INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a m anuscript sent to us for publication and microfilming. While th e m ost advanced technology has been used to pho­ tograph and reproduce this m anuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any m anuscript may have Indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. Manuscripts may not always be complete. When It is not possible to obtain missing pages, a note appears to indicate this. 2. When copyrighted materials are removed from the m anuscript, a note ap­ pears to indfcate this. 3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts] are photographed by sec­ tioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand com er and continu­ ing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or In black and white paper format.* 4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or micro­ fiche b u t lack clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, all photographs are available in black and white standard 35mm slide format.* *For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions, please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department. T TA/f-T Dissertation 1 V A X Information S e r v ic e University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Inform ation C o m p a n y 3 00 N. H e e b R o ad , A nn Arbor, M ichigan 48106 8625069 SHAINK, MARSHALL RICHARD A STUDY OF: iMI CHI GAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENTS' AND TRUSTEES' PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE APPLICATION OF MARKETING PRACTICES TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES Michigan S t a te University University Microfilms International PH.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Mt 48106 Copyright i^ss by SHAINK, MARSHALL RICHARD All Rights Reserved 1986 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed In the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified herewith a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or pages_____ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______ 3. Photographs with dark background_____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e _______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______ 10. s /' Computer printout pages with indistinct print______ 11. Page(s)____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)____________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received 16. tX-" Other_________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International A STUDY OF MICHIGAN OOMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENTS' AND TRUSTEES' PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE APPLICATION OF MARKETING PRACTICES TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES By Marshall Richard Shaink A DISSERTATION Submitted t o Michigan S t a t e Uni versity 1n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e requirements f o r the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1985 COPYRIGHT BY MARSHALL RICHARD SHAINK 1985 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENTS* AND TRUSTEES' PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE APPLICATION OF MARKETING PRACTICES TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES By Marshall Richard Shaink The purpose of the study was t o i d e n t i f y t h e I n t e n s i t y of p e rc eptions held by Michigan community c o lle g e p r e s i d e n t s and t r u s t e e s about marketing functions. A one-page q u e s t io n n a ir e conta in ing 28 m ark etlng-functlon st a te m e n t s was developed and d i s t r i b u t e d t o t h e 29 Michigan community c o lle g e p r e s i d e n t s and t h e 203 community c o lle g e trustees. Usable responses were received from 26 p r e s i d e n t s and 139 t r u s t e e s * y i e l d i n g r e t u r n r a t e s of 89.1$ and 68.5$* r e s p e c t i v e l y . Four research q u e stio n s were posed t o guide th e c o l l e c t i o n of data. Presidents* data were compared t o t r u s t e e s ' data t o I d e n t i f y whether d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between t h e two groups. In addition* data c o l l e c t e d from t h e t r u s t e e s were compared t o t h e i r c o ll e g e s ' rank order as l i s t e d In e i g h t Michigan Department of Education A c tiv ity C l a s s i f i ­ c atio n S t r u c tu r e (ACS) t a b l e s . The e ig h t ACS t a b l e s s e l e c t e d f o r t h e study Included t u i t i o n and f e e revenues per f u l l - y e a r equated st u d e n t (FYES)* op eratio nal tax e s per FYES* s t a t e aid per FYES, "other" general fund revenue per FYES# general fund revenue per FYES# s t a t e - e q u a l i z e d Marshall Richard Shaink v a lu a tio n per FYES# 1 n - d 1 s t r i c t residency percentage# and weighted t u i t i o n rate. The findings I n d ic a te d t h a t c o ll e g e p r e s i d e n t s ’ and t r u s t e e s ' pe rc eptions about market1ng-function st a te m e n t s were very s i m i l a r and p o sitiv e . 1n nature. The two groups tended t o perceive marketing as promotional Two s t a t i s t i c a l l y generated composite d e s c r i p t i o n s of t r u s t e e s and t h e c o ll e g e s of which they were a p a r t were I d e n t i f i e d . Colleges with lower s t a t e equalized va lu a tio n per FYES# lower weighted t u i t i o n r a t e s , and lower s t a t e aid per FYES tended t o have t r u s t e e s who more s t r o n g l y disagreed t h a t I n s t i t u t i o n a l research and s e l e c t i o n of classroom s i t e s for c r e d i t courses held o f f campus a r e marketing functions# but who a ls o agreed t h a t t h e s e l e c t i o n of classroom s i t e s f o r n o n cre dit programs held on campus 1s a marketing fun ctio n. Colleges with lower operational tax e s per FYES# lower s t a t e aid per FYES# higher "other'1 general fund revenues per FYES# and higher general fund re s e r v e s per FYES tended t o have t r u s t e e s who more s t r o n g l y agreed t h a t the design of c r e d i t courses# s e l e c t i o n of c l a s s ­ room s i t e s f o r c r e d i t courses held on campus# and I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of hours t o o f f e r nonc redit programs a re marketing functions# but who a ls o disagreed t h a t I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of days of t h e week t o hold c r e d i t courses 1s a marketing function. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In t h e course of advancing my education t o the doctoral l e v e l , I have received t h e support of many persons and org an ization s. I wish t o thank a l l of them, even 1f t h e i r names are not presented he re . F i r s t , I wish t o acknowledge t h e members of my guidance committee: Drs. Richard E. Gardner (chairman), Robert P. Poland, Louis Romano, and Ca rro ll H, Wamhoff. In a d d it i o n t o t h e i r help 1n t h i s work, each committee member has been Important t o me a t o t h e r c ru c i a l p oin ts 1n my graduate work. I am p a r t i c u l a r l y g r a t e f u l t o Dr. Richard Gardner, who o f f e r e d f r i e n d l y advice, e x c e l l e n t guidance, and freedom of academic p u r s u i t . In a d d it i o n t o my committee, I would l i k e t o acknowledge the c o n t r i b u t i o n s made t o my graduate s t u d i e s by Drs. C l i f f o r d 0. Jump, Lawrence Borosage, Helen H. Green, and Donald R. May 1ebon. A special thought 1s given 1n memory of Donald Maylebon, who was both my Master of Arts academic ad v is o r and a c lo s e friend. Appreciation 1s expressed t o the s p e cia l f r i e n d s and colleagues a t Jackson Community College who of f e r e d t h e i r support, thoughts, and prayers t o t h e f u l f i l l m e n t of my goals. Special a p p re c ia tio n 1s expressed t o Dr. Richard J. Pappas f o r h i s c o n stan t support, encourage­ ment, advice, and frien d sh ip . 1i I would l i k e t o express my g r a t i t u d e t o Susan Cooley for e d i t i n g and typing the f i n a l d r a f t of t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n . She exempli­ f i e s t h e marketing concept through her business p r a c t i c e s . Also# a p p re c i a ti o n 1s given t o Carol France fo r typing t h e rough d r a f t of the study. 1 wish t o acknowledge t h e help and support given t o me by my parents# Raymond and Rebecca# not only throughout my l i f e but during t h e w r i t i n g of t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n as well. Recognition Is a l s o given t o my s i s t e r s # Dorothy Thompson and Florence Lauttamus# and t o my 1n-laws# Louis and Lena Lusk, f o r t h e i r support and love. Finally# I wish t o e xpre ss my deepest a p p re cia tio n t o my wife# Sally# and t o our sons# Rick and Brad. S a l l y 's t r u s t and b e l i e f In me have always been unshakable# and her encouragement and support have been endle ss . II! TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................... vli LIST OF FIG URES..................................................................................................... vt 11 Chapter I. II. III. ....................................................... 1 I n tr o d u c tio n .................................................................................... Statement of t h e Problem ........................................................... Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... Need f o r t h e S t u d y ....................................................................... Purpose of t h e S t u d y ................................................................... Research Questions ........................................................................ D e lim ita tio n s of t h e Study ....................................................... D e f i n i t i o n ........................................................................................ Overview of t h e D i s s e r t a t i o n .................................................. 1 1 2 3 7 8 9 9 10 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE....................................................... 11 In tro d u ctio n .................................................................................... Marketing Advocacy ....................................................................... Opposition t o Marketing ........................................................... Marketing M i x ................................................................................ Prod u c ts/Se rv ic es ................................................................... P l a c e ............................................................................................ P r i c e ............................................................................................ P r o m o t i o n .................................................................................... Marketing Implementation ........................................................... Related Research ............................................................................ 11 11 15 19 19 21 23 25 26 28 DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY................................................................... 38 Research Design ............................................................................ The P o p u l a t i o n s .................... Research Questions ........................................................................ In strum entation ............................................................................ Data-Gather1ng Procedures ....................................................... Data-Ana1ys1s Procedures ........................................................... 38 38 39 40 44 45 PURPOSE OF THE INQUIRY iv Page IV. V. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA......................................................................... 48 I n t r o d u c t i o n ...................................................................................... Purpose of t h e S t u d y ..................................................................... Pop u latio n D a t a ............................................................................. Analysis of Research Question 1 ........................................... P r e s i d e n t s ' Pe r c e p tio n s About Marketlng-Functlon S t a t e m e n t s .................................................................................. T r u s t e e s ' Pe r c e p tio n s About Marketlng-Functlon S t a t e m e n t s .................................................................................. Analysis of Research Question 2 ...................................... Analysis of Research Question 3 ACS 1 ( T u it i o n and Fee Revenues Per FYES) . . . . . ACS 2 (Operational Taxes Per F Y E S )................................... ACS 3 ( S t a t e Aid Per FY ES).................................................. ACS 4 ("Other" General Fund Revenue Per FYES) . . . ACS 5 (General Fund R e v e n u e ) .............................................. ACS 6 ( S t a te - E q u a l iz e d Valuation Per FYES) ................ ACS 7 (I n - D 1 s t r i c t Residency Percentage s) ................ ACS 8 (Weighted T u it i o n R a t e ) .......................................... Reseat Question 4 ..................................................................... M u l U v a r l a t e Test of S i g n i f i c a n c e ................................... D1mens1on-Reduct1on Analysis ............................................... U n i v a ri a te F-T est with 8*000 Degrees of Freedom . . Sta ndardized Canonical V a r ia b l e C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Dependent V a r i a b l e s ............................................................ Stand ard ized Canonical V a r ia b l e C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r C o v a r l a t e s .................................................................................. Regression C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Within C e lls E rro r Term— I n d iv id u a l U n i v a r i a te .95 Confidence I n t e r v a l ...................................................................................... 48 48 49 50 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 55 55 59 67 72 72 72 72 74 74 75 75 76 76 76 77 77 78 79 . . 80 S u m m a r y .............................................................................................. F i n d i n g s .............................................................................................. P r e s i d e n t s ' and T r u s t e e s ' Pe r c e p tio n s About Marketlng-Functlon Statements ....................................... D i f f e r e n c e s Between P r e s i d e n t s ' and T r u s t e e s ' P e r c e p tio n s About Marketlng-Functlon Statements . R e l a ti o n s h ip Between T r u s t e e s ' Pe r c e p tio n s Scores and ACS R a n k i n g s ..................................................................... C o n c l u s i o n s ...................................................................................... Recommendations ......................... For Community College P r e s i d e n t s ....................................... For Community College T r u s t e e s ........................................... For Community College Faculty and S t a f f ...................... 80 81 v 81 82 82 90 92 92 93 93 Page For For For For S t a t e Regulatory Agencies...... ........................................ Uni ve rsity and College Personnel .............................. Other Researchers ........................................................... All I n d i v i d u a l s ............................................................... 94 94 94 94 APPENDICES............................................................................................................. 96 A. CORRESPONDENCE AND QUESTIONNAIRE................................................ 97 B. ACTIVITY CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE(ACS) DATA ......................... 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ vi 116 L IS T OF TABLES T a b !e 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Page Rank Ordering of Marketlng-Functlon Statements From Strongest Agreement (Lowest Mean Score) t o S trongest Disagreement (Highest Mean Score): P re s i d e n ts and T ru stee s ................................................................................ 53 Rank Ordering of Marketing Function Statements From Greatest Consensus (Lowest Standard Deviation Score) t o Least Consensus (Highest Standard Deviation Score): P r e s i d e n ts and T rustees ................................................................ 54 Rank Ordering of Marketlng-Functlon Statements From Strongest Agreement (Lowest Mean Score) and G re ates t Consensus (Lowest Standard Deviation Score) t o Stro n ge st Disagreement (Highest Mean Score) and Least Consensus (Highest Standard Deviation Score): P r e s i d e n t s ............................................................................................. 56 Rank Ordering of Marketlng-Functlon Statements From Strongest Agreement (Lowest Mean Score) and G re ates t Consensus (Lowest Standard Deviation Score) t o S tr o n g e st Disagreement (Highest Mean Score) and Least Consensus (Highest Standard Deviation Score): T rust ees . 57 Results of Student D i s t r i b u t i o n T-Test Comparison Between L1kert-Scale Values of P r e s i d e n t s ' and T r u s t e e s ' Perceptio ns About Marketlng-Functlon S t a t e m e n t s ............................................................................................. 60 Cross-Tabulation of Responses* by Quadrant and by Statement: P r e s i d e n ts andTrust ees ............................................. 64 Comparison of ACS Ranked Groups by Quest ionnaire Statement: T rust ees ........................................................................ 69 ACS Numerical Rank Standing of Michigan Community Colleges* by ACS G r o u p .................................................................... 70 vi i L IS T OF FIGURES F1gure 1. Page P a t t e r n of Responses t o H k e r t Scale Between Questionnaire Versions A and B .............................................. vl l l 51 CHAPTER I PURPOSE OF THE INQUIRY Introduction Much has been w r i t t e n about t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of marketing p r a c t i c e s t o community c o ll e g e s . Authors vary widely 1n t h e i r opinio ns concerning t h e b e n e f i t s t h a t m arke ting tec h n iq ue s provide 1n h e lp ing t h e c o l l e g e achieve I t s mission. On one s i d e a r e I n d i v i d u a l s who a s s e r t t h a t In creased c o l l e g e e n r o l l m e n t s and revenues can be generated by applying a w e l l- p la n n e d marketing e f f o r t . On t h e o t h e r sid e a re th o se who recommend t h a t m arketing be l e f t t o t h e b u sin e ss s e c t o r because using m arke ting t e c h n iq u e s would erode t h e edu cational e x c e l­ lenc e of a c olleg e . The m a j o r it y of t h e l i t e r a t u r e * however* advocates t h a t c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s adopt marketing tec hnique s. Whether c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s adopt m arketing tec h niq ue s and t h e degree t o which t h e s e p r a c t i c e s a r e a p p li e d depend g r e a t l y on t h e p e rc e p t i o n s held by community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s and t r u s t e e s about t h e adoption of marketing p r a c t i c e s . Those p e r c e p t i o n s a r e t h e focus of the p r e s e n t study. Statement of Problem The marketing work of a c o l l e g e does not begin 1n t h e adm issio ns o f f i c e but 1n t h e o f f i c e s of t h e p r e s i d e n t and t h e board o f I 2 trustees. The c o ll e g e 's top policymakers must a r t i c u l a t e a mission and a purpose for t h e colleg e t h a t makes sense 1n l i g h t of I t s history* resources* opportunities* and competitio n (Kotler* 1976). The board's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 1s t o know what the community wants* t o understand the ongoing problems a f f e c t i n g t h e I n s t i t u t i o n * and t o fo rm ula te p o l i c i e s accord ingly (Pappas & Ritter* 1983). To date* data do not e x i s t t h a t show t h e r e l a t i v e s t r e n g th of agreement among p r e s i d e n t s and t r u s t e e s about the a p p l i c a t i o n of marketing p r a c t i c e s t o community colleges. The p res en t study was an attempt t o g ath er such data. Background The concept of higher education adopting business marketing p r a c t i c e s t o help I d e n t i f y and d e l i v e r t h e p r o d u c t/se r v ic e t h a t matches s tu d e n ts ' needs 1s no t new. Frances Way land* p r e s i d e n t of Brown University 1n 1850* wrote: Our c o ll e g e s a r e not f i l l e d because we do not f urn ish t h e education desired by people— I s 1 t not time t o In qu ire whether we might fur nish an a r t i c l e f o r which t h e demand w i l l be* a t least* somewhat remunerative? ( c i t e d 1n Hofstader* 1952* p. 25) Kotler (1983) I d e n t i f i e d t h e key busine ss-marketing f a c t o r 1n developing customer l o y a l t i e s and s a t i s f a c t i o n as the ne ce ssity t o c r e a t e t h e products t h a t people need. Schools a r e formed t o serve students* but as they evolve* many sc hools lo se s i g h t of t h e i r o r i g i n a l mandate and allow t h e b u rea u cra tic m e n t a l i ty t o supersede t h e o r i g in a l goal. Wolf (1973) pointed o u t that* t o succeed In reaching I n s t i t u ­ t i o n a l goals* managers must " I d e n t i f y t h e b e st p r o d u c t / s e r v ic e match 3 with the market need" (p. 2). l i g h t of I t s mission. The I n s t i t u t i o n must be examined 1n Kotler (1983) noted: For an o r g a n iz a tio n t o remain viable# I t s management must provide fo r p e rio d ic a u d i t s o f I t s objectives# resources# and opportuni­ t i e s . I t must re-examine I t s basic business# t a r g e t groups# d i f ­ f e r e n t i a l advantages# communication channels# and messages 1n l i g h t of c u r r e n t tr e n d s and needs. I t might r e -o rg a n iz e whenchange 1s needed and make 1 t b e f o r e 1 t 1s t o o l a t e . (p. 9) The l i t e r a t u r e on t h e marketing of no n p ro fit org an iz atio n s appears t o have evolved from general t o s p e c i f i c from t h e l a t e 1960s through t h e l a t e 1970s. During t h e l a t e 1960s and e a r l y 1970s# authors discussed the general r o l e of marketing 1n higher education. Toward t h e end of t h e 1970s# w r i t e r s a pp lied s p e c i f i c and highly q u a n t i t a t i v e models t o examine the c o lleg e process (Murphy & McGarrlty# 1980). Need fo r t h e Study Colleges have faced div erse co n d itio n s 1n t h e 1960s# 1970s# and 1980s. In t h e 1960s# many more young people applied t o c o lle g e s than could be admitted (Macnow# 1981). Today# however# c o ll e g e s are s t r u g g l i n g with t h e c l a s s i c marketing problems of s a l e s decline# slow growth# changing buying patterns# Increased competition# and in creased s a l e s expenditure. Restating t h e marketing problems 1n c o llege vocabulary y i e l d s a 11st t h a t Include s de clin ing overall enrollments# Increasing o p e ra ting costs# erosion of t h e tax base and sources of funds# In creasin g competition from o t h e r c o ll e g e s and a l t e r n a t i v e s t o higher education# and changing wants and needs of t h e marketplace (Kotler & Goldgehn# 1981). 4 In terms of enrollments* t h e t r a d i t i o n a l source of co lleg e s tu d e n ts—high school gradua tes— I s declining. Already* t h e r e has been a 22% drop in t h e number of c o lle g e - a g e youths In t h e United States* and f o r e c a s t e r s expect t h e r e w ill be f i v e m i l l i o n fewer teenagers by 1992. In a market of 12.4 m i l l i o n students* t h e t o t a l United S t a te s c o lle g e enrollment 1n 1982* a l o s s of f i v e m i l l i o n p o t e n t i a l customers obviously w i l l have a major e f f e c t (Beckett* 1985). Compounding the d e clin e 1n the tr a d 1 t1 o n a l- a g e c o l l e g e - s t u d e n t population 1s t h e e f f e c t t h e 1979-1982 rec essio n had on Michigan's economy (Task Force* 1984). Perhaps Michigan community colleges* compared t o o t h e r two-year c o ll e g e s throughout t h e United States* were more se verely a f f e c t e d as a r e s u l t of t h e damage t o t h e s t a t e ' s economic base. In 1983* Michigan lawmakers c a l l e d f o r a re-examination of the s t a t e ' s c o ll e g e system. This review could lead t o th e c lo s in g of some I n s t i t u t i o n s due t o de clin in g en ro llm e n ts and diminishing res ou rces (Macnow* 1983). F o r e c a ste rs have pro jecte d t h a t between 1980 and 2010* Michigan's population w i l l grow o l d e r as t h e number of young people declines* t h e number of ol der people grows* and th e baby boom genera­ t i o n of t h e 1950s and 1960s moves f i r s t Into adulthood and l a t e r Into middle age. The median age o f Michigan r e s i d e n t s was 28.8 1n 1960 and 1s e x p e c t e d t o reach 31.6 y e a r s 1n 1990* 34.2 y e a r s 1n 2000* and 35.9 y e ars 1n 2010 (Michigan Department of Management and Budget* 1985). Further exacerbating Michigan community c o l l e g e s ' p l i g h t was an unemployment r a t e of 17% In 1984. The h 1g h e r- t h a n -n a t lo n a l - a v e ra g e 5 unemployment r a t e was a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e 1979-1982 re c essio n (Task Force# 1985). What Is noteworthy about Michigan's unemployment r a t e Is t h a t since 1978 nearly one-th1rd of t h e 750#000 people working 1n automobile manufacturing or r e l a t e d Jobs l o s t t h e i r p o sitio ns. In 1983# f o r e c a s t e r s pred ic te d t h a t 150#000 of t h o s e workers would never regain t h e i r jobs (Lansing S t a t e J o u r n a l . December 18# 1983). Based on th e 1984 t o t a l work fo rce of f o u r m i l l i o n people# nearly one m i l l i o n (25%) worked 1n manufacturing I n d u s t r i e s . More than 550#000 of them worked f o r companies supplying t h e automobile I n d ustry (Task Force# 1985). At a tim e when Michigan c o ll e g e s a r e faced with de clin ing enrollment# due t o a decrease 1n the tr a d 1 t1 o n a l- a g e c o ll e g e - s t u d e n t population# many old er c i t i z e n s a r e l o s i n g t h e i r jo b s and leaving t h e s t a t e ((Michigan Department of Management and Budget# 1985). In May 1985# Michigan was named t h e s t a t e with t h e h i g h e s t out-m1grat1on r a t e In th e nation. Ten of t h e 20 c o u n ties l i s t e d as having t h e h i g h e s t negative population growth were In Michigan. Added t o t h e 11st of problems facing community c o lle g e s 1s competitio n from a n o n t r a d l tl o n a l educational source—t h e business community. As c o rp o r a tio n s have assumed g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r educating t h e i r employees# they have begun t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r own c o ll e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . According t o Industry estimates# about 400 business s i t e s now Include a build ing la b e le d "college#” "un iversity# ” " I n s t i t u t e # " or "education c enter" (Watkins# 1983). Many c o rp o ra te educational I n s t i t u t i o n s o f f e r t h e same range of cours es a v a i l a b l e a t 6 t r a d i t i o n a l colleg es. Recently* a few f ir m s have begun t o o f f e r t r a d i t i o n a l graduate programs. They have received approval from s t a t e education agencies—and* 1n some cases* regional a c c r e d i t i n g agencies— to o f f e r advanced academic degrees (Watkins* 1983). James Llchtenberg* s e n i o r v i c e - p r e s i d e n t of a pu blic r e l a t i o n s firm* said, "Even though marketing I s ta u g h t 1n most colleges* as I n s t i t u t i o n s they don't have any experience 1n dealin g In a c o m p e titiv e market" ("Colleges Must Sell Themselves*" 1985* p. A7). Michigan's community c o ll e g e p r e s i d e n t s have been assessin g t h e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e i r I n s t i t u t i o n ' s a b i l i t y t o gain ad ditio nal revenue from enrollments* s t a t e aid, mlllages* and o th e r sources. One c o ll e g e p r e s i d e n t wrote: As a r e s u l t of s i g n i f i c a n t changes 1n Michigan's demographics* th e changing needs of the i n d u s t r i a l and business workforce, and th e sev ere f i n a n c ia l recession t h a t has Impacted t h e e n t i r e s t a t e , I t 1s Important t h a t the c o l l e g e refocus I t s v i s i o n of t h e future. In so doing 1 t w i l l be b e t t e r ab le t o serve t h e needs of business* industry* government* and youth and a d u l t s seeking education and t r a i n i n g f o r jobs 1n Michigan. (Gannon* 1984, p. 1) In t h e s e tim es of decreasing enrollm e n ts and In creasin g f i s c a l pr e s su r e s, c o ll e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s need t o employ t h e most e f f e c t i v e management p r a c t i c e s (Mark* 1984). The a p p l i c a t i o n of marketing s t r a t e g i e s and s t r a t e g i c planning enables c o lle g e s t o ensure t h e i r continued e x is te n c e by a t t r a c t i n g new consumers and I d e n t i f y i n g poten­ t i a l t h r e a t s t o t h e college* such as community apathy* reduction 1n s t a t e funding, and competition from o t h e r I n s t i t u t i o n s (Sc1g11ano* 1980). 7 In disc ussing t h e education of a board member# Montana (1978) wrote t h a t "although some non-marketing business people do have a knowledge of marketing# most boards of t r u s t e e s of n o n - p r o f i t organiza­ t i o n s are composed of people who do not understand t h e basic elements of modern marketing" (p. 51). Kotler (1976), a noted author on t h e s u b j e c t of marketing In the no nprofit sector# cautioned# "As c o ll e g e s begin t o accept marketing r e s p o n s i b i li t y # many of them plunge I n t o 1t 1n an ex cessiv e and misguided way# equating marketing with hard s e l l ­ ing" (p. 55). T r a n s l a ti n g marketing concepts t o t h e n o n p r o f it s e c t o r has been hindered by t h e paucity of conceptual work 1n t h i s area (Rathmell# 1974). Researchers need t o explo re t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between public and p r i v a t e community colleges# between urban and ru ral community colleges# between developing and w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d community colleges# and between s t a t e and l o c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d community colleges# as well as a v a r i e t y of ot her c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t might a l t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of market­ ing s t r a t e g i e s and r e l a t e d comprehensive planning techniques. In t h e absence of such research# broad st a te m e n t s about t h e b e n e f i t s of Imple­ menting marketing 1n community c o ll e g e s are not only naive# but may be dangerous# as well (Richardson & Doucette# 1981). Purpose of t h e Study The I n v e s t i g a t o r had four major purposes In conducting t h i s study: 8 1. t o I d e n t i f y t h e p e r c e p t i o n s he ld by community c o ll e g e p r e s i d e n t s and members of boards of t r u s t e e s about t h e va rio u s marketing tec h n iq u e s t h a t can be a p p lie d t o a community c o l l e g e . 2. t o compare t h e average p e rc ep tio n s c o r e s , by m ark etln g- fun ctlon s t a te m e n t , of community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s and members o f boards of t r u s t e e s t o determ ine 1f s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ­ ences e x i s t between t h e two groups 1n term s of t h e i r p e rc eption s. 3. t o compare t h e average pe rception sc o r e s , by c o l l e g e and by m a r k e tl n g - f u n c t l o n s t a te m e n t , of members of boards of t r u s t e e s t o e i g h t Independent v a r i a b l e s t o se e what types o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t . 4. t o f a c t o r analyze a l l data c o l l e c t e d on t h e members of t h e boards of t r u s t e e s t o d e t e c t I f a p a t t e r n of response s emerges. Resaar.ch. Questions Hie w r i t e r posed fo ur broad r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s t o guide t h e c o l l e c t i o n of data f o r t h i s study. The data respo ndents provided on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and In form atio n c o l l e c t e d from a u t h o r i t a t i v e sou rc es were used t o answer t h e s e q u e s t io n s : 1. What p e r c e p t i o n s do Michigan community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s and members of t h e boards of t r u s t e e s hold about each of t h e m ark e tl n g - f u n c t l o n s t a t e m e n t s , as contain ed 1n t h e study q u e s t i o n n a i r e ? 2. What d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between community c o l l e g e p r e s i ­ dents ' and t r u s t e e s ' p e r c e p t i o n s about each of t h e m a r k e tl n g - f u n c t l o n sta te m e n ts? 3. What 1s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e average m a r k e tln g f u n c t i o n - p e r c e p t l o n s c o res of members of t h e board o f t r u s t e e s of each c o l l e g e and t h e i r c o l l e g e ’s numerical rank on e i g h t Michigan community c o l l e g e a c t i v i t y - c l a s s i f l c a t i o n structures? 9 4. What I s t h e p a t t e r n of response s of t h e members of t h e boards of t r u s t e e s * based on a l l t h e data c o l l e c t e d ? D e l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e Study The study was d e l i m i t e d t o t h e 29 p r e s i d e n t s of Michigan commu­ n i t y c o l l e g e s (Population I) and t o t h e 203 members of t h e boards of t r u s t e e s of Michigan's 29 community c o l l e g e s (Population I I ) . Indi­ v i d u a l s 1n t h o s e p o s i t i o n s were s e l e c t e d f o r t h e study because they represent* res p e c tiv e ly * t h e community c o l l e g e s ' c h i e f o p e r a t in g o f f i ­ c e r s and p o lic y makers. Both groups have c o n s i d e r a b le I n flu en c e over t h e I n s t i t u t i o n s ' adoption and a p p l i c a t i o n of marketing f u n c t i o n s . Community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s ' and t r u s t e e s ' p e r c e p tio n s o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of marketing p r a c t i c e s t o a c o l l e g e a r e Influenced by d i v e r s e and complex v a r i a b l e s . Such f a c t o r s might Include* but a r e not l i m i t e d to* t h e members' p r e s e n t and p a s t o c cu patio n s; ed u ca tio n al achievement; and peer-* s o d a ! - * and p r o f e s s l o n a l - g r o u p communications. Because o t h e r u n c o n tr o l le d v a r i a b l e s exis t* a s well* t h e study was d e l i m i t e d t o a n a l y s i s of t h e two p op u latio n s' marketing p e r c e p t i o n s as r e l a t e d t o t h e f o l lo w in g ranking c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : t u i t i o n and f ee revenues per f u l l y e a r equated s t u d e n t (FYES)* ope ra tio n a l t a x e s per FYES* s t a t e a id per FYES* "other" general fund revenue per FYES* general fund revenue per FYES* s t a t e - e q u a l 1 z e d v a l u a t i o n per FYES* I n - d l s t r i c t residency percentage* and weighted t u i t i o n r a t e . Definition The term "marketing" 1s defined h e re In t h e c o n te x t In which 1 t 1s used In t h i s study. According t o K o tler (1975)* m arketing I s : 10 t h e analysis* planning, Implementation and con trol of c a r e f u l l y formulated programs designed t o bring about voluntary exchanges of valu es with t a r g e t markets f o r t h e purpose of achieving organiza­ tio n a l o b j e c ti v e s . I t r e l i e s h eav ily on designing t h e organiza­ t i o n ' s o f f e r i n g In term s of t h e t a r g e t markets' needs and d e s i r e s , and on using e f f e c t i v e p ricin g , communication, and d i s t r i b u t i o n t o inform, motivate and s e r v i c e t h e markets, (p. 5) Overview o f t h e D i s s e r t a t i o n Chapter I contained an In tr o d u c tio n t o and a background of t h e study. The purposes and research q u e stio n s of the study were s t a t e d , and t h e d e l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e research were s e t forth. Chapter I I c on ta in s a review of l i t e r a t u r e on marketing r e l a t i v e t o community colleges. A d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e design and procedures used 1n conduct­ ing the study may be found In Chapter I I I . r e s u l t s of t h e data a n a ly sis. Chapter IV c o nta in s t h e Findings and conclusions of t h e study, as well as recommendations f o r f u r t h e r research, a re Included 1n C h a p te r V. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Intro d u ctio n The purpose of t h e l i t e r a t u r e review 1s t o give a broad overview of t h e marketing l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i v e t o community colleges. Included 1n t h e review 1s l i t e r a t u r e d e sc r ib in g marketing e f f o r t s as app lied t o higher education; n o n p r o f it o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; and junior# community# and technic al co lleg e s. The c hapter 1s divided I n t o f i v e s e c tio n s ; marketing advocacy# op p o sitio n t o marketing# t h e marketing mix# market­ ing Implementation# and r e l a t e d research e f f o r t s . Marketing Advocacy The basic reason a n o n p r o f i t o rg an iz atio n should be I n t e r e s t e d 1n formal marketing p r i n c i p l e s 1s t h a t applying such techniques enables t h e org an iz atio n t o be more e f f e c t i v e 1n achieving I t s o b j e c t i v e s (Kotler# 1975). "More and more n o n - p r o f i t o rg a n i z a t i o n s are coming t o t h e r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t they must begin t o apply marketing s t r a t e g i e s and tec hniques t o t h e i r sp e c i a l f i e l d of a c t iv i t y # 1f they are t o succeed 1n se rving t h e s o c i e t y t h a t Is supporting them" (Wagner# 1978# p. 38). As an adopted and o f ten misunderstood process# marketing has generated# q u i t e unexpectedly# a win dfall opportunity f o r community c o l l e g e s t o pause and r e a f f i r m themselves# t h e i r missions# and any overlooked 11 12 o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o serve t h e i r communities. The vigorous* brave, and c r e a t i v e c o llege w i l l use t h i s marketing opportunity as a tim e of r en a issa n ce (Kelm, 1981). I f a s y s te m a t i c marketing plan 1s adminis­ t e r e d , 1t w i l l , by I t s comprehensive nature, r e s u l t In a p e n e t r a t i n g a n a l y s i s of the c o l l e g e 's mission, programs, and se rvice s. By employ­ ing a good marketing plan, c o ll e g e s can be Improved (Kelm, 1981). Marketing o f f e r s two s p e c i f i c b e n e f i t s t o I t s p r a c t i t i o n e r s : improved s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e t a r g e t market and improved e f f i c i e n c y 1n marketing a c t i v i t i e s (Kotler, 1975). Many I n s t i t u t i o n s have a l t e r e d t h e i r educational product t o appeal t o d i f f e r e n t segments of t h e market (Murphy & McGarrlty, 1978). Otto (1979) s t a t e d t h a t community c o ll e g e s should adopt t h e marketing philosophy of p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e t o discover and meet t h e u n s a t i s f i e d needs of n o n t r a d l tl o n a l c l i e n t s , Including I n d i v id u a ls who r e q u i r e s p e c i f i c courses t o meet Immediate occupational needs, o ld er a d u l t s who d e s i r e t o f i l l educational gaps caused by c a r e e r or family o b l ig a t io n s , and I n d i v id u a ls whose work schedules n e c e s s i t a t e a very f l e x i b l e c l a s s program. Through a properly conceived and a dm in istere d marketing pro­ cess, the understanding of t h e co lleg e s e l e c t i o n process 1s s t r e n g t h ­ ened, as 1s t h e d e liv ery of q u a l i t y educational se rv ice s. In f a c t , e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t marketing Involves more than s e l l i n g an I n s t i ­ t u t i o n ' s program through e l a b o r a t e p u b l i c i t y (Laabs, Hotes, & M i l le r , 1983). 1976). The aim of marketing 1s t o make s e l l i n g unnecessary (Kotler, 13 Contemporary marketing l i t e r a t u r e has e x t o l l e d t h e v i r t u e s of using a marketing pe rs pec tiv e t o f a c i l i t a t e deliv ery of t h e s e r v i c e s of n o n p r o f i t o r g an iz atio n s t o t h e i r consuming and donating pu b lic s (Davis & Joyce, 1981). Krachenberg (1972) maintained t h a t u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s are engaged 1n marketing a c t i v i t y , no m atter what 1 t 1s c a l l e d , who does 1t» or where 1n t h e I n s t i t u t i o n 1t 1s being done. Kotler (1975) emphasized t h e need f o r marketing In n o n p r o f it organizations: Marketing, f a r from being a management tool of e x clu siv e I n t e r e s t t o business e s t a b l is h m e n t s , has a g r e a t relevance to the problems and ch alle n g es facing t h e n o n - p r o f it organization. All organiza­ t i o n s depend upon exchange r e l a t i o n s t o a t t r a c t resou rces they need, t o convert them I n to useful products and s e r v i c e s , and t o d i s t r i b u t e them e f f i c i e n t l y t o t a r g e t markets. Marketing 1s a suppl-ementlc approach t o planning and achieving d esired exchange r e l a t i o n s with o th er groups. Marketing 1s concerned with develop­ ing, maintaining, and/c r r e g u la tin g exchange r e l a t i o n s Involving products, s e r v i c e s , o rg an iz atio n s, persons, places or causes. (p. 13) Marketing higher education 1s a fr e q u e n t ly used s t r a t e g y t o combat dwindling resources and d e c lin in g enro llments. P a r t i c u l a r l y 1n t h e community c o lle g e , which by d e f i n i t i o n 1s committed t o serving community needs, marketing seems an i n e v i t a b l e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e re s p o n si­ b i l i t y (Creamer & Akins, 1981). Marketing I n v i t e s change (Kelm, 1979). Although t h i s may be manifested most obviously In a change In s t u d e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h e e f f e c t w i l l a ls o resound through changes 1n I n s t r u c t i o n a l programs and s e r v i c e s t o changes 1n fa c u lty a t t i t u d e s and behavior. Marketing w i l l f i n a l l y r e s u l t 1n fundamental changes In t h e m issions of s p e c i f i c I n s t i t u t i o n s and in t h e very natu re of higher education (Creamer & Akins, 1981). 14 According t o Leach (1977-78), t h e Implementation of a marketing o r i e n t a t i o n 1n community c o l l e g e s 1s expected t o provide t h e fo llo w in g benefits: * C olle ges w i l l be much more s e n s i t i v e t o and knowledgeable about community edu catio n needs. * C olle ges w i l l abandon t h e a t t e m p t t o be a l l t h i n g s t o a l l people and w i l l seek d i f f e r e n t i a t e d niches 1n t h e market. Each c o l l e g e s e r v i c i n g a community w ill focus on p rovidin g t h o s e s e r v i c e s and programs t h a t a r e most needed an d/o r t h a t are c o m p e t i t i v e l y viable. * Colle ges w i l l be q u i c k e r t o drop s e r v i c e s and programs 1n which they have no c o m p e titiv e advantage or d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s t o o f f e r . * Colle ges w i l l be more capa ble In developing and launching su c c e ss f u l new s e r v i c e s and programs. * C olle ges w i l l c r e a t e more e f f e c t i v e systems of d i s t r i b u t i n g and d e l i v e r i n g t h e i r programs and s e r v i c e s . * Colle ges w i l l develop more c r e a t i v e approaches t o p r i c i n g . * Colle ges w i l l c r e a t e more student* faculty * and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s a t i s f a c t i o n , (pp. 20* 24) College p r e s i d e n t s a r e beginning t o r e a l i z e t h a t even though t h e i r I n s t i t u t i o n s ’ m is s i o n s a re understood, supported* and a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s i t u a t i o n s , and even though t h e i r c o l l e g e s o f f e r q u a l i t y academic programs, t h e s e f e a t u r e s a r e w o r t h l e s s u n les s t h e In s titu tio n s 1 availability* academic strength* and c a r e e r b e n e f i t s a r e e f f e c t i v e l y communicated t o t h e p u b l ic (Losher & M i l l e r , 1981). academ ician s p e rc e iv e marketing as ant1-academ1c. Many Yet nothing 1s more su p p o r t i v e of t h e academic e n t e r p r i s e than 1s marketing (LeTarte, 1985). At t h e 1985 American A s soc ia tio n of Community and J u n i o r Col­ le g e s convention* t h e m arke ting conference was t h e most s u c c e s s f u l preconvention workshop (Trevlsan, 1985). The P r e s i d e n t ' s Economic Development and Job T rainin g Network S t e e r i n g Committee c i t e d t h e development of a s t a t e w i d e community c o l l e g e marketing and Imageb u i ld i n g plan as i t s number-one p r i o r i t y (Elderveld* 1985). 15 The primary purpose of marketing 1s t o Increas e t h e community's awareness of t h e c o ll e g e through more and b e t t e r information, with the I n t e n t i o n of a t t r a c t i n g new s t u d e n ts and s a t i s f y i n g c u r r e n t ones (Daly & Bateman, 1979). However, marketing concepts and techniques must be evaluated re g u l a r ly t o ensure t h a t they a re b e n eficial t o t h e c olleg e , I t s stu d e n ts , and t h e community 1t serves (Myran & Ralph, 1981). .Opposition-to Marketing Three c r i t i c i s m s are o f t e n lev e le d a t no n pro fit o r g an iz atio n s t h a t adopt marketing p r a c t i c e s : t h a t marketing wastes t h e pu b lic 's money, t h a t marketing a c t i v i t y 1s I n t r u s i v e , and t h a t marketing 1s manipulative (Kotler, 1975). The preponderance of a r t i c l e s opposing marketing a c t i v i t y In th e n o n p r o f it o rg an iz atio n concern t h e manipula­ t i v e na tu re of marketing. Philosophers such as P lato , A r i s t o t l e , and Aquinas thought of merchants as unproductive and unexquisite. Mer­ chants were seen as tak in g advantage of h e lp l e s s customers by buying "cheap" and s e l l i n g "dear" (Kotler, 1975). The term "marketing" 1s a loaded one f o r many Americans; 1 t evokes v i s i o n s of hucksters who use loathsome and I r r e s p o n s i b l e means t o s e l l w orthless products (Kelm, 1981). Lovelock (1980) observed t h a t most academic a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' responses t o t h e proposal of I n t e g r a t i n g business marketing s t r a t e g i e s I n to t h e h a l l s of academia ranged from "Inap propriate" t o unnecessary" (p. 3 1 ). Krachenberg (1972) emphasized t h a t marketing 1s alm ost always viewed as s o le ly a business a c t i v i t y . Many educational a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 16 have a ls o argued t h a t "the u n i v e r s it y s e t t i n g 1s d i f f e r e n t from th e business one and therefore# t h e tec hniques used 1n business by and l a r g e are not a p p r o p r i a te fo r the u n i v e r s it y " (Berry & George# 1975# p. 8). For years# a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have kept marketing out of t h e i r r e c r u i tm e n t e f f o r t s because they f e l t such a c t i v i t y was uneth ical and Immoral (Ivens# 1977). P o r t u g a l (1979) claimed# "Some have . . . gone so f a r as t o label educational marketing academic heresy" (p. 76). A senior vice- p r e s i d e n t fo r a public r e l a t i o n s firm supported educational marketing but feared t h a t "some scho o ls w i l l go so f a r t h a t marketing higher education w i l l be no d i f f e r e n t than IBM marketing a new computer prod­ uct" (Colleges Must Sell Themselves#" 1985# p. A7). The National Association of College Admissions Counselors has opposed t h e use of unethical marketing p r a c t i c e s (NACAC# 1975-76). Marketing c r i t i c s have warned t h a t t h e government could In terv ene through r e g u la tin g f a l s e a d v e r t i s i n g and product m is r e p r e s e n ta ti o n (Gollattscheck# 1981# p. 100). In r e f e r r i n g t o educational I n s t i t u t i o n s using marketing a c t i v i t i e s t o survive# Shulman (1976) stated# "There may well be misgivings about some of t h e ste p s I n s t i t u t i o n s have taken t o survive# e.g.# c o lle g e s accep tin g s t u d e n ts f o r whom they do not have a p p r o p r i a te educational programs# and program o f f e r i n g s t h a t border on hucksterlsm" (pp. 37-38). Kotler (1976) gave f i v e examples of c o ll e g e s t h a t plunged i n t o marketing 1n an excessive and misguided manner: One c o lle g e passed o u t promotional f r l s b e e s t o s t u d e n ts on sp rin g break 1n F o rt Lauderdale. 17 A mldwestern c o lleg e s e n t f i r s t - c o n t a c t l e t t e r s t o high school s t u d e n t s —based on alumni recommendations— reading "Congratula­ tions! You've been accepted." North Kentucky S t a t e University planned t o r e l e a s e 103 balloons f i l l e d with sc h o l a r s h i p o f f e r s , but canceled t h e plans because of adverse r e a c t i o n . St. Joseph's College 1n Indiana o f f e r e d undergraduate stu d e n ts r e b a te s of 5100 f o r each new s t u d e n t who a c t u a l l y e n r o l l e d — up t o a l i m i t of t h e stu d e n t r e c r u i t e r ' s t o t a l t u i t i o n . They discontinued t h i s . . . p r a c t i c e a f t e r much c r i t i c i s m from c o lle g e s acro ss the country. One educational c o n s u l t a n t suggested half-Jok1ngly t h a t c o l­ leg e s' f u t u r e s a l e s tec hnique s may Include money-back guarantees for cou rses and p r o f e s s o r s not Hke d and slogans such as "559.95 a c r e d i t hour— none priced lower." (p. 55) Marketing 1s a l s o viewed as I n tr u d in g I n t o t h e educational Institution. Changes brought about because of marketing may be u n s a t i s f a c t o r y t o students . Students who had been t h e primary focus of t h e I n s t i t u t i o n may r e s e n t not only the new s t u d e n t s themselves but a l s o t h e changes 1n t h e I n s t i t u t i o n t h a t have occurred because of th e new stu d e n ts (Gol lattscheck, 1981). I f marketing goes awry, the I n s t i t u t i o n changes 1n ways e i t h e r unexpected or undesired by th e f a c u l t y ; t h e r e s u l t s may range from discomfort and erosion of morale t o o u t r i g h t r e b e l l i o n (G ollatts ch e ck , 1981). Creamer and Akins (1981) described t h e problems t h a t can a r i s e from marketing. F i r s t , t h e r e 1s t h e "Enroll Them F i r s t Then Decide I f I t Was a Good Idea" syndrome. When Information 1s glamorized or manipulated t o appeal t o an audience, s t u d e n ts a re l i k e l y t o e n ro ll with u n r e a l i s t i c or unfounded e x p e c ta tio n s of what a c o ll e g e can do f o r them. dents. The second p o t e n t i a l hazard I s t h e P r e ss u r e of Cooling (n Stu­ This occurs when f a c u l t y and s t a f f go t o unusual l e n g th s t o keep s t u d e n ts e n ro l l e d , even a t t h e r i s k of lowering academic 18 standards. Third I s t h e Focus on Recruitment of Students. When mar­ k eting fo r enro llm en t becomes a dominant pressure# student-development p r o f e s s i o n a l s may be seen e x clu siv ely as a manpower pool stand ing ready t o be formed i n t o an army of r e c r u i te r s # led by t h e d i r e c t o r of market­ ing. Fourth 1s t h e hazard of Promises# Promises# Promises. Although 1t 1s p o t e n t i a l l y unethical t o d i s t r i b u t e I n accurate Information about a c ollege or t o r e c r u i t stu de n ts who cannot b e n e f i t from t h e c o llege offerings# 1t 1s p o s s ib l e t h a t even t h e best-1ntent1oned marketing programs w i l l mislead p o t e n t i a l students. Displacement of Educational Values. A f i f t h problem 1s t h e When t h e t r a d i t i o n a l values of a faculty-dominated e n t e r p r i s e a r e nudged aside t o be replaced with th e values of a manager-dominated ente rpris e# a fundamental c la sh Is l i k e l y t o onsue. Sixth 1s t h e p o t e n t i a l Money Shortage. Money spent on bringing In new s t u d e n ts cannot be used t o Improve the q u a l i t y of counseling# teaching, and research. Resistance t o Change. The l a s t p o t e n t i a l hazard 1s Neither people nor t h e i r I n s t i t u t i o n s change easily. Some c r i t i c s feel t h a t educational marketing wastes t h e p u b l i c 's money. S t a t e l e g i s l a t o r s # faced with dwindling tr e a su r ie s # a r e beginning t o suspect t h a t c o ll e g e marketing a c t i v i t i e s a r e c o s t l y t o t h e p u b l ic fund and may not be t o t a l l y e t h i c a l (Ke1m# 1981). Richardson and Doucette (1981) noted# "Even 1f marketing techniq ues can produce a ll of t h e advantages claimed by advocates# t h e r e s u l t could e a s i l y be fewer c o n s t a n t d o l l a r s t o spread over more s t u d e n ts and programs" (p. 20). 19 There Is an absence of o b j e c t i v e data dem ons trating t h a t m ark eting In I t s comprehensive form r e p r e s e n t s an e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g y f o r i n c r e a s in g revenues# renewing I n s t i t u t i o n s 1n trouble# or prevent­ ing a s l i d e toward I n s t a b i l i t y f o r I n s t i t u t i o n s with p r e c a r i o u s e n r o l l ­ ments. In a l l fairn e ss# however# t h e l a c k of research may be r e l a t e d t o t h e r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t I n t r o d u c t i o n of marketing concepts I n t o higher e du ca tio n (Richardson & Doucette# 1981). Marketing Mix Central t o achieving an e f f e c t i v e marketing o r g a n i z a t i o n 1s t h e development o f an a p p r o p r i a t e m arke ting mix# which 1s t h e b e s t combina­ t i o n of product# price# place# and promotion (the four P's) (McCready# 1982). The m arketing mix c o n s i s t s of t h e range of s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d (product)# t h e d e li v e r y mechanism or d i s t r i b u t i o n p a t t e r n (place)# t h e p r i c i n g s t r a t e g i e s and p o l i c i e s (price)# and t h e promotion mix (promotion). The l a s t element# 1n turn# In cludes s e r v i c e ad vertisin g# personal s e llin g # s a l e s promotion# and p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s (Johnson & Scheulng# 1982). The marketing mix must be I n t e g r a te d . Separate m arke ting t a c t i c s must be balanced and o r c h e s t r a t e d f o r maximum and c o n s i s t e n t I n f lu e n c e on t h e t a r g e t audience— p o t e n t i a l s t u d e n t s (Kotler# 1976). Products/Services In comparing t h e b u sin ess s e c t o r t o n o n p r o f i t organizations# Davis and Joyce (1981) wrote t h a t "the b a s i c fu n c t i o n and pro ce ss of product development 1s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same In t h e n o n - p r o f i t sector# 20 but 1t I s made more d i f f i c u l t because of t h e e lu s iv e n atu re of t h e product i t s e l f " (p. 25). r a t h e r than products. For t h e most part* c o ll e g e s provide se r v i c e s Se rvices are more I n t a n g i b le than tangible* are produced and consumed simultaneously* and 1n many cases a r e l e s s standard ized and uniform than goods (Berry* 1980). Most people agree on t h e general a p p l i c a b i l i t y of marketing concepts t o t h e n o n p r o f it context* but t h e r e appears t o be c o nsiderable doubt about t h e a p p li c a ­ b i l i t y of s p e c i f i c marketing techniques* developed 1n t h e goods sector* t o the s e r v i c e s e c t o r (the no n pro fit organization) (Davis & Joyce* 1981). Nonprofit o r g a n i z a t i o n s have been production o r i e n t e d 1n t h a t they have focused on the s p e c i f i c s e r v i c e they provide r a t h e r than on t h e b e n e f i t s o r s a t i s f a c t i o n s t h e consuming o r donating pu b lic s receive 1n exchange (Davis & Joyce* 1981). To succeed In reaching I n s t i t u ­ tio n a l goals* managers ( a d m i n is t r a t o r s ) must I d e n t i f y t h e be st produ ct/ s e r v i c e match with t h e market's need (Krachenberg* 1972). I f higher e ducation's product mix I s out of adjustment with I t s customers, mar­ ke ting as an ad ju stm en t f o r c e may r e s t o r e c o m p a t i b i l i t y and b e n e f i t a l l p a r t i e s (Gorman, 1974). As t h e c h i l d r e n of t h e baby boom have grown t o adulthood* t h e tremendous In fluenc e of t h e i r numbers has been f e l t by many I n s t i t u ­ tions* Including c olleges. Now* as t h i s generation moves f u r t h e r Into adulthood* I t s numbers—combined with the de clin in g b i r t h r a t e t h a t followed t h e baby boom— a r e expected t o bring about more dramatic changes In the natu re of c o l l e g e l i f e (Beckett* 1985). Older stu d e n ts 21 demand parking spaces c lo se t o t h e i r c l a s s e s ; d i f f e r e n t courses a t d i f f e r e n t t im e s; and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of counseling# book stores# and food s e r v i c e s when they a re on campus. care se rv ice s. They also demand b e t t e r c h i l d ­ Older stu d e n ts a re a ls o more aware of t h e maintenance of f a c i l i t i e s and t h e a t t i t u d e s of f a c u l ty and s t a f f than are younger s t u d e n ts (Johnsen & Dennlse# 1984). We must g e t b e t t e r and b e t t e r a t bui ld ing degree programs t h a t meet b usiness and Industry needs# a t providing sh o r t- te r m t r a i n i n g optio ns with f a s t e r and f a s t e r turnaround times# a t paying more and more a t t e n t i o n t o what thousands of success ful continuing education i n i t i a t i v e s 1n our c o ll e g e s teach us about t h e needs and d e s i r e s of t h e market place. In many ways our continuing education p r o f e s ­ s i o n a l s a re t h e sc outs of our i n s t i t u t i o n s # t e s t i n g unexplored t e r r i t o r y f i r s t . (Powell# 1984# p. 3 8) To help design and develop c o llege programs (p ro d u cts/s erv ice s) t h a t w ill meet the needs of t h e changing student# Kotler (1976) suggested a f o u r - s t e p process f o r p o r t f o l i o planning. First# t h e c o ll e g e must i d e n t i f y I t s key business units# those programs around which s t r a t e g i c planning 1s p o s s ib l e and d e sirab le. The second step c a l l s for developing c r i t e r i a f o r e v aluatin g the c u r r e n t and f u t u r e v i a b i l i t y of each program. The t h i r d and most d i f f i c u l t ste p 1s t o determine t h e s t r a t e g i c s t a t u s of each c u r r e n t program. The l a s t s te p 1n p o r t f o l i o planning 1s t o search a c t i v e l y fo r e x c i t i n g and r e l e v a n t new programs t o enrich t h e s c h o o l ' s o p e ra tio n s and a t t r a c t i v e n e s s . Place Organizations must o f f e r t h e i r product or s e r v i c e In t h e most a c c e s s i b l e l o c a t i o n s and a t t h e most convenient tim es fo r t h e i r customers (McCready# 1982). In t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e place fu nction from 22 t h e business s e c t o r t o t h e educational arena# "the Importance l i e s 1n making educational s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e [ t o s t u d e n t s ] a t t h e tim e and l o c a ti o n desired" (Berry 4 George# 1975). Looking toward t h e 1980s# Lacznlak (1977) foresaw a g r e a t e r change In t h e importance of d i s t r i b u ­ t i o n than 1n any o th er element of t h e marketing mix. In a d d it i o n t o o f f e r i n g t h e most a p p ro p r ia te combination of educational products a t a c o m p e titiv e price# c o lle g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s must f a c i l i t a t e t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h e educational product. Access 1n t h i s case Includes not only l o c a t i o n but a l s o t h e tim e a t which t h e product 1s offered (Kotler & Goldgehn# 181). A Michigan community c ollege p r e s i d e n t agreed# s t a t i n g t h a t "educational I n s t i t u t i o n s w i l l have t o develop 'consumer driven schedules' which w i l l conform more c lo s e l y t o t h e tim e and l o c a t i o n pr eference of enrol le e s and l e s s t o the personal convenience of s t a f f " (Lorenzo# 1985). A f a c t o r 1n the mornlng/even1ng scheduling p a t t e r n has been t h e preference of most r e g u l a r f a c u l t y members f o r morning c l a s s e s t o accommodate p a r t - t i m e stu d e n ts and adjunct f a c u l ty (Atherton & Cohen# 1981). To a t t r a c t t h e ad u lt student# c o ll e g e s w ill have t o add more evening and weekend classes# keep o f f i c e s and c a f e t e r i a s open later# and a l t e r c u r r i c u l a and schedules (Beckett# 1985). The University of Tennessee# Knoxville# learned t h a t a d u l t s p r e f e r evening c r e d i t c l a s s e s t o begin a t f i v e o'clock r a t h e r than a t s i x o'clock (Shulman# 1985). Queens College provided a course a t t h e employer's location# a nearby hospital# even though t h e campus was only ten minutes away. This response was Important t o h osp ital employees 23 because even a ten-m1nute d r iv e Involves parking t i m e and t h e employees might have f e l t conspicuous on campus 1n t h e i r white uniforms (Shulman# 1985). Eastern Michigan University P r e s i d e n t John P o rte r b e li e v e s that* by the end of th e century* EMU w ill be holding c l a s s e s 24 hours a day# seven days a week (Beckett# 1985). Price The educational product 1s o f f e r e d t o I t s market f o r a p r i c e — t h a t 1s* t u i t i o n and fees. J u s t as 1n busin ess and Industry# a c o ll e g e can o f f e r p ri c e Ince ntiv es. Scholarships# f in a n c ia l aid* loans# grants# and work-study programs are means of providing th e product a t varying p r i c e s t o f i t stu d e n ts ' needs (Kotler & Goldgehn# 1981). All o r g a n i z a t i o n s fac e complex p r i c e Issues* although not a ll of them understand good p r i c i n g s t r u c t u r e (Kotler & Levy# 1969). Very l i t t l e has been done 1n the education f i e l d t o determine t h e Importance of p rice or I t s meaning t o t h e p ro sp e ctiv e market (Kotler* 1975). One c o ll e g e e s t a b l i s h e d an Offi ce of Adult Learning Services t o as s e s s t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e a d u l t l e a r n e r (Shulman* 1985). The o f f i c e found t h a t although many a d u l t s need more education* need alone r a r e l y g e t s a d u l t s onto t h e campus. However* when t h e a d u l t s had need# motivation* and money# they demanded more education. of a d u l t l e a r n e r s possessed a l l t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The l a r g e s t group The next l a r g e s t group was a d u l t s who were motivated and had money; the t h i r d group comprised th o se who had motivation and need—somehow they found t h e money t o r e t u r n t o school. Adult l e a r n e r s with m otivation alone 24 ranked fourth* those with money and need ranked f i f th # and th o se with money alone ranked s i x t h ; t h e l e a s t powerful p r e d i c t o r was need alone. For o ld er s t u d e n ts who have m otivation and need but lack money* one of the s u b t l e changes a c o ll e g e could undertake I s t o expand I t s e f f o r t s t o l o c a t e f in a n c ia l aid (Beckett* 1985). Financial aid 1s e q u iv a le n t t o d isc r im in a to r y p rice discounting f o r t h e purpose of Influencing t h e number of acceptances or " s a l e s " (Kotler# 1976). The admissions and f l n a n d a l - a 1 d s t a f f s decide what weight t o place on stud e nt need versus a b i l i t y ; what level of f in a n c ia l aid* i f any should be o f f e r e d ; and what components should c o n s t i t u t e t h e f l n a n c la l - a 1 d package. S t a te aid 1s p a r t of t h e p r i c e package. Community c o l l e g e s across t h e nation derive more than h a l f of t h e i r revenues from s t a t e legislatures. Despite t h e e x is te n c e of funding formulas that* 1n theory* guarantee a d d itio n a l revenues on t h e b a s i s of number of stu d e n ts served# l e g i s l a t i v e p r a c t i c e has been e i t h e r (1) t o a p p ro p r i a te a fix ed d o l l a r amount# which must be d i s t r i b u t e d among I n s t i t u t i o n s on a pr orated b a s i s without regard t o t h e p e r- s tu d e n t amount s p e c i f i e d 1n t h e formula; or (2) t o cap e n ro llm e n ts and impose p e n a l t i e s f o r exceeding t h e s p e c i f i e d l i m i t (Richardson & Doucette# 1981). On t h e average# 15% of t h e revenue f o r community c o lleg e s comes from local property tax e s. Most educa tors recognize t h a t t u i t i o n 1s an importan t c r i t e r i o n In th e s e l e c t i o n of a college. However* few have more than a 25 s u p e r f i c i a l understanding of t h e concept of p r i c e e l a s t i c i t y (Hugstad, 1975). On t h e s u b j e c t of t u i t i o n . Spies (1973) wrote: Education c o n s i d e r a ti o n s a r e t h e primary dete rm in an ts of c o lle g e a p p li c a t io n s . In p a r t i c u l a r , s t u d e n ts t r y t o f in d sc hools t h a t c lo s e l y match t h e i r own academic a b i l i t i e s . Financial c o nsid era ­ t i o n s are only secondary. Neither c o st nor Income has much e f f e c t on a p p l i c a t i o n s , although both are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . (p. 37) Promotion The f in a l element 1n t h e marketing mix I s promotion. All o r g an iz atio n s need t o de scribe t h e i r products t o the t a r g e t markets (Kotler & Goldgehn, 1981). Promotion comprises s e r v i c e a d v e r t i s i n g , personal s e l l i n g , s a l e s promotion, and pu blic r e l a t i o n s (Johnson & Scheulng, 1982). Promotion 1s a v i t a l a c t i v i t y d i r e c te d toward devel­ oping market awareness, understanding, and I n t e r e s t in what t h e univer­ s i t y has t o o f f e r (Berry & George, 1975). Current p ressure s t o provide b e t t e r Information t o stu d e n ts have t h e p o t e n t i a l t o Increas e r e l i a n c e on sound marketing techniques, as opposed t o strong s a l e s p i tc h e s (Stark, 1979). Advertising should not be developed through armchair brainstorm ing t o f in d c l e v e r appeals; r a t h e r , 1t should be based on an a n a l y s i s of s t u d e n t s 1 c u r r e n t percep­ t io n s , pr eferences, and decisio n processes, as well as t h e r o l e d i f f e r ­ e n t messages can play 1n f a c i l i t a t i n g c e r t a i n st a g e s 1n t h e s t u d e n ts ' decisi on process (Kotler, 1976). Students, p o t e n tia l students , and v i s i t o r s n o tic e many a sp e c ts of the colleg e. The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s e t s t h e tone of t h e campus. A v i s i t o r can t e l l almost Immediately I f t h e c o ll e g e has a c a r in g , warm 26 environment. Abrupt* a lo o f , s a r c a s t i c personnel reveal t h e i r a t t i t u d e s about th em se lv es and t h e i r I n s t i t u t i o n s (Kelm, 1981). Co lleges a re spending t i m e and money on market r e s ea rch , consumer I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and promotion 1n t h e hope t h a t s t u d e n t s and t h e I n s t i t u t i o n ' s programs can be brought t o g e t h e r , ensu ring I n s t i t u t i o n a l s u r v i v a l (Smith, 1981). Hence a l l members of t h e c o l l e g e should help promote t h e I n s t i t u t i o n . According t o K o t l e r and Levy (1969), Everything about an o r g a n i z a t i o n t a l k s . Customers form Im pressions of an o r g a n i z a t i o n from i t s physical f a c i l i t i e s , employees, o f f i c e s , s t a t i o n e r y , and a hundred o t h e r s u r r o g a te s. Only when t h i s 1s a p p r e c i a te d do members of t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n recognize t h a t they a l l a r e in marketing, whatever e l s e they do. (p. 13) Market.1ng_.Impl ementat 1on Where does marketing f i t I n t o t h e p i c t u r e ? Marketing can help the o r g a n i z a t i o n keep 1n c o n s t a n t touch with i t s consumers, d e t e c t t h e i r needs, develop products t h a t meet t h o s e needs, and b u ild a pro­ gram of communications t o e x p re ss t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n 's purpose (Kotler & Levy, 1983). Montana (1978) a s s e r t e d t h a t " th e fundamental lack of marketing t h i n k i n g and long-range marketing planning 1s obvious" (p. 47). Edu­ c a t o r s have been so concerned with day-to-day o p e r a t i o n s t h a t they have f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r what was happening t o t h e i r market. K o tler (1975) concurred: The evidence seems t o I n d i c a t e t h a t many p r a c t i c e s of t h e educa­ t i o n a l f i e l d c o n t r i b u t e t o I t s own t r o u b l e s . The Ind u stry grew unresponsive t o I t s markets. There were demands 1n t h e m arketplace t h a t were not being su p p lie d by t h e I n d u s t r y ; and t h e r e were sup­ p l i e r s 1n t h e i n d u s t r y who were t r y i n g t o s e l l products t h a t were n o t 1n demand by t h e m a r k e t , (p. 345) 27 Marketing s t a r t s with I d e n t i f y in g s p e c i f i c markets t h a t t h e I n s t i t u t i o n w ill serve* s p e c i f i c needs t h a t w ill be served* and t h e means t h a t w i l l be used t o se rve those markets. A su b s ta n t ia l Investment 1n market research* product development* and product t e s t i n g 1s required be fore any promotion 1s formulated. I s s u e s of p r i c i n g and e f f e c t i v e s e r v i c e d e liv e r y must also be addressed. Finally# marketing includes t h e development of an e f f e c t i v e communication and packaging program (Kotler & Goldgehn# 1981). Marketing 1s o rien ted toward the future# with t h e dual purposes o f r ea ctin g t o changing demands on t h e c o ll e g e and a n t i c i p a t i n g f u t u r e demands. In t h e educational se tting# t h e term "marketing” i m p lie s a process o f adapting t o t h e c o n sta n tly changing needs of students* professionals* and th e community (Creamer & Akins# 1981). G ollattscheck (1981) pointed out t h a t marketing may be viewed a s a change agent* and I n s t i t u t i o n s th in k in g of embarking on a marketing program should expect change. Marketing should conta in no s u r p r i s e s 1f the c o ll e g e has planned well. I f faculty* administration# and* where possible# stu d e n ts have been Involved 1n planning* t h e r e should be a minimum of problems r e l a t i n g t o f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t acceptance of t h e r e s u l t s . As an agent of change# marketing can have a very p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on th e c o l l e g e when used j u d i c i o u s l y . I t can have an equally ne gativ e e f f e c t when used c a r e l e s s l y . Colleges contemplating a marketing e f f o r t should consider t h e following: * Marketing a c t i v i t i e s should be conducted only 1n connection with a t o t a l planning e f f o r t . * No marketing s t r a t e g y should be used t h a t cannot be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o a goal or o b j e c t i v e of t h e I n s t i t u t i o n . * Faculty# administration* and t r u s t e e s should be aware of market­ ing programs and approve of th e o b j e c ti v e s . 28 * All p o s s ib l e r e s u l t s of any marketing e f f o r t should be consid­ ered and contingency plans readied before t h e e f f o r t begins. College marketing planning i s an e i g h t - s t e p process, according t o Kotler and Goldgehn (1981). The process Involves d e fin in g the c o l l e g e 's mission, I d e n t i f y in g problems and markets, researching t h e market, segmenting t h e market, choosing the t a r g e t market, determining market p o s i t io n , form ulating t h e marketing mix, and Implementing and c o n t r o l l i n g t h e marketing plan. Evaluation of marketing e f f o r t s must be r e l a t e d t o t h e c o l l e g e 's t o t a l planning e f f o r t s . When progress toward a s p e c i f i c goal or o b j e c t i v e 1s evaluated, success or f a i l u r e of r e l a t e d marketing e f f o r t s should a l s o be examined. In t h i s way, marketing can never be u n c on tro lle d or o u t of s t e p with t h e c o l l e g e 's o th er e f f o r t s (G o llatts ch e ck , 1981). Managers of n o n p r o f i t o rg a n i z a t i o n s appear t o be concerned with the c o s t of marketing. However, " n o n - p r o f it o r g a n iz a tio n s are probably more prone t o underspend than overspend on marketing" (Kotler, 1975, p. 11). The choice facing n o n p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n s 1s no t whether t o market or not t o market, for no o r g a n iz a tio n can avoid marketing. The choice I s whether t o market well or poorly, and on t h i s choice t h e case f o r o rgan iz ation al marketing b a s i c a l l y 1s founded (Kotler & Levy, 1977). Related Research The se c t i o n c o nta in s a review of r e l a t e d t o p i c s 1n t h e marketing and educational l i t e r a t u r e . Writings on t h e s e s u b j e c t s were sought by r e f e r r i n g t o t h e Current Ind ex .t o _Jo u rn a ls in.Education, t h e Education 29 Index# t h e Business Pe rio d ic a l Index, and Resources in Education. Furthermore# t h e I n v e s t i g a t o r conducted a computer search of Education Resource Information Center (ERIC) data by focusing on key words and s u b j e c t s considered r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e research top ic . In addition# he manually reviewed the d i s s e r t a t i o n s t a c k s a t Michigan S t a t e Univer­ s i t y ' s main l i b r a r y and t h e University of Michigan's Higher Education Department. No d i s s e r t a t i o n was found t h a t suggested any d u p l ic a t i o n of t h i s study. Dun1kosk1 (1984) I n v e s t ig a te d 159 administrators* opinions about using 11 s e l e c t e d m ark e tln g -fu n ctlo n a c t i v i t i e s 1n I l l i n o i s public community c olleges. He a ls o analyzed opinions concerning t h e need f o r market1ng-function a c t i v i t i e s t h a t d i f f e r e d from c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e and f u t u r e plans. One a sp ect of t h e problem was t o determine 1f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' opinions about m ark etlng-functlon a c t i v i t i e s d i f f e r e d by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s p o s i t i o n (president# c h ie f academic office r# or c h i e f I n s t i t u t i o n a l advancement off ice r)# as well as by th e demographics and fin an ces of a c o lle g e and I t s d i s t r i c t . Analysis of t h e data r e s u l t e d 1n t h e follo w in g findin gs. More than BOX of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f e l t t h e r e was a need f o r marketing a c t i v i t i e s a t t h e i r c o lleg e s. More than 50X of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f e l t t h a t marketing a c t i v i t i e s were being practiced# whereas more than 75X f e l t t h a t planning f o r t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s had p r i o r i t y a t t h e i r co llege s. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s 1n t h e opinions of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were noted when comparing t h e need f o r marketing a c t i v i t i e s with c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e and f u t u r e plans. When examining t h e d i f f e r e n c e s 1n opinions 30 among a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t t h e t h r e e p o s i t i o n levels* t h e presidents* c h ie f academic o f f i c e r s * and c h i e f I n s t i t u t i o n a l advancement o f f i c e r s agreed on t h e need f o r marketing a c t i v i t i e s a t t h e i r college s. Although a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t a l l t h r e e l e v e l s g e n e r a lly concurred on t h e scope of c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e and t h e e x t e n t of f u t u r e planning a c t i v i t i e s * they disagreed on t h e marketing fu n c t i o n s of personal sell1 n g/person al contact# new-product development# and channels of d i s t r i b u t i o n . Except f o r t h e marketing f u n c tio n s of personal s e l l i n g / p e r s o n a l contact# mar­ ke ting Information systems# pricing# and channels of d i s t r ib u t i o n * a d m i n i s t r a t o r s did not d i f f e r 1n t h e i r pe rc ep tion s of t h e need# scope of c u r r e n t practice* and e x t e n t of f u t u r e plans when c o ll e g e s were considered on t h e b a s i s of finances and demographics. E f f e c t i v e marketing methods In Independent higher education I n s t i t u t i o n s were t h e s u b j e c t of a study conducted by M1kl1ch (1984). The purpose of the study was t o I d e n t i f y t h e marketing methods t h a t were being used In Independent I n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education and t o a s se ss t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e s e methods. In-depth case s t u d i e s were conducted a t ten I n s t i t u t i o n s In t h e Los Angeles area. S i x t y - f o u r key marketing personnel were Interviewed# and q u e s t io n n a ir e s were admin­ istered. The study find in g s revealed t h a t t h e marketing methods t h a t were most e f f e c t i v e l y and most fr e q u e n tly used by t h e sample i n s t i t u ­ t i o n s were d i s t r i b u t i o n # personal recruitment* and a d v e r t is in g . ing and market research were r a t e d low. None of the I n s t i t u t i o n s Pric­ 31 scored "Superior" on marketing e f f e c t i v e n e s s ; t h e ov e ra ll r a t i n g f o r a l l cases was "Fair." The conclusions of M1kl1ch's I n v e s t i g a t i o n were as follows: 1. Most Independent I n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education 1n t h e study had not adopted t h e marketing concept* but were engaging In cre as­ ingly 1n s a l e s o r i e n t a t i o n . 2. Of t h e market1ng-m1x elements* product and p r i c e were seldom used by marketing s t a f f* whereas promotion and place had high usage. 3. The marketing methods t h a t required t h e most planning and/or research 4. received the lowest p r i o r i t y . The most rap id ly growing schools had a clearstrateg ic d i r e c t i o n t h a t was communicated throughout t h e o r g an iz atio n . 5. Personal r e c r u i t i n g made a major c o n t r i b u t i o n t o recent enrollment growth. 6. Organizations t h a t had Invested In new program development had t h e f a s t e s t growing enro llments. 7. The e x te n t t o which top management held a co m p e titiv e view of t h e marketplace was r e l a t e d t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n 's marketing e f f e c ­ tiveness. 8. The level of marketing expen ditu res as a percentage of revenue was remarkably s i m i l a r across o r g a n i z a t i o n s . "Marketing 1n Non-Profit Higher Education" was t h e t o p i c of a 1982 study conducted by F1roz. He sought t o determine th e s t a t u s of marketing higher education In t h e United S t a te s . Questionnaires were 32 mailed t o a d m i n i s t r a t o r s with pub! 1c-rel a t l o n s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a t 549 four-year, publicly controlled In s titu tio n s . These responden ts were assumed t o be t h e I n d i v i d u a l s most l i k e l y t o be knowledgeable about marketing a c t i v i t i e s In t h e i r I n s t i t u t i o n s . from 364 (663%) of t h e o f f i c e r s , Responses were r e c e i v e d who rep r e se n te d 364 I n s t i t u t i o n s from 49 s t a t e s . Conclusions of F l r o z ' s study were a s follo w s: 1. (buyers), In b u s in e s s , t h e g r e a t e s t Importance was given t o consumers but 1n educa tion s t u d e n t s (buyers) were not given t h e g r e a t ­ e s t Importance among i n s t i t u t i o n a l p u b lic s. I n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t were fac in g d e c l i n i n g e n r o l l m e n t s co nsid ered s t u d e n t s most Important. Sub­ j e c t s with e d ucational backgrounds 1n m ark eting con sidered s t u d e n t s t h e i r most Im portant public. 2. O f f i c e r s used t e l e v i s i o n , radio, and newspapers f o r adver­ t i s i n g purposes, sometimes on a d a lly b a sis. 3. Major problems were ranked 1n t h e follo w in g o r d e r : scarce f i n a n c i a l re s o u r c e s, c o l l e c t i o n of p r i v a t e donations, c o m p e ti t io n with o t h e r I n s t i t u t i o n s , d e c l in i n g e n ro l l m e n t s , and p u b l ic r e s t r i c t i o n s on promotional spending. 4. Marketing a c t i v i t i e s were widely employed by a l l I n s t i t u ­ t i o n s , but on most campuses comprehensive m arketing "systems" did not seem t o e x i s t . 5. Large I n s t i t u t i o n s with l a r g e budgets were Involved 1n more marketing a c t i v i t i e s and promotional spending than were s m a lle r ones. 33 6. Publ 1 c - r e l a t l o n s o f f i c e r s were u s u a l ly t h e o f f i c i a l s p r i m a r il y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r marketing t h e i r campuses. 7. N1nety-f1ve p e rc e n t of t h e s u b j e c t s did not have major marketing e d u ca tion al backgrounds. 8. The m a j o r it y of I n s t i t u t i o n s had s t a t e government r e s t r i c ­ t i o n s on spending p u b l i c funds f o r m arke ting purposes. For t h e major­ i t y of subjects# however# no leg a l r e s t r i c t i o n s e x i s t e d on t h e use of m arketing 1n t h e t i t l e of publ I c - r e l a t l o n s o f f i c e . Mathias (1982) a s s e s s e d t h e e x t e n t t o which p r i v a t e l i b e r a l a r t s c o l l e g e s had adopted t h r e e elements of t h e marketing concept. used two I n str u m en ts t o c o l l e c t data during autumn 1981. He A 'P re s i­ d e n t's Q u e stio n n a ir e " was used t o o b t a i n p e rc eptual and f a c t u a l data from 109 c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s r eg a rd in g acceptance of t h e marketing concept and Implementation of p e r t i n e n t marketing a c t i v i t i e s . A "Sur­ vey of Marketing Background" completed by 759 s t a f f members In t h e same c o l l e g e s provided data on t h e i r e d ucational and p ro fe s s i o n a l e x p erien c e r e l a t e d t o marketing. In addition# t h e survey c o l l e c t e d s t a f f r a t i n g s of t h e use of m arketing and t h e Importance of a marketing background as a c r e d e n t i a l fo r h i r in g . Among t h e f i n d in g s of M a t h ia s 's res ea rch were t h e follo w in g: 1. A "consumer o r i e n t a t i o n " was only moderately st r o n g 1n t h e colleges. 2. " I n t e g r a t e d e f f o r t " e x i s t e d 1n r e l a t i v e l y few of t h e c o l l e g e s surveyed. 34 3. Among s i x en ro llm e n t and budget f a c t o r s analyzed* no fu nctional e q u iv a le n ts t o " p r o f i t d i r e c t i o n " were I d e n t i f i e d . 4. A high level of adoption of t h e marketing concept was discovered In 18.5# of th e colleges* a medium level In 76.9#* and a low level 1n 4.6#. 5. P r e s i d e n ts thought t h a t s t a f f members 1n t h e i r c o ll e g e s would be moderately t o stro n g ly p o s i t i v e about t h e use of marketing; however* s t a f f members' ratings* although s t i l l positive* were s i g n i f i ­ c an tly lower than p r e s i d e n t s a n t i c i p a t e d . 6. In most colleges* " o r i e n t a t i o n " was determined by m u lt i p le fac to rs* not j u s t s t u d e n t s . 7. Although t h e concept of using marketing was accepted broadly* respondents were not convinced of t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of marketing a c t i v i t i e s . 8. The I n v e s t i g a t o r was not c e r t a i n t h a t t h e marketing concept can be adapted s u c c e s s f u l l y f o r use 1n n o n p r o f it o rg a n i z a t i o n s . 9. Colleges were a f f e c t e d favorably by t h e i r e f f o r t s t o under­ stand and Implement t h e marketing concept. P r i v a t e l i b e r a l a r t s c o l­ lege s have used marketing techniques* but they have not adopted t h e e n t i r e marketing concept. Further study of motives* methods* and e v a lu a tio n standards and techniq ues should provide g r e a t e r I n s i g h t I n to t h e reasons f o r varying l e v e l s of adoption of t h e marketing concept In higher education I n s t i t u t i o n s of a l l kinds. In 1981* Hoppe I n v e s t ig a te d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of marketing t o enrollment. The survey population comprised 138 community* Junior* and 35 tec h n ic al c o lle g e s with e n ro llm e n ts of 4*000 t o 7*000* as l i s t e d 1n t h e 1980 Community* Junior* and Technical College Directory. Acceptable completed q u e s t io n n a ir e s were received from 72% of t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s 1n t he survey population. Analysis of t h e data revealed t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p could be e s t a b l i s h e d between past or expected enro llm e nt change and s e l e c t e d marketing v a r i a b l e s (scope of t h e marketing plan* segmentation of t a r g e t audiences* and s i z e of t h e marketing budget). In addition* no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found 1n en rollm en t change r e l a t e d t o researched or perceived e v alu atio n of marketing plans. Segmentation of marketing p lan s was determined t o be t h e b e s t p r e d i c t o r of enro llment change. Hoppe a ls o explored t h e l e v e l s and t y p e s of marketing employed a t the s e l e c t e d college s. E1ghty-two percent of t h e responding I n s t i ­ t u t i o n s rep o rted using a comprehensive marketing plan* but l e s s than h a l f of them reported conducting research t o determine t h e e f f e c t i v e ­ ness of marketing a c t i v i t i e s . The m a jo r ity of respondents evaluated marketing as only "somewhat e f f e c t i v e . " For t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s r e p o r tin g segmented marketing plans* t h e t a r g e t audience a t which the g r e a t e s t percentage of marketing e f f o r t was aimed was t h e t r a d i t i o n a l c o lleg e - ag e student. The most fr e q u e n tly used marketing a c t i v i t i e s were high school v i s i t s * mass mailings* campus tours* and p u b lic s e r v i c e announcements; more than 90% of t h e I n s t i t u t i o n s rep o rted using th es e t a c t i c s . Other a c t i v i t i e s used by more than 70% of t h e I n s t i t u t i o n s Included paid newspaper 36 advertisements* sp eak ers1 bureaus* r e c r u i t m e n t packages f o r sp e c i a l programs* b u s i n e s s / i n d u s t r y mailings* c i v i c club programs# and t a b l o i d s or newspaper I n s e r t s . Hie l a r g e s t p o r tio n of t h e marketing budget a t t h e responding I n s t i t u t i o n s was a l l o c a t e d t o p u b l ic a tio n s. Taylor (1981) stu d ied the pe rc ep tio ns of academic deans con­ cerning s e l e c t e d marketing approaches t o higher education. He surveyed deans 1n s e l e c t e d p u b lic f o u r - y e a r I n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education 1n I l l i n o i s * Indiana* Michigan* and Ohio. The f i v e research q u e stio n s addressed In t h e study and t h e f i n d in g s fo r each q u e stion follow. 1. What a re t h e pe rc ep tio ns of s e l e c t e d academic deans toward marketing higher education? The responses in d ic a t e d t h a t t h e academic deans supported t h e concept of marketing higher education. 2. To what e x t e n t 1s marketing a p a r t of the b a sic philosophy of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 1n I n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education? The r e s u l t s Indicate d t h a t marketing 1s a v a l i d and a cceptab le philosophy of hlgher-educatlon a d m i n i s t r a t io n . 3. What Inf luence has marketing had on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r a c t i c e s 1n I n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education? The deans f e l t t h a t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e development of marketing higher education has no t kept pace with t h e acceptance of t h e concept. 4. How has marketing been a b e n e f i t t o s t u d e n ts a t I n s t i t u ­ t i o n s of higher education? The f i n d in g s In d ica te d t h a t marketing has b e nefite d s t u d e n t s by Improving t h e i r access t o h ig h er education. However* t h e respondents f e l t t h a t marketing has not helped Improve t h e q u a l i t y of education. 37 5. What Is t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between marketing and t h e Issu es of stu dent consumerism and resource s c a r c i t y 1n I n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education? The r e s u l t s showed that# even though marketing and stu de n t consumerism were perceived as r e l a t e d events# stu de n t consumerism was not seen as a r e f l e c t i o n of poor marketing. Also# t h e respondents s t a t e d t h a t marketing should be supported even 1n periods of resource scarcity. Alexander (1978) conducted a survey of c o lle g e and u n i v e r s it y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' perceptions of t h e e f f e c t t h a t using marketing s t r a t e ­ gies can have on enro llment tren ds. Study findings In dicate d t h a t n e i t h e r I n s t i t u t i o n type# size# nor enrollm e n t t r e n d was s y s t e m a t i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o actual marketing p r a c t i c e s ; only I n s t i t u t i o n type showed a r e l a t i o n s h i p t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r e d i s p o s i ti o n t o use marketing s t r a t e ­ g ies . Chapter I I contained a review of l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d t o marketing community colleg es. A d e s c r i p t io n of the design and methodology of t h e I n v e s t ig a ti o n 1s presented 1n Chapter I J I . CHAPTER I I I DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Research Design A d e s c r i p t i v e comparative design was used 1n t h i s study. The major goal of d e s c r i p t i v e research In education 1s t o t e l l "what 1s" (Borg* 1965* p. 203). The purpose of such r e s e a r c h 1s t o "document processes* r e l a t i o n s h i p s and/o r outcomes so thoroughly t h a t I t w i l l be p o s s i b l e t o f o r m u l a t e hypotheses about t h e phenomena being documented" (Ward* 1984* p. 383). The v i t a l concerns of d e s c r i p t i v e research In clude r e s e a r c h q u e s t io n s and t h e i r l o g i c a l background* data sources* modes of da ta gathering* d a ta -g ather1n g instruments* and r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of t h e measures (Ward, 1984). The stan dard use of a comparative study Is t o e s t a b l i s h t h e g e n e r a l i t y of a f ac t. 'By com­ paring where t h e f a c t s a re s i m i l a r or d i f f e r e n t * we can g e n e r a te prop­ e r t i e s of c a t e g o r i e s t h a t i n c r e a s e t h e c a t e g o r i e s ’ g e n e r a l i t y and ex p la n ato ry power" (Glaser & Strauss* 1967* p. 24). The Populations The study was conducted with two populations. comprised t h e 29 Michigan community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s . Population I Pop u latio n I I comprised t h e 203 members of t h e boards of t r u s t e e s o f Michigan’s community c o ll e g e s . Names of t h e community c o l l e g e s ’ p r e s i d e n t s and 38 39 t r u s t e e s were obtained from t h e Michigan Community College A s so c ia tio n ’s (MCCA) 1984-85 membership d i r e c t o r ((MCCA* 1984). The MCCA membership Include s p r e s i d e n t s and board of t r u s t e e members o f 26 of t h e 29 Michi­ gan community c o l l e g e s . Even though t h r e e of t h e 29 community c o l l e g e s a r e not o f f i c i a l members of t h e Association* t h e names of t h e i r p r e s i ­ dents and t r u s t e e s were l i s t e d 1n t h e MCCA d i r e c t o r y . A formal r e q u e s t was made t o t h e Executive D i r e c t o r of t h e MCCA 1n t h e form of a two-page proposal r e q u e s t i n g t h e A s s o c ia tio n ’s Executive Committee t o sa n c tio n using A sso c ia tio n members as p a r t i c i ­ pants 1n t h e study. Attached t o t h e l e t t e r of r e q u e s t was a copy of each of t h e f o llo w in g : Michigan S t a t e U niv e rs ity Committee on Research Involving Human S u b je c ts (UCRIHS) approval l e t t e r * Se ction I of t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n proposal* p a r t i c i p a n t cover and follo w -up l e t t e r s (d rafts)* t e s t in s t r u m e n t (draft)* and respondent anonymity procedure ( d r a f t ) (see Appendix A). No c o n s i d e r a t i o n of any kind was given by th e r e s e a r c h e r t o t h e MCCA f o r I t s su pp o rt of t h e res ea rch p r o j e c t. S p e c if i c a l ly * t h e MCCA was not allowed t o modify t h e t e s t In stru m en t or t o r e c e i v e a copy of t h e t e s t In stru m ent key. Although t h e MCCA's su p p o rt was not c r u c i a l t o t h e suc cess of t h e research* such approval provided added c r e d i b i l i t y t o t h e e f f o r t and appeared t o i n c r e a s e t h e percentage of response. Research Questions Four r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s were posed t o guide t h e c o l l e c t i o n of da ta 1n t h i s study. Data provided by respondents In P o p u la tio n s I and I I and In form atio n c o l l e c t e d from t h e Michigan Department of 40 Education's Higher Education Management Services Unit were used t o answer th es e q u e stio n s . The q u e stio n s a r e as follow s: 1. What perceptions do Michigan community c o ll e g e p r e s i d e n t s and members of t h e boards of t r u s t e e s hold about each of t h e market1ng-function statements* as contained 1n t h e study q u e s tio n n a ir e ? 2. What d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between community c o ll e g e p r e s i ­ dents' and t r u s t e e s ' pe rc ep tion s about each of t h e market1ng-function statements? 3. What 1s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e average marketlngf u n ctlo n -p erc ep tio n sc ores of members of t h e board of t r u s t e e s of each c o ll e g e and t h e i r c o l l e g e ’s numerical rank on e i g h t Michigan community c o ll e g e a c t l v l t y - c l a s s l f I c a t l o n structures? 4. What 1s t h e p a t t e r n of responses of t h e members of t h e boards of t r u s t e e s * based on a l l the data c o ll e c t e d ? .Instrumentation The review of l i t e r a t u r e revealed no t e s t Inst rum en t t h a t could be adapted f o r use 1n t h i s study. Therefore* a q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed s p e c i f i c a l l y fo r t h i s research (see Appendix A). Information was submitted t o UCRIHS In t h e for m at required. 1n t h e Information was a rough d r a f t of t h e q ue stio nn a ire . First* Included The research p r o j e c t was deemed exempt from f u l l UCRIHS review* and approval was granted t o conduct th e I n v e s t i g a t i o n (see Appendix A). Second* t h e t o s t - I n s t r u m e n t packet c o nta in ing t h e cover l e t t e r * anonymity procedure* and q u e s t i o n n a i r e was given t o two former members of Michigan community c o ll e g e boards of t r u s t e e s and one p a s t community c o ll e g e pr e s id e n t. The t h r e e p r e t e s t p a r t i c i p a n t s rep re se n te d 41 d i f f e r e n t Michigan community colleg e s. The p r e t e s t was an Informal# personal Interview se ss io n. Third# a f t e r t h e t e s t In strument packet had been re-examined and q u e s t i o n s / s t a t e m e n t s revised# copies were given t o four c u r r e n t members of non-M1ch1gan community c o lleg e boards of t r u s t e e s and two c u r r e n t p r e s i d e n t s of non-M1ch1gan community c olleges. The t r u s t e e s were from Ohio# Colorado# and V i r g i n ia ; t h e p r e s i d e n t s were from Maryland and Alabama. 9" x 12" envelope. The t e s t In strum ent packet was s e a l e d In a P a r t i c i p a n t s were I n s t r u c t e d t o open t h e envelope as 1f 1 t had been received 1n t h e i r o f f i c e s . A personal Interview was conducted with th ese I n d iv id u a ls a f t e r each had had an opportunity t o read and complete t h e t e s t In strum ent procedures# without verbal a s s i s t a n c e or d i r e c t i o n from t h e resea rche r. Subsequent r e v i s i o n s of t h e t e s t Instrument packet were made and p a r t s of t h e p r e t e s t process repeated. Quest1onna1re-construction g u i d e l i n e s were followed# as s e t f o r t h by Borg (1963) and Payne (1980). The q u e s t i o n n a i r e st a te m e n t s were developed# based on K otler's (1975) d e f i n i t i o n of marketing. By design# 27 of t h e 28 q u e s t io n n a ir e st a te m e n t s r e l a t e d t o one of t h e four P's of t h e marketing mix: product/service# place# price# and promotion. The s t a te m e n t de aling with a f f i r m a t i v e - a c t i o n p o l i c i e s was not Intended t o r e l a t e t o t h e marketing mix. This s t a te m e n t was Included 1n t h e q u e s t io n n a ir e t o check t h e In stru m en t's r e l i a b i l i t y . D1rect-ma1l promotional s t r a t e g i e s were used In t h e design and layout of t h e que stionn aire# cover l e t t e r # and follow-up 42 correspondence. The r es ea rche r l i m i t e d t h e number of st a te m e n t s on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e so they could be prin te d on one sheet of paper. Likewise, th e s t a te m e n t concerning respondent anonymity was placed on a se p a r a t e page t o keep t h e cover l e t t e r t o a s i n g l e page. The r e s e a r c h e r assumed t h a t having a on e-sh eet q u e s t io n n a ir e , a t t r a c t i v e l y p r i n te d and mailed f l a t 1n a 9" x 12” envelope accompanied by a one-page cover l e t t e r , would help t o Increas e t h e r e tu r n r a t e and reduce t h e tim e required of participants. A coding system was developed f o r and Implemented 1n t h e study. A personal code number t h a t I d e n t i f i e d t h e p a r t i c i p a n t was placed 1n th e upper-right-han d co rn e r of t h e q u e stio n n a ir e . The q u e s t io n n a ir e was the l a s t Item placed 1n t h e t e s t I nstrum en t's envelope^ The envelopes were randomly s e l e c t e d and t h e personal code number stamped on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and recorded on t h e code key before being placed 1n t h e envelope. Respondents' anonymity was p rotecte d. The r e s e a r c h e r was t h e only person who had t h e key t o t h e code, and t h e number from t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e corne r was removed upon I t s return. These respondent- anonymlty procedures a re 1n compliance with t h e g u id e lin e s s e t f o r t h by UCRIHS. Because t h e q u e s t io n n a ir e s were coded, p a r t i c i p a n t s were not asked t o give I d e n t i f y i n g Information such as name and address. Also, because t h e Independent-varia ble data were obtained from t h e Michigan Department of Education, t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e contained only b r i e f d i r e c t i o n s and c o n te n t state ments. 43 Two s e p ara te v e rsion s of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e were developed* based on t h e s p l l t - b a l l o t technique* by arra nging th e st a te m e n t s In d i f f e r e n t orders. The d i f f e r e n t vers io ns of t h e t e s t Instrument were d i s t r i b u t e d w ith in each population as follows. T e s t- ln str u m e n t packets with t h e names of Population I and Population I I members were randomly se lec te d . Version A of t h e q u e s t io n n a ir e was placed I n t o t h e f i r s t member's envelope. envelope. Version B was placed i n t o t h e second member's The s t a g g e r e d - d l s t r l b u t l o n system* using t h e two v e rs io n s of t h e Instrument* was repeated u n t i l t h e l a s t individual received a copy of one of t h e t e s t ve rsions. The added c o s t of p r i n t i n g two v e rsion s of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h e e x t r a t im e needed t o ensure proper d i s t r i ­ bution were accepted as necessary t o Increase t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e data c o ll e c t e d . A s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s was performed t o compare th e data from v e rs io n s A and B* using t h e s t u d e n t t - d 1 s t r 1 b u t l o n t e s t s t a t i s t i c . Findings of t h i s a n a l y s i s a r e discussed 1n Chapter IV. Responses t o t h e q u e s t io n n a ir e st a te m e n t s were recorded using an e i g h t - p o i n t L ik e r t- t y p e s c a l e d i s t r i b u t e d over four a l t e r n a t i v e classifications: strongly agree* agree considerably* agree somewhat* and s t r o n g l y disagree. The s e l e c t i o n of t h e e t g h t - p o l n t s c a l e and fou r-class1f1 cat1 on s t r u c t u r e was based on a review of Mangelson's (1977) study on a t t i t u d e s . The four c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s were skewed toward t h e agree side; t h i s was i n t e n t i o n a l l y decided by t h e researcher. Also, an "undecided” category was purposely omitted. A traditional f1ve-po1nt, f iv e - c a te g o r y L1kert-type s c a l e was not chosen f o r t h e q u e s t io n n a ir e because I t would have allowed only two choices fo r 44 respondents agreeing with t h e sta tement. The r e s e a r c h e r f e l t t h a t most respondents would agree t h a t each s t a te m e n t was t o some degree a mar­ keting function# and he wanted a s c a l e t h a t r e f l e c t e d t h a t assumption and allowed respondents a choice of response values. All p r e t e s t respondents agreed t h a t t h e eight-p oin t# fourc l a s s i f i c a t i o n format was most a p p ro p r i a te f o r t h e study. One respond­ e n t I n i t i a l l y proposed using a more t r a d i t i o n a l f i v e - or seven-point scale# but near t h e end of th e p r e t e s t Interview he decided 1n favor of t h e eig ht-poin t# f o u r - c l a s s i f I c a t l o n scale. The L l k e r t s c a l e Is o r d i ­ nal only and can determine t h a t respondents a re more o r l e s s fav o ra b le t o a t o p ic but not t o what degree. Because t h e s c a l e 1s skewed toward the agree side# t h e r e s e a r c h e r was carefu l not t o r e p o r t t h a t one population stro ng ly agreed with a s p e c i f i c state ment. Where possible# comparisons of r e l a t i v e agreement o r disagreement have been noted. DataTGather.Ing Procedures A t e s t - 1 n s t r u m e n t packet c o n s i s t i n g of a cover l e t t e r # a s ta te m e n t of respondent anonymity# t h e questionnaire# and a s e l f addressed# stamped r e t u r n envelope was mailed t o a ll population members on t h e same date. A fter 15 days# 21 responses had been received from Population I (presidents)# y i e l d i n g a 72.4% r e t u r n rate# and 96 responses had been received from Population I I (trustees)# y i e l d i n g a 47.3% r e t u r n r a t e . Because each Instrum ent was coded# I n d iv id u a ls who did not r e tu r n t h e q u e s t io n n a ir e were s e n t a reminder p o stcard on t h e f i f t e e n t h day a f t e r t h e I n i t i a l mailing. Within t h e next 15 days# t h e postcard 45 generated an a d d i t i o n a l 20 responses from members of Population I I , bringing t h e r e t u r n r a t e from t h a t group t o 57.1%. No add itio n al responses were received from members of Population I w i t h in t h a t 15-day period. Thirty days a f t e r t h e I n i t i a l mailing of t h e t e s t - I n s t r u m e n t packet, a follow-up l e t t e r with another copy of the o r i g i n a l cover l e t t e r , anonymity state m ent, and q u e s t io n n a ir e was mailed 1n a 9" x 12" envelope t o t h e remaining nonresponding members of Populations I •and II. Within t h e next 30 days (60 days from t h e I n i t i a l m ailing) , s i x a d d it i o n a l q u e s t io n n a ir e s were received from members of Population 1, bringing t h e t o t a l number of responses from t h a t group t o 27 (a t o t a l r e t u r n r a t e of 93.1%). During the same period, 28 a d d itio n al q u e s t io n n a ir e s were received from members of Population I I , bringing the t o t a l number of responses from t h a t group t o 144 (a t o t a l r etu rn r a t e of 70.9%). One member of Population I returne d t h e q u e s t io n n a ir e without completing I t . Likewise, four members of Population I I returned uncompleted q u e s t io n n a ir e s . The f i v e uncompleted q ue stio n ­ n a i r e s were counted 1n t h e t o t a l r e t u r n r a t e but were not Included 1n t h e s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. No add ition al follow-up was conducted. Data-Analysis Procedures The S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e Social Sciences (SPSS) was used t o analyze the data. To a s s i s t 1n answering Research Questions 1 and 2, a s t a t i s t i c a l comparative a n a l y s i s using a st u d e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n t - t e s t was made of t h e average numerical sc ores between Populations I and I I , for each q u e s t i o n n a i r e sta tement. S ta tistic a lly significant 46 d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t e x is te d between t h e two populations were recorded. To a s s i s t 1n e x p la in ing d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two populations* a c r o s s ­ t a b u l a t i o n was conducted of responses t o each q u e s t i o n n a i r e statement. The c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n I d e n t i f i e d th e number and percentage of members from each population responding t o each of t h e four a l t e r n a t i v e classifications* I.e.* stron g ly agree* agree considerably, agree somewhat* and s t r o n g l y disagrees. the c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n data. A ch1-square t e s t was a d m inistere d t o Histograms and frequency-d1str1but1on c h a r t s were c o n str u cted f o r each population separately* for each q u e s t io n n a ir e statement. Finally* a rank-ordered 1 1 st of grand t o t a l q u e s t io n n a ir e s ta te m e n t mean sc o res by population was developed. The q u e s t io n n a ir e s ta te m e n t with t h e highest-ranked sc o re was placed f i r s t on t h e 11st* whereas t h e s ta te m e n t with t h e lowest-ranked sc ore appeared l a s t on t h e l i s t . The l i s t s f o r t h e two po p ulations were then compared. In address ing Research Question 3* independent v a r i a b l e s were Introduced I n to th e study; they were compared with Population I I ' s mean scores by q u e s t io n n a ir e s t a te m e n t (dependent v a r i a b l e s ) . Eight c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t a b l e s (Independent v a r i a b l e s ) out of 62 such t a b l e s were s e l e c te d from t h e A c tiv ity C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S t r u c t u r e (ACS) data books because they appeared t o be most u n i v e r s a l l y a p p lic a b le t o commu­ n i ty c o ll e g e s and l e a s t dependent on s u b j e c t i v e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n by respondents In t h e government rep ort. The Pearson product-moment cor­ r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was used 1n t h r e e ways: f i r s t * t o compare t h e Independent v a r i a b l e s (ACS data) with the dependent v a r i a b l e s ; second* 47 t o compare t h e Independent v a r i a b l e s with each o t h e r ; and f i n a l ly # to compare t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s with each other. To a s s i s t f u r t h e r 1n answering Question 3# each dependent v a r i a b l e ( q u e s t io n n a ir e s ta te m e n t data) was broken down by each Independent v a r i a b l e (ACS data). The Independent v a r i a b l e s (ACS rank order of c o lle g e s) were divided In to three categories: high# medium# and low. This d e s c r i p t i o n of subpopu- l a t l o n s allowed t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o I d e n t i f y tr e n d s between t h e Independ­ e n t and dependent v a r i a b l e s by q u e s t i o n n a i r e statement. Another d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e subpopulatlons c o n s i s t e d In breaking down each Independent v a r i a b l e by Individ ual c o ll e g e data. In address ing Research Question 4# a m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of va riance (M/WOVA) was conducted on a l l data gathered 1n t h e study. Several MANOVA t e s t s of s i g n i f i c a n c e were applied t o t h e whole design# Including: P1lla1s# HotelHngs# Wilks, and Roys. In addition# a canonical c o r r e l a t i o n was used because t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l model was designed t o compare m u l t i p l e Independent v a r i a b l e s t o m u l t i p l e dependent v a r i a b l e s . The t r a d i t i o n a l f a c t o r - a n a ly s 1 s model was not used because 1 t was designed t o compare one Independent v a r i a b l e t o m u lt i p le dependent v a r i a b l e s and vi ce v e rs a . A d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e design and procedures used 1n conducting t h i s study was given 1n Chapter I I I . a re presented in Chapter IV. The r e s u l t s of t h e data a n a l y s i s CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introd u ctio n Chapter IV provides th e r e s u l t s of t h e a n a l y s i s of a l l research data p e r t i n e n t t o t h e study. After a disc ussion of t h e population data# the d e s c r i p t i v e data a r e presented In response t o t h e four research q u e stio n s t h a t guided t h e study. Dependent-variable data were obtained from respondents In Populations I and I I who returned com­ p leted q u e s t io n n a ir e s . Additional data concerning t h e Independent v a r i a b l e s were c o l l e c t e d from th e Michigan Department of Education's Higher Education Management Service, The S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e Social Sciences (SPSS) was used t o provide a l l s t a t i s t i c a l analyse s f o r t h e study. The SPSS was administered by t h e Michigan S t a t e University Computer Service—Applica tions Programming Department. Pu rpose_of-_the_Study The I n v e s t i g a t o r had fo u r major purposes in conducting t h i s stu dy: 1. t o I d e n t i f y t h e perc eptions held by community c o lle g e p r e s i d e n t s and members of boards of t r u s t e e s about t h e various marketing techniq ues t h a t can be a p plied t o a community c o ll e g e . i»8 49 2. t o compare t h e average perception scores* by marketlng- function statement* of community c o lleg e p r e s i d e n t s and members of boards of t r u s t e e s t o determine 1f s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ­ ences e x i s t between th e two groups In terms of t h e i r perceptions. 3. t o compare t h e average perception scores* by c ollege and by market1ng-function statement* of members of boards of t r u s t e e s t o e i g h t Independent v a r i a b l e s t o see what types of r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t . 4. t o f a c t o r analyze a l l data c o l l e c t e d on t h e members of t h e boards of t r u s t e e s t o d e t e c t 1f a p a tt e r n of responses emerges. Population Data Population I comprised 29 community c o lleg e p residents. Twenty-seven of t h e s e I n d iv id u a ls returned qu e stio n n a ir e s. returned t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e but l e f t 1 t blank. One person The remaining 26 par­ t i a l l y or t o t a l l y completed q u e s t io n n a ir e s represente d a r e tu r n r a t e of 89.135 for Population I. Population I I ( t r u s t e e s ) had 203 members* of whom 144 returned q u e stio n n a ir e s. 1t blank. Five In d i v id u a ls retur ne d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e but l e f t The remaining 139 p a r t i a l l y o r t o t a l l y completed q uestio n ­ n a i r e s rep re se nte d a r e t u r n r a t e of 68.5£ f o r Population I I . The q u e s t io n n a ir e s were divided I n t o two versions* A and B» and were equally d i s t r i b u t e d t o t h e 232 members of Populations I and II. Of t h e 26 q u e stio n n a ir e s returned by members of Population I# 13 were Version A and 13 were Version EL Of t h e 139 q u e s t io n n a ir e s received from members of Population II* 70 were Version A and 69 were Version B. All data are reported using Version A s ta te m e n t order. Version B 50 st a te m e n t data have been rearranged t o correspond t o t h e sta te m e n t o r d e r 1n Version A, A s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s was conducted t o make re f e r e n c e s about th e mean s c o r e s of each version# by sta tement. With th e exception of two statements# no d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d between t h e responses f o r Version A and Version B. Figure 1 I l l u s t r a t e s t h e p a tt e r n of responses t o t h e L l k e r t s c a l e by same-content q u e s t io n n a ir e s ta te m e n t f o r Versions A and B. Statem ent 1 and Statement 8 (the only sta te m e n t not grounded In marketing theory) had a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g ­ n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e .05 level and a d i f f e r e n c e between Version A and Version B respondents' rank -order placements. Four res ea rch qu e stio n s were posed t o guide the c o l l e c t i o n of data In t h i s study. Data from both p a r t i a l l y and t o t a l l y completed q u e s t io n n a ir e s were included 1n th e computer a n a l y s i s fo r Research Questions 1# 2# and 3. The computer program r e j e c t e d p a r t i a l l y com­ p l e t e d q u e s t io n n a ir e s f o r the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of Research Question 4. Thirty of t h e 139 completed q u e s t io n n a ir e s returned by members of Population I I were I d e n t i f i e d as p a r t i a l l y completed and th us were e lim in a te d from t h e program. Analysis of Research Question 1 Research Question 1 asked: What perceptions do Michigan commu­ n ity c o lle g e p r e s i d e n t s and members of t h e boards of t r u s t e e s hold about each of t h e m arketlng-f unction statements# as contained In th e study q u e stio n n a ir e ? Many s t a t i s t i c a l and visual analyses were applied t o the data p e rt a in i n g t o t h i s research question. Results of th e 51 MEAN 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 Rem Older No. A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rent Order No. B 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Q uestionnaire Version A ---------------Q uestionnaire Version B ----------------’ Significant difference occurred at p i = .05 level. Figure 1 . —P a t te r n of responses to Ltkert s c a l e between q u e s t io n n a ir e Versions A and B. 52 a n a l y s i s r e l a t e d t o Population I ( p res id e n ts) are presented f i r s t , followed by t h e r e s u l t s of an I d e n t i c a l a n a l y s i s f o r Population I I (trustees). Table 1 shows t h e rank ordering of t h e m arketlng-functlon st a te m e n t s from s t r o n g e s t agreement (lo w est mean score) t o s t r o n g e s t disagreement (highest mean score) f o r both Population 2 (p resid e nts) and Population I I ( t r u s t e e s ) . (See Appendix A fo r t h e wording of each s t a te m e n t as i t appeared 1n t h e qu e stio nn a ir e .) A low mean sc o re I n d i c a t e s t h a t respondents tended t o more stro n g ly agree t h a t t h e s u b je ct c on te n t of t h e s ta te m e n t was a marketing function. Conversely, a high mean s c o r e I n d i c a te s t h a t respondents tended t o more s t r o n g ly disag ree t h a t t h e su b j e c t co nte n t of t h e s ta te m e n t was a marketing fun ction . Table 2 d e p i c t s t h e rank ordering of market!ng-funct1on s t a t e ­ ments from g r e a t e s t consensus (low es t standard d e v ia ti on score) t o l e a s t consensus (highest standard d e v ia ti o n score) fo r both Population I (p resid e n ts) and Population I I ( t r u s t e e s ) . A low standard d e v ia ti on sc ore I n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e respondents* Individual answers were c lo s e t o t h e mean f o r a given statement. In o t h e r words, respondents tended t o give t h e same answer t o a statement. Conversely, a high stand ard deviation sc o r e I n d i c a te s t h a t t h e respondents' individual answers were f u r t h e r from t h e mean f o r a given statement. Respondents tended t o give d i f f e r e n t answers t o a s t a te m e n t and t h e r e f o r e consensus did not exist. Table t.— Rank ordering of marketing*Function statements from strongest agreement (lowest mean score) presidents and trustees. Presidents Trustees Item No. Statement Mean® S.D.b S.E.C 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 15 22 3 12 28 2 18 Selection of advertising media Writing of college advertising Student recruitment Writing of college catalog Publicizing financial aid Private development Days of noneredlt courses 1 .8 0 1.91 2.51 2.52 2.69 3.09 3-73 1.099 1.258 1.599 1.563 1 .5SB 1.839 1.833 .0 9 6 .107 .136 .136 .135 .157 .155 .33k -3k7 .6 6 0 -359 .kOB •3kl .653 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 16 19 8 17 1 2k 16 Hours of noncredit courses Days of credit courses Affirmative action policies Hours of credit courses Public relations Student placement Sites of credit off-campus 3.79 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 ,8 B 3.95 6 .0 0 6 .0 6 I.9 2 0 1.971 2.696 2 .0 6 8 2 .6 5 8 2 .21k 2 .0 6 3 .163 .167 .212 .176 .2 1 0 .191 .173 ■392 .377 .k3k .389 .668 13 21 27 20 .kk3 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Sites of noncredit off-campus Tuition credit Visual Inspection of buildings Fees of noneredlt courses Design of noncredit courses Evaluation of credit courses Deslqn of credit courses 6 .0 9 6.38 6.39 6 .6 0 6 .6 9 6.52 6.56 1.989 2.356 2.176 2.122 2.033 2.012 2.335 .1 6 9 .201 .1 8 6 .180 .176 .171 .202 •kll -366 .667 -362 .673 .673 .690 22 23 26 25 26 27 28 23 6 9 26 10 II 25 Grant writing Evaluation of noneredlt courses Institutional research Facility new construction Sites of noncredit on-campus Sites of credit on-campus Entrance assessments 6.66 6.78 6.90 6.99 5.16 5.16 5.17 1.970 1.758 2.105 2.178 1.971 2.139 2.158 .170 .150 .180 .185 .168 .183 .186 Rank Item Ho. Statement Mean* S.D.b 5.E.C 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 IS 22 3 12 28 IB 16 Selection of advertising media Writing of college advertising Student recruitment Writing of cot lege catalog Publicizing financial aid Days of noncredit courses Hours of noncredit courses 1 .6 2 1.76 2.19 2.3& 2 .k6 2 .k6 2.5k .752 .970 1-327 I.3BB 1.555 1.655 1.655 .Ik8 .19k .2 6 0 -272 .305 .325 •325 e 9 10 ii 12 13 Ik 17 19 8 2 9 2k 1 Hours of credit courses Days of credit courses Affirmative action policies Private development Institutional research Student placement PublIc relations 2.58 2.58 2.85 3 .0 0 3.08 3 .0 B 3.27 1.701 1.770 2.3kk 1.833 I.OkO 1 .7 0 6 2 .3 0 8 is 13 27 20 Ik Sites of noncredit off-campus Visual inspection of buildings Fees of noncredit courses Sites of credit off-campus Tuition credit Design of noncredit courses Sites of noncredit on-campus 3.35 3.38 3.k6 3.50 3-50 3.81 3.85 1.999 1.920 2.213 1.985 2-387 2.333 2.257 Evaluation of credit courses Evaluation or noncredit courses Entrance assessments Grant writing Sites of credit on-campus Facility new construction Design of credit courses 3.92 k.00 k.oB k.20 k.20 k.31 k.35 2 .0 9 6 1.855 2.235 1.708 2 .3 6 3 2 .6 1 3 2.k97 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2k 25 26 27 28 21 6 10 5 k 25 23 11 26 7 to strongest disagreement (highest mean score): Ml Rank 6 5 7 *A mean score oF 1 and 2 - strongest agreement, 3 and 6 - considerable aqreement, 5 and 6 - somewhat agreement, 7 and B * strongest disagreement. ^S.D. “ standard deviation. CS.E. - standard error. Table 2.— Rank ordering of marketlng-function statements from greatest consensus (lowest standard deviation score) to least consensus (highest standard deviation score): presidents and trustees. Trustees Presidents Item No. 1tem Mo. Statement S.D. 3 S.E.b Mean 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 15 22 3 12 28 16 18 Selection of advertising media Writing of college advertising Student recruitment Writing of college catalog Publicizing financial aid Hours of noncredit courses Days of noneredlt courses -75 .97 1.33 1.39 1.56 1.66 1.66 .iks .19k .260 .2 7 2 .305 .325 .325 1.615 1 .7 6 0 2 .192 2.385 2,662 2.539 2.662 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 15 22 7 13 12 28 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ik 17 2k 23 19 2 k 27 Hours of credit courses Student placement Grant writing Days of credit courses Private development Evaluation of noneredlt courses Visual Inspection of buildings 1.70 1.71 1.71 1.77 1.83 1.86 1.92 •33k ■3kl ■3k2 •3k7 .359 •36k .377 2.577 3.080 k.200 2.577 3.000 6.000 3.385 8 9 to 11 12 13 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Ik 13 9 5 20 25 10 Sites of credit off-cairpus Sites of noneredlt off-carpus Institutional research Evaluation of credit courses Fees of noneredlt courses Entrance assessments Sties of noncredit on-campus 1.99 2.DD 2.0k 2.10 2.21 2.2k 2 .2 6 .389 .392 .k08 .kll .k3k ,kk7 ,kk3 3.500 3-366 3.080 3-923 3.662 6.080 3.866 22 23 2k 25 26 27 28 1 6 B 11 21 26 7 Public relations Design of noncredit courses Affirmative action policies Sites of credit on-campus Tuition credit Facility new construction Design of credit courses 2.31 2.33 2.3k 2-36 2.39 2.kl 2.50 •k53 •kS7 ,k6D .k73 .668 .k73 .6 9 0 3.269 3.808 2.866 6.200 3.500 k.308 6.366 Rank *S.D. * standard deviation. bS.E. - standard error. Rank S.D. 3 S.E.b Nean Selection of advertising media Writing of college advertising Deslqn of credit courses Sites of noneredlt off-campus Writing of college catalog Publicizing financial aid Student recruitment 1 .1 0 1.26 1.36 1.56 1.56 1-59 1.60 .09k .107 .202 .169 .136 .135 .136 1.796 1.913 6.560 6 .0 9 6 2.518 2.688 2.507 k 18 2 16 23 19 10 Evaluation of noncredit courses Days of noneredlt courses Private development Hours of noneredlt courses Grant writing Days of credit courses Sites of noncredit on-campus 1.76 1.83 1.86 1.92 1.97 1.97 1.97 .150 .155 .157 .163 .170 .167 .168 k.783 3.727 3.095 3.791 6.657 3.799 5.138 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5 6 16 17 9 20 11 Evaluation of credit courses Design of noneredlt courses Sites of credit off-campus Hours of credit courses Instructional research Fees of noncredit courses Sites of Credit on-campus 2.0) 2.03 2.06 2.05 2.11 2.12 2.1k .171 .17k .173 .176 .180 .180 .183 6.522 6.693 6.063 3.878 6.898 6.603 5.161 22 23 2k 25 26 27 28 25 27 26 2k 21 1 8 Entrance assessments Visual Inspection of buildings Facility new construction Student placement Tuition credit Public relations Affirmative action policies 2.16 2-17 2 .1 8 2.21 2.36 2.66 2.50 .186 .186 .185 .191 .201 .210 .212 5.17k 6 .39k k .9 8 6 6.000 6.386 3.956 3 .0 8 0 Statement Lowest standard deviation score - greatest consensus; highest standard deviation score « least consensus. 55 P r e s i d e n t s 1 PerceDtlons_Akout Marketlng-Functlon Statements Table 3 shows t h e rank ordering of market1ng-function s t a t e ­ ments from s t r o n g e s t agreement (lo w est mean score) and g r e a t e s t consen­ sus (lowest standard d e v ia tio n score) t o s t r o n g e s t disagreement (highest mean score) and l e a s t consensus (h ig hest standard d e v ia ti on score) for Population I ( p res id e n ts). The seven st a te m e n t s having t h e s t r o n g e s t agreement# 1n rank order# were: s e l e c t i o n of a d v e r t i s i n g media; w r i t i n g of c o ll e g e a d v e r t i s i n g ; stu d e n t r e c r u itm e n t; w r i t i n g of the c o lle g e c a ta lo g ; p u b l i c i z i n g f i n a n c i a l aid loans# g ra n t s ; I d e n t i f i ­ c a t io n of t h e days of t h e week t o hold n o n c re d it programs; and I d e n t i ­ f i c a t i o n of hours t o o f f e r no n cre dit programs. The seven st a te m e n t s with t h e g r e a t e s t consensus# 1n rank order# were: s e l e c t i o n of adver­ t i s i n g media; w r i t i n g of c o ll e g e a d v e r t i s i n g ; stu d e n t r e c r u i tm e n t ; w r i t i n g of t h e c o lle g e c a t a l o g ; p u b l ic i z i n g fi n a n c ia l a id loans# g r a n ts ; I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of hours t o o f f e r no ncre dit programs; and Iden­ t i f i c a t i o n of days of t h e week t o hold n o n c re d it programs. The seven st a te m e n t s with the s t r o n g e s t agreement and th ose with t h e g r e a t e s t consensus were Iden tical# with t h e exception o f the re v e r se ordering of t h e s i x t h and seventh Items. Trustees* Perceptions About Marketing-Function Statements Table 4 shows t h e rank ord ering of market1ng-function s t a t e ­ ments from s t r o n g e s t agreement (low es t mean score) and g r e a t e s t Table 3»— Rank ordering of oarketing-fgnctlon statements from strongest agreement (lowest mean score) and greatest consensus (lowest standard deviation score) to strongest disagreement (highest mean score) and least consensus (highest standard deviation score): presidents. IUnk Item Ho. SMtement Mean S.D. S.E. Rank Item Ho. Statement S.D. S.E. Hean 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 IS 22 3 12 2B 18 16 Selection of advertising media Writing of college advertising Student recruitment Writing of college catalog Public!ting financial aid Days of noncredit courses Hours of noneredlt courses 1.62 1.76 2 .1 9 2.38 2.k6 2.k6 2.5k .752 .970 1.327 1.388 1.555 1.655 1.655 .168 .19k .260 .272 .305 •325 .325 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 IS 22 3 12 28 16 18 Selection of advertising media Writing of college advertising Student recruitment Writing of college catalog Publicizing financial aid Hours of noncredit courses Days of noneredlt courses .75 -97 1.33 1.39 1.56 1.66 1.66 .168 .196 .260 .272 .305 .325 •325 1.615 1.760 2.192 2-385 2.662 2.539 2.6 6 2 B 9 10 n 12 13 Ik 17 19 8 2 9 2k 1 Hours of credit courses Days of credit courses Affirmative action policies Private developaient Institutional research Student placement Public relations 2.58 2.58 2.85 3.00 3.08 3.08 3.27 1.701 1.770 2.3kk 1.833 2.0k0 1.706 2.308 ■33k .367 .660 .359 .608 .361 .653 8 9 10 II 12 13 16 17 2k 23 19 2 6 27 Hours of credit courses Student placement Grant writing Days of credit courses Private development Evaluation of noneredlt courses Visual Inspection of buildings t-70 1.71 1.71 1.77 1.83 1.86 1.92 .336 .361 .362 -367 -359 .366 .377 2.577 3.080 6.200 2.577 3.000 6.000 3.3B5 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 27 20 Ik 21 6 10 Sites of noneredlt off-campus Visual Inspection of buildings Fees of noneredlt courses Sites of credit off-campus Tuition credit Design of noneredlt courses Sites of noncredit on-campus 3.35 3.38 3-k6 3.50 3.50 3.81 3-85 1.999 1.920 2.213 1.985 2.387 2.333 2.257 .392 ■377 .k3k .389 .k6B .657 .663 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 16 13 9 5 20 25 10 Sites of credit afT-campus Sites of noncredit off-caepus Institutional research Evaluation of credit courses fees of noncredit courses Entrance assessments Sites of noneredlt on-campus 1-99 2.00 2 .0 6 2.10 2.21 2.26 2 .2 6 .389 -392 .608 .611 .636 .667 .663 3.500 3.366 3.080 3.923 3.662 6 .0 8 0 3.B66 22 23 2k 25 26 27 28 S k 25 23 II 26 7 Evaluation of credit courses Evaluation of noncredit courses Entrance assessments Grant writing Sites of credit on-campus Facility new construction Design of credit courses 3.92 6.00 k.OB k.20 k.20 k.3l k.35 2.096 1.855 2.235 1.708 2.363 2.kl3 2.k97 .611 .366 .667 .362 .673 .673 .690 22 23 2k 25 26 27 28 1 6 B 11 21 26 7 Public relations Design of noneredlt courses Affirmative action policies Sites of credit on-campus Tui t ion credi t Facility new construction Design of credit courses 2.31 2.33 2.36 2.36 2.39 2.61 2.50 .653 .657 .660 .673 .668 .673 .690 3.269 3.808 2.866 6.200 3.500 6 .3 0 8 6.366 Table k.--»Rank order 10 9 of lurketlng-function statements from strongest agreement (lowest mean score) and greatest consensus (lowest standard deviation score) to strongest disagreement (highest mean score) and least consensus (highest standard deviation score): trustees. tank 1 inn Ho. Statement Mean S.D. S.E. tank 1tern Ho. 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 15 22 3 12 28 2 IB Selection of advertising media Writing of college advertising Student recruitment Writing of college catalog Publicizing financial aid Private development Days of noneredlt courses 1 .8 0 1.91 2.51 2.52 2.69 3.09 3.73 1.099 1.258 1.599 1.563 1.588 1.839 1.833 .09* .107 .136 -13* .135 .157 .155 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 15 22 7 13 12 28 3 8 9 10 11 17 13 Ik 16 19 8 17 1 2k Ik Hours oT noneredlt courses Days of credit courses Affirmative action policies Hours of credit courses Public relations Student placement Sites of credit off-cai^us 3-79 3 .8 0 3.80 3 .8 8 3.95 k .00 k.Ok 1 .9 2 0 1.971 2 .* 9 6 2 .0*8 2.*58 2 .21k 2.0*3 -163 .167 .217 .17* .2 1 0 .191 .173 B 9 10 II 12 13 1* 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 21 27 20 6 5 7 Sites of noneredlt off-campus Tuition credit Visual Inspection of buildings Fees of noneredlt courses Design of noneredlt courses Evaluation of credit courses Design of credit courses k.09 *.38 *.39 * .* 0 *.*9 *•52 *.56 1.989 2.356 2.17* 2 .1 2 2 2.033 2 .0 1 2 2.335 .169 .201 .186 .1 8 0 .17* .171 .202 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2k 25 26 27 28 23 k 9 26 10 II 25 Grant writing Evaluation of noneredlt courses Institutional research Facility new construction Sites of noneredlt on-campus Sites of credit on-campus Entrance assessments * .6 6 *.78 *.90 *-99 5.1* 5-16 5.17 1-970 1.758 2.105 2.I7B 1.971 2.139 1.158 .170 .150 .1 8 0 .185 .168 .183 .18* 22 23 2* 25 26 27 28 S.O. S.E. Hean Selection of advertising media Writing of college advertising Design of credit courses Sites of noncredit off-campus Writing of college catalog Publicizing financial aid Student recruitment 1.10 1.26 1.3* 1.56 1.56 1.59 1 .6 0 .09* .107 .202 .169 .13* .135 .136 1.796 1-913 k.560 *.09* 2.518 2.688 2.507 * IB 2 16 23 19 10 Evaluation of noneredlt courses Days of noncredit courses Private development Hours of noncredit courses Grant writing Days of credit courses Sites of noneredlt on-campus 1.76 1.83 I.Bk 1.92 1.97 1.97 1-97 .150 .155 .157 .163 .170 .167 .168 *.7B3 3-727 3-095 3-791 *.657 3-799 5.138 5 6 I* 17 9 20 Evaluation of credit courses Design of noncredit courses Sites of credit off-campus Hours of credit courses Instructional research Fees of noneredlt courses Sites of credit on-campus 2.01 2.03 2.0* 2.05 2.11 2.12 2.1* .171 .17* .173 .17* . IB0 .180 .183 *.522 *.*93 *.0*3 3-87B * .8 9 8 *.*03 5.161 25 27 26 2* 21 1 Entrance assessments Visual Inspection of buildings Facility new construction Student placement Tultion credi t Public relations Affirmative action policies 2.16 2.17 2.IB 2.21 2.36 2.*6 2.50 .18* .186 .185 .191 .201 .210 .212 5.17* *.39* * .9 6 6 *.000 *.38* 3-956 3.080 11 a Statement 58 consensus (lowest standard d e v ia ti o n score) t o s t r o n g e s t disagreement (hig hest mean score) and l e a s t consensus (h ig h est standard de v ia ti o n score) for Population I I ( t r u s t e e s ) . The seven s t a te m e n t s with the s t r o n g e s t agreement* In rank order* were: s e l e c t i o n of a d v e r t i s i n g media; w r i t i n g of c o ll e g e a d v e r t i s i n g ; s t u d e n t r e c r u i tm e n t ; w r i t i n g of the c o l l e g e c a ta lo g ; p u b l i c i z i n g f i n a n c i a l a i d loans* g ra n t s ; p r i v a t e development; and I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of days of t h e week t o hold no n c re d it programs. The seven s t a te m e n t s with th e g r e a t e s t consensus* 1n rank order* were: s e l e c t i o n of a d v e r t i s i n g media; w r i t i n g of c o l l e g e adver­ t i s i n g ; design of c r e d i t cours es; s e l e c t i o n of classroom s i t e s o f f campus; w r i t i n g of t h e c o ll e g e c a t a l o g ; p u b l i c i z i n g f i n a n c ia l aid loans* g ra n t s ; and s t u d e n t r e c ru itm en t. In comparing t h e seven st a te m e n t s with t h e s t r o n g e s t agreement and tho se with t h e g r e a t e s t consensus f i v e m ark e tln g -fu n ctlo n s t a t e ­ ments were common t o both l i s t s . These were s e l e c t i o n of a d v e r t i s i n g media* w r i t i n g of c o l l e g e advertis ing* st u d e n t recruitment* w r i t i n g of c o ll e g e catalog* and p u b l i c i z i n g f i n a n c i a l aid. In f u r t h e r comparing the combined common s ta te m e n t 1 1 s t from Population I with t h e combined common s ta te m e n t l i s t from Population II* f i v e out of seven st a te m e n t s were common t o both populations. They were s e l e c t i o n of a d v e r t i s i n g media* w r i t i n g of c o ll e g e advertis ing* st u d e n t recruitment* w r i t i n g of c o ll e g e catalog* and p u b l i c i z i n g f i n a n ­ c i a l a id . 59 Analysis of Research Question 2 Research Question 2 asked: What d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between community c o ll e g e presidents* and tru stees* p e rc ep tio n s about each of t h e market1ng-function sta te m e nts? t h i s research question. Three methods were used t o analyze The mean rank-ordered p o s i t i o n s of each s t a t e ­ ment between Populations I and I I were compared t o see 1f d if f e r e n c e s e xis te d. Second* a ch1-square t e s t was performed t o I d e n t i f y whether s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s ( a t t h e .05 le v e l) e x i s t e d between t h e two groups' rank-orderln gs of t h e state ments. Finally* a stu d en t d i s t r i b u t i o n t - t e s t was adm inistered t o t h e L l k e r t - s c a l e values o f t h e presidents* and tru s t e e s * p e rceptions about m arkettng-function sta te m e n ts. The r e s u l t s of t h i s l a s t comparison are shown in T a b l e s . Table 1 showed t h e mean-score d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Population I ( p res id e n ts) and Population I I (trustees)* In which t h e ranking was from lowest mean sc ore ( s t r o n g e s t agreement) t o t h e h ig h e s t mean score ( s t r o n g e s t disagreement). The Population I and Population I I data were compared t o determine t h e r e l a t i v e rankings of st a te m e n t s and t h e degree of d i f f e r e n c e t h a t e x i s t e d between t h e rank-ordered s t a te m e n t p o s i t i o n s of t h e two populations. On 11 statements* no d i f f e r e n c e s e x is te d 1n t h e rank-o rderin g of st a te m e n t s by Populations I and I I . Thirteen st a te m e n t s had a rank- o rder p o s i t i o n d i f f e r e n c e ranging from 1 t o 4, Four st a te m e n t s had a rank-order p o s i t io n d i f f e r e n c e ranging from 5 t o 12. discussed 1n t h e following paragraphs. The l a t t e r a re 60 Table 5.—Results of stu d e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n t - t e s t comparison between L l k e r t - s c a l e values of p r e s i d e n t s 1 and t r u s t e e s 1 percep­ t i o n s about market1ng-function sta te m e n ts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Separate Variance Estimate 2-T atl Probab, Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error PUBLIC RELATIONS Pop. I 26 Pop. I I 137 3.2692 3.9562 2.308 2.458 .453 .210 .177 PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Pop. I 26 Pop. I I 137 3.0000 3 .0949 1.833 1.839 .359 .157 .810 STUDENT RECRUITMENT Pop. I I 26 Pop. I I 138 2.1923 2.5072 1.327 1.599 .260 .136 .290 STUDENT EVALUATION OF NONCREDIT PROGRAMS 1.855 4.0000 Pop. I 26 1.758 4.7826 Pop. I I 138 .364 .150 .055 STUDENT EVALUATION OF CREDIT COURSES 2.096 3.9231 Pop. I 26 4.5217 Pop. I I 138 2.012 .411 .171 .188 DESIGN OF NONCREDIT PROGRAMS 3.8077 Pop. I 26 4.4926 Pop. I I 136 2.333 2.033 .457 .174 .171 DESIGN OF CREDIT COURSES Pop. I 26 4.3462 4.5597 Pop. I I 134 2.497 2.335 .490 .202 .689 SELECTION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES 2.344 Pop. I 26 2.6462 2.496 Pop. I I 138 3.8043 .460 .212 .066 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH Pop. I 25 3.0800 Pop. I I 137 4.8978 .408 .180 .000 .443 .010 Variable Number of Cases 2.040 2.105 CLASSROOM SITES NONCREDIT COURSES ON CAMPUS Pop. I 26 3.8462 2.257 6] Table 5.— Cont inued. Varia ble 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of Cases Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error Separate Variance Estimate 2-Ta1l Probab. CLASSROOM SITES CREDIT COURSES ON CAMPUS Pop. I 25 4.2000 2.363 Pop. I I 137 5.1606 2.139 .473 .183 .067 COLLEGE CATALOG Pop. I 26 Pop. I I 137 .272 .134 .662 2.3846 2.5182 1.388 1.563 CLASSROOM SITES NONCREDIT COURSES OFF CAMPUS Pop. I 26 3.3462 1.999 .392 Pop. I I 138 4.0942 1.989 .169 .089 CLASSROOM SITES CREDIT COURSES OFF CAMPUS Pop. I 26 3.5000 1.985 Pop. I I 139 4.0432 2.043 .389 .173 .211 ADVERTISING MEDIA Pop. I 26 Pop. I I 137 .148 .094 .308 IDENTIFICATION OF HOURS NONCREDIT COURSES Pop. I 26 2.53 85 1.655 Pop. I I 139 3.7914 1.920 .325 .163 .001 IDENTIFICATION OF HOURS CREDIT COURSES Pop. I 26 2.5769 1.701 Pop. I I 139 3.8777 2.048 .334 .174 .001 IDENTIFICATION OF DAYS NONCREDIT COURSES Pop. I 26 2.4615 1.655 Pop. I I 139 3.7266 1.833 .325 .155 .001 IDENTIFICATION OF DAYS CREDIT COURSES Pop. I 26 2.5769 1.770 Pop. I I 139 3.7986 1.971 .347 .167 .003 IDENTIFICATION OF FEES NONCREDIT COURSES Pop. I 26 3 . 4615 2.213 Pop. I I 139 4.4029 2.122 . 434 .180 .053 1.6154 1.7956 .752 1.099 62 Table 5 . —Continued. Number of Cases V a ria b le 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mean Standard Deviation Standard E rro r S ep arate Variance Estimate 2 -T ail Probab. IDENTIF CATION OF TUITION CREDIT COURSES 26 2.387 pop. ; 3 .5000 138 Pop. I 4.3841 2.356 .468 .201 .091 COLLEGE ADVERTISING Pop. 25 Pop. I 138 1.7600 1.9130 .970 1.258 .194 .107 .494 GRANT WRITING Pop. 25 Pop. I 134 4.2000 4.6567 1.708 1.970 .342 .170 .239 STUDENT JOB PLACEMENT 25 pop. ; 3.0800 134 Pop. I 4.0000 1.706 2.214 .341 .191 .024 STUDENT ENTRANCE ASSESSMENT Pop. 25 4.0800 Pop. I 138 5.1739 2.235 2.158 .447 .184 .030 COLLEGE FACILITY NEW CONSTRUCTION Pop. 26 4.3077 2.413 Pop. I 138 2.1 78 4.9855 .473 .185 .191 VISUAL Pop. Pop. .377 .186 .021 .305 .135 .501 NSPECTION OF COLLEGE BUILDING 26 3.3846 1.920 I 137 4.3942 2.174 PUBLICI2 ING FINANCIAL AID LOANS 26 Pop. 2.4615 138 Pop. I 2.6884 1.555 1.588 63 Statement .2. Based on mean scores# p r e s i d e n t s ranked Statem ent 2 ( w r itin g of c o ll e g e a d v e r t i s i n g ) e le venth; t r u s t e e s ranked 1 t s i x t h . Statement 7 . Based on mean scores# p r e s i d e n t s ranked Statement 7 (design of c r e d i t courses) tw enty -eig h th; t r u s t e e s ranked I t twentyfirst. Statement 9. Based on mean scores# p r e s i d e n t s ranked Statement 9 ( I n s t i t u t i o n a l research) twelfth# whereas t r u s t e e s ranked 1 t twentyfou rth . Statement 10. Based on mean scores# p r e s i d e n t s ranked Statem ent 10 ( s i t e s of n o n c re d it on-campus courses) t w e n t y - f i r s t ; t r u s t e e s ranked 1 t t w e n ty - s ix th . A ch1-square t e s t with t h r e e degrees of freedom was used t o I d e n t i f y whether s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s ( a t t h e .05 l e v e l ) e x i s t e d between Population I and Population I I In term s of t h e i r p e rc ep tio ns of t he market1ng-function state m ents. Table 6 shows the c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of responses f o r Populations I and II# divided I n t o four c a t e g o r i e s : s trongly agree# agree considerably# agree somewhat# and s t r o n g l y d i s ­ agree. Each category Includes two L 1 k e r t - s c a l e numbers# ranging from 1 and 2 (strongly agree) t o 7 and 8 (st rongly disagree). S tatistically s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s ( a t t h e .05 lev e l) e x i s t e d between t h e two po pulations 1n term s of t h e i r perceptions of s i x sta te m e n t s : 9# 10# 16, 17, 18, and 19. A st u d e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n t - t e s t was applied t o p r e s i d e n t s ' and t r u s t e e s ' H k e r t - s c a l e mean s c o res t o determine 1f s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s ( a t t h e .05 leve l) e x i s t e d between t h e groups Table 6.— Cross-tabulation of responses, by quadrant and by statement: presidents and trustees. Presidents Statement Number 1 2 3*+ 4 5 6 7 8 g*+ 10*+ 11 12 13 14 15 16*+ 17*+ 18*+ 19*+ 20 21 22 23 24+ 25+ 26 27+ 28 Agree Cons id. Agree Somewhat h ) {%) {%) 1(6.2 1(6.2 65.l( 23.1 30.8 38.5 30.8 61.5 i(i(.0 38.5 36.0 61.5 1(2.3 3^-6 84.6 50.0 57.7 57.7 57.7 42.3 50.0 80.0 20,0 44.0 32.0 26.9 42.3 61.5 26.9 26.9 26.9 30.8 26.9 23.1 23.1 15.4 32.0 19.2 12.0 26.9 26.9 30 .8 15.4 42.3 30 .8 34.6 26.9 23.1 23.1 20.0 2 8 .0 40.0 24.0 2 6 .9 26.9 3 0.8 Strongly Agree 15.4 23.1 7.7 42.3 30.8 23.1 23.1 11.5 16.0 23.1 28.0 11.5 23.1 26.9 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 7.7 19-2 3-8 0.0 44.0 12.0 20.0 19.2 23.1 3.8 Trustees Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Ag ree Cons id. (*y n ) {%) 11.5 3.8 0.0 3.8 11.5 15.4 23.1 11.5 8.0 19.2 24.0 0.0 7.7 7.7 0.0 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 15.4 23.1 0.0 8.0 4.0 24.0 26.9 7.7 3-8 38.7 45.3 56.5 8.7 18.8 19.1 26.9 41.3 15.3 10.1 15.3 61.3 23.9 28.1 82.5 24.5 28,1 27.3 27.3 22.3 2 6.8 77.5 17.2 32.1 13.8 13.8 20.4 57.2 16.8 2 9 .2 31.2 36.2 31.9 33.1 21.6 18.8 24.8 29.0 19.0 26.3 37.7 31.7 12.4 41.0 33.1 37.4 34.5 29.5 25.4 17.4 24.6 25.4 21.0 27-5 34.3 27.5 Agree Somewha t (*) Strongly Disagree (« 22.6 20.4 10.1 35.2 29.0 27.2 24.6 16.7 34.3 29-0 32.1 9-5 23.9 25.9 5.1 25.2 26.6 2 8.8 28.1 28.1 21.7 2.9 35.8 24.6 29.0 29.7 25.5 11.6 21.9 5.1 2.2 18.8 20.3 20.6 26.9 23.2 25.5 31.9 33.6 2.9 14.5 14.4 0.0 9.4 12.2 6.5 10.1 20.1 26.1 1.8 22.4 17.9 36.2 29.0 19.7 3.6 ^Significant difference existed at the p < .05 level (chi-square test). +Significant difference existed at the p < .05 level (student t-distribution test). 65 on any of t h e m arket* n g-fu nction s t a te m e n t s . P r e s i d e n t s and t r u s t e e s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y 1n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of nine s t a t e m e n t s : 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 2 4 , 25, and 27. A n o t a t i o n system was used. In which a + was assigned t o t h e p o p u l a t l o n -c a te g o r y c e l l having t h e h ig her p ercen tag e as compared t o t h e same category c e l l of t h e o t h e r population. Likewise, a - symbol was used t o I d e n t i f y t h e po pulation c e l l with t h e lower percentage. The o r d e r of n o t a t i o n was from s t r o n g l y agre e t o s t r o n g l y disa gree . The n o t a t i o n system was used t o help v i s u a l i z e t h e p a t t e r n of responses. Nine s t a t e m e n t s were I d e n t i f i e d as ones on which p r e s i d e n t s and t r u s t e e s 1 p e rc ep tio n s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y a t t h e .05 l e v e l . They a r e disc u sse d 1n numerical o rder 1n t h e followin g paragraph s. State m ent 9 ( I n s t i t u t i o n a l resea rch). The o r d e r of response s f o r p r e s i d e n t s was + ------- and f o r t h e t r u s t e e s 1 t was - + + +. The skewness v a lu e f o r t h e p r e s i d e n t s was 1315, and f o r t r u s t e e s 1 t was -.257. By mean sc ore, p r e s i d e n t s ran k -o rd ered t h i s s t a t e m e n t t w e l f t h ; t r u s t e e s ranked 1 t t w e n ty - f o u r t h . S ta te m e n t 10 ( s i t e s o f n o n c r e d i t c o u rs es on campus). The order of response s f o r p r e s i d e n t s was + ------- and f o r t r u s t e e s 1 t was - + + +. The skewness valu e f o r p r e s i d e n t s was .162, and f o r t r u s t e e s 1 t was -324. By mean s c o r e , p r e s i d e n t s ran k -o rd ered t h i s s t a t e m e n t tw e n ty - f i r s t ; t r u s t e e s ranked 1 t t w e n t y - s i x t h . State m ent 16 (hours of n o n c r e d i t courses ). responses f o r p r e s i d e n t s was + + — The o r d e r of and f o r t r u s t e e s I t was - - + +. 66 The skewness value for p r e s i d e n t s was 1.447, and f o r t r u s t e e s i t was .414. By mean sc ore, p r e s i d e n t s rank-ordered t h i s s ta te m e n t seventh, whereas t r u s t e e s ranked 1 t e ig h th . Statement 17 (hours of c r e d i t courses). for p r e s i d e n t s was + and f o r t r u s t e e s 1 t The order of responses was - + + +. The skewness value for p r e s i d e n t s was 1.415, and f o r t r u s t e e s 1t was .275. By mean s c o re, p r e s i d e n t s rank-ordered t h i s s t a te m e n t e ig h th ; t r u s t e e s ranked 1 t ele v enth . Statement 18 (days of noncre dit courses). responses f o r p r e s i d e n t s was + — The order of + and f o r t r u s t e e s 1 t was - + + The skewness value f o r p r e s i d e n t s was 1.594, and f o r t r u s t e e s 1 t was .362. By mean score, p r e s i d e n t s rank-ordered t h i s sta te m e n t si x t h ; t r u s t e e s ranked 1 t seventh. Statement 19 (days of c r e d i t courses). The order of for p r e s i d e n t s was +-------- and f o r t r u s t e e s 1 t responses was - + + +. The skewness value f o r p r e s i d e n t s was 1.315, and f o r t r u s t e e s i t was .343. By mean sc o re, p r e s i d e n t s rank-ordered t h i s sta te m e n t n in th ; t r u s t e e s also ranked 1 t n in th . Statement 24 (stud e nt placement). p r e s i d e n t s was + + — The ord er of responses fo r and f o r t r u s t e e s 1 t w a s + +. The skewness value for p r e s i d e n t s was .413, and f o r t r u s t e e s I t was .160. By mean sc ore, p r e s i d e n t s rank-ordered t h i s s t a te m e n t t h i r t e e n t h , and t r u s t e e s a l s o ranked I t t h i r t e e n t h . Statement 25 (entrance assessment). p r e s i d e n t s was + + The o rd er of responses f o r and f o r t r u s t e e s 1 t was - - + +. The skewness 67 value fo r p r e s i d e n t s was .037* and fo r t r u s t e e s 1 t was -.423. By mean score* p r e s i d e n t s rank-ordered t h i s s t a t e m e n t twenty-fourth* whereas t r u s t e e s ranked 1 t tw e n ty - e ig h t h . Statem en t 27 (visu al In sp e ctio n of b u i ld i n g s ) . responses f o r p r e s i d e n t s was + - — The o r d e r of and f o r t r u s t e e s 1 t was - + + +. The skewness valu e f o r p r e s i d e n t s was .393, and f o r t r u s t e e s 1 t was .157. By mean sc o r e , p r e s i d e n t s rank-o rdered t h i s s t a te m e n t s i x t e e n t h , and t r u s t e e s ranked 1 t s e v en te enth . Analysis o f Research Question 3 Research Question 3 asked: What 1s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e average m a r k e t ! n g - f u n c tl o n - p e r c e p t l o n s c o r e s of members o f t h e board of t r u s t e e s of each c o l l e g e and t h e i r c o l l e g e ' s numerical rank on e i g h t Michigan community c o l l e g e a c t 1 v 1 ty - c l a s s 1 f 1 c a t 1 o n s t r u c t u r e s ? Two a n a l y s e s were undertaken t o answer t h i s quest io n. One was s t a t i s ­ t i c a l and t h e o t h e r mathematical. The product-moment c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n , t h e Pearson r , was t h e s t a t 1 s t 1 c a l - c o r r e l a t 1 o n Index used t o measure t h e degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p between I nd ivid ua l Pop u latio n I I res pondents' H k e r t - s c a l e v a lu e s by q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t a t e m e n t (dependent v a r i a b l e ) and raw data from e i g h t Michigan community c o l l e g e f i s c a l y e ar 1983-84 A c t iv i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S t r u c t u r e (ACS) t a b l e s (Independent v a r i a b le ) . The ACS t a b l e s c o n ta in data, ranked by c o l l e g e , concerning t u i t i o n and f e e revenues per f u l l y e a r equated s t u d e n t (FYES) (ACS 1), o p e r a t io n a l t a x e s per FYES (ACS 2), s t a t e a id p e r FYES (ACS 3 ) , " o t h e r ” general fund revenue per FYES (ACS 4), general fund revenue per FYES (ACS 5), 68 s t a t e - e q u a l i z e d va lu a tio n per FYES (ACS 6)# 1n-d1str1 ct residency per­ centages (ACS 7)» and weighted t u i t i o n r a t e (ACS 6). fo r ACS t a b le s .) (See Appendix B The t a b l e s contain t h e rankings of t h e s t a t e aver­ ages# which were not included In the t a b u l a t i o n fo r the study. The raw data from each ACS t a b l e were used 1n t h e tabulation# r a t h e r than t h e rank-order p o s i t i o n numbers. The mathematical a n a l y s i s was conducted t o help e x p la in t h e na ture of the r e l a t i o n s h i p described by the Pearson product-moment correlation. follows. First# each ACS t a b l e was divided I n to t h r e e groups as The top nine c o lle g e s with t h e h i g h e s t t h i r d raw data 1n each ACS t a b l e were placed 1n t h e top group (High)# t h e middle e i g h t c o l ­ l eg e s were placed in th e middle group (Medium)# and the bottom nine c o lle g e s with t h e low est t h i r d raw data were placed In t h e bottom group (Low). Next# a group average mean sc o r e was c a l c u l a t e d from t h e Ind i­ vidual L 1 k e r t- sc a le scores of t r u s t e e s of c o ll e g e s Included 1n each group. The t h r e e average group mean sc ore s (High# Medium# and Low) were arranged by q u e s t io n n a ir e s t a te m e n t f o r each ACS ta b l e . These data are presented In Table 7. The r e s u l t s of both t h e s t a t i s t i c a l and t h e mathematical analy­ ses a r e rep o rted below# In the order of t h e ACS ta b l e . Table 8 1s a 11st of Michigan community c o ll e g e s with t h e i r numerical rank 1n each of t h e e i g h t ACS t a b l e c ateg o ries . Fourteen p a ir s of v a r i a b l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d a t p £ .05. An a d d it i o n a l p a i r of v a r i a b l e s was c o r r e l a t e d a t p = .053 T a b l e 7 . — C omp ar is on o f ACS r an ke d g r o u p s by q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t a t e m e n t : Are t ui ACS Table 1 2 3 ft ft ft ft ft it it it 5 6 7 7 7 7 8 Statement Number3 6 22 No s i g n i f i c a n t pairs 6 7 9 lit 25 26 27 28 No s i g n i f i c a n t p a irs 15 2 3 5 26 No s i g n i f i c a n t pairs trustees. Type of Relationship High Med i urn Low ACS Group Mean Pos i t i ve Negative ft.91 1.76 ft. 60 1.8ft 3.95 2.15 ft.ft9 1.91 U U U Negative Negative U U P o sitiv e ft.35 ft.23 ft.81 3.78 ft.9ft 5.16 5.25 ft.36 ft.ft9 ft.56 ft.90 ft.Oft ft.71 ft.12 3.16 ft.06 ft.16 ft.51 3-95 Mi ssing ft.ftft 3.92 2.25 5.60 ft.98 2.55 ft.99 ft.39 2.69 U Positive Positive Positive Positive 1.71 3.19 2.8ft 5.00 5.29 1.6ft 3.51 2.5ft ft.ftl 5.02 2.02 2.65 2.15 ft.13 ft.65 1.80 3.09 2.51 ft.52 ft.99 Group Meanb Oniy pairs of variables significantly correlated at p < .05 were included in Table 5. bHigh group membership includes colleges with the highest top third raw data contained in the specified ACS table. Low group membership includes colleges with the lowest bottom third raw data contained in the specified ACS table. Table 8 . — ACS n u m e r i c a l Col 1ege Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 lit 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 rank s t a n d i n g o f M i c h i g a n c o m mu ni ty c o l l e g e s , Col lege Name Alpena Bay de Noc C. Mott Del ta Glen Oaks Gogebic Grand Rapids Henry Ford Highland Park Jackson Ka Iamazoo Kellogg Ki rkland Lake Michigan Lansing Macomb Midland Mon roe Montcalm Muskegon North Cent. Mich . Northwestern Oakland St. C lair Schoolcraft Southwestern Washtenaw Wayne West Shore ACS 1 Tui tion G Fees 13 16 8 7 24 22 1 2 4 20 26 11 27 23 14 6 18 29 28 19 25 3 21 5 9 10 12 15 17 ACS 2 ACS 3 Oper. Taxes State Aid 26 17 11 6 5 25 23 22 29 24 13 15 14 7 18 20 19 1 4 9 16 21 12 10 8 27 3 28 2 8 16 22 28 18 4 19 15 3 2 25 12 6 21 20 23 10 27 1 5 9 11 29 14 24 17 26 7 13 ACS 4 Other Gen. Fund Revenue ACS 5 General Fund Revenue 23 22 12 29 5 11 24 18 6 2 16 26 10 8 20 21 19 15 1 14 3 7 25 27 28 17 9 13 4 23 24 11 17 6 20 19 15 18 12 26 16 10 9 25 27 21 1 3 5 13 8 29 7 14 28 4 22 2 by ACS g r o u p . ACS 6 SEV ACS 7 InDistrict Schools 24 25 12 8 7 28 27 26 29 21 14 19 6 1 23 15 17 4 9 16 18 20 5 10 13 22 11 2 3 22 20 4 2 11 24 26 28 29 13 9 15 19 6 18 7 21 3 17 14 25 23 8 10 16 27 12 1 5 ACS 8 Weighted Tuition 23 18 5 6 14 19 1 2 7 9 27 22 28 26 13 4 15 29 16 17 20 3 25 11 10 12 8 21 24 71 and was Included In t h e report* brin gin g t h e t o t a l number of p air ed v a r i a b l e s t o 15. A p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p I n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e group mean scores I n c r e a s e 1n numerical valu e (most s t r o n g l y d isa g ree ) from t h e Low group t o t h e Medium group t o t h e High group. A positive relationship I n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e mean s c o r e f o r t h e High group I s g r e a t e r than the mean s c o r e f o r t h e Medium group# and t h a t t h e Medium group's mean s c o r e 1s g r e a t e r than t h a t f o r t h e Low group. Table 1 r e p r e s e n t s a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p . S ta te m e n t 6 f o r ACS The High group has a mean s c o r e o f 4.91* which 1s g r e a t e r 1n numerical v a lu e than t h e Medium group's mean s c o r e of 4.60* which 1n t u r n 1s g r e a t e r than t h e Low g r o u p 's mean sc o re of 3 . 9 5 . A n e g a tiv e r e l a t i o n s h i p I n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e group mean s c o r e s I n c r e a s e 1n numerical value* s t a r t i n g from t h e High group t o t h e Medium group t o t h e Low group. n e g a t iv e r e l a t i o n s h i p . State m ent 22 of ACS Table 2 r e p r e s e n t s a The I s lower in numerical value High group has a mean s c o r e of 1.76* which than t h e Medium group's mean s c o r e of 1.84# which In t u r n i s lower than t h e Low group's mean s c o r e o f 2.15. A n e g a t iv e r e l a t i o n s h i p a l s o I n d i c a t e s an I n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p . A U-shaped r e l a t i o n s h i p I n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e mean s c o r e f o r t h e Medium group 1s h igh er 1n numerical value than t h a t of t h e High group and t h e Low group o r I s lower 1n numerical v a lu e than t h e mean s c o r e s of t h e High and Low groups. U-shaped r e l a t i o n s h i p . Statem en t 6 o f ACS Table 4 d e m o n stra te s a The High group has a mean s c o r e o f 4.35# which I s g r e a t e r than t h e Medium group's mean s c o r e of 4.06. The Low group 72 a l s o has a mean s c o r e of 4.94* which I s g r e a t e r than t h e Medium group's mean s c o r e o f 4.06. ACS 1 ( T u it i o n and Fee Revenues Per FYES1 Sta te m en t 6 (design of n o n c re d i t courses ). A positive r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between S tate m en t 6 and ACS l j p = .022» r = .1732. The average mean s c o r e s were 4.91 f o r t h e High group* 4.60 for th e Medium group* and 3.95 f o r t h e Low group. The grand mean was 4.49* w i t h n = 136. ACS_2_IOperational Taxes Per FYES) Sta te m en t 22 ( w r i t i n g of c o l l e g e a d v e r t i s i n g ) . A n e g a tiv e r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between Sta te m ent 22 and ACS 2; p = .27* r = -.1639. The average mean s c o res were 1.76 f o r t h e Medium group* and 2.15 f o r t h e Low group. t h e High group* 1.84 fo r The grand mean was 1.91, with n = 138. ACS_3_(S_tate_A1d .Per_ FYES) No r e l a t i o n s h i p between Independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s was I d e n t i f i e d a t t h e .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l . ACS 4_( "Other" General Fund Revenue Per.FYES) State m ent 6 (design o f n o n c r e d i t c ours es). A n e g a tiv e r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between S ta te m e n t 6 and ACS 4; p= .008* r = -.2055. t h e High The average mean s c o res were 4 3 5 f o r group* 4.06 fo r 73 the Medium group# and 4.94 for t h e Low group. The grand mean was 4.49# with n = 136. Statement 7 (design of c r e d i t courses). A negative r e l a t i o n s h i p was I d e n t i f i e d between Statement 7 and ACS 4; p = .003# r = -.2385. The average mean f o r t h e Medium group# and 5.16 scor es were 4.23 for t h e High group# 4.16 f o r t h e Low group. The grand mean was 4.56# with n = 137. Statement 9 ( I n s t i t u t i o n a l resea rch). A negative r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between S t a t e m e n t 9 and ACS 4; p = .027# r = -.1645. The average mean scores were 4.81 for t h e High group# 4.51 for t h e Medium group# and 5.25 f o r t h e Low group. The grand mean was 4.90# with n = 137. Statement 14 ( s i t e s of c r e d i t courses o f f campus). A negative r e l a t i o n s h i p was found t o e x i s t between Statem ent 14 and ACS 4; p = .053# r = -.1375. The average mean sc ores were 3.78 for t h e High group# 3.95 fo r the Medium group# and 4.36 f o r t h e Low group. The grand mean was 4.04# with n = 139. Statement 25 (entrance assessments). A n egativ e r e l a t i o n s h i p was i d e n t i f i e d between Statement 25 and ACS 4; p = .035# r = -.1552. The data obtained from t h e mathematical a n a l y s i s a r e missing from the computer p r i n t o u t and cannot be r e t r i e v e d . Statement 26 ( f a c i l i t y new c o n s t r u c t io n ) . A negative r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between Statement 26 and ACS 4; p = .019# r ** -.1765. The average mean sc ores were 4.71 f o r t h e High group# 4.44 for lb t h e Medium group* and 5.60 f o r t h e Low group. The grand mean was 4.99# with n = 138. Statem en t 27 (v isu a l In sp e c tio n of b u i ld i n g s ) . A n e g a tiv e r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between Sta te m ent 27 and ACS 4; p = .037# r = -.1529. The average mean s c o r e s were 4.12 f o r t h e High group# 3.92 for t h e Medium group# and 4.98 f o r t h e Low group. The grand mean was 4.39# with n = 137. Statem en t 28 ( p u b l i c i z i n g f i n a n c i a l aid). A positive r e l a t i o n s h i p was I d e n t i f i e d between S ta te m e n t 28 and ACS 4; p = .032# r = .1581. The average mean s c o r e s were 3.16 f o r t h e High group# 3.25 f o r t h e Medium group# and 2.55 f o r t h e Low group. The grand mean was 2.69# with n = 138. ACS 5__( General Fund Revenue) No r e l a t i o n s h i p between Independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s was I d e n t i f i e d a t t h e .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l . ACS 6 ( S t a t e - E q u a l i z e d V a lu a t io n Per FYES) S tate m en t 15 ( s e l e c t i o n of a d v e r t i s i n g media). A n e g a t iv e r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between Statement 15 and ACS 6j p = .033# r = -.1579. The average mean s c o res were 1.71 f o r t h e High group# 1.64 f o r t h e Medium group# and 2.02 f o r t h e Low group. with n “ 137. The grand mean was 1.80# 75 ACS 7 ( I n - D i s t r i c t Residency Percentages) Statement 2 ( p r i v a t e development). A positive relationship e x i s t e d be tween S t a t e m e n t 2 and ACS 7; p = .026* r = .1658. average mean scores were 3.19 fo r group* and 2.65 f o r t h e Low group. t h e High group* 3.51 The f o r t h e medium The grand average was 3.09* with n = 137. Statem ent 3 ( stu d e n t rec ru itm en t). A p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p was I d e n t i f i e d between Statement 3 and ACS 7; p = .018* r = .1795. 2.54 The average mean sc ores were 2.84 f o r t h e High group, fo r t h e Medium group, and 2.15 f o r t h e Low group. The grand mean was 2.51* with n = 138. Statem ent 5 (evalu atio n of c r e d i t courses). A positive r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between Statement 5 and ACS 7; p = .022* r = .1721. The average mean sc ore s were 5.00 f o r t h e High group, 4.41 for the Medium group* and 4.13 fo r t h e Low group. The grand mean was 4.52* with n = 138. Statement 26 ( f a c i l i t y new c o n str u c tio n ) . A positive r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between Statement 26 and ACS 7; p = .040* r = .1494. The average mean sc ore s were 5.29 for t h e High group* 5.02 for t h e medium group* and 4.65 f o r t h e Low group. The grand mean was 4.99* with n = 138. ACS_8_J_tte1qhted Tuition Rate) No r e l a t i o n s h i p between Independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s was I d e n t i f i e d a t t h e .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l . 76 Research Question 4 Research Question 4 asked* What 1s th e p a t t e r n of responses of t h e members of t h e boards of tru stee s* based on a l l t h e data c o lle c te d ? Hie canonical a n a l y s i s of varian ce tec hnique was used t o make I n f e r ­ ences about Population I I data (Independent v a r i a b le s ) and t h e ACS data (dependent v a ri a b le s ) . The canonical techniq ue allows f o r t h e compari­ son of m u l t i p l e Independent v a r i a b l e s t o m u l t i p l e dependent v a ria b le s . Individual t r u s t e e s ' L 1 k e r t - s c a l e s c o res were used 1n t h e analysis* along with t h e raw numerical values of a l l c o ll e g e s l i s t e d in t h e ACS t a b l e s f o r each s p e c i f i c category studied. Only f i n d in g s t h a t were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 level a r e reported. M u l t i v a r i a t e Test of S i g n i f ic a n c e The m u l t i v a r i a t e t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e 1s an a n a l y s i s of t h e whole design t h a t Inco rporated a l l of t h e Population I I data and th e ACS data. Four s e p a r a t e t e s t s were applied# of which t h r e e had s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t F-values l e s s than .05. The P1l1a1s t e s t was s i g n i f i c a n t a t .02112* t h e Hotel!1ngs t e s t was s i g n i f i c a n t a t .03098* and t h e Wilks t e s t was s i g n i f i c a n t a t .02470. Dimens1on-Reduct1on Analysis The dimension reductio n a n a l y s i s was used t o compare t h e ACS groups t o each other. One p a i r of dependent v a r i a b l e s was found t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p a t t h e .05 lev e l. ACS 1 was c o r r e l a t e d with ACS 8j t h e F-value was .02470* and the canonical c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t va lu e was .69332. 77 iiniyar1ate_-F^Iest. With fl.*0Qfl__Degr.gB5_of_Freedom The u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t was used t o compare Individual t r u s t e e s 1 U k e r t - s c a l e scores* by q u e s t i o n n a i r e statement* t o a l l ACS data. Two q u e s t i o n n a i r e st a te m e n t s were found t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p ( a t t h e .05 l e v e l ) with a l l ACS data. One s t a te m e n t had an alpha = .05385 s i g n i f i c a n c e level and was Included In t h e report. Thus* t h r e e st a te m e n t s were analyzed. Statem ent 3 (student r e c r u i t ­ ment) had an F-value of .03972 and an r2 value of .14555. Statement 7 (design of c r e d i t courses) had an F-value of .03187 and an r2 value of .15148. Statement 11 ( s i t e s of c r e d i t cou rses on campus) had an F - v a l u e o f ,05385 and an r 2 v a l u e o f .13798, Standardized CanonJjal_y_ar1able C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Dependent Variables This t e s t was employed t o compare a l l q u e s t io n n a ir e s ta te m e n t data* by statement* and t o search f o r t h e b e s t 11near-regress1on relationship. Once t h e f i r s t 11 n e a r - r e g r e s s io n r e l a t i o n s h i p I s Id en tifie d * t h e t e s t program d is r e g a r d s a ll data on which t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p was based and searches t h e remaining data f o r t h e next b e st 11 n e a r - r e g r e s s io n r e l a t i o n s h i p . The program r e p e a t s I t s e l f * gen erating two s e p a r a t e c a t e g o r i e s of canonical v a r i a b l e s . Category 1 contained t h r e e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t a te m e n t s with c a n o n i c a l - v a r i a b l e c o e f f i c i e n t s of .60 or above. Statement 9 ( I n s t i t u ­ t i o n a l res earch) had a p o s i t i v e r e la tio n sh ip * with a c o e f f i c i e n t of .83707. Statement 10 ( s i t e s of n o nc re d it cours es on campus) had a 78 n e g a t iv e r e l a t i o n s h i p # with a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .66905. S t a te m e n t 14 ( s i t e s of c r e d i t c o u rs es o f f campus) had a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p # with a c o e f f i c i e n t o f 1.21091. Category 2 c o n ta in e d fo ur s t a t e m e n t s with canonical c o e f f i ­ c i e n t s of .60 or above. n e g a tiv e r e l a ti o n s h i p # Statement 7 (design of c r e d i t co urs es) had a with a c o e f f i c i e n t of .68287. Statem en t 11 ( s i t e s of c r e d i t c o urses on campus) a l s o had a n e g a t iv e r e l a t i o n s h i p # with a c o e f f i c i e n t of 1.0079. Sta te m ent 16 (hours of n o n c r e d i t courses ) had a n e g a t iv e r e l a t i o n s h i p # with a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .84771. State m ent 18 (days o f n o n c r e d i t courses ) had a p o s i t i v e r e l a ti o n s h i p # with a c o e f f i c i e n t of .81209. Standardize d Canonical V aria b le C o e f f i c i e n ts f o r Co v a r l a t e s This t e s t was used t o compare a l l ACS raw data# by ACS group# with the canonical group and with t h e canonical process d e scrib e d above f o r t h e st a n d a r d i z e d canonical v a r i a b l e c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r dependent variables t e s t. Category 1 c o nta in ed t h r e e ACS groups with c a n o n i c a l - v a r i a b l e c o e f f i c i e n t s of .60 or above. a c o e f f i c i e n t of .60857. c o e f f i c i e n t o f .74280. ACS 3 had a n e g a t iv e r e l a t i o n s h i p # ACS 6 had a n e g a t i v e r e l a ti o n s h i p # ACS 8 had a n e g a t iv e r e l a t i o n s h i p # with with a with a c o e f f i c i e n t of 1.16113. Category 2 c o n ta in e d f o u r ACS groups with c a n o n i c a l - v a r i a b l e c o e f f i c i e n t s of .60 or above. a c o e f f i c i e n t of 1.64718. ACS 2 had a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p # with ACS 3 had a n e g a t iv e r e l a t i o n s h i p # with a 79 c o e f f i c i e n t of 1.40780. ACS 4 had a p o s i t i v e r e la tio n sh ip * with a c o e f f i c i e n t of 1.10495. ACS 5 had a p o s i t i v e relatio nsh ip * with a c o e f f i c i e n t of .72289. Repression C o e f f i c i e n t s fo r Within C e lls Error Term—Individual U nivariate .95 Confidence In terv al This t e s t was used t o compare ACS data by s e p a r a te groups t o t he t r u s t e e s ' sc o r e s f o r each q u e s t i o n n a i r e statement. Findings s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 level and having a c r i t i c a l T-value g r e a t e r than or equal t o 2 3 were I d e n t i f i e d and are discussed below by state m en t number. Statement 3 . Statement 3 ( s t u d e n t rec ruitm en t) had t h r e e ACS groups with a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p : ACS 1 had a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p ; p = .01845, T-value = 2.39559. ACS 4 had a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p ; p = .00907, T-value = 2.66141. ACS 8 had a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p ; p = .00344* T-value = 2.99665. Statement 11. Statement 11 ( s i t e s of c r e d i t courses on campus) had two ACS groups with a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p . 2 had a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p ; p = .0154* T-value = 2.45432. a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p ; p = .01335* T-value « 2.51921. ACS ACS 6 had CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter V c o n ta in s a summary of t h e study, t h e findin gs regarding the resea rch q u e stio n s posed 1n t h e study, and conclusions based on those findings. Recommendations f o r f u r t h e r research are a ls o made. Summary The primary purpose of t h e study was t o I d e n t i f y t h e I n t e n s i t y of pe rc ep tio n s held by Michigan community c o ll e g e p r e s i d e n t s and t r u s t e e s about marketing function s. A t e s t Instrum ent was designed, p r e t e s t e d , and d i s t r i b u t e d t o t h e 29 members of Population I ( p r e s i ­ dents) and t h e 203 members of Population I I ( t r u s t e e s ) . Usable responses were received from 26 p r e s i d e n t s and 139 t r u s t e e s , y i e l d i n g r e tu r n r a t e s of 89.13S fo r Population I and 68.5X for Population II. The data were mathem atically and s t a t i s t i c a l l y analyzed using t h e S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e Social Sciences (SPSS). Various s t a t i s t i ­ cal tec hniq ues were a p p lied t o t h e data, and t h e f i n d in g s of th es e a naly se s were reported in Chapter IV. 80 Findings Discussed 1n t h i s s e c t i o n a r e t h e major findin gs regarding t h e fo ur research q u e stio n s posed In Chapter I. These fin d in g s concern p r e s i d e n t s ' and t r u s t e e s ' p e rc ep tio ns about t h e market!ng-funct1on sta te m e n ts, d i f f e r e n c e s between p r e s i d e n t s ' and t r u s t e e s ' p e rc eptions, r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t r u s t e e s ' perceptio n sc o res and t h e i r c o ll e g e s ' ACS rankings, and t h e p a t t e r n of t r u s t e e s ' responses. Pres1dent5J_and Trustees* Pe rceptio ns About Marketing-Function Statements The f i r s t research q u e stio n asked, What pe rc ep tion s do Michigan community c o ll e g e p r e s i d e n t s and members of the boards of t r u s t e e s hold about each of t h e market1ng-function sta te m e n ts, as contained 1n t h e study q u e stio n n a ire ? P r e s i d e n ts stro n g ly agreed t h a t seven sta te m e n ts denoted marketing fu nctions a t a community college . These st a te m e n t s had both t h e lowest mean sc ores and t h e low est standard d e v ia tio n s of a l l state m ents. The seven market1ng-function state m ents were: S e lec tio n of a d v e r t i s i n g media Writing of c o ll e g e a d v e r t i s i n g Student recruitm ent Writing of th e c o ll e g e c a ta lo g P u b l i c i z in g f i n a n c i a l a i d , loans, g r a n t s , e tc . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of hours t o o f f e r noncredit programs I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of days of t h e week t o hold n o n c re d it programs T ru stees s t r o n g ly agreed t h a t f i v e sta te m e n ts described market­ ing f u n c tio n s a t a community college. These s t a te m e n t s had both the low e st mean sc ores and t h e lowest standard d e v ia tio n s of a l l s t a t e ­ ments. The f i v e market1ng-function st a te m e n t s were: 82 S e lec tio n of a d v e r t i s i n g media Writing of c o lle g e a d v e r t i s i n g Student rec ru itm en t Writing of t h e c o lle g e c a ta lo g P u b l i c i z in g f i n a n c i a l aid# loans# grants# e t c . Diffe rences Between P r e s i d e n t s ' and T r u s t e e s 1 Perceptio ns About Market1na-Funct1on Statements The second research q u e stio n asked# What d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between community c o ll e g e presidents* and t r u s t e e s * p e rc ep tio n s about each of t h e m arke tlng -fun ctio n sta te m e n ts? R e la ti v e ly l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d between community c o ll e g e p r e s i d e n t s ' and t r u s t e e s ' p e rc eptions of each of t h e m a r k e tln g - f unction statements. R e la ti v e homogeneity e x i s t e d 1n t h e rank-o rder placement of sta te m e n ts by mean scor es f o r both respondent groups. Nine st a te m e n t s were I d e n t i f i e d by t h e c h i- s q u a r e or st u d e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n t - t e s t as having s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e mean s c o r e s of t h e two populations. The data a n a l y s i s supported t h e claim t h a t a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d on Statement 9, However# t h e data a n a l y s i s did not support t h e claim t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d on Statements 10# 16# 17, 18# 19, 24# 25# and 27. Re la tionship Between T r u s t e e s ' P e rce p tio n Scores and ACS Rankings The t h i r d research q u e stion asked# What 1s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e average m a r k e tln g - f u n c tlo n - p e r c e p tlo n sc ores of members of t h e board of t r u s t e e s of each c o ll e g e and t h e i r c o l l e g e 's numerical rank on e i g h t Michigan community act1 v1 ty -class1 f1cat1 o n s t r u c t u r e s ? 83 The find in g s regarding t h i s research questio n a re presented by ACS group. ACS. 1 i Tuition and f e e s . Statement_6: Trustees who more s t r o n g l y disagreed t h a t th e design of no n cre dit programs 1s a marketing fu nction tended t o be from c o l l e g e s with higher t u i t i o n r a t e s and f e e s per FYES. The a n a l y s i s of data supported t h e claim t h a t Statement 6 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o ACS 1 a t t h e .05 leve l. The a n a l y s i s In d ica te d t h a t 17% of t i o n between Statement 1and ACS 1 was accounted f o r by t h e the varia­ Independent v a rla b l e. ACS-2; Operational tax es per vear/FYES. Statement 2 2 ; Trustees who more s t r o n g l y agreed t h a t the w r i t in g of c o ll e g e a d v e r t i s i n g 1s a marketing functio n tended t o be from c o lle g e s with higher o peratio n al tax es per FYES. The a n a l y s i s of data supported t h e claim t h a t Statement 22 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o ACS 2 a t t h e .05 l e v e l. The a n a l y s i s In d ica te d t h a t 16% of t h e v a r i a ­ t i o n between Statement 22 and ACS 2 was accounted f o r by t h e Independ­ ent variable. ACS 4 i-^l'Other" general fund revenue. Statement 6 : T rustee s who more s t r o n g l y agreed t h a t t h e design of noncre dit programs 1s a marketing fun ction tended t o be from c o lle g e s with higher "other" general fund revenues per FYES. The a n a l y s i s of data did not support t h e claim t h a t Statement 6 was r e l a t e d n e gativ ely t o ACS 4. The average mean sc o r e f o r t h e High group was 8A g r e a t e r than t h a t f o r t h e Medium group. The mean scores f o r t h e t h r e e groups were U-shaped. Statement 7 : T rustee s who more strongly agreed t h a t t h e design of c r e d i t courses I s a marketing fun ction tended t o be from c o ll e g e s with higher "other" general fund revenues per FYES. The a n a l y s i s of data did not support t h e claim t h a t Statement 7 was negatively r e l a t e d t o ACS 4. The average mean score f o r t h e High group was g r e a t e r than t h a t of t h e Medium group. "The mean s c o res f o r t h e t h r e e groups were U-shaped. Statement 9 : T ru stees who more stro n g ly agreed t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l research 1s a marketing fu nction tended t o be from c o lle g e s with higher "other" general fund revenues per FYES. The a n a l y s i s of data did not support t h e claim t h a t Statem ent 9 was r e l a t e d negatively t o ACS 4. The average mean sc o re f o r t h e High group was g r e a t e r than t h a t f o r the Medium group. The mean sc o res f o r t h e t h r e e groups were U-shaped. Statement 14; T rustees who more s t r o n g l y agreed t h a t t h e s e l e c t i o n of classroom s i t e s f o r c r e d i t courses held o f f campus 1s a marketing function tended t o be from c o l l e g e s with higher "other" general fund revenues per FYES. The a n a l y s i s of data supported t h e cla im t h a t Statement 14 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o ACS 4 a t t h e .05 l e v e l. The a n a l y s i s In d icate d t h a t 13.835 of t h e v a r i a t i o n between Statement 14 and ACS 4 was accounted f o r by t h e Independent v a r i a b l e . Statement 2 5 i Trustees who more s t r o n g ly agreed t h a t stu d e n t entrance assessment I s a marketing fun ctio n tended t o be from c o ll e g e s 85 with higher "other" general fund revenues per FYES. The a n a l y s i s of data supported t h e claim t h a t Statement 25 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o ACS 4 a t t h e .05 level. The a n a l y s i s In dica te d t h a t 15.5% of the v a r i a t i o n between Statement 25 and ACS 4 was accounted f o r by t h e Independent v a r i a b l e . Statement 2 6 ; T ru stee s who more s t r o n g l y agreed t h a t th e review of c o l l e g e f a c i l i t y new c o n s tr u c tio n and renovation plans 1s a marketing fu n ctio n tended t o be from c o l l e g e s with higher "other" general fund revenues per FYES. The data a n a l y s i s did not su pp o rt t h e cla im t h a t Statement 26 was r e l a t e d n e gativ e ly t o ACS 4. The average mean sc o r e f o r t h e High group was g r e a t e r than t h a t fo r t h e Medium group. The mean sc ores f o r t h e t h r e e groups were U-shaped. Statement 2 7 ; T ru stees who more s t r o n g l y agreed t h a t v i s u a l Inspe ction of c o lleg e b uild ing s and grounds appearance Is a marketing fu n ction tended t o be from c o ll e g e s with higher "other" general fund revenues per FYES. The a n a l y s i s of data did not support t h e claim t h a t Statement 27 was negatively r e l a t e d t o ACS 4. The average mean score for t h e High group was g r e a t e r than t h a t f o r t h e Medium group. The mean s c o res f o r t h e t h r e e groups were U-shaped. Statement 2 8 ; T ru stee s who more stro n g ly disagreed t h a t p u b l ic i z i n g f i n a n c i a l aid lo ans, grants# etc.# 1s a marketing fu nction tended t o be from c o lle g e s with higher "other" general fund revenues per FYES. The data a n a l y s i s supported t h e claim t h a t Statement 28 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o ACS 4 a t t h e .05 lev e l. The a n a l y s i s 86 I n d i c a te d t h a t 15.8% o f t h e v a r i a t i o n between S t a te m e n t 8 and ACS 4 was accounted f o r by t h e Independent v a r i a b le . ACS 6 i SEV per FYES. Statement 15; T r u s t e e s who more s t r o n g l y agreed t h a t t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a d v e r t i s i n g media I s a m arketing fu n c tio n tended t o be from c o l l e g e s with a h ig h er SEV per FYES. The a n a l y s i s of data did not su p p o rt t h e cla im t h a t S ta te m e n t 15 was n e g a t iv e l y r e l a t e d t o ACS 6. The average mean sc o re f o r t h e High group was g r e a t e r than t h a t f o r t h e Medium group. ACS-.7_; The mean s c o r e s f o r t h e t h r e e groups were U-shaped. I n^dl s t r i c t residency, p e r c e n t a g e s . Statement 2 : T r u s t e e s who more s t r o n g l y disagreed t h a t p r i v a t e development fund r a i s i n g 1s a marketing f u n c t i o n tended t o be from c o l l e g e s with higher perc entages of 1 n - d 1 s t r 1 c t s t u d e n t c r e d i t hours. The data a n a l y s i s supported t h e cla im t h a t State m ent 2 was s i g n i f i ­ c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o ACS 7 a t t h e .05 l e v e l . The a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t 16.6% o f t h e v a r i a t i o n between Sta te m en t 2 and ACS 7 was accounted f o r by t h e Independent v a r i a b l e . Statement 3 : T r u s t e e s who more s t r o n g l y disagr eed t h a t s t u d e n t r e c r u i t m e n t I s a marketing f u n c t i o n tended t o be from c o l l e g e s with h ig h er pe rc en ta g es of 1 n - d 1 s t r i c t s t u d e n t c r e d i t hours. The a n a l y s i s of data supported t h e claim t h a t S tate m ent 3 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o ACS 7 a t t h e .05 l e v e l. The a n a l y s i s I n d i c a te d t h a t 18% of t h e v a r i a t i o n between State m ent 3 and ACS 7 was accounted f o r by t h e Independent v a r i a b l e . 87 Statement 26: T ru stee s who more s t r o n g l y disagreed t h a t review of c o lle g e f a c i l i t y new c o n s t r u c t io n and renovation plans 1s a market­ ing fu n ctio n tended t o be from c o lle g e s with h ig h er percentages of 1 n-d 1str1ct s t u d e n t c r e d i t hours. The data a n a l y s i s supported t h e claim t h a t Statement 26 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o ACS 7 a t t h e .05 l e v e l. The a n a l y s i s In d icate d t h a t 17.2% of t h e v a r i a t i o n between Statement 26 and ACS 7 was accounted f o r by t h e Independent v a ria b le . P a t t e r n of T r u s t e e s 1. Responses The fourt h research questio n asked* What 1s t h e p a t t e r n of responses of t h e members of t h e boards of t r u s t e e s * based on a l l data collected? The answers t o t h i s quest io n were derived by applying a canonical a n a l y s i s of variance technique. ACS. 1 and ACS 8. T rustees from c o l l e g e s with higher t u i t i o n and fee revenues per FYES tended a l s o t o belong t o c o ll e g e s with higher weighted t u i t i o n r a t e s . The a n a l y s i s of data supported t h e claim t h a t a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between t h e ACS 1 and ACS 8 groups. The a n a l y s i s In dicate d t h a t 69.3% of t h e v a r i a t i o n between ACS 1 and ACS 8 was accounted for by t h e Independent v a r i a b l e . All ACS grou ps. Statement 3 ; T ru stees who more stro n g ly disagree d t h a t stu d e n t r e c r u i t m e n t 1s a marketing fu n ctio n tended t o be from c o ll e g e s t h a t were high in a l l of t h e ACS groups. The a n a l y s i s of data supported t h e claim t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between Statement 3 and a l l ACS groups. The a n a l y s t s In d ica te d t h a t 14.6% of 88 t h e v a r i a t i o n between Statem en t 3 and a l l ACS groups was accounted for by t h e Independent v a r i a b l e . Statement 7 : T r u s te e s who more s t r o n g ly disagreed t h a t the design of c r e d i t courses 1s a marketing f u n ctio n tended t o be from c o l l e g e s t h a t were high 1n a l l t h e ACS groups. The a n a l y s i s of data supported t h e claim t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between Statem en t 7 and a l l ACS groups. The a n a l y s i s In d ica te d t h a t 15.2% of t h e v a r i a t i o n between Statem ent 7 and a l l ACS groups was accounted f o r by t h e Independent v a r i a b l e . Statement 11; T ru stee s who more s t r o n g l y disagreed t h a t s e l e c t i n g classroom s i t e s f o r c r e d i t courses 1s a marketing fu nctio n tended t o be from c o lle g e s t h a t were high In a l l ACS groups. No support was given t o t h e claim t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x is te d between Statement 11 and a l l ACS groups. The combination of p > .05 and a low c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of .13798 led t o no support. A p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p did appear t o e x i s t . Composite d e s c r i p t i o n of t r u s t e e s . Category 1; Based on t h e stand ard ized canonical v a r i a b l e c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r dependent v a r i a b l e s and c o v a r l a t e s t e s ts # a composite d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e t r u s t e e s was derived from fin d in g s I d e n t i f i e d 1n Category 1 as having a canonical c o e f f i c i e n t value equal t o or g r e a t e r than .60. The t r u s t e e s In t h i s category more s t r o n g ly disagree d t h a t I n s t i t u t i o n a l res ea rch 1s a marketing fun ction. They more stro n g ly agreed t h a t s e l e c t i o n of classroom s i t e s f o r n o n c re d it programs held on 89 campus I s a marketing fun ction and were a ls o I n clin ed t o more s t r o n g ly disag ree t h a t s e l e c t i o n of classroom s i t e s f o r c r e d i t courses held o f f campus 1s a marketing fu nction. T ru stees who held t h e s e pe rc eptio n s tended t o be from c o l l e g e s with lower s t a t e equalized v a lu a tio n per FYES# lower weighted t u i t i o n r a t e s , and lower s t a t e aid per FYES. Category 2; Based on t h e standard ized canonical v a r i a b l e c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r dependent v a r i a b l e s and c o v a r l a t e s t e s t s , a composite d e s c r i p t i o n of t r u s t e e s was derived from f i n d in g s I d e n t i f i e d 1n Cate­ gory 2 as having a canonical c o e f f i c i e n t value equal t o or g r e a t e r than 0.60. The t r u s t e e s In t h i s category more s t r o n g l y agreed t h a t t h e design of c r e d i t courses and s e l e c t i o n of classroom s i t e s f o r c r e d i t courses held on campus a r e marketing fun ctions. They were In c lin e d t o more s t r o n g l y .agree t h a t I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of hours t o o f f e r n o ncre dit programs 1s a marketing f u n ctio n and t o more s t r o n g ly d isa g ree t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of days of t h e week t o hold c r e d i t courses 1s a market­ ing function. T rustees who held t h e s e p e rc eption s tended t o be from c o lle g e s with lower o p e ra tio n a l t a x e s per FYES, lower s t a t e aid per FYES, higher "other" general fund revenues per FYES, and higher general fund revenues per FYES. Statements having s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s hips with ACS groups. The data a n a l y s i s supported t h e st a te m e n t s l i s t e d below as having strong s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e / n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s Cat t h e .05 level) with an ACS group; c r i t i c a l T-values were equal t o or g r e a t e r than 2 . 3 . 90 Statement3/ACS 1; T ru stees who more s t r o n g ly agreed t h a t r e c r u i tm e n t 1s a marketing fun ctio n tended t o be from c o l l e g e s with higher t u i t i o n and f e e revenues per FYES. Statement 3 / ACS 4 i T rustees who more s t r o n g l y agreed t h a t stu d e n t r e c r u i tm e n t i s a marketing fun ctio n tended t o be from c o ll e g e s with higher "o th er" general fund revenues. Statement 3/ACS 8 ; T r u s t e e s who more stro n g ly disagreed t h a t stu d en t r e c r u i tm e n t Is a marketing function tended t o be from c o ll e g e s with higher weighted t u i t i o n r a t e s . Statement 11/ACS 2 ; T ru stee s who more stro n g ly disagreed t h a t s e l e c t i o n of classroom s i t e s f o r c r e d i t cou rses held on campus 1s a marketing fu n ctio n tended t o be from c o l l e g e s with higher operational taxes per FYES. Statement_1.1/ACS. 6 ; T ru stee s who more stro n g ly agreed t h a t s e l e c t i o n of classroom s i t e s fo r c r e d i t courses held on campus 1s a marketing fu n ctio n tended t o be from c o ll e g e s with higher s t a t e equal­ ized val uatlon per FYES. .CgncJ.u5j.an5 In general* th e Michigan community c o ll e g e p r e s id e n ts and t r u s t e e s surveyed 1n t h i s research had a p o s i t i v e perc eption about t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of marketing f u n c t i o n s t o community c olleges. The grand mean sc ore f o r p r e s i d e n t s was 3.21# and f o r t r u s t e e s 1 t was 3.97. (A sc ore of 1.0 repre se n te d stro n g agreement# and a sc ore of 8.0 r e p r e ­ sented st ron g disagreement with a p a r t i c u l a r statement.) The p r e s i d e n t s ' and t r u s t e e s ' p e rc eptions about t h e marketlngfu nction sta te m e n ts were very sim ilar* as evidenced by t h e i r agreement on the top f i v e state ments. The p r i o r i t y of t h e f i v e statements* however* i n d ic a t e d t h a t t h e two groups s t i l l tended t o perceive marketing as promotional 1n n a tu re because t h e top f i v e sta te m e n ts were promotional state ments. The o t h e r t h r e e "P's" of t h e marketing mix (product/service* place/time* and price) tended t o be placed a t th e bottom of both th e p r e s i d e n t s ' and t h e t r u s t e e s ' mean sc ore 1 1 st. Based on t h e marketing l i t e r a t u r e * a l l st a te m e n t s Included 1n t h e Instrument (with t h e exception of t h e aff1 rm atlv e -ac tlo n sta te ment) represe nted marketing f u n c t i o n s t h a t a r e equal 1n Importance 1n t h e marketing mix. Therefore* f o r a respondent t o have displayed a comprehensive understanding of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of marketing t o a community college* each state ment would have been scored 1.0 t o 2 . 0 . The r e s e a r c h e r was Impressed with t h e response from t h e p r e s id e n ts and t r u s t e e s . The high response r a t e In dicated t h a t t h e p r e s i d e n t s and t r u s t e e s saw marketing as an Im portant tool 1n helping the c ollege s u r v iv e and meet the needs of I t s con stituency during a period of demographic and techn olo gical change. This opinion was supported by the comments received from respondents. The overwhelming number of comments about t h e study were positive* e x t o l l i n g t h e need f o r marketing 1n community c olleges. very negative notes. A few Individuals* however* wrote One person said* " I f you [ t h e res e a r c h e r ] t h in k marketing has anything t o do with running a c o l l e g e —y o u 'r e n u t s ! " 92 After completing t h e study# t h e r e s e a r c h e r concluded t h a t marketing 1s a re s p e c t a b l e disc ip lin e# one t h a t c o lle g e p r e s i d e n t s and t r u s t e e s should tak e s e r i o u s l y . When properly administered# marketing enhances t h e educational e x c e ll e n c e of a c o lle g e by providing the framework 1n which t o examine I t s programs and s e r v i c e s 1n l i g h t of t h e needs and resou rce s of t h e s t u d e n ts and I n s t i t u t i o n . Marketing h e lp s t o e s t a b l i s h b e t t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s with students# c o nstituents# faculty# and s t a f f through a sy s te m a t i c approach t o needs assessment. Marketing enables a c o ll e g e t o become more f i s c a l l y secure by providing a q u a n ti­ f i a b l e plan t o Increase an d /o r s t a b i l i z e e n ro llm e n ts and revenues. Finally# marketing a f f o r d s t h e c olleg e an opportunity t o r e a f f ir m th e philosophy t h a t a ll s e r v i c e s and programs w ill be delivered 1n a c a ri n g manner. Recommendations Based on t h e review o f l i t e r a t u r e # res ea rch findings# and t h e I n v e s t i g a t o r ' s educational background and professio n al experience# th e following recommendations a re made. For Community Colloge-Presidents Attend marketing seminars and workshops t o b e t t e r understand t h e marketing concept and how t o apply 1 t t o a community colleg e. I f one person a t t h e c o ll e g e does not have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r t h e marketing e ffort# e s t a b l i s h such a p o s i t i o n and h i r e an Individual who 1s knowledgeable about marketing. 93 Develop a s e t of values about marketing t h e c o l l e g e 's programs and se rv ice s. Make t h e s e values known t o a ll faculty# s t a f f # and trustees. Encourage t h e o f f e r i n g of marketing seminars and workshops as s t a f f development t o a l l c o lle g e personnel# Includ ing t r u s t e e s # admin­ i s t r a t o r s # faculty# technicians# and c l e r i c a l and s u p p o r t - s e r v lc e employees. For Community College Trustees Attend marketing I n - s e r v i c e seminars and workshops t o l ea rn more about the a p p l i c a t i o n of marketing p r a c t i c e s t o community c o l ­ leges. Reexamine t h e board p o l i c i e s t h a t a f f e c t t h e marketing mix and# 1n l i g h t of lo ca l and s t a t e r e s t r i c t i o n s # r e w r i t e t h e p o l i c i e s t o allow for more f l e x i b l e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a ctio n. Sta tements of standards could be e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t would help guide a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n making marketing d e c i s i o n s without being t o o r e s t r i c t i v e . Support the p r e s i d e n t In h i s / h e r e f f o r t t o apply marketing t o t h e college. Marketing r e p r e s e n ts a change t o f a c u l ty and s t a f f . Your support t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n or f a c u l t y and s t a f f during t h i s period w i l l be a pp re cia te d and needed. For Community College Faculty and S t a f f Attend marketing seminars and workshops t o l e a r n how marketing can be Infused w it h in t h e c o ll e g e without d e t r a c t i n g from educational ex ce llen c e . Support t h e e f f o r t s of a l l o th er c o ll e g e personnel In working toward applying marketing p r a c t i c e s 1n community c o ll e g e s . For S t a te Regulatory Agencies Continue t o be prudent In t h e re gu la to ry and a u d it i n g proce­ dures, but a t the same time encourage and support e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l e f f o r t s by community c o ll e g e s 1n developing a l t e r n a t i v e approaches t o curriculum development and fee s t r u c t u r e s . Be s u r e t h a t department r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s do not s t i f l e advances 1n educational excellence 1n meeting community needs. Attend marketing seminars and workshops t o b e t t e r understand t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of marketing p r a c t i c e s 1n t h e educational environment. For U nivers ity and College Personnel Design and o f f e r a s e r i e s of marketing courses t h a t a re a p p li c a b l e t o c o ll e g e personnel. Infuse such course o f f e r i n g s In to educational degree programs. For Other Researchers Review t h i s study c a r e f u l l y and undertake a d d itio n al research e f f o r t s using, 1n whole or 1n p a r t , t h e fin d in g s of t h i s I n v e s t i g a t i o n . For All I n d i v id u a ls Seek books and o t h e r m a t e r i a l s on marketing t h e community college. Be wary, however, of authors who claim t h a t more or fewer than t h e four Pfs (product* place* price* and promotion) a r e Included 1n the marketing mix. Such auth ors a r e e i t h e r tak in g J o u r n a l i s t i c l i b e r t i e s or do not understand marketing. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE AND QUESTIONNAIRE 97 11 March 19B5 Mr. Thomas Bemthal Executive Director Michigan Conmnity College Association 750 Michigan National Ttwer Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Mr. Bemthal: This i s a request to e n list support from the Michigan Oormunity College Association for the distribution o f a questionnaire to the MOCA irenbership. The questionnaire i s the basis for a dissertation I am writing en titled , A Study of Michigan Oamunity College Trustees* and Presidents' Perceptions About the Application ofMarfretinq Practices to Ocmnunity Colleges . The type o f support solicited could be limited to a statement that vrould be included in Ihe body o f a cover le tte r acccnpanying the questionnaire. Such a statement might read: "The Michigan Camunity college Association has given support for this research project.". Please be advised that I have received approval to conduct this research on human subjects from the Ikiiversity Ccnedttae on Research Involving Hunan Subjects (UC3UHS) a t Michigan State university. To receive UZRXHS approval detailed documentation was requested and sub­ mitted including: a copy of the dissertation proposal, a copy o f the dissertation proposal approval form signed by a ll guidance ocnndttee nenbers, a copy o f the minutes o f the guidanoe uumit t e e meeting, a draft o f the cover le tte r that w ill accorrpany the questionnaire and subsequent follow-up le tte r , a copy o f the questionnaire—subject to pre-test revisions and validation, and narrative and verbal explanation of research data gathering procedures. 99 Mr. Therms Bemthal Page 2 My Guidance Ccrmittee Chairman i s Dr. Richard E. Gardner, Associate Professor, Administration and Curriculun, 409 Erickscn Hall, Michigan State University, East Iansing, MI 48024. Dr. Gardner's phene nurber is 355-1833, For your consideration I am submitting the following: — A copy o f the research project approval le tte r written by Henry B, Bredeck, Qiainran, UCRIHS, MSU — A copy of Section I o f the Dissertation Proposal — A draft copy o f the cover le tte r that w ill acoorpany the questionnaire and subsequent follow-up le tte r — A copy o f the questionnaire to be sent to the population outlined in the disseration proposa l — subject to pre­ te st revisions and validation. Should you require additional information, please contact ne. My address is : 895 Oiidtasaw Drive, Mason, MI 48854. My phone nutter is (517) 676-1979 (Residence) or (517) 787-0800, Ext. 317 (Offioe). Sinoerely, M. Richard Shaink Doctoral Candidate Michigan State university MRS:ss Enclosures oc: Richard E, Gardner, Ed.D Clyde E. LeTarte, Ed.D. George E. Potter, J.D. 100 May 5 , 1985 Dear Ms. The application of marketing techniques to camunity colleges is a current topic for research and discussion. Enclosed is a questionnaire that asks you to give your opinion about 28 statements that may relate to marketing in a camunity college. The Michigan Camunity College Association has given sup­ port for this research project. The average time for a pretest group to carplete the questionnaire and place i t into a self-addressed, stamped return envelope is ten (10) minutes. You need only to circle one nunber for each statcnont. No further information is required of you because a personal code number that identifies you has been placed in the right-hand oomer of the questionnaire. PLEASE NOTE: YOUR NAME WILL NEVER BE IDENTIFIED OR PUBLISHED WITH YOUR RESPONSE. The researcher is the only person who has a key to the personal code. (Please see attached Anonymity Procedure.) The researcher Is a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University and a fu ll­ time administrator at a Michigan camunity college. This questionnaire is the basis of the doctoral thesis. A summary of the results w ill be mailed to you at the oarpletion of the study. Your inraediate response is most appreciated. Doctoral Candidate Michigan State University KRSiclf P.S. This questionnaire has been mailed to a ll Michigan camunity college boards of trustees and presidents. A high return rate w ill help to ensure a valid and reliable study. Please f i l l out the questionnaire now and place i t into the self-addressed, stwped return envelope. Your opinion is inportant and needed. In the event the return envel­ ope is misplaced, please mail your response to: M. Richard Shaink 895 Chickasaw Drive Mason, Michigan 4B854 101 RESPONDENT ANONYMITY PROCEDURE A personal code number t h a t I d e n t i f i e s you has been placed in the r ight-ha nd corner of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . PLEASE NOTE: YOUR NAME WILL NEVER BE IDENTIFIED OR PUBLISHED WITH YOUR RESPONSE. The researcher Is the only person who has the key to the code and w ill cut the code number from the corner upon r e t u r n . To maintain individual anonymity, only the average score f o r each c o ll e g e board of t r u s t e e s group by question statement w ill be compared to e x i s t i n g Department of Educa­ t io n A c t iv i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S t r u c tu r e (ACS) t a b l e s . Likewise, a l l p r e s i d e n t s ' average scores by question statement will be compared to the average score of a l l the Michigan board of t r u s t e e s by question sta tement. To f u r t h e r ensure c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , the resea rche r has p e rs o n ally processed the envelope containing t h i s cover l e t t e r and questlonnai re. 102 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY U N I V h K M I Y U I M M I I I 13 ( m M I-M A H ttl ( S t i l l V IM , I L AN M M , ■ M Iltllt.A N • M « il H U M A N i U M J I C I S (UCHIMS1 3U A IIM IN IY IK A U D N I I UI I l ) J S t . February 7 1 , I9B& nm iit.jiw, Hr. M. Richard Shalnk 895 Chickasaw Drive Mason, Michigan 4BBS4 Dear Mr. Shaink: Su b j e c t : Proposal E n t i t l e d , "A Study o f Michigan Community College T r u s t e e s ' and P r e s i d e n t s ' P e r c ep ti o ns about the Ap pl ic a ti o n o f Marketing P r a c t i c e s to Conmunlty Co ll eg es" I am p l e a s e d t o a dv i se t h a t 1 concur wi th your e v a l u a t i o n t h a t t h i s p r o j e c t is exempt from f u l l UCRIHS review, and approval is her ewi th g ra nt ed f o r conduct o f the p r o j e c t . You a r e reminded t h a t UCRIHS approval Is v a l i d f o r one c a l e n d a r y e a r . I f you p l a n t o c o nt i n u e t h i s p r o j e c t beyond one y e a r , p l e a s e make p r o v i s i o n s f o r o b t a i n i n g a p p r o p r i a t e UCRIHS approval p r i o r t o February 27, 1986. Any changes in procedur es I nvol ving human s u b j e c t s must be reviewed by the UCRIHS p r i o r t o i n i t i a t i o n o f the change. UCRIHS must a l s o be n o t i f i e d promptly o f any problems (unexpected s i d e e f f e c t s , c om p la i nt s , e t c . ) involvi ng human s u b j e c t s d ur i ng the c ourse o f the work. Thank you f o r b r i n g i n g t h i s p r o j e c t t o my a t t e n t i o n . h e l p , p l e a s e do not h e s i t a t e t o l e t me know. Sincerely, Henry E. Bredeck Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/Jms cc: Dr. Richard Gardner I f I can be o f any f u t u r e 103 THIS IS A FRIENDLY REMINDER..... a s k in g y o u t o c o m p l e t e & r e t u r n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e s e n t t o y o u recen tly o n th e to p ic o f m ark e tin g th e c o m m u n ity c o lle g e . Y o u r r e s p o n s e is i m p o r t a n t a n d n e e d e d . In t h e e v e n t t h e s e lf - a d d r e s s e d , s t a m p e d r e t u r n e n v e l o p e h a s h a s b e e n m i s p l a c e d , p le a s e m a il y o u r r e s p o n s e t o : M. Richard Shaink 8 9 5 Chickasaw Drive Mason, Michigan 4 8 8 5 4 P .S. P le a se d i s r e g a r d t h i s r e m i n d e r if y o u h a v e a l r e a d y .c o m p le te d t h e q u e s tio n n a ire . T h a n k y o u for y o u r c o o p eratio n . 104 June 5, 1985 Dear Ms. This is a friendly reminder asking you to complete and return a question­ naire sent to you recently on the topic of marketing in the community college. Your response is important and needed. Enclosed is a copy of the cover letter and questionnaire originally mailed to you. If you have already responded to the questionnaire please dis­ regard this letter and accept my appreciation for your participation. Should you decide not to respond and do not want to receive an additional follow-up contact, please check here _____ and mail within 5 days to: M. Richard Shaink P. 0. Box 1543 Jackson, Michigan 49204 Thank you for your consideration of the research project. M. Richard Shaink Doctoral Candidate Michigan State University Enclosures elf P. S. The average time for a pretest group to complete the questionnaire and place it into a self-addressed, stamped return envelope is 10 minutes. 105 QUESTIONNAIRE DOTECmOttS: Thera are sight possible responses lor each statement. Record your answers by cirdmg the number corresponding to the most appropriate response. This Is en opinion survey. DO indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. DO NOT respond to the statement based on whether or not the subject of the statement is occurring at your college or what individual performs the function. Please feel free to write comments on the bach of this questionnaire. Strongly Agree Statement 1. Public relations is a marketing function. 2. Private development fund mJJng Is a marketing function. 3. Student iscruftmeiil is a marketing function. 4. Student evaluation of noncredit programs is a marketing function. 5. Student evaluation of credit courses is a marketing function. 6. The design of noncredit programs is a marketing function. 7. The design of credit courses is a marketing function. S. Selection of affirma'ive-action policies is a marketing (unction. 9. Institutional research is a marketing function. 10. Selection of classroom sties for noncredit programs held on campus is a marketing function. 11. Selection of classroom sites for credit courses held on campus is a marketing function. 12. Writing of the college catalog is a marketing function. 13. Selection of classroom sites tor noncredit programs held off campus is a marketing function. 14. Selection of classroom sites for credit courses held off campus is a marketing function. 15. Selection of advertising media is a marketing function. 16. Identification of hours to offer noncredit programs is a marketing function. 17. Identification of hours to ofler credit courses is a marketing function. 18. Identification of days of the week to hold noncredil programs is a marketing function. 10. Identification of days of the week to hold credit courses is a marketing function. 20. Identification of feea to charge for noncredil program is a marketing furwtfon. 21. Identification of tuition to charge for credit courses is a marketing function. 22. Writing of college advertising Is a marketing function. 23. Qrant writing la a marketing function. 24. Student fob placement is a marketing function. 25. Student entrance assessment is a marketing function. 26. Review of coiega facility new construction and renovation plane is a marketing function. 27. Visual inspection of oofiege building and grounds appearance is a marketing function. 28. Publicizing financial aid loans, grants, etc. is a © 1B84 marketing function. M R. Shaink Agree Conalderabfy Agree Somewhat Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 6 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 B B 1 1 2 2 A 3 4 4 5 5 G 6 7 7 B B 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 S 5 6 6 7 7 a a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 a 8 8 8 8 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 106 QUESTIONNAIRE DIRECTIONS: There ere eight possible responses lor each statement. Record your answers by ceding the number corresponding to the most appropriate response. This is an opinion survey. DO indicats how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. DO NOT respond to the statement based on whether or not the subject ol the statement Is occurring at your cotiege or what individual performs the function. Please feel free to write comments on the bach of this questionnaire. Strongly Agree Statement M.R. Shaink 1. Writing of college advertising Is a marketing (unction. 2. Identificaiion ol hours to offer noncredit programs is a marketing function. 3. Identificaiion of hours to offer credit courses is a marketing function. 4. Identification of days of the week to hold noncredit programs is a marketing function. 5. Identification of days of the week to hold credit oourses is a marketing function. 6. Identification ol fees to charge for noncredit programs is a marketing function. 7. Identification of tuition to charge for credit courses is a marketing function. 8. Selection of advertising media is a marketing function. 9. Grant witting is a marketing function. 10. Student job placement is a marketing function. It. Student entrance assessment is a marketing function. 12. Review of college facility new construction and renovation plans is a marketing function. 13. Visual Inspection of college building and (rounds appearance is a marketing function. 14. Publicizing financial aid loans, grants, etc. is a marketing function. IS. Public relations is a marketing function. 16. Private development fund raising is a marketing function. 17. Student recruitment is a marketing function. IB. Student evaluation of noncredit programs is a marketing function. 19. Student evaluation of credit courses is a marketing function. 20. The design of noncredit programs is a marketing function. 21. The design of credit courses is a marketing function. 22. Selection of aTfirmatrve-action policies is a marketing function. 23. Institutional research is a marketing function. 24, Selection ot classroom sites for noncredil programs held on campus is a marketing function. 25. Selection of classroom sites for credit courses held on campus is a marketing function. 20. Writing of the cotege catalog Is a marketing function. 27. Selection of dastenom sites tor noncredit programs held off campus is a marketing function. 26. Selection of classroom tiles tor credit courses held off campus is a marketing function. 1 2 Agree Considerably 3 Agree Somewhat Strongly Disagree 4 5 6 7 6 6 7 e 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e t 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 8 8 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 5 6 6 7 7 a 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 a a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 1 1 2 3 2 3 4 4 5 G 6 6 7 7 a a 1 2 3 4 G 6 7 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a APPENDIX B ACTIVITY CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE (ACS) DATA 107 RANK TWO-YEAR! BV55 T ab le 2 2 a. ACS 1 F i s c a l y e a r 1983-84 t u i t i o n and f e e re v e n u e s p e r f i s c a l y e a r e q u a te d s tu d e n t (FYES), rank ed b y c o l l e g e . RANK TW0-YEAR1 BV56 T ab le 22b. TUITION PER FYES TWO-YEARI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 GRAND RAPIDS HENRY FORD NORTHWESTERN HIGHLAND PARK ST. CLAIR HACOMB DELTA C .S. HOTT SCHOOLCRAFT STATE-AVERAGE SOUTHWESTERN KELLOGG WASHTENAW ALPENA LANSING WAYNE RAY DE NOC WEST SHORE HID MICHIGAN HUSKEGON JACKSON OAKLAND COCEBIC LAKE MICHIGAN GLEN OAKS NORTH CENTRAL KALAMAZOO KIRTLAND MONTCALH MONROE S 1,355 1,300 1,297 1,200 1,097 1,049 1,048 1,048 1,013 987 940 937 932 929 923 922 858 658 849 845 842 838 830 828 612 791 788 770 687 664 F is c a l y e a r 1983-84 o p e r a tio n a l ta x e s p e r f i s c a l - y e a r eq u a te d s tu d e n t (FYES), ranked by c o lle g e . TAXES PER FYES TWO-YEAR1 I KOKROE 2 WEST SHORE 3 WASHTENAW 4 MONTCALM 5 GLEN OAKS 6 DELTA 7 LAKE MICHIGAN 8 SCHOOLCRAFT 9 HUSKEGON 10 ST. CLAIR 11 C .S . HOTT 12 OAKLAND 13 KALAMAZOO 14 KIRTLAND 15 KELLOGG 16 NORTH CENTRAL 17 STATE-AVERAGE IS BAV DE NOC 19 LANSING 20 MID MICHIGAN 21 HACOHB 22 NORTHWESTERN 23 HENRY FORD 24 GRAND RAPIDS 25 JACK50N 26 GOGEBIC 27 ALPENA 28 SOUTHWESTERN 29 WAYNE 30 HIGHLAND PARK S 2,648 1,751 1,661 1,323 1,305 1,227 1,221 1,138 1,128 1,088 998 872 671 833 623 604 776 641 630 579 535 521 513 466 451 426 421 384 298 62 HANK TWD-YEAR1 BV57 Table 22c. SSI Fiscal year 1983-84 state aid per fiseal-year equated Btuient (FYES), rankeJ by college. RAI’JK TWO-YEAR! BV58 Table 22d. S 1,691 1,662 1,626 1,624 1,536 1,509 1,503 1,426 1,368 1,367 1,350 1,326 1,308 1,292 1,249 1,243 1,195 1,183 1,180 1,145 1.124 1,1)9 1,086 1,022 1,012 942 927 830 819 629 Fiscal year 1983-84 "other* GENERAL FUND revenues per fiscal-year equated student (FYES), ranted by college. OTHER REV. PER FYES STATE AIII PER FYES TWO-TEARI 1 MONTCALM 2 JACKSON 3 HIGHLAND PARK A GOGEBIC 5 MUSKEGON 6 KIRTLAND 7 WAYNE 8 ALPENA 9 NORTH CENTRAL 10 MID MICHIGAN 11 NORTHWESTERN 12 KELLOGG 13 WEST SHORE 14 ST. CLAIR 15 HENRY FORD 16 BAT DE NOC 17 SOUTHWESTERN 18 CLF.N OAKS 19 GRAND RAPIDS 20 LANSINC 21 STATE-AVERAGE fi la k e R ich u:an 23 C .S. MOTT 24 MACOMB 25 SCHOOLCRAFT 26 KALAHAZOO 27 WASHTENAW 28 MONROE 29 DELTA 30 OAKLAND ACS 4 TWO-YEARI I MONTCALM 2 JACKSON 3 NORTH CENTRAL 4 WEST SHORE 5 GLEN OAKS 6 HIGHLAND PARK 7 NORTHWESTERN 8 LAKE MICHIGAN 9 WASHTENAW 10 KIRTLAND 11 GOGEBIC 12 C .S . MOTT 13 WAYNE 14 MUSKEGON 15 MONROE 16 KALAMAZOO 17 STATE-AVERAGE 18 SOUTHWESTERN 19 HENRY FORD 20 MID HICHIGAN 21 LANSING 22 HACOMB 23 BAY DE NOC 24 ALPENA 25 GRAND RAPIDS 26 OAKLAND 27 KELLOGG 28 ST. CLAIR 29 SCHOOLCRAFT JO DELTA S 437 357 327 314 291 288 235 233 231 228 210 199 198 182 172 165 157 149 142 135 134 129 117 116 104 102 100 97 87 86 RANK TW0-YEAR1 BV59 Table 22e. ACS 5 Fiscal year 1983-84 total GENERAL FUND revenue per fiscal-year equated student (FYES), ranted by college. TOTAL REV. PER FYES TWO-YEARl 1 MONROE 2 WEST SORE 3 MONICALM 4 WASHTENAW 5 MUSXFGON G GLEN OAKS 7 ST. CLAIR 8 NORTHWESTERN 9 LAKE MICHIGAN 10 KIRTLAND U C.S. MOTT 12 JACKSON 13 NORIH CENTRAL 14 SCHOOLCRAFT 15 HENRY FORD 16 KQ.LOGG 17 DELTA 18 HXGKLAH) PARK 19 GRAM) RAPIDS 20 GOGEBIC 21 STATE-AVERAGE 22 MID MICHIGAN 23 WAYNE 24 ALPENA 25 BAY DE NOC 26 LANSING 27 KALAMAZOO 28 KAOCMB 29 SOUTHWESTERN 30 OAKLAND S 4.313 4,231 4.13B 3,752 3,691 3,591 3,575 3,403 3,401 3,339 3.331 3,312 2,289 3,250 3,203 3,186 3,181 3,175 3,104 3,091 3,043 2.931 2,925 2,892 2,859 2,833 2,766 2,735 2,668 2,439 ta b le 23. TWO-YEAR WEST SHORE MONTCALM WASHTENAW MONROE HU5KEGON NORTHWESTERN GLEN OAKS C. S . MOTT ST. CLAIR LAKE HICHIGAN HIGHLAND PARK DELTA NORTH CENTRAL HENRY FORD KIRTLAND KELLOGG JACKSON SCHOOLCRAFT GOGEBIC HID HICHIGAN WAYNE GRAND RAPIDS ALPENA HACOHB LANSING DAY DE HOC KALAHAZOO OAKLAND SOUTHWESTERN F i s c a l y e a r 1983-B4 c c n p a r a t iv e r a n k o r d e r o f c o l le g e re v e n u e s and e x p e n d itu r e s p e r f i s c a l - y e a r e q u a te d s tu d e n t (FYES). TOTAL EXPEND. PER FYES TOTAL REVENUE PER FYES TAXES PER FYES STATE AID PER FYES TUITION PER FYES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 26 27 28 2y 2 3 N 1 5 8 6 11 7 9 18 17 13 15 10 16 12 m 20 21 22 19 23 27 25 29 26 29 28 2 9 3 1 9 21 5 11 10 7 29 6 16 22 19 15 29 8 25 19 28 23 26 20 18 17 13 12 27 13 1 26 27 5 11 18 22 19 21 3 28 9 15 6 12 2 29 9 10 7 19 8 23 20 16 25 29 17 17 28 12 29 19 3 29 8 5 23 9 7 25 2 27 11 20 9 22 18 15 1 13 6 19 16 26 21 10 PRINT TO0-YEAR1 BZ137,BZ13B,BZ139,BZ140,BZ141,BZ1-12,BZ196,BZ197 T ab le 2 6 . S ix - y e a r h i s t o r y o f s t a t e - e q u a l i z e d v a l u a ti o n s (S E V 's), b y c o l l e g e . i « w o se t (OOO’S) TV0-TEAA1 ALPENA SAT OC HOC C.S. MOTT DELTA CUN OAKS COCEBtC CMNO RAPIDS HENRI PORD RICHLAND PARK JACKSON KALAMAZOO KELLOGG KIRTLAND LAKP. MICHIGAN LANSINC HACUH1 KID HICHIGAN HONROE MONTCALM MUSKEGON NORTH CENTRAL NORTHWESTERN OAKLAND ST. CLAIR SCHOOLCRAFT SOUTHWESTERN WASHTENAW WAYNE WEST SHRINK. STATE-TOTAL S 301,*32 267,500 3,413,786 3,906,100 **3,018 113,000 973.103 1,3*0,000 1*6,000 9*3.916 1,626.39* 913,0*7 620.600 1,609.372 2,313,000 3,660,733 116,622 1,611,2*1 377,2*3 9*0,297 216,3*1 361,62* 9,7*2,000 1,217,320 2,326,331 400,676 2,612,931 11,096,000 630,190 36,674,369 1980-81 SEV (000'S) 1 3**.*97 293,600 3,173,10* 4,603,*00 303,713 127,000 1,106,000 1,713,037 1*7,000 1,103,0*0 1,111.602 1,01*,0*0 686,700 1,761.196 ;,Si.0O O 6,39*,36S 6*3,16D 1,396,331 *31,**7 1,031,612 331,681 666,21* 11,312,000 I , *3*.73* 2,821.*70 *62,707 2,796,673 12,0*9.783 696,009 66,336,272 lS8t-82 SEV (000*S) 3 376.631 319,000 *,228,125 4,8*3,300 370.523 137,000 1,271.200 1,933,025 1*7,000 1,193,127 2,020,673 1,096,012 7*3.600 l , r 6,660 2.®J0.000 7,317.131 *£6,0*0 1,771,413 311,*3* 1.191.056 361,231 727,829 13,111,000 1,396.117 1,2**,*77 323.5*7 3,170,57* 12,992.000 799.3*2 71,367,313 I982-S3 SEV (OOO’S) S 3*9,933 317,200 6,6*0,211 3,167,239 601,829 156.263 1,390,1*6 2,063,7*9 166,169 1,2*5,257 2,209,393 1,172,926 *21,571 2,001,23* 3,307,327 7,832,769 330,331 1,900,329 537,893 1,278,668 383,037 7*1,997 14,033,730 1.729,61* 1.2*3,582 363,991 3,312,782 11,156,920 *51,172 73,786.052 1983-8* sev (OOO’S) S 398,5*1 3*9,500 *,**2,881 5,263,0*6 621,235 158,869 1,4**,703 2,000,373 166,813 1,225,732 2,306,661 1,167,287 836,206 2,033,929 3,392,800 7,70*.323 5*6,457 1,987,976 586,06* 1,286,158 *06,707 861,022 13,822,132 1.793,000 3,268,1*1 37*,*10 3,258,310 I7,*5A,626 *85,61* 75,638,162 !98*-85 SEV (OOO’S) S 398,30* 350,900 *,*63,367 5,315,190 636,03* 166,025 1,6*3,36* 2,001,719 1*0,000 1,2*9,207 2,373,333 1,172,926 870,877 2,076,939 3,650,000 7,838,761 363,616 2,092,307 616,99* 1,310,096 426,759 877,677 16,600,000 1,795.000 3,296.009 583,313 3,307,757 12,*66,768 901,90* 76,999,95* 5-YEAR I CHANCE t-YEAR I CHANCE 2 2 7 1 3 2 1 0 I 0 • 8 1 0 0 5 1 3 0 3 0 3 8 0 6 7 1 8 * 9 - 0.0 0.6 0.5 1.0 2.1 3.2 2.6 0.1 - 3.3 1.9 2.9 0.3 * .l 2.0 1.7 1.7 3.3 5.1 *.9 1.9 *.9 1.9 4.2 0.0 0.8 0.8 1.5 - 0.1 2.1 1.8 ACS 6 RANKTOD-YEAR1 BV120,BV123,BV121,BV122,BV124,BV125 ■fable 27. Fiscal year 1983-84 state-equalized valuation (SEV) per fiscal-year equated student (FYES) and millage rates, ranted by college SEV per FYES. 83-84 SEV PER FYES TWO-TEAR1 L LAKE HICHIGAN 2 MAINE 3 WEST SHORE •low 4 MONROE ••h ig h 5 OAKLAND 6 KIRTLAND 7 GLEN OAKS 8 DELTA 9 MONTCALM 10 ST. CLAIR 11 WASHTENAW 12 C.S. MOTT 13 SCHOOLCRAFT 14 STATE-AVERM2 15 KALAMAZOO 16 HACOHB 17 MUSKEGON 18 HID MICHIGAN 19 NORTH CENTRAL 20 KELLOGG 21 NORTHWESTERN 22 JACKSON 23 SOUTHWESTERN 24 LANSING 25 ALPENA 26 BAY DE NX 27 HENRY FORD 28 GRAND RAPIDS 29 GOGEBIC 30 HIGHLAND PARK Note; S 1,212 1,178 1,165 1,154 873 833 825 769 747 721 711 693 634 609 581 527 469 463 460 422 346 333 313 315 281 277 251 225 135 66 OPERATING HILIACE 1.0000 * 0 .2 5 0 0 1.5000 2.2500 1.0000 1.0000 1.5000 1.0006 1.7500 1.5000 2.2500 1.4000 1.7700 1.5206 1.5000 1.0000 **2.4000 1.2500 1.7500 1.9500 1.5000 1.3300 1.2000 2.0000 1.5000 1.9400 2.0400 2.0670 1.5000 1.0000 BLDG. & SITE HILLACE 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 . oooo 0.0000 0.0000 0.0828 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2500 0.0000 0.0000 0.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0. oooo 0. oooo 0.1500 0.0000 0 . oooo **1.5000 0.0000 DEBT. RETIRE. MILLAGE 0.3000 0.5500 0.3200 0.2600 0.5000 0.4000 0.1410 * 0.0000 0.3655 0.5500 0.3900 0.5000 0.1500 0.2535 0.1800 0.4500 • 0.0000 0.2450 0.1300 * 0.0000 * 0 .0 0 0 0 ** 0.9100 0.3000 0.0005 0.0000 0.4100 0.0000 * 0.0000 0. 3000 *0.0000 S tate average m illa g e r a te s shown are a s in p le average o f the 29 c o lle g e s . TOTAL MILLAGE 1.3000 *0.8000 1.8200 2.5100 1. 5000 1.4000 1.6410 1.0006 1.7330 2.0500 2.6400 1.9000 1.9200 1.7714 1.6800 1.4500 2.4000 1.7450 1.8900 1.9500 2.0000 2.2400 1.5000 2.0005 1. 5000 2.5000 2.0000 2.0670 **3.3000 1.0000 TOTAL VOTED MILLAGE L.0000 * 0 .0 0 0 0 1.5000 2.2500 1.0000 1.0000 1.5000 1.0006 1.7500 1.5000 1.0000 1.4000 1.7700 1.5244 1.5000 1.0000 2.4000 1.5000 1.7500 1.9500 2.0000 1.3300 1. 5000 2.0000 .1.. 5000 2.5000 2.0400 2.0670 **3.0000 1.0000 11 RANK TVIO-VFAR} BV13 5 , BUI ! U , BV13 2 , B V 130 'Table 30. Fircal veer college. \Jcightod tuition rate, ranked by (A) UEIGHTED TUITION TWO-YEAR1 1 GRAND RAPIDS 2 HENRY FORD *low * * h ig h 3 NDRIHWESTCRN 4 MAOCMB 5 C.S. M JTT 6 DELTA 7 HIGHLAND PARK 8 WASHTENAW 9 JACKSON 10 SCHOOLCRAFT 11 ST. CLAIR 12 SOUTHWESTERN 13 STATE-AVERAGE/ TOTAL 14 LANSING 15 GLEN OAKS 16 HID MICHIGAN 17 MONICALM 18 MUSKEGON 19 BAY DE NOC 20 GOGEBIC 21 NORTH CENTRAL 22 WAYNE 23 KELLOGG 24 ALPENA 25 WEST SHORE 26 OAKLAND 27 LAKE MICHIGAN 28 KALAMAZOO 29 KIRTLAND 30 MCNROE 41.37 39.11 38.41 33.58 33.19 33.14 32.94 32.12 31.67 31.37 30.39 29.55 29.00 28.85 28.32 28.29 28.27 27.92 27.71 27.25 27.09 26.53 26.38 26.29 26.26 25.55 23.79 23.76 21.75 19.31 (B> 1984-85 I-D TUITION 31.00 30.00 30.00 31.50 **32.00 31.00 25.00 29.00 30.00 28.75 28.00 26.00 25.94 25.50 26.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 25.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 23.00 22.00 25.00 24.00 23.00 21.00 20.00 *18.50 (D) (C) 1984-85 0-D X SCH'S TUITION IN-DISTRICT 50.00 42.00 49.50 50. 00 44.50 **55.00 35.00 46.00 39.00 39.50 46.00 32.00 38.64 37.50 40.00 34.00 37.50 36.00 34.00 34.00 30.00 37.00 38.50 32.00 38.00 37.00 31.00 42.00 •26.00 27.50 (A) A « (D/100 x B) + ((100 - DJ/100 x C] (B) 1984-85 in -d istrict tu ition rate per student credit hour (C) 1984-85 ou t-of-district tu ition rate per student credit hour (D) %of in -d istrict student credit hours (excludes prisoners) 45.4 24.0 56.9 88.7 90.5 91. 1 *20.6 81.7 81.4 75.6 86.7 40.8 75.9 72. 1 83.5 57.1 73.8 80.8 69.8 56.2 48.5 **95.2 78.2 57.1 90.3 88.0 90. 1 86.9 70.8 91.0 11 5 RANK INSTRUCTION F39,C13,C14.C15,F40 T a b le 3 0 a , F i s c a l y e a r 1 9 8 3 -8 4 num ber o f i n - d i s t r i c t , o u t - o f - d i s t r i c t , p r i s o n e r and t o t a l s t u d e n t c r e d i t h o u r s (SCH), ra n k e d by c o l l e g e p e r c e n ta g e o f i n - d i s t r i c t SCH*s. Z SCH*S IN -0 1ST INSTRUCTION 1 WYN-SUBT INST 2 DEL-SUBT INST 3 MON-SUBT INST 4 C94-SUBT INST 5 WS-SUBT INST 6 IM-SUBT INST 7 MAC-SUBT INST 8 QAK-SUBT INST 9 KAL-SUBT INST 10 S1C-SUBT INST 11 GLN-SUBT INST 12 WSH-SUBT INST 13 JAC-SUBT INST 14 MUS-SUBT INST 15 KEL-SUBT INST 16 STATE-AVERAGE/TOTAL 17 SCH-SUBT INST 18 MNT-SUBT INST 19 LAN-SUBT INST 20 KIR-SUBT INST 21 BAY-SlfBT INST 22 PM-SUBT INST 23 ALP-SUBT INST 24 NW-SUBT INST 25 GOG-SUBT INST 26 NC-SUBT INST 27 GR-SUBT INST 28 SW-SUBT INST 29 HF-SUBT INST 30 HP-SUBT INST 95.2 91.1 91.0 90.5 90.3 90.1 88.7 88.0 86.9 86.7 83.5 81.7 81.4 80.8 78.2 75.9 75.6 73.8 72.1 70.8 69.8 57.1 57.1 56.9 56.2 48.5 45.4 40.8 24.0 20.6 IN-DIST. SCH'S 322,070 193,173 48,611 179,845 21,279 46,920 401,811 432,095 106,961 66,906 19,499 115,228 71,729 67,008 67,047 2,885,055 119,807 12,995 240,656 19,515 27,322 20,903 25,113 43.8B6 14,439 13,300 90,SOB 23,031 59,332 14,059 OUT-DIST. SCH'S 16,379 18,894 4,814 18,970 2,288 5,171 50,999 58,678 16,169 10,246 3,864 25,889 16,397 15,948 18,664 916.563 36,633 4,608 93,065 8,059 11,800 15,687 18,878 33,280 11,244 14,146 108,787 33,368 187,392 54,239 PRISON SCH'S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 910 25,849 2,031 0 51.3B3 1,390 6,744 0 3,570 0 0 O 0 10,885 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL SCH'S 338,449 212,067 53,425 198,815 23,567 52,091 452,810 490,773 123,130 77,152 23,363 141,117 88,126 82,956 85,7!1 3,801.618 158,440 17,603 333,721 27,574 39,122 36,590 43,991 77,166 25,683 27,446 199,295 56,399 246,724 68,298 BIBLIOGRAPHY 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander# Fred J. "Adm inistrative Opinions Concerning U t i l i z a t i o n of Marketing S t r a t e g i e s In Management of Higher Education I n s t i t u ­ t i o n s 1n t h e United S t a t e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Memphis S t a t e University# 1978. American Association of Community and J u n i o r Colleges. "1985 AAGJC Public Policy Agenda." Community and Ju n io r College Journal 55 (February 1985): 45-53. Ammon# Adelaide A. "What Business Thinks of Us." Speech presented t o t h e Michigan Community College Community Services Association# Livonia# Michigan# March 21# 1985. Atherton# Jeanne# and Cohen# Wallace. "Marketing t h e Afternoon Pro­ gram. " In Hsu .D irec tions l o r .Community Colleges—Marketing t h e Program# pp. 63-68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass# 1981. Bartok# L e s l i e A. "Where Have All t h e Students Gone? An A t t r i t i o n / Retention Study of Continuing Education S t u d e n ts . " Community Services C a ta ly s t 15 (Spring 1985): 14-15. Beckett# John. "Colleges Assessing Impact on Older Student Popula­ t i o n . " Jackson C i ti z e n P a t r i o t # April 16, 1985. Berry# Leonard U "Services Marketing I s D i f f e r e n t." Business Magazine (College of Business Administration, Georgia S t a t e University) (May-June 1980): 24-29. Berry, Leonard L.» and George# Wallace R. "Marketing t h e U n iv e rs ity: Opportunity 1n an Era of C r i s i s . " Atlanta Economic flevlew 25,4 (1975): 4-8. Borah# John D. "A Proposal for Education of Higher Education." College Board Review (Spring 1984): 131. Borg# Walter R. Educational Research: An I n t r o d u c t i o n . Dav1d McKay Co.# 1963. "Budget C u t s ." p. 1. The New York: The Chronicle o f Higher Education# April 20# 1983# 117 118 "Colleges Must Sell Themselves or Face C lo su r e ." P a t r i o t * February 3# 1985# p. A-7. Jackson C itiz e n Creamer# Don G.# and Akins# E. G. "Marketing and I t s E f f e c t s on Student Development A c t i v i t i e s . " In New D ir e c tio n s f o r Commu­ n ity Col1eges--Market1ng t h e Program# pp. 77-86. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass# 1961. Daly# R.# and Bateman# H. "Marketing 1n a Community College." Research 80-08. Santa Ana# C a l i f . : Santa Ana College# 1979. Davis# Duane L.# and Joyce# Mary L. "Product Development In Non-Profit Service O r g a n iz atio n s." Progress 1n Marketing Theory and Prac­ t i c e . Southern Marketing Asso cia tio n Report# November 11-14# 1981. Dun1kosk1# Alfred A. "A Study of A d m inis tra tors ' Opinions Concerning Marketing Function A c t i v i t i e s as Applied t o Community Colleges 1n t h e S t a t e of I l l i n o i s . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n . Northern I l l i n o i s University# 1984. Dzlerlenga# Donna. "Sources and Information: Marketing t h e Community Colle ge." In New D ir e c tio n s f o r Community Colleges— Marketing t h e Program, pp. 115-121. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass# 1981. Elderveld# Barbara B. Michigan Community College Economic Development and Job Training Network. Executive Summary of December 3# 1984# Working Sess ions : "Community Colleges and t h e Future of Michi­ gan." Ann Arbor: March 21# 1985. El Sharel# P a t r i c i a Paul. "Implementing a Marketing Program 1n t h e Community C o lle g e ." Unpublished gradu ate seminar paper# Pepperdlne University# 1979. F1roz# Mohammad N. "Marketing In Nonprofit Higher Education." d i s s e r t a t i o n # 1982. Ph.D. F1tz-G1bbon# Carol Taylor# and Morris# Lynn Lyons. How t o Design .a Program E valuation. Beverly H U l s : Sage Publications# 1978. Fram# Eugene. "Marketing R e v isite d : C l a r i f y i n g Concepts and S t r a t e ­ g i e s . " College Board Review 94 (Winter 1974-75): 7-8# 22. Gannon# P h i l i p J . " R e structu rin g of Lansing Community C o lle g e." (Lansing Community College P o s i ti o n Paper)# October 1984# pp. 1-13. 119 Geltzer* Howard* and R1es» AT. "The P o s i t i o n i n g Era: A Marketing S t r a te g y f o r Colle ge Admissions In t h e 1 9 6 0 's . " A Role f o r Marketing i n Coliege Admissions. New York: College Entrance Examination Board* 1976. Glaser* Barney G .* and Strauss* Anselm L. The Discovery o f Grounded Theory: S t r a t e g i e s i s r Q u a l i t a t i v e Research. Hawthorne, N.Y.: Aldlne P u b lish in g Co.* 1967. Gleazer* Edmund J . "AACJC Approach— P r o p o s it i o n 1 3 . " J u n i o r Col 1ege Journal 49 (September 1978): 2. Community and G o l l a t t s c h e c k , James F. "CautionI Marketing May Be Hazardous t o Your I n s t i t u t i o n a l H e a l t h . " In New D i r e c t i o n s l o r Community Colleges— Marketing t h e Program, pp. 99-105. San F rancisco: Jossey-B ass, 1981. Gorman* Walter P. "Marketing Approaches f o r Promoting S tu d en t E n ro ll­ ment 1n Higher Education I n s t i t u t i o n s . " Col Toge and U n i v e rs i ty 49 (Spring 1974): 242-50. The Governor's Commission on t h e Future of Higher Education. " P u ttin g Our Minds Together: New D i r e c t i o n s f o r Michigan Higher Education." Lansing: December 1964. Heskett* James L. Marketing. New York: Macmillan* 1976. Hodgklnson, Harold L. "Truth and Consequences on E n rollm en t." Paper presented a t t h e annual meeting of t h e American Council on Edu­ c a t i o n , October 1978. H o fs ta d er, Richard, and Hardy, C. Dewitt. The Development and Scope o f Higher Education. New York: Columbia U n iv e rs ity P r e s s , 1952. Hoppe, Sherry Lee. "An Analysis of t h e R e la ti o n s h ip of Marketing t o Enrollment 1n S e le c te d Community, J u n i o r and Technical C o l le g e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n * t h e U n iv e rs ity of Tennessee, 1981. Hugstad* Paul S. "The Marketing Concept 1n Higher Education: A C aveat." L ib e r a l Education 61 (December 1975): 505-13. Huddleston, Thomas, J r . * and Hendry, Mary. "Serving t h e Adult S t u d e n t . " The College Board Review 128 (Summer 1983): 6-10. Ivens, Stephen H. 1977): 8-9. " S t r a te g y f o r S u r v i v a l . " CASE Currents (March Jenny, Hans H. "The P r i c e War Colleges D on't Like t o Talk About." The Chronicle o f Higher Education (Ju ly 1983). 120 Johnson* Dennis. ’’Q u a lity , Marketing, and t h e Work Group: The Case f o r 'Bottom Up' Renewal." American Association of Hloher Education (March 1984): 3-5. Johnson, Eugene M., and Scheulng, Ebarhard. Successful Marketing f o r Service O rg aniz ations. American Management Asso cia tio ns— Extension I n s t i t u t e , 1982. Ke1m, Marybelle C. "R e te ntion ." In New D ir e c tio n s fo r Community Colleges—Marketing t h e Program, pp. 89-97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981. Ke1m, William A. "Segmentation: S l i c i n g t h e Urban P1e." In New D irec tio n s i c r Community Col 1eges--Market1ng I h s Program, pp. 5562. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981. ________ , and Ke1m, Marybelle C., eds. New D irec tio n s jfor Community Colleges—Marketing t h e Program, pp. 1-3. San Francisco: Jo sse yBass, 1981. Kortge, George Dean. "The Application of Marketing Concepts t o Person­ nel Management." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n iv e rs ity , 1979. K otler, P h i l i p . "Applying Marketing Theory t o College Admissions." A Bale -far Marketing l o College Admissions. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1976. ________ . Marketing f o r Non-Profit Organizations. N . J . : P r e n t lc e - H a l 1, 1975. Englewood C l i f f s , ________ , and Goldgehn, L e s lie A. "Marketing: A D e f in i t io n f o r Commu­ n i t y C o lle g es." In New D irec tio n s f o r Community Colleges— Marketing t h e Program, pp. 5-12. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981. K otler, P h i l i p , and Levy, Sidney J . "Broadening t h e Concept of Market­ i n g . " Journal o f Marketing 33 (January 1969): 10-15. Krachenberg, A. R. "Bringing t h e Concept of Marketing t o Higher Education." Journal of Higher Education 43 (May 1972): 369-80. Laabs, Theodore R . ; Hotes, Robert W.; and M i l l e r , Bob W. "The Impact of Marketing on Higher Education." In R e cru itin g. Marketing. .Mid Retention I n I n s t i t u t i o n s a f Higher Education, pp. 43-53. New York: University Press of America, 1983. 121 Lacznlak# Gene R.; Lusch# Robert F . ; and Udell# Jon G. "Marketing 1n 1985: A View From t h e Ivory Tower." Journ al of Marketing 32 (October 1977): 47-56. Lansing S t a t e J o u r n a l # December 18# 1983. Leach# Ernest R. "Implementing the Market P r o c e s s ." Community and J u n i o r College Journal (December/January 1977-1978): 20-24. LeTarte# Clyde E. "Community Education and t h e Community College— Problems and Promise." Jackson# M1ch,# February 10# 1981. Lorenzo# Albert L. "Visions of t h e Environment f o r V i s i o n a r ie s In Education. A Report t o t h e Michigan Community College Community Se rvices A s s o c ia t io n . " Livonia# M1ch.# March 21# 1985. Losher# John L.# and Miller# Bob W. "Marketing: Viable Concepts and S t r a t e g i e s f o r Higher Education." In Recruiting# Marketing, and Retention i n I n s t i t u t i o n s s& Higher Education, pp. 5-29. New York: University Press of America# 1983. Lovelock# Christopher# and Rothchlld# Michael L. "Uses# Abuses# and Misuses of Marketing 1n Higher Education." In Marketing 1n College Admissions! A Broadening O l P e r s p e c t i v e s , pp. 31-69. New York: College Entrance Examination Board# 1980. Macnow# Glen. "Decade of Decline?" September 3# 1981. The D e t r o i t (Michigan) Free P r e s s . ________ . "Michigan t o Study S t a t e Campuses: Some Could S h u t." Chronicle of Higher Education (May 1983). The Mangel son# Wayne Leon. " A t t it u d e s of Academic Department Chairpersons and Faculty About the Importance of Various Formal A b i l i t i e s fo r Chairpersons." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n # University of Michigan# 1977. Mark# Joseph T. "In Search of Excellence: Management Lessons f o r Higher Education." The ColJage Board Review 133 (Fall 1984): 30-31. Martin# B. E . ; Eddy# John; and Semones# James. "Retention Factors f o r Minority S t u d e n t s . " In Bacruiting# Marketing. And Retention i n I n s t i t u t i o n s of Higher Education, pp. 297-302. New York: University Press of America# 1983. Mathias# Terry D. "The Marketing Concept 1n C erta in P r i v a t e Liberal Arts C o lle ges." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n # Southern I l l i n o i s Univer­ sity# 1982. 122 McCready, Gerald B. Marketing T actics! B usin e ss. Englewood CUffs# N . J . : Master Guide .far Small Prent1ce-Hal1* 1982. McKenna# F. R. "Entrepreneur1sm--The Trojan Horse 1n Pu b lic Educa­ t i o n . " The College Board Review 133 (Fall 1984): 16-19. Michigan Community College Association. "Membership D irec to r of t h e Michigan Community College Association and Boards of Trustees* Michigan Community College 1984-85." Lansing: MCCA# September 1984. ________ . 1984-85 Directory of Michigan Community C o lle g es. MCCA# September 1984. Lansing: Michigan Department of Management and Budget. Population P r o j e c t i o n s f o r Michigan ±c t h e Year 2010. Lansing: S t a t e of Michigan# March 1985. Mlkllch# Beverly A. " E f f e c t i v e Marketing Methods 1n Independent Higher Education." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n # Claremont Graduate School# 1984. Miller# Bob W.* and Eddy# John P. Recruiting* Marketing and Retention lO I n s t i t u t i o n s o f Higher Education. New York: U nivers ity Press of America# 1983. Montana# P a t r i c k J . AMACOM# 1978. Marketing in Non-Profit O rg a n iz atio n s. New York: Mulder-Edmensen* Anne. "College S t r a t e g i e s f o r Implementing a Marketing Program." In New D irec tio ns f o r Community Colleges.— Marketing t h e Program, pp. 31-38. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass# 1981. Murphy# P a t r i c k E. * and McGarrlty# Richard A. "Marketing U n i v e r s i t i e s : A Survey of Student Recruitment A c t i v i t i e s . " College and Uni­ v e r s i t y 53 (Spring 1978): 249-61. Myran# Gunder# and Ralph* Mark. "Evaluation of Marketing P r a c t i c e s In Community C o lle g e s ." In flow D ir e c tio n s l o r Community Colleges— Marketing t h e Program# pp. 107-14. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass* 1981. National Association of College Admissions Counselors. NACAC 1975-76 Membership D i r e c t o r y . Skokie* 111.: NACAC# 1976. Noel# Lee. " F i r s t Steps 1n S t a r t i n g a Campus Retention Program." In Reducing t h e Dropout Rate. Edited by L. Noel. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass* 1978. 123 Otto* G. "With Declining Number of High School Graduates* Where Do We Find Enough Stud ents f o r Our Colleges 1n t h e 1980fs?" Paper presented a t the Chicago City Colleges* Conference* Chicago* I l l i n o i s * November 30-December 1* 1979. Overelner* Paul. "Linder Calm Facade* JCC Much D i f f e r e n t . " C i ti z e n P a t r i o t * October 30, 1984, p. 1. Jackson Pappas, Richard J. * and R i t t e r , Sandra L. "Survey Finds Administra­ t o r s , Trustees D i f f e r on R o les." Community and Ju n i o r College Journal (October 1983): 18-19. Payne* Stanley L. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton U nivers ity Press* 1980. Princeton* N . J . : Perkins* Carl D., and Powell* P a t t l e T. "Essay—What America Will Need From I t s Community Colleges by t h e Year 2000." Community and Ju n io r College Journal 55 (August/September 1984): 36-37. Portugal* Joe B. "Lessons Colleges Can Learn From B u sin ess." School .and U n ivers ity 52 (September 1979): 76-78. American Potter* George E. Tru st eesh ip— Handbook _£cr Community College £nd Technical I n s t i t u t e T r u s t e e s . Washington* D.C.: Association of University College Trustees* 1979. P r e ss le y , Milton M. Marketing Planning jfar CoJJeges and U n i v e r s i t i e s . University City: University of Mississippi* 1978. Rankin* Gary. "A Marketing Plan Example: South Oklahoma City Ju n io r C olle g e." In Recruiting* Marketing* and Retention In I n s t i t u ­ t i o n s of Higher Education. New York: University Press of America* 1983. Rathmell* John M. Marketing _1n t h e Service S e c to r . Wlnthrop* 1974. Cambridge* Mass.: Richardson* Richard C . * J r . * and Doucette* Donald S. "Rethinking Marketing 1n th e Community C o lle ge." In New D ir e c tio n s for Community Col 1eges—Market 1ng H i s Program* pp. 13-20. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass* 1981. Root* Ron. "1984-85 S t a t e Aid t o Community C o l le g e s ." Paper presented t o t h e Michigan Community College Services Association* University City* Missouri* June 4* 1984. Sc1gl1ano» J. A. " S t r a t e g i c Marketing Planning: C r e a t iv e S t r a t e g i e s f o r Developing Unique Income S o u rces." Paper presented a t the annual conference of t h e National Council on Community S erv ices and Continuing Education* Danvers* Mass.* October 20-22* 1980. 124 Shulman, Carol H e r r n sta d t. Enrollment Trends J jq Higher Education. ERIC/Higher Education Research Reports No. 6. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Higher Education, 1976. ________ . "What E f f e c t i v e Market Analysis Can Do f o r You: The Cbmmun l t y Assessment Program." Community Services C a ta ly s t 15 (Spring 1985): 5-13. Smith, Barbara A. "Marketing and t h e P r in te d Media: G e ttin g t h e Promo­ t i o n a l Job Done." In New D irec tio n s f o r Community Colleges— Marketing t h e Program, pp. 39-4 4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981. Spies, Richard R. The Future of P r i v a t e C o lle g es. Princeton U n iv e rs ity , 1973. S t a r k , Joan S. "Marketing and B e t t e r Info rm atio n ." (February 1979): 1. Princeton, N . J .: CHOICE Comments 2 S t a t e of Michigan Board o f Education, Higher Education Management Se rv ice s, Community College Se rvices Unit. "Michigan Community College A c t i v i t i e s C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S t r u c t u r e . " Lansing: J u l y 1981. ________ . "Michigan Community Colleges FY 1983-843 A c t i v i t i e s C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S t r u c t u r e (ACS) Data Book." Lansing: S t a t e of Michigan, February 1985. Struggs, C a lU e Fo s ter. "Marketing and Community Impact Assessment." In Hfitf D irec tion s I oe Community Colleges—Marketing Program, pp. 23-30. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981. Taylor, Raymond E. "Perceptio ns of Academic Deans Toward Selected Marketing Approaches t o Higher Education." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , I l l i n o i s University a t Carbondale, 1981. Trevlsa n, Sandl. " S t r a t e g i c Marketing I s Workshop Topic." San Diego. C a l i f o r n i a . Convention Hews (American Association of Community and J u n i o r C o lle g e s ) , April 16, 1985, p. 3. Urrows, E li za b e th, and Urrows, Henry. "Hard Times, Dropped Expecta­ t i o n s . " The ColJ^ge Board Review 132 (Summer 1984): 17-23. Wagner, Paul A. "Marketing f o r NPO's— From a P r a c t i t i o n e r ' s Point of View." Marketing 1n N o n - P r o m C r g a n l z a t l o n s . New York: AMACOM, 1978. Ward, Ted. " D i f f e r e n t i a t i n g t h e Three Types of Curriculum Research." Handout, Michigan S t a t e Unive rsity, EAC 910E, TW 383 F, Spring 1984. 125 Watkins, Beverly T. "Higher Education Now Big Business f o r B1g Busi­ n e s s . " The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 13, 1983. Welers, Ronald M. Marketing Research. P r e n t lc e - H a l 1, 1984. Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : W1dr1ck, Stanley, and Fram, Eugene. " I s Higher Education a Negative Product?" The College Board Review 130 (Winter 1983-84): 27-29. Wolf, Jack S. "Marketing Admissions." (Fall 1973): 2 - 4 , 23-24. The College Board Review 89 Zaltman, Gerald, and Burger, P h i l i p C. Market Research: Fundamentals and ilynaml.cs. Hinsdale, 111.: The Dryden Pre ss, 1975.