I agree with the thesis, but not the logic. Dr. Rhoads attempts to tie the recent enrollment declines to limited budgets. “Enrollment in community colleges across the country is plateauing and declining,” he argues, “despite rising student demand.” Dr. Rhoads seems insistent on this latter part, but here is where I get lost. Although demand is much higher than 5 years ago, many states have had declining enrollments since two years ago.

Moreover, the sharp decline in enrollment was projected ahead of time based on demand-based factors*. I predicted the sharp decline in Iowa’s community college enrollment because of decrease in demand.* The U.S. Department of Education estimated enrollment would move from a 7% growth between 2008 and 2009 to a 0.8% growth between 2009 and 2010 (turned out to be a 1.7% growth) using a methodology primarily based on demand. Oddly, Dr. Rhoads report also cites a Community College Review article that notes several states expected their enrollments to decline, even in states where he claims students are being turned away because of budget cuts.

The reason for the decline? I think that many students who jumped into community colleges simply graduated, transferred, or entered back into the labor market. Dr. Rhoads, during a bit of a Twitter conversation, noted that the graduation rates have not increased at community colleges, and he’s absolutely right. But the graduation rate formula at community colleges are woefully inadequately, capturing first-time, full-time students. In this instance, it’s more meaningful to look at total number of awards. In Iowa, we saw the largest jump in the number of awards since we started tracking that statistic. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to grab the most recent national statistic.

It is also likely that there was a reduction in student demand as unemployment began to recover. Although the unemployment rate has been slowly declining, there has been a reducing in the number of unemployed individuals. In August 2009 (the fall 2009 semester), there were 14,823,000 unemployed “adults” (16+). At the beginning of the fall 2011 semester, there were 14,008,000 unemployment adults. Currently, as of February 2012 (let’s call that the spring 2012 semester), 13,430,000 unemployed adults.

The Converse

Like I said, I ultimately agree with Dr. Rhoads. The budget cuts, “operating more with less”, has taken a toll, but not in the way he suggests. Instead, I suspect community college enrollment in specific majors/programs was artificially capped during the enrollment surge. Enrollment in community colleges grew 7% in 2009, which was likely caused by the sudden economic deterioration. During this point, we saw colleges struggle to add capacity to technical programs which could not expand fast enough to keep pace. Within Iowa, there were numerous instances of programs with long waiting lists.** At this point, Dr. Rhoads is right; many students were turned away and, likely, those who would benefit the most from college.

Rejoinder

Dr. Rhoads is a respected scholar and the report seemed to catch the attention of other good education researchers. The line of argumentation doesn’t make sense though. Student demand is clearly higher now than 5 years ago, but there is no way enrollments are going to be as high as 2009. Yet, the report compares current enrollment with the enrollment peak as evidence that students are being turned away.  California is a clear case where this is happening, but the evidence isn’t clear in the other states***

These seem like minor quibbles. It would be easy agree to disagree with the logic for an argument I ultimately agree with. But I think it is very important for academia to play a mediating role between government, administrators, and the public. Lawmakers who are bent on reducing public expenditures will claim that higher education is well-funded or even over-funded–even when they are clearly not adequately funded, such as the case now. Higher education administrators will complain they are under-funded or have too many burdens even in periods where funding is adequate and the regulation is meaningful.

And some of it is my past experience. I hated, hated, when an advocacy paper from a think-tank was released that played fast-and-loose. As a result, there was a lot of running around trying to adjust the newly-formed misconceptions. Normally, these reports argued against my belief or policies. In this circumstance, there is a peaceful rejoinder on an unfortunate circumstance–we ultimately agree that students are being turned away, just differ on when it happened. Even when community colleges had rapidly increasing enrollment, the limit on programs seemed to conflict with their open admission policies. Although students were admitted and were suitable for some programs, there was simply no room.

My youngest sister April shared with me the advice she received for presenting at seminars: “1/3 of your audience will instantly like you, 1/3 will instantly dislike you, and the last 1/3 haven’t yet made of their minds. Don’t waste your time trying to cater to the 1/3 that dislikes you.”

What is it about human nature that won’t allow us to accept that some people just won’t like us? Rather than spend time and effort trying to coax people into loving our product or service, focus on those who already love us or those who haven’t made up their minds yet.

The advice Dr. Gary Rhoads gives in Boom Start: Super Laws of Successful Entrepreneurs is to focus on the Love Group – your loyal customers. Discover first what your loyal customers love about your product or service and then take that message to the undecided and the uninformed – the Swing Group. Build your energy around comments from the Love Group and then use that energy to sell to the Swing Group. Let the Swing Group see your product through the eyes of your Love Group.

This week discover what your Love Group loves about your product or service. Then share that message the next time you are networking with potential customers.

Bev McCrostie, M.Ed.
Your Unlimited Potential
Coaching Small Business Startups

The process is fairly simple: gather together a focus group of 6 – 14 people (typically 10 who you believe are your ideal client). You will need a Group Moderator who has some skills in facilitating group discussion – not a member of the focus group and not you. The Group Moderator should make this a fun experience by throwing out candies, letting them wear the colored hats, encouraging sharing of all ideas, and using each member’s name.

If you can afford it, purchase the six different colored hats for each focus group member and set them out on the table in front of each person. Can’t afford the hats? Then six sheets of colored paper will work just as well.

The Group Moderator leads the focus group through the process by having them put on the colored hats each time and answer the questions in the following order:

White Hat – Facts:
Owner (you) shares only the facts and allows the group to ask questions. After the owner leaves, the Moderator then asks the focus group, “Tell me what you just learned.”

Red Hat – Emotions:
Moderator states, “On a scale of 1 – 10, where 10 is Wow! Fantastic and 1 is Stinko, rate this product.” (Note: you need to have an average of 7.5 to be commercially viable. Less than 7.5 means “not quite yet”. It could also mean that you don’t have the ideal client group. If the idea has a 6.0 average, the idea could be tweaked.)

Black Hat – Negative Judgment:
Moderator asks, “What don’t you like?” Moderator writes down all the comments.

Yellow Hat – Positive Judgment:
Moderator requests, “Think of what would be positive.” Again writes down all the comments.

Green Hat – Alterations & Creativity:
Moderator requests, “Break into groups and bring back how this could be the number 1 product.” Encourages: “You are doing so well; I want you to imagine I was going to send you to Disneyland for the best ideas.”

Blue Hat – Thinking About the Process:
Moderator asks, “What would you summarize for the CEO?” Video tape this feedback. If the focus group has recommended a number of changes, the Moderator could request that they use the scale of 1 – 10 to rate the revised idea.

With the results from the focus group, you can now tweak the idea if it didn’t achieve a score of 7.5 or better, you could try another focus group (hoping to find your ideal client group), or you could abandon the idea and put your time and money into seeking out an idea that has the Wow! Factor.

Bev McCrostie, M.Ed.
Virtual Assistant Certificate
Red Deer College
Bev.mccrostie@rdc.ab.ca
www.virtualassist.ca