By's Musings

Student

By 1 Comment

Teach Me! I Dare You!

Some might say that my teaching career got off to an auspicious, if not unusual start. My first experience in a real classroom was as a senior in high school. I taught three sections of 9th grade algebra for six weeks, as a substitute teacher. This came about when one of our high school math teachers became seriously ill and the district couldn’t find a long-term math sub. I was available because I had completed all the necessary requirements for graduation except three credits. Therefore, I only had three classes and three study halls my senior year. The two remaining math teachers at my high school didn’t like teaching 9th grade algebra. I was an excellent math student who was successfully tutoring a number of students, so they talked the principal into putting me in front of the algebra classes. They provided lesson plans and I taught their lessons. To have the “necessary adult in the classroom,” the district hired an English sub to sit in the back of the room “to keep order.”   I enjoyed teaching. I think I did a good job at it. The students in my sections all passed the district’s 10th grade math readiness exam.

Although it’s been many years, I still recall my first class as a college professor. I remember observing students walking into that class as if it were yesterday. Unfortunately, I have lost track of many of those students. Although I tried to be the teacher that they needed, sometimes I wish I could go back and respond to them differently.

There were two in particular who were as different as night and day. One was from a well-to-do family. This student had everything he or she could have wanted. All this student had to do was ask. The student had a fancy car that daddy bought. The student had the latest in trendy fashions. The student had a job waiting in the family business immediately upon graduation from college. The student was intelligent, good looking, and athletic, a celebrated, all-conference player.  In everything to do with classwork, this student’s attitude and expressions shouted the questions: “Why do I have to study? Why do I have to work in class? I have everything I need.”  Every day this student would walk into class with that attitude that said, “Teach me! I dare you!”

The second student was the child of a successful athletic coach at another small college. However, this student was anything but athletic. The student was unattractive, lacked many social graces. and had a complete lack of coordination. Be an athlete? This student could trip over the sideline chalk. The rumor was that this student was enrolled at our school because the father was embarrassed to have this student around his school. This student threw him/herself into studies and barely got C’s. No matter what he/she did, it wasn’t good enough. So the student developed this enormous chip on his/her shoulders. When the student would walk into class, you could see in his/her eyes the lack of hope. You could almost hear the stutter, “I-I-I can’t do-do-do anything. Go ahead and te-te-teach me! I d-d-dare you!”

Through more than 40 years of working with students, these two students were just two of the many examples I have seen. Student after student would enroll in the colleges where I worked and walk into classes or my office, and by the attitudes they expressed, say, “Teach me! I dare you!” They had many different stories.

“No one loves me so why should I bother?” “My parents were supposed to be this perfect Christian couple. They were the pillars of our home church. I go away to college and they get a divorce. What’s the point? God let my family down. He is not going to care about me.”

“I want to be an artist, but my parents insist that I go into business. I’ll show them. If I flunk out or just barely graduate, nobody will hire me when they see my grades. I will be a failure in my parents’ eyes. However, I will be free to be the artist that I am meant to be.”

“I don’t see why I need this class to be a [fill in the blank]. Why do I have to take it? It’s not important for my major. I’ll never use this stuff as a [fill in the blank].”

“God has called me into ministry. I’m leaving school at the end of the semester to follow His calling, and do His work full-time.”

“I have done something terrible. I can’t forgive myself. God won’t forgive me. I am worthless. What’s the sense in trying to make something out of myself?”

Some were whispering; some were crying; some were shouting. “Teach me! I dare you!”

I was a teacher. What should have been my response to these students? Could I, or should I ignore them? After all, I had 10, or 30, or 90 other students in the class who really wanted to learn. As a teacher, I had a responsibility to help students learn. There were students in the class that really wanted to learn. They did the assigned work. They went far beyond the minimum. Those students expected me to help them. They were grateful when they realized that they had learned something.

Helping students learn is the ministry that God assigned to me. Teaching is what God called me to do. Teaching is what I studied and trained to do. It was exciting. It was exhilarating. (And it still is.) Isn’t it enough to work with those students that really do want to learn?  At the end of the day, I could cash my paycheck with no regrets and no second thoughts. Or could I?

I can’t get the faces of the myriad of students with problems out of my mind. Students that one way or another sat in front of me and said, or screamed, or cried, “Teach me! I dare you!” I had a responsibility to those students to get to know them; to understand their problems; to be engaged with them and determine what they needed and how best they could learn; to value them and help them value themselves; to love them because they were people. If I did that, I would have the right and the responsibility to stand in front of them and say, “Okay, I accept your challenge…if you accept mine. I double-dare you to learn.” With some, I was successful in that classroom scene. With others, I have often wondered if something I said or did planted a seed that would later grow fruit. If it didn’t, was there something else I should have done? I know that teaching and learning are mutual responsibilities, and that students share in the process. However, I was the teacher and that is supposed to mean something.

 

 

 

 

By Leave a Comment

Life Cycle of Alumni: Part XIV – It Takes an Institution to Develop Successful and Satisfied Alumni

Alumni development can’t be delegated to just a few people. It takes the whole institution to develop successful and satisfied alumni. For more than 40 years, I was involved in the oversight of admissions offices and the processes of recruiting and admitting students. Since my earliest days in the admissions area, I have believed that one of the most important tasks of an admissions office was to begin the task of developing satisfied and successful alumni.

At that time, college education was definitely a family decision. The most significant people in helping prospective students with their college selection process were the parents. You must remember that this was more than a half century ago. At that time, students were different than they tend to be today. The over-whelming majority of students were traditional age (18 to 25 years old). Most of those students started college immediately after high school or a short stint in the armed services. My first administrative position was in a traditional liberal arts, residential college, with almost no commuter population. One of the largest tasks of the admissions office was to sell the campus experience.

I wanted our recruitment efforts focused on two ideas or pictures. The first was to help prospective students picture themselves as students on our campus. They had to see themselves on campus. What would that look like? How would they fit in? In developing these pictures, we could not forget the parents of these prospective students. Parents needed to see how our institution would assist their students in furthering the process of development that the parents had begun.

The second picture that I wanted to help prospective students develop was the picture of themselves as successful alumni. What did they want to do with their lives? What was the ministry, vocation or career to which they felt called? How would our college help them achieve their goals? I also wanted to plant the seed of the question: “As a successful alumni, how could they give back to their institution so that others could have the same experience?”  Not forgetting the parents, the institution needed to also show them the possibilities of what successful alumni were doing and could do. If their students were successful, these parents would become powerful allies, in their communities, as well as their social and professional circles, for not only the admissions effort, but also for the advancement office.

As I noted in a previous post in this series, the selling job does not stop once a student applies, has been admitted, or even enrolls. College admission did not guarantee graduation. The path from matriculation to graduation has been a hard journey for many students. Retention very much depends upon students seeing that their goals are stronger than the challenges that they incur. To assist in that process, we had to put faces on the successes of our alumni. Students needed to know that others had previously trod this path and successfully traversed it. It could be done. Success stories are an ecnouragement to those still on the journey.

To help paint the picture of successful and satisfied alumni, I recruited alumni to assist our efforts. I asked alumni to distribute materials and talk to their family, friends, neighbors and colleagues. I asked alumni to host admissions parties for other prospective students and their parents to meet real alumni and students, as well as the paid recruitment staff. Sometimes, I was even able to convince faculty to become involved in these efforts.

Once the prospective students became enrolled students, I continued my effort to involve alumni. I recruited alumni to become volunteer career counselors via telephone contact or campus and off-campus visits. At this point of time, email was a fledgling idea and not a practical option.  I used alumni in internships and practicum placements. I encouraged faculty to invite alumni into their classes to speak about the career opportunities in their fields or to give guest lectures about specific topics. This did two things. It kept the alumni involved with the institution, and made them feel good about giving back to the institution. It also planted the seed in the minds of students of the possibility of doing the same thing after they graduated.

The selling job on alumni is not even finished at commencement. The institution has to keep meeting the needs of the alumni. This definitely involves maintaining vehicles for the communications network that students had begun to develop while enrolled. This could also involve the maintenance of a placement office for career assistance. Another option is the provision of life-long learning opportunities involving faculty, staff, and other alumni as instructors and participants.

In the next post in this series, I will address some of the substantial educational questions involved in helping and guiding students from matriculation to graduation, and hence to alumni status. Happy, successful and satisfied alumni are much more eager to be involved alumni at all levels.

By Leave a Comment

Life Cycle of Alumni: Part XIII-Fundraising Law #10

The tenth of Richardson and Basinger’s laws of fundraising was:

Law #10: The Law of Uncertainty. People will do whatever they please. To paraphrase an old expression, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink or give.” Likewise, “don’t count your chickens before they hatch.”

This post will consider how this fits into the process of student recruitment, retention, and alumni development.

Recruitment: For many years the student recruitment industry used the concept of an admissions funnel to describe the process of recruiting, admitting, and enrolling students. At this time, some admissions experts are saying that the new electronic communication age has made the concept of a funnel obsolete. I will agree that some aspects of how institutions worked the funnel previously are no longer applicable. However, I believe that in talking about the numbers of people interested and in contact with your institution at any one time, the funnel is statistically still a viable concept.

In the old model, the institution would pour a very large number of prospects into the wide mouth of the funnel by advertising or buying names from direct mail sources. That number dropped off dramatically as the prospects either lost interest in your institution or found institutions that were more appealing. You worked your prospects until you had your list of inquiries. At this point, you worked your inquiries to attempt to get them to take the next step of commitment and apply. They were now applicants.

At this point the institution stepped in to whittle this number down further by taking the step of accepting students for admissions. The institution was saying to the student, we want you. Different institutions had different strategies in accepting students. Some institutions are more selective in their choice of students, while others took a more “open door” approach.

With an offer of admission, the process was now back in the lap of the prospective student to decide whether or not he or she would accept the offer of admission and pay a deposit to confirm that decision. However, even with the payment of a deposit, the job of recruitment wasn’t necessarily complete. Not every deposited student would enroll.

With the advent of internet and television, some admissions experts suggest that institutions no longer have to necessarily go out as aggressively and identify the names and addresses of prospects.  Institutions can let the prospects shop anonymously until the prospects make the first move. At this point the institution can aggressively pursue them.

Although the landscape of higher education is changing, I believe that this new process is most effective for institutions with good reputations already established. If your institution is not well-known, you may still have to do some things the old-fashion way. You have to earn the trust of prospective students. You may also have to find ways to make your institutional mark with the general public. Surveys of enrolled students indicate that an overwhelming majority of students had their first introduction to the name of their college before they began junior high. I’ll leave that topic for another post.

Earlier I alluded to the statistical basis behind the admissions funnel. In institutions with which I have worked, it was not unusual for the number of inquiries to be less than 2% of the number of prospects. At these institutions, an average of 10% of the inquiry pool actually completed applications. Of the completed applicantions, on average the institutions accepted 70%. Of the accepted students, these institutions had 65% confirmed acceptance with a deposit. From the deposited students, on average of 85% enrolled. Thus to enroll a new class of 500 students, these institutions had to start with a prospect pool of more than 250,000. From this prospect pool, the institutions had to generate almost 13,000 inquiries. From the inquiry pool, they had to generate almost 1,300 applications, from which they admitted approximately 900. Of this admitted pool, approximately 600 paid a deposited. From this confirmed pool, finally a new class of 500 enrolled students emerged.

Retention: Once a student enrolls, in other posts we have emphasized that the job is not done. An institution must work to keep the students involved and interested. The national average of matriculates graduating is less than 50%. At the institutions at which I worked, I liked to track year-to-year retention.

As an example at one institution, when I arrived the graduation rate was less than 20% and the first-to-second year retention rate was less than 50%. Think of the strain this puts on an institution, if it must replace half of its students every year. With a first-year program in place, the first-to-second year retention rate went up to 85%. With the addition of a second-year program, and then a senior-year program, the year to year retention rates also increase dramatically. The second-to third year retention rate went from 65% to 80%. The third-to-fourth year retention went up to 90% and the percent of seniors that graduated kicked up to over 95%. This produced a matriculate graduation rate of almost 60%, much better than the national average. However, it still meant that 40% of entering students did not graduate. No matter what you do, people will do what they please or what they have to do.

Alumni: If you have done a good job in tying individuals into your institution while they are students, the job of keeping them interested and involved as alumni is much easier. In a major assessment project, I worked with more than 50 institutions in surveying their alumni two years after they graduated. Although there was a great variation in individual statistics, from all 50 institutions we had valid contact information for less than 50% of all graduates. You can’t hope to keep people involved in your institution, if you don’t have contact information.

This says to me that there are several major difficulties. The first is that the institutions didn’t sufficiently meet the needs of these graduates when they were students. Otherwise, I would have thought the graduates would have made an effort to remain in contact with the institution. If the graduates did try to make contact, then the institution either didn’t respond or keep track of contact information. This means the institution has many more problems to fix.

Without a spark of interest on the part of the alumni or proper contact information, there is no hope of developing further alumni invovlement. Even with alumni interest and proper contact information, it is possible that the alumni will refuse the institution’s advances. People will do what they please.

By Leave a Comment

Life Cycle of Alumni: Part XII-Fundraising Law #9

The ninth of Richardson and Basinger’s laws of fundraising was:

Law #9: Fundraising out of desperation is futile. Most discerning individuals are not going “to throw good money after bad.” It is very easy to spot a desperate organization. Poor results and careless planning are the classic signs of a hopeless situation. A bleak outlook doesn’t make a compelling case for support.

This post will consider how this fits into the process of student recruitment, retention, and alumni development. In terms of alumni development, the law should be restated. Even the most loyal alumni may desert a sinking ship.

Recruitment: Student recruitment out of desperation is normally futile. Prospective students are generally intelligent enough to know when you need them more than they need you. Does a college really want students who can’t recognize failure?

Why should a prospective student commit to a failing enterprise?  Can you really blame them if they opt for an institution that has more stability and a brighter future? After all, they are betting their futures on their choice of college.

Retention: Programs and institutions that try to retain students out of desperation are easy to spot. The first sign of trouble in paradise is a rapid turnover of faculty and staff. Other indications include many cancelled classes after a schedule is published, classes not offered when the catalog says they should be, and other unfulfilled promises in terms of facilities, equipment and programs. Any of these feeble attempts to portray quality and stability is an open invitation for students to transfer to other programs or other institutions.

Alumni: Richardson and Basinger have done an excellent job at explaining why fundraising out of desperation in general is futile. With alumni, this may be true in the long term. However, “short-term emergencies” can be very effective in mobilizing alumni support.

In my more than 40 years of experience in higher education, I have observed that it is extremely “hard” to kill a college. There are three groups of individuals who will “rally around the flag” and “circle the wagons” for a last ditch stand. These groups will unite and will not go down without a fight.

The first of these groups are the loyal alumni and Board members, who have already committed so much of their time and money to the institution, so they don’t want it to fail. If the institution fails that would label them as failures.

The second group is the desperate faculty and staff, who want to keep their jobs and the lives they have built in a particular geographic place. If the institution fails, they will have to pack up their lives  and the lives of their families, find new jobs and probably move to a new location.

The third group consists of frustrated students. Even though a college can’t exist without students, in many ways the students are in the most vulnerable position. They have made a commitment to an institution that has let them down. They don’t know where to turn. Most are worried how their earned credits will be received at other institutions. How much longer will it take them to finish their programs? Will they get the same financial aid package at another institution? How much more will it cost them to transfer to another institution? Will they be able to make new friends? Will they fit into a new environment?

If these three groups can be mobilized, it is possible for a struggling institution to take the first steps toward a resurgence. In most attempts to avert institutional crises, there will be an initial burst of enthusiasm. However, one burst may not be sufficient to carry the day. It may “save” the institution, in the sense that the institution does not immediately close. However, it may continue indefinitely on “life support.”

There are typically two reasons for this result. The first is that the three groups are pushing to recreate the institution from different visions. This can be rife with new conflicts. The second reason is that if the life support only provides sufficient resources to operate at minimal levels, the underlying problems that caused the institutional crisis in the first place will not be address. Within a short period of time the institution will be back in the hopper. To paraphrase  a very effective fundraising slogan, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

By Leave a Comment

Life Cycle of Alumni: Part XI-Fundraising Law #8

The eighth of Richardson and Basinger’s laws of fundraising was:

Law# 8: Loyal donors are developed, not born.  Just because someone gives a single gift does not cement a bond between that individual and your organization. The development of a donor is a long, and arduous process. It involves the evolution of commitment, which comes from a change in the heart and mind of the giver.

This post will consider how this fits into the processes of student recruitment, retention, and alumni development. In terms of alumni development, the law should be restated, Loyal alumni are developed, not born.  The law reminds me of the involvement process metaphor of acquaintance, dating, going steady, engagement and marriage. So I will frame my comments around this metaphor.

Recruitment:  Just because a prospective student makes an inquiry to your institution does not necessarily signify an ongoing commitment, or even anything more than a passing fancy or interest. The term prospect alludes to the fact that this individual is looking for something of personal value, and hoping  to find it at your institution. With the ease of completing reply cards in magazines or displays at college fairs, or hitting the “Request for More Information” button on websites, prospects have likely inquired at tens, if not a hundred different institutions. Once you receive that initial inquiry, it is the institution’s job to help the prospect discover what he or she is seeking.

This can be a very complicated task, since each prospect is an individual, and most likely will have to be treated as an individual. The institution must provide the individualized responses that the prospect desires. This takes concentrated effort, along with accurate and comprehensive record keeping of contacts with the prospect. The typical prospective student doesn’t apply on his or her first contact with an institution, even though there is a rise in the number of stealth shoppers. These are students whose first official contact is an application. The stealth shopper has been researching the school via the internet, contact with current students and alumni, and even with unscheduled campus visits. It normally takes at least four significant contacts to move a student to apply.

This process for both the prospective student and the institution is like the “getting acquainted” phase of a relationship. The two parties are aware of each other and attempt to find out things about each other before one of the parties is ready to take the step of asking the other party out on a date, which is akin to a prospect applying to an institution. The first date occurs when the institution accepts the applicant. This temporary commitment permits the two parties to more fully explore their mutual compatibility.

Retention: When a prospective student accepts an offer of admission, this is similar to the “dating” stage of a relationship. Paying a deposit may come closest to the engagement  stage of relationships. It is more of a commitment than dating, or even going steady. However, it doesn’t guarantee permanency. Marriage and enrollment do not really guarantee a permanent commitment. With the number of divorces approaching 50% of the number of marriages, and with less than 50% of all matriculated students graduating from college, a permanent relationship may be hard to find. Research shows that the student that transfers once is more likely to transfer again. It takes work on the part of both parties in a relationship to maintain it.

An institution must not only provide services to students, it must make those services attractive to the students. A student must study to maintain academic eligibility. A student must also commit a great deal of effort, finances, and time to the relationship. Neither party can afford to take the other party for granted.

Alumni: As noted before, successful and committed alumni are developed, not born. The development of alumni begins while individuals are still prospective students. The institution should strive to help prospective students see themselves as successful alumni. Every year, organizations like Noel/Levitz and Academic Impressions run programs on the Development of Alumni Relations that emphasize beginning the development process before the student enrolls in the institution.

The prospective students should be encouraged to visualize what they want out of their education. Currently enrolled students should be educated as to what alumni can do for an institution and future students. If students can see the benefit directly from the giving or work of alumni, they will be more willing to give or work when they transition into alumni status. When students do become alumni, the connection phase of transforming them into donors should have already begun.. Engaging alumni with prospective and current students also helps cement the commitment of those alumni to the institution.

The idea of leaving a legacy for future generations has a strong appeal to many people. It is an idea that institutions should be encouraging through all phases of the development of successful and committed alumni.

By Leave a Comment

Life Cycle of Alumni: Part X – Fundraising Law #7

The seventh of Richardson and Basinger’s laws of fundraising was:

Law #7: Seek Investments, not gifts. It is important for donors who want to be more involved in changing the world, beyond giving a mere monetary gift. You need to look for people who will not only invest their money, but also their time and ideas. Donors will usually not give unless they know the organization. It also helps if the organization knows them. This process is called engagement. You need to engage donors in the organization. Truly engaged donors will work to introduce and involve their friends and relatives.

This post will consider how this fits into the processes of student recruitment, retention, and alumni development.

Recruitment: A college or university should seek prospective students who want to change their world and who will be changed by their campus experiences. An institution should seek students who are willing to invest their time, money and efforts in changing themselves, and not those students who will use just their bodies to fill classroom seats part of the time they are enrolled. Many prospective students today are looking to change their world and are actively seeking an institution that will equip them to do that. If prospective students do not have the sense that the institution will make a difference in their lives or will not meet their needs, they will not typically enroll. If they do enroll they will not fill the classroom seats. These students will say “No, thanks!” and take their tuition dollars with them to another institution that will serve them better and will make more of a change in their lives, so that they change their world.

Retention: Once students are enrolled, if they are not continually challenged to better themselves and equipped to change their world, they will pick up their bodies from the classroom chairs, say “Good-Bye” and take their tuition dollars elsewhere. Most of today’s students understand the ancient Chinese proverb:

As I sought to change my world, I discovered that I first needed to change my country. But to change my country, I found that I needed to change my state. However, to change my state, I needed to change my city. In order to change my city, I perceived that I must first change my neighborhood. As I sought to change my neighborhood, it was clear that I must first change my family. In order to change my family, it was obvious that I must first change myself.

So to change the world, today’s students must first seek to change themselves. They should be ready to invest their time, money and effort in changing themselves. If any institution hopes to succeed, it must be in the business of changing students.

Alumni: Alumni have already invested much of their time, money and effort in their Alma Maters as students. However, it is imperative that institutions continue to ask them to maintain  the investment of  their time, money and effort in these institutions, so that future students can receive the same education and benefits that they received. To be successful in this approach, an institution’s alumni would normally have to have been satisfied with their previous investment. To ask for additional investments to change the world, the alumni need to be satisfied that the institution helped them be prepared to change the world.

The new investment sought from alumni can be in the form of time, expertise, as well as money. You may ask alumni to serve as resource persons as guest lecturers, mentors for practica, internship or job shadowing opportunities, or as participants on advisory boards to assist in program development. Time investments can also be in the form of a volunteer recruiter, speaking to prospective students and their families, telling the story of the institution or distributing promotional materials. One area of investment opportunities often overlooked is the life-long learning opportunities afforded alumni “teaching” other alumni. Alumni can provide admission referrals to their fellow employees, to their circle of community organizations, or to the members of their professional network.

Finally the investment sought from alumni can be in the form of financial support for academic programming, for athletics or other co-curricular endeavors, for equipment and facility expansions, for budgetary relief in the areas of personnel and operating expenses, and for endowment, especially in the area of scholarships for current and prospective students.