"If there is a demand and a market for a particular product, they are more than happy to serve that demand. Demand can change on a regular basis."

Brian Bright M.Ed,
Liaison International

Has e-mail peaked?

Archived Articles

• Online International Learning
• The BlogAbroad.com experience
• Heuristics and Discovery Learning
• Will the Admissions packet ever die?
• Underserved Students
• International Online Learning
• How Students are Learning
• COMPLETE ARTICLE LIST

Brian Bright, M.Ed.

For-Profit Institutions Growing Role in Higher Education

What's your view?
Post a comment

PEOPLE WITH IMPACT INTERVIEW - College-bound students are increasingly turning to for-profit institutions, precipitating unusual changes in student recruitment at traditional schools. Traditionally, for-profit colleges strived to meet the same recruitment success experienced at traditional schools, but the playing field has been leveled. To gain insight on the implications of this shift, we turned to Brian Bright with Liaison International to learn more.

Q: In your experience, how do for-profit colleges and traditional universities differ in recruiting students?
Brian Bright: I look at this subject in two ways. On one level, I had a client—an Ivy League school—that ten years ago didn’t care about the for-profits, they provided vocational support and that was fine. Five years ago, the for-profit became a large capital stock company. A few years later, the for-profit opened up next door. The Ivy League school is not worried about the for-profit school today but they recognize the progress in such a short period of time. The Ivy League is not going to open up a campus on the opposite coast just to attract students and meet the demand.

On the other hand, for-profits are there to serve the marketplace. If there is a demand and a market for a particular product, there are more than happy to serve that demand. Demand can change on a regular basis.

Brown, for example, continues to decrease their acceptance rates because the demand is increasing, not because they are enrolling more students. For-profits can meet that demand with their programs and services, and in many cases, they are equally if not more focused on the needs of the students.

Q: Would you consider one having an advantage over the other at this point?
Brian Bright: I think the lines between the two are beginning to blur. When you talk about quality, you think about regional vs. national vs. program accreditation. You’ve got for-profit programs that are regionally accredited and programmatically accredited. If you have a program that is accredited by the same profession as an Ivy League school, what makes you different?

The difference lies in national vs. region accreditation. Some of the for-profit organizations are buying non-profit regionally accredited institutions and turning them into for-profits because it has that regionally-accredited stamp of approval. There are for-profits that are regionally accredited by the same accrediting bodies that would accredit Ivy League schools, giving them the same standards. Right now, we are at the point where the demand is being met by the for-profits, and they are dynamic in how they meet that demand with quality programs.

Q: What have you found to be the most effective way for colleges and universities to interact with students?
Brian Bright:I don’t know that there is one particular way to be able to talk to students, but I do know that one of the things that continually comes up is one-to-one marketing, or being better at the initial definition of what a quality student is for that particular institution. Then, how do schools not only proactively recruit that quality of student to fit their program, but also, if universities have those quality students enrolled, how do they keep them?

We now know that 50 percent of undergraduates transfer, which is a sad number. But this statistic highlights a number of problems that could be occurring. Either the wrong kind of student is being recruited, or the right students are not being retained. One or the other will change, but if institutions do a good job of defining who their particular student is, based on a number of quality standards—not necessarily just scores—and that student falls into the category of those that graduate on time with good marks, schools can bring that recruitment strategy allowing them to spend more time serving the student on campus as opposed to trying to replace them. I call this the closed-loop student life cycle.

Q: Technology is often noted to de-personalize the student experience—do you find this to be an issue to colleges and universities concerning the student life cycle?
Brian Bright: Technology is an enabler. If admissions and recruitment staff are using it as an expert source for recruitment, then I think they are missing the boat. I believe that there are a number of things that technology can do to take the mundane processing out of the equation so they can focus on the personal aspects of recruiting.

For example, at Liaison International, we provide the technology and management operations services for centralized application processing and services. This technology basically completes the processing of a number of health professions centralized applications services. We take the processing from the initial creation of the application through the delivery to the admissions office, expediting the process and making it faster and easier. We can deliver a fully completed, verified application, so upon receipt they can begin the recruiting process much sooner and with more accurate, reliable data.

Technology, being the enabler that it is, can help a process or hurt a process, but it can never replace the human interaction. Rather, it should aim to create more strategic value in the admissions staff by use of processing to complete tedious administrative tasks.

Q: Is there a certain tool that you have found to be most effective in managing the student lifecycle?
Brian Bright: The answer to that question lies within each institution and their process. Institutions should look at two fundamental aspects when looking at vendors. The first consideration is if they want to own the technology, managing and running it themselves, not just relating to software and service, but systems, hardware, all the behind-the-scenes aspects that make the system run.

Another consideration is if the organization wants an outside expert to manage the system and its elements for them. A good friend conducted a study at Eduventures asking campuses about the future goals of the institution. A resounding answer was that institutions want to teach, and serve students as opposed to becoming an IT business. To accomplish this, institutions should consider outsourcing these IT projects if a company comes in with the right people, product and service. If a school has the internal capacity wherein they can centralize their own core technology and utilize an IT staff that does not detract from the human element of serving students, they could keep the process in-house.

Q: If you could give colleges and universities one piece of advice related to the student lifecycle or any specific part of the cycle, what would that advice be?
Brian Bright: Ultimately, the student lifecycle starts with the first touch. In today’s day and age, this first touch is incredibly important. In the past, institutions aimed to get students on-campus for a site interview, and many times, that was the closer. In today’s world, the student’s first touch most likely occurs somewhere on the Internet, either on a marketing website or on a university’s homepage. So if the institution can’t bring the experience of being on-campus to their Internet destinations, or convey what it is that make them unique, into the first 30 seconds, institutions won’t be able to separate themselves from others that have the same level of experience with that student.

Also, it is important for institutions to delineate the specific qualities and attributes of their students. I would suggest that institutions do everything possible to define their students in a large pool of applicants, and be in position to find those particular students, making a successful first touch upon doing so.

As vice president of business development at Liaison International, Brian Bright advises education businesses on sales, marketing, strategy and development practices using state-of-the-art information technology. He also serves on the Board of ScholorCentric, a company that provides programs for drop-out prevention and at-risk students. Bright’s personal goal is to help improve access to quality education.

See an index of all the "People with Impact" Interviews

Additional sections of this journal address student recruiting and college student retention. We have also placed all articles with a common theme of online education and distance education programs in a separate portal. New articles will be posted each Monday, please check back by bookmarking this site or placing a link to this Innovative Practices in Communicating with Students portal.