What NACAC Discussions Missed About AI

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 directors rarely say it outright, but here’s the truth: time is their team’s most valuable resource, and it’s slipping through their fingers.

Counselors are overwhelmed, managing thousands of applicants and admitted students while being tasked with creating personal connections. The tools they’ve relied on for decades—mass emails, blanket event invites, and “list-of-the-day” call strategies—aren’t just outdated. They’re wasteful. Too much effort is spent chasing students who won’t enroll, leaving less time for the ones who will. The result? Counselors burn out, enrollment numbers suffer, and the mission of providing a personalized experience falls flat.

Holistic admissions is often heralded as the solution, but it’s usually confined to the pre-decision phase. We use it to see the "whole student," balancing GPAs, extracurriculars, and personal stories to craft diverse and dynamic classes. But here’s the problem: once the decisions are made, holistic admissions gets tossed aside, and teams revert to one-size-fits-all strategies. This misses the bigger opportunity—to use the same principles to manage counselors’ time and attention after decisions go out.

What would it look like to extend holistic admissions into post-decision engagement? It starts with data. Every admitted student sends signals—portal logins, email clicks, event RSVPs—that reveal their level of interest and intent. Machine learning tools can analyze these signals in real time, showing which students are actively deciding, which are drifting away, and which need a nudge. Armed with these insights, admissions directors can direct their counselors to focus where their time will have the greatest impact.

This isn’t about replacing human connection with algorithms; it’s about empowering counselors to work smarter, not harder. When machine learning handles the heavy lifting of sorting through thousands of data points, counselors can focus their energy on meaningful, relationship-driven work. That means personalized calls to the students who need it most and tailored follow-ups that address real concerns—not wasted hours chasing disengaged students or following up on irrelevant metrics.

The benefits are clear. Counselors feel more effective and less overwhelmed, leading to better morale. Yield improves because the right students get the attention they need. And the institution wins by making the most of its resources without sacrificing the personal touch that makes holistic admissions so powerful.

Admissions leaders must redefine holistic admissions as more than just a tool for selecting students—it’s the framework for everything that comes after. Managing time and attention post-decision isn’t just a tactical adjustment; it’s a philosophical one. If institutions truly believe in treating students as individuals, they must embrace a smarter, data-driven approach to yield. Because when it comes to enrollment, precision isn’t optional—it’s everything.

‍