ISCAP Proceedings: Abstract Presentation
Anecdotal Observations from a Cyber Camp: Adding a Fee
Kyle Cronin
Dakota State University
Abstract
Dakota State University (DSU) has participated in the National Security Agency’s GenCyber program since its inception more than 12 years ago. During that time, the university has refined its camp structure, incorporated lessons learned, and developed a successful, repeatable model for introducing students to cybersecurity. For the past several years, both the camp format and the participating faculty have remained largely unchanged.
The summer of 2026 presented a unique situation. GenCyber funding was temporarily unavailable to universities, causing many camps across the country to be canceled or significantly modified. DSU chose to offer its camp using the same structure and faculty as in previous years, but participation required a registration fee. Because the fee was the most significant change, the 2026 camp provided an opportunity to observe how cost may influence enrollment, engagement, and the overall camp experience.
As expected, the most immediate difference was enrollment. A previous free camp enrolled 176 students, including 40 girls and 136 boys. The paid camp enrolled 94 students, including 27 girls and 67 boys. Overall participation declined by approximately 47 percent. The gender distribution did not shift dramatically, although girls represented a somewhat larger share of the paid cohort. While other factors may have contributed, the enrollment decline clearly shows that a fee can affect whether families view participation as financially practical or worthwhile.
Differences were also observed in student behavior outside scheduled cybersecurity instruction. During the free camp, students made extensive use of the university fitness center and participated in optional activities such as sports (basketball, ultimate frisbee, tennis), soldering, capture-the-flag competitions, and various movie offerings. These activities encouraged students to socialize, build friendships, and engage more fully with the residential campus experience. During the paid camp, the fitness center was largely unused, and campers were more likely to return to their supervised residence halls after scheduled programming rather than participate in optional group activities.
The paid camp also appeared to attract a more self-selected group of students who entered with an established interest in cybersecurity. By comparison, the free camp may have reached more students with limited prior exposure or lower initial interest, giving them an opportunity to explore the field without requiring a financial commitment. If so, the paid camp may have had less potential to generate new interest and influence future cybersecurity enrollment. These observations are anecdotal and do not establish that the fee alone caused the differences.
Nevertheless, the comparison highlights an important benefit of GenCyber funding. A free camp allows a student’s interest and curiosity, rather than a family’s economic circumstances or willingness to pay, to shape participation. Funding supports higher enrollment, broader access, exploration, community building, and exposure to the full residential camp experience.