THE BOX MODEL

Admissions is about conversations

Conversations should be challenging and engaging.  (Otherwise, it’s either small talk or soliloquy, neither of which convert.)

That means your communications should encourage dialogue, not avoid it.

Sometimes that means challenging students.  Even provoking them.

Unfortunately, that often means challenging the status quo, too.

You have to push to progress

Another way to say it: if you want to stand out, you have to take a step forward.

Here are some real examples of provoking students—despite campus opposition—and the subsequent results:

Example #1: Outside the Comfort Zone

On Rochester’s Class of 2011 website (last year), I posted a picture of an angry man next to our list of upcoming deadlines.

When one of the deans in the College saw it, she told us to take it down.

We refused, of course.  And the students loved it.  This year, the same picture’s up again, and no one has complained.

Example #2: Take a Stand

A teacher in Washington was recently suspended for refusing to administer a standardized state-wide test.  His act of civil disobedience caused widespread controversy and re-ignited the debate over the value of standardized testing.

And even though increasing SAT scores is one of our president’s goals, we decided to send an e-mail to every prospective student that obliquely supported the teacher’s cause, highlighting one of our core beliefs: “You’re more than a score.”

As gutsy as it was to take a stand, the only responses we got were positive.

Example #3: Finally, Blowback

A couple weeks ago, my team made a publication that caused a huge stir on campus.  The brochure talked about “decisions” — how Rochester was shaped by social activists like Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass, and George Eastman, 3 visionaries who changed their world.

All well and good.  But, just to make it really provocative, we included a picture of Hillary Clinton over Anthony, Barak Obama over Douglass, and John McCain over Eastman.  Then the first paragraph on the inside cover segued into the topic of “decisions” by discussing the political decision our country is facing in November.

That was the only mention of politics in the entire piece.  In other words, the cover was deliberately provocative.

As the brochure was being finalized, just within our office, a lot of counselors stood against it.

And once it went public, other departments weighed in.  At one point, I even heard people on the campus shuttle complaining about it.

Basically, everyone put as much distance as possible between them and the brochure.

And just as the nay-sayers predicted, after sending it out to 100,000 students, we did receive angry e-mails.

Two, to be exact.  From parents.

One of them unsubscribed from our mailing list; but she also didn’t read the piece.

I responded to the second directly, explaining how happy I was to see his passion, re-iterating how important passion is to our philosophy of a self-guided education, and challenging him to give us another chance if he agreed.

Prospective students, of course, loved it.

But if they didn’t?

Then we would let them go and wish them every success.

Or: we would capitalize on the unexpected point of contact and have a meaningful, challenging conversation.

Either way, it’s recruitment at a very high level.