…but then one could argue that that same view could help in the end, as the marketing-like changes made at say, Brown or Duke back in the day resulted in not just prestige but associated $ and as their endowments rose so could their program offerings and financial aid…

ahh, we’re trapped between a set of mirrors on this one!

That’s why I look at the confusion and conclude that the best approach, especially if it was adopted across the board, would be for schools to stray off the dark path however alluring it might be for a near term boost in rankings (which could correspondingly bring increased alumni donations, etc etc).

Need some case studies or something, I guess.

Beyond that, let’s say for a moment that the school does a great job in fooling all the wrong students to enroll….ultimately that’s just going to decrease their retention rate when students say “What the heck?! This isn’t what I signed up for!” and transfer somewhere else. Again, that loses the school money….not only does it lose them all the money they just spent recruiting that student, but it also loses them future tuition checks and reputation points.

So you see, looking at things in more commercial terms actually falls right in line with your thoughts (and the students needs) as well. A person with a marketing background would know all these principles. Honestly, I don’t think your beef is with schools who hire people with marketing/branding backgrounds….It should be with those who don’t hire people with the background to know the economic reasons for recruiting the right kind of student

I started by saying that I don’t think sales and marketing go hand in hand with teaching or honesty–obviously, they can go together perfectly well sometimes. Great tools for conveying information to teach or to better present something honestly and fairly, as you said. I just put it out there to voice my concern about the possible hazards of recruitments approaches with their hearts in the wrong place. Things that worry me as someone looking out for the students first and foremost.

Marketing and branding can just publicize a product, or they can also misrepresent the nature of that product… and it’s when thinking of education in more ‘commercial’ terms that I worry about people getting led astray.

edit: updated post to reflect some clarifications, hope that helps– changed your quoted sentence to the following “I don’t generally like the whole concept of “selling” a college as a brand, whatever currency that may have today–it can detract from the student goals of making a good fit and ensuring a good match (which should be the college’s goals too!)” which I think describes more accurately my concerns.

Why do you assume that marketing/branding and ensuring a good fit for a student are mutually exclusive ideas? All marketing and branding does is publicize the existence of a product (yes, education is a product….just an intangible one). As an enrollment officer, you have to be able to sell your school to people - show them what it has to offer and how you can benefit from it. You have to create plans to communicate with prospective students and their parents and you have to understand how to communicate a specific message in ways that they will understand it. That’s all that marketing is. Branding allows for a consistent message across the board and, if done properly, will actually give you a more accurate view of the institution. Now, do some schools go the evil way of the used-car salesman with these ideas? Absolutely, but that doesn’t negate the fact that someone with a marketing background is much more qualified to communicate the identity of a school than someone with, say, an engineering background or a chemistry background. It’s just a skill-set, like any other.