What effect will the quarantine have on the college admissions process for the class of 2021?

A student recently emailed me to ask, "Do you think colleges will consider SAT and ACT scores differently as a result of the quarantine?"

Below you will find my response.  Note that the student lives in North Carolina, USA.  Schools included in the University of North Carolina (UNC) system include North Carolina State University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Yes, but it’s not clear exactly how much differently.  I think they would all be prepared to disregard scores if the public schools had not managed to get their ACT’s in before the schools closed.  Since they did, here is the latest from the UNC Board of Governors:

Schools in the UNC system are permitted to consider students with weighted GPA’s of 2.5 or better and with SAT scores of 1010 or better or ACT scores of 19 or better.  Schools are permitted to disregard the score minimums, but a score must still be submitted in order for the application to be complete.

How will this play out?  My prediction is that schools who have more viable applicants than spaces (most of the ones in the UNC system) will continue to consider test scores.  Keep in mind that without spring sports, after school jobs, clubs, awards, and other extracurriculars to look at, schools might be using test scores to differentiate among students.  Schools that tend to have a hard time filling their freshmen classes will take the opportunity to disregard scores.  Schools that struggle to admit students in under-represented minorities may disregard scores for those groups.  However, if your demographic is well represented at the average college, I think you will still need decent test scores to be admitted.  

What represents a “decent” test score during a time when students have limited opportunities to retest is anyone’s guess.  You need to compare well to others in your demographic, but I’m not sure what test averages will look like come September.

Now, having said all of that, a number of private schools and some public schools in other states have said that they will not ask for test scores this year.  I don’t think we’ll know the full list of schools until they all update their admissions sites this summer heading into the fall application season.  It’s also possible that the UNC Board of Governors will come out with a new ruling, but keep in mind that this most recent ruling with more relaxed requirements did not pass unanimously.

So the upshot of all this is that we just don’t know.  This is going to be an interesting year to apply to colleges.  There are some interesting factors in play, including whether or not schools will continue to get as many international applicants.  I wish I could tell you more.

Something to think about if your kid has received a college rejection letter

I was sitting in a metal folding chair in a hotel ballroom. The speaker had just said something that hit me so hard that I couldn’t listen to what she said next. I needed to stop and process that statement. I was thinking, “Holy crap!” and “Well, now that she’s said it, it seems so obvious. Why didn’t I figure this out before?”

The speaker was head of admissions at an elite private university. She was talking to a group of elite high school students and their parents, and what she said was this, “It is not my job to make the perfect admissions decision on your kid. No one is paying me to do that. It is my job to build the next freshman class.” She went on to point out something we already knew: The school could only accept a small fraction of the fully qualified applicants.

As high school students, or parents of high school students, or maybe just members of the public with an opinion, we tend to view the process from the outside in. And it’s like looking into a fish bowl; the view is distorted. We tend to walk around with an impression of the process, and we think that it works something like this: The school takes all of the applications and ranks them from first to last. Then it takes enough applications off the top of the list to fill the class, and boom! Done! And because we subconsciously realize that it would be impossible to rank the kids from first to last without considering numerical measures like GPA’s and test scores, we assume these must play a very large role in the process. If my kid doesn’t get in, that means he didn’t rank high enough on the list. The fact is, it doesn’t work that way. A lot of factors come into play. At the end of the admissions period, the incoming class needs to have all kinds of kids: Some who play on the football team and some who play in the band, some who join the Young Democrats and some who join the Young Republicans, some who build robots and some who work on the school newspaper. All of them need to have a shot at doing the course work.

Lots of factors come into play, and it is certain that the school did not make the exact right admissions decision for every single applicant. They may not have made the exact right decision on your kid. I’ve been there, and you have my sympathy. It doesn’t mean they’ve made a value judgment about your kid, and it doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have done well there. It just means when they selected the components of the class, they didn’t select your kid. They may have made a mistake. Or maybe not. Either way, the system isn’t broken. Because making the perfect decision on your kid wasn’t one of their goals in the first place.

"Recruiting to reject"

I was reading a blog post earlier today when I came across a new phrase:  "recruiting to reject."  It refers to a practice whereby students who have a snowball's chance in the proverbial hot spot's chance of getting into a college are encouraged to apply anyway.  The college then (predictably for those of us "in the know") rejects the student.  By rejecting these students, the schools admit rate goes down and they look more competitive than they would otherwise.  This, in turn, raises the school's ranking in various lists.  I've seen this going on a various local schools, but I never had a nice phrase to refer to it by until now.

Colleges use various methods of encouraging potential rejects to apply, and I was witness to some of them on a recent visit to a local high school.  I was there to talk to the career counselor.  She wasn't in, but I happened into a room in which an admissions officer from a local public university - I won't say which one because they are both equally guilty, but if you'll note my location you'll see which two I've narrowed it down to - was meeting with a group of prospective applicants.  Among the statements she made:

"We look at your whole application."
"We really look for people who have made A's and B's, but we admit people with bad grades every year.  It really depends on your story."  (Followed, of course, by an anecdote of a kid who failed six courses, but got admitted anyway.)
"Yes, we consider your test scores, but you are more than just your score."

I had to bite my tongue.  What I really wanted to do was jump in and say, "Yes, they will admit you with substandard grades or test scores.  IF you are 6 and half feet tall and have a terrific 3-point shot. Or IF you are a Hispanic Buddhist who will be the first in her family to go to college. Or IF your family has donated money to the school in excess of seven figures."

If you want to see if you are likely to get into a school, go to a website like Cappex. It's free, but you have to sign up.  They have admission trend scattergrams that plot on a grid all of the students signed up with them who applied to a particular school according to their GPA's and test scores.

Here is a sample:

See where the blue and green dots are?  Notice those stray blue and green dots that represent students with low test scores and/or low GPA's?  Those are the basketball-players, the kids of big donors, etc.  They are NOT the applicants who are generally described as "a good kid."  As in, "You know, he's just a good kid."  If nothing about you is VERY unusual (in a good way) then you are not destined to be one of the stray dots.  Consider whether to apply accordingly.

A less-biased look at Northeastern University's "meteoric" rise in the U.S. News and World Report ranking.

College rankings have taken a big PR hit in the last year.  Some of it is deserved.  However, as has become the norm in American public discourse, people eager to jump on the “bash the latest unpopular thing” bandwagon have demonstrated a remarkable lack of critical thinking skills.  This is especially sad when the topic is higher education – an institution that should be dedicated to encouraging critical thinking.

An article recently published in Boston Magazine by Max Kutner purports to be about how Northeastern University, located in Boston, managed to rise in the rankings of the U.S. News and World Report by “gaming” the system.  Before going on, it might be useful to note that “gaming the system” is typically defined to mean manipulating the rules in such a way as to gain an advantage.  It is generally understood that the entity “gaming the system” is not breaking the rules.  Rather, the entity is typically following the letter of the rules but not the intent.  Breaking the rules would be subject to disciplinary action of some kind.  “Gaming the system” generally is not.  Despite that, it is also generally understood that “gaming the system” is an unscrupulous act designed to obtain an advantage unfairly.

The article opens with a description of the state of Northeastern University in the early 1990’s.  Their situation was dire:  the school was under-enrolled and under-funded.  There was a real danger that if they could not turn things around, they might have to close their doors.  Enter one Dr. Richard Freeland who is charged by the author with making “gaming the U.S. News ….part of the university’s DNA.”

Here is a list of the things the university did under Freeland’s administration that resulted in a rise in the school’s ranking from 162 to 98:

•       Reduce class sizes
•        Begin accepting the Common Application, which made it easier for students to apply
•        Constructed new dormitories because studies showed that student who lived on campus were more likely to graduate
•        Do some PR to boost the school’s image
•        Report the number of students each year differently to reflect the number of students on campus instead of including co-op students

Wow.  How nefarious of them.  The author emphasizes that Dr. Freeland kept his eyes on the rankings throughout the improvement process.  What he fails to acknowledge is that, while the college rankings are far from perfect, they do include some measures that legitimately affect the quality of education.  Smaller class sizes are not only linked to better learning outcomes, they are also a measure that potential students and their parents find interesting.  Surely no one thinks that making the application process more convenient and accessible is a bad thing.  And if graduation rates needed to be raised (and it seems they did) then building dormitories sounds more like “data-based decision-making” than “gaming the system.”  Oddly, the author carefully avoids telling us how much the graduation rate rose, but rise it must have – the subsequent increase in ranking could not have been obtained otherwise.  On what planet is that a bad thing?

The one item in the list that sounds like it might be shady is the last bullet point in the list.  Northeastern changed their reporting methods.  Dr. Freeland realized that the metric being used by U.S. News hurt schools with strong co-op programs.  Northeastern counted significantly more students each year than were actually on campus, which made it look like the school was spending a lot less per student.  He took his case to the U.S. News statisticians who declined to change their metric, but who explained what they were doing with the numbers and why.  As a result, Northeastern stopped including co-op students who weren’t on campus in their numbers.  Is that dishonest?  I don’t think so.  I think it makes for a more accurate picture of their situation.

The article includes a list of schools caught flat-out lying on the numbers they report to U.S. News.  While the author acknowledges that this does not fall under the category of “gaming the system,” he does offer this as evidence that the rankings are irretrievably broken – an accusation the magazine denies.  Including them tends to – intentionally or otherwise – give the impression that the measures Northeastern has taken are as dishonest as these examples.

Not until the last few paragraphs do we find any evidence of actual “gaming,” and these were introduced after Freeland retired in 2006.  Northeastern stopped requiring foreign students to submit SAT scores.  Foreign students, for whom English is often a second language, can have lower SAT scores.  Not to require scores from foreign students may be a bit shady, although it has recently come to my attention that taking the test represents a true hardship for many foreign students by requiring an overnight trip to a distant city.  Some might consider dropping the requirement an effort to be more understanding.  Then in 2007, the school began a program whereby students could begin at NU in the spring – thus excluding their data from the reporting.  The author states that these excluded test scores and GPA’s are “lower” but offers no evidence for this statement.  They certainly could be, and if they aren’t, one wonders why NU would begin the program.

As a final jab, the author points out that the measures taken to improve educational quality at NU – and quality has undeniably been improved by increasing retention and graduation rates, if nothing else – has cost money, making the school more expensive.  This is undoubtedly true, but it’s an odd accusation to make.  Typically the complaint is that we don’t spend enough on education, or that when we do spend more, we don’t see an improvement in results.  Here is an example of a school that spent more – and it paid off.  The alternative was to close their doors.  Does anyone wish to argue that they should have chosen that as the more honorable course of action?  The price increase does, indeed, make Northeastern one of the more expensive options out there, but price is one of the factors every family should weigh in making decisions about where to send a student to school.

In over 30 paragraphs of writing, the author only mentions 2 possibly unscrupulous methods Northeastern may have used to improve their ranking.  He mentions several instances in which the school used metrics in the ranking to guide decisions that led to improved outcomes.  At one point the author quotes Lloyd Thacker as saying, “Have rankings contributed to anything beneficial in education?  There’s no evidence.  There’s lots of evidence to the contrary.”  As a refutation of that statement, I would point to Northeastern University.

The new SAT: the Essay

This is the third post in a series on the redesigned SAT.  The first two were on vocabulary and the math section, respectively.

It was interesting to see what the news media chose to focus on when they did their bullet points for the redesigned SAT.  As headlines and/or sound-bites, many chose variations on “The new SAT will drop the essay requirement!”  That they would trumpet this particular change is understandable.  The SAT essay has been widely loathed since it was first introduced in 2005.

Criticisms of the 25-minute essay section abound:  Writing a coherent essay in such a short period of time on a random prompt that was sprung on you at the last second is a very artificial task.  How often does that come up?  Even college blue-book exams – the closest real-world situation - will have essay questions specifically on the course material.  And don’t get people started on how they are scored.  Anecdotes abound about how kids who can afford coaches are at an enormous advantage because coaches teach you how to use really bad writing to get a top score.  Dropping the essay requirement was popular and a good marketing move.

However, "drop the essay requirement" may be misleading.  The SAT still has an essay.  However, now the style of essay has changed and it is "optional."  Changing the style of the essay is a good move. The new style is much more the kind of writing that you might expect to do in the workplace:  Take this data and write a quick position summary.  ETS has already test-driven this essay style on the GRE, so they should be able to implement it on the SAT with few hiccups.

As far as being "optional" goes, the more selective colleges will "require" it, just as they now "require" the "optional" ACT essay.

While it is true that the method of scoring the essay has always had issues - and likely still will - there are two points to consider here:  First, American kids need to be writing more and when you include essays in assessments, the curriculum will include more writing instruction.  Second, colleges have always been able to read a student's actual essay.  They don't have to rely on the score as a measure of an essay's quality.  In fact, the essay score has always had only a slight impact on the students Writing component score in addition to being reported as a separate score.  Many colleges disregard the entire Writing component score altogether while others downplay it.  Yet, they have required the essay anyway. Keep in mind that this will probably be the only sample of writing accessible to the admissions committee that is guaranteed to have been written by the applicant.  Admissions officers all claim they can spot an adult-written essay from a mile off, but can they really?  And what is to prevent a student from paying his classmate to write a better essay?

So the essay is still there and those applying to selective colleges are stuck with it.  However, the task should be a better example of a real-world writing situation, and practicing for it may pay off even after the SAT is over.

The American Honors Network: an innovative way to save money on the way to a diploma from a top-tier college

Each year a growing number of American high school students opts to begin college careers at  a community college rather than a four-year institution.  In the past, these were often students who didn't take their high school classes seriously until it was too late.  A weak high school transcript meant they needed to spend two years proving themselves before they could move on to a university.

Lately, however, the recession and concerns about the financial returns of a four-year degree have meant that many students opted for community college, not for academic reasons, but for financial ones.  A disproportionate number of these are the very students that colleges would love to recruit in order to add diversity.  Locally, the Wake Tech PAC program was designed for these students.  Enrollees who met the program requirements during two years at Wake Tech were guaranteed transfers to NC State University through an agreement between the two schools. After four years a students could have an NC State degree at a considerably reduced cost.

Someone has now taken this concept to the national level.  There is a growing consortium of community colleges and selective colleges and universities - both public and private - operating under an organization called the American Honors Network.  Elite schools eager to recruit top students with diverse backgrounds have agreed to recruit heavily from a list of community colleges who, in turn, have agreed to design rigorous honors programs in order to allow for the seamless transfer of credits.  You can read more about the program here.

Are colleges looking at your social media profiles?

If you are a high school student - or the parent of one - you may have seen warnings that suggest you should clean up your online profile before applying to college.  You may have been told to remove unflattering photos and posts that suggest you have been partying or participating in pranks or illegal activities.  Do colleges look at your online profile when considering you for admission?  It turns out they probably won't.

Consider this from Todd Weaver, Senior Associate at Strategies for College, Inc.  :

"Every admissions rep I've spoken to over the past few years has simply laughed when I ask if they have time to review a potential student's social media sites. They are so busy - typically spending 5-6 minutes reading an application - that they have no time to chase down Facebook, Twitter, or other social media sites that Teens might be on.

This is a "scare tactic" article that pops up every year. Admissions officers will not voluntarily chase this information down.

Granted, if a college has to go to it's waitlist and there are two similar candidates, then, and only then, might they possibly have time to look at a student's social media site."

And this from Christine VanDeVelde,  Author of College Admission: From Application to Acceptance, Step by Step:

"I agree with Todd. We have heard the same thing in talking with admission deans. The exceptions: 1. Scholarship students; 2. Athletes; and 3. When a student has made a claim that the school is seeking to verify by Googling the student."

Ms. VanDeVelde is referring to high profile scholarships (the ones with names), not the basic financial aid packages most students receive.  Furthermore, a college probably won't check to confirm that you were really the president of the German club, but will check if you make an unusual claim:  "I wrote a best-seller."  "I hold a patent." or "I was named ambassador to Andorra."

This is not to say that you shouldn't be careful about how you present yourself online. It's not too early to take basic precautions about what you post or tweet.  However, unless you fall into one of the categories mentioned above, you can scratch "clean up my profile" off your college application to-do list.