Eighth Annual Comparative Research Study
2011 Discounting Report
Private colleges limit discounting,
increase net revenue
This annual report summarizes the previous fall’s outcomes and long-term trends
of a sizable sample of private colleges across the U.S. The report is based on the
aggregated freshman data of 139 institutions that partnered with Noel-Levitz to
strategically manage their financial aid during 2009-2010. For context, the report
includes comparison data from similar sets of institutions that used Noel-Levitz
services in 2008-2009 and earlier.
Among the highlights:
• The overall discount rate for fall 2010 rose 1.2 percent compared to fall 2009, from
36.1 percent to 37.3 percent, for institutions using Noel-Levitz support. From 20002008, the discount rate for institutions that partnered with Noel-Levitz ranged
between 32.3 percent and 34.1 percent. See Chart 5 inside.
• Average unfunded gift aid per incoming first-year student was $12,143 for fall
2010, up from $11,174 in fall 2009. In addition, an average of 76.9 percent of the
institutionally-funded merit aid/scholarship awards made by these colleges and
universities went directly to meet financial need. See Chart 6 and Table 2 inside.
• Increased discounting resulted in a 7.7 percent average increase in overall net
revenue for fall 2010. See Table 1 inside.
• On average, freshman enrollment increased 5.2 percent in fall 2010 despite
another rise in student need levels. See Table 1 and Table 2 inside.
• From 2000-2010, the colleges and universities that partnered with Noel-Levitz
have seen average, per-student net revenue increase 48.2 percent. See Chart 3
inside.
Readers are encouraged to compare their own institutional discounting data to the
findings in this report. To learn how the 139 institutions in this study managed their
aid awards and kept their discount rates in check, please see page 9.
The source of data
This report examines the aggregated freshman data of 139 private colleges and universities that
used Noel-Levitz consulting and statistical resources to guide their strategic award management
during 2009-2010. Included in the report are the institutions’ fall 2010 outcomes as well as their
tuition increase figures. The institutions were spread throughout every region of the United States.
For the names of the institutions, please see the list on page 10.
For context, the report also includes comparison data from similar sets of institutions that used
Noel-Levitz services in 2008-2009 and earlier.
This annual
report
summarizes
the previous
fall’s outcomes
and long-term
trends of a
sizable sample
of institutions
across the U.S.
Definitions
Overall discount rate: Unfunded gift aid as a percentage of gross revenue. (See highlighted section
below—Noel-Levitz discounting definition.)
Tuition discount rate (NACUBO): Funded and unfunded gift aid as a percentage of tuition and
fee revenue.
Unfunded gift aid: Grants, scholarships, and other gift aid provided from unrestricted accounts.
This excludes gift aid supported by endowments or restricted gifts and grants.
Funded institutional aid: Institutional scholarship and grant funds from an endowed or
restricted fund.
Gross revenue: Gross tuition, fees, and room and board for first-time, full-time students.
Need: Student budget minus Expected Family Contribution, as defined by the Free Application
for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).
Noel-Levitz discounting definition
Overall
discount =
rate
Unfunded gift aid
Gross revenue
(including room and board)
When calculating discount rates,
studies and campus officials often
include tuition and fees but exclude
room and board. This is true, for
example, of past studies released by
NACUBO, the National Association
of College and University Business
Officers.
However, especially for residential
campuses, Noel-Levitz recommends
including room and board fees in the
denominator. This approach allows
institutions to more accurately identify
revenue flows tied to enrolling students.
2 © 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. • 2011 Discounting Report
In addition, the Noel-Levitz definition
of discounting focuses on unfunded/
unrestricted gift aid—sources of
aid over which institutions have
discretion and control. We believe
this definition offers a more accurate
view of discounting than including
restricted funds (primarily endowed)
given that such sources of aid are
paid from monies unavailable for
other uses.
Net revenue rises 7.7 percent on average across all sectors for fall 2010
As shown in Table 1 below, average overall net revenue from first-year students for fall 2010 increased for
the institutions in this study by 7.7 percent. At the same time, the institutions’ average discount rate was 37.3
percent, up slightly from 36.1 percent in 2009. Also for 2010, average gross revenue per student rose 5.3 percent
(please refer to page 6 for the latter percentage and for year-to-year comparisons on per-student revenue).
Table 1: 2010 Freshman Data by Institution Type
Private Institution
Type
Average
Average
Unfunded
Percent of
Institutional
Need Met
Gift Aid
Average
Tuition
Increase
Average
Overall
Discount
Rate for
Freshmen
Average
Tuition
Average
Discount Increase in
Rate for
Freshman
Freshmen Enrollment
(NACUBO)
Average
Overall
Increase
in Net
Revenue
From
Freshmen
Small College, Low
Tuition (SCLT)
$9,982
74.6%
4.6%
36.3%
48.0%
2.6%
5.7%
Small College, High
Tuition (SCHT)
$14,606
76.8%
4.4%
39.7%
51.4%
8.1%
9.9%
Large College or
University (LCU)
$13,312
74.1%
4.4%
34.3%
43.7%
6.5%
10.8%
All Institutions
$12,143
75.4%
4.5%
37.3%
48.7%
5.2%
7.7%
TM
Although the uncertain economy continued to bring concern to many private colleges in fall 2010, the institutions
in this study were able to increase their overall net revenue 7.7 percent on average while limiting the increase in
discounting to 1.2 percent on average. Note that the average freshman discount rate is shown in two ways, using
Noel-Levitz’s definition of an overall discount rate (see page 2 at bottom) and the definition of NACUBO. Both rates
were calculated by Noel-Levitz.
“These campuses have been able to restrain the increase in their discount rates, meet their enrollment goals,
and experience a net revenue gain at a time when the market has become highly price sensitive and student
need is increasing,” said Noel-Levitz President Kevin Crockett. “The overall net revenue growth exceeded 7.7
percent across all institutional types, resulting from enrollment growth and growth in average net revenue
per student. This growth in overall operational revenue is enabling these schools to reinvest in the quality of
their educational programs.”
The findings above show a breakdown of the data by private institution type, using the National Association
of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) breakdowns: Small College, Low Tuition (SCLT); Small
College, High Tuition (SCHT); and Large College or University (LCU). Consistent with past NACUBO discount
studies, SCLTs and SCHTs had a higher average overall discount rate than LCUs. For those who are unfamiliar,
SCLTs have a tuition and mandatory fee rate of less than $25,000 and enroll less than 850 full-time, first-year
students; SCHTs have a tuition and mandatory fee rate of more than or equal to $25,000 and enroll less than
850 full-time, first-year students; and LCUs enroll more than 850 full-time, first-year students.
More than three-quarters of merit aid met need
As shown on the next page, an average of 76.6 percent of the institutions’ merit aid went to meet financial
need as defined by the federally-mandated Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).
“We were encouraged to see that more than three-quarters of the merit aid awarded by these institutions is
continuing to address need,” said Crockett. “In today’s environment, with the close scrutiny of merit versus
need-based aid, it is important for institutions and agencies to monitor the overlap between merit aid and
financial need as they develop their plans and shape their policies.”
© 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. • www.noellevitz.com 3
Uncontrolled
escalation of
the discount
rate can make it
very difficult for
colleges to earn
the revenue they
need to thrive.
To learn how
these colleges
are keeping their
discount rates
in check with
support from
Noel-Levitz,
see page 9.
Student need levels continue to rise
Below, Table 2 documents the increased need levels in fall 2010 and how the 139 institutions were
able to respond. The percent of freshmen who filed a FAFSA increased slightly while the average
parental income dropped to $90,812, down two percent from fall 2009, and the average EFC
(Expected Family Contribution) dropped to $14,582, down four percent from fall 2009. The result was
an average need of $25,518.
In response, the colleges in this study were able to meet 75.4 percent of need, leaving an unmet
average need of $8,996—a 15 percent increase from fall 2009 and a 134 percent increase from fall
2008. In addition, the colleges and universities in this study continued to direct more than threequarters of institutionally-funded merit aid/scholarship awards to meet need, with 76.9 percent of
merit aid awarded to meet need in 2010.
Table 2: Recent Trends in Financial Aid Applications, EFC, and Aspects of Need
Average
Need
Average
Percent of
Need Met
Average
Percent of
Merit Aid
Which Met
Need
Average
Unmet
Need
$17,658
$19,201
82.5%
72.0%
$3,852
$87,311
$17,573
$20,551
84.8%
73.0%
$3,779
84.1%
$90,312
$18,526
$21,783
85.8%
76.0%
$3,843
2009-10
87.5%
$93,029
$15,200
$23,559
76.6%
80.0%
$7,838
2010-11
87.6%
$90,812
$14,582
$25,518
75.4%
76.9%
$8,996
Percent of
Freshmen*
Who Filed a
FAFSA
Average
Parental
Income
Average
EFC
2006-07
83.2%
$83,446
2007-08
83.4%
2008-09
Academic Year
for Which Aid
Was Requested
There is a
perception
among some in
higher education
that merit aid
fails to address
need. However,
the data from
the colleges and
universities in
this study show
that 76.9 percent
of institutionally
funded merit
aid/scholarship
awards in fall
2010 went to
meet need.
TM
The proportion of FAFSA filers among enrolled freshmen increased slightly to 87.6 percent in fall 2010 while average
unmet need rose 15 percent, reaching a new level of $8,996.
* Includes all incoming prospective first-year students who filed FASFAs prior to enrolling and proceeded
to enroll at any of the 139 institutions in this study.
Note that a large number of factors may have contributed to the increased need, including the
“Need Shift” shown in Chart 1 on the next page and a decline in family assets. Because need is
defined as budget less EFC, the growth of tuition and fees outpacing EFC and the decline in parental
income likely contributed to this increase as well.
The fluctuating family income between fall 2006 and fall 2010 shown in Table 2 could be due to a
combination of changes in the family and financial backgrounds of students at both ends of the
financial spectrum, i.e. a drop in the proportion of less affluent families and an increase in the
proportion of more affluent families in the sample.
4 © 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. • 2011 Discounting Report
A closer look at rising need levels
The charts below offer additional perspective on students’ rising need levels and the enrollment success
of institutions in this year’s study.
Chart 1 shows the increased need levels of students. The proportion of enrolled students that
demonstrated financial need increased 11.4 percent between fall 2010 and fall 2009 while the percentage
of no-need, merit-aid-only students declined 9.3 percent, continuing similar results from a year earlier.
(Between fall 2008 and fall 2009, the proportion of enrolled students that demonstrated financial need
increased 18.8 percent and the percentage of no-need, merit-aid-only students declined 17.4 percent.)
Chart 2 shows the enrollment increase reported in Table 1 on page 3 came from a relatively balanced
distribution of academic ability levels. The colleges and universities in this study saw increases in fall 2010
in all five of the five academic tiers used by the institutions to assess academic ability.* This balanced
distribution is noteworthy, as it followed an uneven academic distribution a year earlier when declines of
3.2 percent and 3.5 percent were evident between fall 2009 and fall 2008 among students with averageto-below-average academic credentials (students in Level 3 and Level 4, respectively).
Chart 1: Change in Proportion of Freshmen With
Need by Need Level, Fall 2010 Versus Fall 2009
Chart 2: Change in Freshman Enrollment by
Academic Level, Fall 2010 Versus Fall 2009
One-year change in
freshman enrollment
One-year change in proportion
of students demonstrating need
25.0%
20.0%
17.8%
15.0%
Relatively Balanced Academic Ability Levels
Need Shift
11.4%
9.0%
8.2%
10.0%
6.3%
5.0%
6.0%
0.0%
6.3%
5.4%
4.4%
-5.0%
3.0%
-10.0%
-9.3%
-15.0%
0.0%
-20.0%
TM
TM
High Need
Any Need
No Need/Merit
Need Level
Students with greater need enrolled in greater numbers
in fall 2010 while students with greater capacity to pay
enrolled in smaller numbers, continuing a pattern that
emerged in fall 2009. Note that “High Need” was defined
by the institutions in this study as the highest fifth of
incoming freshmen in terms of need and typically included
Pell-eligible enrollees.
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Academic Ability Level*
In fall 2010, enrollment increased in all five of the five
academic tiers used by the institutions in this study
to assess academic ability—even among students
with average-to-below-average academic credentials
(Level 3 and Level 4), two groups that had declined in
enrollment in fall 2009.
* The five academic levels shown in Chart 2 were defined differently by each institution in this study but
served the common purpose of grouping students into five levels of academic ability.
© 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. • www.noellevitz.com 5
Steady growth
in net revenue
and enrollments
has afforded
campuses using
Noel-Levitz support
with additional
resources to
improve the quality
of student life and
learning during a
time of increased
cost pressures on
higher education.
Positive 2010 was a continuation of a 10-year trend
Following a static year between fall 2008 and fall 2009, fall 2010 outcomes resumed a continuing
10-year trend. From 2000-2010, institutions following Noel-Levitz recommendations have experienced
an average, per-student net revenue increase of 48.2 percent, as shown in Chart 3, reflecting a
combination of prudent financial aid awarding and increasing enrollments. Over the same period,
average gross revenue per student rose 61.8 percent, as shown in Chart 4.
This steady growth in net revenue and enrollments has afforded these campuses additional resources
to improve the quality of student life and learning during a time of increased cost pressures on higher
education. This has proved especially important as campuses have expanded to meet the growing
numbers and needs of new students, requiring greater investments in classroom space, dormitories,
and technology. Net revenue can also be recycled back into the pool of unfunded gift aid to attract
more, better, or different students.
Chart 3: Average Net Revenue Per Student, 2000-2010
$20,292
(Tuition, fees, room, and board)
$20,000
$19,338
$19,000
$19,660
$19,649
2008
2009
$18,187
$18,000
$17,445
$16,670
$17,000
$15,640
$16,000
$14,954
$15,000
$14,000
$13,690
$14,199
$13,000
$12,000
$11,000
$10,000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2010
TM
Chart 4: Average Gross Revenue Per Student, 2000-2010
(Tuition, fees, room, and board)
$32,702
$33,000
$29,910
$31,000
$28,918
$29,000
$26,206
$27,000
$27,247
$25,083
$25,000
$22,432
$23,000
$21,000
$31,060
$20,212
$23,576
$21,117
$19,000
$17,000
$15,000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
TM
Over the past decade, average net revenue per first-year student has increased 48.2 percent for institutions using Noel-Levitz
support, while average gross revenue per first-year student has increased 61.8 percent, as shown in Charts 3 and 4 above.
6 © 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. • 2011 Discounting Report
Overall discount rate averaged 37.3 percent
As shown in Chart 5, the discount rate for fall 2010 increased 1.2 percent, from 36.1 percent to 37.3
percent, for institutions using Noel-Levitz support. From 2000-2008, the discount rate ranged
between 32.3 percent and 34.1 percent.
“There is little doubt that macro-economic forces following the recession have pushed discount rates
higher the past two years,” said Kevin Crockett, Noel-Levitz president and CEO. “Yet, overall, these
campuses have been able to increase their net revenue per student and total net revenue.”
“Minimizing changes to the discount rate is not a matter of happenstance, but the result of a careful
and systematic planning process driven by data,” added Crockett. “Given the volatility of the current
environment, it is increasingly important that campuses use the most sophisticated tools and
processes to manage their enrollments and net revenue.”
Chart 5: Average Overall Discount Rate, 2000-2010
(See Noel-Levitz definition page 2)
40%
36.1%
37%
34%
32.3%
32.8%
33.3%
33.7%
33.5%
33.4%
33.1%
33.0%
37.3%
34.1%
31%
28%
25%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
TM
Following a decade of stability when overall discount rates at private colleges and universities using Noel-Levitz
support ranged from 32.3 percent to 34.1 percent, the average rate has crept upward the past two years, but this
year’s increase was contained to only 1.2 percent.
© 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. • www.noellevitz.com 7
Unfunded gift aid increases
For institutions in this study, unfunded gift aid for fall 2010 rose to $12,143, an increase of 8.7 percent
over fall 2009, as shown in Chart 6. The increase continued a 10-year upward trend.
Chart 6: Average Unfunded Institutional Aid Per Student, 2000-2010
(Excludes gift aid from endowment or other restricted grants and awards)
$12,143
$12,000
$11,174
$11,000
$10,250
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,522
$7,478
$7,936
2002
2003
$8,413
$8,761
$9,054
$9,580
$6,918
$6,000
$5,000
2000
2001
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average unfunded gift aid has steadily increased over the past decade for institutions using Noel-Levitz services,
reaching a new high of $12,143 in fall 2010.
8 © 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. • 2011 Discounting Report
TM
How the institutions in this study managed their aid awards and kept their
discount rates in check
Although few institutions will remain untouched by the current economic and demographic
realities, well-managed private colleges that are able to wisely cut and control costs, remain
affordable, demonstrate their value, and leverage financial aid resources will be best positioned
to weather what is expected to be a prolonged storm.
The institutions in this study all followed Noel-Levitz recommendations for awarding their
financial aid. By creating statistical models based on past financial and enrollment data for each
school, Noel-Levitz provided consultation and statistical resources that helped these institutions
calculate the aid packages needed to enroll specific populations of students.
This approach allows campuses to pinpoint precisely how much aid to award a particular student
in order to influence that student to enroll. As a result, campuses are better able to:
• Meet the growing financial need of today’s student population;
• Calculate the aid packages needed to reach certain enrollment goals, such as improving the
academic profile and diversity of the student body; and
• Maximize financial aid coverage in an era of shrinking resources. These schools were able to
avoid over-awarding students and to carefully identify student needs, allowing them to stretch
their pool of available aid even further.
“Strategic financial aid management allows you to evaluate the effectiveness of your awards to
enhance student recruitment and retention,” says Kevin Crockett, Noel-Levitz president and CEO.
“You can drill down to specific segments of your student population and make the appropriate
merit and need-based awards. Ultimately, you can justify every aid dollar you spend toward
achieving your enrollment goals.”
© 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. • www.noellevitz.com 9
The institutions
in this study all
followed Noel-Levitz
recommendations
for awarding their
financial aid.
The institutions
also received
information on the
potential impact of
tuition changes.
Institutions Noel-Levitz served in 2009-2010 with strategic financial aid management
The institutions
in this study
all followed
Noel-Levitz
recommendations
for awarding their
financial aid.
American International
College (MA)
Aquinas College (MI)
Ashland University (OH)
Assumption College (MA)
Augustana College (IL)
Aurora University (IL)
Averett University (VA)
Bay Path College (MA)
Baylor University (TX)
Benedictine College (KS)
Biola University (CA)
Bluffton University (OH)
Brescia University (KY)
Brewton-Parker College (GA)
California College of the Arts (CA)
Canisius College (NY)
Cardinal Stritch University (WI)
Carroll College (MT)
Carroll University (WI)
Central College (IA)
Chapman University (CA)
Charleston Southern
University (SC)
Clearwater Christian College (FL)
Coker College (SC)
Colorado Christian University (CO)
Columbia College (SC)
Concordia University at
Chicago (IL)
Concordia University at Saint
Paul (MN)
Converse College (SC)
Cornerstone University (MI)
Creighton University (NE)
Crown College (MN)
Delaware Valley College (PA)
Dominican University of
California (CA)
Drake University (IA)
East Texas Baptist University (TX)
Eastern University (PA)
Eckerd College (FL)
Edgewood College (WI)
Elmira College (NY)
Emory & Henry College (VA)
Fisher College (MA)
Franciscan University of
Steubenville (OH)
Fresno Pacific University (CA)
Georgian Court University (NJ)
Graceland University (IA)
Holy Family University (PA)
Hood College (MD)
Houston Baptist University (TX)
Indiana Institute of
Technology (IN)
Keystone College (PA)
LaSalle University (PA)
Lenoir-Rhyne College (NC)
LeTourneau University (TX)
10 © 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. • 2011 Discounting Report
Lewis University (IL)
Lincoln Memorial University (TN)
Linfield College (OR)
Lynchburg College (VA)
Marywood University (PA)
McPherson College (KS)
Menlo College (CA)
Mercer University (GA)
Messiah College (PA)
Milwaukee Institute of Art &
Design (WI)
Milwaukee School of
Engineering (WI)
Mississippi College (MS)
Missouri Baptist University (MO)
Montserrat College of Art (MA)
Mount Mary College (WI)
Mount St. Mary’s College (CA)
Muskingum College (OH)
New York Institute of
Technology (NY)
Niagara University (NY)
North Park University (IL)
Northwestern College (MN)
Northwood University (FL)
Northwood University (MI)
Northwood University (TX)
Norwich University (VT)
Notre Dame de Namur
University (CA)
Ohio Dominican University (OH)
Oral Roberts University (OK)
Paul Smith’s College (NY)
Pratt Institute (NY)
Queens University (NC)
Regis University (CO)
Rider University (NJ)
Robert Morris University (PA)
Rockhurst University (MO)
Rocky Mountain College (MT)
Saint Joseph’s College (IN)
Seattle University (WA)
Seton Hall University (NJ)
Shenandoah University (VA)
Southeastern University (FL)
Southwest Baptist University (MO)
Spring Arbor University (MI)
St. Ambrose University (IA)
St. Edward’s University (TX)
St. John Fisher College (NY)
St. John’s University (NY)
St. Joseph College (CT)
St. Louis University (MO)
St. Mary’s University (TX)
St. Norbert College (WI)
Stetson University (FL)
Tabor College (KS)
Tennessee Wesleyan College (TN)
Texas Wesleyan University (TX)
The College of Idaho (ID)
The College of New Rochelle (NY)
The College of St. Scholastica (MN)
Tiffin University (OH)
Transylvania University (KY)
Tulane University (LA)
University of Bridgeport (CT)
University of Dallas (TX)
University of Denver (CO)
University of Findlay (OH)
University of Mount Union (OH)
University of New England (ME)
University of Saint Francis (IN)
University of Saint Mary (KS)
University of San Diego (CA)
University of Tampa (FL)
University of the Arts (PA)
University of the Incarnate
Word (TX)
Upper Iowa University (IA)
Virginia Wesleyan College (VA)
Viterbo University (WI)
Warner University (FL)
Western New England
College (MA)
Westminster College (PA)
Westminster College (UT)
Westmont College (CA)
Wilkes University (PA)
Wisconsin Lutheran College (WI)
Xavier University (OH)
Young Harris College (GA)
© 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. • www.noellevitz.com 11
Contact us at:
2350 Oakdale Boulevard
Coralville, Iowa 52241-9702
Phone:
800-876-1117
319-626-8380
E-mail:
[email protected]
Questions about this report?
If you have questions about this report, please contact Mitsi Messier,
Noel-Levitz vice president, at [email protected], or by
calling 1-800-876-1117.
Web:
www.noellevitz.com
•
All material in this report is
copyright © by Noel-Levitz, Inc.
Permission is required, in
most cases, to redistribute
information from Noel-Levitz, Inc.,
either in print or electronically.
Please contact us at ContactUs@
noellevitz.com about reusing
material from this report.
Related reports from Noel-Levitz
Benchmark Poll Report Series
Visit: www.noellevitz.com/BenchmarkReports
National Student Satisfaction-Priorities Reports
Visit: www.noellevitz.com/SatisfactionReports
E-Expectations Report Series
Visit: www.noellevitz.com/E-ExpectationsReports
National Freshman Attitudes Reports
Visit: www.noellevitz.com/AttitudesReports
About Noel-Levitz
Noel-Levitz is a nationally recognized higher education consulting firm that focuses on strategic planning
for enrollment and student success. Each year, campus executives from throughout the U.S. meet regularly
with Noel-Levitz to accomplish their goals for student recruitment, marketing, student retention, and
strategic enrollment management.
Since 1973, Noel-Levitz has partnered with more than 2,700 colleges and universities throughout North
America. The firm offers executive consulting, custom research and benchmark data, innovative tools and
technologies, side-by-side plan development and execution, and resources for professional development.
For more information, visit www.noellevitz.com.
How to cite this report
Noel-Levitz (2011). 2011 discounting report. Coralville, Iowa: Author. Retrieved from
www.noellevitz.com/DiscountingReport
Find it online.
This report is posted online at www.noellevitz.com/DiscountingReport.
Sign up to receive additional reports and updates.
Visit our Web page: www.noellevitz.com/Subscribe
12 © 2011 Noel-Levitz, Inc. • 2011 Discounting Report
P009
0311