You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
iStock
These two weeks are my favorite time of year as a sports fan. I’ve always loved college basketball, and as March approaches each year, I find myself engaging in “bracketology,” trying to project which teams will make the National Collegiate Athletic Association tournament. I love the first weekend of March Madness but never fill out a bracket because it lessens my enjoyment of watching the games.
If I’m honest with myself (and you), I’m not as avid a fan as I used to be. Division I men's basketball exemplifies the debate within higher education about whether college is an end in itself or preparation for a professional career, and I prefer my college basketball played by college students and not by players who are one-and-done, biding their time while they prepare to play in the National Basketball Association. I root for underdogs and wish March Madness included more midmajors and fewer mediocre teams from power conferences.
I also think that the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe of college basketball may need to become a major scandal to exorcise the sleazy elements taking over the sport. Basketball pundits often refer to the eye test as a means of judging which teams should be selected for the NCAA tournament, but a smell test may be more appropriate.
College admission may need its own smell test. My students have recently been confronted with practices that don’t smell right from two institutions located in the same state, one public and one private.
The less egregious of the two occurred last week. My student received an email from a college to which he had been accepted early action and awarded a “prestigious” scholarship. The email reminded him that while he has until May 1, the national candidate reply date, to enroll, he needed to let the college know by March 15 whether he was going to accept or decline the scholarship. The student hasn’t yet heard from all of the colleges to which he has applied and wanted to know what he should do.
The question is whether the request for a decision on the scholarship constitutes a violation of the NACAC Code of Ethics prohibition on soliciting enrollment commitments prior to May 1. Because the email makes reference to the student having until May 1 for an enrollment decision, it probably does not violate the letter of the requirement.
But does it violate the spirit of May 1? The ethical principle underlying the May 1 national candidate reply date is that students should be able to make a college decision that is informed and free of coercion. A student should have the right to know all of their options before being required to make a choice (athletic scholarships and when the student agrees to enroll in exchange for an early decision are recognized exceptions).
In this case the student was told that he has until May 1 to make an enrollment decision. The issue is whether the request to accept or decline the scholarship on March 15 is coercive.
I think the answer is yes. If the college admissions process is thought of as a power relationship, the college holds most of the power (or is at least perceived to). Most students are not yet savvy consumers (there are certainly plenty who are skilled at gaming the system) and may think that accepting the scholarship creates an obligation to enroll.
The language in the email encourages, or at least doesn’t discourage, that belief. The college states that the student was asked to accept or decline by March 15 and that the scholarship will be offered to another candidate if the student doesn’t respond by a certain time.
The college has a legitimate interest in using its scholarship funds efficiently and strategically. If the email had asked the student to let the college know if he intended to decline the scholarship so that the funds could then be given to someone else, that would provide the information the college needs to proceed. What is coercive is making the student accept or decline by March 15. My advice to my student was to accept the scholarship if there is any chance he will ultimately choose to enroll at the college.
The second case involved one of the guaranteed transfer programs that are becoming more popular as “side-door” admission paths into a number of major universities in the Southeast. These programs commonly offer a student guaranteed transfer admission upon completing a year at a specified community college. In some cases the students actually live on the university campus and have access to university facilities, even football tickets, but are not technically enrolled.
One of my students accepted to one of these programs was contacted in late February and informed that he needed to “express interest” in the program by March 1, upon which he would receive an email from the community college regarding paying a nonrefundable deposit of $750, also due by March 1. My student was considering the program but wanted to hear from his other college options before deciding.
The arrangement smelled like a violation of the NACAC Code of Ethics in a couple of respects, but the nonrefundable deposit had the strongest odor. If the program had limited space and a deposit held a space but was refundable, that would be one thing, but requiring a deposit two months before May 1 and not making it refundable seems indefensible. My office called the admissions office at the university and received a voice mail saying that the March 1 deadline was correct.
I have since done further research into the program. At first I thought the deposit might be a housing deposit, but there is a separate $150 housing deposit that is also nonrefundable but not due until May 24. A student will have the opportunity to know all of their options before having to make that deposit.
What is suspicious is that the nonrefundable $750 deposit is paid to the community college, not to the university. That technically removes the university from being responsible for a violation of May 1. But it seemed odd that a community college, normally an open-enrollment institution that enrolls students up to the start of classes, would have a program with an enrollment deposit of March 1.
It became even more suspicious when I checked the admissions page on the community college website and discovered that enrollment for new students for the fall term doesn’t even begin until March 30. So what is going on here? Why is the deposit for the guaranteed admission program sent to the community college and not to the university? Why an enrollment deadline for students in the program a month before any other new student is even able to begin enrolling, and why does an open-enrollment institution have a nonrefundable $750 deposit?
Inquiring minds -- and noses -- want to know.
