What if we can't mold the clay?
What happens when admissions representatives, who earn their living through commission, put a student, who doesn't possess a basic skill set, into an institution that doesn't even require any pre-testing for aptitude and basic skills? It doesn't matter what the institution is in business training for - it could be cooking, computer networking, whatever. When it becomes apparent that the student isn't cut out for the trade that they "thought" they wanted to work in, the student wants to drop the program. At this point, mid to upper level managers look towards the instructor body and ask: "what happened"? I believe, as an instructor, we are the first line of defense for retention at our institutions, but my question is: "what happens when we have clay that either can't or refuses to become molded into what we want"? It becomes very frustrating when I see the number of students who were sold on dreams that were never meant to do what they were sold. It is a fact of life that just because you want to do something doesn't necessarily mean that you can do it. Without basic aptitude for a trade, it becomes increasingly difficult to try and train that particular individual. That being said, without the opportunity to try and train everyone who desires to be trained, we wouldn't have jobs for very long. It's the proverbial double edged sword.
Important point of clarification: it is illegal to pay a commission based on enrollment to admissions representatives ... and it has been for decades. Schools face heavy penalties including fines and potential loss of accreditation and access to financial aid. Be very certain about your information when making this assertion.
I've always believed that people have the right to fail, BUT they must have complete information to make their decisions. That includes honest disclosure about the requisite skills and aptitudes to succeed.
What can you do to make sure that your "consumers" have the information they need to make an informed decision? How can you get involved in the process to assure getting the right clay? The answers may provide an alternative to the double edged sword.
If an institution of higher education is not paying commision, or maybe I could use a better word?, how else would they motivate admission reps to go out, solicit, and enroll students. If they were not being paid on the number of students and how long those students stay in school, what would motivate them to excel at their jobs? As far as honest disclosure, do you think that any salesman tells the absolute 100% truth about any product they are selling?
There is no question that admissions reps are evaluated on the number of students they enroll. It is also true that most of them truly believe that the programs offered at the school represent an opportunity for enrolling students to change their lives.
I hope telling students that the school has a caring staff and faculty isn't part of the questionably true disclosure at your school.
Sounds like more interaction between admissions and the faculty would be a good thing.
George unfortunatly we cant controll the reps and who they sign up,but we can try to change the process that they use like instituting a pre test before coming into our institution.Once this is done maybe we as instructors will have better Quality students in our classrooms.
Yes, I have scene this at many institutions that I have worked for.
Many have evolved through this process of matching students to the right courses/degree program.
The institutions that have been not forthcoming about it whether it be staff or incentive issues have price the price of late.
Media awareness has tightened the ship quite a bit form my POV.
What does anyone else thing- have they noticed a change in the right direction of late as I have?
Certainly the regulatory climate continues to "encourage" closer monitoring of outcomes. The admissions process is the gateway. All outcomes flow from recruiting students who are willing and able to benefit from the programs offered.
