Search News


Browse Archives

News

Reconsidering Open Enrollment

February 27, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Two historically black colleges that have long been open to any student who graduates high school or passes an equivalency test could be changing their admissions policies if their presidents get their way.

George T. French Jr., president of Miles College, in Alabama, has charged a task force with reviewing the institution's open enrollment policy with the aim of "creating a more stringent, selective admissions process," according to a statement from French.

The group is looking at enrollment patterns of peer institutions and expects to make a recommendation to the president this academic year, with the possibility of putting a new admissions policy in place by as early as the fall, according to the university. Trustees must first sign off on the decision.

French said in the statement that the college's "liberal" policy of admissions has served the college well, but that it's time for a change.

“We are serving a different clientele and in a different arena than the past," his statement says. "Additionally, serious-minded students should be given the benefit of matriculating with peers who share similar values and are serious about their education. While it is not the college’s goal to exclude, we have a responsibility to our students, faculty and staff to cultivate an atmosphere which is safe, civil and conducive to learning.” (That last reference is, perhaps, explained by the fact that Miles had a recent shooting on its campus.)

Geraldine W. Bell, a professor and director of Miles's Learning Resource Center, who heads the task force, said the committee of mostly faculty and administrators will probably consider what role high school grades and standardized tests should play in admissions decisions, as well as whether the college should require an essay.

"I hope that we can improve the quality of students who are attending -- those who are interested in obtaining a higher education," Bell said, adding that it's her impression that some students there lack the motivation needed to succeed.

Department of Education statistics put Miles's graduation rate at 50 percent.

John M. Rudley, president of Texas Southern University, has indicated that he'd also like to see changes to his institution's open enrollment policy in order to increase its sagging graduation rate, which the department lists at hovering around 12 percent.

"A university shouldn't have to accept anybody with a GED," The Houston Chronicle quoted Rudley as saying. "That means they didn't complete high school but they can come here without the same preparation as others and then be expected to compete."

That article quoted a Texas Southern professor as saying that many alumni and parents would be unlikely to go along with the change.

Proponents of open enrollment typically argue that the policies are in line with some colleges' missions of serving the most academically needy students.

The conversation comes at a time when Texas Southern is on a 12-month probation from its accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, for failing to comply with standards relating to governance, financial management and other administrative issues.

The university said in a statement that the issues raised by SACS aren't related to its academic programming and are a reflection of "past troubles."

Rudley, who began as president earlier this month, replaced Priscilla Slade, who was fired after being charged with using hundreds of thousands of dollars in university funds for personal purchases. (An interim president had been in place since late 2006.)

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Reconsidering Open Enrollment

  • The Quest for Better Students
  • Posted by Jim Garland on February 27, 2008 at 10:10am EST
  • There are strong incentives for colleges to enroll good students: faculty prefer teaching well-prepared students; good students don't require expensive remedial help; good students graduate faster, get better jobs after graduation, and give more to the college at Annual Giving time. Good students are a mark of prestige for a college and potentially can bump it up a few notches on the academic pecking order.

    But the strongest incentive, in this era when both private and public colleges are struggling financially, is that good students have more money than poor students and can therefore afford to pay full tuition. There is a dramatic correlation between SAT scores (or high school GPAs) and family income, which means that the quest for good students is in reality a quest for wealthy students. Good students are a money-maker for a college on many levels.

    It is easy to justify a selective admissions policy on abstract, academic grounds, and these two colleges have made the standard arguments. However, I hope the faculty, administration and trustees of these institutions also consider the larger social impact of their proposed change. With the cost of a college education soaring, the demographic group that is suffering the most and that needs the most help is precisely the group that these colleges now would exclude.

    I don't mean to be critical of these two colleges; nearly all colleges and universities these days with excess application pressure are moving in the same direction. However, at some point, our society needs to look at the larger social cost of denying essential educational opportunities to those stuck at the lower end of the country's economic spectrum.

  • Did you graduate?
  • Posted by jon-christian suggs on February 27, 2008 at 10:40am EST
  • "...who graduated high school"?

    Did you?

    It's "graduated FROM"---"FROM"!

  • looking in the wrong direction?
  • Posted by Peter on February 27, 2008 at 11:10am EST
  • These two struggling institutions seem to be blaming their customers for their plight. TSU is one of the most scandal-plagued schools in modern history. Elevating the quality of instruction and management might do more to attract stronger students than setting up a more exclusive gate.

  • Posted by Ronnie on February 27, 2008 at 1:00pm EST
  • Jim, I theory I agree with your comments but in Miles' case it doesn't fly. Miles is a small private institution in Alabama and isn't exactly cheap. There are also at least 4 different community colleges in the Birmingham area that I am aware of. These students that wouldn't be admitted to Miles still have plenty of opportunities for a higher education.

    I think we as Universities also have a moral obligation to our students. If we know a certain student with low test scores, GPAs, etc is not successful at our institution, we should not be admitting them and letting them take out loans (which they all do) just so they can fail out their second year and then have debt on top of no education. At that point, these students are actually worse off than they were before.

  • Educational Disadvantage
  • Posted by Dr. Ron on February 27, 2008 at 5:05pm EST
  • Admissions selectivity is a good thing for all of the reasons stated. I also agree that financially disadvantaged students are most likely to have poorer academic performance than their more affluent peers. It is the reason for that performance disparity, however, that needs to be addressed.
    The reason is that educational disadvantage often goes hand-in-hand with financial disadvantage--particularly at the formative and elementary levels where it is most pronounced and most damaging. It results in glaring gaps in foundational math and reading skills. These gaps conceivably can be remedied with interventions at nearly any point in time.
    I believe our efforts would be invested best in establishing programs for disadvantaged students that provide either adequate early supplementary instruction or remedial instruction in later life. Let's treat the disease and stop lingering over symptoms.
    In this way we can actually narrow the performance gap instead of complaining about it and looking for alternatives to high academic standards (a mentality that drives me nuts as a person of color).
    Once we do, we can finally stop debating the merits of selective admission and simply appreciate it for what it is--i.e., the right way to go.

  • Posted by Rhonda Eaker on March 10, 2008 at 10:55am EDT
  • Ronnie has hit the nail on the head. I have seen far too many private and proprietary schools admit anyone and everyone just to get bodies in the door. When these students are not successful, they leave with large debts and no education. I think this is one of the least dicussed moral issues currently facing certain segments of higher education and the admissions community.

  • This reeks of classism
  • Posted by Jacqueline S. Homan , Author on March 14, 2008 at 11:05am EDT
  • Kids from the middle and upper class are better prepared for two reasons: Their families have the money to throw at private tutors, SAT preparation courses, and a myriad of culturally enriching activities. Secondly, middle and upper class families live in suburbs with schools that have more classroom resources compared to impoverished inner-city schools.

    I find it extremely hypocritical for the "haves" and "have-mores" to tell the poor that their poverty is their own fault for failing to get a college education when some of society's most privileged are those who occupy positions of authority in academic ivory towers, and happen to be the very ones erecting more systemic barriers to keep the poor out.

    If your university wants "good" students, maybe those with privilege and power in charge there ought to be investing some time and effort dismantling the systemic barriers of poverty in this country so that ALL have a truly equal opportunity to get an education.

    Of course, that would mean that some upward bound poor kid from the ghetto might be competing with some wealthy alumni's kids for the economic rewards and social prizes in our so-called meritcracy which is what the privileged seek to prevent - at all costs.

    With an elitist agenda like that, our society will become more stagnant that the British royal family's gene pool - and twice as useless.