1. Multiple Uses of ASQ Data College Board Forum November 2006 André Bell, Vice President Midwest Regional Office, The College Board Becky Brodigan, Director of Institutional Research, Middlebury College

2. Background on the ASQ Developed by the College Board Sent to all admitted students Two different options for ASQ – regular and PLUS, both provide Paper or web options The data a highlights report, a detailed report, with all the documentation a Norms report (based on all ASQ users) PLUS gives you detailed information on your competitors, and allows limited customization

3. The Tale of Two Colleges: Bentley and Middlebury Examples Standard uses Importance of factors in enrollment decision process Image definition and evaluation Price sensitivity Definition of competitive set Service issues Etc.

4. 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)

5. Use of the ASQ at Bentley

6. Strategic Plan The next level: 1997 – 2002 Competitive Environment Strategy Results

7. Perceived Quality Price liberal arts UCONN, UMASS, UNH, SUNY- Binghamton Berkeley, Michigan Maryland, etc. BU Babson BC Stonehill, Fairfield, Bentley Providence, Northeastern, Merrimack, Bryant Salem St., West. Conn., SUNY-Platts top 20 The Competitive Environment, 1997 -- undergrad

8. Perceived Quality Price prestige “national” state univs. regional state univs. Bentley, 1997 local state univs. The Competitive Environment, 1997 -- the next level 2002?

9. 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 deeper Undergrad only Undergrad thru PHD Specialized Across the Board B Liberal Arts Colleges Comprehensive Universities Tech. Univs.

10. Pursuing the Next Level: -- The Strategy Focus on students interested in business In business education & IT, lead (if we tie, we lose) In arts & sciences, equal quality and better suited to business students In student life, equal quality Undergrad only Undergrad thru PHD Specialized Across the Board B Liberal Arts Colleges Comprehensive Universities Tech. Univs.

11. The Next Level, Undergraduate -- Results, 2002 We made our move: Applications and Selectivity Quality Geographic Diversity Competition Rankings Revenue

12. 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%)

13. 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%)

14. Competitor strength and price CategoriesCross Apps Average PriceBentley Yield Competitor Yield Public1,726$14,000 ($9,943) 26%17% Regional Private College 1,374$21,00022%20% Regional Private University 1,372$25,20022%24% Business1,157$23,00029%28% Very Selective400$26,00018%32%

16. The Tale of Two Colleges: Bentley and Middlebury Examples Standard uses Importance of factors in enrollment decision process Image definition and evaluation Price sensitivity Definition of competitive set Service issues Etc.

17. 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?

18. Adjectives for image on the ASQ Isolated Prestigious Fun Intellectual Career-oriented Not well known Comfortable Back-up school Selective Athletics Friendly Partying Average Challenging Manageable academics Academic Pressure Cosmopolitan School for the wealthy Diverse Other

19. Internal Images of Midd and Admitted Student Images Administration Selective Athletic School for the wealthy Prestigious Challenging Isolated Friendly Admitted Student Selective Challenging Prestigious Intellectual Friendly Isolated Fun Athletics

21. Percent receiving financial aid

22. Middlebury Image of Competitors College ACollege BCollege C Prestigious Selective Challenging IntellectualAthleticsIsolated School for the Wealthy

23. Internal Images of Midd and Admitted Student Images Administration 1. Selective 2. Athletic 3. School for the wealthy 4. Prestigious 5. Challenging 6. Isolated 7. Friendly Admitted Student 1. Selective 2. Challenging 3. Prestigious 4. Intellectual 5. Friendly 6. Isolated 7. Fun 8. Athletics

24. Sources rated as “Excellent” 2000 Middlebury Amherst Contact with coaches College website Publications Financial Aid Communications

25. Sources rates as “Excellent” 2005 (improvements in mass communications but not individual communications) Middlebury College website Publications Amherst High School Visits Contact with Graduates Contact with Faculty Post Admit Communications

26. Availability of Majors (Academic emphasis in publications) 2000 Williams Dartmouth Brown Amherst Middlebury Bowdoin 2005 Williams Dartmouth Brown Middlebury Amherst Bowdoin

27. Quality of Majors (Academic emphasis in publications) 2000 Williams Dartmouth Brown Amherst Middlebury Bowdoin 2005 Williams Dartmouth Brown Middlebury Amherst Bowdoin

28. Availability of Recreational Facilities 2000 Middlebury 2005 Middlebury Bowdoin Brown Williams

29. Quality of Academic Facilities 1998 20022006 Amherst BrownDartmouth Brown DartmouthMiddlebury Dartmouth WilliamsAmherst Williams MiddleburyBowdoin Middlebury AmherstDartmouth Bowdoin Williams

30. Undergraduate Teaching Commitment 2006 Amherst Middlebury Bowdoin Brown Dartmouth Williams

33. Enrollment competitors

34. Change in competitors since 1996 New George Washington USC Clark Scripps University of Washington Occidental University of Toronto University of Conn. University of Maryland Villanova RPI Miami Univ. (Ohio) No longer Rutgers Binghamton SUNY Geneseo Loyola (MD) Drew Trinity (TX) Hartwick Providence Fordham University of Denver

35. Midd Response Rates 19972000200120022005 All13801143120612741276 Respondents763749707962730 %55%66%59%76%57% Enrolling552478528603581 Respondents394399394519412 %71%83%75%86%71% Non-Enrolling828665 671695 Respondents369350 443318 %45%53% 66%46%

36. Work in Progress Used ASQ adjective lists to look at images of Midd and competitors at DC student focus groups Will test against our images and viewbook

37. http://www.collegeboard.com/higher ed/ra/asq_res.html Supplemental Reports and Data Forms ASQ Supplemental Reports and Data Files order formASQ Supplemental Reports and Data Files order form (.pdf/85K) ASQ Plus Supplemental Reports and Data Files order form ASQ Plus Supplemental Reports and Data Files order form (.pdf/87K) Manuals and Guides ASQ/ASQ PLUS User ManualASQ/ASQ PLUS User Manual (.pdf/553K) ASQ User GuideASQ User Guide (.pdf/2.3M) ASQ PLUS User GuideASQ PLUS User Guide (.pdf/668K) Sample Questionnaires and Reports ASQ 2005 Sample QuestionnaireASQ 2005 Sample Questionnaire (.pdf/23K) ASQ PLUS 2005 Sample QuestionnaireASQ PLUS 2005 Sample Questionnaire (.pdf/38K) ASQ 2000 Sample Highlights ReportASQ 2000 Sample Highlights Report (.pdf/152K) ASQ 2000 Sample Detailed ReportASQ 2000 Sample Detailed Report (.pdf/91K) Research and Articles