Closing the door after the horses bolted

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

My point is that having deferred recruitment does NOT translate into more successful (if we judge success by pnms placed in chapters) recruitment than those who do not defer; in fact, the opposite seems to be the case. The op posited that because of her daughter's recruitment failure recruitment should go to a deferred model. I do not think that would have the result the op thinks it would.

As to retention, I don't think there is a big difference between deferred/non-deferred campuses but don't know where to access the data. I think I can confidently state that retention isn't a major problem at the SEC campuses I referenced - a problem, perhaps, but look at those chapter numbers.

The two of you are talking about a completely different set of demographics. The campi where deferred recruitment would really improve retention rates are the opposite of the campi where hell would freeze, melt, and freeze again before they would even consider deferred recruitment.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

The two of you are talking about a completely different set of demographics. The campi where deferred recruitment would really improve retention rates are the opposite of the campi where hell would freeze, melt, and freeze again before they would even consider deferred recruitment.

Do you know of a campus where they went to deferred and it improved retention rates? And since you obviously have a campus (or campi) in mind - where do you think deferred WOULD improve retention?

SEC was the topic in the op, so that is where I've focused my comments. I would be interested in knowing if and where deferred recruitment works/would work better than standard recruitment. I am most familiar with SMU, and I don't know that I would say it works for them based on what I know about what happens during the fall.