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.

‍

Admissions teams are busy—really busy. But being busy doesn’t always mean being effective. What many admissions counselors call “proactive” outreach is actually what I call pre-active outreach. It looks like proactive work on the surface, but it’s fundamentally reactive at its core.

If your outreach strategy involves sending batch emails to dozens or even hundreds of students and waiting for responses—or following up only after students submit their FAFSA or attend an event—you’re not being proactive. You’re preparing to react.

What Is Pre-Active Outreach?
Pre-active outreach is when counselors send messages or make calls with the expectation that the student will take the next step before any real relationship is built. It’s mass communication disguised as engagement. For example:

• Sending an email to 300 students asking for their FAFSA.
• Following up with students after they visit campus, but not engaging beforehand.
• Waiting for students to respond to a call-to-action before personalizing outreach.

This isn’t proactive—it’s a sophisticated form of waiting.

How Did We Get Here?
Admissions has evolved into a numbers game. With increased application volumes and fewer resources, counselors are pressured to manage large funnels and meet outreach quotas. To cope, they’ve borrowed tactics from marketing: mass emails, segmented lists, and simple calls to action.

But here’s the problem—counselors aren’t marketers. Their role is to build relationships, not run miniature search campaigns. This shift from personalized counseling to high-volume communication has blurred the lines between marketing and meaningful engagement.

The Problem with Pre-Active Outreach:

1. It’s Not Personal: Mass emails and generic follow-ups don’t foster real connections. Students can tell when they’re just another name in the CRM.
2. It’s Inefficient: Counselors spend countless hours sending broad messages, hoping students will engage. This leads to burnout and missed opportunities.
3. It’s Reactive by Nature: Pre-active outreach waits for students to make the first move. By the time counselors engage meaningfully, it may be too late—the student has disengaged or chosen another institution.

What True Proactive Outreach Looks Like:
Proactive outreach flips this model on its head. Instead of waiting for students to respond, counselors anticipate needs based on behavioral signals and engage before the student even realizes they need support.

• Proactive Outreach Example:
  A student consistently opens your emails, clicks links, but hasn’t visited campus or submitted a FAFSA. Instead of waiting, you reach out personally to understand their hesitations and guide them through the next steps.

This kind of outreach leads to deeper connections, better support for students, and, ultimately, higher enrollment results.

The Bottom Line:
Admissions teams need to stop confusing pre-active outreach with proactive engagement. Mass communication has its place in marketing, but counseling is about relationships. By shifting from pre-active tactics to truly proactive outreach, counselors can better support students—and feel more fulfilled in their work.

‍

Admissions teams love to call their outreach strategies "proactive." But let’s be honest—most of what we label as proactive is really just a rebranded version of reactive communication. Sending batch emails, following up on FAFSA submissions, or nudging students for a campus visit isn’t proactive. It’s what I call “pre-active” outreach: a process of preparing to react to student behaviors rather than driving meaningful engagement.

Where We Went Wrong:
Over time, the pressure to increase applications and manage larger funnels pushed counselors into roles they were never meant to fill. Instead of focusing on relationship-building and personalized counseling, they’ve become mini-marketers—running their own search campaigns with mass emails, simple calls to action, and list segmentation.

This isn’t entirely their fault. The industry evolved this way. Counselors learned from marketing teams that success comes from volume—sending as many messages as possible and waiting for a response. But here’s the problem: this approach works in search campaigns and comm flows, not in counseling.

Pre-Active vs. Proactive Outreach:
Let’s clarify the difference:

• Pre-Active Outreach:
  Sending emails to 500 students asking for FAFSA forms, hoping a few respond. This isn’t proactive—it’s mass communication disguised as personalization. It’s waiting for students to show interest before engaging.
• Proactive Outreach:
  Identifying swing students—those who are highly engaged but not yet committed, or those who’ve committed but are starting to disengage—and reaching out before they drift. It’s about understanding student behaviors, not just tracking checklist items.

Why This Matters:
By shifting from pre-active to proactive outreach, counselors can return to the heart of their profession: counseling. They’ll have the bandwidth to genuinely connect with students, understand their needs, and support them through the enrollment process. This not only boosts enrollment outcomes for institutions but also improves job satisfaction for counselors who feel more aligned with their purpose.

The Bottom Line:
It’s time to stop calling mass communication proactive. Let’s redefine what it means to engage students meaningfully—and ensure counselors aren’t just sending emails but building relationships that drive enrollment.

‍

Holistic admissions has long been celebrated for its ability to look beyond test scores and transcripts, valuing the whole student during the application review process. But what if its true power extends beyond the decision? What if holistic admissions isn’t just about evaluating students but about engaging them post-decision to maximize yield?

For too long, the acceptance letter has marked the end of holistic admissions thinking. Once students are admitted, institutions often default to generic, one-size-fits-all outreach strategies that fail to reflect the nuance of each student’s journey. This approach not only wastes valuable counselor time but also risks losing high-potential students who might have enrolled with the right engagement.

To transform yield management, holistic admissions must evolve. The same principles used to evaluate students—understanding their stories, interests, and needs—should guide how we engage them after the decision. By decoding the behavioral signals students send post-admission, institutions can make every interaction meaningful and strategic.

Machine learning plays a critical role here. By analyzing patterns like event attendance, portal logins, and response rates, it identifies which students are actively deciding and which need intervention. These insights allow admissions teams to prioritize their efforts where they matter most, focusing on students who are most likely to yield or at risk of disengaging.

This approach isn’t just practical—it’s transformational. It respects students as individuals, builds stronger connections, and ensures that every counselor’s effort drives real results. Holistic admissions shouldn’t stop with the offer; it should become the framework for how institutions engage admitted students, optimizing resources and maximizing enrollment outcomes.

‍

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.

‍

Colleges love to champion holistic admissions as a badge of honor. It’s a process that looks beyond GPAs and test scores to see the “whole student,” and it’s often held up as the moral high ground in the admissions landscape. But here’s the problem no one wants to talk about: once the acceptance letter is sent, holistic admissions all but vanishes.

Think about it. The same institutions that spend months dissecting every nuance of an applicant’s background suddenly treat admitted students as one-size-fits-all. Whether it’s a high-achieving student who attended every info session or someone who barely responds to emails, they’re lumped into the same yield strategy: generic emails, mass invitations to events, and endless follow-ups with little regard for the signals those students are sending.

This approach is lazy, wasteful, and hypocritical. Admissions teams claim to care deeply about individual students—until the decision is made. Then, counselors are left guessing who to prioritize while students who might otherwise enroll feel ignored or overwhelmed. It’s no wonder yield is a constant uphill battle.

Here’s the truth: holistic admissions doesn’t stop when the application process ends. It should be the foundation for post-decision engagement, where understanding individual behaviors becomes the key to guiding students toward enrollment. And this is where machine learning comes in.

By analyzing behavioral signals like portal activity, event attendance, and email responses, machine learning reveals what students won’t always say outright: who’s deciding, who’s drifting, and who needs encouragement. This isn’t just data; it’s a roadmap for prioritizing counselor time and attention. Why waste hours chasing disengaged students when technology can help you focus on those ready to commit?

Let’s stop pretending holistic admissions is enough if it ends at the decision letter. If we’re truly committed to seeing the whole student, we must respect the signals they send after being admitted. Anything less is just marketing dressed up as morality. Real holistic admissions doesn’t stop at “you're in”—it continues all the way to enrollment.

‍

Holistic admissions has been championed as the antidote to reductive, numbers-driven decision-making. By considering the full breadth of an applicant’s background, experiences, and potential, institutions proudly craft classes that reflect their values. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: most colleges abandon the principles of holistic admissions the moment the acceptance letter is sent.

Why do we stop listening?

Admissions teams pour resources into understanding who students are before they’re admitted, but once decisions are made, they often revert to outdated, scattershot approaches to yield management. Every admitted student is treated the same, despite the clear signals they send about their level of interest, intent, and engagement. This approach wastes time, alienates students, and undermines the entire purpose of holistic admissions.

It’s time to redefine holistic admissions—not as a process that ends with an offer, but as a commitment to respecting and responding to each student’s journey through their decision-making process. Machine learning makes this possible, revealing the hidden patterns in post-admission behaviors like event attendance, email replies, and portal activity. These signals hold the key to understanding where students stand and what they need to convert.

Instead of flooding students with generic outreach, machine learning enables admissions teams to prioritize their efforts where they matter most: with high-potential students who are actively deciding, or those who need encouragement to stay engaged. By ignoring these signals, institutions squander their counselors’ time and lose valuable opportunities to connect with students who might otherwise enroll.

Redefining holistic admissions demands that we extend its principles beyond the decision. The same care used to admit students should be applied to yield them. If institutions truly believe in treating students as more than data points, they must commit to engaging admitted students with the same intentionality—powered by machine learning and the respect for individual signals it enables. Anything less is a betrayal of the values holistic admissions claims to champion.

‍