NECESIDAD DE UN CUESTIONARIO

Admission Office Budget and Staff

Admission office budgets include funds to cover expenses such as staff salaries and benefits, publications and mailings to prospective and admitted students, staff travel for recruitment and yield-related purposes, application printing and processing, Web site maintenance and enhancements, and other activities conducted by the admission department or third-party contractors. Data collected on NACAC’s annual Admission Trends Survey indicate that admission office budgets have rebounded in the last several years, after a period of stagnation. In 2006, a vast majority of institutions reported that their admission office budgets had either increased or

Figure 20. Percentage of institutions reporting change from the previous year in the admission office budget: 2000 to 2006 54 48 36 36 37 42 48 5 10 22 23 18 11 9 41 42 42 41 46 47 43 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Pe rc en ta ge o f i ns titu tio ns Increased Decreased Stayed the same

SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2006.

stayed the same. The percentage of institutions reporting decreases has steadily declined since 2003 and was only nine percent in 2006 (see Figure 20). The admission staff typically includes a dean or vice president for admission or enrollment management, middle-level managers or assistant directors, admission officers, and administrative support staff. Colleges and universities reported that the number of admission staff has held steady for the past five years. Each year from 2002 to 2006, a majority of institutions reported that the number of admission staff had remained the same as the previous year. The percentage of institutions reporting decreases also steadily declined during this period and was only seven percent in 2006 (see

5 8 I STATE OF COLLEGE ADMIS SION 2 0 07

Figure 21). Public institutions were somewhat more likely than private institutions to report increases in admission office staff from 2005 to 2006 (40 versus 23 percent). Ratio of Applications to Admis- sion Officers

As shown in chapter 2, colleges continued to report increases in the number of applications they received, due to increases in both the number of high school graduates and the number of applications each student submits. These factors result in very high

application loads for admission officers. For the Fall 2006 admission cycle, colleges reported that the average admission officer was responsible for reading 393 applications (see Table 32).

The burden of large application volume was particularly prevalent at certain types of

institutions. These data reveal, at least in part, why the admission process has become more mechanical in some places, and has remained more holistic in others. For example, admission officers at public institutions were responsible for reading more than 2.5 times the number of applications as their counterparts at private institutions. Admission officers at larger colleges and those at more selective institutions also had to contend with higher application volumes (see Table 32).52

Admission Office Salaries

As shown in Table 33, the mean salary for

admission staff varies widely based on the position held. For higher-level positions, the institutional budget also influences salaries. For example, a mid-level admission counselor earned $32,392,

Figure 21. Percentage of institutions reporting change from the previous year in the admission office staff : 2000 to 2006

52 49 23 ₂₂ 26 28 27 17 18 ₁₅ 12 ₁₀ 7 7 31 33 62 65 65 65 66 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Pe rc en ta ge o f i ns tit ut io ns Increased Decreased Stayed the same

SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2006.

Table 32. Mean ratio of applications to admission officers by institutional characteristics: 2006

Applications per admission officer Total 393 Control Public 741 Private 279 Enrollment

Fewer than 3,000 students 251

3,000 to 9,999 593

10,000 or more 961

Selectivity

Accept fewer than 50 percent of

applicants 649

50 to 70 percent 434

71 to 85 percent 339

More than 85 percent 233

Yield

Enroll fewer than 30 percent of

admitted students 469

30 to 45 percent 408

46 to 60 percent 402

More than 60 percent 162 SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2006.

on average, in 2006–07, and this salary varied only slightly by the institutional budget quartile. The mean salary for a chief admission officer was $75,920, and this salary ranged from $57,735 at institutions in the lowest budget quartile to $98,325 at institutions in the highest budget quartile. Chief enrollment managers earned the highest salary in 2006–07 at $104,000.

Cost to Recruit

NACAC’s 2006 Admission Trends Survey asked institutions to report their total fiscal budget for the Fall 2006 admission cycle. The survey also asked institutions to report the total number of applicants, accepted students and enrolled students, allowing for the calculation of “cost to recruit” figures.53 _{In an effort to measure cost to}

recruit as accurately as possible, the survey also asked institutions to report what categories of expenses were included in the total admission budgets they provided. The percentage of institutions that included each of the expense categories were as follows:

• admission staff salaries (69 percent) • admission staff benefits (51 percent) • staff travel expenses for recruitment/yield (99 percent)

Table 33. Mean salary of admission staff by institutional budget quartiles: 2006-07

Mean salary by institutional budget Mean

salary quartile Lowest Second quartile quartile Third Highest quartile

Admission Counselor $32,392 $29,890 $31,581 $33,370 $34,427

Chief Admission Officer 75,920 57,735 68,403 80,340 98,325

Associate Director Admission 52,316 40,000 45,404 54,109 62,086

Director, Admission and Registrar 67,440 52,055 66,500 74,828 101,903

Director, Admission and Financial Aid 94,700 68,916 87,850 116,000 99,382

Chief Enrollment Manager 104,000 80,340 99,091 108,070 127,476

SOURCE: College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. Mid-Level Administrative and Professional Salary Survey and Administrative Compensation Survey, 2006-07.

• expenses for participation in college fairs and other recruitment/yield events (99 percent) • publication expenses (89 percent)

• payments made to third party contractors for ad- mission or recruitment/yield services (92 percent) Table 34 shows cost to recruit figures for two sets of respondents: 1) those who included all expense categories except for staff salaries and benefits in their total admission budgets; and 2) respondents who included all of the expense categories,

including staff salaries and benefits in their total admission budgets.54

For the 2006 admission cycle, an average college admission office spent $484 in recruitment and office costs for each student who applied, $704 for each student who was admitted, and $1,904 for each student who enrolled. When staff salaries and benefits were included, the average cost to recruit figures were $614 per applicant, $880 per accepted student, and $2,350 per enrolled student (see Table 34).

As shown in Table 34, costs to recruit varied widely among different types of institutions. For example:

• Private colleges spent two to 2.5 times more than public colleges to recruit applicants, admitted students and enrolled students for Fall 2006. 53 _{Each cost to recruit figure is obtained by dividing the total admission budget by the respective pool of students (applicants, admitted students and enrolled}

students).

54 _{Fifty-four percent of respondents reported data that allowed the calculation of a cost to recruit figure that excluded staff salaries and benefits. Twenty-eight}

6 0 I STATE OF COLLEGE ADMIS SION 2 0 07

Table 34. Mean cost to recruit per applicant, admitted student and enrolled student: 2006

Respondents who excluded staff salaries and

benefits from the total admission budget categories in the total admission budget Respondents who included all expense Mean cost per applicant Mean cost per admitted student Mean cost per enrolled

student per applicant Mean cost

Mean cost per admitted student Mean cost per enrolled student Total $484.27 $703.55 $1,904.45 $614.20 $879.67 $2,349.61 Control Public 251.72 374.14 880.21 324.12 463.24 1,082.50 Private 562.87 812.59 2,236.25 720.42 1,034.35 2,802.16 Enrollment

Fewer than 3,000 students 592.95 837.64 2,276.71 770.81 1,072.18 2,862.14

3,000 to 9,999 252.87 423.70 1,256.56 288.40 508.00 1,533.17

10,000 or more 157.58 248.51 618.04 189.81 273.75 657.70

Selectivity Accept fewer than 50

percent of applicants 260.05 701.85 2,047.08 304.62 780.84 2,263.29

50 to 70 percent 446.39 689.06 1,839.38 595.43 887.81 2,669.77

70 to 85 percent 552.07 725.65 1,997.52 696.81 965.21 2,492.19

More than 85 percent 606.65 684.46 1,737.52 713.24 793.51 1,791.34

Yield Rate

Enroll fewer than 30 percent

of admitted students 413.37 609.70 2,303.38 564.19 748.68 2,752.79

30 to 45 percent 506.64 724.30 1,878.06 626.20 952.76 2,690.82

46 to 60 percent 423.44 621.23 1,324.93 438.26 670.55 1,287.04

More than 60 percent 745.15 1,069.74 1,770.61 1,145.58 1,293.18 1,714.12

SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2006.

• Costs to recruit were about 3.5 to four times higher at the smallest institutions compared to the largest.

• More selective colleges spent substantially less to recruit applicants; however, no significant differ- ences were found in the costs to recruit admitted or enrolled students. This pattern likely reflects an environment where institutional reputation delivers thousands of applications, but where a great deal of effort is spent identifying and re- cruiting the most “desirable” candidates.

• Institutions with lower yield rates spent much less, on average, than higher yield institutions to recruit applicants and admitted students, but more to recruit their enrolled students. This pattern likely reflects the focused ap- proach that institutions with low yield rates must take to increase the chances that admitted students will enroll.

Professional Qualifications for Chief Enrollment Officers

The job of a college admission officer involves attracting students to apply to the institution, evaluating applications and attempting to enroll students who have received offers of admission. The admission process, though different at each school, has attained a level of standardization that enables admission officers to move between institutions and apply similar practices. Figure 22 shows how colleges rated the importance of various skills to the position of chief enrollment officer in 2006. Previous admission experience was rated as the most important qualification, followed closely by marketing/public relations.

Different types of institutions rated most of the chief enrollment officer skills in very similar ways. However, there were some noteworthy variations by institutional characteristics. For example,

institutions with lower yield placed somewhat greater importance on having an advanced degree, previous admission experience and higher education administration in comparison to higher yield institutions. Larger institutions also considered having an advanced degree and higher education administration to be somewhat more important than smaller institutions.55

55 _{Correlation between yield rate and importance of chief enrollment officer skills: advanced degree (-.172), previous admission experience (-.265), higher educa-}

tion administration (-.227), p < .01

Correlation between enrollment and importance of chief enrollment officer skills: advanced degree (.195), higher education administration (.158), p < .01 Figure 22. Institutional ratings of the importance of various

qualifications for the position of chief enrollment officer: 2006

60% 55% 53% 56% 49% 47% 49% 68% 12% 29% 31% 32% 31% 28% 44% 35% 22% 41% 10% 11% 11% 12% 14% 8% 11% 7% 33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Marketing/public relations

Higher education administration Personnel/resource management Statistics/data analysis Advanced degree Writing Business management Previous admission experience Technology/Web design

Percentage of institutions

Very important Important Somewhat important Not important