Times Higher Education, which is well known for its global rankings of universities, announced Monday that it is starting a ranking of American colleges and universities. Many American universities are already part of (and do quite well in) Times Higher's World University rankings, but the methodology for that ranking (with points based, among other things, on research reputation, citations, and tech transfer) would not work for the majority of American colleges that are not research universities. Times Higher's announcement said it would try to offer rankings that would not primarily reward selectivity. While Times Higher did not reveal its methodology in detail, it said that it would be based on federal data on completion rates and earnings. In addition, data will come from a new Times Higher Education Student Survey, which will gather student views on about 1,000 institutions. Questions in the survey will seek to determine students’ engagement with their learning and how they perceive the value of their educations.
Disclosure: Times Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed trade one article each week, but Inside Higher Ed plays no role in Times Higher's rankings.
East Stroudsburg University announced this week that it is starting a pilot in which applicants will no longer be required to submit SAT or ACT scores. The university is the first within the Pennsylvania State System to go to test-optional admissions for all applicants.
ACT on Tuesday announced a series of changes in the way people may request accommodations in testing conditions. Many advocates for students with disabilities have said that it is too time-consuming and complicated to request such accommodations. The new system should cut the paperwork required and should, on average, decrease the time to be notified of decisions on requests by 10 days.
This spring 18.3 million students enrolled in college, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, a decline of 1.3 percent compared to last spring. The biggest dips were at four-year institutions in the for-profit sector (down 9.3 percent) and at community colleges (2.8 percent). Enrollments increased slightly at four-year public institutions (0.6 percent) and at four-year privates (0.7 percent). Overall enrollments at public colleges were down by 0.9 percent.
Older students continue to account for much of national enrollment declines. Compared to last spring, 241,000 fewer students over age 24 enrolled, while the decline in the 24-and-under category was just 7,800. And students over the age of 24 made up nearly 80 percent of the community college sector's slide.
This year’s admissions headlines covered selectivity rates, surviving the process, getting into the dream school and Costco. On the whole, the headlines were fairly predictable. But next year?
A look into the future suggests next year will be uncertain and even chaotic for students, families and most colleges during the admissions process. The emergence of the new application and portfolio system of the Coalition for Access, Affordability and Success, along with the National Association of College Admissions Counselors’ reassessment of the Statement of Principles and Good Practices, are the smallest of disruptions in comparison to what is on the horizon.
As an enrollment manager, I have been wishing for change to the system in the same way a parent awaits good news of the healthy birth of a child. But can so many changes be good for families sending a child off to college?
In the coming year, we will see changes in standardized testing, use of prior-prior year tax information in applying for financial aid, elimination of colleges’ access to the selected institution list on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid and the likely expansion of Simplified Needs Testing resulting from Medicaid expansion. These and other factors like demographic shifts, ability to pay and public support for higher education represent unprecedented changes to the world of college admissions.
Not every college has to worry: the wealthiest and most selective will continue on their tried and true paths, and open-access institutions will serve out their missions in the way they always have. But most colleges are working desperately to navigate the changes in a way that is not harmful to them and genuinely benefits students, especially those with the greatest need.
Presumably, the SAT and FAFSA changes were introduced for students’ benefit, but will they actually have that intended benefit? Or will the introduction of multiple changes simultaneously simply confuse families and institutions? And what is the colleges’ role in minimizing the chaos? Let’s take a look at each and consider consequences.
Standardized testing. I received an invitation from the College Board to attend a webcast about the newly revamped SAT. In the body of the invite was this phrase: “The early feedback from the student survey is positive, and data from the first administration will be sent to your campus soon.”
While I am pleased to hear student feedback about a test is positive, the number of colleges adopting test-optional admissions policies in recent months may indicate that colleges are not as positive. Admissions professionals in states like Illinois and Colorado -- which traditionally have relied on the ACT but recently switched to the SAT presumably because the latter was less expensive for them -- were startled by the change and the consequences.
There has been little if any genuine engagement on the part of public policy makers with the colleges and universities who serve the students impacted by this change. And while we will adjust, choosing an exam because it’s cheaper doesn’t seem like good public policy.
Furthermore, the significant changes to existing exams have created their own uncertainty for families and school counselors who want clarification about new scores, which versions of exams will be accepted and how each college across America is going to approach this new world. Maybe this big change will be good for students, but I am not sure yet.
Prior-Prior Year. One of my colleagues recently described PPY and its implications as “somewhere between ho-hum and this changes everything.” Most institutions are probably closer to “this changes everything.”
PPY will allow students to apply for financial aid in October of the senior year rather than January and to use finalized tax information rather than current-year data. There are plenty of good intentions behind PPY, like transparency about net price earlier in the process and more accurate data due to expanded use of the IRS data-retrieval tool.
But there will be additional consequences, like acceleration of the financial aid application timetable and a greatly elongated yield season. In addition, we in college admissions will have to enter the unknown territory of fulfilling the expectations of students who believe this will provide them earlier information about net price -- when, in fact, that will not be a universal outcome because not all colleges will be equipped to provide earlier awards.
One of the most significant consequences for my college will be a priority financial aid application advisory date of Nov. 1. To try to ensure all students have maximum access to financial aid, we will encourage submitting the FAFSA well before applying for admission. Why? In the state of Illinois, the agency that administers the state grant program traditionally suspends eligibility for the grant program 40 to 60 days after the FAFSA becomes available. Since colleges have not yet received guidance about agency practice with PPY, we are left to our devices to try to protect students’ eligibility for aid.
And while PPY is deemed beneficial for students, submitting the FAFSA before applying for admission will generate form-tracking issues for colleges. It will also create concerns about making aid commitments prior to seeing academic credentials that could influence the composition of aid packages.
Elimination of access to the FAFSA position. Last fall, the U.S. Department of Education was pressured into eliminating colleges’ ability to see where a student listed their college when submitting the FAFSA. An institution’s knowledge of its position on this list helped it and aid agencies to predict enrollment patterns.
Eliminating colleges’ access to their FAFSA position was misguided and overall a bad idea. The consequences, now becoming clearer, are embedded in a conversation I overheard recently. A colleague was describing a presentation at an agency that administers a state grant program, in which an administrator lamented elimination of the FAFSA position, as it had been used to project the expense associated with the grant program in that state. School counselors who attended the presentation were shocked that this change could actually have a negative consequence for students. The agency that had used FAFSA position now will need to find an alternative and possibly more draconian method of dispensing and projecting needed aid -- all within an environment of shrinking resources.
We’ve seen an uptick in the number of colleges introducing early admissions programs and other ways to test demonstrated interest in the way FAFSA position once did. While designed to benefit students -- that is, remove FAFSA position so colleges could not use that information to prioritize students during the recruitment cycle -- the resultant rise in early programs and new, unpredictable methods of rationing state funds will likely work against the very students whom the policy was designed to help.
Simplified Needs Testing. A proposed rule change for the 2017-18 FAFSA will expand SNT to all students eligible for Medicaid. It’s hard to argue with this change, which will benefit the truly needy. But given the vast expansion of Medicaid in the last five years, I fear it will force public policy makers to develop a system of rationing financial aid at the national level.
I spend sleepless nights, as you might, wondering what the national criteria would be, how closely it might be associated with the College Scorecard and what impact it will have on my college and our students. Again, expanding SNT is aimed at benefiting students, but rationing aid at the national level seems an inevitable result. How could that help in the long run?
What Can We Do to Minimize the Chaos?
I want these changes to help students and to improve a complicated process. But I don’t think students will fully benefit without enrollment professionals doing the following:
Communicate clearly with students, parents and school counselors. As deadlines, practices and programs change to accommodate all these changes, we must overcommunicate about what we are doing. There is no such thing as too much communication about deadlines, rationale and benefits. People need to know that big changes are in store and that what an applicant experienced this year will be nothing like what future students will experience. We’ve already shared our new time frame with juniors visiting campus and have a mailing ready to go to high school counselors.
Inform internal stakeholders about how things are changing. Whether a coach, faculty member, provost or president, enrollment management and admissions are not those individuals’ primary jobs. While many people on your campus are aware of these changes, it is safe to assume they don’t have full understanding of them and the impact on recruitment and enrollment. At my institution, we put together a white paper about the impact of PPY and have held a number of “lunch and learns” to discuss the implications of these significant changes.
Become more involved in the public policy discussion. We all, but especially those of us in enrollment work, need to be more engaged in the public debate about important policy issues. While it may feel hopeless at times (remember, my college is in Illinois), we must make our voices heard. We can no longer rely on associations and lobbyists.
On top of all this, we continue to hear presidential candidates talk about free higher education, creating an expectation among stakeholders. It seems possible that after next year, all of these new concerns could be replaced with an altogether different and greater set.
Public policy makers and higher education pundits have longed for disruption, and it’s here. So let’s make sure we do our part to help students and mitigate the confusion and angst that will accompany changes to an already stress-ridden process.
W. Kent Barnds is vice president of enrollment, communications and planning at Augustana College.
The Asian American Coalition for Education will today announce that it is asking the U.S. Education Department to find that Brown and Yale Universities and Dartmouth College discriminate against Asian-American applicants. The complaint cites data such as the increasing number of Asian-American applicants and studies that have found that, on average, Asian-Americans need higher grades and test scores to earn admission to elite colleges, and comments from former admissions officers to back up that view. The coalition and other groups have been seeking to challenge affirmative action policies that they say favor all non-Asian applicants (including white applicants) over Asians. To date, these efforts have not succeeded.
The Common Application has identified its next executive director, Jenny Rickard, vice president for enrollment at the University of Puget Sound. Rickard previously held admissions or enrollment management positions at Bryn Mawr and Swarthmore Colleges, and at the New York University School of Law.
A report being issued today will criticize the University of Massachusetts System for admitting an increasing number of out-of-state students, The Boston Globe reported. The system has been growing enrollments, both from inside and outside Massachusetts. In 2015, for the first time, the flagship campus at Amherst admitted more out-of-staters (although only by six). UMass officials have responded to the report with some anger, accusing the Pioneer Institute, which is issuing the report, of having an agenda of undercutting public higher education to support the state's private colleges.
Midway University announced Monday that it will admit men to all programs. The Kentucky institution was founded as a women's college and already admits men to online, graduate and evening programs. The change will admit men to residential undergraduate programs that have until now remained for women only. The announcement from the university, which was until 2015 known as Midway College, noted the difficulty of attracting young women to single-sex colleges, and said that the undergraduate programs need more students.
On the college's Facebook page, many alumnae criticized the move. Wrote one: "As a second-generation Midway College graduate, I am very sad to hear that the Midway I knew and loved will never be the same again. And I am afraid this is not a good change."