The desire to expand and improve existing resources is not a new phenomenon in higher education (Hossler, 2004), but it has begun to gain watch out as institutions increasingly adopt enrollment management (EM) practices. EM is both an organizational concept coupled with associated practices that help institutions exert control over the characteristics of their student bodies (Hossler & Bean, 1990; Hossler, 2004; Kraatz, Ventresca, & Deng, 2010). EM is a controversial trend with different definitions, values ​​and disadvantages. Hossler and Bean (1990) view EM through a much more holistic lens than Kraatz, Ventresca, and Deng (2010). Kraatz et al. (2010) focus on the organizational structure of EMs and the “consolidation of various administrative functions that have the potential to influence enrollment and tuition revenue” (p. 1524). Hossler and Bean (1990) also see emerging markets as a strategic planning initiative, but know that its practices go far beyond simple admissions and financial aid. Included in their definition of organizational practices are “student choice of college, transition to college, student attrition and retention, and student outcomes” (p. 5). The greatest variance in views between Hossler and Bean (1990) and Kraatz et al. (2010) fits into their perception of the objectives of emerging markets. It is evident in Precarious Values ​​and Mundane Innovations that Kraatz et al. (2010) see EM as an inherently negative practice with questionable values. Kraatz et al. (2010) find that institutions most value the prestige accompanied by the enrollment of wealthy, high-achieving students and tuition revenue, and use enrollment management to promote these programs. Hossler and Bean (1990), on the other hand, believe that... halfway through the paper... it's not just about getting students in but also about retaining them. The University of Arizona must ensure a commitment to co-curricular and supplemental education programs to support students as they persevere to graduation. Kraatz et al. (2010) warn universities implementing EM systems that centralizing this process will reduce the autonomy of each department and cause them to lose the ability to carry out their specialized functions. The more centralized an emerging markets unit, the more power held by a single individual who could use enrollment management as a tool to exploit questionable values. The EM matrix (Hossler & Bean, 1990) is more appropriate for the U of A as it is a way to unite EM practices through a shared vision but also allows departments to use their own specialized knowledge and stay within existing reporting structures.