It’s often not the unknowns that most hold us back. It’s the things we believe are true, but actually aren’t. Here are seven of the biggest enrollment myths that may be standing between you and your goals.

Myth #1 – If the top of our funnel grows, then the bottom will also grow.

This is a dangerous myth. A large top-of-funnel can waste your time and money. Think of it like searching for 100 needles in a haystack. Would you rather the haystack be huge or small? Smaller is better, as long as you still have all the needles.

Many leaders believe that if we simply add more students to our inquiry pool, we’ll end up with more enrolled students. This is false. In reality, we often lose students by spending time and resources on prospects who were never truly interested.

Myth #2 – We have a good sales team.

It’s rare to find a multi-million-dollar organization that hands its sales operation to a young team with no prior sales experience. Yet, that’s exactly what many institutions do with their admissions offices. Some would call that foolish.

Sometimes we wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to our admissions teams. We hired them, so we assume they’re great. But often, they’re not. Many can’t answer even the most basic questions about the institution. This is your sales team; they need to be excellent. If you want more sales, you need to upgrade your salespeople.

Myth #3 – We understand how we create value for students.

Christian colleges often fall back on familiar value points:

• We integrate faith and learning
• We have a great Christian community
• We offer small class sizes
• We have strong academic programs

These are good things, but they don’t make you stand out. You need to answer three critical questions with specificity:

1. Who have we chosen to serve?
2. Which of their needs will we meet?
3. What are they willing to pay for us to meet those needs?

Most schools can’t answer those questions clearly, and as a result, sound generic in the market. You must deeply understand how your institution creates specific value for your students.

Myth #4 – Our real problem is our systems.

Enrollment teams love to talk about broken systems. Yes, systems can be a problem, but often the problem is poor execution of the fundamentals.

I once coached my daughter’s 6th-grade basketball team. I never coached basketball before, so I studied cool plays and formations. At our first practice, I got a rude awakening—they didn’t know how to pass or catch! So we scrapped the plays and went back to basics.

It’s the same in enrollment. If your sales team isn’t strong, your communication plan is weak, and your campus tour is forgettable, then your systems aren’t the issue. First, master the fundamentals, then build systems that help you succeed.

Myth #5 – Students choose colleges based on facts.

We’ve all seen the “fact bar” on a college website:

• 1,400 students
• 12:1 student-to-faculty ratio
• 16 sports teams
• 25 student organizations

But, does anyone actually choose a college based on these? Here’s what really happens after a campus visit:

The family gets in the car. Someone asks, “What did everyone think?” No one says, “Wow, that building was built in 1903!” Instead, they say things like:

• “I felt at home here.”
• “I really liked the professor I met.”
• “I think I’d have friends here.”
• “Someone was rude to me.”

These are feeling statements—not facts. Students make decisions emotionally, then justify them with facts. If your print materials, website, or tour lead with facts, then you’re doing it wrong.

Myth #6 – Next year will be different.

Here’s a quote worth remembering:

“Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” – W. Edwards Deming

If you’re not hitting your enrollment goals, it’s because your current system is designed to get those results. If you want dramatically different outcomes, you need dramatically different actions. Hope is not a strategy.

Myth #7 – We’ve been dealt a losing hand.

I saved the most dangerous myth for last. The team that believes it will lose will.

Have you ever noticed that winning coaches keep winning even when they move to new programs? Why? Because they believe they can win.

Here are some common excuses enrollment teams use:

• The enrollment cliff
• Outdated facilities
• An unattractive location
• The wrong academic programs
• A declining industry
• Not enough marketing dollars

If you believe these are why you can’t win, then you’re right. And, you’ve already lost to teams that believe they can win. Belief comes first.

Which one do you believe, and is it holding your performance?

For outside help diagnosing, contact us today to schedule a time to start overcoming these myths.

—Nick Willis is a partner at TG Three and a builder-leader, problem solver, and mathematician. TG Three is a values-driven strategy company dedicated to serving Christian institutions to help get them from where they are to where they want to be.

At a time when many institutions are watering down their distinctives, Cedarville University is doing the opposite. They’re deepening their strategy — rooting it even more firmly in Scripture — and the results speak for themselves.

• Cedarville welcomed its largest freshman class ever this fall — a 15.6% increase over last year
• Undergraduate enrollment is at an all-time high
• Dual enrollment is up 61%, now serving more than 1,700 high school students
• Graduate programs have reached record enrollment, with 590 students across 30 offerings
• Total enrollment has climbed to 6,384 — a 17% increase in one year

This isn’t accidental growth. It results from a clear, differentiated strategy centered on mission fidelity and academic excellence. For years, Cedarville has emphasized Scripture at the center of the student experience, from its required Bible minor to daily chapel to the intentional integration of biblical truth across academic disciplines. 

And now, Cedarville is going even deeper.

This fall, the university launched a faculty development initiative designed to help faculty more fully integrate Scripture and theology into their academic disciplines by offering them a free Graduate Certificate in Biblical and Theological Studies, which includes five 3-credit courses:

• Old Testament Overview
• New Testament Overview
• Systematic Theology I
• Systematic Theology II
• Introduction to Biblical Theology

Each participating faculty member will complete four of the five courses to earn the certificate. The university is offering the program at no cost and investing in faculty further by paying them $1,000 for each completed course.

Twenty faculty members are in the first cohort, strengthening their theological foundations and sharpening their ability to disciple students both in and beyond the classroom. It’s a bold, strategic move that reinforces Cedarville’s brand as a distinctively biblical institution. And it sends a clear message: The Bible isn’t just an add-on at Cedarville. It’s the core of who they are and how they teach.

Remember, strategy is about making integrated choices that create distinction and drive performance. Cedarville is doing just that. They’re not just staying true to their mission — they’re building a competitive advantage around it.

At TG Three, we believe Christian colleges don’t thrive by mimicking secular universities. They flourish by clarifying their mission and aligning their people, programs, and priorities around it. Cedarville is showing the way.

If you want to sharpen your strategy and become the kind of institution your mission calls you to be, let’s talk.

–Rob Westervelt is the Founder and Partner at TG Three with over 26 years of experience. TG Three is a values-driven strategy company dedicated to serving Christian institutions to help get them from where they are to where they want to be.

A higher education leader once asked, “Our discount rate keeps rising and our board keeps asking if we’re giving away too much. But we can’t afford to lose students. Are we on a dangerous path?”

If you’ve ever had a similar thought, you’re not alone.

Presidents, boards, and administrators often view the discount rate as a critical financial metric. Most of the time, leaders feel their undergraduate discount rate is too high. But what defines a “good” discount rate? Is such a thing even possible?

What Is a Discount Rate?

The National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) defines a discount rate as:

The percentage of a college or university’s gross tuition and fee revenue that’s awarded to undergraduates in the form of grants.

In other words:

Discount Rate = (Institutional Aid ÷ Tuition and Fees) × 100%

For example, if a university charges $40,000 in tuition and offers an average institutional grant of $20,000 per student, the discount rate is 50%.

Two decades ago, a 40% discount rate was considered high. Today, many Christian institutions are above 55%. Instead of asking if your discount rate is too high, the real question is “Does your aid strategy align with your institutional goals?”

Why Are Discount Rates Going Up?

There are three main reasons:

1. Tuition Increases Are Outpacing What Students Can Pay

Raising tuition by $2,000 doesn’t mean students suddenly have an extra $2,000 to pay you. We see this play out as institutions offer increasing amounts of institutional aid to meet student financial needs. 

When the gross price rises faster than the net price, the discount rate must go up.

2. Overlooking the Power of “Perceived” Financial Aid

Students want to feel valued. Yet, nothing communicates “You’re just another student” more than a generic institutional need grant. Schools invest significant time and money in attracting students, only for the financial aid package to send a message that there’s nothing unique about them.

If you’re skeptical, try this experiment: If you award athletic-based aid, tell your athletic department you’re converting all athletic scholarships into need-based institutional grants. Their reaction won’t be laughter; it’ll be panic. They understand that student-athletes want to feel valued for their hard work. So why don’t we apply this principle to our non-athlete students?

3. Failing to Differentiate Strategically

Imagine walking into a grocery store to buy a soda. If every soda looks similar but is priced differently, you’re likely to choose the cheapest one. Why? Because without any meaningful differentiation (e.g., branding, taste, etc.), price becomes the deciding factor.

The same principle applies to Christian higher education. 

Why don’t all students choose a low-cost community college? Because they perceive a clear difference between the value of a Christian institution and a community college. But, if Christian schools fail to communicate their distinctiveness, students will default to the lowest-priced option. That forces institutions to increase financial aid, further driving up the discount rate.

Should We Care?

When a Rising Discount Rate Is a Problem:

• If it’s increasing due to a lack of strategic differentiation.
• If financial aid packages fail to communicate student value.
• If the institution is forced to discount more simply to remain competitive.

When a Rising Discount Rate Is a Strategy:

• If it’s intentionally designed to meet net tuition revenue and enrollment goals.
• If it helps attract and retain the right students while maintaining financial sustainability.

The Bottom Line

A rising discount rate isn’t inherently bad. The real danger isn’t giving away too much aid, but failing to strategically use aid to strengthen your institution’s long-term sustainability.

Does your financial aid model serve your mission or is it a reaction to short-term enrollment needs?

If you’re unsure or concerned, let’s talk. 

At TG Three, we help Christian institutions turn their discount rate into a strategic tool to achieve enrollment and financial goals in pursuit of their mission.

-Nick Willis (nwillis@tgthree.com) is a Builder Leader, Mathematician, and Partner at TG Three. TG Three is a values-driven strategy company dedicated to serving Christian institutions to help get them from where they are to where they want to be.

Azusa Pacific University’s decision to reinstate football at the NCAA Division III level isn’t just about bringing back a beloved sport — it’s a bold strategic move that could reshape the future of athletics in Christian higher education. By prioritizing academics, student experience, and financial sustainability over costly athletic scholarships, APU is setting a precedent that other Christian colleges would do well to consider.

For decades, many faith-based institutions have followed a path that leads to expensive, scholarship-driven athletics in NCAA Division II and NAIA. APU is demonstrating that there is another way — one that aligns more closely with the values and mission of Christian higher education. NCAA Division III, often referred to as the “pure sport” division, allows student-athletes to compete for the love of the game rather than financial incentives, reinforcing the ideals of character, discipline, and teamwork without the pressures of scholarship-driven recruiting.

This move should prompt Christian college administrators to rethink their athletic models. Instead of competing in conferences dominated by state-funded institutions, they could form new rivalries with peer institutions that share their academic and faith commitments. A shift toward Division III could save institutions hundreds of thousands of dollars annually while strengthening their academic reputation and enhancing institutional identity.

A Strategic Shift

Harvard strategist Michael Porter argues that effective strategy is about choosing a unique position, making trade-offs, and ensuring that activities fit together to reinforce differentiation. APU’s move to NCAA Division III exemplifies this approach.

1. Choosing a Unique Position: Christian colleges have long struggled with the tension between competing in athletics and maintaining their core mission. APU has opted for a strategic position that aligns athletics with the institution’s broader academic and faith commitments rather than mimicking state schools that prioritize high-budget athletic programs.
   
2. Making Trade-offs: Porter emphasizes that strategy is as much about what you don’t do as what you do. By moving away from Division II scholarship athletics, APU is choosing to invest in student experience, academic rigor, and financial sustainability over costly recruitment and athletic scholarships. This deliberate trade-off reduces financial strain and enhances the university’s long-term positioning.
   
3. Ensuring Activity Fit: True strategic differentiation requires alignment across all activities. APU’s move integrates with its identity as a Christ-centered institution, ensuring that athletics reinforce — rather than compete with — its academic mission. This move strengthens institutional branding by aligning APU with academically rigorous Division III schools rather than state-funded competitors with different priorities.
   

A Model for Other Christian Colleges

We’ve seen this strategy work before. In 1995, George Fox University transitioned from NAIA to NCAA Division III under President Ed Stevens. By joining the Northwest Conference — home to respected institutions — George Fox repositioned itself academically and athletically. The year after the move, the university raised its tuition to match its new conference peers and saw an 11% increase in tuition revenue, alongside enrollment growth.

Many Christian colleges that left NAIA for NCAA Division II made an expensive trade-off, spending more on athletics but gaining less prestige. APU’s move to Division III challenges this model. Rather than pouring resources into athletic scholarships and trying to compete in an arms race with state schools, Christian colleges have an opportunity to build something different — something better.

APU is leading the way, and it’s time for other Christian colleges to take notice. This is more than a shift in athletic classification — it’s a call for institutions to rethink their business models, realign their priorities, and ensure their athletic programs serve the broader mission of Christian higher education. The question now is: Who will be next?

–Ryan J. Dougherty is the Principal Partner at TG Three with over 25 years of experience building successful leaders, teams, and strategies. TG Three is a values-driven strategy company dedicated to serving Christian institutions to help get them from where they are to where they want to be.

Sadly, strategic plans often fail. You’ve probably seen it happen when leadership teams spend countless hours crafting detailed strategies, only to watch them fizzle out during execution. Why does this keep happening?

The answer might surprise you in its simplicity: organizations often lack a clear picture of where they actually stand, both internally and in the marketplace. It’s like trying to use Google Maps without letting it access your current location. You might have a great destination in mind, but good luck getting there if you don’t know your starting point.

The Root of the Problem

Many organizations dive into strategic planning without first answering the fundamental question: “Where are we as an organization and where do we stand in the marketplace?” This oversight leads to poor execution and plans that lack real strategy. Michael Porter’s definition encapsulates the essence of strategy perfectly:

“Strategy is a set of integrated choices that distinguishes you from competitors and enables you to achieve superior performance.”

Without clarity on your current state, your choices cannot be truly integrated or differentiated. Simply put, if you don’t know where you are, you can’t chart an effective path forward.

The Cost of Misdiagnosis

When leaders skip the critical step of understanding their organization’s core identity and market position, they risk:

• Ineffective Execution – Without a clear baseline, execution often becomes a series of disjointed actions that fail to align with a coherent strategic vision.
• Missed Opportunities – Ambiguity about internal gaps and external obstacles means your team may overlook or misjudge market opportunities.
• Strategic Drift – A lack of focus and clarity can lead to initiatives that, rather than moving the organization forward, scatter resources and dilute your competitive advantage.

Essential Questions for Clarity

To build the foundation for a successful strategy, leaders must, as Jim Collins notes, “confront the brutal facts” of their current situation. Leaders must honestly answer a series of questions designed to build a clear understanding of the organization’s current state. 

1. Why do we need to change now? Clarify a sense of urgency.
   Understand the forces—internal and external—that demand transformation. Acknowledging these factors creates a compelling case for change.
2. Who are you choosing to serve and what are their needs? Clarify your customer.
   Identify your target audience with precision. Knowing who you serve ensures that your strategy meets real market demands.
3. What prevents them from buying what you’re selling? Clarify your internal gaps and external obstacles.
   Pinpoint the barriers that hinder customer engagement. Whether these are operational challenges or market conditions, understanding them is crucial.
4. How will you operate differently to serve them? Clarify your differentiation.
   Define what makes your approach unique. Strategic differentiation is key to standing out in the competitive landscape.

Answering these questions forces you to confront reality and build a strategy that is both grounded and actionable. Neglecting them is like ignoring a small crack in a dam; left unchecked, it can lead to catastrophic failure.

Conclusion

The clarity of your starting point is the bedrock upon which a successful strategy is built. By honestly answering the fundamental questions about your core identity, urgency for change, customer needs, obstacles, opportunities, and differentiation, you prevent that small problem from growing into a devastating dragon. Remember, superior performance comes from a set of integrated choices made with full awareness of where you are today. Let TG Three help you harness that clarity and chart a course toward lasting success.

Need Help Getting Started?

If diving into these questions feels daunting, you’re not alone. At TG Three, we specialize in helping organizations find their footing before they take their next big leap. We’ll guide you through this process and help you build a strategy that’s both ambitious and grounded in reality.

Ready to get the clarity you need to move forward with confidence? Let’s talk.

–Ryan J. Dougherty is the Principal Partner at TG Three with over 24 years of experience. TG Three is a values-driven strategy company dedicated to serving Christian institutions to help get them from where they are to where they want to be.

After more than 20 years in college enrollment, including several as a Vice President, I thought helping my firstborn child choose a college would be second nature. Turns out, I was wrong.

Parenting constantly reshapes your expectations and forces you to make challenging decisions. Walking with my child through the college selection process was no different. Despite my professional experience, being on the other side as a parent revealed how complex and emotionally charged this process is. It also highlighted three major disconnects in how institutions serve families:

• Curse of Knowledge: Admissions professionals know their processes, deadlines, and jargon so well that they forget how confusing it can be for families. What’s second nature to you is a maze for us.
• Tuition Remission Blind Spots: Working in higher education creates a subtle but profound disconnect from the real financial impact families face. While you might understand the numbers, the emotional weight of paying for college feels different on the outside.
• Faux Empathy: True empathy requires walking in a family’s shoes. When processes are clunky or communication is lacking, it’s clear some institutions don’t fully understand the challenges families face. Ask yourself, “What does it feel like to be on the other side of us?”

As admissions professionals, you aren’t just promoting your institution—you should be helping make this difficult decision easier for families. Addressing these disconnects can make all the difference in how parents perceive your school.

Reflecting on this process with our son gave me fresh eyes, exposing five surprising realities. 

1. Impersonal communication was barely better than none at all: Simply having a parent communication sequence is not enough; personalization is the game changer. Schools that took the time to address me directly, as a parent, had a tenfold impact compared to those that didn’t. Generic emails or parent newsletters don’t build trust–they merely inform. CCs are fine but genuine “see me” communication, where the institution connected with me as a parent, made a big difference. Families want to feel like partners, not passive recipients.

Key Question: What is your communication revealing to students and families about your brand? 

2. Visits were often a missed opportunity: Institutions invest significant resources to get and host visitors on their campuses, yet many visits fall flat. When parents visit, they’re evaluating not only the campus but whether they can trust you with their most prized possessions—their children. It’s crucial to deliver a visit that has both personality and heart.

Details, such as poor communication before the visit, or a lackluster tour experience, can turn families off. One visit we took featured limited pre-visit communication and a two-hour tour without lunch—a hangry visitor rarely leaves with a great impression. The visit left us frustrated, and yet, a stellar faculty interaction nearly saved it all. This professor asked personal questions, gave my son career insights, and introduced him to students, completely transforming his perception of the school.

Key Questions: Are your visits truly differentiating your institution? Do they reflect the care you want families to feel?

3. Affordability was more stressful than you realize: Affordability looms large for families, even those who can afford tuition. Colleges sometimes forget that building shiny new facilities or launching programs don’t necessarily equate to value for families. This repeatedly happened in my son’s search.

This is where you must understand the value equation: the perception of benefits to students divided by the cost to students (perceived and actual). If costs are high without a correspondingly strong perception of benefits, families will quickly question whether your institution is worth the price. 

Key Question: How is your admissions experience affecting the perceived value of your institution?

4. Direct mail was effective but mostly underwhelming: Direct mail is expensive, yet often fails to leave a lasting impression. Our mailbox received plenty of it, but only a few pieces stood out. The schools that did it right consistently and frequently communicated a message that aligned with their distinct brand. Most of the mail we received, however, was simply glossy marketing.

One school set itself apart by sending a parent package that highlighted its educational philosophy and core values uniquely. Consistency across all communication made their institution memorable and helped establish trust. Targeted, meaningful communication can set you apart. Make sure your direct mail reflects your brand promise (assuming you have one) and speaks specifically to your target students and their families.

Key Question: Is your mail making you money or just costing you? 

5. Sometimes the small stuff felt huge: As families narrow their choices, even small missteps can have a big impact. These often show up as offices outside of admissions communicate with students. During one on-campus presentation, a speaker noted that expensive bikes frequently get stolen and that the weather can be a struggle for some students. In another instance, late communication about course fees (a.k.a. the Spirit Airlines of higher education) nearly derailed one of our finalist schools. As a parent trying to calculate costs, unexpected expenses—on top of tuition—added a layer of stress that could easily have been avoided. These small moments can erode confidence, and as Vince Lombardi said, “It takes months to find a customer, seconds to lose one.”

And consider this, you can’t charge like Nordstrom and function like Ross Dress for Less—experience matters.

Key Question: What small things, within your control, are costing you students?

How can you address these gaps and improve the admission experience for families? You could take a “wait-and-see” approach, hoping things will improve on their own—but that’s not a strategy. True strategy involves making intentional, differentiated choices that align with the needs of the families you serve.

Here’s how you can shift your mindset and approach these challenges with fresh eyes:

• Think, and feel, like an Outsider – Empathy must be your starting point. To truly connect with families, put yourself in their shoes. It’s easy to overlook how your internal biases—the “curse of knowledge”—skew your perspective. As Paul MacCready famously said, “The problem is we don’t understand the problem.” The goal isn’t to solve your institution’s issues—it’s to address the students’ and families’ needs.
• Walk like an Outsider – Take the student journey yourself. When was the last time your leadership team took a campus tour, signed up for an event, or evaluated how your direct mail looks upon arrival? Walk through each step of the admission process and map out the emotional highs and lows students and parents experience. Identify the areas where you can improve the experience. 
• Partner with an Outsider – You’re often too close to the problem to see it clearly. Bringing in an outsider can provide fresh insights and help you identify blind spots. Whether you connect with K-12 counselors in your area or bring in external consultants, outside perspectives are invaluable in identifying gaps. No matter how polished your sales pitch and marketing materials are, they won’t drive results if you don’t address the underlying issues impacting prospective students.

At the end of the day, choosing a college is a human endeavor. Families need you to help make a difficult decision easier for them. Addressing these key areas will not only build trust but also help you differentiate your institution in a crowded market. The schools that truly understood and acted on these insights were the ones that stood out when my son made his final decision.

——–

To gain immediate and actionable insights from proven Christian higher education experts, partner with TG Three on a Needs Assessment. This is an affordable way to get fresh eyes quickly. Contact us today!

–Ryan J. Dougherty is the Principal Partner at TG Three with over 24 years of experience. TG Three is a strategy company exclusively serving Christian institutions to help get them from where they are to where they want to be.

A version of this article was originally published on Insider Higher Ed on October 7, 2024.

Blog Brief:

• The “Flutie Effect” refers to the significant increase in college applications experienced by Boston College following Doug Flutie’s iconic “Hail Mary” pass in November 1984.
• Investing in sports can attract students but might make non-athletes feel left out and overlook other enrollment challenges.
• Colleges should focus on meeting the needs of non-athletes and attracting male students without relying solely on athletics. This is a strategic priority and requires an examination of the value equation.
• Colleges should adopt a comprehensive strategy that goes beyond athletics, focusing on adding value for all students and creating a differentiated campus environment rooted in the institution’s mission and values.

Full Blog:

In November 1984, Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie launched a desperate 60-yard “Hail Mary” pass improbably into the arms of his teammate as the final seconds ticked off the clock to defeat the defending national champion Miami Hurricanes. In the two years that followed, Boston College experienced a staggering 30% increase in applications – a phenomenon that researchers dubbed the “Flutie Effect.”

For small colleges and universities facing enrollment challenges, the Flutie Effect represents an alluring yet perilous strategy – using investment in athletic programs as a “Hail Mary” enrollment driver. Beyond the thrill of victory on the field, adding sports programs like football can attract prospective students, particularly males, to campus. For example, adding football may yield over a hundred more male students. Yet, it’s not just about football; institutions have expanded into diverse sports such as esports, bowling, bass fishing, and even varsity cornhole and synchronized skating.

An excessive focus on athletics as an enrollment strategy, however, fundamentally ignores the students who are being left behind. Higher education talks a lot about the demographic cliff, but little has been done to shrink the growing demand chasm where 1.2 million fewer students are attending undergraduate colleges than in 2011 – a million of whom are men. For colleges where 70% or 80% of the population is on sports teams, non-athlete students are starting to feel less welcome.

In this, there is an opportunity. Your institution can focus on meeting the needs of non-athletes and especially attracting men without jerseys. This should be a strategic priority on your campus. Understanding this opportunity requires a careful examination of the value equation (value equals the student’s perception of benefits divided by the cost to the student). How are you built to meet these students’ needs? In what ways do you need to change your offerings, processes, and messaging? Can you, and do you, even talk about this opportunity on your campus?

While athletics offer benefits in student life and community engagement, there are costs to consider. The arms race of college athletics can lead to substantial financial investments. Winning comes at a price as institutions navigate the pressures to compete at all costs. According to 2021-22 Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) data, across all athletic classifications, the top 20 teams in the Learfield Cup standings (which measures overall competitive performance) spend twice as much as the rest. Nearly 50% of Christian colleges with athletics compete in the NAIA, and the top 20 teams in that classification spend an average of $9.9 million on athletics. In NCAA Division III, the only non-scholarship-granting NCAA classification, the top 20 institutions spend $6.9 million. The rest of Division III spends $3 million on average.

In the face of escalating athletic expenses and shrinking margins, colleges must adopt a differentiated position and focus on a more comprehensive institutional strategy. Athletics can be part of this strategy, but it should not be the sole focus. Instead, colleges should strive to add value for all students, including those men without jerseys. Otherwise, growth for growth’s sake in athletics just becomes a Hail Mary, which statistically is very unlikely to be effective over the long haul.

–Ryan J. Dougherty is the Principal Partner at TG Three with over 20 years of experience building successful leaders, teams, and strategies. TG Three is a strategy company exclusively serving Christian institutions to help get them from where they are to where they want to be.

There is a new FAFSA in town. The old has gone, the new has come. SAI is the new EFC.  

As you begin to navigate this new financial aid world, here are four important insights to remember as we bravely try to adjust to SAI:  

1. Students don’t make a choice to come to your institution based on your financial aid package.  If that were true, every student would choose community college – which is much more affordable. But, students do make the choice not to go to your institution based on your financial aid package. Trying to lure students with more money is not an enrollment strategy.

2. The goal of financial aid is to overcome the student’s financial barrier to choosing you. It is to make sure that a “yes” decision is on the table. It keeps you in the student’s choice set. It does not win you the student. The student is won on value, not on cost. To optimize where to price students, you must overcome the financial obstacle while at the same time not giving away the farm. This is a difficult balance for schools. The danger is that lack of interest can be perceived as not getting enough financial aid, so institutions add last-minute aid and unknowingly lose money that students were willing to pay.  

3. The best financial aid is the aid that means something to the student. Would you rather be awarded a leadership scholarship or a university grant? The way that you title financial aid awards might mean as much (or more) to the student as the award size. This is especially true at the higher SAI/EFC levels. Do not underestimate the power of making the student feel valued for who they are and their individual accomplishments.  

4. Financial aid needs to be part of a bigger enrollment strategy. Financial aid is part of enrollment. It is one of the three legs of the enrollment engine (admissions, marketing, and financial aid). If you treat FA as a separate function from admissions and marketing, you are missing out on making your strongest, most cohesive value pitch. The highest functioning enrollment teams understand this.  

If you are wondering if your financial aid is working for you or against you as you move into the end of this crazy new SAI-driven award cycle, please give us a call for more information on a financial aid audit or financial aid optimization. Now is the time to make sure that your financial aid is dialed in.

-Nick Willis is a partner at TG Three, Mathematician and problem solver

Renowned oil rig firefighter Red Adair once remarked, “If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur.” This powerful statement underscores the importance of expertise and experience in any role, particularly within the complex landscape of Christian higher education.

The Paraprofessional Problem

In our colleges and universities, the presence of paraprofessionals – practitioners who lack the necessary training or experience of fully qualified professionals – is becoming increasingly common. While these individuals may possess valuable skills and dedication, their limitations can manifest in various core business functions, such as marketing, enrollment, financial aid and other key leadership roles.

Identifying Signs of the Paraprofessional Problem

Signs of a paraprofessional problem may include marketing departments managing brands that fail to make meaningful promises, enrollment teams lacking coherent visitor strategies and metrics, or financial aid offices struggling with turnaround times and sales strategies. These challenges not only hinder organizational effectiveness but also contribute to a sense of frustration and disillusionment among staff.

Challenges Faced by Paraprofessionals in Elevated Roles

Elevating paraprofessionals to leadership roles poses unique challenges, including steep learning curves in short timeframes, difficulties navigating complex tasks, and struggles with decision-making. Emotionally, elevating unprepared individuals can result in feelings of inadequacy, stress, and burnout.

Consequences of Elevating Paraprofessionals

The consequences of unprepared elevation on professional outcomes are significant, with paraprofessionals often falling short of expectations, leading to diminished job performance and low job satisfaction. This, in turn, erodes trust among colleagues and supervisors, resulting in workarounds, negative team dynamics, and challenges with execution, ultimately impeding institutional progress.

Addressing the Root Causes

Understanding the root causes of why paraprofessionals are hired is essential. Factors such as immediate hiring needs, budget constraints, and underestimating the complexities of the roles being filled often drive these decisions. However, it’s crucial to recognize that failing to address these factors strategically may result in long-term challenges.

Proposed Solutions

To tackle the paraprofessional problem effectively, I propose three solutions:

1. Build Capacity to Hire Qualified Professionals: Most Christian college cabinets are too large. Instead of emulating the costly structures of elite institutions, where student-to-employee ratios are much lower, consider adopting smaller cabinets to afford stronger vice presidents. This approach ensures that the institution’s resources are allocated efficiently and effectively, promoting sustainable growth through strong leadership.

2. Train Professionals from Outside Higher Ed: Provide coaching and development programs to professionals from other industries, leveraging their expertise to address critical challenges within the institution. A successful example of this approach can be seen at Bethel University in Minnesota, which recently increased enrollment after years of decline by leveling up an external professional leader through coaching.

3. Develop Internal Professionals: Invest in the development of internal talent through tailored coaching and mentorship programs. Northwestern College’s success story, where a former associate director of communication was coached to become a successful VP for enrollment and marketing, highlights the potential for internal growth and transformation.

Don’t Ignore the Problem

The paraprofessional problem is one that cannot be ignored. Even the best strategic opportunities cannot overcome operational ineffectiveness. By understanding the root causes, empathizing with the plight of paraprofessionals, and implementing targeted solutions, Christian college leaders can navigate this challenge and pave the way for organizational success.

In Their Own Words

Hear from Christian higher education professionals who leveled up their skills through TG Three coaching:

-Written by Rob Westervelt

About Us

TG Three is a strategy company serving Christian higher education. Learn more about how TG Three can help your institution achieve a brighter future faster.

Blog Brief:

• Best practices should not be confused with common practices.
• Consider the specific situational context of your institution.
• Avoid prioritizing operational effectiveness over strategy.
• Beware of blindly imitating practices from other institutions.

Full Blog:

In higher education, leaders are encountering more challenges to generating success. Best practices are often used as a guiding framework, but caution is necessary. This article explores the risks of relying too heavily on best practices and offers strategic advice for higher education leaders.

Don’t Confuse Common Practices with Best Practices

Just because others are doing it doesn’t mean it is the best way to achieve positive results. The higher education landscape is filled with experts, vendors, conference speakers, and others who often mistake the most common practices for the best ones. Have you ever attended a conference where a presenter shared insights on a particular topic, only to later discover the institution they represented hadn’t achieved sustained success? Best practices should come from the industry exemplars, not just from those who have the microphone.

Consider Situational Context

Best practices are derived from institutions operating in specific contexts. What works for one college may not necessarily work for another due to variations in institutional mission, student demographics, and market dynamics. College presidents must consider their own unique circumstances when evaluating the relevance of best practices. Implementing these practices without considering contextual fit can lead to suboptimal outcomes and missed opportunities.

The Risk of Conflating Efficiency with Strategy

Best practices are focused on improving operational effectiveness. Operational effectiveness is about efficiency and execution, while strategy involves making integrated choices to position the institution for sustained success. Prioritizing operational effectiveness without a clear strategy can lead to a lack of differentiation and sustainable competitive advantage. It’s crucial to understand that while operational effectiveness helps institutions improve consistently, it alone is not enough for long-term success.

The Dangers of Imitation

One of the primary risks associated with best practices, as highlighted by renowned strategist Michael Porter, is the inclination towards imitation rather than differentiation. Colleges, universities, and seminaries that focus solely on replicating successful practices from other institutions fail to establish a distinct position from counterparts. True competitive advantage arises from unique value propositions and differentiation, rather than mere replication. By blindly adopting best practices, institutions undermine their ability to stand out and excel. 

The Risk of Commoditization

Widespread adoption of best practices without strategic thinking can lead to the commoditization of higher education. When every institution adopts the same practices, it becomes increasingly difficult to differentiate and offer unique educational experiences. This intensifies competition, diminishes value, and erodes competitive advantage. This is a “zero-sum game” according to Porter. Consequently, students end up making choices based primarily on price. 

College leaders must prioritize strategy in addition to best practices to improve and become more unique for a particular set of students. The essence of strategy is choosing a differentiated position and coordinating your decisions and actions to serve specific students with unique needs at a specific price. This approach will help leaders effectively navigate a rapidly changing landscape and set their institutions up for long-term success.

–Ryan J. Dougherty is the Principal Partner at TG Three with over 20 years of experience building successful leaders, teams, and strategies. TG Three is a strategy company that helps Christian institutions get from where they are to where they want to be.