1 / 89

HCRC Human Capital Research Corporation Evanston, IL

The Art and Design of Enrollment September, 2004. HCRC Human Capital Research Corporation Evanston, IL. 2. Preface

lenore
Télécharger la présentation

HCRC Human Capital Research Corporation Evanston, IL

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Art and Design of Enrollment September, 2004 HCRC Human Capital Research Corporation Evanston, IL

  2. 2 Preface This document provides a broad overview of the current market for postsecondary art and design education and the general market position of the AICAD member institutions. For purposes of this analysis, our study has been organized around six areas of inquiry: • Program Offerings and Primary Providers of Art and Design Education: …………………………………… 3-13 • AICAD’s Competitive Position vis-à-vis the Market at Large: …………………………………………………… 14-48 • Understanding the AICAD Enrollment Funnel: …………………………………………………………………………… 49-54 • Selected Labor Market Aspects for an Art and Design Education: ……………………………………………… 55-63 • The Future Affordability of an AICAD Degree: …………………………………………………………………………… 64-79 • Emergent Demographics and Implications for Market Geography: …………………………………………… 80-89 In contrast with higher education at large or even the subset of private liberal arts education, art and design programs represent a niche market which under the broadest possible definition account for less than 6 percent of total baccalaureate level enrollment – with AICAD’s member institutions holding less than 8 percent of that for a total national share of approximately 0.5 percent. Within that narrow segment, AICAD institutions compete with more than 1,000 institutions for a finite annual pool of roughly 90,000 traditional age prospective students – and ultimately for a considerably smaller fraction of students who possess not only the talent to be admissible, but the ability and willingness to pay for an independent art and design education. About the data – This report is a fully revised and updated edition of the materials distributed at the April 2, 2004 presentation by Human Capital Research at AICAD’s annual meeting in Toronto. As with the original report, information used to support this analysis was derived primarily from public domain sources, however data sources have been updated and reflect the most recent issues of the following: Common Data Set (CDS), the Integrated Postsecondary Education Surveys (IPEDS), Institutional Fiscal Operation Reports and Application for the Federal Campus Based Aid Programs (FISAP), The 2000 Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) and the Census-BLS Current Population Survey (CPS).

  3. 3 • Program Offerings and Primary Providers of Art and Design Education Slides 4-15 present an overview of the various degree programs offered by the AICAD member institutions for the undergraduate and graduate market at large, based on the IPEDS Degree Completion Survey for Fiscal 02. • Key Observations: • In FY02 AICAD schools collectively conferred 5,406 Bachelor degrees across 41 of 51 program areas identified by detailed CIP and Sector. Apart from AICAD, nationally, 1,329 institutions – including 481 publics, 794 independents, and 52 proprietary colleges conferred an additional 76,442 Bachelor degrees in the 51 program areas. In all, students aspiring to an “Art and Design Related” Bachelor’s Degree can choose from across more than 1,800 degree programs. • At the graduate level, there is greater concentration of program offerings with fewer institutional options. For FY02, AICAD schools collectively conferred 1,406 advanced degrees across 44 of a total 52 program areas, compared with 18,699 degrees for all other institutions – including 278 publics, 207 non-AICAD independents and 22 proprietary colleges. • In fields where 200 or more Bachelor degrees are conferred, AICAD institutions held a disproportionate market share in program areas: Commercial and Advertising Art, Fine/Studio Arts, Architecture, Photography, Industrial Design, Film/Video and Photographic Arts, Visual and Performing Arts, Design and Visual Communications, Fine Arts and Art Studies, Interior Design, Industrial Design, Fashion/Apparel Design, Film/Video and Photographic Arts, Design and Applied Arts, Painting, and Sculpture • In fields with a minimum of 200 degrees conferred at the graduate level, AICAD institutions’ dominant programs include: Fine/Studio Arts, Photography, Painting, Commercial and Advertising Art, Art Teacher Education, Other Art Therapy/Therapist. • Based on degrees conferred data, AICAD institutions as a group have substantially increased their market share at the graduate level since FY95 from 5.8% to 6.9% FY02. At the Baccalaureate level, the market share trend is mixed, peaking in FY99 at 7.6% with a modest but steady decline thereafter to 6.6% FY02. Methodological Issues: Because IPEDS does not distinguish between Fine Arts (BFA or MFA) and Liberal Arts Degrees, AICAD’s effective market is considerably smaller and its relative market share is considerably larger.

  4. 4 Total Art and Design Related Bachelor Degree Programs by Detailed CIP Code and Sector: 2001-2002 Academic Year Number of Bachelor Degree Programs Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02

  5. 5 Total Art and Design Related Bachelor Degrees Awarded by Detailed CIP Code and Sector: 2001-2002 Academic Year Number of Bachelor Degrees Awarded Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02

  6. 6 AICAD Share of Total Art and Design Related Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded (41 of a Total 51 Degree Programs Detailed by CIP and Sector) Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02

  7. 7 Total Art and Design Related Graduate Degree Programs by Detailed CIP Code and Sector: 2001-2002 Academic Year Number of Graduate Degree Programs Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02

  8. 8 Total Art and Design Related Graduate Degrees Awarded by Detailed CIP Code and Sector: 2001-2002 Academic Year Number of Graduate Degrees Awarded Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02

  9. 9 AICAD Share of Total Art and Design Related Graduate Degrees Awarded (43 of a Total 52 Degree Programs Detailed by CIP and Sector) Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02

  10. 10 Eight Year Trend in AICAD Share of Total Art and Design Related Degrees by Level Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 95 to FY 02

  11. 11 Largest Private Non-Profit Sector Producers of Bachelor Degrees in Kindred Fields in FY 2002 Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02

  12. 12 Largest Public Sector Producers of Bachelor Degrees in Kindred Fields in FY 2002 Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02

  13. 13 Largest Public Sector Producers of Graduate Degrees in Kindred Fields in FY 2002 Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02

  14. 14 Largest Private Non-Profit Sector Producers of Graduate Degrees in Kindred Fields in FY 2002 Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02

  15. 15 Largest Private For-Profit Sector Producers of Bachelor and Graduate Degrees in Kindred Fields in FY 2002 Source: IPEDS Degree Completion Survey, FY 02

  16. 16 • AICAD’s Competitive Position vis-à-vis the Market at Large Slides 17 to 48 provide an overview of the AICAD institutions and their primary market competition. Particular attention is paid to key operating ratios for independent colleges and universities cross-tabulated against the dimensions of net tuition and academic profile. • Key Observations: • Slide 17 shows a scatter plot of all independent institutions in the Art and Design market by: net tuition per student, academic profile (which incorporates standardized test scores, high school GPA, class rank percentile, and freshmen to sophomore retention) and number of Baccalaureate degrees conferred in kindred programs. Note that the relative size of each of the bubbles is proportional to the number of degrees conferred. Based on a wide range of criteria these two dimensions -net tuition revenue and student profile- have proven to be highly reliable indicators of market position. While profile index fails to account for artistic talent, strength of profile – regardless of other talents remains an important surrogate for gauging a student’s options and “worth” in the education marketplace. • Vis-à-vis all independents, with the notable exception of the Ivy League and First-Tier Liberal Arts Colleges, the AICAD institutions as a group tend to serve students with comparatively higher academic profiles, and realize comparatively greater net tuition per student than the market at large. They also – generally but with some variance, tend to maintain larger programs in the art and design disciplines than the majority of their less specialized institutional counterparts. Slide 18 provides the identical information to Slide 17 but includes all public colleges and universities as well. • Slide 19 identifies the comparative market position of the AICAD schools based on net tuition and student profile quintile rankings for all independent institutions - as shown in the prior two slides. Slide 20 shows the total number of independent institutions in the peer group sample and slide 21 share of degrees awarded across this peer group. • Our motivation for isolating the AICAD schools by cell in is twofold: first, to give each member school a sense of its relative market position (with the important caveat that our two criteria are not a be-all end-all measure, but rather merely a surrogate); and second, to help pinpoint an appropriate reference group for purposes of benchmarking their own operation – as presented in the balance of slides in this section. Note: With the incorporation of the most recent CDS, IPEDS and FISAP data, and a revised definition of Market Position which includes a more comprehensive index of academic profile (described above), the peer analysis section of this updated report is not directly comparable to the materials distributed in April, 2004.

  17. Relative Market Position of AICAD Institutions (Orange) and all other Independent Colleges and Universities (Blue) Offering Bachelor Degrees in Kindred Fields 17 Net Tuition Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics: FY 03, IPEDS Student Financial Aid Survey: FY 03, HCRC Custom Tabulation

  18. Relative Market Position of AICAD Institutions (Orange), all other Independent Colleges and Universities (Blue), and all Public Institutions (Green) Offering Bachelor Degrees in Kindred Fields 18 Net Tuition Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics: FY 03, IPEDS Student Financial Aid Survey: FY 03, HCRC Custom Tabulation

  19. 19 AICAD Institutions by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release, IPEDS Institutional Characteristics: FY 03, IPEDS Student Financial Aid Survey: FY 03, HCRC Custom Tabulation

  20. 20 486 Independent Colleges and Universities in the Peer Group Sample by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  21. 21 Peer Group Share of Art and Design Related Degrees Awarded by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  22. 22 AICAD Peer Group Norms • The AICAD peer group norms are based on a sample of 486 independent colleges and universities with kindred art and design degree offerings that completed the most recent Common Data Set, IPEDS and FISAP reports. • In all, 24 ratios are presented, organized around three topics: • Enrollment Funnel: • Slides 22 to 28 show a series of measures related to size of applicant pool, admission selectivity, yield, and entering enrollment. Broadly speaking these various measures of “draw” - perhaps with the exception of enrollment yield, all correlate highly with market position. Naturally, the stronger the position of the institution the greater its application volume, geographic market range, and selectivity. Size of operation also tends to correlate highly with position and potentially contributes both to economies of scale and market identity. If at the end of the day we were forced to chose a single benchmark from this set it would be the simple ratio of applications to matrics (new entering students). Ultimately it is application volume that enables institutions to effectively shape its entering class and manage the difficult tradeoffs between student profile and net tuition. • The Enrollment Funnel • Current Family and Institutional Resources • Financial Aid

  23. 23 Median Applicant for Admission Volume by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Profile Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  24. 24 Median Percent of Undergraduates from Out of State by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Profile Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  25. 25 Median Freshmen Admit Rate by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Profile Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  26. 26 Median Enrollment Yield by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Profile Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  27. 27 Median Size of the Entering Freshmen Cohort by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Profile Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  28. 28 Median Ratio of Applicants to Matrics by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Profile Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  29. 29 • AICAD Peer Group Norms • Family and Institutional Resources: • Observations Concerning Gross and Net Price • Slides 30 to 32 show peer group medians for Sticker Tuition and Fees; Tuition Discount; and Net Tuition Revenue – all of which are highly correlated with market position. As the cost of attendance has continued to rise at a faster rate than inflation and family income, all three measures have become a focal point of government, trustees, families, and college administrators. Despite years of discussion and deliberation however, it is our contention that remarkably little is understood either about the price that students actually pay, or ultimately what stands behind an institution’s discount and net tuition revenue. Essentially, price is dictated by market position – and while many institutions engage in price manipulation to affect their position, such efforts should be recognized at best as a short-run strategy. • Of the various factors that contribute to an institution’s tuition discount, none is more influential than the level of demonstrated financial need. Ironically, we have seen many financial aid offices are called to task for “overspending” the aid budget when the underlying issues come back to application volume and the ability of the institution to matriculate low- and no-need students who are willing and able to pay at or near the full cost of attendance. Even in instances when gapping and preferential packaging result in lower discount, they are likely to simultaneously contribute to increased deposit melt, account receivable problems, attrition, loan defaults and ultimately to a weaker market position.

  30. 30 Median Fall 03 Sticker Tuition and Fees by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Profile Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  31. 31 Median Fall 03 Undergraduate Tuition Discount by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Profile Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  32. 32 Median Fall 03 Undergraduate Net Tuition Revenue Per Student by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Profile Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  33. 33 AICAD Peer Group Norms • Financial Aid: • Observations Concerning Financial Need and Need Met • Slides 34 to 43 highlight differences in the incidence of students applying for aid, those demonstrating financial need, and in the comparative quality of aid packages and sources of aid. Few factors point more clearly to the social hierarchy within higher education than the disparity in family resources by school market position. This is reflected both in the overall proportion of students applying for aid and the proportion of students demonstrating need – and hence in the average need of all students – remarkably despite the fact that the cost of attendance among first and second tier schools is typically $10,000 to $15,000 above that of lower rated institutions. • At the same time as lower rated schools face a greater demand for aid, they are less likely to have sufficient resources to meet full need. As a result, we see a significantly higher incidence of students with unmet need (gaps) and higher levels of debt at lower rated institutions – factors which ultimately serve to weaken a school’s market position. For middle market institutions that have successfully managed to raise their student profile, the disparity in quality of aid packages compared with first- and second-tier schools almost invariably suggests an uphill climb as they try and match the financial aid offers of their new found competition. • Coupled with far greater reliance on government support, rising interest rates, a growing public-private price gap, little or no endowment, and a limited capacity to realize marginal income on tuition increases, the fiscal future for dozens of the nation’s lower rated independent colleges has become increasingly tenuous. • For middle market institutions that have successfully managed to raise their student profile, the disparity in quality of aid packages compared with first- and second-tier schools almost invariably suggests an uphill climb as they try and match the need-based offers of their new found competition. At the same time, because higher profile institutions are less likely to offer merit- or non-need aid, a number of middle-market schools have managed to buy their way to a higher profile by focusing on low- and non-needy students who would otherwise be “full-pays” at higher rated institutions. Based on our own financial aid modeling experience we have estimated as much as a 50 point decrease in SAT scores given the elimination of merit aid – hence our motivation for ranking schools on the basis of both strength of profile and net tuition.

  34. 34 Median Percent of Freshmen Applying for Aid by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  35. 35 Median Percent of Freshmen Demonstrating Financial Need by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  36. 36 Median Percent of Freshmen Whose Need is Fully Met by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  37. 37 Median Percent of Need Met (for Freshmen Demonstrating Financial Need) From All Sources of Aid by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  38. 38 Median Percent of Need Met with Grant by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  39. 39 Median Government Share of All Grant Aid Awarded by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  40. 40 Median Endowment per FTE Student by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  41. 41 Three Year Average Perkins Loan Default Rate by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  42. 42 Median Percent of Non-Needy Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  43. 43 Median Percent of Full-Pay Freshmen by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  44. 44 AICAD Peer Group Norms • Observations Concerning Retention and Graduation Rates • Slides 45 to 48, the final set of peer slides, show group medians for freshmen to sophomore retention and graduation rates. From a return on education investment standpoint, these slides are among the most important benchmarks because of the profound relationship between timely graduation and the cost of a college degree and degree completion and a student’s earnings after college. • While retention, timely graduation and degree completion are all highly correlated with an institution’s strength of position, it is crucial to recognize that these measures of themselves are not a value added measure. Indeed, 71 percent of the variance in five-year graduation rates among the peer institutions represented in this analysis is accounted for by strength of academic profile alone. By implication, the comparatively high graduation and retention rates observed for a majority of high profile schools potentially has a much to do with the caliber of student as the quality of experience they provide. • Nonetheless, there remains a very strong body of statistical evidence suggesting little or no difference in earnings between a high school graduate and a college dropout. And from a competitive market standpoint, timely graduation remains the single most important strategy for mitigating the price spread between and public and private institutions. In fact, using even a modest allowance for first year earnings after college, the cost of a Bachelor’s degree completed within four years at a private institution is almost universally less expensive than it would be at a public given five or more years to completion.

  45. 45 Median Freshmen to Sophomore Retention by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  46. 46 Median Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  47. 47 Median Five-Year Cohort Graduation Rate by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  48. 48 Median Six-Year Cohort Graduation Rate by Comparative Market Position Net Tuition Top 20% 4th Quintile Middle Quintile 2nd Quintile Bottom 20% Bottom 20% 2nd Quintile Middle Quintile 4th Quintile Top 20% Profile (Academic Preparation and Freshmen-Sophomore Retention) Source: Common Data Set, Fiscal 04 Release

  49. 49 • Understanding the AICAD Enrollment Funnel • Based on National Longitudinal Studies Data, College Board, and ACT Test-taker statistics, there are approximately 480,000 college bound seniors who have acquired at least some art and design studio experience during their high school years. Of that number, nearly one in five will enroll in an art and design program. While the number of new entering freshmen at any of AICAD’s institutions is only a fraction of this pool (AICAD freshmen cohort range from fewer than 20 students up to about 500), in the scheme of enrollment marketing a potential pool of 90,000 is remarkably small – particularly in light of the number of prospective institutions and program offerings available. • Given the comparatively small size of this prospective pool, it is highly likely that AICAD institutions as a group share a very large number of cross-applications. In turn this raises a number of issues with regard both to long-run market potential and marketing strategy – particularly given the combined direct marketing costs that these institutions annually incur as a normal part of their recruitment effort. • Looking at recent SAT test-taker data alone, the proportion of college bound students with an expressed interest in art and design and the related discipline of photography has gradually declined but has effectively been offset by a steadily increasing number of college bound seniors. • Slides 50 to 54 show basic enrollment statistics for the AICAD member institutions. While there is a wide variance across the group as a whole, the individual school data closely mirrors the patterns observed in our peer group series and thematically leads us to the same conclusions voiced earlier concerning the crucial role that application volume plays in shaping an entering class.

  50. 50 Undergraduate Art and Design Enrollment Funnel: Source: College Board National Profile of College Bound Seniors, ACT National Score Report, NCES – NELS 88

More Related