Record Graduate Growth Rates through Faculty Led Recruitment and Retention Strategies: A Case Study

Abstract

Business schools across the country are experiencing stagnant or declining enrollment in their graduate programs. As a result, many colleges and universities have felt compelled to downsize or teach out their graduate programs in business. In Park University’s College of Management, the graduate faculty investigated enrollment trends in the Master of Healthcare Administration (MHA) and Business Administration (MBA) program. The results served as a catalyst for a paradigm shift in the role of faculty in recruitment and retention. This case study will share the lessons learned in our journey to achieve sustained record growth in the graduate programs. It is our sincere aspiration that this study will lead to similar paradigm shifts in colleges and universities that are struggling to keep their graduate programs financially viable amidst rising competition, fewer applicants, reluctance of students to take on more debt, and a thriving economy.

Introduction

The focus of this case study is to critically examine the impact that our faculty led recruitment and retention strategies have had on student enrollments and credit hour generation in the graduate programs in business, which, at Park University, include the Master of Healthcare Administration (MHA) and the Master of Business Administration (MBA). The central question was can faculty led efforts to improve graduate student matriculation and retention really have a positive impact on program growth? To answer this question we examined enrollment and credit hour data before and after our faculty took lead on initiatives designed to grow the graduate programs.

What can be done to support sustainable student enrollment growth in graduate programs is an important issue for higher education to consider. In response to changes in the MBA market, business schools, from across the country, are consciously scaling back their programs and, in some cases, electing to close down their domestic programs. For example, Washington University, in St. Louis, announced that they will no longer be offering their Executive MBA program in Kansas City or Denver (Seltzer, 2017). The University of Iowa, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, and Simmons College have taught out their full-time MBA programs. The University of Wisconsin at Madison is considering changes to its MBA that will emphasize a shorter and more specialized curriculum (Roll, 2017). According to Zarya and Donnelly (2017), supply and demand is not the only factor driving these recent trends. They added, that students are increasingly choosing specialized programs, such as accounting and finance over the more traditional MBA, and that many schools are experiencing a general decline in the volume of international and domestic applicants who are reluctant to take on additional student loan debt beyond their undergraduate studies.

In light of declining enrollment trends, there has been a notable reduction in state appropriations to public colleges and universities. This coupled with increasing competition amongst for-profit institutions has highlighted the need for greater focus on graduate student recruitment and retention. It could be argued that a broader approach to recruitment and retention is necessary if institutions of higher learning are to remain solvent and that this approach requires active involvement across functional lines. In 2013, Westrick, Kamal, Mocszygemba, Breland, and Heaton surveyed program officers and department chairs from various graduate social science and administrative programs with an aim to identify strategies used in student recruitment and faculty development and subsequently concluded that more scholarly inquiry is needed to identify effective student recruitment and retention strategies.

There is a body of research that shows that the pursuit of persistence should begin in the preadmission phase and be a high priority (Carroll, Ng, & Birth, 2013; Brito & Rush, 2013; New-berry & DeLuca, 2014; Park, Perry, & Edwards, 2011). Early detection of students experiencing academic difficulties, allows institutions the opportunity to render necessary support services and perhaps improve these students likelihood of success (Brito & Rusch, 2013; Heyman, 2010). While colleges and universities make available student support services (Crawley, 2012; Sullivan & Pagano, 2012), it is faculty engagement that is perhaps one of the strongest predictors of student persistence (Hanson, Paulsen, and Pascarella, 2016). Hanson, Paulsen, and Pascarella (2016) documented strong associations between good teaching practices, which include non-classroom interactions with faculty; prompt feedback; frequency of interaction with faculty; academic challenge and effort; and integrated ideas, information, and experiences and undergraduate students’ aspirations to pursue a graduate education. Budash and Shaw (2017) conducted a study of student and faculty perceptions of persistence and concluded that, in thegraduate level learning environment, this can be achieved with structured policies, an engaged learning community, and open communication.

While a fair amount of research has been dedicated to exploring the role of faculty in student persistence, few studies examined the benefit of faculty involvement in graduate student recruitment and retention. Eason (1996) administered a survey of graduate department chairs (N=66) and faculty (N=418) in 37 master programs and 10 doctoral programs and concluded that the lack of articulated student recruitment plans, by graduate programs, may be one of the greatest weakness in recruitment activities. Woodhouse (2006) explored graduate faculty involvement in student recruitment from the standpoint of identifying the reasons of their involvement. He found that even though a majority of faculty believed that “…student recruitment is a part of their job responsibilities, they indicate that they are not required to engage in graduate student recruitment” (Woodhouse, 2006, p. 31). Woodhouse (2006) recommended that academic administrators should encourage faculty to engage in student recruitment in order to support institutional survival and academic personnel employment security. Despite this recommendation, there is little in the literature that highlights systematic processes that directly involve faculty beginning from the preadmission phase to improve student retention. There has been no empirical evidence in the literature reporting the tangible impact of graduate faculty-led student recruitment and retention strategies on the sustainable growth of graduate programs.

Case Study: Park University

Situation.

Not unlike many graduate programs across the U.S., Park University graduate programs in business had experienced years of stagnant enrollment growth. In short, we were attracting just enough new students to offset our losses due to voluntary and involuntary attrition. Our programs were finding it challenging to differentiate ourselves from that of the competition. The facultywere primarily focused on meeting their teaching obligations, academic advising, community work, and, of course, building a dossier of scholarly accomplishments that would make them eligible for promotion and tenure. Unfortunately, little emphasis was placed on the faculty’s role in the recruitment and retention of the graduate students.

In AY2015-2016, the graduate programs in business took a fresh look at the trended data related to unduplicated headcount and credit hour generation for the MHA and MBA programs. A series of one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were performed on the headcount and credit hour figures and affirmed what we suspected all along-the MHA and MBA programs had not experienced any appreciable growth over the prior three academic years. More specifically, there was no statistical difference in the MBA credit hours between academic years 2012-2013 and 2014-2015, F(2, 12) = .055, p = .946. The same was true for the MHA credit hours over the same timeframe, F(2, 12) = 2.027, p = .1743. When examining the MBA headcount data, they too revealed no statistical difference between academic years 2012-2013 and 2014-2015, F(2, 12) = .621, p = .940, and the same was true of the MHA headcount figures, F(2, 12) = .690, p = .521. Tables 1 through 4 provide descriptive analysis of the raw data from academic years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015. The graduate faculty had become unwittingly accustomed to the status quo and failed to make program growth an operational priority. To grow the graduate programs, the faculty knew the focus needed to be on the complex processes associated with admissions and retention; however, what was less understood was their role in driving necessary change to achieve sustainable growth. After much discussion, the faculty came to realize that their active involvement in growth strategy formulation was key to the future success of the MHA and MBA programs. Armed with this understanding, the faculty developed a comprehensive plan designed to put the graduate programs on a positive trajectory with an aspirational goal to achieve phenomenal growth while keeping costs to a minimum. Figure 1 provides a graphical representation and timeline for the recruitment and retention plan developed by the graduate faculty.

Streamlining Internal Processes.

During Fall 1, 2015, graduate faculty met to discuss possible opportunities to streamline existing processes under the programs’ immediate control. It was noted that there was a virtual “pipeline” of graduate program applicants being held up while waiting for outstanding documentation. We determined that more than 70 applicants were in the pipeline and in various stages of completion. Many of the application files were missing a letter of recommendation, an updated resume, or an official transcript. The faculty took a closer look at the admissions requirements for the graduate programs. After carefully reviewing available literature and conducting a comparative analysis of comparable MBA (N=29) and MHA (N=17) programs from around the country, it was decided to set the undergraduate GPA at 2.75 on a scale of 4.0; continue not to require the GRE or GMAT; require official transcripts from previously attended colleges and university; and continue to charge a small application fee for non-Park University alumni. Conversely, it was also decided to eliminate the requirement to provide letters of recommendation and a resume, since neither has been proven to be predictive when determining an applicant’s ability to academically succeed in graduate school. The faculty decided that we could grant a provisional acceptance to applicants that have only provided unofficial transcripts, and then convert them to full acceptance once the official transcripts have been received and verified. The requirements for international students remained unchanged. The changes to the admission requirements took effect in Fall 1, 2015, following the endorsement of the graduate faculty and approval by the Office of Academic Affairs. This change helped to clear the pipeline and provided a significant boost in the number of matriculated students.

New and Improved Products.

Continuing with the work that began in Fall 1, 2015, the MHA and MBA completed comprehensive program reviews. Based, in part, on our findings, it was decided that the core curricula need to be strengthened in order to better align with the current and future needs and expectations of industry. With an eye on the needs of the marketplace, the faculty noticed an increasing demand for graduates with specialized competencies and felt it best to address this trend by expanding our concentration offerings and making these concentrations available to both MHA and MBA students, since, after all, both are business disciplines. By making the concentrations available to students enrolled in both programs, as well as students pursuing a general MHA or MBA, it lessened the likelihood that enrollment in the concentrations would become diluted. Furthermore, the expansion of concentration options created a bank of courses that can be leveraged in the creation of future degree programs. The redevelopment of the core curricula and concentrations began in Spring 1, 2016, and continues today. Throughout AY2015-2016, the graduate programs in business received faculty endorsement and university approval for the redevelopment of the core MHA and MBA curricula; addition of 5 new concentrations and graduate certificates; creation of a sequential degree option; ability to transfer up to 9 graduate credits even if those hours had been previously applied towards a conferred degree; and the creation of a 4+1 option for qualified undergraduates in their junior or senior year. These changes created product differentiation and stimulated consumer demand. At that point, when we were developing and enhancing our products, it was also time to focus on the faculty facilitating the curricula.

Faculty.

The graduate faculty (full- and part-time) had spent a considerable amount of time and effort developing and redeveloping the various courses within the approved curricula. Knowing that the curricula are only as good as the faculty facilitating the courses, the full-time, graduate faculty worked diligently to put together and subsequently approved a credentialing matrix that identifies the credentials and experiential requirements for faculty to instruct each course. The full- and part-time, graduate faculty collaborated in the development of policies designed to ensure continuity in the delivery of course content regardless of instructional modality (blended or online). In addition to the creation of these policies, which were codified in a document known as the Instructional Criteria for Graduate Faculty, a mid-term quality assurance (QA) process was created and implemented by designated faculty to ensure that all policies are being consistently followed. The written results of these QA assessments are shared with the observed faculty member, so that the resultant information can be used for professional development purposes. In addition, the faculty developed and carried out a peer review process, whereby the results are shared with the observed faculty member through the Program Director. The faculty wanted to ensure that the identity of the faculty conducting the observations were kept confidential, which has resulted in more candid feedback on the opportunitiesfor improvement and recommendation on how to potentially effect change. This information is also made available to the assessed faculty for purposes of professional development.

Building an Infrastructure.

In Fall 2016, the graduate programs in business began to build an infrastructure to support rapid growth. This included the addition of an Associate Dean who has responsibility for ensuring student access to quality programs, creating effective partnerships with business and industry, and working closely with faculty for the delivery of effective instruction. Next, we created a new Assistant Director of Operations position, who is a shared resource that works directly with the Program Directors to provide support and coordination of the graduate programs in business. More specifically, the incumbent facilitates the day-to-day operations of the graduate programs by providing faculty and student support, implementing policies and procedures, and focusing on program growth. Existing personnel, such as the Program Manager and Programs Directors, were cross trained, so that they can cover planned and unplanned absences and provide additional support if needed to meet spikes in demand.

Marketing and PR Strategy Development.

In Spring 1, 2016, after initiating the enhancement of existing products, creating new products, and hiring and developing talented faculty to facilitate courses within the curricula, it was time for the faculty to shift gears and collaborate with Marketing, Admissions, and Student Success to come up with a marketing and public relations plan. Figure 2 outlines the differentiated and undifferentiated strategies targeting the following market segments: active undergraduate students, active graduate students, undergraduate alumni, graduate alumni, and industry professionals. The action items in red font are carried out by the faculty themselves, whereas those items in green font are carried out by another functional area within the university in cooperation with the graduate faculty. In the past, credit hour goals were set by Enrollment Services in collaboration with Marketing, and may or may not have been communicated to the academic programs.

The faculty felt it was important for the programs to take the lead on establishing credit hour goals in collaboration with enrollment services and marketing. In Summer 2017, the graduate programs established new start goals for admissions, by term, for AY2017-2018, and the faculty, Graduate Admissions, and Marketing are monitoring the results together.

Retention Plan.

The faculty have implemented a number of initiatives, in collaboration with graduate Admissions and Student Success to achieve high persistence rates. Faculty developed a formal drop management plan that promotes cross-functional communication between the instructors, Program Directors, and Student Success (for active students) or Graduate Admissions (for new starts). In short, students are not dropped from a course unless their instructor has been given an opportunity to reach out to the student and determine if something can be done to keep the student in class and on track to degree completion. The faculty have developed “stitch-in” activities, designed to help newly accepted students assimilate into the university and their program of study. For example, faculty have developed a series of four short PowerPoint presentations with one a week being emailed to students beginning 3 weeks out from the upcoming start and the last presentation being emailed the weekend before week one of the term. The Program Directors email a personal welcome message following the delivery of the student’s acceptance letter. The marketing and public relations plan includes a number of action items intended retain active students and bring undergraduate and graduate alumni back to Park University. For the undergraduate alumni and active students, we let them know of the graduate options (degrees or graduate certificates) they can take advantage of as they look to position themselves for entry into a career path. For the graduate alumni and active graduate students, we encourage them to consider their sequential degree options or perhaps the pursuit of a graduate certificate to augment their earned credentials. We are making progress on tracking “at risk” students and intervening earlier when they display signs of academic distress.

Analysis and Results

During AY2015-2016, we began to see a noteworthy increase in unduplicated headcount and credit hour generation data for both the MBA and MHA programs. To determine if the data reflected statistically significant growth between the academic years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, we conducted a series of independent sample t-tests, using a .05 level of significance (see tables 5 and 6). There was a statistically significant difference in the MBA undu-plicated headcounts between AY2014-2015 and AY2015-2016, t(6) = -2.369, p = .024, and likewise a significant difference in the MHA unduplicated headcounts for the same period of time, t(7) = -3.338, p = .006. Furthermore, we noticed a statistically significant difference in the MBA credit hours generated between AY2014-2015 and AY2015-2016, t(6) = -2.084, p = .04, which was also the case for the MHA program, t(7) = -3.338, p = .006. These results provided evidence that academic year 2015-2016 was a breakout period for both programs, and signaled a positive shift in trajectory. At this point, there was a need to determine if the growth experienced between AY2014-2015 and AY2015-2016 was an anomaly, or the start of sustainable growth in the programs.

To determine if the growth experienced in AY2015-2016 was a “one off ” or the beginning of a pattern of sustainable growth, we conducted a series of one way ANOVA tests examining the credit hour and headcount data, for both programs, over academic years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and through Spring 1 of AY2017-2018. This analysis revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the MBA credit hours in at least one of the academic years, F (2, 10) = 24.90, p < .001, and this result was mimicked when examining the MHA credit hours, F (2, 10) = 39.07, p < .001. Next, we conducted an analysis of the MBA undu-plicated headcount, which revealed a statically significant difference in at least one of the academic years, F (2, 10) = 34.24, p = .001, and this was also the case when examining the MHA headcount, F (2, 10) = 44.58, p < .001. To ascertain which of the academic years was statistically different, a Tukey Kramer post hoc test was performed and the results reflected in Tables 7 through 10. In short, each academic year was statistically different from the years included in the ANOVA analysis, in terms of headcounts and credit hours generated for both programs.

Prior to academic year 2014-2015, the graduate faculty, like so many other colleges and universities, took a more passive approach to student recruitment and retention. As a result, the MHA and MBA programs experienced several years of stagnant growth, which we statistically confirmed. To be honest, the faculty were not overly concerned about the number of students enrolled in the programs, since they were still able to meet the annual academic load requirements. It was not until we analyzed the unduplicated headcount and credit hour data, that the faculty took notice of the fact that we were in trouble. The faculty realized that the only way to change the trajectory of the programs was for them to become more actively involved in the processes that contribute to the recruitment and retention of students.

Beginning in Fall 2015, the faculty began working collaboratively with other functional areas within the university to streamline internal processes, engage in market research, complete comprehensive program reviews, enhance existing products, develop new products, create new processes to support faculty development and more effectively manage drops, formulate a marketing and PR plan, and set new growth targets and goals. Perhaps equally important, the faculty demonstrated “leadership” in their commitment to promoting student success by increasing graduate program access and persistent to graduation. We considered a number of factors that could have potentially impacted program growth to determine if these conditions existed equally between academic years 2012-2013 and Spring 1, 2017-2018. For example, we considered the economic climate and condition of the country, emphasis on debt management, competition amongst non-profit and for-profit colleges and schools, trends in domestic and international graduate applications, trends in enrollment and graduation rates from undergraduate programs of study, and organization and program level capacity relative to volume. While there may have been other factors not taken into consideration by the faculty that could have potentially influenced program growth, we determined that the major difference before and after academic years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, was the level of active engagement by the graduate faculty in matters pertaining to student recruitment and retention. As our analysis revealed, AY2015-2016 was a pivotal year for the graduate programs in business. This is where we first observed statistically significant growth in unduplicated headcounts and credit hours in both the MHA and MBA programs. While originally concerned that the growth may be short lived, the continued involvement of the graduate faculty has resulted in statistically significant growth in each subsequent year (AY2015-2016 through Spring 1, 2017-2018). The MHA is conservatively estimating a 183% increase in total credit hours from AY2012-2013 through the end of AY2017-2018. Likewise, the MBA is estimating an 89% increase over the same period of time.

Since this case study was limited to the efforts of business graduate faculty, at one modestly sized (17,000 student population), non-profit, Midwest, 4 year university, and their commitment to growing their programs by taking lead on recruitment and retention, the findings cannot be generalized to other colleges or universities. We are unapologetically bias in our realistic portrayal of the many accomplishments that would not have been possible without our faculties’ unwavering commitment to recruitment and retention. What this case does well is illustrate the positive impact faculty can have on graduate program growth when they are vested in the outcomes. It is not uncommon for faculty to lay the blame for stagnant or declining enrollments on non-academic areas (Admissions, Marketing, or Administration) or on the prevailing market or economic conditions. We had a tendency to do the same thing. The faculty had to create a paradigm shift and accept the role they played in our stagnant growth and only then was real change possible. It is analogous to an addict needing to hit rock bottom before being receptive to accepting help. The growth has been achieved and sustained without incurring much in the way of additional costs to the programs or university. Throwing more money into marketing or hiring additional personnel isn’t realistic for many colleges and universities that are already “treading water” just trying to stay afloat and keep their heads above water. After all, it would be argued that we were one of those universities. It wasn’t until recently, and after demonstrating sustained growth, that the graduate programs were permitted to hire an additional staff member as a shared resource amongst multiple graduate programs. We learned that real growth can be achieved by first tackling the “low hanging fruit” or those processes for which we had control, and then working closely with other functional areas to achieve economies of scale. What we want our peer institutions to realize is that if we can achieve record growth rates, in our graduate programs, then they can do it too. There is a definite need for more scholarly inquiry into graduate student recruitment and retention and it is hoped that this case study will lay the foundation for future research.

Conclusion

The central question was can faculty led efforts to improve graduate students matriculation and retention really have a positive impact on program growth? To answer this question, we examined enrollment and credit hour data before and after our faculty took lead on initiatives designed to grow the graduate programs in business. For Park University, the graduate business faculty made all the difference in the growth of the MHA and MBA programs. We have experienced statistically significant growth year over year, since AY2015-2016, and anticipate that this growth will continue unabated. We hope that the lessons we have learned and the outcomes we have realized will serve as a catalyst for change in colleges and universities that are experiencing stagnant or declining enrollments in their graduate programs. Changing paradigms is never an easy endeavor. While the faculty may be willing to step up and take lead on recruitment and retention, there could be departments reluctant to relinquish control. We are convinced that without direct faculty involvement in the growth of graduate programs, the future of graduate education will be in serious jeopardy.

References

Budash, D. & Shaw, M. (2017). Persistence in an online Master’s degree program: Perceptions of student and Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 20(3), 1-19.
Brito, M., & Rush, S. (2013). Developing and implementing comprehensive student support services for online students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 29-42.
Broom, K. D., Wood, S. J., & Sampson, C. J. (2013). Current trends in graduate level healthcare management education: An examination of accreditation outcomes. Journal of Health Administration Education, 30(3), 159-179.
Carroll, D., Ng, E., & Birch, D. (2013). Strategies to improve retention of postgraduate business students in distance education courses: An Australian case. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 140153.
Crawley, A., & Fetzner, M. (2013). Providing service innovations to students inside and outside of the online classroom: Focusing on student success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 712.
Eason, S. H. (1996). Higher education and graduate recruitment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved December 17, 2017 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED393383.pdf
Gravel, C. A. (2012). Student advisor interaction in undergraduate online degree programs: A factor in student retention. NACADA Journal, 32(2), 5667.
Hanson, J. M., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2016). Understanding graduate school aspirations: The effect of good teaching practices. Higher Education, 71(5), 735-752.
Heyman, E. (2010). Overcoming student retention issues in higher education online programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(4).
Mangelsdorff, A. D. (2014). Competency-based curriculum, outcomes, and leader development: Applications to a graduate program in health administration. The Journal of Health Administration Education, 31(2), 111-133.
Newberry, R., & DeLuca, C. (2014). Building a foundation for success through student services for online learners. Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(4), 2539.
Park, C. L., Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2011). Minimizing attrition: Strategies for assisting students who are at risk of withdrawal. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(1), 3747.
Park, C. L., Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2011). Minimizing attrition: Strategies for assisting students who are at risk of withdrawal. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(1), 3747.
Roll, N. (2017, October 23). Writing on the wall for future of MBA programs? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/23/university-wisconsin-%E2%80%98considering-future%E2%80%99-mba-program
Seltzer, R. (2017, August 24). EMBAs under pressure. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved December 18, 2017 from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/24/deans-see-challenges-campus-emba-programs-united-states
Sullivan, E. B., & Pagano, R. V. (2012). Relevant adult programs, resilient students, and retention driven administration. New Directions for Higher Education, 159, 2129.
Westrick, S. C., Kamal, K. M., Mocszygemba, L. R., Breland, M. L., & Heaton, P. C. (2013). Caracteristics of social and administrative sciences graduate programs and strategies for student recruitment and future faculty development in the United States. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 9(1), 101-107.
Woodhouse, S. (2006, Spring). Faculty involvement in graduate student recruitment: Administrative directive or professional preference? Journal of College Admission, 191, 26-32.
Zarya, V., & Donnelly, G. (2017, October 20). What’s killing U.S. business schools? These 4 charts help explain. Fortune. Retrieved December 18, 2017 from http://fortune.com/2017/10/20/business-schools-mba-programs/