The enrollment report arrives in board packets or posts on BoardEffect. Applications, deposits, class size, discount rate. Trustees review numbers, ask clarifying questions, move forward.
The assumption holds: enrollment is management’s responsibility. The board monitors. Management manages.
This distinction makes sense. Boards that micromanage undermine presidential leadership. But boards staying safely in monitoring mode while institutions drift toward enrollment crises—that’s a different problem.
The challenge is finding appropriate board engagement. Strategic oversight that helps rather than interferes. Frankly, what is more important to the financial health of the institution?
Questions That Matter
Most boards ask about results: Did we hit our target? What’s our discount rate? Legitimate monitoring questions. But they’re backward-looking and reveal little about trajectory.
Questions that matter more look forward and probe strategy:
Are we gaining or losing market share in our service area? Which competitors are winning students we’re losing? What are they offering? What’s our trend in net revenue per student over five years? How does our graduation rate compare to institutions students choose instead of us? How are we innovating across the institutions in ways that attract and retain students? Are our facilities competitive?
These questions shift conversation from monitoring performance to understanding strategic position. They help boards see patterns before crises.
Boards should also probe alignment: How do academic planning decisions incorporate enrollment intelligence? What is cabinet doing collectively to support enrollment? Do we have appropriate leadership capacity and collaboration to execute strategy?
What Boards Actually Influence
Boards don’t recruit students. But boards profoundly affect enrollment outcomes through critical functions.
Boards establish risk tolerance. When enrollment challenges emerge, boards either authorize bold strategic responses or encourage incremental adjustments insufficient to the challenge. That’s a governance decision with enrollment consequences.
Boards approve budgets and resource allocation, often a rubber stamp, in my experience. When boards fund enrollment infrastructure—recruitment staff, technology, marketing capability—or starve these investments to preserve other priorities, those decisions determine what’s institutionally possible.
Boards hire and support presidents. Presidential clarity about enrollment strategy and willingness to lead difficult changes often determines whether enrollment improves or deteriorates. Boards supporting presidential leadership through hard choices enable progress. Boards rewarding popularity over courage typically get the leadership they incentivize.
Boards set fundamental strategy. Decisions about program portfolio, market positioning, pricing philosophy, mission priorities—these are board-level strategic choices shaping everything enrollment professionals can accomplish.
The Presidential Partnership Required
This level of board engagement requires presidential leadership. Presidents need to help boards understand enrollment dynamics, competitive context, and strategic options. That means providing not just current metrics but trend analysis, competitive intelligence, and honest positioning assessment.
It means presenting strategic choices clearly: if we pursue X, we can expect Y, but it means not pursuing Z. Boards can’t make informed decisions without understanding real tradeoffs.
It means presidents asking boards for authority and resources to act decisively when challenges demand it. The most effective boards give presidents permission to lead through necessary changes rather than managing around edges.
When Board Oversight Matters
The pattern worth avoiding: boards notice challenges, request plans, approve incremental responses, watch situations deteriorate, eventually face crisis decisions with fewer options and higher stakes.
The boards helping institutions successfully navigate demographic and market challenges engage earlier, ask harder strategic questions, authorize bolder responses, and support presidents through difficult changes while institutions still have resources and options.
That’s not operational interference. That’s strategic governance.
The question isn’t whether boards should engage enrollment challenges. It’s whether they’ll engage strategically and early enough to matter.
J. Carey Thompson is the founder of CVET Enrollment Strategies, bringing 35+ years of senior enrollment leadership experience across admission, financial aid, career services, communications, athletics, and institutional research. CVET partners with private colleges and universities to develop comprehensive, evidence-based enrollment strategies. Learn more at cvetconsulting.com.