2010 TeensTALK Research Findings

TeensTALK®
A Review of College-Bound Teen Trends,
Attitudes, Lifestyles and Knowledge

Eric Sickler
Principal Consultant

eric.sickler@stamats.com
319.431.5043
Twitter: ericsickler

About Stamats
Stamats is a higher education marketing thought leader with a distinct,
customized-solutions approach to the marketplace. Our array of time-
tested services has set the standard for a marketing partner: actionable,
research-based counsel that can inform effective, multiple-media creative
solutions and strategic thinking. We promise our clients the highest level
of professional service and attention to detail because we know our
success is measured by theirs.
Research Creative Services
• Image, perception, and brand studies • Creative concepting
• Recruiting, marketing, brand, and • Web strategies
academic program marketability audits • Recruiting and advancement
• Tuition Pricing ElasticityTM studies publications
• Communication process mapping

Methodology
• Nationwide survey of 500 high school students who will attend
college as first-year freshman in fall 2010
• 2009 summer interviews conducted in June
• 2009 fall interviews conducted in November
• 2010 spring interviews conducted in February–March
• Sampling at random (probability sample) to provide rigorous
data set for accurate assessment of college-selection decision
process

Methodology
• Format provides a means to compare and contrast national figures
with results among individual institution prospective students. Key
issues include:
– Timing of selection (Is the national audience ahead of, equal to, or
behind the population of prospective students for individual
institutions in terms of making final selection decisions?)
– Number of visits, applications submitted, and deposits paid
(currently and in the future)
– Absolute and relative importance of specific factors in decision
about which colleges to consider
– Details of top choice college currently and incidence of having
made final decision
– Acceptable and preferred communication methods
– Involvement of others in college selection process

Geographic Dispersion of Spring Respondents

Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)

Spring Respondent Demographics: Gender, Ethnicity

Respondent Gender Respondent Ethnicity
Hispanic
10% Mixed, other
2%
Asian
8%
Male, 47%

Black, Afr. Am.
12%

Female, 53% White,
Caucasion
68%


Spring Respondent Demographics: Parent Education,
Respondent High School Rank

Parent Educational Attainment Respondent High School Rank

4-yr. Top 50% Bottom
10% 50%
degree Top 25%
33% 3%
Graduate 16%
work Don't
24% know
Top15% 21%
2-yr.
12%
degree
8% High
College, school or
no degree less Top 10% Top 5%
13% 22% 16% 22%


Spring Respondent Demographics: Taken ACT Exam?

Took ACT, Percent with ACT score of:
55%

50%
40% 31%
28%
30% 21%
20% 13%
7%
10%
0%
Not taken <19 19 to 22 23 to 26 27 to 30 31+
• Mean score: 25.6; Median score: 27.0
ACT, 45%


Spring Respondent Demographics: Taken SAT Exam?

Percent with SAT score of:
Have not
taken SAT, 60%
40%

40%
26% 24%
23%

20% 13% 14%

Took SAT, 0%
60% 1000 or 1001 to 1151 to 1301 to 1451+
less 1150 1300 1450

• Mean score:1196; Median score:1255


College Consideration and Selection

Fall 2009: Number of Applications Submitted

Percent submitting applications to:
1 school
16%

0 schools • Mean number of
17%
applications: 2.9
• Median number of
applications: 2.0
10+ schools
5%
• Strong majority of
2 to 4 schools prospective students
40% have applied to one or
5 to 9 schools more schools
22%

Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)

Spring 2010: Number of Applications Submitted

Percent submitted applications to:
1 school
25% • Mean number of
applications: 3.8
0 schools • Median number of
5% applications: 3.0
10+ schools • Strong majority of
6% prospective students
2 to 4 schools
42% have applied to one or
more schools
5 to 9 schools
22%


Number of School Acceptances

• Mean number accepted: 2.7
Percent accepted at:
• Median number accepted:
1 school 1.0
38%
0 schools
14% • Strong majority of
prospective students have
10+ schools been accepted to at least
1% one school, though typical
5 to 9 schools number just slightly higher
9%
when compared to fall 2009
respondents who had
2 to 4 schools applied to one or more
38% schools (mean: 2.0, median:
1.0)
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents applying to one or more schools (n=474)

Fall 2009: Planned Total Number of Schools To Visit

Percent reporting total visits to:
2 to 4 schools
• Mean number of total
1 school 45% visits: 4.8
10%
• Median number of total
0 schools visits: 4.0
4%
• Total visits to colleges and
10+ schools
9% universities typically
around five, and nearly
two-thirds of those visits
reported to take place
5 to 9 schools
32%
before late November of
the senior year


Fall 2009: Number of Schools Visited To Date

Percent who have visited:
1 school
18%

0 schools
15%
• Mean number of visits:
2.9
• Median number of visits:
10+ schools
3% 2.0
• Majority of prospective
students have made one
5 to 9 schools 2 to 4 schools
16% or more visits, one-fifth
48%
have visited five or more


Spring 2010: Number of Schools Visited

Percent who have visited:
1 school
24% • Mean number of visits:
3.3
0 schools
10% • Median number of visits:
2.0
10+ schools
1% • Majority of prospective
students have made one
5 to 9 schools or more visits, and typical
12%
number of visits appears
2 to 4 schools slightly higher compared
53%
to fall 2009 figure (mean:
2.9, median: 2.0)


Fall 2009: Number of Deposits Paid

Percent paying deposit at:

2 to 4 schools 0 schools • Mean number of deposits:
5% 50%
0.6
• Median number of
deposits: 1.0
• Only half of students
accepted to one or more
1 school schools have submitted
45% deposit

Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents accepted to one or more schools (n=308)

Spring 2010: Number of Deposits Paid

Percent paying deposit at:

0 schools
35% • Mean number of deposits: 0.9
2 to 4 schools • Median number of deposits:
16% 1.0
• About two-thirds of students
accepted to one or more
schools have submitted
deposit—as expected, deposit
activity slightly higher than
1 school seen in fall 2009 (mean: 0.6,
49%
median: 1.0)

Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents accepted to one or more schools (n=408)

Summary of Recruitment Activity To Date
Percent of prospective students who have:
90% 95%
100% 81%
80%
53%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Made Applied Been Paid
visit(s) accepted deposit
• Majority of prospective students have made visits, applied, and have been accepted
to at least one school
• Two-thirds of those accepted to at least one school have submitted a deposit,
though represents a minority of all prospective students

Number of Applications To Submit In Future

Percent submitting application(s) to:
0 schools • Mean number of future
53% applications: 1.0
• Median number, future
applications: 0.0
5 to 9 schools • Very slim majority of
2% prospective students suggest
they are unlikely to submit
applications to additional
2 to 4 schools schools (essentially half have
16%
1 school
wrapped up application
29% activities)


Number of Deposits In Future

Percent likely to submit deposit(s) in future at:
0 schools • Mean number of future
47% deposits: 1.1
• Median number of future
deposits: 1.0

5 to 9 schools
• A very slim majority of
5% all prospective students
suggest they will submit
2 to 4 schools
10% a deposit to one or more
1 school schools in future—
38% suggests about one-half
of deposit activity has
been completed

2009 Fall: Incidence of Having Made Final College Selection
No final
decision, 52%

Yes, made final
decision, 48%
• Nearly one-half have made final selection by late fall (November)
• Characteristics of those more likely to have reached final decision: attending 2-
year school, attending public/in-state, attending professional rather than liberal
arts program, have received financial aid offer, female rather than male
• Factors not correlated with having made final decision: high school rank,
ACT/SAT score

Spring 2010: Incidence of Having Made Final College Selection
No final
decision, 37%

Yes, made final
decision, 63%

• Nearly two-thirds have made final selection by late winter/early spring (up from
just over one-half who had completed final selection in fall execution)
• Characteristics of those more likely to have reached final decision: attending
two-year school, attending public/in-state, attending professional rather than
liberal arts program, have received financial aid offer, female rather than male
• Factors not correlated with having made final decision: high school rank,
ACT/SAT score

Summer 2009: Incidence of Having Made Final College Selection

Yes, made final
decision, 96%

No final
decision, 4%

• Essentially all have made final selection as of the middle of June –
well-equipped to respond to questions regarding how final decision
was made and who was involved

Base: All 2009 Summer TeensTALK® respondents

Length of Time Top School Has Been Preferred Option

Percent who say:
Known for
years, others
not considered • About one-third of
31% students really had mind
No preferred
option in past set on one institution
20% long ago, not really
actively ―in play‖
• One-half say they had a
Had preferred, preferred option, though
considered were actively considering
others other schools
49%


Fall 2009: Timing of Final Selection Decision
Percent of students making final selection decision in:

October 53%
November 53%
December 55%
January 61%
February 68%
March 77%
April 88%
May 95%
June 96%
July 98%
August 100%
September 100%

40% 60% 80% 100%
• Over half suggest final decision made before January of senior year, three in four will
have decided by March
• Notable proportion had mind made up about desired school long ago (a foregone
conclusion rather than proactive decision)

Spring 2010: Timing of Final Selection Decision
Percent of students making final selection decision in:

February 66%
March 74%

April 84%
May 96%

June 98%

July 98%

August 100%

September 100%

40% 60% 80% 100%
• About two-thirds suggest final decision made by March of senior year, three-fourths
likely to decide by end of March (matches figures suggested by fall 2009 respondents)
• Notable proportion had mind made up about desired school long ago (a foregone
conclusion rather than proactive decision)

Fall 2009: Current Top Choice: 2-Year vs 4-Year Institution

Top choice a
2-year, 14%

• Respondents citing two-
year school as current top
choice are more likely to
indicate decision is firm
(despite the fact they’re
behind others in terms of
submitting application,
deposit)
Top choice a
4-year, 86%


Spring 2010: Current Top Choice: 2-Year vs 4-Year Institution

Top choice a
2-yr, 15% • Respondents citing two-year
school as current top choice
are more likely to indicate
decision is firm (despite the
fact they’re behind others in
terms of submitting
application, deposit)
• Choice of two-year school as
top choice nearly identical
Top choice a between spring and previous
4-yr, 85% fall executions


Fall 2009: Current Top Choice: Public vs Private Institution

Top choice
private, 33%

• Respondents citing
public school as current
top choice more likely
to indicate their
decision is firm
Top choice
public, 67%


Spring 2010: Current Top Choice: Public vs Private Institution

Top choice
private, 31%
• Respondents citing public
school as current top choice
more likely to indicate their
decision is firm
• Private school selection just
two percentage points lower
than suggested in previous
fall—well within study
Top choice
public, 69% margin of error


Summer 2009: Applied to Public vs. Private Institutions
(Top-3 Options)

Percent applying at:
Public and private
30%

Private only
14%

Public only
56%


Fall 2009: Current Top Choice: Liberal Arts vs
General/Professional
Top choice
liberal arts,
33%

• Respondents citing
general/professional
school as current top
choice more likely to
indicate decision is firm

Top choice
general, 67%


Spring 2010: Current Top Choice: Liberal Arts vs.
General/Professional

Top choice
liberal arts, • Respondents citing
31% general/professional school
as current top choice more
likely to indicate decision is
firm
• Percentage of spring
respondents suggesting a
liberal arts school is current
top choice is just two points
lower than indicated in fall—
Top choice
again within study margin of
general, 69%
error


Summer 2009: Applied to Liberal Arts vs. General Professional
(Top 3 Options)

Percent applying at:

Liberal arts
only
35% • Nearly one in five
respondents were
unable to identify the
programmatic
orientations of the
institutions to which
Both
Professional they applied
only 39%
23%

Base: All 2009 Summer TeensTALK® respondents who answered this question

Current Top Choice: Size of Institution

Student enrollment at top choice school

Under 5K
students
21%
• Respondents citing smaller
schools slightly more likely
to indicate they’ve made
final decision—likely
5 to 15K corresponds to scale of
students
44% many two-year schools

15K+
• Size of current top choice
students institution similar to that
35% identified in fall 2009 study


Fall 2009: Current Top Choice: In-State vs. Out of State

Out of state,
29%
• Between one-quarter
and one-third of
prospective students
currently favor school
outside their home state
• Mixed bag of interests
among those looking out
of state (no single
In home state, demographic
71% characteristic correlated
with focus across state
lines)

Spring 2010: Current Top Choice: In-State vs Out of State
• Between one-quarter and
Out of state, one-third of prospective
29% students currently favor
school outside their home
state
• Incidence of in-state
preference exactly the
same as indicated in fall
execution
• Mixed bag of interests
among those looking out
In home state,
of state (no single
71% demographic
characteristic correlated
with focus across state
lines)

Distance To Current Top Choice Campus
Percent with distance between home and campus of:

100%

80%

60%
36%
40% 28%

20% 13% 11% 12%

0%
30 miles 31 to 60 61 to 120 121 to over 500
or less miles miles 500 miles miles
• Those with top schools close to home more likely to select public, general/professional school
• Longest distances to top school found among those favoring private, liberal arts institution
(though also less likely to have made final decision)
• Distances similar to those suggested by fall 2009 respondents

Recruitment Activity With Current Top Choice School
Percent of prospective students citing:

88%
100%
73%
80% 56% 54%
60%
40%
20%
0%
In-person visit Applied Been Offered
accepted financial aid
• Among those who have made final decision, vast majority have submitted
formal application (less likely to have done so if selected school is two-year
or smaller)
• Modest increase in each recruitment activity for current top choice schools

Factor Importance When Selecting Colleges To Consider
Share of importance when identifying colleges to consider:

Quality of preferred major 20%
Graduates get good jobs 17%
Feels like a good fit for you 13%
Net cost after financial aid 11%
Total cost of attending 8%
Overall academic reputation 5%
Quality faculty-teach, mentor 5%
Quality of academic facilities 3%
Quality of campus amenities 3%
People welcoming, friendly 3%
Safety of the campus 2%
Variety of campus activities 2%
Study abroad opportunities 2%
Community where located 2%
Distance: campus to home 1%
Off-campus activities 1%
Religious/denominational affil. 1%
Appearance of the campus 1%
Family, friends connected 1%

0% 10% 20%
• Final decision process is somewhat different and separate from the process for identifying what
colleges to consider—faculty quality, for example, is twice as important in final decision
• Quality of outcomes, fit, and economics key selection criteria when trying to determine which to
consider

Factor Importance When Selecting Colleges To Consider
Share of importance when identifying colleges to consider:

Graduates get good jobs 17%
Quality of preferred major 15%
Net cost after financial aid 13%
Feels like a good fit for you 10%
Total cost of attending 8%
Quality faculty-teach, mentor 7%
Overall academic reputation 6%
Quality of academic facilities 4%
Quality of campus amenities 3%
People welcoming, friendly 3%
Variety of campus activities 2%
Community where located 2%
Distance: campus to home 2%
Religious/denominational affil. 1%
Appearance of the campus 1%
Family, friends connected 1%

0% 10% 20%
• Factor importance among spring respondents fairly similar to that indicated by respondents in
previous fall, though slightly greater emphasis on cost and outcomes suggests value is more
carefully considered later in the decision process

Factor Importance In Final Selection

Grads get good jobs 18%
Net cost after aid 15%
Quality faculty, teach/mentor 12%
Academic reputation 9%
Feels like good fit 7%
Quality academic facilities 6%
Total cost to attend 5%
Friendly, welcoming people 5%
Campus amenities 3%
On-campus activities 3%
City, community location 2%
Distance from home 2%
Religious affiliation 1%
Campus appearance 1%
Family, friend connection 1%

0% 10% 20% 30%
• Final decision process is different and separate from the process for identifying what colleges to
consider in the selection set (less important factors likely had more sizable impact earlier in the
process)
• Job opportunities and net cost are the most important final selection criteria across all respondents

Involvement of Others When Narrowing College Options

Others are
Others are Others are
involved, 57%
involved, 53% involved, 48%

When narrowing When making When making
options - Fall final choice - final choice -
Spring Summer

Entirely own Entirely own
decision, 43% decision, 47% Entirely own
decision, 52%

• Majority of prospective students sorting through college options with help
from others
• Percentages reverse when making final choice, somewhat less likely to
rely on outside help

Others Involved In Narrowing College Options
Extent of involvement at this stage by:
Parents 39% 15%
High school counselor 9% 16%
Sibling 9% 15%
Friends 6% 20%
Other relative 6% 12%
Current college student 5% 12%
High school teacher 4% 15%
Admission counselor 4% 9% Very Involved

College coach 3%4% Somewhat Involved
High school coach 2%4%
College prof essor 2%4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
• Parents the only widespread mention in terms of helping thin out options
• Six or seven others mentioned by fairly sizable group of prospective students—few
students lean heavily on multiple sources

Others Involved In Final College Selection Decision
Extent of involvement in decision by:
Parents 66% 26%
High school f riend 16% 43%
College admissions coun. 13% 35%
College prof essor 6% 26%
Sibling 10% 24%
Very Involved
High school coach 4% 14% Somewhat Involved
College coach 5% 12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Others Involved In Final College Selection Decision

Extent of involvement in final decision by:
Parents 70% 25%
High school f riend 15% 38%
College admissions coun. 13% 38%
College prof essor 9% 25%
Sibling 9% 31%
Very Involved
High school coach 5% 12% Somewhat Involved
College coach 7% 10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Acceptable Communication Methods Before Applying
Percent citing method as acceptable:

Personal letter: postal mail 94%
Personalized e-mail 93%
Publications: postal mail 86%
Personal visit to high school 76%
Phone calls to you 69%
Mass electronic mail 54%
Phone calls to parents 44%
Facebook, MySpace message 30%
Text message: cell phone 24%
Personal visits to home 23%
Instant messages 20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

• Text, instant messaging, and social media still not widely accepted as means of communicating
• Nearly all forms of communication moving from college to students less acceptable at this
stage compared to post-application stage (late spring, summer)

Acceptable Communication Methods After Applying

Phone calls to parents 36%
Personal visits to home 19%
Instant messages 18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

• Text, instant messaging, and social media still not widely accepted as means of communicating
• Nearly all forms of communication directly with parents show limited acceptance (who is
perhaps more important than how)

Acceptable Communication Methods After Applying
Phone call to you 94%
Phone call to parents 75%
Personal visit to home 30%
Instant messaging 25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

• Text, instant messaging, and social media still not widely accepted as means of
communicating, even among applicants to the school


Preferred Method of Communication Before Applying
Percent citing indicated method as preferred:

Text messages to phone 2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
• Personalized letters or e-mails most widely preferred communication before application is
submitted—similar to preference after application


Preferred Method of Communication After Applying

Text messages to phone 1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
• Personalized letters or e-mails most widely preferred communication after application is
submitted—similar to preference after application as suggested among respondents from
summer execution

Preferred Method of Communication After Applying

Phone call to you 15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
• Personalized letters or e-mails most widely preferred communication after application is
submitted


Thank you

Presented by
Eric Sickler
Principal Consultant

(800) 553-8878
eric.sickler@stamats.com

2010 TeensTALK Research Findings

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (6)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

2010 TeensTALK Research Findings