Skip to main content

The Peacekeeper Missile Comes to Admissions

Maybe  you're too young to remember the Ronald Reagan presidency, but one of the things I remember most is the "Peacekeeper Missile." People were incensed by what they believed to be political doublespeak worthy of the book 1984.  Missiles were objects of destruction, not something you associated with peace.  Change the language, change the discussion.

So today, this happened.  In what Inside Higher Ed is calling "An Admissions Revolution," eighty of the country's top colleges have formed a "Coalition," (a nice political sounding word: I mean, they form coalitions in Canada, so it must be nice, right?) to create a new application as well as a new portfolio system for students, who can start as early as the 9th grade, to assemble documents and other resources, not unlike my suggestion about Google managing the application process.  The goal, ostensibly, is to get more low-income and first generation students interested and ready to go to college, and to apply to these mostly-selective institutions.

This sounds great, right? Right?  You'd think so.

Of course, if you know anything about college admissions, your first question might be this: Today, one day after the announcement, which group is probably more aware of The Coalition?  A) first generation, low-income, students of color from under-resourced high schools, or B) white students of wealthier, college-educated families who already being planning for college at--or well before--the 9th grade.  I'll give you a moment.

In an industry already obsessed with prestige, this sounds like a club that won't take just anyone as a member, unlike the Common App, which has recently--God help us all--begun to allow colleges to determine for themselves what admissions criteria are important.

The collective gasp from the super selective members of Common App sounded like a Rockefeller in the presence of someone who extended the wrong pinkie finger when drinking tea.  "We just can't have these, these, Commoners, in the Common App," they decided without discerning a hint of irony, and they started their own country club, which of course, will do the requisite charity work one expects of any decent country club.

The standards for membership are fairly arbitrary: A 70% graduation rate for all members; for privates, a pledge to meet "demonstrated need," (a patently ridiculous term both in definition and in the way it's practiced) and for publics, "affordable tuition for and need-based aid for in-state students."

Does that seem backwards to you?  Shouldn't public institutions, which I believe were generally founded by the public for the public, be held to a higher standard of serving, you know, the public they're supposed to serve?  And of course, remember my frequent rant that high graduation rates are an input, not an output.  Even as blunt an instrument as US News and World report recognizes that if you enroll more Pell grant recipients, your graduation rate will drop.

Which brings me to the last point.  These institutions are, for the most part, selected from the institutions that a) have the most resources, b) charge the most, and c) enroll the fewest Pell grant kids.  Is this new application, which fragments the process even further, and clearly--not even possibly, but clearly--favors wealthier kids really the answer?

Or is the name--The Coalition for Access, Affordability and Success--just a political ploy from institutions that don't really seem to know much about access in the first place?  A new take on the Peacekeeper Missile? An homage to 1984?

Look at this, showing about 1700 four-year private and public institutions, each as a bubble.  The Coalition institutions are in red, everyone else in gray.  Colleges to the right have higher median SAT scores in the freshman class (another proxy for wealth, of course); colleges lower on the chart have fewer Pell grant kids as a percentage of all freshmen.  Larger dots are wealthier.  Hover over any dot for details about that college.

The the two-bar chart on the top shows Pell Grant enrollment.

There is one filter, to allow you to look at all institutions, just public, or just private.  Go ahead, click. See if it makes much difference.  And remember:

“War is peace. 
Freedom is slavery. 
Ignorance is strength.”


“It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.” 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

2018 Admissions Data

This is always a popular post, it seems, and I've had a couple of people already ask when it was going to be out.  Wait no more.

This is IPEDS 2018 admissions data, visualized for you in two different ways.  You can switch using the tabs across the top.

The first view is the universe of colleges and universities that report data; not every college is required to, and a few leave data out, and test optional colleges are not supposed to report test scores.  But IPEDS is not perfect, so if you find any problems, contact the college.

On the first view, you'll see 1,359 four-year private and public, not-for-profit institutions displayed.  In order to make this as clean as possible, I've taken out some specialty schools (nursing, business, engineering, etc.) as many of those don't have complete data.  But you can put them back in using the filter at top right.

Hover over any bar, and a little chart pops up showing undergraduate enrollment by ethnicity.

You can also choose to…

Another 1000 Words and Ten Charts on First-generation, Low-income, and Minority Students

I have always enjoyed writing, and I consider this and my other blog like a hobby.  Usually, I spend no more than 45 minutes on any post, as I don't make my living by writing, and my blogs are not "monetized." But once in a while, an opportunity presents itself to write for a wider audience, and that's when I see what it takes to make a living putting words to paper. That happened this week.

You may have seen my opinion piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education. If not, you can read it first, read it last, or not at all; I think both this and that stand alone, despite their relationship.  In the end, we ended up with about 40% of my first draft, which is what happens when you write for a print publication. And of course, a print publication makes interactive charts, well, difficult.

I think there is more to say on the topic, because the similarities in recruitment challenges for first-generation, low-income, and minority students tend to look a lot alike, and the mo…

So you think you're going back to the SAT and ACT?

Now that almost every university in the nation has gone test-optional for the 2021 cycle out of necessity, a nagging question remains: How many will go back to requiring tests as soon as it's possible?  No one knows, but some of the announcements some colleges made sounded like the kid who only ate his green beans to get his screen time: They did it, but they sure were not happy about it.  So we have some suspicions about the usual suspects.I don't object to colleges requiring tests, of course, even though I think they're not very helpful, intrinsically biased against certain groups, and a tool of the vain.  You be you, though, and don't let me stop you.However, there is a wild card in all of this: The recent court ruling prohibiting the University of California system from even using--let alone requiring--the SAT or ACT in admissions decisions next fall.  If you remember, the Cal State system had already decided to go test blind, and of course community colleges in th…