1 / 21

ACSP Task Force on Enrollment Update March 13, 2019

ACSP Task Force on Enrollment Update March 13, 2019. ACSP Administrators Conference, Minneapolis, MN ACSP Enrollment Task Force: Clinton Andrews (co-chair), Lucie Laurian (co-chair), Joe Grengs , Dawne Jourdan, John Landis, Ellie Masoomkhah , Laura Solitare. Mission and Goals.

zan
Download Presentation

ACSP Task Force on Enrollment Update March 13, 2019

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. ACSP Task Force on EnrollmentUpdate March 13, 2019 ACSP Administrators Conference, Minneapolis, MN ACSP Enrollment Task Force: Clinton Andrews (co-chair), Lucie Laurian (co-chair), Joe Grengs, Dawne Jourdan, John Landis, Ellie Masoomkhah, Laura Solitare

  2. Mission and Goals • TF constituted in response to decreasing student enrollments. • Explores opportunities and challenges faced by graduate planning programs. • Goals: • 1. Characterize recent shifts enrollment and explain their causes; • 2. Identify strategies used to increase enrollments and their effectiveness; • 3. Explore whether pursuing STEM designation would be beneficial or detrimental, whether ACSP should pursue a STEM designation for Planning.

  3. Methods so far • Focus-group-type discussions at the 2018 ACSP Conference • Specific survey questions for the Chairs Survey (closed Feb 2019) • Links to macro economic shifts • Next: Market and demand analysis

  4. Findings of the economic trends analysis • PAB data since 2008 • Total enrollments • Declined 18% over 2014-18 • Declined 27% over 2009-18 • Foreign students: • Increased 37% 2009-18 • Lost 18% 2014-18, mostly since 2017 • Part-time students: • 44% decrease over 2009-18 • 16% decrease over 2014-18

  5. Change in Masters Student Enrollments in PAB-accredited Programs 2009-2018 and 2014-2018 Source: PAB 2019

  6. Counter-cyclical patterns?

  7. Correlations (Pearson’s r) between NJ unemployment rate and Rutgers’ CRP Masters (normalized to 2010) • Unemployment and Applications: 0.85 • Unemployment and Admitted prospects and Admit-coming: 0.77 • State’s unemployment rate explains about 2/3 of the variation in applications.

  8. This doesn’t hold true everywhere: • Enrollments at ASU, Berkeley, Georgia Tech do not reflect local unemployment rates. ASU Berkeley GA Tech

  9. Enrollments at the University of Iowa, University of Michigan, Texas Southern University: somewhat related to local unemployment rate with time lag • Factors we may study this summer include program cost, reputation/ranking, real estate development and population growth, political culture, and regulatory environment. U of Iowa U of Michigan TX Southern

  10. Chairs’ Survey • 56 responses • 84% in public institutions • Average faculty size: 10 faculty (st dev: 6.6) + 8 part time/adjuncts (st dev: 10) • Program sizes: wide variations • Undergraduate (n=19) • 12-458 Planning majors, mean= 88, median = 60 • 1-80 in Planning minors / Certificates, mean = 27, median = 13 • Graduate (n = 49) • Full-time: 5 - 138, mean= 47, median = 36 (6 programs > 100, 8 < 20 students) • Full-time and part-time: mean = 62, median = 45, st dev = 51, (min: 6, max: 208)

  11. “In the last 5 years, how did your student enrollments change?” • Undergraduate programs (n=34) • 32% experienced a decline • 38% stable • 29% experienced growth • Masters’ programs (n=53) • 57% experienced declines. • 13%: declines > 25% • 34% declined 10-25% • 21% stable • 23% are growing

  12. Impacts • Postponing faculty hires • Future hires/retirement replacement positions threatened • Reduced resources for faculty, adjunct budgets • Threats / declines in operational budgets and student financial aid • Program resources shifted to revenue-generating offering (dual degrees, certificates, professional training) • 3 program “targeted for reorganization” with threats to the identity and existence of the programs. • Some faculty teaching reoriented toward undergraduate courses.

  13. Causes of declining enrollments • Employment opportunities not an issue. • 88.5% of master's graduates find employment in planning/related fields within 1 year: (st dev= 10.5%) • Most important causes (agree with or strongly agree): • Students attend other schools that offer better funding packages (86% agree) • Students don’t know about planning as a field (83% agree) • Graduate planning studies less attractive than working when the economy is doing well (66% agree) • International applicants perceive the national political climate as unfriendly (66% agree) • Students chose to attend better-known programs (52% agree) • Planning salaries are not attractive given the costs of higher education (51 agree) + • Students don’t always see how planning knowledge/skills transferrable • Students want flexible curriculum, may not be compatible with PAB requirements.

  14. Program reorganizations 22% of programs have undergone “a major change in the last five years that influenced responses (e.g. merger, college change).” • Some changes had negative impacts: • Changing colleges (a program changed college twice in 10 years) • Changing from liberal arts to art and architecture • A relocation from a downtown to a main campus • Disruptions linked to building problems /construction • Getting accredited • Some changes had positive impacts: • A move to a college of Social Work • A move from a dysfunctional to a new department • A move to a college with better support

  15. Strategies to increase enrollments

  16. Effectiveness

  17. Other strategies used to increase enrollment (open ended): • Application processing: - Personal attention to each applicant - Following up with incomplete applications (mixed results) • Program marketing: - Sponsoring state planning conference and staff booth at conference (very effective) - Outreach to undergraduate programs on campus / at nearby schools - Inviting / surveying students who take the GRE, indicate interest in Planning ("uneven" results) - Online resources targeted to international students - Reaching out to graduates of PhD program who teach abroad to encourage them to send us their best students - Social media ads. - Highlighting community engagement, outreach to alumni / prospective students via web page and Facebook. • New courses and programs: - Adding hybrid courses - Undergraduate planning courses taught online - Graduate certificate programs - Creating a co-op program (“external fellowship) to provide student funding

  18. CIP codes • 7 of 55 programs (13%) have changed CIP code • 21 (47%) plan on changing CIP code • 24 (53%) have no plan • For those who did: • No evidence of impact on student enrollment • 1 indicates increased enrollment • 2 : no change • others: “not sure.”

  19. Rationales for changes in CIP codes • Those who did: to be more attractive to international students • Those who are not certain • not discussed it within departments • “trying to ascertain university support” • “not sure what STEM designation to use” • “experiencing pushback,” administrative difficulties, workload • Curriculum-related issues: STEM designation “doesn't fit with the curriculum of our program home,” “difficult to change without substantial curriculum revision” • 2 oppose because “Planning is not a STEM discipline … and doesn't need to be!” “If you change your CIP code you are weakening the field of planning by indicating that you are leaving the field.”

  20. Support for ACSP to pursue STEM designation • “Would want ACSP to lobby for reclassification of the City/Urban, Community and Regional Planning CIP code (04.0301) as STEM” • 66% : “yes” (37) • 5% : “No” (3) • 27% “not sure” (15)

  21. Rationales for support/opposition/uncertainty • “Yes” because: • Would help international students (recruitment and entry on the job market) • Planning is based on lot of analytics and science • Will improve access to STEM grants, better recognition in the industry • Will benefit in competitive funding from our state's legislature • Planning focuses on sustainability issues • CIP Codes are used for operating ratios. • “No” or “Not sure” because : • Every discipline does not need to be STEM • Potential to diminish / lose focus on arts/humanities and qualitative approaches • How would planning be evaluated compared to other STEM programs (research dollars, program size)? Planning may look weak • Would STEM designation be unattractive to some students? • Would STEM designation put pressure on curriculum to change? Require new programming/courses that don’t/ can’t offer? • Need to make sure CIP codes have real meaning for analyses by Dept. of Ed., University administrations/consultants

More Related