Our partners have growth goals — 68.5% reported wanting an increased headcount. That’s why we examined more than 150 institutions in our most recent webinar and separated the top 25% and bottom 25% headcount growth performers from last cycle. We investigated the variables that stood out as differentiators between those groups, and how that can inform your enrollment decisions moving forward. The conversation was led by MARKETview’s Peter Farrell, Founding Principal, and Ben Plache, Ph.D., Director of Client Success, where they analyzed the ways in which last year’s most successful institutions were able to reach their headcount goals during a difficult year.
Make sure to watch the complete webinar recording to get all the insights — we’ve selected the 5 most meaningful data revelations to share with you here.
1. Even the Leaders of the Pack Weren’t Immune to Yield Declines
As most enrollment leaders know from firsthand experience, yield was a big challenge for the majority of institutions last year. Disruptions caused by the FAFSA and other factors meant students weren’t as likely to deposit at the same rate and cadence as they had in past cycles. MARKETview year-over-year data revealed that even the top performers from last cycle were vulnerable to these yield struggles with a drop of -0.36 percentage points (pp), although the bottom 25% had a much sharper decline at -2.12 pp. This means that those high-performing schools found their success in other places to offset the drop in yield rate.
2. Volume Was Required to Weather the Yield Storm
If those top 25% institutions were still affected by yield decline, how did they still see growth in other areas? The data showed that up funnel volume was the key. At every stage, the top 25% saw big increases, particularly at the admit and net deposit stages with a 13.9 and 16.4 pp increase respectively. The volume increases appeared to have a cascading effect, meaning a growth in inquiries led to a growth in applications, which led to a growth in admits, which then led to a growth in net deposits.
With the bottom 25%, the data showed a similar effect, but in a negative way. A small decrease in inquiries at -0.6 pp caused a chain reaction throughout the funnel that resulted in a catastrophic -16.3 pp drop in net deposits by the end. Thus, the conclusion can be made that volume seemed to be essential for maintaining growth during a challenging yield season.
Top of the Class: Spotlighting Strategies That Led to Success Last Cycle
See examples of MARKETview partner schools realizing outsized entering class success coming out of the most recent (and tumultuous!) enrollment cycle.
Access the Recording
3. Selectivity Didn’t Guarantee a Spot in the Top 25%
Based on the insights that have already been discussed, those who are familiar with enrollment data might think it’s safe to assume that selectivity played a big role in what separated the top and bottom 25%. But MARKETview data proved this assumption is incorrect. When breaking down high and low performer groups into Top 100 National or Liberal Arts schools and other schools considered less selective, the proportions are similar. The top 25% is made up of 72.8% less selective institutions, while the bottom 25% is composed of 66.6% less selective institutions. This shows definitively that selectivity was not a factor that separated the two groups.
4. The Top 25% Improved Yield With Senior Inquiries
At MARKETview, we examine inquiries in the context of the point in time when they first express interest in your school. They’re separated into two groups — those who express interest before senior year, and those who wait until senior year to show interest, including stealth applicants. Plache explains why looking at inquiry timing is so important:
“Students behave very differently through your funnel, and we track it closely because we’re trying to understand the Critical Elements to your success,” Plache said. “[Inquiry timing] is a place where we often see meaningful differentiation.”
The data reflected this as well. Even against an overall yield challenge, the top 25% group saw a small improvement of 0.17 pp, but the bottom 25% saw a noticeable yield rate decline of -1.77 pp with senior inquiries. It’s clear that yield difficulties were particularly amplified with those late hand raisers.
5. Less Affluent Students Showed Improved Yield for the Top 25%
Another pattern emerged in the yield data for the top 25% group — less affluent families (<$100K household income) went up in yield even when overall yield was declining. Plache highlights why this finding was particularly interesting in the context of the last cycle.
“That was a little bit of a surprise,” Plache said. “If we think about all the narratives around FAFSA, the challenges there, who are the students who are going to be most impacted? They tend to be low-income families.”
But the data did not follow this conventional wisdom. The top 25% saw a yield decrease of -0.55 pp with affluent families (>$200K household income), whereas less affluent families increased yield by 0.84 pp. Despite an overall downward yield trend, low-income families improved in yield and bucked the trend for the top 25% group.
Thank you for your interest in these five surprising data insights. If you want to get the full story of how some institutions succeeded last cycle, you can download and watch the full webinar recording.