Skip to main content

The latest Boogey Man: Frontloading

It's happened three times in the last several months: I am invited into, or stumble into, a discussion on "Frontloading."  It's been the case that the people who are talking about it are generally convinced it exists, and generally believe it's a widely practiced approach.

In case you don't know, frontloading is the presumed practice of enrollment managers (of course) who make big institutional aid awards to entice freshmen to enroll, and then remove them after the freshman year.  Journalists, especially, point to aggregated data suggesting that the average amount of institutional aid for non-freshmen is lower than for freshmen. "Aha!" they scream, "The smoking gun!"

Well, not so fast.  I'm willing to admit that there may be a few colleges in the US where frontloading happens, probably in a clandestine manner, but perhaps, in at least one instance I was made aware of, for a very logical and justifiable reason.  But most enrollment managers I've asked have the same reaction to the concept: To do so would be career suicide.  This does not deter those who love to skewer enrollment management and hoist the problems of higher education squarely on our backs.

To be sure, I asked a Facebook group of 9,000 college admissions officers, high school counselors, and independent college consultants about the practice.  This is not a group of wallflowers, and the group members call it like they see it; even so, I asked them to message me privately if there were colleges where this routinely happened.  I got a couple of "I think maybe it happens," responses, and exactly one comment from a counselor who said she was sure it happened.

I have told people repeatedly that there are many possible reasons why the data look the way they do:


  • The freshman data is first-time, full-time, degree seeking students.  All of them are technically eligible for institutional aid.
  • The "All students" data includes all undergraduates.  That includes full-time, part-time, non-degree seeking students, many of whom are less likely to qualify for aid.
  • The "All students" group also contains transfers, who may qualify for less aid
  • It's possible that students who earned aid as a freshman lose it due to lack of academic progress or performance in subsequent years
  • It's also possible students with the most institutional aid are the neediest, and thus not likely to be around past the freshman year
These reasons seem to fall on deaf ears of people who are eager to prove something they believe to be true.

So I tried another angle: Doing the same comparison of Pell Grant participation.  The Pell Grant, of course, is a federal program, not awarded by or controlled by the colleges.  What would happen if we looked at Pell Grant participation rates among freshmen and the rest of the student body?  I think this visualization, below, demonstrates it quite well.

There are four columns: 

  • Percent of freshmen with Pell
  • Percent of all other undergraduates (non-freshmen) with Pell
  • The percentage of undergraduates who are freshmen (in a traditional college, this should be about 25%-30%.  Bigger or smaller numbers can tip off a different mix)
  • And finally, the right hand column, showing the difference between the first two.
The bars are color-coded: Blue bars show more freshmen with Pell; red bars show fewer freshmen with Pell, and gray bars show no difference.  You'll note that most bars are blue; if this were institutional aid, you might leap to the conclusion of frontloading.  That's exactly what journalists do.

But it's not institutional aid.  It's federal aid.  And yet, the differences are very large at some places.

You can hover over the top of any column to sort by that column.  And you can use the filters at the right to limit the colleges included on the view to certain regions, control, or Carnegie type.

Is this evidence strong enough to convince you?  If not, let me know why in the comments below.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl

Freshman Migration, 1986 to 2020

(Note: I discovered that in IPEDS, Penn State Main Campus now reports with "The Pennsylvania State University" as one system.  So when you'd look at things over time, Penn State would have data until 2018, and then The Penn....etc would show up in 2020.  I found out Penn State main campus still reports its own data on the website, so I went there, and edited the IPEDS data by hand.  So if you noticed that error, it should be corrected now, but I'm not sure what I'll do in years going forward.) Freshman migration to and from the states is always a favorite visualization of mine, both because I find it a compelling and interesting topic, and because I had a few breakthroughs with calculated variables the first time I tried to do it. If you're a loyal reader, you know what this shows: The number of freshman and their movement between the states.  And if you're a loyal viewer and you use this for your work in your business, please consider supporting the costs

Yes, your yield rate is still falling, v 2020

I started doing this post on a regular basis several years ago, in response (if I recall) to a colleague talking about their Board of Trustees Chair insisting that "all we need to do" to bring enrollment back to its former level is to get the yield rate up.   That's the equivalent of saying all you need to do is straighten your drives and cut ten putts from each round, and you'll be a great golfer.  Moreover, it's based on the assumption that a falling yield rate is based on something you're doing or not doing.  The challenge is much larger, and a lot harder to address.  It's not a switch you flip. So we've got this: A look at applications, admits, and enrolls over the last twenty years, and three key ratios that are based on those numbers: Admit rate, or the percentage of applicants offered admission; yield rate, or the percentage of those offered admission who enroll; and the lesser-known draw rate, which is calculated by dividing the yield rate by t