About The Standardized Tests

Admissions teams are drowning in data. From FAFSA submissions and campus visits to email opens and application statuses, there’s no shortage of signals to track. But here’s the problem—not all signals mean what we think they do. And when teams rely too heavily on traditional indicators, they end up making decisions based on assumptions rather than facts.

It’s time to move from guesswork to precision—and that starts with understanding the difference between surface-level signals and deeper behavioral patterns.

The Problem with Over-Indexed Signals:
Many admissions processes are built around major milestones: FAFSA submissions, campus visits, and application completions. These are easy to track and feel like strong indicators of student interest. But are they?

Take FAFSA submission for example. For those of us who’ve been in admissions for a decade or more, we know that where a student lists your institution on the FAFSA matters. If you were listed first, that likely meant high interest. If you were listed fifth, your chances of yielding that student dropped significantly. But now that we can’t see FAFSA rankings, many teams treat all submissions the same—ignoring the nuances behind the data.

The Role of Gut Instinct (and Its Pitfalls):
Without clear, nuanced data, many counselors fall back on gut instinct. And while intuition plays a role, it’s inherently biased. A counselor might assume that a student who hasn’t applied for financial aid isn’t serious about enrolling—because they wouldn’t have enrolled without aid. But that assumption doesn’t hold true for every student. Relying on personal bias leads to missed opportunities and inconsistent outcomes.

The Hidden Signals We’re Missing:
What admissions teams often overlook are the subtle, behavioral signals that truly indicate student intent. It’s not just whether a student opened an email—it’s how quickly they opened it after receiving it, how many links they clicked, and whether they engaged again after a follow-up. The time windows between student actions matter far more than a simple yes/no.

For example:

• A student who visits your website multiple times within a week but hasn’t yet applied might be more interested than a student who submitted an application months ago but hasn’t engaged since.
• A student who opens your emails consistently but doesn’t respond may still be deeply engaged—they just need the right kind of outreach.

These patterns aren’t easy to spot manually. Machine learning tools like enroll ml analyze these time windows and engagement rates, surfacing students who are truly ready for proactive outreach.

From Data-Aware to Data-Driven:
Most admissions teams believe they’re data-driven. In reality, they’re data-aware. They track numbers, run reports, and create lists—but the depth of analysis needed to uncover true enrollment signals isn’t something you can get from pivot tables in Excel.

To make the leap from guesswork to precision, admissions teams need to pull the highest level of data analysis possible. This isn’t about working harder—it’s about working smarter, using tools that can decode complex behavioral patterns and guide counselors to the right students at the right time.

The Bottom Line:
Moving from guesswork to precision isn’t just about improving enrollment outcomes—it’s about freeing counselors from the endless cycle of assumptions and giving them the tools to engage meaningfully with the students who need it most. It’s time to stop guessing and start understanding.

‍

Admissions counselors are great at checking boxes—FAFSA submitted, campus visit completed, application in. But checking boxes isn’t proactive outreach. It’s reactive. True proactive outreach is about identifying the students who are in the decision-making process but need support navigating it. These are your swing students.

Who Are Swing Students?
A real swing student isn’t just someone who applied or visited campus. It’s a student who is genuinely considering your institution—and several others. They’re not fully committed, but they’re engaged. They’re in a subjective mindset, weighing options, and trying to sort through the noise.

These students aren’t always easy to spot. You might assume that someone who submitted a FAFSA is highly interested—but what if they sent it to ten schools and ranked you tenth? Not all engagement signals carry the same weight, but many admissions teams treat them as if they do.

Why Counselors Struggle to Prioritize Swing Students:
The biggest challenge in identifying swing students is the assumption that all signals mean the same thing. A campus visit for one student could mean deep interest, while for another, it’s just one stop on a tour of ten colleges. Without the right tools to decode these nuances, counselors end up glossing over key indicators.

And when they do reach out? Too often, it’s a generic call to action: “Submit your FAFSA,” “Schedule your visit,” or “Complete your application.” These messages don’t meet students where they are—they just add to the noise.

What Real Proactive Outreach Looks Like:
Proactive outreach to swing students is nuanced and personalized. It’s about researching the student’s engagement history, understanding their unique decision-making process, and tailoring outreach accordingly.

This might look like:

• A thoughtful email discussing their specific program interests.
• A Zoom call to address financial aid questions.
• A personalized campus visit tailored to their major.
• A text message to their parents highlighting scholarship opportunities.

The key? It’s student-specific, not driven by the counselor's personal preference. The medium and message are tailored to what that student needs to make their decision—not what’s easiest or most comfortable for the counselor.

Why This Matters:
When counselors focus on swing students with proactive, personalized engagement, two things happen:

1. Enrollment results improve because these are the students on the fence—your outreach can make the difference.
2. Counselors feel more fulfilled because they’re doing what they were trained to do: guide students through one of the most important decisions of their lives.

Most counselors believe they should prioritize students who respond to emails. But what if we flipped that? What if we focused on the students who need help deciding—before they even know how to ask?

The Bottom Line:
It’s time to redefine proactive outreach in admissions. By focusing on swing students and meeting them with personalized, thoughtful engagement, counselors can drive better outcomes for students and institutions alike.

‍

Admissions counselors are overwhelmed—but it’s not just because of the increasing number of applications or the complexity of the enrollment process. It’s how they’re spending their time.

A recent time study I conducted showed that counselors are spending one-third of their work time on data tasks—sorting CRM lists, running reports, and building outreach plans. All of this effort is aimed at one goal: crafting better lists for outreach. But here’s the question: Is all this work actually helping counselors connect with students in meaningful ways?

The Fairness Trap:
Many counselors believe that broad, list-based outreach is the fairest way to engage students. By treating every applicant the same, they avoid unintentionally prioritizing one group over another. But here’s the catch—treating students equally doesn’t mean treating them as individuals.

Mass emails, generic follow-ups, and checklist-based outreach feel like the right thing to do, but they often miss the mark when it comes to truly understanding student needs. Counselors are spending hours building lists, but the personal connections—the real heart of admissions work—often get left behind.

The Blind Spot:
The biggest blind spot in admissions outreach is the belief that counselors have to do this manual work to find the right students. What many don’t realize is that there’s a better way to identify which students need proactive outreach—before they disengage.

That’s where tools like enroll ml come in. By decoding behavioral signals from student interactions (like response timing, portal logins, and engagement depth), machine learning can surface the students who are most in need of outreach. This doesn’t mean counselors stop doing broad outreach—it means they spend more time where it matters.

What’s at Stake:
When counselors spend hours sorting data and crafting mass emails, they miss opportunities to build genuine relationships with students. And ironically, this approach doesn’t even achieve the fairness it aims for. Some students slip through the cracks because their engagement signals aren’t obvious in a spreadsheet.

By incorporating more proactive outreach—reaching out to students based on engagement patterns rather than just checklist items—counselors can learn more about their students and be in a better position to guide them through the enrollment process. This leads to stronger relationships, better support for students, and ultimately, higher enrollment results.

The Bottom Line:
Admissions counselors don’t need to cut out pre-active outreach entirely. But it should be just one part of a more balanced strategy. By shifting some of the time spent on data tasks toward genuine, proactive engagement, counselors can rediscover the relational side of admissions—and make a bigger impact on both their students and their institutions.

‍