Slate AI: Reviewing Counselor Travel Outcomes
- 22 Aug 2025
- 1 minute read
- Print
- DarkLight
- PDF
Slate AI: Reviewing Counselor Travel Outcomes
- Updated 22 Aug 2025
- 1 minute read
- Print
- DarkLight
- PDF
Article summary
Did you find this summary helpful?
Thank you for your feedback
This article is part of our Slate AI series, each focused on a single, high-impact prompt—why it works, what Slate AI might say, the power of a follow-up, and a template you can try yourself.
The prompt
“Summarize the outcomes of this counselor travel data and identify key insights or recommended actions.”
This prompt helps Slate AI transition from raw visit data to an enrollment strategy, highlighting where travel efforts are effective and where they’re not.
Why it works
Efficient: Quickly surfaces outcomes like attendance, inquiries, and conversion rates by school, region, or counselor.
Insightful: Spots over- and under-performers to guide territory strategy.
Action-Oriented: Recommends follow-ups, assignment changes, or visit timing based on the data.
What Slate AI might say
“Counselor travel to Region 1 led to 183 inquiries across 14 schools, with three schools accounting for 61% of submissions. Two visited schools yielded no inquiries and show limited historical engagement. Follow-up is recommended for the 74 event attendees who haven’t started applications. Consider reallocating future visits based on performance.”
The power of a follow-up
The first response is rarely the whole story. A simple nudge—like asking Slate AI to “show me which students attended visits but haven’t started an application”—can turn a static recap into an actionable strategy.
Follow-up prompts help you:
Zero in on students who need next steps.
Spot counselors or territories that require reallocation.
Build targeted communication campaigns tied directly to outcomes.
Try reframing it
What happens when you shift the lens?
…based on visit attendance only | Prioritizes in-person engagement |
…for schools not visited last year | Tracks new-territory impact |
…segmented by counselor | Enables individual performance reviews |
…highlighting high-yield schools | Focuses on return-on-effort |
Each of these reframes is still the same question at its core, but how you phrase it changes the kind of insight you’ll get back.
Prompt Template
Here’s a version you can reuse:
“Analyze this travel data and summarize which visits were most productive, which schools underperformed, and how we might improve next cycle.”
A few swaps to get you thinking:
Inquiries by high school | School engagement score |
Post-visit follow-up rates | Communication gaps |
Event attendance by counselor | Staffing decisions |
Yield by school | Territory optimization |
Your turn
Try one of these yourself:
“Which high schools have generated the most applications from counselor visits?”
“What are the strongest and weakest territories based on inquiry conversion?”
“Which schools aren’t producing inquiries despite consistent travel?”
“What stands out about visits with low or no event attendance?”
Was this article helpful?
