The Dallas Morning News on Monday published information about the letters sent by numerous powerful individuals seeking to influence the admissions process at the University of Texas at Austin. Word of the letters (and the letter writers) is setting off new scrutiny of admissions at the university, with many of the powerful saying that they didn't necessarily follow up or seeking to punish the university for disregarding requests. Some letter writers were quite honest that they didn't know much about the applicant on whose behalf they wrote. W. A. Moncrief, an oil executive who has given at least $25 million to UT, wrote on behalf of one applicant: “I do not know this young man or anything about his qualifications, but I do know [the student’s] parents and I know his grandparents very well.” Moncrief added that the student “is certainly from a very fine and highly respected family.”
The number of low-income students who meet key college-readiness benchmarks remained flat among 2014 high school graduates who took the ACT, according to a new report from ACT and the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships. That number has stagnated for the past five years, the report said.
About one-quarter of 2014 high school graduates who took the ACT reported an annual family income of less than $36,000. While 96 percent of this group said they planned to attend college, more than the overall group of test takers, roughly half of the low-income students did not meet any of ACT's four key readiness indicators. The report found that 31 percent of all students who took the ACT also do not meet those readiness benchmarks. For example, only 25 percent of low-income students (who took the recommended core course work) were deemed ready in math, compared to 43 percent of all students.
New report by American Council on Education argues many college efforts to attract minority students employ race-neutral strategies that aren't as controversial as those that receive considerable attention.
A study based on Texas data finds that minority students -- and in particular Latino students -- show somewhat different patterns of selecting colleges to which to apply than do white students. The study, released today by the National Bureau of Economic Research, examined where Texas students went to college in 2008 and 2009. Minority students were more likely than white students, even when controlling for college readiness, high school quality and other factors, to apply to colleges that were closer to their homes, that enrolled large numbers of minority students and that students from their high school had attended and succeeded at in the past. These factors resulted in some students "under-matching" or applying to colleges that were not as strong academically as they might have been able to be admitted to. An abstract of the study is available here.
Joseph Lee, who was named president of Pine Manor College two years ago, has left, with little word on why except that it was a "voluntary departure." Lee took over at Pine Manor as the small private women's college outside Boston started admitting men. A recent piece on WGBH News reviewed the college's financial challenges. On Thursday, the college announced that Rosemary Ashby, who was president from 1976 to 1996, would return as interim president.
It’s been a little over a year since Michelle Obama brought school counselors and the important work they do into the spotlight as never before. Speaking before the annual meeting of the American School Counselor Association, Mrs. Obama brought attendees to their feet when she recognized the important role school counselors play in the lives of students, and the impossible demands placed on their time.
In sharing her Reach Higher initiative, Mrs. Obama also announced a new directive from the Department of Education, encouraging school administrators to offer more relevant professional development to counselors immediately, because “our secretary of education knows that every school counselor in this country should have quality, relevant professional development opportunities, end of story.”
Other components of the Reach Higher initiative -- College Decision Day and the Counselor of the Year celebration at the White House -- are off to an impressive start, but efforts to create new course work and professional development have stalled. No state met Secretary Arne Duncan’s call for increased professional development for current school counselors by last September.
In addition, a 2012 report from Harvard University states “Although graduate course work varies by state … specific course work in higher education or college counseling is rarely required, if even offered.” Less than 10 percent of counselor graduate programs currently offer specific course work in college counseling, as identified by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, and the number of new programs adding such a course in the last year is less than a dozen.
Some counselor educators -- those charged with training school counselors -- have responded to this call by insisting a course focused on college counseling is unnecessary. As long as the essential college counseling skills are taught at some point in graduate school, they argue, what’s the value of a focused course?
Those making this argument are unaware of the pressures school counselors are facing in today’s high schools, and in today’s job market. To begin with, a good number of counselor training programs aren’t teaching essential skills in college counseling at any point in their programs. College Board surveys show a clear majority of school counselors report the college counseling training they received in graduate school was inadequate. Combined with surveys of recent high school graduates showing deep dissatisfaction with the college advice their counselors had to offer, the time is now for graduate programs to find ways to emphasize the importance of college counseling in counselor training, since more is being expected from school counselors in this vital area.
Counselors feel particularly undertrained in essential areas such as advising students on how to pay for college, prepare for college tests like the ACT and SAT, develop a rigorous high school schedule that builds college readiness, and complete the basic elements of a college application, including college essays. They also want a greater awareness of the wide array of college options available to students, such as colleges where students take one class at a time, colleges that don’t require any test scores as part of the admission process and colleges that have a proven track record of supporting students with unique talents and needs. Given the increased competition for entrance into many colleges, and the increased financial resources families are devoting to college completion, a graduate course for counselors focused on the rudimentary components of college counseling is no longer a luxury -- it is a must.
An additional consideration for a required course in college counseling lies with the new importance of a credential in this field. More school administrators are looking at alternative ways of offering college advising to students and families, including hiring independent college counselors and college success coaches as independent contractors. Many of these college experts do not have the credentials necessary to be school counselors, but do have transcripts and certificates of completion in college counseling programs to verify their training in college counseling -- something most high school counselors don’t have. In some cases, they also have a track record of success in turning around college counseling programs at private or charter schools.
It’s certainly true that certified school counselors generally have more training in the mental health aspects of school counseling than do college coaches. But when demand for help with college advising is at an all-time high, how can school counselors with no evidence of training in college counseling hope to compete for jobs with independent contractors whose college advising credentials are stronger, and whose services often come at a significantly lower price? These factors almost require school administrators consider reassigning the role of college advising to an independent contractor, reducing the number of school counselors available to assist students with noncollege needs. That change not only hurts a potential school counselor; it hurts the profession.
Far beyond the arguments for a professional credential, a focused course offers particular benefits to counselors working with low-income students in urban and rural areas. Often the only counselor in the building, these professionals lack access to the professional development their suburban counselors are more likely to enjoy, and their higher caseloads leave them even less time to learn the essentials of effective college advising on the job. If for no other reason, a foundation course in college counseling is essential in advancing the efforts of school counselors to advance the college dreams of low-income students, advancing society’s goal of greater social justice.
The goals of the Reach Higher initiative, combined with the demands of students and parents and the realities of the college counseling marketplace, make it clear that an unfocused approach to training school counselors in college counseling is no longer the answer, if in fact it ever was. As Mrs. Obama’s celebration of school counselors reaches its one-year anniversary, it’s time for policy makers and counselor educators to join the party, and give school counselors the skills, and credentials, they desperately need and deserve.
Patrick O’Connor is a past president of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, and associate dean of college counseling at Cranbrook Kingswood School, in Michigan.
Warren Wilson College announced Friday that it is dropping a requirement that applicants submit SAT or ACT scores. A statement from Janelle Holmboe, vice president for enrollment, said: “This policy change makes sense. We value the whole student, the ways in which they innovate and apply knowledge, how they seek to serve others, and how they hope to make an impact in the world through hard work. Those qualities aren’t just reflected in test scores.”
For today’s enrollment manager, it’s nearly impossible to go a week without someone forwarding an article about another college trying a new way to describe the difference between its listed sticker price, the actual cost of attendance and the institution’s discount rate. The current funding model for higher education is broken and we can only blame ourselves for creating a norm of bargain basement pricing for those families in the know, opaque business models and unexplained annual increases based more on competitors’ current price tag rather than our actual campus needs. We continue to play a game of chicken as we wait for a so-called peer to do what we need to do.
On my own campus, we’ve been discussing this issue for several years and have yet to figure out what, if any, changes we should make, but we do know that honesty is a safe bet.
Gimmicks like so-called tuition resets and freezes, as well as “inflation +” models, are our industry’s desperate attempts to respond to critics and to try to appease the price police, when perhaps we should be discussing why we cost so much instead. These efforts are often undertaken in response to the chorus of calls for affordability, but they seldom illustrate for whom the experience will be more affordable.
Neither these efforts nor simply sticking with the status quo are acceptable over the long term -- families deserve additional information before they pay tuition or incur debt to cover campus costs. But any change has a substantial impact and cannot create spiraling financial scenarios for our campuses, either.
There are significant risks involved in changing how we discuss pricing, cost and value. Private colleges, as tuition-dependent institutions, are hesitant to try something new, especially if all of our peers stick with the currently murky language and approaches to cost and price.
As an industry, we need to work at getting it right for our students, which includes lowering actual costs for students and maintaining sufficient revenue to deliver on our mission. Meanwhile, we are muddling through how we describe our costs, often with too many apologies, and witnessing the shuttering of campuses across the country that didn’t find the right programmatic offerings, words or approaches to make themselves institutions of choice for students.
As best I can tell, there are no clear or easy solutions, but there are a few key elements we need to stress in future rhetoric and approaches:
A clear rationale for a new model. Families would benefit from an honest conversation with college leaders about why unfunded tuition discounting cannot continue at the current rate and why discounting has a negative impact on a college’s short- and long-term finances and bond rating. Further, colleges need to clearly describe their business model to their campus constituents, students and parents of current students and delineate how the annual operation is funded. Finally, leaders need to acknowledge that percentage increases in tuition costs cannot continue in perpetuity. At some point we will price ourselves out of the market and into bankruptcy.
Genuine reductions in cost to students. In too many cases, a clear illustration of exactly what has changed and how much less a student will pay is missing entirely from the launch of a new plan. Some institutions reference averages or scenarios for the financially neediest students while ignoring the middle class. Seldom is there a clear statement that all students will pay at least $XXXX less to attend the next year. I realize this is pretty tricky -- saying that the education offered is less expensive than the previous year -- but this is exactly what’s missing and why many of the efforts so far seem to miss the mark. Without a clear explanation to students and families of the financial benefits of a new model, colleges remain vulnerable to criticism that a new model really doesn’t change the cost of attendance to the student (a criticism that is fair in many cases). Colleges need to clearly articulate whether or not students will benefit.
Substantive changes to the business model and how we operate as institutions. One of the reasons many newly introduced models for calculating costs and how they are applied are viewed as gimmicky is because there is no clear explanation of what (if anything) has changed. Will changes in pricing result in a reduction of departments or student services? Is the college dependent on increasing the size of the student body to make up for lost revenue? Has the college become more efficient? Will the college open a new line of business to generate more revenue? How things will change is the key unanswered question, and our public is smart enough to want to know what changes -- and theoretically reductions -- will occur before they commit.
Sufficient marketing of any new model. While I’ve seen some clever YouTube videos and good press releases, strong marketing of a new model seems pretty limited. Some colleges don’t want to be seen “wasting money” on marketing when trying to prove to the world that they care about reducing costs to students. Additionally, many colleges view new models as highly risky, and they don’t want the hangover of a marketing rollout if it doesn’t work. However, the lack of a confident marketing plan results in most of these efforts being viewed as isolated, gimmicky or done with an ulterior motive, like lowering the price to attract more students because there is excess capacity to educate and house them on campus. An aggressive and comprehensive public relations and marketing campaign would have great benefit to a college if it really does want to transform the model and be a market leader.
Clear connection between price and return. Although there have been recent efforts to describe the return on investment of a college degree, historically speaking, connecting price with results and service has been inadequate at best and incredibly opaque at worst. There are so many questions to consider: What goes into a “comprehensive fee”? How does what a student pays for, and gets, differ from year to year in order to justify an increase or not? Are the services students receive as first-year students more comprehensive than as seniors? Should having a full-time faculty member as an adviser add value and cost? Colleges must do a better job connecting the price of attendance with what a student receives from year to year.
Even if a college committed to addressing these missing pieces, could it transform how we calculate cost of attendance for the student and the institution? I don’t know for certain. But a college that starts out willing to change the business model, reduce the actual price (and cost) for students, clearly describe what a student gets for what he or she pays, and aggressively market a new cost/price model -- that college would get attention. And that would be one of those articles forwarded to me that I would be interested to read.
W. Kent Barnds is executive vice president and vice president of enrollment, communication and planning at Augustana College, in Rock Island, Ill.
The University of California admitted about 1,000 fewer California applicants for the academic year starting this fall, while the number of out-of-state applicants admitted -- both from the rest of the United States and from abroad -- was up by a bit more than 1,000 each. University of California officials said that because they expect the yield (the percentage of admitted applicants who enroll) to go up, they project no decline in the number of Californians who will enroll as new students in the fall. The figures reflect a 0.3 percent decrease for in-state admissions, an 8 percent increase for out-of-state American applicants, and an 18 percent increase for international applicants. The numbers follow.