Multiple Uses of ASQ DataCollege Board ForumNovember 2006

André Bell, Vice President Midwest Regional Office, The College BoardBecky Brodigan, Director of Institutional Research,

Middlebury College

Background on the ASQDeveloped by the College BoardSent to all admitted studentsTwo different options for ASQ – regular and PLUS, both provide

Paper or web optionsThe dataa highlights report, a detailed report, with all the documentationa Norms report (based on all ASQ users)PLUS gives you detailed information on your competitors, and allows limited customization

The Tale of Two Colleges:Bentley and Middlebury Examples

Standard usesImportance of factors in enrollment decision processImage definition and evaluationPrice sensitivityDefinition of competitive setService issuesEtc.

The Tale of Two Colleges:Bentley and Middlebury Examples

Use in shattering myths about competitors

(3-5 colleges or groups?)• Further analysis of price sensitivity

Is the real group your overlap in applicants or admitted students?

Raising issues as priorities (housing)

Use of the ASQ at Bentley

Strategic PlanThe next level: 1997 – 2002

Competitive EnvironmentStrategyResults

Perceived Quality

Price

liberal arts

UCONN, UMASS,UNH, SUNY-Binghamton

Berkeley, MichiganMaryland, etc.

BUBabson

BC

Stonehill, Fairfield, BentleyProvidence, Northeastern,

Merrimack, Bryant

Salem St., West. Conn., SUNY-Platts

top 20

The Competitive Environment, 1997-- undergrad

Perceived Quality

Price

prestige

“national”state univs.

regionalstate univs.

Bentley,1997

localstate univs.

The Competitive Environment, 1997 -- the next level

2002?

Pursuing the Next Level-- the Strategic Challenge

• The Competition: 1600 colleges and universities with business programs– not just Babson,

Bryant• The Problem: nearly

every competitor is inherently broader and deeperUndergrad

only

Undergradthru PHD

Specialized Across the Board

B

Liberal ArtsColleges

ComprehensiveUniversities

Tech.Univs.

Pursuing the Next Level:-- The Strategy

Focus on students interested in businessIn business education & IT, lead (if we tie, we lose)In arts & sciences, equal quality and better suited to business students

In student life, equal qualityUndergrad

only

Undergradthru PHD

Specialized Across the Board

B

Liberal ArtsColleges

ComprehensiveUniversities

Tech.Univs.

The Next Level, Undergraduate-- Results, 2002

We made our move:Applications and SelectivityQualityGeographic DiversityCompetitionRankingsRevenue

Factors that are Very Important in the College Selection Process

Computer software used in industry (62% to 48%)Modern computer labs (65% vs. 53%)Computer access from dorm room (64% vs. 51%)Integration of computers in the curriculum (57% vs. 44%)Access to the internet (49% vs. 42%)

Enrolling Students Less Likely to Use a Personal Computer for…

E-mail (23% vs. 30%)Word processing (68% vs. 85%)College courses (45% vs. 59%)College search (30% vs. 43%)Home computer (70% vs. 77%)

Competitor strength and priceCategories Cross

AppsAverage

PriceBentley Yield

Competitor Yield

Public 1,726 $14,000 ($9,943)

26% 17%

Regional Private College

1,374 $21,000 22% 20%

Regional Private University

1,372 $25,200 22% 24%

Business 1,157 $23,000 29% 28%

Very Selective 400 $26,000 18% 32%

On-campus housing Academic Facilties Cost (net)Rated Higher

Boston College Boston College U MassachusettsBryant Babson BryantBabson Boston University Northeastern

Rated LowerU Massachusetts U Massachusetts BabsonBoston University Bryant Boston College

Boston University

BENTLEY

The Tale of Two Colleges:Bentley and Middlebury Examples

Standard usesImportance of factors in enrollment decision processImage definition and evaluationPrice sensitivityDefinition of competitive setService issuesEtc.

The Tale of Two Colleges:Bentley and Middlebury Examples

Use in shattering myths about competitors

(3-5 colleges or groups?)Is the real group your overlap in applicants or admitted students?

Adjectives for image on the ASQIsolatedPrestigiousFun IntellectualCareer-orientedNot well knownComfortableBack-up schoolSelectiveAthletics

FriendlyPartyingAverageChallengingManageable academicsAcademic PressureCosmopolitanSchool for the wealthyDiverseOther

Internal Images of Midd and Admitted Student Images

AdministrationSelectiveAthleticSchool for the wealthyPrestigiousChallengingIsolatedFriendly

Admitted StudentSelectiveChallengingPrestigiousIntellectualFriendlyIsolatedFunAthletics

Admit Rates for Freshmen Applicants

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Amherst

Willi

ams

Pomon

a

Swarthmore

Middleb

ury

Bowdoin

Haver

ford

Wesl

eyan

Vassar

Wash

ington

& L

eeBate

s

Carlet

on

Well

esley

Oberlin

Connec

ticut C

oll.

Hamilto

nColb

y

Trinity

Bryn M

awr

Smith

Mou

nt Holy

oke

Percent receiving financial aid

39%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Mt Holyoke Wellesley

Smith Carleton

Bryn Mawr Vassar

Pomona Oberlin

HamiltonBowdoin

SwarthmoreWesleyanAmherst

ConnecticutWilliams

Haverford Trinity

Bates Middlebury

Colby Washington & Lee

Middlebury Image of Competitors

College A College B College C

Prestigious Prestigious PrestigiousSelective Selective SelectiveChallenging Challenging ChallengingIntellectual Athletics Isolated

School for the Wealthy

Internal Images of Midd and Admitted Student Images

Administration1. Selective2. Athletic3. School for the

wealthy4. Prestigious5. Challenging6. Isolated7. Friendly

Admitted Student1. Selective2. Challenging3. Prestigious4. Intellectual5. Friendly6. Isolated7. Fun8. Athletics

Sources rated as “Excellent” 2000

Middlebury AmherstContact with

coachesCollege websitePublicationsFinancial Aid

Communications

Sources rates as “Excellent” 2005(improvements in mass communications but not individual

communications)MiddleburyCollege websitePublications

AmherstHigh School VisitsContact with

GraduatesContact with FacultyPost Admit

Communications

Availability of Majors (Academic emphasis in publications)

2000Williams

DartmouthBrown

AmherstMiddlebury

Bowdoin

2005Williams

DartmouthBrown

MiddleburyAmherstBowdoin

Quality of Majors (Academic emphasis in publications)

2000Williams

DartmouthBrown

AmherstMiddlebury

Bowdoin

2005Williams

Dartmouth Brown

MiddleburyAmherstBowdoin

Availability of Recreational Facilities

2000Middlebury

2005Middlebury

BowdoinBrown

Williams

Quality of Academic Facilities1998 2002 2006

Amherst Brown Dartmouth

BrownDartmouth Middlebur

yDartmouth Williams Amherst

WilliamsMiddlebur

yBowdoin

Middlebury

Amherst Dartmouth

Bowdoin Bowdoin Williams

Undergraduate Teaching Commitment

2006 Amherst

MiddleburyBowdoin Brown

Dartmouth Williams

1996 2001 2006

Personal Attention Personal Attention Personal AttentionAttractiveness of the Campus Attractiveness of the Campus Undergraduate Teaching Commitment

Environment of Academic Excellence Quality of Academic Facilities Attractiveness of the CampusAcademic Reputation Environment of Academic Excellence Quality of Academic Facilities

Extra-Curricular Opportunities Academic Reputation Environment of Academic ExcellenceSurroundings Extra-Curricular Opportunities Academic Reputation

Extra-Curricular Opportunities

Quality of Academic Facilities Quality of Social Life Availability of Majors

Availability of Majors Availability of MajorsQuality of Majors Quality of Majors

Middlebury Rated Higher on these…

Longitudinal Comparison of Characteristics Rated as "Very Important" by all students admitted to Middlebury

Middlebury Rated Lower on these…

1996 2001 2006

Personal Attention Personal Attention Undergraduate Teaching CommitmentExtra-Curricular Opportunities Environment of Academic Excellence Personal Attention

Environment of Academic Excellence Attractiveness of the Campus Quality of Academic Facilities

Availability of Majors Quality of Academic Facilities Student DiversityQuality of Majors Academic Reputation Quality of Social Life

Quality of Academic Facilities Availability of Majors Availability of MajorsAcademic Reputation Quality of Majors Academic Reputation

Extra-curricular Opportunities Extra-Curricular OpportunitiesEnvironment of Academic Excellence

Middlebury Rated Lower on these…

Middlebury Rated Higher on these…

Longitudinal Comparison of Characteristics Rated as "Very Important" by high-achieving students admitted to Middlebury

Enrollment competitors38%

14%18% 17%

13%

28%

21%

6% 7%

32% 31%

23%

4%

10%

37%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

Group of 21 Ivy League PrivateUniversities

FlagshipPublics

Liberal Arts

199219962005

Change in competitors since 1996New

George WashingtonUSCClarkScrippsUniversity of WashingtonOccidentalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Conn.University of MarylandVillanovaRPIMiami Univ. (Ohio)

No longerRutgersBinghamtonSUNY GeneseoLoyola (MD)DrewTrinity (TX)HartwickProvidenceFordhamUniversity of Denver

Midd Response Rates1997

2000

2001

2002

2005

All 1380114

3120

6127

4127

6Respondent

s 763 749 707 962 730

% 55%66%

59%

76%

57%

Enrolling 552 478 528 603 581Respondent

s 394 399 394 519 412

% 71%83%

75%

86%

71%

Non-Enrolling 828 665 665 671 695

Respondents 369 350 350 443 318

% 45%53%

53%

66%

46%

Work in ProgressUsed ASQ adjective lists to look at images of Midd and competitors at DC student focus groupsWill test against our images and viewbook

http://www.collegeboard.com/highered/ra/asq_res.html

Supplemental Reports and Data FormsASQ Supplemental Reports and Data Files order form (.pdf/85K)ASQ Plus Supplemental Reports and Data Files order form (.pdf/87K)Manuals and GuidesASQ/ASQ PLUS User Manual (.pdf/553K)ASQ User Guide (.pdf/2.3M)ASQ PLUS User Guide (.pdf/668K)Sample Questionnaires and ReportsASQ 2005 Sample Questionnaire (.pdf/23K)ASQ PLUS 2005 Sample Questionnaire (.pdf/38K)ASQ 2000 Sample Highlights Report (.pdf/152K)ASQ 2000 Sample Detailed Report (.pdf/91K)Research and Articles