June 13, 2023

A reaction to an article in The New York Times entitled “For Colleges, Admissions is a Business. and Business is Booming.”

In The New York Times issue of March 16, 2023, an article was published about college and university admissions in the United States that was written by Jeffery Selingo, the former editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education and the author of the book, Who Gets In and Why: A Year Inside College Admissions. Mr. Selingo did his homework.  In so doing, the points that he made deserve to be shared with those interested in this topic:

• High school seniors in 2023 applied to more colleges than ever before.  Specifically, the number of applications to colleges or universities in the USA has doubled in the last eight years.

• The Common Application is a critical issue that has had a profound impact on the number of applications candidates have submitted.

• Application inflation is most acute at the nation’s brand-named and top-ranked public and private colleges.

• More than one-third of the colleges that accept the Common Application now offer “Early Action,” which requires students to apply in November to (theoretically) get a decision in January.

• Later in his article, Selingo’s research resulted in the conclusion, “I found that majors and specific skills are just as critical as the admissions selectivity of the college in the ultimate payoff of the degree.”

• The last point Selingo made that deserves attention was: “One of the problems with the current admissions process is that colleges don’t share nearly enough information about what’s happening behind the curtain when applicants need it the most, nor do they share much about the outcomes of their graduates beyond whether they’re employed six months after graduation.

To his credit, Mr. Selingo researched how various universities managed the considerable uptick in applications.  I will not review the data of each, other than to acknowledge that Selingo received relevant information from Clemson, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Virginia, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the University of Southern California. All are large, major institutions that are highly respected.

Now that I have given you a brief overview of the current situation, I’ll share with you some of my concerns and biases.  They are as follows:

1. The Common Application:  While the application process for high school seniors has been made much easier with respect to the preparation and submission of this digital form, I will argue that the Common Application disproportionately benefits those candidates who are from wealthy families.  Applicants who have parents with resources could apply to many colleges, sometimes up to two dozen — just as long as they can pay an application fee for each.

2. The Evaluation of the Materials:  When I served as the Dean of Admission at Princeton from 1978 to 1983, we received 13,000 applications my last year.  The admissions office was divided into six regions that were based on comparable applicant pools, NOT comparable geographic areas.  Each region was served by two admissions officers.  It was their responsibility to read and rate EVERY applicant from their respective regions and then select those who met the criteria about who should be presented to the Admissions Committee.

3. The Significant Increase in Applications: As the applications increased, so did the number of admissions officers.  Some of the universities that had major upticks in applications hired outside readers to review the application materials and to rate each candidate assigned to him or her.  While every application was read by someone, not all of the readers had experience in evaluating candidates and/or evaluating the secondary schools from which the candidates applied.  This constituted a major problem because different secondary schools had different grading systems and different requirements, and college counselors varied tremendously in the summary statements they wrote about those who applied.

4. Institutional needs that vary: At the beginning of this document, mention was made about specific skill sets being required and potential majors to fill vacancies in academic departments that were experiencing a decline.  How and to whom these institutional needs were identified and communicated would not be communicated to the secondary school counselors.  Furthermore, the institutional needs would vary from institution to institution.  These “needs” could vary from violinists for the universities orchestra, candidates from families who could make major donations, children of professors who are being recruited to the university, and members of special groups such as people of color, recruited athletes, applicants who have overcome significant adversity, veterans, international students, etc. 

5. Admission Policies not be made public:  As is the case with major organizations, universities may change their policies over time.  For example, in the 1930s, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton all agreed to limit the number of Jewish applicants.  That policy did not last long.  What did last for a much longer time was gender discrimination.  For years, Dartmouth, Princeton, and Yale did not admit women.  That changed in the late 1960s.  That particular change was followed by an emphasis on diversity.  How diversity was defined varies from institution to institution.  In more recent years, the Ivy League institutions diversified their admissions policies by admitting First Generation students, Veterans, and increasing the number of international students.  While these policy changes—at least in my opinion—have made these universities more compelling, those in the college counseling business had difficulty remaining current unless they received annual reports from the Deans of Admission that described both the various features of the entering classes and whatever changes, if any, were made in the admission policy.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES

Because I am no longer in the admissions business, I can sit on the sidelines and make whatever recommendations I think would be appropriate. Certain changes should be made.  They are as follows:

1. The Common Application:  Because the wealthy can afford the admissions fees for each of the institutions that interest their children, to reduce the wealth advantage, I would recommend that for each additional application, the admission fee would increase by a finite number, say $100.

2. Early Decision: Assuming that the standard admissions calendar has not changed significantly over the past 40 years, consideration should be given to creating an earlier admissions calendar for applicants who apply as Early Decision candidates.  For example, if the deadline for Early Decision candidates was August 1, the admissions office could review and make a decision on those who applied for this program by October 30.

3. Early Action:  Although the admission calendar for Early Decision candidates could be moved up, I do not think the same would apply to the Early Action candidates.  Their deadline could remain at November 1, with the admission decisions remaining in mid-December.

4. Financial Aid:  For candidates who can “get their act together,” the universities might want to reward this group of applicants by informing those who have been admitted of the financial aid package that the university has offered.  For institutions that are not overly well-endowed, this early communication about financial aid might result in more high-quality applicants accepting the offer of admission.
   
5. Institutional needs:  Earlier in this article, we mentioned that institutional needs may vary from one school to another.  For example, in recent years, the number of students majoring in the humanities has declined. If the applicants who use the Common Application were asked to identify their potential major, that could be a plus.  Questions could also be posed about one’s background.  For example, what jobs has a candidate held?  Has the candidate been incarcerated?  What community service has the candidate performed?  Has the candidate been in the military?  If so, what branch and at what rank?  In other words, a separate sheet could be included with the Common Application that once completed might give admissions officers a reason to recommend admission.

Summary:  As stated earlier, the admissions calendar for various groups could be changed to give the admissions officers more time to evaluate thoroughly those candidates who wish to apply early.  In so doing, the Admissions Offices may not have to hire as many outside readers.  In addition, the Common Application could be modified in such a way as to provide the Admissions Officers with data that might fulfill an institutional need.

---

You may also be interested in reading more articles written by Jim Wickenden for Intrepid Ed News.