Four risks that admissions directors must manage with recruitment materials and social media

Part one of a two-part series on risk management in admissions

Each year, colleges and universities make contacts with thousands of prospective students. However, these experiences are filled with risks. To avoid mishaps, admissions and risk management officers must engage in risk management reviews of practices and consider, where necessary, modifications to policies, procedures, or activities that need to be made to ensure a positive campus experience for both the visitor and the campus community.

Let’s begin now by examining four risks in publishing recruitment materials and using social media.

1. Risk of misrepresenting the facts in writing

Risk management reviews should begin with written recruitment materials. Viewbooks, brochures, Websites, and other materials must represent an accurate representation of the campus. Photos must include actual students and photos on campus. That may seem obvious, yet I have encountered institutions using stock photos that provided an inaccurate representation of the campus. For example, one campus had a great picture of student-aged people playing volleyball on a sand court in the campus viewbook. During a visit, a student asked where the sand court was, only to learn no such court existed. Another campus viewbook showed a stock lab photo of students actively engaged in an experiment. Neither the lab nor the academic program inferred from the photo existed on the campus.

Does your campus promise in its recruitment materials that students will receive individual care and service? Almost all campuses boast this. If it is true, terrific. If however, through campus satisfaction surveys and institutional feedback a campus knows that students won’t receive much individual attention, it is better to not say it and to instead focus on other positive aspects of the institution. For example, many campuses include in their materials that students are assigned an academic advisor and imply that their advisor will guide the student through their four-year experience. On some campuses, strong advising is offered at a high quality level. At others, advisors have a thousand-to-one ratio where no human could possibly provide individual guidance to all of the advisees.

2. Risk of misrepresenting the facts in speech

Often times, admissions counselors are not kept up to date on curricular changes or changes to majors that are being taught. Meeting with academic leaders and the admissions team should be quarterly to share new program development consideration and major changes to curriculum. With more and more freshman and sophomore students beginning their college searches, planned new majors may be a way to engage younger applicants. However, admissions leaders and academic leaders want to ensure that no implied contract is made with a prospective student. If it could be argued that an institution has created an implied contract for its services and programs through conversations with admissions counselors or through recruitment materials, and that these elements were the reasons why the student chose to attend or deposit at the institution, an institution may find itself in an awkward position.

Similarly, admissions counselors must be careful about over-promising the level of individualized attention from advisors that a student will receive on a campus, especially if that attention is associated with completing a degree within a specified timeframe. In this case, the risk is that a counselor will promise an implied service where students (and parents) believe the advisor ensures a student will complete their degree requirements within a specified time.

3. Risks associated with the admissions application and its follow-up

The admissions application is also important to assess from a risk management perspective. Application questions allow an opportunity for institutions to inquire about a student’s past. Colleges should have appropriate policies and procedures in place for internal reviews with documented protocols for when students answer questions such as felony violations or are undocumented. If a campus requires an essay from the student and the student self-discloses potential risky behavior, counselors need to be trained in how to respond and follow written protocols before accepting the student.

4. Risk of misusing social media and e-communications

Technology has become essential to the recruitment process, but it presents its own unique risks. First, institutions must ensure that the messages sent to prospective students are accurate as discussed earlier. In addition, as campuses redesign their Web sites and move toward increased interaction and engagement (Web 2.0), care should be given in monitoring and establishing policies around who engages with students in these mediums. Campuses should establish parameters related to admissions counselors or others involved in the recruitment process with uses in social media, blogs, e-mail, online chats, and “Ask a Question” responses.

It is also important to not blur the line between professional and personal when it comes to interacting with students. Recruiters should not be “friends” with prospective applicants and should drive applicants to institutional or recruiter group pages where the material provides focused information geared towards incoming students. No member of the institution should use their personal or non-institution e-mail account to communicate with prospective students. If an active faculty member is well engaged through Facebook, Twitter, or other social networking tools, that is great as long as the campus has implemented policies and protocols to support this connection and what to do if prospective students respond or inquire in inappropriate ways.

In my next post, I will examine managing the risks in campus visits. In the meantime, if you have any questions about risk management or other recruitment-related matters, please leave a comment or e-mail me.