What's working in student recruitment and marketing at the undergraduate level? To find out, Noel-Levitz conducted a 97-item, Web-based poll in April of 2011 as part of the firm's continuing series of benchmark polls for higher education. Among the findings: (1) The "top 10" most effective practices in 2011--across public and private, two-year and four-year campuses--included many widely-used practices such as open houses and campus visit days as well as a few practices that were used by less than half of respondents; (2) Interaction with enrolled students, online applications, and initiatives to address students' concerns about costs were all included among the top practices across institution types; (3) Up to 55 percent of respondents from four-year private and public institutions and up to 67 percent of respondents from two-year public institutions reported using practices that most respondents in their sector judged to be "minimally effective"; (4) Purchasing student names was found to be a widespread practice in higher education, especially among four-year institutions, but the number of names purchased and the timing and number of contacts made with purchased names varied considerably among sectors and among institutions within each sector; (5) Mobile apps ranked among the least-used practices across institution types, despite the fact that nearly two-thirds of respondents from four-year institutions (63 to 64 percent) rated them "very effective" or "somewhat effective"; (6) Student-to-student contact programs--programs that keep enrolled students in touch with prospective students--were found to be used by a majority of four-year private and public institutions (73 and 61 percent, respectively) but only by a minority of two-year public institutions (27 percent), with a wide variety of practice in the frequency of such contacts; and (7) Only about half or less of respondents reported having a strategic, multi-year enrollment plan that they felt good about, only about half had a process for evaluating marketing and recruitment strategies that they felt good about, and only about one-fifth of campuses had a standing campuswide committee for marketing and recruitment planning that they felt good about. Appended are: (1) Complete findings by institution type; (2) Responding institutions; and (3) About Noel-Levitz.