View
1.590
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Dr. Brenda Harms, Principal Consultant, Stamats, Inc. Stamats’ annual TALK® study is one of the higher education industry’s benchmark research resources, offering insight into the Trends, Attitudes, Lifestyles, and Knowledge (T.A.L.K.) of traditional-aged, college-bound students and their parents. For over 10 years Stamats has conducted research with college bound students to better understand how and why they make the decisions they do and what truly matters to them when they are considering their options. If you are interested in developing a deeper understanding of what is going on in the heads and hearts as teens make their college choice this session is sure to inform.
Citation preview
2010 TeensTALK® Findings
Over a Complete Recruiting Cycle
Presented by
Dr. Brenda HarmsPrincipal Consultant
(800) 553-8878
brenda.harms@stamats.com
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
• Image, perception, and brand studies
• Recruiting, marketing, brand, and
academic program marketability audits
• Tuition Pricing ElasticityTM studies
• Communication process mapping
Creative Services
• Creative concepting
• Web strategies
• Recruiting and advancement
publications
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
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 3
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
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 4
Geographic Dispersion of Spring Respondents
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 5
Spring Respondent Demographics: Gender, Ethnicity
Male, 47%
Female, 53%
Respondent Gender
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
White, Caucasian
68%
Black, Afr. Am.12%
Asian8%
Hispanic10% Mixed, other
2%
Respondent Ethnicity
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
<19 19 to 22 23 to 26 27 to 30 31+
7%13%
28%31%
21%
Percent with ACT score of:
• Mean score: 25.6; Median score: 27.0
Spring Respondent Demographics: Taken ACT Exam?
Took ACT,
55%
Not taken
ACT, 45%
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 7
Took SAT, 60%
Have not taken SAT,
40%
0%
20%
40%
60%
1000 or less
1001 to 1150
1151 to 1300
1301 to 1450
1451+
13% 14%
26%23% 24%
Percent with SAT score of:
• Mean score:1196; Median score:1255
Spring Respondent Demographics: Taken SAT Exam?
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 8
College Consideration and Selection
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 9
Fall 2009: Number of Applications Submitted
0 schools
17%
1 school
16%
2 to 4 schools
40%
5 to 9 schools
22%
10+ schools
5%
Percent submitting applications to:
• Mean number of
applications: 2.9
• Median number of
applications: 2.0
• Strong majority of
prospective students
have applied to one or
more schools
Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 10
Spring 2010: Number of Applications Submitted
0 schools5%
1 school25%
2 to 4 schools42%
5 to 9 schools22%
10+ schools6%
Percent submitted applications to:
• Mean number of
applications: 3.8
• Median number of
applications: 3.0
• Strong majority of
prospective students
have applied to one or
more schools
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 11
Number of School Acceptances
0 schools
14%
1 school
38%
2 to 4 schools
38%
5 to 9 schools
9%
10+ schools
1%
Percent accepted at:• Mean number accepted: 2.7
• Median number accepted:
1.0
• Strong majority of
prospective students have
been accepted to at least
one school, though typical
number just slightly higher
when compared to fall 2009
respondents who had
applied to one or more
schools (mean: 2.0, median:
1.0)
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents applying to one or more schools (n=474)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 12
Fall 2009: Planned Total Number of Schools to Visit
0 schools
4%
1 school
10%
2 to 4 schools
45%
5 to 9 schools
32%
10+ schools
9%
Percent reporting total visits to:
• Mean number of total
visits: 4.8
• Median number of total
visits: 4.0
• Total visits to colleges and
universities typically
around five, and nearly
two-thirds of those visits
reported to take place
before late November of
the senior year
Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 13
Fall 2009: Number of Schools Visited to Date
0 schools
15%
1 school
18%
2 to 4 schools
48%
5 to 9 schools
16%
10+ schools
3%
Percent who have visited:
• Mean number of visits:
2.9
• Median number of visits:
2.0
• Majority of prospective
students have made one
or more visits, one-fifth
have visited five or more
Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 14
Spring 2010: Number of Schools Visited
0 schools
10%
1 school
24%
2 to 4 schools
53%
5 to 9 schools
12%
10+ schools
1%
Percent who have visited:
• Mean number of visits:
3.3
• Median number of visits:
2.0
• Majority of prospective
students have made one
or more visits, and typical
number of visits appears
slightly higher compared
to fall 2009 figure (mean:
2.9, median: 2.0)
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 15
Fall 2009: Number of Deposits Paid
0 schools
50%
1 school
45%
2 to 4 schools
5%
Percent paying deposit at:
• Mean number of deposits:
0.6
• Median number of
deposits: 1.0
• Only half of students
accepted to one or more
schools have submitted
deposit
Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents accepted to one or more schools (n=308)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 16
Spring 2010: Number of Deposits Paid
0 schools
35%
1 school
49%
2 to 4 schools
16%
Percent paying deposit at:
• Mean number of deposits: 0.9
• Median number of deposits:
1.0
• About two-thirds of students
accepted to one or more
schools have submitted
deposit—as expected, deposit
activity slightly higher than
seen in fall 2009 (mean: 0.6,
median: 1.0)
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents accepted to one or more schools (n=408)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 17
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Made visit(s)
Applied Been accepted
Paid deposit
90% 95%81%
53%
Percent of prospective students who have:
Summary of Recruitment Activity to Date
• 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
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 18
Number of Applications to Submit in Future
0 schools
53%
1 school
29%
2 to 4 schools
16%
5 to 9 schools
2%
Percent submitting application(s) to:
• Mean number of future
applications: 1.0
• Median number, future
applications: 0.0
• Very slim majority of
prospective students suggest
they are unlikely to submit
applications to additional
schools (essentially half have
wrapped up application
activities)
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 19
Number of Deposits in Future
• Mean number of future
deposits: 1.1
• Median number of future
deposits: 1.0
• A very slim majority of
all prospective students
suggest they will submit
a deposit to one or more
schools in future—
suggests about one-half
of deposit activity has
been completed
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
0 schools
47%
1 school
38%
2 to 4 schools
10%
5 to 9 schools
5%
Percent likely to submit deposit(s) in future at:
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 20
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
Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 21
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
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 22
Summer 2009: Incidence of Having Made Final College Selection
No final decision, 4%
Yes, made final decision, 96%
• 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
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 23
Length of Time Top School Has Been Preferred Option
Known for
years, others not considered
31%
Had preferred,
considered others
49%
No preferred
option in past20%
Percent who say:
• About one-third of
students really had mind
set on one institution
long ago, not really
actively ―in play‖
• One-half say they had a
preferred option, though
were actively considering
other schools
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 24
40% 60% 80% 100%
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
December
November
October
100%
100%
98%
96%95%
88%
77%
68%
61%
55%
53%
53%
Fall 2009: Timing of Final Selection DecisionPercent of students making final selection decision in:
• 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)
Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 25
Fall 2009: Current Top Choice: 2-Year vs. 4-Year Institution
Top choice a 2-year, 14%
Top choice a 4-year, 86%
• 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)
Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 26
Fall 2009: Current Top Choice: Public vs. Private Institution
Top choice private, 33%
Top choice public, 67%
• Respondents citing
public school as current
top choice more likely
to indicate their
decision is firm
Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 27
Summer 2009: Applied to Public vs. Private Institutions
(Top-3 Options)
Public and private
30%
Public only
56%
Private only
14%
Percent applying at:
Base: All 2009 Summer TeensTALK® respondents
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 28
Fall 2009: Current Top Choice: Liberal Arts vs.
General/Professional
Top choice liberal arts,
33%
Top choice general, 67%
• Respondents citing
general/professional
school as current top
choice more likely to
indicate decision is firm
Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 29
Summer 2009: Applied to Liberal Arts vs. General Professional
(Top 3 Options)
Liberal arts
only35%
Professional
only 39%Both
23%
Percent applying at:
• Nearly one in five
respondents were
unable to identify the
programmatic
orientations of the
institutions to which
they applied
Base: All 2009 Summer TeensTALK® respondents who answered this question
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 30
Under 5K students
21%
5 to 15K students
44%
15K+ students
35%
Student enrollment at top choice school
Current Top Choice: Size of Institution
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
• Respondents citing smaller
schools slightly more likely
to indicate they’ve made
final decision—likely
corresponds to scale of
many two-year schools
• Size of current top choice
institution similar to that
identified in fall 2009 study
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 31
Fall 2009: Current Top Choice: In-State vs. Out of State
Out of state, 29%
In home state, 71%
• 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
demographic
characteristic correlated
with focus across state
lines)
Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 32
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
30 miles or less
31 to 60 miles
61 to 120 miles
121 to 500 miles
over 500 miles
36%
13% 11%
28%
12%
Percent with distance between home and campus of:
Distance to Current Top Choice Campus
• 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
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 33
0% 10% 20%
Family, f riends connectedAppearance of the campus
Religious/denominational af f il.Of f -campus activities
Distance: campus to homeCommunity where located
Study abroad opportunitiesVariety of campus activities
Safety of the campusPeople welcoming, f riendly
Quality of campus amenitiesQuality of academic facilitiesQuality faculty-teach, mentorOverall academic reputation
Total cost of attendingNet cost af ter f inancial aid
Feels like a good f it for youGraduates get good jobsQuality of preferred major
1%1%1%1%1%2%2%
2%2%3%
3%3%
5%5%
8%11%
13%17%
20%
Factor Importance When Selecting Colleges to Consider
Share of importance when identifying colleges to consider:
• 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
considerBase: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 34
0% 10% 20%
Family, f riends connectedAppearance of the campus
Religious/denominational af f il.Of f -campus activities
Distance: campus to homeCommunity where located
Variety of campus activitiesStudy abroad opportunities
Safety of the campusPeople welcoming, f riendly
Quality of campus amenitiesQuality of academic facilitiesOverall academic reputationQuality faculty-teach, mentor
Total cost of attendingFeels like a good f it for youNet cost af ter f inancial aidQuality of preferred majorGraduates get good jobs
1%1%
1%1%
2%2%2%
3%3%3%3%
4%6%
7%8%
10%13%
15%17%
Factor Importance When Selecting Colleges to Consider
Share of importance when identifying colleges to consider:
• 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
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 35
0% 10% 20% 30%
Family, friend connectionOff-campus activitiesCampus appearanceReligious affiliation
Distance from homeCity, community location
On-campus activitiesCampus amenities
Friendly, welcoming peopleTotal cost to attend
Study abroad opportunitiesQuality academic facilities
Safety of the campusFeels like good fit
Academic reputationQuality faculty, teach/mentor
Net cost after aidGrads get good jobs
1%1%1%1%2%
2%
3%3%
5%5%5%
6%6%
7%9%
12%15%
18%
Factor Importance in Final Selection
• 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
Base: All 2009 Summer TeensTALK® respondents
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 36
Others are involved, 53%
Entirely own decision, 47%
Involvement of Others When Narrowing College Options
Others are involved, 57%
Entirely own decision, 43%
• 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
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
Others are involved, 48%
Entirely own decision, 52%
When narrowing
options - Fall
When making
final choice -
Summer
When making
final choice -
Spring
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 37
39%
9%
9%
6%
6%
5%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
15%
16%
15%
20%
12%
12%
15%
9%
4%
4%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Parents
High school counselor
Sibling
Friends
Other relative
Current college student
High school teacher
Admission counselor
College coach
High school coach
College professor
Extent of involvement at this stage by:
Very Involved
Somewhat Involved
Others Involved in Narrowing College Options
Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
• 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
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 38
66%
16%
12%
23%
13%
9%
6%
10%
9%
4%
5%
26%
43%
39%
29%
35%
32%
26%
24%
24%
14%
12%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Parents
High school f riend
High school teacher
High school counselor
College admissions coun.
Current college student
College professor
Sibling
Other relative
High school coach
College coach
Extent of involvement in decision by:
Very Involved
Somewhat Involved
Others Involved in Final College Selection Decision
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 39
70%
15%
14%
20%
13%
12%
9%
9%
9%
5%
7%
25%
38%
39%
31%
38%
34%
25%
31%
30%
12%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Parents
High school f riend
High school teacher
High school counselor
College admissions coun.
Current college student
College professor
Sibling
Other relative
High school coach
College coach
Extent of involvement in final decision by:
Very Involved
Somewhat Involved
Base: All 2009 Summer TeensTALK® respondents
Others Involved in Final College Selection Decision
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 40
Acceptable Communication Methods Before Applying
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Instant messages
Personal visits to home
Text message: cell phone
Facebook, MySpace message
Phone calls to parents
Mass electronic mail
Phone calls to you
Personal visit to high school
Publications: postal mail
Personalized e-mail
Personal letter: postal mail
20%23%24%
30%44%
54%
69%76%
86%93%
94%
Percent citing method as acceptable:
• 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)
Base: All 2009 Fall TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 41
Acceptable Communication Methods After Applying
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Instant messages
Personal visits to home
Text message: cell phone
Facebook, MySpace message
Phone calls to parents
Mass electronic mail
Phone calls to you
Personal visit to high school
Publications: postal mail
Personalized e-mail
Personal letter: postal mail
18%19%
22%
32%36%
50%
73%77%
88%
95%
96%
Percent citing method as acceptable:
• 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)
Base: All 2010 Spring TeensTALK® respondents (n=500)
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 42
Acceptable Communication Methods After Applying
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Text message: cell phone
Instant messaging
Personal visit to home
Facebook, MySpace message
Mass electronic mail
Phone call to parents
Personal visit to high school
Phone call to you
Publications: postal mail
Personalized e-mail
Personal letter: postal mail
24%
25%
30%
31%60%
75%
78%
94%
94%
95%
99%
Percent citing method as acceptable:
• Text, instant messaging, and social media still not widely accepted as means of
communicating, even among applicants to the school
Base: All 2009 Summer TeensTALK® respondents
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 43
Major Takeaways?
© 2010 Stamats, Inc. - 44
Thank you
Presented by
Dr. Brenda HarmsPrincipal Consultant
(800) 553-8878
brenda.harms@stamats.com
Recommended