Understanding the Pricing Decision Loyola s Position in the Undergraduate Marketplace

Transcription

1 Understanding the Pricing Decision Loyola s Position in the Undergraduate Marketplace AACRAO s SEM Conference November 5, 2012 Marc M. Camille, Ed.D. vice president for enrollment management and communications

2 Agenda Loyola Overview SEM at Loyola Undergraduate Pricing Pre- market-centered SEM Post- market-centered SEM Market-centered pricing Data-driven decisions Implications/Lessons Learned/ Discussion 2

3 Loyola University Maryland Founded in Baltimore, MD in1852 Catholic, Jesuit (8 th oldest and first named for St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits) Master s comprehensive university College of Arts and Sciences; School of Business; School of Education 3,900 undergraduate & 2,200 graduate students 12:1 student-faculty ratio 65+% study abroad 79% 4-year graduation rate Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa NCAA Division I Athletics 3

4 Division of Enrollment Management and Communications Vice President Undergraduate Admission Graduate Admission Institutional Research Financial Aid Marketing and Communications Creative Services Institutional Communications (Media Relations/PR) Web Communications 4

5 What is Enrollment Management? Three definitions: Enrollment management is an organizational system supporting activities associated with the overall enrollment process. Enrollment management is a comprehensive and integrated approach of related functions to enhance and improve the recruitment, retention, and graduation of students. --Jack Maguire, circa mid-1980s Enrollment management is an organizational concept and a systematic set of activities designed to enable educational institutions to exert more influence over their student enrollments. Organized by strategic planning and supported by institutional research, enrollment management activities concern student college choice, transition to college, student attrition and retention, and student outcomes. --Don Hossler, et al., 1990 True enrollment management is a concept and a process. Organizational reporting structures become transparent while integration efforts between offices and divisions work synergistically to improve services and allow the strategic management of the enrollment process. Enrollment is a 'cradle to grave' process that starts at the first point of student contact -- the prospect -- and continues to and through graduation." --Paul Orehovec,

6 What is Strategic Enrollment Management? Strategic Enrollment Management is the systematic evaluation of an institution s competitive market position, the development of a research-based definition of the desired or preferred strategic market position relative to key competitors, and then marshalling and managing institutional plans, priorities, processes, and resources to either strengthen or shift that market position in pursuit of the institution s optimal enrollment, academic, and financial profile. --David Kalsbeek (2003, AACRAO SEM XIII) 6

7 Undergraduate Pricing at Loyola, pre-2006 Beginning in late 1990s, aggressive price increases to reposition the institution higher among its competitors Pricing comparison data included: The other 27 Jesuit institutions Competitors, as determined via ASQ data Institutional benchmarking schools:fairfield, Holy Cross, Providence, Richmond, Rollins, Santa Clara, Scranton, St. Joseph's, Trinity, Villanova Institutional pricing decisions driven by CFO, with CFO objectives and bias driving results 7

8 Jesuit College/University Comparison Data AJCU FINANCE OFFICERS JESUIT UNIVERSITY TUITION/MANDATORY FEES COMPARISON TUITION TUITION TUITION TUITION TUITION TUITION TUITION TUITION TUITION TUITION CARNEGIE TUITION & FEES & FEES & FEES & FEES & FEES & FEES & FEES & FEES & FEES & FEES UNIVERSITY CLASS GEORGETOWN I 20,388 21,405 22,446 23,295 24,168 25,425 26,853 28,209 30,163 32,024 33,934 BOSTON COLLEGE I 18,820 20,292 21,304 22,256 23,270 24,470 25,862 27,522 29,396 31,438 33,506 HOLY CROSS IIB 19,700 21,080 22,005 22,910 23,815 25,020 26,440 28,011 29,686 31,444 33,313 LOYOLA MD IIA 15,460 16,560 18,460 19,930 21,800 23,530 24,910 26,610 28,170 30,500 32,370 FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY IIA 17,360 18,310 19,210 20,435 21,435 22,885 24,555 26,585 28,415 30,235 31,955 SANTA CLARA IIA 15,624 16,635 17,622 19,311 20,577 22,572 23,925 25,365 27,135 28,899 30,900 FORDHAM I 15,800 17,014 18,435 19,490 20,660 22,460 24,090 25,366 26,862 28,447 30,730 LOYOLA MARYMOUNT IIA 15,446 16,467 17,278 18,111 19,383 20,677 21,644 23,504 25,266 27,162 29,779 SAINT JOSEPH'S IIA 14,600 15,950 17,050 18,180 19,700 21,305 22,445 24,325 25,880 27,455 29,095 SAN FRANCISCO IIA 15,020 15,950 16,800 17,910 19,060 20,406 21,780 23,340 24,920 26,960 28,760 LOYOLA - CHICAGO I 14,400 16,054 17,160 18,310 18,838 19,388 20,104 21,202 22,340 24,460 26,710 SAINT LOUIS I 13,900 15,050 16,100 17,230 18,438 19,830 21,008 22,218 23,558 24,958 26,648 SCRANTON IIA 14,800 15,880 16,820 17,740 18,660 19,530 20,448 21,408 22,474 24,030 25,938 REGIS UNIVERSITY IIB 14,100 15,040 15,770 16,670 17,590 18,590 19,550 20,900 22,400 23,700 25,200 CREIGHTON IIA 11,746 12,756 13,394 14,132 14,910 17,136 18,882 19,922 21,118 22,382 25,126 LOYOLA NEW ORLEANS IIA 12,750 13,354 13,888 14,582 15,483 16,700 19,212 21,976 23,468 25,096 25,096 JOHN CARROLL IIA 13,122 13,883 14,670 15,474 16,384 17,828 19,182 20,766 22,308 23,630 25,072 GONZAGA IIA 14,900 15,450 16,060 16,810 17,602 18,542 19,692 20,842 22,062 23,522 25,012 CANISIUS IIA 12,926 13,882 14,552 15,548 16,386 17,536 18,840 20,192 21,811 23,271 24,937 MARQUETTE I 14,710 15,384 15,844 16,488 17,336 18,486 19,760 20,724 21,932 23,346 24,872 SEATTLE IIA 14,265 14,805 15,255 16,110 17,010 17,856 18,855 20,070 21,285 22,905 24,615 DETROIT-MERCY IIA 12,216 12,986 13,572 14,332 15,000 16,300 17,700 19,200 20,970 22,470 23,970 XAVIER IIA 12,950 13,770 14,520 15,070 15,880 16,780 18,020 19,150 20,400 22,430 23,880 WHEELING JESUIT UN. IIB 13,000 14,200 14,710 15,220 16,230 17,240 18,100 19,430 20,310 21,540 22,810 SAINT PETER'S IIB 12,030 13,286 14,366 14,886 15,606 16,552 17,358 18,592 19,750 21,190 22,650 LE MOYNE IIA 12,275 13,455 14,123 14,873 15,663 16,650 17,910 18,940 20,160 21,280 22,580 SPRING HILL COLLEGE IIB 12,990 13,890 14,620 15,340 16,254 17,230 18,092 19,000 19,950 20,948 21,996 ROCKHURST IIB 11,280 11,550 12,070 12,670 13,670 14,970 15,980 17,170 18,560 19,610 20,940 Average Tuition, Increase: 14,521 15,512 16,361 17,261 18,243 19,496 20,757 22,162 23,598 25,190 26,871 8

9 Competitor Institutions: ASQ-based data Loyol a Compar ed t o Top Col l eges i n Cr oss Admi t s Using Possible Tuition and Fee Increases 2003/ / / / / / % 5. 00% 5. 00% 5. 00% 5. 00% Bost on Uni ver si t y 28, , , , , , 892 Geor get own Uni ver si t y 28, , , , , , 003 Col l ege of t he Hol y Cr oss 28, , , , , , 750 Bost on Col l ege 27, , , , , , 483 Fai r f i el d Uni ver si t y 26, , , , , , 930 Vi l l anova Uni ver si t y 26, , , , , , 468 For dham Uni ver si t y 25, , , , , , 374 St. Joseph' s Uni ver si t y 24, , , , , , 046 Pr ovi dence Col l ege 22, , , , , , 246 Uni ver si t y of Scr ant on 21, , , , , , 323 Penn St at e 20, , , , , , 288 U of M Col l ege Par k 17, , , , , , 249 Uni ver si t y of Del awar e 16, , , , , , 456 James Madi son Uni ver si t y 13, , , , , , % 6. 00% 6. 00% 6. 00% 6. 00% Loyol a Col l ege 26, , , , , , 564 Rank ( of 15)

10 Undergraduate Pricing at Loyola, post-2006 Began implementing market-centered EM model and philosophy in fall 2006 Variety of metrics already indicating Loyola s pricing may be outpacing its market position and performance Identify real competitors Educate key stakeholders to market-centered EM and its impact on pricing decisions Institutional pricing decisions driven by VPEMC, with market position data as primary information source 10

11 Market-centered pricing at Loyola Market-centered SEM What distinguishes a market orientation to EM is the focus on the external realities of the marketplace that prescribe parameters and possibilities and position for each college and university. the focus of a market- centered SEM effort is on the structure and symmetry of the higher education marketplace, the institution s particular and empirically demonstrable position within that market, and on its competitive performance within that market. The focus of a market-centered orientation is the market (not marketing) on the institution s competitive position (not positioning) on its differentiating brand identity (not on branding activities). Such a market orientation turns EM s attention to the institution s market position relative to other institutions of higher education. The goal is to ensure the competitiveness of the institution s academic programs and to enhance or elevate its position within its targeted audiences or markets. (Kalsbeek, 2006, College & University) 11

12 Undergraduate Pricing at Loyola Market-centered SEM s focus the external realities of the marketplace the institution s particular and empirically demonstrable position within that market, and on its competitive performance within that market. the institution s market position relative to other institutions of higher education. ensure the competitiveness of the institution s academic programs and to enhance or elevate its position within its targeted audiences or markets. 12

13 Loyola s Competitor and Comparison Institutions Use National Student Clearinghouse data versus relying on ASQ data Newly defined benchmark institutions based on adoption of 2008 strategic plan, with vision to be the leading Catholic, comprehensive university in the nation. Beginning fall 2013, new aspirant group of institutions, based on Patriot League membership 13

14 Competitor Institutions: Undergraduate Admission Rank Institution n Rank Institution n 1 Villanova University Georgetown University Fordham University University of Scranton University of Maryland College Park James Madison University University of Delaware Boston University Boston College Towson University Providence College University of Richmond Saint Joseph s University American University Pennsylvania State University Catholic University Fairfield University Syracuse University College of the Holy Cross Elon University George Washington University New York University Northeastern University Rutgers University Marist College 191 Source: National Student Clearinghouse, admit pools (n = 12,737). 14

15 Competitor Institutions: Undergraduate Admission Top 25 competitors, plus top 9 Catholic comprehensives American University Boston College Boston University Catholic University College of The Holy Cross Creighton University Elon University Fairfield University Fordham University George Washington University Georgetown University Gonzaga University James Madison University Loyola Marymount University Marist College New York University Northeastern University Pennsylvania State University Providence College Rutgers University Santa Clara University Saint Joseph's University Syracuse University Towson University University of Delaware University of Maryland College Park University of Richmond University of Scranton Villanova University Xavier University Patriot League American Army Boston U. Bucknell Colgate Holy Cross Lafayette Lehigh Navy 15

16 Informing Key Stakeholders President s Cabinet Shared Governance Loyola Conference Budget Committee Goal: inform the pricing decision with relevant market position data, conveyed in a way that is more easily understood and interpreted 16

17 Fall Admission Results: FIVE YEAR TRENDS Marc M. Camille, SEM 2012

18 Fall Admission Results: Five Year Trends 1,500 First-Year Class Size 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 1, ,019 1,071 1, Class of 2012 Class of 2013 Class of 2014 Class of 2015 Class of

19 Fall Admission Results: Five Year Trends 13,000 12,500 12,000 11,500 11,000 10,500 10,000 9,500 9,000 8,500 First-Year Application Totals 12,066 10,901 9,117 12,664 5-year change: 66% 8,000 7,623 7,500 7,000 Class of 2012 Class of 2013 Class of 2014 Class of 2015 Class of

20 Fall Admission Results: Five Year Trends 75% First-Year Acceptance Rate 70% 69% 65% 66% 63% 65% 60% 55% 55% 5-year change: 56% increase in number of accepts 50% 45% Class of 2012 Class of 2013 Class of 2014 Class of 2015 Class of

21 Fall Admission Results: Five Year Trends First-Year Yield Rate 24% 22% 20% 18% 16% 14% 20% 16% 17% 14% 5-year change: 7 point decline (35%) 13% 12% 10% Class of 2012 Class of 2013 Class of 2014 Class of 2015 Class of

22 Fall Admission Results: Five Year Trends 4 First-Year Unweighted Mean GPA Class of 2012 Class of 2013 Class of 2014 Class of 2015 Class of

23 Fall Admission Results: Five Year Trends 1600 First-Year SAT 25 th 75 th Percentiles Class of 2012 Class of 2013 Class of 2014 Class of 2015 Class of th % 25th % 23

24 Fall Admission Results: Five Year Trends First-Year Percent Students of Color 24% 22% 22% 23% 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 14% 12% 16% 10% Class of 2012 Class of 2013 Class of 2014 Class of 2015 Class of

25 Fall Admission Results: Five Year Trends 100% First-Year Geographic Origins 90% 80% 80% 76% 74% 72% 71% 70% 60% 50% 54% 52% 48% 49% 47% 40% Class of 2012 Class of 2013 Class of 2014 Class of 2015 Class of 2016 % from NY/NJ % from NY/NJ/MD/PA 25

26 Competitor Pricing ACTUALS Marc M. Camille, SEM 2012

27 Data Sources Total cost of attendance/ tuition and fee/ room & meal plan rate data obtained from institutional web sites and phone calls All other data obtained from US News and World Report web site Pricing Data is for the Academic Year; all other market data is from the Academic Year 27

28 Competitor Pricing 28

29 Total Cost of Attendance Loyola: 75 th percentile (11-12, 65 th ) 29

30 Room Rates Loyola: 77 th percentile (11-12, 74 th ) Note: Rates for Elon and Fairfield include meal plans. 30

31 Market Metrics: DEMAND Marc M. Camille, SEM 2012

32 Total Cost of Attendance vs. Application Totals Loyola: 42 nd percentile (11-12, 42 nd ) Penn State Desired 32

33 Total Cost of Attendance vs. Acceptance Rate Georgetown Loyola: 19 th percentile (11-12, 48 th ) Desired 33

34 Total Cost of Attendance vs. Yield Rate Georgetown Loyola: Last! ( 11-12, 13 th ) Desired 34

35 Total Cost of Attendance vs. SAT, 25 th Percentile Georgetown Loyola: 39 th percentile (11-12, 48 th ) Desired 35

36 Total Cost of Attendance vs. SAT, 75 th Percentile Georgetown Loyola: 35 th percentile (11-12, 35 th ) Desired 36

37 Market Metrics: CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE AND SUCCESS Marc M. Camille, SEM 2012

38 Total Cost of Attendance vs. Student-Faculty Ratio Loyola: 39 th percentile (11-12, 55 th ) University of Richmond Desired 38

39 Total Cost of Attendance vs. % of Classes < 20 Loyola: 39 th percentile (11-12, 58 th ) University of Richmond Desired 39

40 Total Cost of Attendance vs. % of Faculty Full Time Loyola: 58 th percentile (11-12, 58 th ) Penn State Desired 40

41 Total Cost of Attendance vs. % of FT Faculty w/phd/term Degree Loyola: 19 th percentile (11-12, 23 rd ) Saint Joseph s Desired 41

42 Total Cost of Attendance vs. FY-SO Retention Rate Georgetown Loyola: 23 rd percentile (11-12, 39 th ) Desired 42

43 Total Cost of Attendance vs. 4-year Graduation Rate Georgetown Loyola: 70 th percentile (11-12, 63 rd ) Desired Note: missing data for Northeastern University 43

44 Market Metrics: FINANCIAL RESOURCES Marc M. Camille, SEM 2012

45 Total Cost of Attendance vs. Endowment $ per UG Loyola: 35 th percentile (11-12, 36 th ) Holy Cross University of Richmond: $626,000 per UG! Desired 45

46 Total Cost of Attendance vs. Avg.% of need met all UGs Georgetown Boston College Holy Cross University of Richmond Loyola: 84 th percentile (11-12, 83 rd ) Desired 46

47 Total Cost of Attendance vs. Graduates Avg. Loan Debt Boston College Loyola: 39 th percentile (11-12, 59 th ) Desired Note: missing data for Catholic University, Northeastern University, St. Joseph s University 47

48 Market Metrics: REPUTATION AND SATISFACTION Marc M. Camille, SEM 2012

49 Total Cost of Attendance vs. US News Peer Rating Loyola: 55 th percentile (11-12, 58 th ) Villanova Desired 49

50 Total Cost of Attendance vs. Alumni Giving Rate Loyola: 48 th percentile (11-12, 55 th ) Holy Cross Desired 50

51 Lessons Learned/ Implications/ Discussion Need to educate campus community/ key stakeholders regarding market-centered SEM and why institutional market position matters Introducing market-centered SEM on campus takes time, persistence, data low-hanging fruit/ baby steps Market-centered SEM can be humbling be prepared Whatever your EM model/philosophy, market position data should inform academic program development and institutional pricing 51

52 Thank You QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Marc M. Camille, Ed.D.