Volume 46
|
Issue 6
|
October 17, 2011
Photo essay, page 6 Andrew Tan
Franklin Endorses $348,000 Enrolment Study Trent paid equivalent of 50 domestic students’ tuition to find out why students attend university elsewhere Zach Ruiter with files from Anthony Gulston
In 2007, Trent University signed a three-year contract with a private American higher education consulting firm, NoelLevitz, based in Iowa and Colorado, to study ways of increasing enrolment. According to the Noel-Levitz website, it is a partner to more than 2,700 private and public colleges and universities. Although President Stephen Franklin arrived during the last year of the Noel-Levitz study at Trent, he is no stranger to Noel-Levitz, having sat on an advisory group for the Noel Levitz study at the University of Calgary. Franklin explained, “We did a bunch of what I would call market segmentation at the time it was something quite new in universities.” Arthur tried to get a copy of the report, but was informed via e-mail by Provost and VP Academic and Gary Boire that “the study produced by Noel-Levitz is considered proprietary information as it contains competitive data that could have an impact on the revenue and reputation of Trent.” Was the $348,274.91 in US funds well spent? President
Franklin stated, “I believe so.” For Franklin, the report provided valuable information on “territory management.” The study also suggested sending out “different packages of material” and “different ways to contact students” which included personal phone calls from the President and other faculty to prospective students who had indicated Trent as their first choice but had not confirmed. Franklin said that the off-limits study contains “marketing and different research that was done on student profiles and different demographics,” including a survey called Why Trent and Why Not Trent.” He explained that “Why Not Trent is pretty straightforward. Some of our facilities are not thought to be very impressive by students, they come and they find the residences and the library not as interesting as they thought they might.” The Noel-Levitz report provided the backbone for the 2010 Enrollment and Retention Report, which was spearheaded by Meri-Kim Oliver, who was at the time Trent’s Associate VP Student Services and Acting-Registrar, and who Trent incidentally failed to retain. On behalf of Trent, Oliver’s testimonial can still be found
on the Noel-Levitz website. In it, Oliver states that “a new level of professionalism is apparent throughout campus.” She continues, “despite environmental and fiscal pressures, we are going to retain our students and help them succeed because that’s the model we believe in. Working with NoelLevitz is helping us meet these goals.” Thus far, Trent has not met its projected enrolment targets. Franklin claims that the announcement of academic cuts is not having an adverse effect on enrolment numbers. He said, “I think that there are a number of factors that have contributed to our lack of participation in this growth…and if we could just get our share then we could probably forgo some of these budget reduction exercises.” Franklin expects budget reduction exercises, otherwise known as cuts, to compensate for failing to meet enrollment targets. Franklin explains, “Well, if it’s 152 students that is 1.5 million dollars, each student is worth ten thousand dollars.” He cautioned that “not only do we not have those students this year, we don’t have them next year unless we can grow next year to recover from the ones we didn’t get this year.”