.1 31.1

3 139 44.6 75.7

4 55 17.6 93.3

5 21 6.7 100.0

Total 312 100.0

 

Eaculty Perception_s of In_stitutional Trends and Priorities

Overai Enrollment

Faculty members were asked to describe enrollment trends at their institutions and

departments as having increasing, decreasing, or stable enrollments. Over 90 percent of

the faculty perceived their institution’s overall enrollment as increasing or stable. (Table

10)

Table 10

Egulty Perception of the Overall Undergraduate Enrollment

 

Frequency

Cumulative Percent

 

Increasing Enrollment 198
Decreasing Enrollment 28

Stable Enrollment 61
Total 287
Missing 25
Total 3 12

Percent Valid Percent
63.5% 69.0%

9.0% 9.8%

19.6% 21.3%

92.0% 100.0%

8.0%

100.0%

69.0%
78.7%
100.0%

 

71

Over 18 percent of the faculty respondents felt that their department was experiencing

an enrollment decline. In contrast to the 70 percent of the faculty respondents who felt

that their institutional enrollment was growing, only 46.9 percent of the faculty felt that

their own departmental enrollment was increasing. (Table 11)

Table 11

Faculty Perception of Departmental Enrollment

 

 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Increasing Enrollment 134 42.9% 46.9% 46.9%
Decreasing Enrollment 52 16.7% 18.2% 65.0%
Stable Enrollment 100 32.1% 35.0% 100.0%
Total 286 91.7% 100.0%
Missing 26 8.3%
Total 312 100.0%

 

Over two-thirds of the respondents indicated that their department had started a new

program over the past three years. (Table 12)

Table 12

Has your department launched any new prgrams in the past three years?

 

 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 185 59.3% 68.5% 68.5%
No 83 26.6% 30.7% 99.3%
Don’t know 2 .6% .7% 100.0%
Total 270 86.5% 100.0%
Missing 42 13.5%
Total 312 100.0%

 

72

FaculﬁParticipation in Undergraduate Student Recruiting

Faculty were asked to mark all of the sixteen activities in which they had participated.
The responses to this question indicated faculty participation in undergraduate student
recruiting. If a faculty member marked any box, indicating participation in an activity,
the respondent was considered a participant in his or her institution’s recruiting effort.
Using this method of tracking responses, a total of 264 of the 312 (84.6 percent) faculty
members indicated that they participated in at least one of the undergraduate recruiting

activities listed in the mailed survey. (Table 13)

Faculty responses veriﬁed participation in all sixteen of the listed recruiting activities
pulled from the literature. In order, the top ﬁve recruiting activities involving faculty

WCI'CZ

0 Attending Open Houses;

0 Meeting with parents and students taking campus tours;

o Hosting prospective student events on the campus;

0 Serving on an enrollment or retention committee;

0 Developing departmental fact sheets, brochures, or newsletters to be sent to

prospective students.

Interestingly, the top ﬁve responses indicated that faculty favored the activities that

allowed them to remain on campus. Visiting high schools and community colleges, and

73

other off-campus activities, fell far down the line of those in which faculty participated.

All of the responses to the question can be found in Appendix 3.

Table 13

Faculty Respondents Participation in Recruiting

 

Participated in Recruiting Activities Percent Cumulative Percent

 

 

Yes 264 84.6 % 84.6 %
No 48 15.4 % 100.0%
Total 312 100.0 %

 

Faculty members that participated in one to three activities comprised 44.7 percent, or
118, of the respondents. At the other end of the spectrum ﬁve faculty members indicated
that they participated in thirteen or more of the listed recruiting activities. A total of 75
percent of the faculty members participated in between one and six recruiting activities.

(Table 14)

Table 14

Number of recruiting activities

 

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

 

1-3 118 44.7% 44.7%
4-6 80 30.3% 75.0%
7-9 43 16.3% 91.3%
10-12 18 6.8% 98.1%
13 + 5 1.9% 100.0%
Total 264

 

74

Faculty Perceptions of the Faculty Role In Undergraduate Recruiting

Several questions related to the faculty role in undergraduate student recruiting. The
ﬁrst asked the respondent to indicate whether faculty assistance in recruiting was a
service activity, other faculty responsibility, not a faculty function, or something else.
The responses showed that most faculty members, nearly 62 percent, felt that faculty
assisting in student recruiting should be viewed as a service activity. Nearly one—ﬁfth,

19.3 percent, felt that recruiting should not be a faculty function. (Table 15)

Table 15

Is your perception of faculty assisting in undergraduate recruiting a;

 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative percent

 

Service Activity 186 59.6% 61.8% 61.8%
Responsibility 52 16.7% 17.3% 79.1%
Not a faculty function 58 18.6% 19.3% 98.3%
Other 5 1.6% 1.7% 100.0%
Total 301 96.5% 100.0%

Missing 1 1 3.5%

Total 312 100.0%

 

Responses of the Participarnts in Undergradgrte Recruiting

Forty-eight faculty members not participating in undergraduate student recruiting
activities were told to skip four questions on the survey and move directly to the ﬁnal set
of questions. The questions they skipped concerned rewards and conﬂicts, for those that
assisted in recruiting efforts on their campus. The ﬁnal set of questions, asked of all those

taking the survey, dealt with the participant’s personal feelings towards faculty

75

participation in student recruitment and were to be answered by all respondents taking the

survey.

Origination of Requests for Assistance

The ﬁrst question for those that indicated participating in recruiting undergraduate
students asked, “Which ofﬁce or individual asked you to participate in the activity or
activities you checked?” By far, most requests originated from the respondent’s own
department. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents, 65.5 percent, mentioned that the
request for assistance in recruiting came from their own departmental area. Departmental
requests came from the Dean, department head, other faculty, or the departmental

secretary.

The directors of admission indicated that most of the requests for faculty assistance
originated from their ofﬁces. In contrast, only 18.5 percent of the faculty respondents
indicated the requests came from admissions. This apparent conﬂict may result from the
communication path. Many of the projects and activities originated from the admissions

ofﬁce and were given to departments, which then asked faculty to participate.

A variety of other areas were mentioned as sources of requests for participation, such
as local high schools, the athletic department, Provost, President of the institution,
minority ofﬁce, or cultural affairs ofﬁce. The number of responses for each these areas

were very small and were combined under the category “other”. (Table 16)

76

Table 16

Ofﬁce or individual that origin_ated the recprest for faculty assistance

 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

 

 

Department 163 52.2% 65.5% 65.5%
Admissions 46 14.7% 18.5% 83.9%
Other 40 12.8% 16.1% 100.0%
Total 249 79.8% 100.0%
Missing 63 20.2%
Total 312 100.0%

Conﬂicts

The second question asked of faculty participants in recruiting was, “Do you feel that
your participation in the activity or activities created a time conﬂict with your other
responsibilities?” Of the valid responses, 58.3 percent of the faculty felt that their
participation in recruiting activities caused a time conﬂict with other their

responsibilities; 41.7 percent of the respondents did not feel so. (Table 17)

Table 17

Did recruiting cause a conﬂict with other duties?

 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

 

No 103 33.0% 41.7% 41.7%
Yes 144 46.2% 58.3% 100.0%
Total 247 79.2% 100.0%

Missing 65 20.8%

Total 312 100.0%

 

77

 

Motivation

The main motivating factor for faculty members that participated in recruiting
activities was concern about enrollment. These responses supported suggestions made by
Hossler (1986) and Krotseng (1992) and veriﬁed the comments made by the admissions
directors. Respondents mentioned institutional and departmental enrollment concerns as
motivating factors. Another enrollment concern that was frequently mentioned was the

desire to enroll quality students.

The second most mentioned motivating factor was related to service. Many
comments fell into the category of other. Some of the other motivating factors mentioned
by respondents included assisting others in the department, a desire to work with

students, and enjoyment in participating in the activities. (Table 18)

Table 18

Key motivating factor for participating in recruiting activities

 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

 

 

Enrollment 100 32.1% 41.5% 41 .5%
Service 53 17.0% 22.0% 63.5%
Other 88 28.2% 36.5% 100.0%
Total 241 77.2% 100.0%
Missing 71 22.8%
Total 312 100.0%

Rewards

More than three-quarters of faculty respondents, 78.3 percent, indicated that they

were not rewarded for their assistance in recruiting undergraduate students. (Table 19)

78

Table 19

Were you rewarded in ary manner for your participation in recruiting activities?

 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

 

 

No 191 61.2% 78.3% 78.3%
Yes 53 17.0% 21.7% 100.0%
Total 244 78.3% 100.0%
Missing 68 21.8%
Total 312 100.0%

ﬁgression mlysis

 

The regression analysis showed three variables signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced a faculty
member’s participation in undergraduate student recruiting. The strongest predictor,
positively related to likelihood of participation in student recruitment, was the perception
that recruitment is part of the faculty job. The number of classes taught was negatively
related to participation in recruitment. The perceived decline in departmental enrollment
was positively related to participation in student recruitment. The variables can be found

in Table 20.

79

v<"}'.l_

 

Table 20

Variables in the equation

 

 

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step
a
l
TENURE -.1 11 .708 .024 .876 .895
RANK -.314 .310 1.031 .310 .730
YEARS .025 .028 .828 .363 1.026

OVERALL -.437 .419 1.088 .297 .646

DEPART* -.640 .347 3.403 .065 .527

PERCEPT*** 2.033 .434 21.985 .000 7.638

PROGRAMS .585 .450 1.685 .194 1.794

Constant 3.663 1 .961 3.490 1 .062 38.964

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: TENURE, RANK, YEARS, CLASSES, OVERALL,
PERCEPT, PROGRAMS

*=p<J0

*** = p < .001

1
l
1
CLASSES* -.405 .218 3.447 1 .063 .667
1
l
l
1

Table 21

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefﬁcients

 

Chi-square df Sig.

 

Model 38.999 8 .000

Tab1e22

Model Summm

 

Step -2 Log likelihood Cox & Snell R Square Nagelkerke R Square

 

1 154.439 .140 .266

80

Table 23

ﬁrssiﬁcation Table (a)

 

 

Predicted
Observed PARTTCIP .00 PARTICP 1.00 Percentage Correct
Step 1 PARTICIP .00 5 27 15.6 %
PARTICIP 1.00 6 220 97.3%
Overall Percentage 87.2%

 

a. The cut value is .500

 

81

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the project showed that faculty were involved in undergraduate student
recruiting at the selected universities. The principal factor in faculty participation in
student recruitment is the perception that this function is an expected part of the faculty
position. Also important are the perception that departmental enrollment is declining and

having a lower teaching load that permits involvement in recruiting.

For those who participated, recruiting sometimes conﬂicted with other duties. This
ﬁnding suggests that recruiting competes for time with other activities in a faculty
member’s workweek. For participants, concern about departmental enrollment was an

important motivator whereas rewards were not as important.

Research Question 1

Do faculty members assist admissions oﬁ‘icers in the recruitment of undergraduate

students ?

The data collected for the project found strong evidence that the faculty in Michigan
public Masters-level institutions assist recruiting undergraduate students. The ten
admission directors all acknowledged that faculty members assisted in their institution’s
recruiting effort. The data from the faculty survey showed that 84.6 percent of the

respondents participated in at least one recruiting activity during the past three years, with

82

the mean number of activities for the respondents at 3.98. Although the level of
participation varied, 44.7 percent of the respondents participated in one to three recruiting
activities. The number of faculty members that participated in over ten recruiting

activities was 8.7 percent of the respondents.

These results support claims made by Ingold (2000) and Williams (1986) that successful
enrollment campaigns require a campus-wide effort including the faculty. The top ﬁve
recruiting activities in which faculty participated were campus-based activities. In order
they were: attending open houses, meeting with parents and students taking campus tours,
hosting prospective student events on campus, serving on enrollment or retention
committees, and developing departmental fact sheets, brochures or newsletters. Many of
these functions were recommended by Kahn (2000), Dennis (1998), Keller (1997),

Kemerer (1985), Kreutner and Godfrey (1980), and Barton and Treadwell (1978).

Comments from the faculty members and the admissions directors indicated that
faculty participation in recruiting was an important issue on many of the campuses. For
example, one admissions director stated that the issue of faculty assisting in recruiting
was a “hot topic” on his campus and a point of contention among some faculty. In the
open comment section faculty respondents forcefully stated their opinions, both pro and
con, on recruiting issues related to enrollment concerns, conﬂicts with other duties, and

communication problems with the admissions ofﬁces.

83

 

In sum, most of the literature suggested that faculty could assist in recruiting with few

articles actually providing evidence of faculty involvement. The study shows that many

faculty members are being asked to assist in their institution’s recruiting efforts.

Resgmch Chlestion 2

Do enrollment concerns motivate faculty members to assist in recruiting activities?

 

Perceived departmental enrollment decline, not institutional enrollment problems, is a
signiﬁcant factor in faculty participation in student recruitment. It is not the strongest
predictor, however. Many faculty respondents expressed a desire to increase

departmental enrollment or to enroll more “quality” students within the department.

A sample of the comments from the respondents concerning departmental enrollment
showed speciﬁc reasons why faculty became involved in recruiting students. Among the

comments:

0 A desire to increase departmental enrollment;

o The loyalty to other departmental faculty who wanted to start additional
departmental programs;

0 A feeling of responsibility to the department but not to the institution;

0 A tendency to believe that additional new student enrollment could mean more

revenue for the department;

84

0 A professional responsibility to the department to make a program known to the
outside world;

0 A desire to inﬂuence the size, or makeup of the entering student body. This
included such areas as “properly placing students”, inﬂuencing the quality of the

entering student body, or competing with other departments for students.

The overall tenor of the comments supported faculty assistance in the recruiting
process to improve the department. The faculty respondents gave more detailed
comments concerning the consequences of recruitment for their department than any
other area of the survey. The faculty seemed to relate the recruiting issue to their
departmental work lives rather than to more abstract themes such as an institutional

mission statement or institutional enrollment goal.

Among the many positive statements, one respondent declared, “Faculty who have a
vested interest in increasing enrollment in their departments should welcome an
opportunity to do so. That’s a direct win/win situation”. Another faculty member
reasoned, “I believe that each department feels these are legitimate requests from
admissions and most faculty enjoy meeting prospective students and talking about what

we do”.

Among the reasons faculty respondents wanted to recruit students for their own

department was the feeling that they could provide students with more detailed

information about their academic programs then others on their campuses. Among the

85

 

comments: “Students need to know faculty in departments to make intelligent choices in
higher education. It is a service to students”. Another respondent wrote, “Students and
parents want to know who the professors are and whether they are dedicated to the
students. If professors participate in undergraduate student recruitment it reassures

prospective students and their parents”.

Faculty respondents also commented about why faculty should recruit students, how
departments could coordinate recruiting activities, and the service component of the
activity. The faculty respondents also raised a concern about the conﬂict between
recruiting students for their particular department and more general recruiting activities.
Faculty also were concerned that they were being asked to recruit students for programs
already over-enrolled. This ﬁnding suggests that institutional leaders may set enrollment

goals without input by the faculty.

Many faculty respondents were motivated not by enrollment numbers but by the
quality of the entering student. To this end, one faculty member noted how his assistance

could have an impact:

As coordinator of an academic program I am especially concerned about the quality
of students we attract and the impression they have of us before they come to campus.
Also, I expect to play a major role in the student’s lives when they’re in my classes.

If a little personal contact with a real person can help them feel better about coming

86

the university, it’s worth my time. Perhaps I can make a difference to the student,

while at the same time increasing the quality of the students entering my program.

Another faculty member described how recruiting could be simpliﬁed at the
departmental level if everybody assisted: “If everyone pitches in, the demands are kept at
a reasonable level. The faculty is the face of the university and having personal contacts
with faculty is a useful and beneﬁcial component of recruitment. Students, especially

undergrads, need mentors and models in their prospective ﬁelds. I’m happy to help out

 

when I can”.

One respondent touched on the subject of service. He contended:

I think it [assisting in student recruitment] is important to do in departments where
enrollments are declining [like our own]. It should be rewarded as a service activity
as to do it well takes time. Our department sort of informally rewards it in annual
evaluations, but there aren’t any formal campus procedures for reward that I am
aware of. It makes sense to have faculty participate in this because no one knows our

programs as well as we do.

Another faculty member agreed, “I believe it is important for faculty to participate,
especiallyito provide information related to their ﬁeld. Also, it helps prospective students
to know that they will be given individual attention at our institution”. Finally, a

respondent stated, “I believe faculty can be very effective representatives in the area of

87

recruiting students since we can speak with the most knowledge and experience about our
programs and opportunities”. He then added, “For this to occur on a large scale, though,
I do think it should be formalized as a service activity for which faculty would be
rewarded, ideally with release time from other responsibilities. As of today, I am
unaware of any speciﬁc program or effort to speciﬁcally involve faculty in recruiting

beyond various ad hoc activities”.

A few respondents mentioned the historical commitment by the department to student
recruiting. One said: “My department has always been active in student recruitment. My
activity in this area is much less than many of my colleagues. In other areas I will do
more where they do less. This works well. Therefore, while there should be a
commitment on the part of faculty to recruit, it doesn’t need to be done by ALL faculty”.
Another said that his department actually worked towards recruiting students without the
admissions ofﬁce at the institution being aware of their work. He said that student
recruiting was, “A highly desirable activity, but not usually encouraged by admissions
ofﬁces, who feel this is their responsibility. So, in our department we operate

independently—probably never even bother to inform our admissions staff”.

Although not a signiﬁcant predictor of participation in recruiting, launching a new
departmental program did inﬂuence a few faculty members. According to one, “In any
developing program, unless the faculty go out and help administration in student
recruitment, the program may not develop fast. Established programs may not need this

help. Universities with only undergraduate programs in professions like engineering,

88

 

nursing, medical technology, and physical therapy may have to use faculty in their

recruitment efforts”.

Faculty respondents mentioned two potential downsides to participating in recruiting
activities. The ﬁrst concerns the potential conﬂict between serving the department— a
high priority goal — and serving the university in general — a lower priority goal. As an
example, a faculty member expressed disappointment when he found himself talking to a
diverse group of students, most of whom were not interested in his department. Many of
the students appeared uninterested in what he had to say. He described this frustration:
“Many students here have other interests ahead of learning. How would a professor
passionate about literature, interested in discerning the principles by which a poet has
arranged his words in a particular poem, recruit students whose primary interest is

another part-time job to help pay off the auto loan?”

The second downside mentioned by faculty dealt with the faculty being asked to
assist in recruiting, even though the department might be overloaded with students. One
faculty member wrote that, “My department [teacher education] is being overwhelmed
with undergraduates seeking teaching certiﬁcates. We should be limiting enrollment, not
expanding it. Thus, undergrad recruitment is not an issue at all here, recruiting graduate

students is however”.

This type of comment appeared several times in the faculty responses and showed a

conﬂict with the stated goals of many of the admissions directors to increase the overall

89

undergraduate population at their institutions. Another example: “We are so busy trying
to hire enough faculty to accommodate our growing student population, that student
recruitment is not a goal. We can’t now serve everyone who wants to go to [our

institution] for education in Teacher Ed”.

This phenomenon occurred at more then one institution. “We have more students
then we can handle already. Some faculty involved in the process is important and there
need to be faculty available to meet with prospective students. The administration needs
to look at how many students in enough though”. From a faculty member at a different
institution, “Our University is one of the fastest growing in the state. Requiring faculty to
recruit is not a necessity. Departments that are concerned about their own enrollments

are motivated to do this on a voluntary basis”.

Research Question 3

Besides enrollment concerns, what inﬂuences faculty participation in recruiting

undergraduate students?

The logistic regression results showed little effect on faculty participation in student
recruitment by tenure, rank, or years of service. In contrast, work assignment — number
of classes taught — especially the perception that recruiting is a core part of the faculty job

inﬂuences participation.

90

 

The mean for the number of classes a faculty member taught was 2.7692. Several
respondents commented about the number of classes they taught and the time involved in
recruiting students. The following is indicative of comments: “At teaching institutions
where the load is above average [the situation at my institution] faculty should be granted
release time if the expectation remains that faculty have to be involved; however, in my
college release time is rarely granted. In addition, the average teaching load in my
college is twelve hours per semester. I currently have release time, but for activities other

than recruiting”.

Perceptions of the chlty role in recruiting

The question asking for the faculty member’s perception about the role of faculty in
recruiting generated more feedback than any other question on the survey. There were
numerous comments concerning whether recruiting students was a service activity, a
responsibility, or a function in which faculty members should not participate. I grouped
responses into these categories. The responses also showed that even faculty supporting
faculty assisting in student recruitment activities were concerned about its implications

for their work.

A service activity

Supporting comments by Diamond (1990), Boyer (1993), and Slaughter (1985) the

majority of faculty respondents believed student recruiting should count as a service

91

 

activity. Categorizing it as service, however, left many unanswered questions,

particularly the value of service in faculty rewards.

Faculty respondents with positive views of recruitment as service seemed to work in
institutions that valued service. As one example, “Faculty participation at my institution
counts as a service activity. Occasionally, the department can provide course release
time to allow faculty participation in recruitment”. Another respondent reported, “It
should be recognized as one [of a number] of service activities that we can engage in,
and, at my institution, it is”. A faculty member from a third university concurred,

“Should be counted as a service activity; it is here”.

In contrast, faculty respondents at institutions less inclined to value service say
allocating recruitment to service more negatively: “Such assistance should be recognized
as part of the overall service component of professional responsibilities leading to
promotion and tenure, [it isn’t here] and not just dropped on top of an already demanding

and multi-faceted list of faculty duties”.

Some respondents expressed concern that participation in recruiting activities
conﬂicted with other faculty duties. Often this concern was expressed as adding
recruiting as a service requirement without reducing other commitments. The concern
raised over the conﬂict of time allocation was most often expressed as whether or not
participation in student recruitment would detract from teaching and research

responsibilities. A typical comment from the respondents was, “ It’s ﬁne for faculty to

92

 

participate in these activities, but they should not take too much time and energy away
from faculty’s primary responsibility—teaching and research”. One faculty member put
it quite bluntly by stating that, as a service commitment, recruiting should be, “A
secondary option—not to interfere with teaching and advising responsibilities”. Another

respondent discussed the limited value of service in faculty rewards:

I think that recruiting should ‘count’ in evaluations, under service (not teaching if it
counts at all). All anyone ever looks at is research—and those of us who have

‘people skills’ and talents in the classroom and student advising are seriously under
appreciated. I advise ﬁve programs in our department and often see 2-5 people a day.
It’s a huge time suck, and nobody cares but the students—whom the administration

doesn’t seem to care about. Typical scenario I think.

Several respondents commented on the adverse consequences of adding another
responsibility — recruiting to an already full schedule. One faculty member commented:
“The idea of faculty assisting in recruiting is good, but faculty have many demands on
their time. Time spent on undergraduate recruiting should not come from an increase in
‘service’ time. Other service activities must be reduced if recruiting is increased”.
Another respondent agreed, “I need to have time to do it (recruiting). It cannot be done
in addition to a full faculty load of teaching and research and publishing”. Another
faculty member pointed out, “Time for new assignments, such as assisting in student
recruitment, must come from somewhere. Either we quit doing something else, or we do

things less well”. Another respondent suggested that, “Only faculty who are truly

93

 

interested in this type of service should be involved. There should, however, be some
way for faculty to trade off other responsibilities if they are heavily involved in
recruiting”. Concluded one respondent, “We are already being pulled in a million
directions that greatly reduce time available for teaching and research”. These comments
support assertions made by Fairweather (1996) and Jabobs (1990) that an increase in
faculty involvement in one area of responsibility requires decreasing responsibilities in
other areas. These ﬁndings also support suggestions made by Baldwin and Krotseng

(1985) concerning release time and ﬂexibility in responsibilities.

Perhaps best illustrating a division amongst the respondents was when two faculty
members, from the same university and department, had opposing viewpoints about
faculty being required to recruit students as part of a service commitment. The ﬁrst
faculty member felt that assisting in recruiting students should be a required part of the
service commitment from faculty: “Everyone beneﬁts when faculty meet with and talk to
prospective students. If recruitment became a service commitment, it might strengthen

our program”. The second faculty member disagreed. He wrote:

We already have too much to do. Recruitment is not our area of expertise. It is
already difﬁcult to not become ‘watered down’ in what we do. If faculty members
ch_o<_)_sg recruitment as a service activity, ﬁne, otherwise there should be no
obligation. If we’re involved in any way it shouldn’t be to recruit. Let us work at

improving programs and working to meet changing needs—not recruiting.

94

 

The responses of the faculty suggest that some institutions do not recognize student
recruitment as a service activity, or place much emphasis on the merits of institutional
service as a factor in determining raises or tenure. These policies can affect faculty
participation in student recruitment. Note the comments of this faculty member, “I enjoy
being asked to participate and I enjoy meeting students. I see no evidence however, that
this will ever be valued toward tenure/promotion. Service gets little support. They want
more people to help—but it’s thankless. There will come a time soon when I will be less
willing to participate”. A second faculty member stated, “I believe that such activities are
worthwhile and that faculty should support them. At the same time I believe that
universities should support faculty who endeavor to assist in these programs, e. g., the
service should be given signiﬁcant consideration in tenure and promotion decisions”. A
third faculty member, from a different institution remarked, “If service of any sort were
properly recognized in promotion/tenure decisions and in merit raise decisions, then it
would be entirely appropriate that the faculty assist in recruitment. But, under the current

reward structure, it is an unreasonable expectation”.

Respondents supporting participation in recruiting as a service activity emphasized
faculty choice in the amount of participation. For example, one faculty member
suggested that, “I believe that faculty should have a choice in this area. It should be
considered service to the institution (as it is at our university)”. Said another faculty
member: “Personally, I feel interaction with undergraduates and their parents to be
rewarding. I feel it would be a mistake to force faculty who do not share these feelings to

assume such a role”. Another respondent wrote, “I believe it’s a good idea, however,

95

 

faculty are very busy people (generally) and that needs to be taken into consideration.
There should be a core of faculty identiﬁed who are interested. Some enjoy it, some
don’t”. Finally, one faculty member gave a personal reason why he felt that assisting in
student recruiting should be voluntary. Although he supported the concept of faculty
assisting in recruiting undergraduate students he didn’t want to be forced to participate.
His confession: “I think helping out admissions is a good idea—I just don’t think I’m

temperamentally suited for it”.

A responsibility

The perception that student recruitment was a responsibility of the faculty was shared
by nearly 17 percent of the respondents. Many of the comments that supported this
notion were simple, “Recruiting is everyone’s job regardless of position, faculty and
staff”, or “A necessity!” One faculty member reasoned, “It is just part of the job. No big
deal if you are on campus”. Another agreed, “It should be a normal part of our job”. One
respondent noted, “Faculty should be involved at all levels of undergraduate recruiting”.
A simple statement, “All faculty members should be involved”. A ﬁnal comment, “It’s
important for faculty to assist in recruiting. We wouldn’t have a job if not for the

students”.

One faculty member expressed the opinion that recruiting is, “OK. We all know a

critical mass of students is necessary for optimal use of facilities and for creating viable

programs. It comes with the territory of being part of a university”. Another respondent

96

agreed with that notion and stated, “Such requests [for assistance in recruiting] are
reasonable and appropriate, and most faculty are receptive. It is essential that faculty be

involved in student recruiting”.

Other faculty respondents had more detailed explanations of why they felt that
recruiting was a faculty responsibility. Many of the faculty responding to the survey
looked at recruiting as an opportunity to meet future students, or as an early chance to
advise those coming to their campus. One wrote, “I sincerely believe that the role of a
teacher is to invite students to partake of the opportunities to learn. Therefore, being a
good/effective teacher means making those invitations visible and viable. It’s my
job/career to learn inside and outside of the classroom. I feel that all faculty should

engage in recruitment [in a positive manner]”.

Another faculty member had a slightly different reason for feeling that recruiting was
a faculty responsibility. She wrote, “I feel that all faculty should be involved. There is
an advisory component to this activity that aids prospective students in understanding
how education at colleges and universities works and sometimes orients a student to a
suitable area to study. A properly ‘placed’ student is a happier student that aids in
student retention”. A male faculty member from a different institution thought along the
same lines, “Assisting in advising prospective students takes little extra time—student

enrollment is our ‘lifeblood”’.

97

 

There was one lengthy response that provided a unique personal perspective, from a
parental point-of-view, about why faculty members should be responsible for assisting in
student recruiting. This perspective came as a result of a trip a faculty member took with

his son to look at Carnegie-Mellon:

I was very impressed with the faculty involvement at Camegie-Mellon. (My son is in
junior high school and we visited there last fall). My impression is that a particular
faculty member is assigned from each department or college. They were very well
prepared and very helpful. The follow-up from the college also included a call from a
student. It is a good model to see what other schools are doing. In summary, I think
faculty involvement is very important, but if it depends on volunteers and ad hoc
arrangements, things fall through the cracks. It is much more formalized at Carnie-
Mellon. When you call the computer science department, for instance, they direct you
exactly to the faculty member you should talk to—same in Chemistry and Business.

At [my institution] it is more ad hoc, is my impression”.

One respondent felt student recruiting was a faculty responsibility, but with some
parameters attached. “I feel it is part of our role and should be enjoyable if we feel good
about our programs. I do want to retain the right to make decisions about how much I
can do—as I am in other areas of responsibility”. Finally, one faculty member raised an
interesting point concerning student recruiting. “It already is a responsibility of the

faculty. Every time we appear in public we are representing ourselves, and the

98

 

university’s conﬁdence in us. We should look professional, act professional, and in the

process be a walking public relations ﬁrm for our university”.

Not a faculty function

1 1y

Opposing the idea that faculty could or should assist in undergraduate student

recruiting were faculty members that felt that such assistance was not a faculty function. it

 

In many cases faculty respondents argued that their scholarly work, or reputation, was L
their contribution to recruiting students. Some faculty members were quite adamant

about not being involved in the recruiting process.

“It is not a faculty job, it is an administration function”, wrote one respondent.
Another faculty member added, “The faculty are being asked to assume ever increasing
service responsibilities that make it difﬁcult to fulﬁll their academic demands.
Recruiting students should not be a faculty responsibility”. One respondent said, “I do

not feel that faculty should be responsible for undergraduate recruiting”.

Some faculty members provided reasons that faculty should not be involved in
recruiting activities. One wrote, “It is an activity with high costs for not much return.
What determines our number of students is the number of high school seniors, not much
else”. Another felt that participation by the faculty sent the wrong message to students.
“At a large public school like mine, faculty doing recruitment is fraudulent—it creates the

false impression that students will work closely with individual faculty as soon as they

99

arrive. In fact, the friendly faculty face lures the unsuspecting freshman to come and be

'9’

one of the masses. Participation in recruitment is bad

One faculty member suggested that faculty assistance in recruiting shouldn’t be done
at state institutions. Among his comments, “It is done at some schools, primarily private
colleges trying to survive. It is also done for outstanding high school seniors. However,
faculty have enough demands on their time without recruiting ‘warm bodies’”. Another
respondent felt that participation by faculty was a bad idea because faculty members were
not trained or prepared for the job. “The kind of social skills and techniques used by
successful recruiters are, in some cases, not those that are, necessarily used in teaching
and research. I’m not sure faculty thus make good recruiters—or at least, not reliably”.
He then suggested that there may have been conﬂicts on his campus over faculty
recruiting. “It’s like assuming that a good physician should be a good choice for activity
coordinator. And it puts the physician in a ELY bad position if he/she is n_ot a good

activity coordinator, and can be ﬁred for that”.

Among the respondents that did not favor faculty assistance in student recruiting was
a faculty member who had twelve years of experience running admissions ofﬁces. He
wrote, “Undergraduate recruiting is basically sales. Most faculty members are lousy at
this. Faculty should focus on product delivery, their job is retention—admissions should
bring them in”. A second faculty member’s comments seem to echo the former directors

statement. “Faculty have too many non-teaching responsibilities which detract them from

100

 

their main mission. This can and should be done primarily by administrative personnel.

Don’t muddy the waters”.

Other respondents stated that recruiting should be the sole function of the admissions
ofﬁce. One felt, “This should be a responsibility of the admissions department. A better
use of faculty would be to videotape special programs where professors are seen as they
interact with students individually (advising) in class and with the community and then
shoe the video, or parts of it, when needed”. Another added, “The faculty has absolutely
no responsibility in recruiting undergrads. We have paid professionals in our admissions
ofﬁce to do that. We have our work to do”. A third wrote, “It is the business of
marketers, not educators, except in very indirect ways related to professional contacts,
conferences, etc.”. A ﬁnal comment from another respondent, “It is the responsibility of
the admissions department to successfully market and sell the University’s programs,

period”.

One faculty respondent noted the time conﬂict involved in assisting in recruiting, as

well as the number of professionals already dedicated to the job. He wrote:

Well, faculty are already fully employed. If they engage in recruiting activities, then
the cost is sacriﬁce in some other area such as teaching, or more probably, research.
My university has numerous staff in recruiting and enrollment management areas.
These folks should do their job and not lay the work off on faculty. We don’t ask

them to teach our classes, etc. There are lots of other areas that seek faculty

101

involvement at universities these days. A good example is fund raising. If you’re
going to have faculty do this kind of work, why do we need to employ so many

people in this area? We need to put a stop to this.

The principal role of the faculty in recruiting students, to some of the respondents,
was the quality of their teaching and research. Said one respondent, “Faculty should be
good teachers ﬁrst and foremost. When this becomes known via word-of-mouth,

students will want to attend those classes”. Another faculty member wrote, “Faculty

 

assist by teaching good courses and—some of them at least—by scholarly activities that
enhance the name of the institution beyond its borders. For those who do these things
well and thereby provide arguments for professional recruiters, these activities are the
most important thing that they can undertake to keep with recruiting”. Still another
respondent added, “A scholar’s contribution to recruitment is his or her reputation for
quality teaching and quality scholarship. The promotion of that contribution is a public

relations job”.

Non-enrollment factors

Requests for faculty partichmtion in recruiting

Faculty responses indicated that most requests for their assistance in recruiting

students came from their department, which contradicts the admissions directors’

assertions that their ofﬁces drove the requests for faculty assistance. The data collected

102

from the surveys did not provide enough information to indicate that the origination of
the request for faculty assistance signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced the faculty member’s
participation. However, the regression analysis showed that departmental enrollment
concerns inﬂuenced faculty participation, as did the faculty member’s perception of the
role of the faculty in recruiting. It is conceivable that there is a correlation between the
origination of the request and participation. That is, placing recruitment needs in the
local department context appears more effective than a general appeal from admissions or

university leaders.

Conﬂicts

Nearly 60 percent of the faculty that participated in recruiting activities reported that
their participation conﬂicted with other duties. This ﬁnding is consistent with the
regression result that heavier loads detract from time for recruitment. To some faculty
members the conﬂict resulted from the timing of the recruiting event, while others
focused on the event itself. “Phone calls are time consuming”, wrote one faculty
member. Another said, “The campus visits are sometimes at bad times. Also, committee

meetings always take away from something else you could be doing”.

Faculty respondents were concerned about participating in Saturday and weekend
recruiting events and about evening programs. One faculty member declared, “They
(recruiting activities) tend to be Saturday and ‘after hour’ activities. Its one more thing to

do in a busy week; cuts into personal time. I keep trying to have a life”. Another faculty

103

f7

 

member, from a different institution, mentioned the same problem: “Two of the activities
did take away from faculty time by being at night or Saturday morning”. The weekend
concern was echoed by this faculty member, “I don’t mind helping in recruiting, but now
I have young children and weekends and evenings are hard. I’m sure when my children
are older I will help more. We are not compensated for this extra time at all so many

faculty do not participate”.

One faculty member expressed frustration by saying:

There are ﬁnite hours in a day. When I attend (the institution’s Open House), it’s a l/2
day commitment. It’s a 1/2 day less to do other things. When my service commitment
is high, very little time remains for research, which tends to suffer ﬁrst. (I have to get
student papers graded, etc. so the research gets pushed aside). This is why I only
volunteer once or twice a year. So, then it spreads the load, but I do think it is

important.

Other comments concerning the topic of conﬂict caused by spending time assisting in

the effort to recruit students included the following:

0 “I didn’t have nearly as much time to prepare for teaching because of time spent with
campus activities or other special administrative things”;
0 “If traveling long distances I would have to either cancel or rearrange classes and/or

meetings”;

104

 

0 “Took a lot of time in recruiting undergraduate students in the program”;

0 “I do all additional science activities too—I’m maxed out”;

o “I felt I had to participate in order to make a better case for tenure as well as renewal
of my second contract”;

0 “When teaching 16+ hours it is very hard to ﬁnd time to recruit new students. New
student recruiting is negatively correlated with faculty over-load”;

o “This is a big issue in our department right now—we’re feeling pressure to compete
with other departments”;

0 “While I strongly believe in faculty contact with students, sometimes there are strains

on faculty members who need 30 hours a day to live in a 24 hour world”.

The faculty comments supported Kemerer’s (1985) statement that time constraints
could inﬂuence faculty involvement if recruiting activities. They also showed that most
faculty were asked to assist in recruiting activities without being allowed to decrease
other responsibilities, which conﬂicts with recommendations suggested by Fairweather

(1996).

Motivation

The premise that the motivation, or lack of motivation, of the individual faculty
members could inﬂuence their participation in undergraduate student recruiting was
supported by the data collected in the faculty survey. The strongest predictor of
participation in the regression model was viewing recruitment as a regular part of the

faculty job. Concern about departmental enrollment also affected participation in

105

 

recruitment. The faculty who participated described motivating factors in two categories:
concerns over enrollment and service to either the department or institution. Additional
individual reasons for participating in student recruitment included personal interest,

institutional survival, the desire for quality students, and a sense of responsibility.

The commentary by respondents in open-ended questions provided stronger support
that motivation, or the lack of it, was an inﬂuencing factor in participating in

undergraduate student recruiting.

Using Blackburn and Lawrence’s deﬁnition of motivation as the “tendencies to
initiate and sustain a given activity” as a yardstick (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995,

p. 18), motivation inﬂuenced participation in several ways:

0 Enrollment concerns, especially those that might impact the continuation of a
faculty member’s job. One faculty member commented, “My job depends on
having students to teach. No students equals no job. So, I think devoting time to
this activity is in my own interest”. Faculty members were more likely to
participate in recruiting if they perceived that their departmental enrollment was
declining;

o The desire to inﬂuence the composition of the student body, including “properly
placing students”, the quality of the entering students, and competing with other
departments for students;

0 The enjoyment of working with students, or counterparts at other institutions;

106

o The sense of responsibility, service, or duty to the department or institution;
0 The opportunity for communicating with potential students;

0 Enjoyment of the activity.

The bulk of the comments concerning motivation centered on enrollment and leaned
heavily towards concerns in the faculty member’s own department. Among the

comments:

 

0 To ensure students enroll in my program;

0 Enrollment to the department;

0 Increasing majors in the department;

0 Department responsibility. I feel an obligation to promote physics and support
the continued success of the department, because I believe in it;

0 Develop the newly started engineering program;

0 My department is small and needs more students;

0 To help increase low engineering enrollment;

0 Increase the enrollment in the teaching program;

0 My professional responsibility to make my program known to the outside world;

0 We have a strong premedlpredent program and I want the best students to ﬁnd out
what our strengths are;

0 Institutional survival.

107

Respondents mentioned the desire to increase the enrollment of speciﬁcs groups, such
as minority students or women. Most important, however, was the concern about quality.

Some examples:

0 Bring in quality students;

0 Increase the quality of entering students;

0 Helping to ensure recruitment of quality students;

0 Self-interest in improving the quality and quantity of majors;
0 Interested in better students;

0 I’d like to help recruit better prepared students;

0 Select the best students for our program;

0 I’d like us to get a few good students.

The concept of service, duty, or responsibility to the department or institution was the
next most frequently mentioned response. Many faculty members either wrote the word
“service”, or mentioned a service commitment to either the department or the institution
as their main motivation for participating in recruiting activities. Some faculty members
indicated that they assisted in student recruiting out of a sense of responsibility to their
department, their university, or students. “I feel a responsibility to help—a good
university citizen!” declared one faculty member. Another respondent stated that the
main motivation for assisting was, “A desire to help the department; to give a good
impression of the institution to prospective students”. Finally, one faculty member

asserted, “I consider recruiting to be a part of every faculty member’s responsibility. If

108

 

the Dean asks, I’ll do what I can to help out”. Perhaps the most detailed response to the

question of motivation was from a faculty member who wrote:

I believe that higher education is an opportunity ﬁlled with mystique. I have the
responsibility to help others understand. My career depends on continued enrollment.
If I don’t recruit my position is at risk. I am very proud of my department and
institution and promote them due to my pride. My children are in high school and I

make or take every opportunity to recruit their friends and contacts.

 

In sum, these results suggest that viewing recruitment as a regular faculty activity and
concern about departmental enrollment inﬂuence faculty participation in student

recruitment.

Rewards

Of those who participated in student recruitment 78.3 percent indicated that they were
not rewarded for their participation in recruiting activities. Since only those who
participated answered this question we cannot assess the inﬂuence of rewards on faculty
participation in recruiting undergraduate students. However, the information shared by

the faculty members reveals some important factors.

Most extrinsic rewards were mere tokens of appreciation, such as free lunches, gift
certiﬁcates, pins, sports tickets, donuts, or snacks. Usually the faculty respondents

dismissed the smaller awards with such phrases as “nice”, or “not enough”. However,

109

some extrinsic rewards such as counting the amount of time spent recruiting towards
service commitments were more signiﬁcant, and solicited a stronger faculty response.
For example, one faculty member noted the importance of the reward when he wrote,
“Admissions and recruitment work counts as college service, which is a signiﬁcant factor
in promotion and tenure”. Another faculty member stated that she would only assist in

recruiting activities, “as long as it’s counted toward tenure and promotion”.

Intrinsic rewards were also noted by the faculty. Respondents to the survey used such
phrases as “satisfaction of a job well done”, “warm fuzzy feeling”, and “warm inner
glow” to describe the numerous intrinsic rewards that were reported by the faculty

members. Some faculty members indicated that participation fulﬁlled a desire to help

others, or to help their department or institution.

More signiﬁcant to some respondents was the lack of concrete rewards. Many
respondents noted that such things as merit pay, or release time would inﬂuence the
participation level of faculty members. A particular comment, that represented this
thinking was, “The reward system must be linked to the activity”. Other comments
included the point that “real” rewards such as release time, or money, be provided to
faculty involved in recruiting. These types of comments supported the assertions of
Baldwin and Krotseng (1985) that release time and ﬂexible scheduling were regarded as

signiﬁcant rewards by the faculty.

110

 

The most often mentioned reward was a letter of recognition. Sometimes these were
from the admissions ofﬁce, other times from the president of the institution, department
chair, dean, provost, or a sports coach. A few faculty that received letters of thanks noted

that they kept them for professional ﬁles.

Several faculty members stated that they were compensated for their time. The
concept of faculty stipends was mentioned a couple of times, with one faculty member
reporting a $50 stipend. Others didn’t give a speciﬁc dollar amount but used such
phrases as “extra money”. One faculty member’s entire response was to print a dollar

sign in the comment section of the question.

A main form of an extrinsic reward, reported by the faculty, was the counting of time
spent recruiting undergraduate students as part of a service commitment. This reward
was mentioned numerous times as something that would affect promotion and tenure
decisions, as well as possibly salary. The amount of how much this impacted those areas
was not always reported. These rewards varied by institution. For example, one faculty
member noted that, “Admissions and recruitment work counts as college service which is
a signiﬁcant factor in promotion and tenure”. A faculty member from a different
institution countered with the statement that assisting in recruiting, “Probably counted a

TINY bit for ‘service contribution’, which in turn counts a TINY bit towards my raise”.

111

 

One respondent noted that, as a reward, he was allowed course release time for
serving as an assistant chair on scholarship committee but mentioned that there was no

compensation for that service.

Intrinsic rewards were often mentioned by the faculty who participated in
recruitment. This ﬁnding supports Froh’s (1993) assertion that intrinsic rewards affect
faculty motivation. Among the various comments were such phrases as “satisfaction of a
job well done”, “warm fuzzy feeling”, and “warm inner glow”. One faculty member
mentioned the good feelings she felt through the gratitude of parents and students.
Another faculty member enjoyed the “verbal recognition from peers and superiors”. Two
faculty members simply wrote the word intrinsic in the comment section of the reward
question. One additional respondent noted the satisfaction of assisting students and
parents. She observed that, “Meeting with prospective students and parents can be

rewarding in its own way. Both often have misunderstandings and misconceptions of a

college program and experience which can be clariﬁed”.

A few faculty members who participated in recruitment expressed displeasure with
assisting in student recruitment because of the lack of rewards. This ﬁnding suggests that
lack of rewards may limit the extent of involvement in recruiting or possibly deter some

faculty from any form of participation. Said one faculty member:

I did 25-28 prospective student/parent meetings one year and never got any feedback

from anyone. I never got a thank you note from anyone. I don’t do them anymore. I

112

 

suggested to the Provost/Dean that you get a thank you card from admissions good
for a lunch after doing two tours. How about campus shop gift drawings each month?
The more you do the more chances you have to win a sweatshirt, hat, etc. Talk to the

President!

Other faculty members also commented that rewards could inﬂuence their r
participation in assisting in undergraduate recruiting. “Overall, they need to give merit 1..

pay for those assisting for all their time and effort. There are a lot of faculty members

 

who slide by and a few who do all the wor ”. A different faculty member stated, “Until
the administration values this by reward [release, salary] it will remain self-motivation”.
A third faculty member simply stated, “Faculty are being asked to do more in every area.
Undergraduate recruiting is no exception. The reward system must be linked to the
activity”. Another opinion was offered by this faculty member, “It is reasonable for
faculty to participate in modest time commitments such as showing prospects around the
department (i.e. using ofﬁce hour time). There should (on a voluntary basis) be real

rewards, time or money for faculty involvement beyond that”.

The admissions directors noted that the lack of rewards for faculty that helped their

ofﬁces was bothersome. The responses from the faculty indicated that the effect of

rewards in faculty recruitment of students requires further study.

113

Recommendations

The study’s ﬁndings have implications for the practice of faculty recruiting
undergraduate students at Michigan public four-year comprehensive universities. The
identiﬁable factors that inﬂuence faculty participation in recruiting; the perception that
recruitment is part of the faculty job, perceived departmental enrollment concerns, and F
the number of classes taught, provide information that can be used by admissions

directors and faculty in examining the future use of faculty in recruiting. Other faculty ,‘l

 

concerns of time conﬂicts and rewards by those that participated in recruiting, while not
signiﬁcantly inﬂuencing a faculty member’s participation, raise issues that should be
considered by both admissions directors and faculty members. Finally, an additional
concern raised by faculty respondents, communication difﬁculties with admissions

ofﬁces, needs to be addressed by both admissions ofﬁcials and the faculty.

Admissions Directors

Based on the study’s ﬁndings, admissions directors at some of the selected
institutions need to improve the utilization of faculty in undergraduate student recruiting
through a better understanding of what inﬂuences faculty members’ participation in these
endeavors. Improved communication with the faculty, organization of recruiting
activities geared toward departmental enrollments, and the knowledge of what motivates
faculty members are starting points toward improving relations with the faculty that can

help increase campus enrollments.

114

The admissions directors need to address communication concerns by providing
faculty members on their campuses with information about enrollment challenges and
goals, as well as how goals are determined. As noted earlier by one admissions director,
they also need to explain why enrollment and the faculty role in recruiting should be
important to the faculty. An example of the misconceptions faculty can have about
enrollment is illustrated by the faculty respondent’s comment that high school enrollment
numbers are the only predictor of future college enrollments. If enrollment management
is used as an enrollment mechanism the faculty should understand that concept as well.
The directors should attempt to eliminate misconceptions about the recruiting process and

clearly explain the recruiting role that can be played by the faculty.

The study’s ﬁndings revealed a strong departmental connection to faculty
participation in recruiting activities; therefore the sharing of information by admissions
should be tailored to the department and not presented in too general a format. Since
training is critical, the initial step by admissions directors should be a contact with a Dean
or department head and the offer of an “education and training” session concerning
enrollment. The directors can use the data gathered from the study to provide evidence to
faculty members about how similar four-year Michigan institution’s use faculty to assist

in the recruitment of students.

The directors need to have well organized recruiting plans that provide faculty

members with advance notice of recruiting events, open-ended requests for participation,

and an opportunity to pick and choose activities. An extended effort by admissions

115

 

ofﬁcers in this area will assist in lowering faculty conﬂicts. Perhaps innovative
admissions directors can explore less time consuming recruiting activities suggested by
the faculty respondents, such as videotapes of lectures, or e-mail contact with prospective
students. Admissions ofﬁcers should welcome alternative recruiting suggestions by
faculty, and institute such ideas as noting the academic achievements of faculty in the

marketing of the institution.

Admissions directors need to learn what motivates faculty participation in recruiting
and structure their requests for assistance accordingly. The opportunity to inﬂuence
departmental enrollment as opposed to institutional enrollment and inﬂuence the quality
of the entering student are important factors to faculty. The directors should tailor
recruiting activities so that faculty volunteers can inﬂuence their own departmental
enrollments and have the opportunity to draw high quality students to their programs.
The combined efforts of successful departmental enrollment plans would have a positive
inﬂuence on the overall campus enrollment and assist the admissions ofﬁcers in reaching

institutional enrollment goals.

What can be done to encourage faculty to accept recruiting undergraduate students as
part of their job? One strategy would have the recruiting process written into the job
descriptions of new faculty members under the guise of internal service to the institution.
If this is done, the service commitment must be an important part of the job review for

tenure. Another possibility would be to provide faculty members with more control over

116

 

the recruiting process. An example of this was noted earlier when faculty members at

one of the selected institutions controlled funds used for additional recruiting activities.

Finally, admissions directors need to take an active role on their campuses and call
for the recognition of faculty that assist in recruiting and the implementation of
meaningful rewards, such as release time, and the inclusion of time spent on recruiting

activities as service time towards tenure decisions, promotions and raises.

Faculty

Based on the ﬁndings of the study, many faculty at the selected institutions need to
develop a better understanding of the reasons they are asked for assistance in recruiting
undergraduate students. In addition, they need to recognize the scope of faculty
participation in student recruiting at Michigan four-year public institutions similar to their
own. They also need to recognize that there are successful recruiting endeavors
involving faculty members at some of these institutions that address many faculty
concerns. The more faculty-friendly recruiting efforts at these institutions include open-
ended requests for participation and the recognition of the time spent by faculty as service

time counting towards promotion and tenure.

Faculty members at the selected institutions need to work with their admissions ofﬁce

and be proactive in developing departmental recruiting plans that assist in inﬂuencing

their enrollment and attract high quality students. Concerns over such things as recruiting

117

 

additional students to already overcrowded programs need to be shared with those that set
enrollment goals and the campus admissions ofﬁce. Faculty can assist in recruiting
efforts by self-identifying departmental faculty members that believe that recruiting

should be considered part of the faculty job.

Faculty can ﬁnd success in their recruiting endeavors by working closely with the
admissions ofﬁce and understanding what inﬂuences student choice in selecting a college

or university. For example, it was noted earlier that parents, especially mothers, greatly

 

inﬂuence their children’s selection of a college. If faculty members are calling
prospective students, meeting with a campus tour group, or speaking to a family during
an open house, the faculty member should concentrate on inﬂuencing the parents as much
as the student. Faculty members should also be able to refer students to other ofﬁces and
speciﬁc people for assistance in order to show that the entire campus community is
working together for the student’s beneﬁt. It should be noted that even the best faculty
member won’t be successful in convincing every student to come to campus. The
success therefore is often found in the effort put forth by the faculty member and not the

actual outcome.

Finally, faculty at some of the institutions need to work within their department for
recognition that an increase in time spent recruiting students should be balanced with a
decrease in time spent in other activities. This can lead to a broader recognition of time
spent in recruiting activities counting as service time for promotions and tenure decisions.

Noting the lofty enrollment goals of some of the institutions in the study, a department

118

with an organized recruiting plan can increase their enrollment, inﬂuence the quality of

the entering student, and become better recognized for their efforts.

In conclusion, admissions directors and faculty members need to recognize the
growing trend of faculty participation in student recruiting and the implications for all
involved on their campuses. Understanding what inﬂuence faculty participation in
recruiting activities can lead to better deﬁned recruiting plans that can assist in meeting

institutional and enrollment objectives and properly reward faculty participation.

 

119

 

 

APPENDICES

 

120

Appendix A

February 29, 2000

Name

Title

Address

City, State, Zip

Dear Name:

I hope that the recruiting year is going well for you this year. I’m looking forward to seeing you
at our next DASUM meeting.

As you might know, I am working on my dissertation for a Ph.D. in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong
Education at Michigan State University. The topic of the dissertation involves faculty
participation in the recruitment of undergraduate students to colleges and universities in
Michigan. This is a topic that impacts all of us. To initiate the exploration of this area I will be
sending surveys to randomly selected faculty at ten Michigan four-year institutions, including
yours.

The use of faculty in undergraduate student recruiting is increasing nationwide as institutions vie
for new students. Does this use of faculty reduce time spent in teaching or research? Should
assisting in undergraduate student recruitment be considered a faculty service project. Are
faculty members being required at any institutions to participate in undergraduate student
recruitment? These are just some of the questions that I will be exploring in the dissertation.

df

To counterbalance the information that I will receive from the faculty I would like to conduct a
phone interview with each of the admission’s directors at the selected institutions.

I am asking your permission to conduct a phone interview with you concerning this topic. There
will be no data in the information that will be able to identify you or your institution. All data
collected will be presented in a group format. YOUR CONFIDENTIALTIY WILL BE
PROTECTED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT OF THE LAW.

If you are willing to participate would you please sign the attached form and return it in the
enclosed postage paid envelope. Upon receipt 1 will contact you and set a time for the telephone
interview. I will provide each director of admissions with a copy upon completion of the
dissertation.

Thanks for your time. I hope to hear from you soon. Please call me if you have any questions
concerning this letter or the project at 906-635-2670. Questions concerning being a research
subject can be directed to David E. Wright, Ph.D., Chair: University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects, at Michigan State University, 517-355-2180.

Kevin A. Pollock
Director of Enrollment and Recruitment
Lake Superior State University

121

 

 

Consent Form

You are invited to participate in a telephone survey by Kevin Pollock that will take
ﬁfteen to forty-ﬁve minutes to complete. The topic of the conversation will be the use of
faculty to assist in undergraduate student recruiting.

If you are willing to partake in the survey please sign this form and return it to Kevin in
the enclosed envelope. This will indicate your voluntary participation in the project and
Kevin will call you to set up a speciﬁc time for the actual telephone survey.

During the survey you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain
questions.

 

Data gathered from the telephone survey will be treated with strict conﬁdentiality and
that the results of that data set will be in a group format. In addition, your conﬁdentiality
will be protected to the maximum extent of the law.

If you have questions concerning the survey or this consent form please contact Kevin
Pollock at 906-635-2670. If you have questions concerning being a research subject
please contact David E. Wright, Ph.D., Chair: University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects, at Michigan State University, 517-355-2180.

 

Name (Please Print)

 

Signature

 

Date

122

 

SURVEY FOR ADMISSION DIRECTORS

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. If you have any questions or
concerns during this interview, please raise them at any time.

As you are aware, this telephone survey is to explore the admissions side of the use of
faculty members in undergraduate student recruitment.

Questions for Admission Directors:

1
2.
3

9%"?

10.

11.

12.

. How long have you been the director of admissions at this institution?

How long have you been in the admissions ﬁeld?

. What has the undergraduate enrollment been like over the past three years at your

institution? What types of enrollment objectives and goals have been established at
your institution?

Have you launched any new programs over the past three years?

Do you use faculty to assist in undergraduate student recruiting?

If yes, then what ways to you ask faculty member to assist in recruiting undergraduate
students? (LIST: visit high schools, visit community colleges, call prospective
students, attend Open Houses, attend admissions receptions, write letters for
admissions use, sit on an enrollment committee, sit on a retention committee, play a
part in the application decision process, develop fact sheets, brochures, newsletter,
etc. that are used by admissions or sent to prospective students, participate in other
recruiting activities). If no, then do you plan on using faculty to assist in recruiting
in the future?

(If the answer to question #5 is yes) Why do you ask faculty members to assist in
undergraduate student recruiting?

(If there is a positive response to any of question 5) Who has asked faculty to partake
of these roles? (If there is a negative response to question 5) Would you like to ask
faculty to assist? Why do you think your faculty members are not participating in
admissions related recruiting?

Do you perceive an increase, decrease, or stability in the role of faculty assistance in
undergraduate recruiting?

Have faculty turned down requests for their assistance? If yes, what reasons were
given?

(If a positive response was received for any question 5) What motivating factors do
you believe are behind faculty participation in the noted areas?

Do you have any insights, or comments, concerning the role of the faculty in
undergraduate student recruitment?

Thank you for your time. When the project is completed you will be sent a copy of the
results. Do you have any questions?

123

 

 

 

Appendix B

March 14, 2000
Greetings!

I am currently working on my dissertation for a Ph.D. in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong
Education at Michigan State University. The topic of the dissertation involves faculty
participation in the recruitment of undergraduate students to colleges and universities in
Michigan. To initiate the exploration of this areal have interviewed the admissions
directors at ten of the public universities to determine, from the adrrrission’s standpoint,
what is being asked of faculty, in the recruitment of these students.

The head of your admission’s ofﬁce was kind enough to participate in that aspect of the
study.

Since the dissertation topic concerns faculty participation, 575 randomly selected faculty
members from the ten selected institutions have been sent this survey. It is my sincere
hope that you will take the time to complete the survey and send it back in the enclosed
postage-paid envelope. The average time to complete the survey is less then ﬁfteen
minutes.

The use of faculty in undergraduate student recruiting is increasing nationwide as
institutions vie for new students. Does this use of faculty reduce time spent in teaching
or research? Should assisting in undergraduate student recruitment be considered a
faculty service project? Should faculty be rewarded for their recruitment efforts? What
are the motivating factors behind faculty offering their time to recruiting?

These are some of the questions that are explored in the survey. Each survey has a code
number on the back to allow me to know which surveys have been returned. It is not part
of the data set. In the data set there is no information that can identify you. Your
conﬁdentiality will be protected. Furthermore, all data analysis is of groups of faculty,
not individual members.

When the research is completed a ﬁnal copy of the dissertation will be sent to your
admissions ofﬁce and can be reviewed by you.

Questions concerning the survey can be directed to me at 906-635-2670. Questions
concerning being a research subject can be directed to David E. Wright, Ph.D., Chair:
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, at Michigan State
University, 517-355-2180.

I thank you in advance for your participation.

Sincerely,

Kevin A. Pollock

124

 

April 17, 2000
Greetings!

I recently sent you a survey concerning the participation of faculty in the recruitment of
undergraduate students to colleges and universities in Michigan. I am using this survey
to gather information from faculty as part of the data collection for my dissertation for a
Ph.D. in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University.

To date I have not received your response. While I realize that it is near the end of the
school year and that you are busy, please allow me to explain why your response is
important. The use of faculty in undergraduate student recruiting is increasing
nationwide as institutions vie for new students. Does this use of faculty reduce time
spent in teaching or research? Should assisting in undergraduate student recruitment be
considered a faculty service project? Should faculty be rewarded for their contributions
in this area? What are the motivating factors behind faculty offering their time to
recruiting? These are questions that I am attempting to explore in my research.

Even if you have not assisted in the recruiting efforts at your institution your response is
needed for this project. Faculty views about student recruitment, as well as data collected
concerning actual time spent in recruiting students, are both included in the study.

I have interviewed the head of your admissions ofﬁce and have received survey
responses from several of your faculty colleagues at your institution. The time to
complete the survey is averaging less then ﬁfteen minutes.

Each survey has a code number on the back to allow me to know which surveys have
been returned. It is not part of the data set. In the data set there is no information that
can identify you. Your conﬁdentiality will be protected. Furthermore, all data analysis
is based on the faculty unit as a whole, not individually. There will no identiﬁcation of
your institution as well since the data will be reported in an aggregate format.

When the research is completed a ﬁnal copy of the dissertation will be sent to your
admissions ofﬁce and can be reviewed by you.

Questions concerning the survey can be directed to me at 906-635-2670. Questions
concerning being a research subject can be directed to David E. Wright, Ph.D., Chair:
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, at Michigan State
University, 517-355-2180.

I thank you in advance for your participation.

Sincerely,

Kevin A. Pollock

125

 

Instructions:

Survey projects are successful ONLY if high response rates are achieved. Your participation
would be deeply appreciated. Most faculty members complete the survey in less than 15 minutes.
Please take the time to answer all questions. There is an opportunity to write in your own
thoughts regarding faculty participation in undergraduate student recruiting on the last page. This
information might be the most important information that is received. Take this opportunity to
express your own views.

There is a number in the box at the bottom of the survey. It is there only to let me know which
faculty members have returned the survey and enables me to follow-up with those faculty
members that have not returned the survey. It is not part of the data set. In the data set there is no
information that can identify you. Furthermore, all data analysis is of groups of faculty, not
individual members. After the third round of surveys the code number will be stripped from
the data.

Some questions ask for only one answer to be circled or marked, while others allow for multiple
responses (mark all that apply). Please be careful to note this when answering a question. By
returning this questionnaire you indicate your voluntary participation. Your conﬁdentiality will
be protected to the maximum extent of the law.

 

Background information 4. How many years have you worked at
this institution?
1. Please describe your tenure status.
(Circle the appropriate answer) 5. Are you a part-time or full-time
employee? (Circle one answer)
1. Non-tenured, tenure not available for

 

my position at this institution 1. Part-time

2. Non-tenured on tenure-track 2. Full-time

3. Tenured

6. Please give the percentage of your

2 What is your rank? time spent in each of the following

(Circle the appropriate answer) activities. (The total should be 100%)

N/A. Not applicable: no ranks at your 1. Teaching

institution. 2. Research

3. Service __

1. Professor 4. Professional Growth

2. Associate professor 5. Administration

3. Assistant professor 6. Outside Consulting or Freelance

4. Instructor Work

5. Adjunct faculty 7. Other

6. Lecturer

7. Other (WRITE IN)

 

3. What is your age?

126

Enrollment

7. What is your perception of the
undergraduate enrollment goals your
institution should attain? (Mark all
that apply)

0 Increase the overall number of
undergraduate students

0 Increase the number of

undergraduate minority students

0 Increase the number of
undergraduate women

0 Increase the number of
undergraduate students in
certain departments

0 Increase the quality of the
undergraduate students

0 Decrease the number of
undergraduate students

0 No perception

0 Other

 

8. What is your perception of the
overall undergraduate enrollment
in your department? (Mark the
appropriate answer)

0 Increasing
0 Declining
0 Stable

127

.—e
I

What is your perception of the
overall undergraduate enrollment
at your institution? (Mark the
appropriate answer)

0 Increasing
0 Declining
0 Stable

Is your perception of faculty
assisting in undergraduate
student recruiting a: (Mark one)

1. Service activity

2. Responsibility

3. Not a faculty function

4. Other (Describe what

you consider other)

 

How many classes do you teach?

I. No classes taught
2. Number of classes

Are you required to assist in the
recruiting of undergraduate
students to your institution?
(Circle the appropriate response)

1. Yes
2. No

Is faculty participation in
undergraduate recruiting a part
of your institution’s mission
statement or listed in your
institutional goals?

Yes
No

 

 

Activities

14. Please check AL_L of the activities in
which you have participated that assisted
in recruiting UNDERGRADUATE
students to your institution over the past
three years:

0 Visited feeder high school

0 Visited community college

0 Hosted prospective student event on
campus

0 Called prospective students

0 Served on an enrollment or retention
team or committee

0 Attended an Open House, Scholarship,
Honors, or Departmental Open House
for prospective students

0 Attended a reception for prospective
students

0 Hosted a program for high school
teachers

0 Wrote a letter to prospective students

0 Organized or participated in a Phon-A-
Thon for prospective students

0 Met with prospective students taking a
campus tour

0 Represented your institution by
participating in a lecture, play,
demonstration, or concert at a high
school

0 Used corporate contacts to promote
adult education

0 Developed departmental fact sheets,
brochures, or newsletters to be sent to
prospective students

0 Reviewed admission’s publications

0 Established contact with counterparts in
a community college to promote
articulation agreements

0 Other

 

 

128

If you checked any of the activity boxes in
question number 14 please answer the
following questions. If you did not check
any of the activity boxes please skip to
question number 19.

15. Which ofﬁce or individual asked you
to participate in the activity or
activities you checked? (If there are
multiple answers please identify the
activity and the source)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16. Do you feel that your participation in
the activity or activities created a time
conflict with your other
responsibilities? (Circle the
appropriate response)

1. No
2. Yes

Optional comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17. What was the key motivating factor 21. Has your department launched any

for your participation in recruiting new programs in the past three years?
activities?

1. Yes

2. No

 

 

 

22. Please take the opportunity to express
your opinion towards requests for faculty
time to assist in undergraduate student
recruiting.

 

 

 

 

18. Were you rewarded in any manner

 

for your participation in recruiting

 

activities?

 

 

1. No

 

2. Yes

 

 

(If yes, please describe what type of

 

reward you received)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19. Do you feel that there is a shift in

 

 

faculty responsibilities towards assisting

 

in undergraduate student recruitment at
your institution?

 

 

1. Yes

 

2. No

 

 

20. Should assisting in undergraduate
student recruitment become part of a
service commitment from faculty?

 

 

 

Survey Number:

 

1. Yes

 

 

2. No

129

Appendix C

 

Please check ALL of the activities in which you have participated that assisted in

recruiting UNDERGRADUATE students to your institution over the past three years:

 

Frequency Percent of Frequency Cumulative Percent

 

Visited feeder high 48 4.3% 4.3%
school

Visited community 44 4.0% 8.3%
college

Hosted prospective 1 10 9.9% 18.2%
student event on

campus

Called prospective 75 6.8% 25.0%
students

Served on an 97 8.7% 33.7%
enrollment or retention

team or committee

Attended an Open 162 14.6% 48.3%
House, Scholarship,

Honors, or

Departmental Open

House for prospective

students

Attended a reception 87 7.8% 56.1%
for prospective

students

Hosted a program for 37 3.3% 59.4%
high school teachers

Wrote a letter to 44 4.0% 63.4%
prospective students

Organized or 15 1.3% 64.7%
participated in a Phon-

A-Thon for

prospective students

Met with prospective 129 1 1.6% 76.3%
students taking a

campus tour

Represented your 29 2.6% 78.9%
institution by

participating in a

lecture, play,

demonstration, or

concert at a school

 

 

 

130

 

Used corporate
contacts to promote
adult education
Developed
departmental fact
sheets, brochures, or
newsletters to be sent
to prospective students
Reviewed admission’s
publications
Established contact
with counterparts in a
community college to
promote articulation
agreements

Other

26

93

47

24

2.3%

8.4%

4.2%

4.0%

2.2%

131

81.2%

89.6%

93.8%

97.8%

100.0%

 

Appendix D

Means and Standard Deviations

 

NValid Missing Mean Std. Deviation

 

TENURE 312 0 .7660 .4240
RANK 312 0 6.0321 1.1781
YEARS 288 24 14.4722 9.9832
DEPART 286 26 .2867 .7551
OVERALL 287 25 .5923 .6619
PERCEPT 296 16 .8041 .3976
CLASSES 312 0 2.7692 1.2415
CONFLICT 247 65 .5830 .4941
REWARD 244 68 .2131 .4103
PROGRAMS 270 42 .6852 .4653
PARTICIP 312 0 .8462 .3614
REQUEST 249 63 1 .5060 .7573
MOTIVATE 241 71 1.9502 .8837

 

132

 

 

Appendix E

Correlations

TENURE RANK YEARS DEPART OVERALL PERCEPT CLASSES PROGRAM PARTICIP
TENURE
Pearson 1.000 .530” .537" -.159" -.001 -.047 .013 -.086 .016
Correlation
Sig. (2- .000 .000 .007 .985 .420 .817 .160 .776
tailed)
N 312 312 288 286 287 296 312 270 312
RANK
Pearson .530” 1.000 .413” -.054 .042 -.015 -.050 -.040 -.003
Correlation
Sig. (2- .000 .000 .359 .478 .803 .380 .513 .951
tailed)
N 312 312 288 286 287 296 312 270 312
YEARS
Pearson .537" .413" 1.000 -.l36* -.007 -.112 -.042 -.012 .010
Correlation
Sig. (2- .000 .000 .021 .903 .063 .478 .851 .860
tailed)
N 288 288 288 285 286 277 288 269 288
DEPART
Pearson -.159*"‘ -.054 -.136* 1.000 .353” -.106 .020 .128" -.l64"'*
Correlation
Sig. (2- .007 .359 .021 .000 .078 .731 .036 .005
tailed)
N 286 286 285 286 285 276 286 269 286
OVERALL
Pearson -.001 .042 -.007 .353" 1.000 -.096 -.006 .059 -.145*
Correlation
Sig. (2- .985 .478 .903 .000 .110 .922 .335 .014
tailed)
N 287 287 286 285 287 276 287 268 287
PERCEPT
Pearson -.047 -.015 -.l 12 -.106 -.096 1.000 -.063 -.004 .336"
Correlation
Sig. (2- .420 .803 .063 .078 .1 10 .286 .944 .000
tailed)
N 296 296 277 276 276 296 296 261 296
CLASSES
Pearson .013 -.050 -.042 .020 -.006 -.063 1.000 -.015 -.058
Correlation
Sig. (2- .817 .380 .478 .731 .922 .283 .807 .308
tailed)
N 312 312 288 286 287 296 312 270 312
PROGRAMS
Pearson -.086 -.040 -.0 l 2 . 128* .059 ~.004 -.015 1.000 .039
Correlation
Sig. (2- .160 .513 .851 .036 .335 .944 .807 .521
tailed)
N 270 270 269 269 268 261 270 270 270
PARTICIP
Pearson .016 -.003 .010 -.l64** -.l45* .336" -.058 .039 1.000
Correlation
Sig. (2 .776 .951 .860 .014 .014 .000 .308 .521
tailed)
N 312 312 288 286 287 296 312 270 312

 

**. Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*. Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

133

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam, B.E. & Roberts, A. (1993, Spring). Differences among the disciplines.
Recognizingfaculty work: Reward systems for the Year 2000. New Directions for
Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Afred, R., & Carter, P. (2000). Contradicting colleges: Thriving in an era of
continuous change. New Expedition_s. Annapolis Junction: Community College Press.

Astin, A.W. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social
change. Battle Creek: WK. Kellogg Foundation.

Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Babbie, ER. (1973). Survey research methods. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

Bailey, SK. (1980). Marketing perspectives: Student and national interests.
Marketing in College Admissions: A Broadening of Persppctives. New York: The
College Board.

Baldwin, R.G., & Krotseng, M.V. (1985, September). Incentives in the academy:
Issues and options. Incentives for faculty vitality: New Directions for Higher Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barton, D.W., & Treadwell, DR. (1978). Marketing: A synthesis of institutional
soul-searching and aggressiveness. Marketing Higher Education: New Directions for
Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

Basinger, J. (2000, August 11). A new way of classifying colleges elates some
and perturbs others. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A-31-A38.

Bean, J .P. (1986). Assessing and reducing attrition. Managing College
Enrollments: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

Bents, M. & Haugen, C. (1992, Spring). An enrollment management model for
increasing diversity. College & University.

Berte, N.R., & Casella, DA. (1979). Two-way bridge building at Birmingham-

Southem. Building Bridges to the Public: New Directions for Higher Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Bess, LL. (1982, June). The motivation to teach: Meanings, messages, and
morals. Motivating professors to teach effectively: New Directions for Teaching and
Learning. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

134

Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic
areas. Journal of Applied Psychology. Volume 57.

 

Blackburn, RT. (1982, June). Career phases and their inﬂuences on faculty
motivation. Motivating Professors to Tﬂh Effectively: New Directions for Teaching
and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blackburn, R.T. & Lawrence, J .H. (1995). Faculty at Work: Motivation,
Expectation, Satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Blumenstyk, G. (2000, December 8). How for-proﬁt institutions chase
community-college students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Volume XLVII.
Number 15.

 

Boyer, EL. (1990). Scholgahip Reconaidered: Priorities of the Professorata.
Princeton, N .J .: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Braskamp, L.A. & Ory, LC. (1994). Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing
Individui and Institutional Performance. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Brown, IA. (1978). The role of academic programs in institutional marketing.

Marketing Higher Education: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco:
J ossey-Bass.

Carnmann, C. (1982, June). Feedback systems for teachers. Motivating
Professors to Teach Effectively: New Direction_s for Teaching and Learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, CC. (1978). The administration of admissions. Marketing Higher
Education: New Directions in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cater to nontraditional students to boost enrollment, experts say. (2000,
November). Enrollment Management Report. Volume 4, Issue 8. LRP Publications.

Centra, IA. (1979). Determining Faculty Effectiveness. San Francisco: J ossey-
Bass.

Chaffe, EB. (1990). Strategies for the 19903. An Agenda for the New Decade:
New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chait, RP. (1979). Academic management: What it should be. Preparing for the
New Decade: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chait, RP. (1990). The 19905: The decade of trustees. An Agenda for the New
Decade: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

135

Claffey, M.A., & Hossler, D. (1986). An integrated enrollment management
system. Managing College Enrollments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Common Sense. (2000/2001, December/January). University Business. New
York: Academic Partners.

Continuing Adult Education Online. (2000, November 1). CAM Report: Career
Movement and Managementﬂrcts, Volume 24, No. 2. East Lansing: Priam Publications.

Costello, T.W. (1979). Service and balance in the comprehensive college and

university. Building Bridges to the Public: New Directions for Higher Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1982, June). Intrinsic motivation and effective teaching: A
ﬂow analysis. Motivating Professors to Teach Effectively: New Directions for Teaching
and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davis-Van Atta, D.L., & Carrier, SC. (1986). Using the institutional research

ofﬁce. Managing College Enrollments: New Directions for Higher Education. San
Francisco-Jossey-Bass.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, RM. (1982, June). Intrinsic motivation to teach: Possibilities
and obstacles in our colleges and universities. Motivating Professors to Teach
Effectively: New Directions for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dennis, M.J. (1998). A PraLctical Guide to Enrollmerﬂnd Retention Management
in Higher Education. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.

Diamond, RM. (1993, Spring). Changing priorities and the faculty reward
system. Recognizing Faculty Work: Reward Systems for the Year 2000. New Directions
for Higher Education. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Diamond, RM. (1993, Spring). Instituting change in the faculty reward system:
Recognizing faculty work. Reward System for the Ygar 2000: New Directions for
Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dillman, DA. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dolence, M. (1991). Setting the context for evaluation of recruitment and
retention programs. Evaluating Student Recruitment and Retention Proggams: New

Directiona for Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dominick, CA. (1990). Revising the institutional mission. Managing Change in
Higher Education: New Directions in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

136

 

 

Drugovich, ML. (2000, Winter). Admission in enrollment management: A
chicken or egg situation. On Target: Enrollment Management Strategies for the New
Millennium. Number 31. The College Board.

Dunphy, L., Miller, T.E., Woodruff, T., Nelson, J .E. (1987). Exemplary retention
strategies for the freshman year. New Directioﬁns for Higher Education. San~Franciscoz
J ossey-Bass.

Enrolled House Bill No. 4302. (1999, June 30). State of Michigan 90th
Legislature, Act No. 93. http://198.109.122.10/pdf/publicAct/1999-2000/pa009399.pdf

Erdmann, DC. (1990, Spring). Maintaining enrollment stability: A new role for
admissions ofﬁcers. The College Board Review. No. 155.

Fairweather, IS. (1996). ﬂculty Wor1_< and Public Tru_st: Restoring theﬁlue of
Teaching and Public Service in American Academic Life. Needham Heights: Allyn &
Bacon.

Farmer, D.W. (1990). Strategies for change. Managing Change in Higher
Education: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ferber, R. (1978). Readings in Survey Research. American Marketing
Association: Chicago.

Farrington, G., & Yoshida, R. (2000, November/December). Darwin goes to
college. Educause Review. Educause: Boulder.

Fink, A., & Kosecoff, J. (1985). How to Conduct Surveys: A Step—by-Step
Guide. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Fredrickson, A. (2000, Winter). It takes an advisor: Why students need help
navigating the admission maze. The Lawlor Review Volume VIII Number 2.

 

Froh, R.C., Gray, P.J., Lambert, L.M. (1993, Spring). Representing faculty work:
The professional portfolio. Recognizing Faculty WoLk: Reward System_s for the Year
2000. New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Froh, R.C., Menges, R.J., Walker, C]. (1993, Spring). Revitalizing faculty work
through intrinsic rewards. Recognizing Faculty Work: Revaaal System for the Year
2000. New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gelbach, R. (2000, Summer). Southern Connecticut State University: Team
approach to serving students”. Strategies. USA Group.

137

Gilmour, DJ. (2000, December 11). Challenges and costs rise for colleges.
Commqu College Week. Volume 13, Numper 9. Fairfax: Cox, Mathews &
Associates.

Gilralter, J. (2000, Summer) In-house marketing has beneﬁts outsourcing does
not. Community College Times.

Gilroy, P.J. (2000, Winter). Price, prestige & affordability. On Target:
Enrollment Mmgement Strategies for the New Millennium. Number 31. The College
Board.

Graff, SA. (1986, March). Organizing the resources that can be effective. New
Directions for Higher Education, No. 53. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Gose, B. (2000, May 26). This year, it’s prospective freshmen who are keeping
colleges in suspense. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume XLVI, Number 38.

 

Gose, B. (2000, June 23). Colleges plan to use e-mail as a new tool for recruiting.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Volume XLVI, Num_ber 42.

Green, CA. (1990). Targeting new markets. Managing Change in Higher
Education: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Hall, D.T. (1982, June). Organization design and faculty motivation to teach.
Motivating Professors to Teach Effectively: New Directions for Teaching and Learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hamm, W.E. (1991). The Waldorf tuition and grant reduction experiment.
Rethinking Tuition and Student Aid Strategies: New Directions in Higher Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hardee, MD. (1970). Faculty advising in colleges and universities. Student
Personnel Series, No. 9. American College Personnel Association.

Hawkins, BL. (2000, November/December). Technology, higher education, and
a very foggy crystal ball. Educause Review. Educause: Boulder.

Hearn, J .C., & and Anderson, MS. (1991). The Minnesota ﬁnancing experiment.
Rethinking Tuition and Student Aid Strategies: New Directions in Higher Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hebel, S., Schmidt, P., and Selingo, J. (2001, January 17). As legislative sessions

begin, colleges gear up for a slowdown. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume
XLVII. Number 17.

138

Hofmann, H. (1990). Developing new contributor constituencies. Managing
Change in Higher Education: New Directions in Higher Education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Hossler, D. (1987, Winter). Enrollment management: Institutional applications.
College & University.

Hossler, D. (1991). Evaluating recruitment and retention programs. Evaluating
Student Recruitment and Retention Programa: New Directionspfor InstitutionaL Research.
San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

Hossler, D. (1994, Spring). Enrollment management in the 1990s. The Admission
Strategist: Recruiting for the Year 2000. New York: The College Board.

Hossler, D. (1999, Winter). Effective admissions recruitment. Promising
P_ractices in Recruitment, Remediation, and Retention: New Directions for Higher
Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hossler, D., & Kemerer, F. (1986, March). Enrollment management and its
context. New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hossler, D., & Schmit, J. (1991). The Indiana postsecondary-encouragement
experiment. Rethinking Tuition and Student Aid Strategies: New Directions in Highg
Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howard, R.D., & Rogers, B.H. (1991). Tracking academic progress within a
complex academic environment. Evaluating Student Recruitment and Retention
Proggams: New Directions for Institutional Resea_rc_h. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hoy, J .C. (1980). Marketing perspectives and institutional admissions ofﬁce

pressures for meeting enrollments. Marketing in College Admissions: A Broadening of
Perspectives. New York: The College Board.

Huddleston, T., & Batty, HF. (1978). Marketing ﬁnancial aid. Marketing Higher
Education: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco-Jossey-Bass.

Hyman, RE. (1995, Fall). Creating campus partnerships for student success.
College & University. Washington DC: AACRAO.

Ingold, S. (2000, November). Enrollment management: The integration of theory
and practice. Enrollment Management Report, Volume 4. Issue 8. LRP Publications.

Ihlanfeldt, W. (1980). Achieving Optimal Enrollments and Tuition Revenues. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

139

 

 

Ihlanfeldt, W. (1980). The current marketing in higher education. Marketing in
College Admissions: A Broadening of Perspectives. New York: The College Board.

Jacobs, F. (1979). New constituencies for education. Preparing for the New
Decade: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Jacobs, F. (1990). Expectations of and by faculty: An overview for the 1990s. Ap
Agenda for the New Decade: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Jedamus, P. (1974). Teaching loads over time. Assessing Faculty Effort: New
Directions for InstitutionaLResearch. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, AL. (2000, Winter). The evolution of strategic enrollment

management: A historical perspective. The Journal of College Admission, Number 166.
NACAC. '«I

Jones, L.W. (1990). Strategic planning: The unrealized potential of the 1980s and
the promise of the 19905. An AgenQ for the New Decade: New Directions for Higher
Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kahn, K.F. (2000, July). DePaul uses virtual open house to reach prospective
students. Enrollment Management Report. 2000 LRP Publications.

 

Kahn, KR (2000, October). Spin the web: Use e-mail to recruit near, far and
cheap. Enrollment Management Report. 2000 LRP Publications.

Kappler, SD. (1997). Annual Stamats national college choice survey. Stamats.
Cedar Rapids: Stamats.

Kashner, J .B. (1990). Changing the corporate culture. Managing Change in
Higher Education: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Keller, C. (1997). The ultimate campus visit. Stamats. Cedar Rapids: Stamats.

 

Keller, C. (1997). Recruiting on campus: Utilizing faculty, students, and alumni in
the admissions process. Stamats. Cedar Rapids: Stamats.
1

Kelly, DA. (1979). Serving adult learning at the college of New Rochelle.
Building Bridges to the Public: New Directions for Higher Educatipn. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Kemerer, FR. (1985, Winter). The role of deans, department chairs, and faculty
in enrollment management. The College Board Review. The College Board.

140

Kerr, C. (1990). Higher education cannot escape history: The 19903. An Agenda
for the New Decade: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knapper, C. (1997, Winter). Rewards for teaching. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kreutner, L., & and Godfrey, E. (1980—81, Winter). Enrollment management: A
new vehicle for institutional renewal. The College Board Review.

Krotseng, M.V. (1992, Spring). Case study: Using enrollment management to
enhance quality at the University of Hartford. College & University.

Kuh, G.D., & Wallman, G.H. (1986). Outcomes-oriented marketing. Managing
College Enrollments: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lavrakas, P.J. (1987). Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling, Selection, and
Supervision. Applied Social Research Methods Series. Volume 7. Sage Publications:
Newbury Park.

Leatherman, C. (2000, March 3). Despite their gripes, professors are generally
pleased with career, poll ﬁnds. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Volume XLVL
Number 26.

Lind, J. (2001, Winter). Yield: The ﬁve-letter work that means so much. m
Target: The College Boaal. Reston: College Board.

Litten, L.H. (1980). Marketing higher education: A reappraisal. Marketing in
College Admissions: A Broadening of Persmctives. New York: The College Board.

Litten, L.H. (1980). Statement of the sense of the colloquium. Marketing in
College Admissions: A Broadening of Perspectives. New York: The College Board.

Litten, L.H. (1986). Perspectives on pricing. Managing College Enrollments:
New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lolli, A. (1991). Creating an environment in which evaluation-oriented student
information systems can successfully compete for resources. Evaluating Student
Recruitment and Retention Programs: New Directions for In_3titutional Research. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lords, E. (2000, May 19). Community colleges turn to consultants to help them
recruit and retain students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume XLVI. Number
3_7.

Lords, E. (2000, September 22). A Revolution in academic advising at a Texas
community college. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume XLVII, Number 4.

141

Lords, E. (2000, December 15). Diverse factors add up to U-M admission. _T_‘_h_a
Detroit Free Press.

Lovelock, C.H., & Rothschild, ML. (1980). Uses, abuses, and misuses of
marketing in higher education. Marketing in College Admissions: A Brozmémng of
Perspectives. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Mahon, RE. (2001, January 22). College survival in a nutshell. Communig
College Week, Volume 13, Number 12. Fairfax: Cox, Matthews & Associates.

Mathews, K.W. (1990). Allocating resources as a means of inducing and
responding to change. Managing Change in Higher Education: New Directions in Higher
Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McKeachie, W.J. (1982, June). The rewards of teaching. Motivating Professors
to Teach Effectively: New Directiona for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: J ossey-
Bass.

Merante, J.A. (1987, Fall). Organizing to Manage Enrollment. The College
Board Review.

Milliron, M.D., & Miles, CL. (2000, November/December). Education in a
digital democracy. Educause Review. EducasuezBoulder.

Mitton, G. (2000, Winter). Enrollment management/ﬁnancial aid: 13 the fox
guarding the hen house? On Target: Enrollment Management Strategies for the New
Millennium. Number 31. The College Board.

Mortimer, K.P., & Edwards, SR. (1990). A president’s view of the 19903. in
Agenda for the New Decade: New Directicms for Higher Education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Mowday, RT. (1982, June). Expectancy theory approaches to faculty motivation.
Motivating Professors to Teach Effectively: New Direction_s for Teaching and Learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Mudie, HQ (1978, Spring). Identifying and expanding the desirable student

pool. Marketing Higher Education: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

 

Murdock, S.H., Hoque, N. (1999, Winter). Demographic factors affecting higher
education in the United States in the Twenty-First century. Promising Practices in
Recruitment, Remediation, and Retention: New Directions for Higher Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

142

Murray, D. (1991). Monitoring shifts in campus image and recruitment efforts in
small colleges. Evaluating Student Recruitment apd Retention Programs: New
Directions in Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nord, W.R. (1982, June). Behavior modiﬁcation in a loosely coupled system:
Thoughts about motivating teaching performance. Motivating Professors to Teach
Effectively: New Directions for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Orehovec, RM. (2000, Winter). Enrollment management: Past, present, and

future. On Target: Enrollment Management Strategies for the New Millennium, Number
3_1. The College Board.

Pagano, M.F., & Terkla, D.G. (1991). Evaluating the impact of institutional
contacts. Evaluating Student Recruitment and Retention Programs: New Directions for
Institutional Reseaﬂ. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

 

Patten, M. (1998). mlestionnaire Research: A Practiﬁcal Guide. Pyrczak
Publishing: Los Angeles.

Paulsen, M. (1990). College choice: Understanding enrollment behavior. ASHE-
ERIC: Higher Education Rep_ort3. Washington DC.

Pence, J .L. (1990). Adapting faculty personnel policies. Managing Change in
Higher Education: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Peterson’s: 4-Year Collegaa. (1999). Peterson’s: New Jersey.

Petrik, E.V. (1979). “Programs that work at Bellarrnine College. Building
Bridges to the Public: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pollock, C.R., & Wolf, WC. (1989, Summer). The status of enrollment
management programs within four-year institutions of higher education. College and

University.

Rainsford, G.N. (1990). The demographic imperative: Changing to serve

America’s expanding minority population. Managing Change in Higher Education: New
Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rainsman, NA. (2000, October 6). The new age of cyber applicants. _Tpe_
Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume XLVH, Number 6.

Rea, L.M., & Parker, RA. (1997). Designing and Conducting Survey Research:
A Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

143

Roberts, A.O., Wergin, J.F., Adam, BE. (1993, Spring). Institutional approaches
to the issues of reward and scholarship: Recognizing faculty work. Reward Systems for

the Year 2000: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Ross-Black, C. (2000, December). Use a businesslike approach to improve EM ‘
efﬁciency. Enrollment Marargement Report. Volume 4. Issue 9. LRP Publications.

Schmidt, P. (2001, February 2). State budgets indicate lean times for public
colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume XLVII, Number 21.

Schneider, B., & Zalesny, MD. (1982, June). Human needs and faculty
motivation. Motigrting Professors to Tgch Effectively: New Direction_s for Teaching
and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schuster, J .H. (1985, September). Faculty vitality: Observations from the ﬁeld.
Incentives for Faculty Vitality: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: a
Jossey-Bass.

Schuster, J .H. (1990). Faculty issues in the 19903: New realities, new
opportunities. An Agen_d_a for the New Decade: New Directions in Higher Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schmidt, P. (2000, December 15). State higher-education funds rise overall, but
growth slows much of nation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume XLVII,
Number 16.

Selingo, J. (2000, November 17). Facing new missions and rivals, state colleges
seek a makeover. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Volum_e XLVH, Num_ber 12.

Shulman, J .L., & Bowen, W.G. (2001, January 26). How the playing ﬁeld is
encroaching on the Admissions Ofﬁce. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Volume
XLVII Number 20.

 

Slaughter, S. (1985). From serving students to serving the economy: Changing
expectations of faculty role performance. Higher Education.

Smith, J .E. (1998). Recruitment: Student outreach strategies. Handbook for the
College Admissions Profession. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Sperber, M. (2000, October 20). End the mediocrity of our public universities.
The Chronicle of Higher Education.

 

Stauffer, TM. (1990). A university model for the 19903. An Agenda for the New
Decade: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

144

Steeples, D.W. (1990). Concluding Observations. Managing Change in Higher
Education: New Directions in Higher Education. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Stem, C. (2000, Winter). Teaming up: The partnership of presidents and chief
enrollment ofﬁcers. The Lawlor Review, Volume VHI. Number 2.

Sudman, S., & Bradbum, NM. (1974). Response Effects in Surveys. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company.

Sudman, S., & Bradbum, NM. (1983). Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to
Questionnaire Design San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The Chronicle of Higher Education: Almanac Issue, Volume XLVII. Number 1.
(2000, September 1).

The Condition of Education 1997: Teaching workload of full-time postsecondary
faculty. (2000, June 28). Available http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ce/c9743a0l .html. .

Tichenor, R., & Cosgrove, J .J . (1991). Evaluating retention-driven marketing in a
community college: An alternative approach. Evaluarting Student Recruitment gig
Retention Programs: New Directions for Institutional Reseaﬂ. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Treadwell, DR. (1994, November 2). If the numbers don’t look good, dump The
Dean. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Turner, W.H.‘ (1978, Spring). Courting the prospective student. Marketing Higher
Education: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Uehling, BS. (1980). Marketing and the future of institutions. Marketing in
College Admissions: A Broadening of Persmctives. New York: The College Board.

Van Der Werf, M. (1999, July 30). The precarious balancing act as small liberal-
arts colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Volume XLV. Number 47.

Van Der Werf, M. (2000, May 12). The death of a small college. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, Volume XLVI, Number 36.

Veysey, L. (1980). Undergraduate admissions: Past and future. Marketing in
College Admissions: A Broaadening of Perspectives. New York: The College Board.

Walker, B. (2001, Winter). The systematic nature of yield. On Target: The
College Board. Reston: The College Board.

145

 

Ward, K. (1998, Spring). Addressing academic culture: Service learning,
organizations, and faculty work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weirick, MC. (1978). A marketing case history proﬁle. Marketing Higher
Education: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilcox, L. (1991). Evaluating the impact of ﬁnancial aid on student recruitment
and retention. Eyaluating Student Recruitment and Retention Progrms: New Directiona
for Ipatitutiorarl Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Williams, TE. (1986). Optimizing student-institution ﬁt. Managing College
Enrollments: New Directions in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilson, J. (1990). Moving in and moving up: Women in higher education in the
19903”. An Agenda for the New Decade: New Directions in Higher Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilson, R. (2001, January 5). A higher bar for earning tenure. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, Volume XLVII. Number 17.

Windham, D.M. (1980). Marketing, the public interest, and the production of
social beneﬁts in higher education. Marketing in College Admissions: A Broadeningpf
Perspectives. New York: The College Board.

Wood, R.J. (1990). Changing the educational program. Managing Change in
Higher Education: New Directions for Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wowk, M. (2000, December 17). Online education gains favor. The Detroit
News.

146

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

It]!111]]![tlllllltzlllljtlyjtll