Enrollment Management and Graduate Employment Outcomes

Public

Discussion:

Kathy,

When you say you'd love it if your school could be "more selective" in the admissions process, this statement can be misconstrued. The goal isn't to be
"more selective" per se but rather, identify opportunity to have more appropriate evidence-based admissions criteria that correlate to student success (student success defined as becoming employed upon graduation vs. simply graduating). I know this is likely what you mean but I wanted to re-state this because although it may seem as if it is semantics, I think it makes a big difference when we communicate it this way because it more accurately reflects the best practice discussed in the course. To be "more selective" isn't really the goal as if to say, "only admit the more elite students." The real goal is to analyze existing data to discover opportunities to implement evidence-based interventions that can improve graduate employment outcomes. This is simply an objective process of data analysis and important to any institutional effectiveness plan.

If an institution has strong data that clearly demonstrates a need for more appropriate admissions criteria, it should be considered. In your particular institution, do you have such data? Has there been an analysis of internal data from which to make any suggestions for either new admissions criteria or assessments during the admissions process to target individuals who may demonstrate a higher likelihood of risk and thus, may need targeted, intense intervention?

You raise good points that certain academic evaluations may prove beneficial and if the suggestion is to implement assessments to improve service to students vs. new admissions criteria that may prevent certain students from enrolling, I'm wondering if you would get buy-in for this enhancement suggestion that could improve graduate employment outcomes.

I think this is a good example of where buy-in from institutional leaders who have the authority to make such decisions is absolutely necessary to implement institution-wide best practices. This is also an example of the role of internal consultant that Career professionals play using their expertise to make suggestions for institutional improvements. If career professionals can arm themselves with the proper data, suggestions to improve institutional effectiveness would be more persuasive as they would be derived from data vs. mere opinion. I wish you luck in your perpetual goal of maximizing graduate outcomes.

Robert Starks Jr.

Kathy, When you say you'd love it if your school could be "more selective" in the admissions process, this statement can be misconstrued. The goal isn't to be "more selective" per se but rather, identify opportunity to have more appropriate evidence-based admissions criteria that correlate to student success (student success defined as becoming employed upon graduation vs. simply graduating). I know this is likely what you mean but I wanted to re-state this because although it may seem as if it is semantics, I think it makes a big difference when we communicate it this way because it more accurately reflects the best practice discussed in the course. To be "more selective" isn't really the goal as if to say, "only admit the more elite students." The real goal is to analyze existing data to discover opportunities to implement evidence-based interventions that can improve graduate employment outcomes. This is simply an objective process of data analysis and important to any institutional effectiveness plan. If an institution has strong data that clearly demonstrates a need for more appropriate admissions criteria, it should be considered. In your particular institution, do you have such data? Has there been an analysis of internal data from which to make any suggestions for either new admissions criteria or assessments during the admissions process to target individuals who may demonstrate a higher likelihood of risk and thus, may need targeted, intense intervention? You raise good points that certain academic evaluations may prove beneficial and if the suggestion is to implement assessments to improve service to students vs. new admissions criteria that may prevent certain students from enrolling, I'm wondering if you would get buy-in for this enhancement suggestion that could improve graduate employment outcomes. I think this is a good example of where buy-in from institutional leaders who have the authority to make such decisions is absolutely necessary to implement institution-wide best practices. This is also an example of the role of internal consultant that Career professionals play using their expertise to make suggestions for institutional improvements. If career professionals can arm themselves with the proper data, suggestions to improve institutional effectiveness would be more persuasive as they would be derived from data vs. mere opinion. I wish you luck in your perpetual goal of maximizing graduate outcomes. Robert Starks Jr.