Over the past two decades, national enrollment projection studies have experienced an uneven level of success in the accuracy of their predictions. An awareness of the limitations of existing projection techniques has been heightened by the growing realization that existing definitions of enrollment are inadequate. The article that follows examines the best known national enrollment studies in terms of methodologies, objectives and assumptions. The authors, Wayne L. Mangelson, Donald M. Norris, Nick L. Poulton, and John A. Seeley, also suggest directions for developing new approaches in this critical field. Mangelson is director of educational development, Michigan Municipal League. Norris is a Rackham predoctoral fellow at The University of Michigan. Poulton serves as research associate in the office of academic planning and analysis at the University of Michigan. Seeley is a partner in the Formative Evaluation Research Associates. All four are Ph.D. candidates at The Center for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Michigan.
Attention Members: Log in to access this item.