Jean Norris
Managing Partner
Norton Norris
Mystery shopping is a research technique used by Jean Norris and her firm to help colleges train their admissions staff and equip them with modern marketing savvy. Though she's aware of quality limitations in admissions offices throughout U.S. higher education, she is concerned that the recent findings of government mystery shoppers are being used for political purposes and will produce unintended consequences.
Are there well-established procedures and quality controls for mystery shoppers?
We've done thousands of shops for all types of colleges. One thing we're careful about is to avoid asking questions that would appear to be bait. For example, one of the GAO shoppers claimed to be the nephew of an aunt who left him $250,000. That circumstance is so unique it looks and smells like bait. Actually, mystery shoppers should have a broad scenario - one that begins early in the prospect phase and continues through the enrollment point. The portions of the GAO shopping experiences that were televised seemed somewhat "out of the box" to me.
What are the usual marching orders for your mystery shoppers?
Begin with the goals of the client. A university may want an inside look at their competitors. A venture capitalist may be evaluating a school for purchase. We look for typical, rather than unusual. For example, was the phone answered promptly when you called? Was the staffer polite and helpful? Was an appointment scheduled to your liking? During a live interview, was the information understandable? Were your questions answered? Did the interviewer appear to comply with his/her employer's stated procedures and policies? Were you given a tour of the school? Were you able to meet with financial aid personnel? There are many more.
Why were the government's mystery shoppers able to surface wrong practices in such a high percentage of the career college admissions offices they visited?
There is suspicion that they shopped many schools, but televised only the bad actors. There were positive references in the GAO's report that were not televised. However, the clips that were televised disclosed situations that warrant further investigation - and even prosecution. For example, when a financial aid officer encourages a prospective student to falsify personal financial information, he or she should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Are you critical of the GAO mystery shopping?
I'm critical of what their agenda appears to be. The GAO itself is an arm of Congress. The shopping was ordered by Senator Harkin. I believe his agenda is too narrowly focused on career colleges so as to ignore similar activities and problems throughout U.S. higher education. The legislative results are likely to hurt consumers rather than help them.
Meanwhile, are the bad admissions practices easy to eradicate?
No. Modern 'selling' in higher education began in the 1980s as an offshoot of 'one-off selling,' which later became known as 'manipulation selling.' Two associated environmental factors were involved: 1) the way people made purchases and 2) government intervention. In those days people received most of their information from the supplier, often in person. There was no internet or rankings. Shoppers were open to in-home sales. As the selling became more high-pressured, often involving fraudulent claims related to financial aid, the government intervened. One significant government action changed the manner in which admissions reps were compensated. Strong salespeople accustomed to earning big paychecks left for jobs in other industries. The face-to-face sales techniques that subsequently became acceptable in the 1990s are still with us today. However, those techniques are incompatible with an internet generation of information consumers.
Are there other practices that should go into the dustbin?
Scripts are written for admissions counselors. Due to the need for compliance, the scripts are often quite strict, precluding meaningful conversation. Meanwhile, the number one source of leads is now the web. There is now a conventional wisdom that the first school to work a lead will get the sale. Yet lead providers are selling the same lead to multiple schools. It's now common that an interested person will get phone calls from eight or more schools during the same day. As they each follow their scripts, they sound very much alike. Meanwhile, the old methods linger, because many schools use their best admissions producers to train newcomers. So nothing changes.
What approach might produce change for the better?
Staff training and retraining should be brought in from outside. Fresh practices that are honest, more transparent and better attuned to today's education consumer are needed - and available.