Enrollment Management Theory

Small private colleges that are heavily tuition dependent are challenged each year to maintain and grow student enrollments. This study investigates how certain colleges have structured enrollment management efforts in response.

As Enrollment Management Theory reaches a majority of larger institutions, it is still in a developmental stage in higher education as adaptations and various versions refresh thinking for many small colleges. Jack Maguire (1976) of Boston College is credited with the first use of the term “Enrollment Management Theory” to describe institutional efforts to influence student enrollment. Kemerer, Baldridge, and Green (1982) formalized the concept, proposing that it is not just an organizational concept but that it is

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 (Hossler 1991).

The theory of enrollment management was further developed by Dolence (1996) in the form of strategic enrollment management (SEM). He defines SEM as “a comprehensive process designed to help an institution achieve and maintain the optimum recruitment, retention, and graduation rates of students, where ‘optimum’ is defined within the academic context of the institution” (p. 16). Dolence does not outline which specific areas within the institution should be involved in SEM. He simply states that any factor that influences a student’s decision to attend or continue enrolling is fair

game for SEM. This new line of inquiry into SEM has led to many applications of the original concept (Black 2001; Bontrager 2004b; Bryant and Crockett

This theory used to describe, explain, predict, and/or control student development. In other words, student development theory can help you better understand, support, and serve students. However, use caution when referring to students development theories. Students are individuals an theory is a imply guide, it is not applicable to all students in every situation.

Ortiz (1995) an Evans et al. (1998) present that knowing Students Development Theories can help higher education personnel (staff, faculty, and administrators) to provide better programs and services base on student diversity and particularities.

Student Development theories generally fall into four broad categories, each of which represents different perspectives on the students:

1. Psychosocial Theories (Arthur Chikering and Linda Reisser, 1993) focus on the personal and interpersonal aspects of students ' lives as they accomplish various developmental tasks, or resolve the inevitable crises that