• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

A ‘Sea Change’ in Admissions

June 29, 2011, 11:26 am

In an article this week, I describe the evolution of the admissions dean. Today, we have a guest post from John Christensen, outgoing director of admissions at St. John’s College in Annapolis, Maryland, who shares some thoughts on how his field is changing.

I will soon join a number of deans and directors who are calling it quits after lengthy careers in admissions, often after many years at the same institution. There seems to be a generation of us who think it is time to go, sensing that the world of admissions is undergoing a sea change.

Our institutions face a number of issues, pulling us away from what initially drew us to the work. First, costs are rising to levels that probably cannot be sustained. We have to find new ways to meet the competing demands of finding sufficient financial aid to fill our classes and yet keep our tuition discount rates down.

Next on the list:  The impact of the Web. As the Web becomes an increasingly important source of information for prospective students and their families, so grows the challenge for admissions staff to keep up with the proliferation of sites that demand data from a college or to make sure the information posted about us is accurate. Admissions offices no longer oversee the flow of information to prospective students. These prospects and their families may check out our Web sites and digital presence to learn what they want to know, without ever contacting the admissions office. Moreover, there is the issue of social media such as Facebook or YouTube that admissions offices need to master.  We must establish an appropriate presence for our institutions, and communicate effectively with prospective students and their families in these arenas.

Admissions directors spend so much time grappling with these issues that many of us feel more and more removed from working directly with high school counselors, prospective students, and their families—the work that once made our jobs enjoyable and rewarding. That aspect of the work is the core of admissions and should not change: finding the right match between a student and a college. But, many of us feel that we are now managers of media campaigns and do not have time for the work we enjoy. We delegate most of that (often to the younger staff), while we write reports and present them to our presidents and boards    who need more and more information to effectively manage the complex financial issues our institutions face. Everyone who works in the admissions process—high school counselors and college admissions officers alike—knows that the atmosphere is very tense, and that college-bound students today feel even greater pressure and anxiety about it.

I will depart St. John’s College feeling good about our efforts to keep our process as simple and straightforward as possible: no early decision, early action, regular decision, or wait lists. We give applicants a decision, yes or no, about two weeks after they complete the application. We make every effort to get prospective students to campus, into classes, and into contact with faculty or current students to talk about the distinctive program here so that an applicant can decide if it is right for them. It is not that our admissions staff is more virtuous than others. Our model of education and smaller size allow us to operate this way, and I realize how fortunate I have been.

Another highlight for me and many of my colleagues who are leaving the profession has been expanding our efforts abroad.  My most rewarding international admissions work has been with the group of United World Colleges, whose mission is to bring together students from all over the world to each of their small campuses to promote mutual understanding and world peace. The diversity on these campuses is amazing, and you end up at lunch in the dining hall with Israelis and Palestinians, for example, sitting side by side talking calmly and thoughtfully about things they have in common and about their cultural differences.

Once I talked to a Bosnian, whose roommate was Croatian, and he was telling me what good friends they had become and how they hoped to attend college together. “Just think,” he said, “a few years ago our parents were trying to kill each other.” After thirty years in admissions, I still find great satisfaction in hearing about an ideal match.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • http://profiles.google.com/greatcollegeplanning Susie Watts

    As a private college counselor, I think you have made some interesting observations.  Sadly, I would have to agree with them.  I love helping students with choosing a college and the college admissions process, but in the 20 plus years I have been in this career, there have been constant changes, not all of them positive.  Many of these changes have only added to the stress and anxiety of college admissions.

    College Direction
    http://www.collegedirection.org

  • reisberg

    I confess that I am surprised by Mr. Wildavksy’s comments. He has joined
    the ranks of those who assert that we should accept the admissions process as
    imperfect and allow for additional imperfections. Furthermore, in his rejection
    of “absolutism” he assumes that AIRC is the only option for insuring
    responsible collaboration with third-party recruiters.  He overlooks the fact that there are other strategies
    that do not risk what even Mr. Wildavsky admits is the “potential for perverse
    incentives” that result from commission-based rewards.  Marjorie Smith eloquently addressed this in The Chronicle a few weeks ago [http://chronicle.com/article/International-Student/127931].  NACAC’s efforts to promote ethical practice
    should be applauded—rather than succumbing to pressure to indulge the
    short-term interests of some of their members, they are reinforcing the
    importance of professional practice and responsibility in international
    recruitment. 

  • http://twitter.com/intlrecruiter Jessica Guiver

    Nice comparisons.  I’d like to say, once again, that students overseas are going to use agents whether or not anyone in America approves of it.  Does that mean that American universities don’t want those students, because they’ve used agents, even if they are good students just doing something that is culturally acceptable in their own country?  I don’t think so.

  • greatcollegeadvice

    As an independent educational consultant operating in China, I’d like nothing more than for NACAC to ban the use of agents.  The ban could very well boost my own business in China.

    But kudos to Mr. Wildavsky for placing the debate about agents in its proper context:  colleges and universities market themselves today in any way they can.  They pay top dollar for “qualified leads” from websites like Zinch.  They bombard kids and parents with electronic communications until kids (and parents) are forced to change their email addresses so as to be left alone.  They are becoming masters of SEO and organic search.  They use every trick in the book to widen the sales funnel.  They build their “brands.” They manage to objectives set forth by US News. 

    Higher education in this country likes to think of itself as somehow pure, and tries to isolate itself from the forces of capitalism.  And yet, these institutions do (and must!) compete for consumer dollars, just like any other business.  Given that cold, hard reality, it does seem a little weird to me that some marketing and sales practices are acceptable and others cross an imaginary line (one that no other country in the world recognizes).

    I do know that some agents are unethical, and that one would hope (as Marjorie Smith does, in the article quoted by REISBERG) that there are other ways that colleges and universities could recruit international students.  And there are. 

    But it’s also true that there are some very good agents out there.  There are also some US colleges and universities that spend the time to train their agents, who work with them closely, and are still able to ensure a good “fit” despite the (theoretical) financial incentives for agents to act against the interest of students.  Not all agents are stupid:  if they don’t serve students well, they won’t have repeat customers and they will lose their relationships with colleges and universities.  In some ways, the longer term financial incentives for agents are aligned with those of their clients on both sides of the transaction.

    As Wildavsky states, moral absolutism in this area just “doesn’t seem to fit the facts.”  Still, I’ll be promoting my own self-interest as I advocate for the NACAC ban on agents.  It’s the capitalistic way!

  • leventhal

    Mr. Greatcollegeadvice has finally cast this debate in its true light. What we have here are “student-side agents” attempting to drive “institution-side agents” from the marketplace for their own financial gain. And why wouldn’t they?  Student-side agents like Mr. Greatcollegeadvice charge students and their parents for their services, and lie outside of any regulatory framework. There is no way for students or institutions to ascertain their qualifications, and they charge what they will. They are, of courses, threatened by a movement which intends to reduce charges to students and shift them to institutions. Why? Because it would cut into their business, and force them to adhere to similar standards of conduct as those agents contracted by institutions which are committed to the AIRC certification framework.

    The truth is that the NACAC proposal will effectively cut institutions out of the control loop. AIRC institutions are creating a framework that extends institutional control over an entirely unregulated industry. If ban advocates such as Mr. Greatcollegeadvice get their way, institutions will have no ability to ascertain the quality of agents in the marketplace, students will continue to be charged often extortionate fees, and abuses will continue.

    Thank you, for clarifying this issue for all, Mr. Greatcollegeadvice!  As with most issues, to get at the truth, the best path is often to “follow the money.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Donald-Hapward/1360844493 Donald Hapward

    I would agree with Eric Hoover about the ‘sea of change’ in college admissions.  However, I spent thirty plus years in admissions as both a counselor and dean and witnessed many waves of change from the seventies to the new millenium when I called it quits.  I envy Eric in some ways because he spent his career at one institution; I chose not to do so some based on my own decisions and others not.  I always looked for new challenges and chose institutions whose enrollments were uneven at best.   I valued my career and loved the students and parents and colleagues I had the privilege of working with over the decades.  My mentor always encouraged me to stay ahead of the curve, anticipate the  changes, be innovative and so forth.  i like to believe I was able to accomplish those ends most of the time. 
    I watched as our profession wrestled with the dirty word “marketing” and how the communication with prospects changed from the printed word to the VHS format to CD ROM’s, disc players, and finally the Internet and its impact on college admissions and that word “marketing.”  Quite a ride when you examine it decade by decade.
    I wish you well!
    Don Hapward
    College Connections of Kansas

  • gohito

    NACAC’s war on overseas agents is racist. It promotes the idea that the only fair people are Americans and if they belong to NACAC they are really really fair. We have to do something against the foreign devils that are corrupting the system. It is the university that admits students, not the educational advisors overseas. How does paying a commission corrupt the system? It does not. And NACAC has not really explained why overseas agents as a whole are dishonest and should be punished as a whole. One is bad, therefore all are bad? That is NACAC’s logic.  Agents provide a valuable service to the students, their parents and the institutions with which the work. They are a valuable asset to international education. NACAC has not proved in any way that that overseas educational advisors are a detriment to education or international education. I suspect that the move to restrict agents comes from people who work at universities that don’t need to have active international recruiting plans and already have enough international students. They want to keep a monopoly on international students which is exactly what would happen if overseas educational advisors were banned.

  • jamesebryan

    Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse …

  • 11122741

    As my area is the nature of science I can only applaud and cheer these researchers for their intrepid and instructive detective work and research that has so many lessons for today and particularly concerning the effect of ideology rather than real theory, unfettered scientific competition for hegemony in an area to draw funding and wield influence (the Wall Street effect in science and the quasi-sciences), and when theory and particularly psychology theory (and often medical theory) is distorted and illogically bent to serve political goals,needs and desires which all too often drive them and in the social sciences.

    If memory serves me, there is additional historical work that indicates that Watson left the rabbit in little Albert’s crib at night with the rabbit continually biting Little Albert so Watson’s very representation and theory of of conditioning was a fraud as well, but I would have to find the primary source on this point before introducing it as a further consideration to this case. Again, one is left wondering if this was an accident and due to ignorance of not, if the report is true.

    Unfortunately for this child (and I say this with great sadness), he will now become a case study in my grad courses as there are just too many lessons in this case and ones that connect to current day more subtle and muted instances of the exact same themes but I have to think about this a little more as is to some degree reflects and reinforces Watson’s view of anything is OK in inquiry and research that produces “useful ends” or maybe I will leave this as the last conundrum in the case to
    be addressed.

    I particularly like the use of all of the different data types and methods of inquiry and ways of knowing these researchers used in their weight and congruence of evidence approach.

  • 22185161

    Reminds me of both the Tuskeegee Experiment and Harriet Lacks/HeLa cells. The commonality (as I see it) in all 3: economically disadvantaged subjects who were unaware of the harm being done to them in the name of “science.”

    We must continue to bring light to these stories so that today’s and tomorrow’s research community never forgets them — and never repeats them. 

  • laker

    Personally, I don’t see any irony here. Good work is done at Appalachian State and Edinboro and Oneonta and Wooster as well as at Johns Hopkins. The fact that a research institution gets a lot of funding and press doesn’t mean they have cornered the market on talent…

  • laker

    sorry, multiple posts

  • laker

    sorry, again

  • rod2312

    I don’t know that it is “sadder” – What is being compared?:

    “normal” infant abused by arrogant researchers who put their programs and interests above the rights of a person

    versus

    “neurologically impaired” infant abused by arrogant researchers who put their programs and interests above the rights of a person

    Whether the child was chosen for his possibly pre-existing condition, whether the experiment itself caused a condition which ultimately harmed him, whether the child was chosen on the presumption of “normal” neurological functioning, at what point does someone (person, institution or group, whatever) determine that their research interests are above a person’s rights? 

    That the child was chosen from a family in a less “voluntary” position due to economic and other circumstances is telling – not about how much the child suffered since no child could have “not suffered” from this – but rather about the arrogance, hypocrisy, and abuses done in the name of western human sciences that IMO are have many completely intractable errors anyway… and no, further abusive unethical research will not save them.

    If it yields “value” to science it is not cruel?  Who was paying the “cost” for that experiment anyway?  Watson?  Perhaps Little Albert’s fear of unethical and cruel researchers would have been completely justified and Watson would have no more right to use his nasty methods to “remove” fear as to place it there in the first place.   That’s a “munchausen by proxy” twist to the story.  The people who hurt you are not the ones who are in any position to “cure” you.

  • gwern0

    > but we cannot exclude the possibility that the causation was
    experimental (i.e., Douglas may have been used for research by
    investigators other than Watson).

    That’s a heck of an accusation to raise, even as a possibility – is there background information I’m missing to the effect that researchers often injected or otherwise put babies at risk in experiments of the day?

  • crazycraves

    Little wonder Watson reportedly burned all his papers and letters before he died.

  • Marly

    Let’s see, the APA long delayed protests about psychologists at Abu Ghraib: http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/3

    Now, an arbitrary reshuffling of DSM-V, other scandals. 

    Some countries have witch doctors, we have therapists.

  • tingle007

    This does teach us autistic kids can be taught fear by association as they hate loud noises.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1066825917 Bryan J. Maloney

    I’ve done research using human subjects, and it’s stories like these that make me very happy to have enormous amounts of hoops to go through to be able to work with people as subjects.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joshua.halonen Joshua Halonen

    Watson’s personal history suggests that he was not concerned with many of the values and morals that are now taught as ethics in research. He was caught cheating on his wife with a research assistant after all, if memory serves me correctly. Afterwards, he was disgraced and shunned from scientific research and ended up in marketing.

  • robcypher

    Things like this would be pretty typical in a Ron Paul world (and in a Ron Paul world you would have no legal recourse in the matter, especially if a corporation is funding such a project).

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chattanoogabloggers/ cynthiacol

    It is sad that it took experiments such as this to improve experimental ethics.