TRENDS IN 2018 HIGHER EDUCATION · 2019-12-18 · institutions will need to overcome new challenges...

TRENDS IN H I G H E R EDUCATION 20

18

2© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118

I N T R O D U C T I O N

The pressure is on for higher education institutions. From every angle, presidents,

deans, provosts, heads of enrollment, student affairs departments, advancement

officers, CFOs, and vice presidents of marketing must coordinate to prove that,

in the face of fall ing enrollment, their institutions are worth supporting.

From reductions in state funding, student skepticism, shaky tuition

structures, disengaged donors, and digitally demanding Gen Z’ers, the

TRENDS IN Higher EDUCATION: 2018 report unpacks the issues challenging higher

education institutions. The first section outlines the six most significant challenges

higher education institutions will face in 2018 and suggests how these challenges

can be mitigated, from adapting to digital expectations and delivery to reimagining

tuition structures and fundraising efforts. The second section provides insight into

how higher education institutions across the United States tackled their challenges

in 2017 with a variety of research methodologies and examines the differing research

approaches among various school types (e.g., business, law) and enrollment sizes.

T h e r e s u l t i s a n a n a l y s i s o f t h e t r e n d s s h a p i n g t h e h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n l a n d s c a p e

a n d a n i l l u m i n a t i o n o f h o w o t h e r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e a t t e m p t i n g

t o a d d r e s s t h e c h a l l e n g e s f a c i n g t h e m . M a ny o f t h e p r o b l e m s c o n f r o n t i n g

h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e n e w, f a s t - c h a n g i n g , a n d i n c r e d i b l y c o m p l ex ;

h o w eve r, t h ey a r e n o t i n s u r m o u n t a b l e . H i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s m u s t

i m a g i n e t h e g ra d u a t e s t h ey h o p e t o p r o d u c e a n d u s e t h a t v i s i o n t o c o n s t r u c t

t h e t a i l o r e d e d u c a t i o n , t o o l s , a n d r e s o u r c e s n e e d e d t o d o s o .

INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

04 OVERVIEW04A H O L D I N G PAT T E R N : BRACING FOR CONTINUED ENROLLMENT SHORTFALLS

HITTING ITS STRIDE: O N L I N E P R O G R A M M I N G G O E S M A I N S T R E A M 0808

2017 IN REVIEW20

BANG FOR THE BUCK: S K E P T I C I S M O N T H E VA L U E O F H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N

HOUSE OF CARDS: TUITION STRATEGIES IN NEED OF A REBOOT

CLOSING THE GAP: R E B U I L D I N G T H E D O N O R B A S E

16 A GENERATIONAL SEA CHANGE: R E A C H I N G G E N E R AT I O N Z

18 DIAGNOSTIC: N AV I G AT I N G C A M P U S T E N S I O N S C H E C K L I S T

3T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N : 2 0 1 8HEDWP0118© 2018 Hanover Research

06

14

12

10

SIX TRENDS IMPACTING HIGHER EDUCATION IN 2018

E n r o l l m e n t M a n a g e m e n t

A Holding Pattern: Bracing For Continued Enrollment Shortfalls After a multi-year decline in post-secondary enrollment, institutions face mounting pressure to recruit enough

students to remain profitable. Driven by an improving economy, falling birth rates, and declines in high school

graduates in areas with a high concentration of colleges and universities, such as the Northeast, California, and Great

Lakes, higher education institutions will need to implement new strategies to maintain headcount and protect their

financial viability. These strategies include improved articulation of brand value, maximized student matriculation

and retention rates, identification and development of new enrollment markets, recruitment of out-of-state and

international students, development of strategic partnerships with other organizations, and cultivation of services

for non-traditional students, such as online learners.

A c a d e m i c D e v e l o p m e n t

Hitting Its Stride: Online Programming Goes MainstreamShedding its reputation as a peripheral education option, online programming is now an expected staple of most

academic development programs. However, with the advent of online programming as an established medium, many

institutions will need to overcome new challenges including higher consumer expectations, emerging best practices,

a focus on student outcomes, and an increasingly competitive market. Institutions must understand which content

to offer and how to market that content to succeed in the shifting online marketplace.

S t u d e n t E x p e r i e n c e

Bang For The Buck: Skepticism On The Value Of Higher EducationPrompted by rising tuition, an increasingly difficult admission process for local students, and the perception that

universities and colleges are disconnected from the real demands of life and careers, pressure is mounting for

institutions to quantify the value they create. This comes as no surprise to admissions directors—95% of whom agree

that higher education needs to do a better job at explaining the value of a college education. This crisis of confidence

in higher education institutions may impact their ability to attract students, secure state funding, and curry alumni

support. In 2018, expect more institutions to implement aggressive marketing and branding campaigns to ensure that

when applicants and lawmakers ask, “Is this really worth the money?” the clear answer is “Yes.”

O

VER

VIE

W

4O V E R V I E W© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118

F i n a n c e

House Of Cards: Tuition Strategies In Need Of A RebootTuition growth at colleges and universities continued to outpace yearly inflation in 2017, adversely impacting public

views of higher education institutions and student ability to attend. However, with total U.S. student loan debt

exceeding $1.3 trillion, this financial growth will not be sustainable for long. Institutions will need to challenge their

assumptions about tuition and implement innovative financial models to thrive in a world characterized by distrust of

higher education, increasing competition, free tuition programs, and rapidly shifting enrollment patterns.

A d va n c e m e n t

Closing The Gap: Rebuilding the Donor BaseAmid declining state funding for higher education and dropping enrollment, building a motivated,

consistent donor base is critical to the financial health of colleges and universities. While

“mega-donations” of 8-figures show some increase, overall alumni giving is down by 9%, causing institutions to

re-think their fundraising outreach. To combat this decrease, advancement departments may need to deploy a

two-pronged effort: building large donor support by extending the “quiet period” in their planned campaigns and

reinvigorating small donor engagement with carefully curated donor list reactivation.

M a r k e t i n g

A Generational Sea Change: Reaching Generation Z Marketing in higher education is at the brink of huge generational change. Twenty years ago, Gen X expected glossy

brochures and a website to match, 10 years ago millennials expected videos of campus life, and now with Gen Z the marketing

rules change again as they expect an authentic virtual experience. Gen Z was born tech-enabled and expects an emotional

connection with their future school. Traditional marketing materials are viewed as sanitized and sterile. Higher education

institutions need to rethink their brand strategy by building back from the expectations of the incoming Gen Z population and

using a multichannel approach (social, search, email, direct mail, live) that reaches this new audience on their terms.

Diagnostic: Navigating Campus Tensions ChecklistHigher education institutions are under increasing pressure to navigate politically charged environments characterized by

controversies over campus free speech, institutional names, and Confederate memorials. Turns in any direction can lead to waves

of protests, negative press, and reputational damage. Decisions to remove memorials or disinvite controversial speakers, for

example, can alienate older alumni and decrease donations. Meanwhile, moves to maintain memorials and speaker invitations can

prompt large protests and damage institutional reputation, leading younger students—especially students of color—to feel that

they are unwelcome on campus. Recognizing the challenges on both sides of the issue, educational institutions need to thoughtfully

engage in a conversation with their stakeholders and can use the Navigating Campus Tensions Checklist as a starting point.

5T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N : 2 0 1 8© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118

A HOLDING PATTERN: BRACING FOR CONTINUEDENROLLMENT SHORTFALLSAfter a multi-year decline in post-secondary enrollment, institutions face mounting pressure to recruit enough

students to remain profi table. Driven by an improving economy, falling birth rates, and declines in high school

graduates in areas with a high concentration of colleges and universities, such as the Northeast, California,

and Great Lakes, higher education institutions will need to implement new strategies to maintain headcount

and protect their fi nancial viability. These strategies include improved articulation of brand value, maximized

student matriculation and retention rates, identifi cation and development of new enrollment markets,

recruitment of out-of-state and international students, development of strategic partnerships with other

organizations, and cultivation of services for non-traditional students, such as online learners.

EN

ROLL

MEN

T M

ANAG

EMEN

T

6E N R O L L M E N T M A N A G E M E N T© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118

S o u r c e : W I C H E .

U.S. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATING CLASSES (PUBLIC TOTAL) AND CONCENTRATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Projected Percent Change from 2013 to 2030

-10% or less

Decrease Increase

-5% to -10% -5% to 5% 5% to 10% 10% or greater

Number of Higher Education Institutions Per State

T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N : 2 0 1 8© 2018 Hanover Research 7HEDWP0118


W h a t D o E n r o l l m e n t C h a l l e n g e s L o o k L i k e i n 2 0 1 8 ?

1. Prolonged Enrollment Decline: Enrollment in undergraduate education has steadily decreased over the past several years. From 2010-2015, total undergraduate enrollment decreased by 6%, even as total graduate enrollment remained stable.

2. Stagnation in Pool of High School Graduates:Projections estimate that 2017 experienced the greatest decline in high school graduates in recent years—a 2.3% decline or approximately 81,000 fewer graduates. This decline marks the beginning of a period of flat growth in high school graduates with an estimated 3.4 million students graduating annually for the next five years.

3. Regional Diff erences in Enrollment Declines: The overall stagnation of high school graduates masks important regional differences. By 2030 the number of high school graduates in the South and Midwest is expected to increase by 10% and 3% respectively. However, the West and Northeast’s high school graduation population will decrease by 12% and 11% respectively. Faced with shrinking local populations, regional schools will have to recruit beyond their local markets to drive enrollment.

4. Improved Economy Reduces Higher Educati on Att racti veness: Data suggests that as the economy improves, adults choose to enter or remain in the job market rather than pursue higher education. With continued economic improvements expected, institutions may find it more challenging to convince applicants of the value of temporarily stepping out of the workforce.

5. Barriers to Internati onal Student Recruitment:Higher education institutions typically depend on international student recruitment to attract more full-paying students. However, such recruitment may be impeded by factors like the current presidential administration’s travel bans and shifting views of the United States abroad. Institutions will have a more difficult time recruiting and retaining these students.

TOTAL U.S. PUBLIC AND PRIVATEHIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

School Years 2000-01 to 2012-12 (Actual)through 2013-14 to 2031-32 (Projected)

Actual Projected

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.6

2.8

2.42000-01 2012-13

3,466,8883,561,951

2024-25 2031-32

MIL

LIO

NS

S o u r c e : W I C H E .

HITTING ITS STRIDE: O N L I N E P R O G R A M M I N G G O E S M A I N S T R E A MShedding its reputation as a peripheral education option, online programming is now an expected staple of most

academic development programs. However, with the advent of online programming as an established medium,

many institutions will need to overcome new challenges including higher consumer expectations, emerging best

practices, focus on student outcomes, and an increasingly competitive market. Institutions must understand

which content to offer and how to market that content to succeed in the shifting online marketplace.

A

CAD

EMIC

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T

14%

7%

0Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015

UNDERGRADUATE EXCLUSIVE DISTANCE LEARNING

Percent of Total Headcount by Institution Type

GRADUATE EXCLUSIVE DISTANCE LEARNING

Percent of Total Headcount by Institution Type

25%

15%

0

PUBLIC 4Y

PRIVATE NONPROFIT 4Y

PUBLIC 2Y


PUBLIC 4Y


S o u r c e : I P E D S

Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015

8A C A D E M I C D E V E L O P M E N T© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118


S o u r c e : I P E D SS o u r c e : I P E D S

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PROGRAMS THAT

ARE FULLY DISTANCE

AssociatesPrograms

13% 9%

Bachelor’sPrograms

18%

Master’sPrograms

Doctoral Programs

5%

students at public, four-year schools are fully distance

1 in 14

fully distance graduate students

770,000

two- and four-year schools reported more than 100 fully distance students

2,000 W h a t D o e s O n l i n e P r o g r a m m i n g L o o k L i k e i n 2 0 1 8 ?

1. Online Programming Conti nues to Grow: The percent of students taking online courses grew steadily from 2012 to 2015, and surveys suggest this trend continued in 2016. Nearly 2.1 million undergraduates now study fully online and another 2.8 million study at least partially online—meaning roughly one in every three students will participate in online programming. The percentage of total student population participating in online courses has grown in every institution type with the exception of for-profi t institutions. In many cases, for-profi t institutions began with predominantly online offerings so their strategy has been instead to create more live learning opportunities.

2. Online Programming Competi ti on Intensifi es: Over half of institutions believe that competition in the online space is much higher than five years ago. Turnover in the top seeded institutions offering online programming heightened as 17 of the top 50 institutions with the largest online enrollments in 2012 were replaced within three years. Especially given enrollment challenges and declines in high school graduates, online programming offers relatively easy access into a broader geographic market.

3. Higher Educati on Insti tuti ons Elevate Online Leadership: Over two-thirds of higher education institutions are creating a dedicated online education oversight role (i.e., Chief Online Education Offi cer) to focus on the expansion in online programming. The scope of challenges facing this role will grow in coming years as online education must align faculty resourcing, accreditation, curriculum, and technology with growing student demand and expectations.

4. Online Student Expectations Rise: As online education becomes more common, students’ expectations for online delivery are rising. Students now consider more schools when looking for a program, highly value institutional responsiveness, and prioritize competency-based education. Institutions including George Washington University and Eastern Michigan University received criticism from students and faculty over the quality of online programs, with stakeholders at both institutions arguing that the online programs did not meet university standards.

5. Net Neutrality Potenti ally Tilts the Online Playing Field: Institutions rely on high-speed, affordable internet access to deliver online programs, which frequently include “bandwidth guzzling” features like videos. Likewise, students need reliable, affordable internet access to pursue online programs. If internet providers re-envision the speed or price at which content is offered, the quality, affordability, and accessibility of some online programs may be jeopardized.

fully distanceundergraduates

2.1 Million

10S T U D E N T E X P E R I E N C E© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118

B A N G F O R T H E B U C K : S K E P T I C I S M O N T H E VA L U E O F H I G H E R E D U C AT I O NPrompted by rising tuition, an increasingly difficult admission process for local students, and

the perception that universities and colleges are disconnected from the real demands of life and

careers, pressure is mounting for institutions to quantify the value they create. This comes as no

surprise to admissions directors—95% of whom agree that higher education needs to do a better

job at explaining the value of a college education. This crisis of confidence in higher education

institutions may impact their ability to attract students, secure state funding, and curry alumni

support. In 2018, expect more institutions to implement aggressive marketing and branding

campaigns to ensure that when applicants and lawmakers ask, “Is this really worth the money?” the

clear answer is “Yes.”

ST

UDEN

T EX

PERI

ENCE

S o u r c e : N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e o f S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e s

I n t w o y e a r s t h e n u m b e r o f p e r f o r m a n c e - b a s e d f u n d i n g p r o g r a m s m o r e t h a n d o u b l e d a c r o s s t h e U . S .

2013 2015

VS.24%of states had

performance-based funding

64%of states had

performance-based funding



W h at D O E S e d u c at i o n a l va l u e l o o k l i k e i n 2 0 1 8 ?

1. States Implement More Outcomes-based Funding: Reacting to the loss of confidence in the value of higher education, more states are replacing enrollment-based funding models with performance- and outcomes-based models that allocate money to institutions based on indicators like course completion and time to degree rates. In 2017, 14 states considered new or additional outcomes-based legislation, and 28 already have implemented some form of outcomes-based funding for four-year institutions.

2. Rise of Alternative Education Options:Students have more freedom than before to pursue non-traditional post-secondary education options (e.g., certificates, boot camps, and apprenticeships), which they see as convenient, flexible, and tightly linked to job market needs. The current administration appears to support these alternative formats and is pursuing funding support through the new GI bill and the Perkins Act Reauthorization.

3. Proliferation of Student College-shopping Tools: Even as the dominance of the U.S. News and World Report rankings system continues to frustrate higher education administrators, student access to alternative “institution-shopping” tools, like College Abacus, Niche, and Payscale’s College Salary Report, is increasing. These tools expand applicants’ abilities to compare and scrutinize perceptions of college value.

4. Partisan Battles Erode Trust in Higher Education: A 2017 Pew Research survey found that Republicans and Democrats hold decidedly different views about the value of higher education. Nearly 60% of Republicans and right-leaning independents think colleges have a negative impact on the country, compared to only 19% of Democrats. Both sides of the political spectrum seem to agree that a post secondary degree is necessary for career success, but disagree on higher education institutions’ ability to deliver on that promise.

have a funding formula that includes performance indicators as part of their funding decision.

5 more states are in the process of developing a

performance-based formula.

32 states

HOUSE OF CARDS: TUITION STRATEGIES IN NEED OF A REBOOTTuition growth at colleges and universities continued to outpace yearly inflation in 2017, adversely

impacting public views of higher education institutions and student ability to attend. However, with

total U.S. student loan debt exceeding $1.3 trillion, this financial growth will not be sustainable for

long. Institutions will need to challenge their assumptions about tuition and implement innovative

financial models to thrive in a world characterized by distrust of higher education, increasing

competition, free tuition programs, and rapidly shifting enrollment patterns.

FI

NANC

E

12F I N A N C E© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118

C o n t i n u e d P o s t - R e c e s s i o n F u n d i n g G a p . . .

COST CUTS INCLUDE:

of Teaching and Instruction Costs are covered by state funding

Average Reduction in State Funding Per Student since 2008 (~$1,448)

Decrease

16%

53%

in annual published tuition at 4-year colleges since 2008 (~$2,484)

Increase

35%

Course Elimination

Campus Closings

Student Services Reductions

… a d d r e s s e d w i t h Tu i t i o n I n c r e a s e s a n d C o s t C u t t i n g

S o u r c e : C B P P



W h at D O E S t u i t i o n f u n d i n gl o o k l i k e i n 2 0 1 8 ?

1. Tuition Discounting Reaches All-Time High:Tuition discounts for first-time, full-time freshman nearly tipped 50% in 2017 to keep pace with tuition increases. These discounts were driven by increased competition for a shrinking pool of high school graduates and limited funding opportunities.

2. P e s s i m i s m f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n ’ s Financial Future: Nearly half (44%) of surveyed chief business officers in higher education are not confident that their institutions will be financially stable over thenext five years, and 71% believe that media reports about an ongoing financial crisis in higher education are accurate.

3. I n s t i t u t i o n s C o l l a b o r a t e t o C r e a t e N e w Tu i t i o n M o d e l s : G i v e n t h e l o n g - t e r m unsustainability of tuition discounting in the face of climbing tuition, institutions are joining partnerships like the University Innovation Alliance to design new tuition strategies and decrease college costs.

4. Free Tuition Movement Picks Up Momentum:The idea that colleges should be free to attend is gaining traction in the United States, and some states are already implementing free college programs. New York, for example, now covers the cost of attending four-year public state institutions for students whose families make up to $125,000.

5. New Tax Law May Shrink Endowments:The new tax law introduced a 1.4% tax on the investment earnings of college endowments with net assets of $500,000 per student. Experts are divided on the impact. Some claim the tax will discourage institutional spending by shrinkingendowments, while others believe the tax willencourage institutional spending among leaderswho wish to avoid growing their endowment beyondthe $500,000 per student cap.

Average tuition discount for fi rst-time, full-time freshmen in 2016-201749%

of chief business offi cers are not confi dent in their institution’s fi nancial stability in the next 5 years

44%

8 in 10private college admissions directors

believe a free tuition program, if passed in their state, would

threaten their institution

State Funding Is Down

from pre-recession 2008 levels

$9Billion

CLOSING THE GAP: R E B U I L D I N G T H E D O N O R B A S EAmid declining state funding for higher education and dropping enrollment, building a motivated,

consistent donor base is critical to the financial health of colleges and universities. While

“mega-donations” of 8-figures show some increase, overall alumni giving is down by 9%, causing institutions

to re-think their fundraising outreach. To combat this decrease, advancement departments may need to

deploy a two-pronged effort: building large donor support by extending the “quiet period” in their planned

campaigns and reinvigorating small donor engagement with carefully curated donor list reactivation.

A

DVA

NCE

MEN

T

S o u r c e : B l a c k b a u d

14A D V A N C E M E N T© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118

D o n o r p o o l s i z e s h r i n k s / f l a t t e n s …

OVERALL ALUMNI PARTICIPATION RATE

MEDIAN DONOR RETENTION RATE

… a n d o v e r a l l d o n a t i o n r e v e n u e s t a l l s f o r f i r s t t i m e s i n c e 2 0 0 8

MEDIAN CHANGE IN DONATION REVENUE

2 0 1 4

5.8%

2 0 1 5

4.1%

11%10%

9%

2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6

2 0 1 6

0.3%

60% 61%

2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6

61%



W h a t d o e s F u n d r a i s i n gl o o k l i k e i n 2 0 1 8 ?

1. State Funding for Public Higher Education Remains Below Pre-Recession Levels: Overall state funding for public higher education in 2017 was ~$9 billion below its 2008 pre-recession level (after adjusting for inflation), indicating that the funding gap that donations must fill remains substantial.

2. “Mega-donations” Dominate Fundraising:Alumni fundraising participation and institutional donor acquisition rates are dropping, and institutions increasingly rely on mega-donations to hit fundraising goals. However, mega-donations are often restricted to initiatives their donors feel will “fulfill some big, ambitious visions” and frequently do not support basic operating or maintenance costs.

3. Competition for Younger Alumni Donations Intensifies: Millennials currently prefer to donate to causes they see as more local and immediate than their alma mater. To connect with this donor base, institutions are adapting their alumni engagement programs to include more social media outreach, young alumni councils, crowd funding, and transparency. Young donors are especially interested in knowing how their donations support their institution, and in turn, how their institution can directly support the community and the wider world.

4. New Tax Law May Inhibit General Donations:Under the new tax law, the standard amount of money taxpayers can shield from taxes (i.e., the standard deduction) will double. Because this change will encourage more people to take the standard deduction rather than itemize individual deductions—like gifts to their alma maters—experts fear that fundraising will become more difficult in coming years.

5. Fundraising Bump Driven by Stock Market Run:Higher education leaders observe that charitable giving increases during stock market surges, and decreases during drops and recessions. With the stock market reaching record highs in late 2017, institutions ratcheted up targets for fundraising campaigns. However, uncertainty exists over whether the market is due for a correction and what impact any corrections will have on the overall fundraising landscape.

MEDIAN DONOR RETENTION RATE

$6.2Billion

Total of “mega-donations” given to colleges and universities in 2016

194 “mega-donations” of

or more were made in 2016

$10 Million

P R I V A T E

67%

P U B L I C

56%

MEDIAN ALUMNI PARTICIPATION RATE

P R I V A T E

18%

P U B L I C

5%

of higher education fundraising campaigns exceed their targeted deadline date

38%

✘

A G E N E R AT I O N A L S E A C H A N G E : R E A C H I N G G E N E R A T I O N ZMarketing in higher education is at the brink of huge generational change. Twenty years ago, Gen

X expected glossy brochures and a website to match, 10 years ago millennials expected videos of

campus life, and now with Gen Z the marketing rules change again as they expect an authentic

virtual experience. Gen Z was born tech-enabled and expects an emotional connection with their

future school. Traditional marketing materials are viewed as sanitized and sterile. Higher education

institutions need to rethink their brand strategy by building back from the expectations of the

incoming Gen Z population and using a multichannel approach (social, search, email, direct mail,

live) that reaches this new audience on their terms.

M

ARKE

TING

WHO IS GEN Z?

GEN Z VS. MILLENNIALS

of Gen Z will be racially diverse identifying as

mixed race or part of an ethnic group

Born

1995-2005 by 2020 of the U.S.population

50%26%84.7 MILLION

gen z Millennials

Realists

Focused onthe now

Communicate with images

Readyto work

Waiting to be recognized

Digital SavvyPrefers Snapchat and Instagram

DigitalNatives

Communicate with text

Prefers Facebook

Focused onthe future

Optimists

16M A R K E T I N G© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118



W h at D o e s g e n z m a r k e t i n gl o o k l i k e i n 2 0 1 8 ?

1. Em p h a s i s o n Af fo rd a b i l i t y a n d Co s t :Nearly 75% of Gen Z’ers value access to an affordable education. Marketing to this group will rely on emphasizing financial aid packages, any applicable discounts, and other offerings to make school attainable. Higher education institutions should also consider alternative education approaches that can reduce schooling costs such as online offerings.

2. Fo c u s o n Pa s s i o n at e Pu r s u i t s n ot Jo b s :Gen Z’ers are incredibly entrepreneurial and believe their passions should be their income-generating pursuit—with 72% hoping to start a business one day. Given this generation’s skepticism of educational value, higher education institutions must make their education personal by emphasizing entrepreneurial paths not only in terms of program offerings, but also in terms of alumni success and alumni networking.

3. Inbound Marketing Strategy Investments Grow: Gen Z resists traditional advertisements and prefers engaging with schools on topics they genuinely care about. Higher education institutions should coordinate quality content in multiple formats, ensure their website is search engine optimized, and invest in lead nurturing tactics and campaigns to keep conversations going. Inbound marketing in particular is 61% cheaper than traditional marketing and offers a variety of tracking tools to measure ROI.

4. Virtual Reality Becomes a Reality: Gen Z’ers want to independently experience and explore institutions, making virtual reality (VR) tours or augmented reality (AR) experiences the next tech frontier in marketing. Schools implementing VR and AR assets have seen results—for example, the Savannah College of Art and Design enjoyed a 26% increase in applications since they launched VR experiences.

5. Enhanced Applicant Data Mining: Institutions are mining both applicant and student data to identify and target best-fit recruitment audiences, despite ongoing data privacy concerns. Student data provides marketers with information about which audiences tend to be most satisfied with the institution, allowing them to better locate those audiences in future years. Applicant data—like the names and phone numbers submitted during the college admissions process—then allows marketers to micro-target advertisements on platforms like Facebook according to students’ interests and level of progress through the application process.

DIGITAL NATIVES

ADVERTISING CONSUMPTION

SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE

of Gen Z own a smartphone

Gen Z views 5 screens at once including

smartphones, TVs, laptops, desktops and

tablets

96%

8 seconds—average Gen Z attention span

of Gen Z’ers dislike ads

that make people look perfect

of Gen Z’ers prefer ads that show real people in real situations

Facebook

Snapchat

Instagram

Twitter

49%

49%

46%

13%

75%

65%

Gen Z’ers connect using:

D I A G N O S T I C : NAVIGATING CAMPUSTENSIONS CHECKLIST H i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e u n d e r i n c r e a s i n g p r e s s u r e t o n av i g a t e p o l i t i c a l l y c h a r g e d

e nv i r o n m e n t s c h a ra c t e r i z e d by c o n t r ove r s i e s ove r c a m p u s f r e e s p e e c h , i n s t i t u t i o n a l n a m e s ,

a n d C o n f e d e ra t e m e m o r i a l s . Tu r n s i n a ny d i r e c t i o n c a n l e a d t o w ave s o f p r o t e s t s , n e g a t i ve

p r e s s , a n d r e p u t a t i o n a l d a m a g e . D e c i s i o n s t o r e m ove m e m o r i a l s o r d i s i nv i t e c o n t r ove r s i a l

s p e a ke r s , f o r ex a m p l e , c a n a l i e n a t e o l d e r a l u m n i a n d d e c r e a s e d o n a t i o n s . M e a nw h i l e , m ove s t o

r e t a i n m e m o r i a l s a n d s p e a ke r i nv i t a t i o n s c a n p r o m p t l a r g e p r o t e s t s a n d d a m a g e i n s t i t u t i o n a l

r e p u t a t i o n , l e a d i n g yo u n g e r s t u d e n t s — e s p e c i a l l y s t u d e n t s o f c o l o r — t o f e e l t h a t t h ey a r e

u nw e l c o m e o n c a m p u s . R e c o g n i z i n g t h e c h a l l e n g e s o n b o t h s i d e s o f t h e i s s u e , e d u c a t i o n a l

i n s t i t u t i o n s n e e d t o t h o u g h t f u l l y e n g a g e i n a c o nve r s a t i o n w i t h t h e i r s t a ke h o l d e r s a n d c a n

u s e t h e N av i g a t i n g C a m p u s Te n s i o n s C h e c k l i s t a s a s t a r t i n g p o i n t .

D

IAGN

OSTI

C

NAVIGATING CAMPUS TENSIONS CHECKLIST

A Guide to Responding to Pol it ical ly Charged Campus Tensions in 2018

S t e p # 1 : A s s e s s p o t e n t i a l ly s e n s i t i v e i s s u e s

Higher education institutions should preemptively take a campus wide inventory of potential issues. With tensions continuing to escalate on campuses, understanding what could be divisive is an important first step. Points to focus on in the initial issue inventory include:

• B u i l d i n g n a m e s

• M e m o r i a l s o r s t a t u e s

• U p c o m i n g s p e a ke r s

• H i s t o r i c a l a c t i o n s o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n

S t e p # 2 : S o l i c i t f e e d b a c k

After taking the issue inventory, higher education institutions should survey staff, students, and alumni to gauge their reactions. Which issues do they find problematic? How strong is their response? Can they unpack the issues and articulate their concerns? The survey should also illuminate any issues that may have been missed in the initial inventory. Collecting feedback from all parties in this way helps create a conversation where all groups feel heard and involved.

S t e p # 3 : R e s e a r c h b e s t p r a c t i c e s o l u t i o n s

U n d e r s t a n d i n g w h a t h a s a n d h a s n o t w o r ke d f o r o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s i s p a ra m o u n t t o a d d r e s s i n g d e l i c a t e i s s u e s . Lo o k i n g a t t h e b e s t p ra c t i c e s e m p l oye d a t s i m i l a r s i z e d a n d r e s o u r c e d i n s t i t u t i o n s c a n b e a n i m p o r t a n t f i r s t s t e p f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s . H o w eve r, ex p l o r i n g t h e s o l u t i o n s l a i d o u t by i n s t i t u t i o n s w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e s o u r c e s a n d l a r g e r o r s m a l l e r s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n s c a n p r ov i d e n e w i n s i g h t s a s w e l l .

18D I A G N O S T I C© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118



S t e p # 4 : U s e a d i s c i p l i n e d d e c i s i o n a p p r o a c h

To best address and consider the priorities of all stakeholders, higher education institutions should weigh all sides’ concerns and integrate that feedback into the final decision. Prioritizing one group can jeopardize the future of the institution, either by alienating donors, or by isolating the student body and potentially driving down enrollment. Higher education institutions may benefit from using a balanced scorecard approach in arriving at a decision. This scorecard can include items such as:

Stakeholder Feedback

• Stakeholder sentiment: Measure the intensity of feelings across current and prospective students, alumni, faculty, staff, parents, and connected organizations.

• Enrollment influence: Estimate any impact on future enrollment and prospective student applications/acceptances.

• Talent management: Gauge any impact on talent acquisition and retention among professors and staff.

Communications and Marketing

• Press: Estimate potential press coverage surrounding the change (positive/negative, local/regional/national).

• Campus communications: Gauge the difficulty of communicating the change across campus, the amount of expected effort to create buy-in, and the identification of any student ambassadors to serve as advocates.

Financial Costs

• Donations: Measure the impact on fundraising efforts.

• Expenditures: Estimate the cost to change/rebrand (including marketing costs) and any additional financial impact (ex. donations to advocacy organizations).

S t e p # 5 : C o m m u n i c a t e t h e d e c i s i o n

H i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s s h o u l d r u n a n i n f o r m a t i ve m a r ke t i n g c a m p a i g n o n t h e d e c i s i o n a n d m e a s u r e r e s p o n s e s . C o m m u n i c a t i n g t h e c h a n g e p r ov i d e s i n s t i t u t i o n s w i t h a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o s h a p e m e s s a g e s f o r m u l t i p l e a u d i e n c e s w i t h a p o s i t i ve f ra m e .

• Institutions can promote the change through paid, earned, social and owned media. Publicizing the event through an email marketing campaign (paid media) is a simple initial step to shaping a positive narrative. Working with media outlets like newspapers (earned media) can provide institutions with positive external PR. Finally, using social media and institutional websites (social and owned media) to announce the change and generate hype allows the administration to control the narrative and promote the change as a positive development for the campus.

• Preparations for any negative press or reactions that may come from the change are an important part of a communications plan in these circumstances. By generating a strategy for addressing the implications of the change, institutions can protect themselves from potential repercussions.

S t e p # 6 : G a u g e r e s p o n s e

Using the elements identified in the balanced scorecard, higher education institutions can assess the impact of pursuing the change. Was it worse, better, or as expected? Many institutions may want to build this issue assessment into an annual risk assessment exercise. While such exercises cannot prevent all issues from occurring, they can help institutions develop robust capabilities to sense and address issues in a timely, balanced, and considered manner.

20© 2018 Hanover Research T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N : 2 0 1 8HEDWP0118

O V E R A L L RESEARCH PRIORITIESI n 2 0 1 7 , H a n ove r f u l f i l l e d a p p r ox i m a t e l y 1 , 0 0 0 r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s r e q u e s t s f r o m d e a n s , a d m i n i s t ra t o r s , a n d e d u c a t o r s . T h e s e p r o j e c t s r e f l e c t e d key r e s e a r c h p r i o r i t i e s f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s . A c a d e m i c d eve l o p m e n t c o n t i n u e d t o s t a n d o u t a s t h e t o p p r i o r i t y a s h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n l e a d e r s s o u g h t t o e n s u r e t h e i r a c a d e m i c p o r t f o l i o s d e l i ve r e d t h e m o s t i n - d e m a n d o f f e r i n g s . O ve r h a l f o f a c a d e m i c d eve l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s — 5 5 % — w e r e “ P r o g ra m Fe a s i b i l i t y S t u d i e s ” ex a m i n i n g t h e m a r ke t d e m a n d , c o m p e t i t i ve l a n d s c a p e , a n d e m p l oye r o u t l o o k f o r p r o s p e c t i ve n e w p r o g ra m o f f e r i n g s . Fe a s i b i l i t y s t u d i e s f o r b u s i n e s s , m a r ke t i n g , a n d m a n a g e m e n t p r o g ra m s w e r e t h e m o s t p o p u l a r i n 2 0 1 7 , a n d a c c o u n t e d f o r n e a r l y a f i f t h o f a l l s t u d i e s . Fe a s i b i l i t y s t u d i e s f o r e d u c a t i o n a n d h e a l t h p r o g ra m s w e r e a l s o p o p u l a r, a n d r e s p e c t i ve l y a c c o u n t e d f o r 1 8 % a n d 1 3 % o f a l l s t u d i e s .

20

17 I

N R

EVIE

W

RESEARCH PROJECTS BY PRIORITY

Percent of Total Higher Education Research Projects

ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT Includes: Academic Portfolio Analyses,

Program Feasibility Studies, Program Opportunity Dashboards

58%

14%

9%

8%

Enrollment Management Includes: Enrollment Funnel Assessments,

Geomarket Opportunity Dashboards, Matriculation Analyses

Student Experience Includes: Career Tracking, Dropped Student Analyses,

Graduation Early Warning Systems, Institutional Climate Assessments

MARKETING Includes: Brand Perception Analyses, Marketing Channel ROI Assessments,

Messaging Differentiation, USNWR Ranking Analyses

ADVANCEMENT Includes: A l u m n i E n g a g e m e n t S u r vey s ,

D o n o r S e g m e n t a t i o n A n a l y s e s , E c o n o m i c I m p a c t S t u d i e s

FINANCE Includes: F a c u l t y B e n c h m a r k i n g ,

P r o g ra m C o s t Tra c k i n g , Tu i t i o n & A i d O p t i m i z a t i o n A s s e s s m e n t s

n = ~ 1 , 0 0 0 .

5%

5%

202 0 1 7 I N R E V I E WHEDWP0118© 2018 Hanover Research


T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N : 2 0 1 8 21

TOP PROGRAM FEASIBILITY STUDIES BY DISCIPLINE AREA

Business, Management, Marketing, and Related

Support Services

22%Education Health Professions

and Related Programs

13%Multi/Interdisciplinary

StudiesPublic Administration and Social Service Professions

Engineering Communication, Journalism, and Related Programs

Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services

Homeland Security, Law Enforcement, Firefighting

and Related Protective Services

18% 9% 7%

6% 5% 5% 5%

BUSINESS, MANAGEMENT, MARKETING, AND RELATED SUPPORT SERVICES • Management and International

Business Majors

• Bachelor of Commerce and OCC in Digital Marketing

• MS in Business Analytics

Education• Online M.Ed.

• Special Education

• EdD in Montessori

health Professions and related programs• Bachelor’s/Master’s in Physician Assistant

• MS in Psychiatric Rehabilitation

• Doctor of Nursing Practice

Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies• Bachelor’s in Neuroscience

• PhD in Digital Culture and Communication

• BA in Global Studies

• Data Science and Informatics

Public Administration and Social Service Professions• Bachelor’s Degree in Social Work

• Master of Public Administration Concentrations

• Public Policy

Engineering• Systems Engineering

• Materials Engineering

• Coastal Engineering

Communication, Journalism, and Related Programs• Sports Journalism Undergraduate Specialization

• BS in Digital Communications

• PhD in Multisector Communication

Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services• Interaction Design

• Bachelor of Computer Science

• Artificial Intelligence (BS, MS)

Homeland Security, Law Enforcement, Firefighting and Related Protective Services• Online Criminal Justice

• Cybersecurity and Intelligence Program

• BS in Public Safety Administration


I N S T I T U T I O N A LRESEARCH PRIORITIESSegmenting 2017 project data by institution type and enrollment size reveals unique patterns within the higher education landscape. For example, while institutions universally prioritize academic development concerns, some institutions prioritize academic development concerns more than others. The largest institutions by enrollment size focus most on academic development as they try to decide which of their programs can be converted to online formats. Meanwhile, a review of the second most popular concerns shows that law schools uniquely emphasize the student experience and enrollment management as they grapple with retention challenges. In comparison, business schools emphasize marketing challenges.

20

17 I

N R

EVIE

W

ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT

B U S I N E S S S C H O O L S

MARKETING

ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT

STUDENT EXPERIENCE

ADVANCEMENT

FINANCE

C O M M U N I T Y C O L L E G E S



STUDENT EXPERIENCE

FINANCE

ADVANCEMENT

MARKETING



STUDENT EXPERIENCE

MARKETING

FINANCE

ADVANCEMENT

F O U R -Y E A R I N S T I T U T I O N S


STUDENT EXPERIENCE


MARKETING

ADVANCEMENT

L AW S C H O O L S

n=~1000*Some projects addressed several priority areas simultaneously.

22T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N : 2 0 1 8© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118

RESEARCH PROJECTS BY INSTITUTION TYPE*


20%

17%

12%

10%

3%

17%

17%

5%

2%

2%

13%

8%

7%

5%

5%

38%

25%

19%

6%

45%

48%

61%

50%


51%ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT

13%ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT

11%MARKETING

10%STUDENT EXPERIENCE

7%ADVANCEMENT

5%FINANCE

5 , 0 0 1 TO 2 0 , 0 0 0

S T U D E N T S

G R E AT E R T H A N

2 0 , 0 0 0 S T U D E N T S



11%MARKETING


7%ADVANCEMENT

5%FINANCE





6%MARKETING

4%FINANCE

2%ADVANCEMENT



8%FINANCE


4%MARKETING

3%ADVANCEMENT

5 , 0 0 0 O R F E W E R

S T U D E N T S

RESEARCH PROJECTS BY ENROLLMENT SIZE



D E P A R T M E N T A L RESEARCH PRIORITIESAcross all departments, we conducted research projects on academic development most frequently. This trend reflects higher education institutions’ focus on delivering the most in-demand program offerings. Projects on enrollment management represented our next most popular offering for most departments, many of which sought to confirm they offer what students want and model incoming enrollment. Given the intense pressure on enrollment, this dual focus on academic development and enrollment management will likely continue in 2018.

2017

IN

REV

IEW

RESEARCH PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT*


ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT 13%

8%

A C A D E M I C A F F A I R S

STUDENT EXPERIENCE

MARKETING

ADVANCEMENT

FINANCE

8%

5%

4%

242 0 1 7 I N R E V I E W© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118

15%

65%

A D V A N C E M E N T , G R A N T S , A N D R E S E A R C H D E V E L O P M E N T



STUDENT EXPERIENCE

MARKETING

ADVANCEMENT

FINANCE

8%

5%

5%

3%

O F F I C E O F T H E P R E S I D E N T

ADVANCEMENT 2%

MARKETING 4%

STUDENT EXPERIENCE 4%

FINANCE 6%

ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT 14%

ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 50%


T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N : 2 0 1 8 25

n=~1,000 ( includes records with points of contact that could be classified into these fields)*Some projects addressed several priority areas simultaneously.

59%

21%

12%

F I N A N C E A N D O P E R A T I O N S



STUDENT EXPERIENCE

MARKETING

ADVANCEMENT

FINANCE

6%

4%

4%

I N S T I T U T I O N A L R E S E A R C H

23%

13%



STUDENT EXPERIENCE

MARKETING

ADVANCEMENT

FINANCE

9%

8%

3%

E N R O L L M E N T M A N A G E M E N T

15%

10%



STUDENT EXPERIENCE

MARKETING

ADVANCEMENT

FINANCE 6%

5%

4%

M A R K E T I N G C O M M U N I C A T I O N S



STUDENT EXPERIENCE

MARKETING

ADVANCEMENT

FINANCE

55%

15%

10%

9%

8%

3%


262 0 1 7 I N R E V I E W© 2018 Hanover ResearchHEDWP0118

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G I E SBenchmarking, program demand, peer reviews, and recommendations of best practices are overwhelmingly

the most commonly requested project methodology. However, nearly one in five research requests are for the

collection of feedback from students, teachers, prospective employers, alumni, and donors, which adds valuable

context to our higher education clients’ work. Data analysis—our next most popular methodology—provides value

to higher education institutions by illuminating insights hidden in datasets that otherwise may seem unwieldy.

Higher education institutions that conduct data analysis projects receive objective results that can factor into

difficult decisions, like tuition modeling and cost benchmarking. Finally, our grants support helped secure our

clients$64 million in funding across 2017 for a variety of institutional priorities.

20

17 I

N R

EVIE

W

RESEARCH PROJECTS BY METHODOLOGY*


71%

n=~1,000 *Some projects employed several methodologies simultaneously

SE

CO

ND

AR

Y R

ES

EA

RC

H

• Benchmarking

• Best Practices

• Environmental Scan

• Literature Review

• Market Evaluation

• Peer Analysis & Regional Scan

• Policy Review

• Program Demand

SU

RV

EY 18%

DATA

ANA

LYSI

S

9%

• Survey Design/Administration/ Analysis

• Open-Ended Response Coding

• Data Segmentation

• Conjoint Analysis

• Data Mining

• Linear Regression

• Trend Forecasting

6%QUAL

ITAT

IVE

PRIM

ARY

RESE

ARCH

• Focus Group Design/Administration

• IDI Design/Outreach/Administration/Analysis



GRANTS PROJECTS BY APPROACH

Percentage of Total Higher Education Grants ProjectsPR

OPO

SAL

REV

IEW

& S

UPP

OR

T 60%

• Proposal Review

• Proposal Revision

• Proposal Support

FUN

DIN

G R

ES

EA

RC

H

20%GR

ANT

SEEK

ING

CAPA

CITY

8%

• Funding Opportunity Analysis

• Prospecting

• Forecasting

• Grantseeking Strategy

• Grantsmanship Training

• Consulting

16%

PROP

OSAL

DEV

ELOP

MEN

T• Proposal

Production

• Proposal Research

1%

PRE-

PROP

OSAL

SUP

PORT

• Letter of Inquiry

• Pre-Proposal

SAMPLE PROJECTS

PROPOSAL REVIEW• NIH R21 STEP Proposal Review

• NSF MSN Proposal Review

• ED Title V Review

FUNDING RESEARCH• Agribusiness Program Prospecting

• Campus Security Prospecting

• Health Disparities Cluster Funding Calendar

grant seeking capacity• New Faculty Grantsmanship Training

• Webinar–NIH Rigor and Reproducibility

• Grantseeking & RFPs–Onsite Training

Proposal Development• NSF ADVANCE Proposal Development

• Title III Planning and Proposal Production

• NIH U01 Proposal Development

PRE-Proposal Support• CCF Research Grant Program

Letter of Inquiry

• LOI Production: Patrick and Anna M. Cudahy Fund

• Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation Letter of Inquiry


S O U R C E L I S T 28S O U R C E L I S T

Leachman, M., K. Masterson, and E. Figueroa. “A Punishing Decade for School Funding.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, November 29, 2017. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-punishing-decade-for-school-funding

“Undergraduate Enrollment.” National Center for Education Statistics, May 2017. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp

“Post-baccalaureate Enrollment.” National Center for Education Statistics, May 2017. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_chb.asp

Bransberger, P. and D. Michelau. “Knocking at the College Door.” Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, December 2016. p. 19. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57f269e19de4bb8a69b470ae/t/58d2eb93bf629a4a3878ef3e/1490217882794/Knocking2016FINALFORWEB-revised021717.pdf

“Total Fall Enrollment in Degree-Granting Post-Secondary Institutions, by State or Jurisdiction.” National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_304.10.asp?current=yes

Smith, A. “Enrollments Fall.” Inside Higher Ed, May 14, 2015. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/14/improved-economy-leads-enrollment-dips-among-two-year-and-profi t-colleges

Fischer, K. “International Student Enrollment is Slowing—And It Isn’t All Donald Trump’s Fault.” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 13, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/International-Student/241737

Allen, I. and J. Seaman. “Digital Learning Compass: Distance Education Enrollment Report.” Babson Survey Research Group, E-Literate, and WCET, 2017. p. 11, 27. https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/digtiallearningcompassenrollment2017.pdf

Legon, R. and R. Garrett. “The Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE).” Quality Matters and Eduventures, 2017. p. 13. https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/fi les/research-docs-pdfs/CHLOE-First-Survey-Report.pdf

Clinefelter, D.L., & C.B. Aslanian. “Online College Students 2017: Comprehensive Data on Demands and Preferences.” The Learning House, pp. 16-17. http://www.learninghouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/OCS-2017-Report.pdf

McMurtrie, B. “Controversy at George Washington U. Highlights Challenges of Diving Deeply into Online Education.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 23, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Controversy-at-George/241528

McKenzie, L. “Net Neutrality Rollback Concerns Colleges.” Inside Higher Ed, November 29, 2017. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/11/29/colleges-voice-concern-over-planned-net-neutrality-rollback

Finley, K. “FCC Plan to Kill Net Neutrality Rules Could Hurt Students.” Wired, December 12, 2017. https://www.wired.com/story/fcc-plan-to-kill-net-neutrality-rules-could-hurt-students/

Selingo, J. “Americans Love Higher Education, Just Not Their Universities.” The Washington Post, July 18, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/07/18/americans-love-higher-education-just-not-their-universities/?utm_term=.25306caf4a16

DiTieri, R. “Graduates Are Seeking Training Certifi cates Over Traditional Secondary Education.” Forbes, June 6, 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthink/2017/06/06/graduates-are-seeking-training-certifi cates-over-traditional-secondary-education/#2960eb8f38f3

Fain, P. “Quality and Non-College Learning.” Inside Higher Ed, August 17, 2016. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/17/feds-unveil-details-experiment-alternative-providers-and-accreditors

Voght, K. “Are MOOCs, Bootcamps, and Other Alternative Education Options Effective?” U.S. News and World Report, July 21, 2017. https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-07-21/are-moocs-bootcamps-and-other-alternative-education-options-effective

Wermund, B. “How U.S. News College Rankings Promote Economic Inequality on Campus.” Politico, September 10, 2017. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/top-college-rankings-list-2017-us-news-investigation/

Mulhere, K. “All the Best Online Tools for Your College Search.” Time, July 28, 2017. http://time.com/money/4840241/college-help-application-search-calculators/

“Performance-based Funding for Higher Education.” National Conference of State Legislatures, July 31, 2017. http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/performance-funding.aspx

“Policy Snapshot: Outcomes-based Funding.” Education Commission of the States, September 2017. pp. 1, 3. https://edcommission.wpengine.com/home2/edcommis/public_html/ec-content/uploads/Policy-Snapshot-Outcomes-Based-Funding.pdf

“Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions.” Pew Research Center, July 10, 2017.

Newport, F. and B. Busteed. “Why are Republicans Down on Higher Ed?” Gallup, August 16, 2017. http://news.gallup.com/poll/216278/why-republicans-down-higher.aspx?g_source=HIGHER_EDUCATION&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tile

Blumenstyk, G. “Coding Boot Camps Come Into the Fold with Campus Partnerships.” Chronicle of Higher Education, April 3, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Coding-Boot-Camps-Come-Into/239673

“Average Published Tuition and Fees, by Type of Institution, 2016-17.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 13, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Average-Published-Tuition-and/240616

Seltzer, R. “Turning Down Top Choices.” Inside Higher Ed, March 23, 2017. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/23/study-shows-how-price-sensitive-students-are-selecting-colleges

Marcus, J. “Higher Education Seeks Answers to Leaner Years.” The New York Times, June 7, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/education/higher-education-seeks-answers-to-leaner-years.html

Calderon, V. and J. Jones. “Many Higher Ed Business Chiefs Fear Financial Future.” Gallup News, August 3, 2017. http://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/215006/higher-business-chiefs-fear-financial-future.aspx?g_source=HIGHER_EDUCATION&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

SOURCE L IST



Behaunek, L. and A. Gansemer-Topf. “Tuition Discounting at Small, Private Baccalaureate Institutions: Reaching a Point of No Return?” AERA 2017 Annual Meeting, April 28, 2017. http://www.aera.net/Newsroom/News-Releases-and-Statements/Study-Snapshot-Tuition-Discounting-at-Small-Private-Baccalaureate-Institutions-Reaching-a-Point-of-No-Return

Seltzer, R. “Discounting Keeps Climbing.” Inside Higher Ed, May 15, 2017. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/05/15/private-colleges-and-universities-increase-tuition-discounting-again-2016-17

“University Innovation Alliance.” University Innovation Alliance. http://www.theuia.org/#home

“Fact Sheet.” The Frontier Set. https://postsecondary.gatesfoundation.org/frontier-set-fact-sheet/

Brownstein, R. “Why Some Cities and States are Footing the Bill for Community College.” The Atlantic, April 20, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/community-college-tuition-free/523587/

Hess, A. “You Can Now Go to College for Free in Two of the Most Expensive Places in the U.S.” CNBC, April 12, 2017. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/12/college-is-free-now-in-two-of-the-most-expensive-places-in-america.html

“What Colleges Need to Know About the Tax Overhaul Poised to Become Law.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 20, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/specialreport/What-Colleges-Need-to-Know/172

Seltzer, R. “Eluding the Endowment Tax.” Inside Higher Ed, January 2, 2018. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/01/02/wealthy-colleges-face-uncertainty-they-seek-ways-avoid-new-endowment-tax

Mitchell, M. M. Leachman, and K. Masterson. “A Lost Decade in Higher Education Funding.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 23, 2017. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding

“2016 donorCentrics Annual Report on Higher Education Alumni Giving.” Blackbaud, 2016. pp. 2, 6. https://www.blackbaud.com/fi les/resources/downloads/10128_Analytics_donorCentrics_Report_FINAL.pdf

Lindsay, D. “Higher Education’s Megagift Boom Hits New High, Survey Shows.” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, April 3, 2017. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Higher-Education-s-Megagift/239684

Gardner, L. “Public Universities are Getting Better at Bagging Big Gifts.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 15, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Public-Universities-Are/242072

O’Neil, M. “From Millennial Donors, Little Loyalty to Alma Mater.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 8, 2014. https://www.chronicle.com/article/From-Millennial-Donors-Little/148661

Masterson, K. “Connecting to Young Alumni.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 26, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Connecting-to-Young-Alumni/239323

Masterson, K. “How One University Used Crowdfunding to Reach Young Donors.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 26, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-One-University-Used/239327

Kelderman, E. and A. Harris. “Final Tax Bill Would Spare Some Higher Ed Worries, but Could Lead to State Budget Cuts.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 15, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Final-Tax-Bill-Would-Spare/242075

Seltzer, R. “Aiming for Billions.” Inside Higher Ed, October 17, 2017. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/17/colleges-and-universities-set-high-targets-latest-fund-raising-campaigns

“Gen Z and the Evolution of College Marketing.” https://edwardsco.com/gen-z-and-the-evolution-of-marketing/

Houpt, J. and B. Faust. “Engaging and Cultivating and Cultivating Millennials and Gen Z: Strategies and Tactics for Engaging Young Alumni. “Ologie and Denison University. 2014.

Gibbs, M. “Marketing to Gen Z: 5 Things Colleges Need to Know.” Carnegie Darlet. August, 8, 2017. https://www.carnegiecomm.com/blog/marketing-to-gen-z-5-things-colleges-need-to-know/

“Generation Z Statistics You Need to Know” http://mediakix.com/2017/03/the-generation-z-statistics-you-should-know/#gs.qHWyXlE

http://www.slideshare.net/Intead/contextual-marketingforhighereducation

http://mashable.com/2011/10/30/inbound-outbound-marketing/

“Marketing to Gen Z.” Fluent.September 21, 2017.http://www.fl uentco.com/insight/marketing-gen-z/

“Inbound Marketing Strategies for Higher Education.” Olive & Co.https://www.oliveandcompany.com/inbound-marketing-for-higher-education

Stoller, E. “Cambridge University—Crushing It on Social Media.” Inside Higher Ed, October 5, 2017. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/student-affairs-and-technology/cambridge-university-crushing-it-social-media

Hoover, E. “Measuring Clicks, Emotions, and Brain Waves: Student Recruitment Keeps Evolving.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 27, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Measuring-Clicks-Emotions/240776

Clara Chan, J. “On Social Media, They Represent the College 24/7.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 17, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/On-Social-Media-They/241211

“2017 E-Expectations Trend Report.” Ruffalo Noel Levitz, 2017. p. 5. http://learn.ruffalonl.com/rs/395-EOG-977/images/RNL_2017_E_Expectations%20report_1.0.pdf

Vasquez, M. “Colleges Use Facebook Ads to Target Applicants, Parents, and Lawmakers.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 17, 2017. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Use-Facebook-Ads-to/241476

Selingo, J. “How Colleges Use Big Data to Target the Students They Want.” The Atlantic, April 11, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/04/how-colleges-fi nd-their-students/522516/

Svrluga, S. “’Make it right’: Descendants of slaves demand restitution from Georgetown.” Washington Post, January 17, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/01/16/__trashed-2/?utm_term=.804a78cf94f6


A B O U T H A N O V E R R E S E A R C H

Contributions to this publication were made by the following Hanoverians:

Chief Content Officer: Anil Prahlad

Project Leads: Amir Rasool, Linda Donaldson

Contributors: John Adamson, Patrick Bradshaw, Michael Littlefield, Sid Phillips, Chad Ross, Cam Wall

Editorial Team: Amanda Lockhart, Jamal Russell-Black, Erin Morris, Jordan Wells

Designed by: Johanna Mora

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S


Hanover Research provides high-quality, custom research and analytics through a cost effective model that

helps clients make informed decisions, identify and seize opportunities, and heighten their effectiveness.

H A N OV E R ’ S H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N S O L U T I O N S

Hanover enables higher education institutions to offer a world-class educational experience and operate

an efficient and sustainable institution. Hanover’s Higher Education Solutions tackle the academic and

administrative challenges facing every department at your institution—amplifying your individual efforts with

our tried and tested suite of solutions. Our partners include higher education institutions of all varieties: from

large to small, public and private, two-year, four-year, professional, graduate, and for-profit schools.

LEVELING THE

INFORMATION PLAYING FIELD

CONTACT

www.hanoverresearch.com

P 202.559.0050

E [email protected]

CUSTOMEvery report tailored to specific client needs

SHARED-VALUEAnnual, fixed-fee model shares costs and benefits

EXPERT200+ analysts with advanced research expertise

Ph.

D. M

.B.A. M.Ed. M.Phil. M

.P.H. M

.S. M.A. J.D. B

.A. B

.S. COST

# OF PROJECTS

HANOVER RESEARCH

OTHER PROVIDERS

CUSTOM RESEARCHSOLUTIONS

O U R B E N E F I T S

• Enrollment Management: Target the optimal pool of students and maximize application and acceptance rates.

• Academic Development: Strengthen your academic portfolio through market analysis of existing and potential new programs.

• Student Experience: Spot at-risk students early, identify the drivers of attrition, and pinpoint factors driving poor post-graduate outcomes.

ABOUT HANOVER RESEARCH

A C A D E M I C S O L U T I O N S

• Finance: Increase revenue and dynamically evaluate costs to run an efficient, financially viable, and growth-oriented institution.

• Advancement: Highlight your institutional impact with donors and alumni.

• Marketing : Reach the right audience at the right time with the right message.

ADMINISTRATIVE SOLUTIONS

• Grantseeking Capacity : Develop your organizational capacity to pursue grant funding.

• Funding Research: Spot grant opportunities aligned to your funding needs.

• Pre-Proposal Support: Facilitate the development of competitive project concepts prior to submission.

• Proposal Review & Support: Provide review and revision to ensure robust proposal submissions.

• Proposal Development: Engage full proposal development support.

G R A N T S S O L U T I O N S

Headquarters4401 Wilson Boulevard 4th FloorArlington, VA 22203

Charlottesville212 E. Main Street Suite 201Charlottesville, VA 22902

New York City42 Greene Street 4th FloorNew York, NY 10013

TRENDS IN 2018 HIGHER EDUCATION · 2019-12-18 · institutions will need to overcome new challenges...

Documents

Transcript of TRENDS IN 2018 HIGHER EDUCATION · 2019-12-18 · institutions will need to overcome new challenges...