Retention, An Intro

Tony Zanders

In the higher education arena, retention is a popular topic of discussion. This is primarily because it yields the most return on investment amongst the other stages of the student lifecycle. But also because it’s a common problem amongst all types of colleges and universities. Questions such as “How do we prevent students from leaving after two years?” and “What measures can we take to ensure that students have the best college experience ever?” are commonly asked internally, and also within the larger industry conversation. The latter question is more of an anomaly, however, as most institutions prioritize time and resource allocation in the order of needs and problems, as opposed to prevention and enhancements.

Webster’s defines “retention” as “to keep in one’s pay or service.” In our case, this applies to keeping students enrolled as full-time (or part-time) students, which demands a form of tuition paid. On the outside, it seems that the most efficient way to allocate an institution’s funds for retention would be to discover the pain points where students are risk averse with regard to enrollment, or dependent upon above-average amounts of financial aid, and taking “preventative” measures to keep them. This approach seems manageable, and strategic, as it paints a picture that an institution is taking steps to keep students paying tuition. The flaw under this philosophy is that it is negative at it’s very core. The notion of preventative measures are good, generally speaking, but not optimal. The optimal solution is to treat every student like a person, instead of a revenue-generating object, by way of maintaining rich, multi-faceted dialogues with them before, during, and after their experience with an institution.