2. Introductions
Joshua LaFave; Director, Center for Graduate
Studies at SUNY Potsdam; NAGAP Research and
Global Issues Chair
Christopher Connor; Assistant Dean for Graduate
Enrollment Management Services, SUNY Buffalo,
NAGAP Research and Global Issues Committee
Member
Erinn Lake; Assistant Dean, School of Graduate
Studies and Research and School of Education,
Edinboro University of PA
Ariana Balayan; Assistant Director, Graduate
Admissions, Sacred Heart University, NEGAP VP
3. Agenda
Introduction of the project (scope, progress)
Ambiguity in GEM
Literature Review
Project (Integrated Interdependence)
Overview
Survey Responses
Qualitative Feedback
Two Models – small/medium & large institutions
Bringing it all together (second hour exercises)
4. Learning Objectives
Recognize the need for GEM professionals to
think beyond working in a silo
Aspects of GEM are both dynamic and
interdependent
Learn the benefits of integrating and improving
services for graduate students through cross-
training and organizational structure
Evaluate own operations through exercises to
see where there might be opportunities to be a
catalyst for change
Ground practitioners in academic literature on EM
and SEM as it relates to GEM
5. Scope and Context
How this project began
Practitioner oriented view
Learning from individuals in our profession (benchmarking)
NAGAP and its role
Change of our membership
Evolution of our profession
Graduate student needs and differentiated student experience
Changes in resources (i.e. budgets, staffing)
Hypothesis to “best practices”
Can we continue the dialogue, adapt the way we do business to
improve graduate student experience and define key best practices of
GEM?
Can this be accomplished in constrictive environments where
resources continue to be squeezed?
6. Ambiguity in GEM
Practice of service silos for both incoming
and continuing graduate students- The blurry
line of where the onboarding process of a student
is admitted/enrolled where they go next can be
confusing and problematic. Who’s responsible?
The hand off “across the line in the sand” can
create confusion for graduate students. In fact,
this can even be problematic within a Graduate
School or Academic unit’s graduate recruitment
and students services where the two pieces
operate independently.
7. Ambiguity in GEM
SHOULD there be an established encompassing
Graduate Enrollment Management Services
operation to cultivate a initial awareness to
alumna(us) approach?
8. Driving Factors
Changes in resources
Do more with less
Increased reliance on graduate and professional
enrollment
Structures not in-sync with pace of change
More competition
Changing landscape of expectations
Retention as a critical component of recruitment
Faculty are getting younger
Research focus for tenure more reliance on support
services
Need for concrete identity and presence on
campus
10. Literature Review in GEM
Dissertation study
Enrollment Management
Era of accountability in higher education
Origin of the concept (Henderson, 2012)
Collaborative, systems process-can lead to
sustainable change, growth (Ingersoll & Ingersoll,
2012)
Building on the traditional admissions funnel
11. Literature Review in GEM
Significant gap in academic literature on GEM
Academic literature on GEM specifically
Apply concepts from EM/SEM to GEM
Next steps in to bridge the gap
call to action
surveymonkey.com/s/NAGAP360v
2
13. Comparing UEM and GEM
Undergraduate Models
Primarily centralized recruitment
Coordinates all aspects of
student lifecycle under one
umbrella
Higher staffing levels
Definitive starting and stopping
point of staff roles/responsibilities
beyond primary function
Campus leadership in tune with
enrollment issues/needs
Graduate Models
Primarily decentralized recruitment
Some coordination and oversight
but generally fractured/complex
Do more with less
Evolution to increasing
responsibilities of staff roles beyond
primary function
Clarity?
Perceived lack of
knowledge/support from the
campus leadership
14. Comparing UEM and GEM
Undergraduate Models
History
Academic quality: Institutional
Service oriented
Current models based on long
standing enrollment management
Enrollment Management Division*
Primary
Graduate Models
Emerging/Evolving
Academic quality: Program
External student service
resources outside primary
graduate enterprise
Current models based on
admissions
Enrollment Management
Division*
Secondary
*See cited works
15. Comparing UEM and GEM
Undergraduate Models
SEM
Holistic/homogenous
Emerging Model:
Bridging gap to academic
enterprise
Capitalizing on uniqueness of
academic programs
Re-examining recruitment
practices
Graduate Models
SEM
Fractured at institutional level
/specialized
Moving towards central
graduate coordination
Emerging Model:
GEM Model
Seamless service/full
service orientation
prospect through graduation
Academic units or
Institutional
Relationship cultivation
16. Preliminary Assessment
Much of GEM operates in one direction
Collaboration with interdependence exists –
Integrated within the student lifecycle by
necessity
Differentiated service delivery & the graduate
student
Institutional impacts on GEM
How do you define a true GEM model?
Integrated in the sense of functional core
Interdependent in that each core to enrollment
management works through the entire student
experience as one unified entity
18. Our Analysis and Research Plan
Phase I: Focus groups with attendees at the winter institute in
January 2013
Phase II: Focus groups at NAGAP’s annual conference in April
2013
Phase III: Survey attendees at NAGAP summer institute in July
2013
Phase IV: Multiple NAGAP state chapter participation
Phase V: Survey distributed to NAGAP, NASPA and other
organizations
Phase VI: Distribute a publication of findings, usable practices,
and an understanding of Graduate Enrollment Management for
today’s professionals in Summer 2014
Identify and plan follow up research based upon key findings
Potential partnership with EAIE for global analysis of
21. Interdependent Model in GEM
Enrollment Planning Admissions & Recruitment
Financial
Aid/Grants/Scholarships
New Student Services Academic Advising Graduation
Practice of “silo’ing” aspects of the student
lifecycle
Awareness Alumna/
Alumnus
22. Hypothesis: Integrated Interdependence
Emphasis the student experience in constrictive resource
environments while improving productivity and nurturing
efficiency
Encourage stakeholders to be engaged at every part of
student lifecycle experience
Cross trained team – holistic support
Build bridges beyond the academic units to key strategic
administrative leaders
Planning and Budgets
SEM
Unified as a single entity can bring issues to the surface to
increase awareness of campus leadership
24. Integrated Interdependence Critique
Model makes sense for smaller schools and
academic units but what about large institutions?
Concerns of senior leadership’s buy-in at the
graduate level
Is it utopian to expect individuals to be cross-
trained?
Role definition
Staffing levels
26. Nexus Model of Integrated Interdependence
Academic units within single institution may have
varying levels of dependency on central support
Infrastructure
Business School vs. Arts and Sciences
Central GEM office serves as nexus between senior
leadership and academic unit
Coordination
Collaboration and partnerships between academic units
Graduate Education Advocacy
Unify all aspects of the graduate student life cycle as
one coordinated entity
Increase awareness of graduate enrollment management
to campus leadership
Evolution of our profession
35. Testing Hypothesis of Integrated
Interdependence Model
34%
54%
7%
5%
Please select the answer you most strongly
identify with
This Model was very clear
and I understand what it
represents
Some of the model makes
sense, however it is not
100% clear
I don't understand wha the
model represents,
however I agree with the
concepts
36. Generalized Outcomes
Differences between undergraduate and graduate
enrollment management
Strategic alignment of GEM by institutions’ senior
leadership revealed a disconnect
Strategic enrollment management remains at Dean’s level
Higher-level involvement reserved for headcount issues
or short-term situations
Communication between functions vs. collaboration
between departments
Partnerships
37. Bringing it all Together
“The start of important research and conversations”
38. What does all of this tell us?
Admissions and recruitment appears to no longer
be the primary focus of our roles and
responsibilities
Change of our membership parallels those at
institutions
Dynamic
Emergence of strategic
accountability/responsibility at the operational
level
Need for increased partnerships with niche sister
organizations in GEM student lifecycle (EAIE,
NASPA, AACRAO, NASFA, CGS, etc.)
Growing pains of GEM
Identity struggles on our campuses
39. Working Definition of GEM
Graduate Enrollment Management (GEM) represents
a comprehensive approach to the methods by
which an institution recruits, admits, supports, retains,
and graduates post-baccalaureate students in their
respective degree programs. This dynamic paradigm
includes codependent functions working
congruently to strategically manage overall
enrollment levels and the student experience. These
include enrollment planning, marketing, recruitment
and admissions, advisement/coaching, financial aid,
student services, retention, and alumni relations.
40. Working Definition of GEM
Regardless of staffing levels, Integrated Interdependence
in GEM will ideally create an environment whereby a
cross-trained professional from a graduate office is able
to support a student throughout their time at the
institution. This approach creates an environment that
sustains differentiated student experiences.
GEM organizational structures have multiple models
that range from decentralized to centralized, including a
number of hybrid models (options). Two emerging
concepts support institutional priorities that address
budgetary constraints and structure/staffing limitations,
while simultaneously focusing on the student’s
experience and the institution’s competitive
advantage.
41. The “elevator” version
Graduate Enrollment Management (GEM) is a
comprehensive approach to managing the graduate
student lifecycle from initial awareness to
alumna/alumnus by integrating the core functions
associated with the enrollment and support of a
graduate student.
42. Where do we go from here?
Closer examination of individual organizational structure
Senior Leadership
Key Stakeholders
Technology and systems
Responsibility to act as change agents and advocates by
increasing the visibility, knowledge, uniqueness and
importance of graduate education
Better define what we do
Participation in campus committees, projects, new initiatives
etc.
Case Studies & Survey
(surveymonkey.com/s/understandingGEM)
43. *Cited works
Campbell, R. 1980. Future enrollment goals via traditional institutional strengths.
Presentation made at the annual conference of the American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers, on April 22, in New Orleans.
Caren, W.A., and F.R. Kemerer. 1979. The internal dimensions of institutional marketing.
College and University. 54(2):173–88.
Fram, E. 1975. Organizing the marketing focus in higher education. Paper presented at the
annual forum of the Association of Institutional Research, in May, in St. Louis.
Henderson, S. E. (2012). Integrating evolving perspectives: The roots and wings of
strategic enrollment management. In B. Bontrager, D. Ingersoll, & R. Ingersoll (Eds.),
Strategic enrollment
management: Transforming higher education (pp. 1-21). Washington, D. C.: American
Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.
Hossler, D., and J.P. Bean. 1990. The Strategic Management of College Enrollments. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hossler, D. 2005. The enrollment management process. In Challenging and Supporting the
First-year Student, edited by M.L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner, and B.O. Barefoot, pp. 67–85. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ingersoll, R., & Ingersoll, D. (2012). SEM and change management. In B. Bontrager, D.
Ingersoll, & R. Ingersoll (Eds.), Strategic enrollment management: Transforming higher
education (pp.
253-269). Washington, D. C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers.
Kreutner, L., and E.S. Godfrey. 1980–81. Enrollment management: A new vehicle for
institutional renewal. College Board Review. 118(Winter):6–9, 29.
44. Contact Information
Josh LaFave, lafavejj@potsdam.edu
Chris Connor, cconnor@buffalo.edu
Ariana Balayan, ariana.balayan@gmail.com
Erinn Lake, lake@edinboro.edu
45. Hour Two – Sharing and Reframing
Breakouts and Networking
46. Breakouts
Goals for this half of the session
Table Breakouts
Large graduate population = >5,000
Small populations = <5,000
Each table needs a moderator and recorder
(PLEASE!)
With the last exercise, please wait to get your
picture taken
47. Round Table Discussions
In reviewing the GEM model, please identify
those areas where your current institution
performs well
Please list examples of your success in those areas
Feel free to include any performance
benchmarks/data that may be available
In reviewing the GEM model, please identify
those areas where your current institution is
challenged or needs to improve
Please explain those challenges
Feel free to include benchmark data which could
explain the challenges
48. Round Table Discussions
Do you think the GEM model could be adopted by
your institution?
If yes, why do you think it can be easily adopted?
If, no, why not?
What do you like best about the GEM
model? Why?
What do you like least about the GEM
model? Why?
Please list areas where you think the model can
be improved
49. The Working Definition of GEM
Review the document at your tables outlining a
draft working definition of Graduate Enrollment
Management. Provide the following:
Critiques
What’s missing?
What does GEM mean to you? Your institution?
50. Working Definition of GEM
Graduate Enrollment Management (GEM) represents
a comprehensive approach to the methods by
which an institution recruits, admits, supports, retains,
and graduates post-baccalaureate students in their
respective degree programs. This dynamic paradigm
includes codependent functions working
congruently to strategically manage overall
enrollment levels and the student experience. These
include enrollment planning, marketing, recruitment
and admissions, advisement/coaching, financial aid,
student services, retention, and alumni relations.
51. Working Definition of GEM
Regardless of staffing levels, Integrated Interdependence
in GEM will ideally create an environment whereby a
cross-trained professional from a graduate office is able
to support a student throughout their time at the
institution. This approach creates an environment that
sustains differentiated student experiences.
GEM organizational structures have multiple models
that range from decentralized to centralized, including a
number of hybrid models (options). Two emerging
concepts support institutional priorities that address
budgetary constraints and structure/staffing limitations,
while simultaneously focusing on the student’s
experience and the institution’s competitive
advantage.
Hinweis der Redaktion
The way I read this is that we want to propose to move to an undergraduate model. I feel like undergraduate is very siloed, there is too much independence/interdependence.
Graduate is very academically integrated and based upon close knit relationships
Undergraduate is….
