College Planning Blog

College applications require a lot of information that is ultimately useful to admission committees as they determine whom to admit. As a result, applicants routinely–almost mindlessly, complete forms that ask about home, school, family, extracurricular activities and unusual educational experiences. After all, it is usually easy to imagine where each piece of data might be useful to admission officers as they put your candidacy into a broader context.

Occasionally, however, there will be a question that gives the applicant reason to pause–a question that seems to have little bearing at all on the student’s personal qualifications. One such question asks applicants to “List the names of the other colleges to which you have applied.”

It turns out that this request and others like it show up in other places as well (interviews, meetings with alumni, recruiting sessions with athletic coaches, etc.) during the application process. Is seems innocuous enough; however, the savvy applicant is left wondering, “Just how will this information be used? Why do they want it and do I really need to give it to them?”

The answer is quite simple. Admission officers are pretty savvy about collecting information that can be used to predict the likelihood of your enrollment. This is particularly important in institutional environments where improving the yield on offers of admission and becoming more selective are criteria used to measure the success of their admission operations. As a result, admission officers are constantly trying to calibrate the yield on their offers of admission. The more they know about where you are applying (and likely to get in), the easier it is for them to determine the likelihood that you will enroll at their college if admitted. While the information you provide has no bearing whatsoever on the strength of your credentials, it can influence the status of your application if a college suspects that you are likely to pursue other options.

When you think about it, there is really nothing good that can result from providing such information. Therefore, I counsel students to leave the space blank. Unless you want admission officers to know where you are applying, keep that information to yourself. The same is true when the topic comes up conversationally. Give them only what you want them to know about your interests and intentions.

An interesting variation on this theme is found on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) application–the form you must complete in order to qualify for financial aid administered by the state/federal governments and–in some cases, the colleges themselves. You see, the FAFSA will also ask you to list the colleges to which you have applied in order of preference. This information is required to complete and submit the FAFSA–and the resulting need analysis as well as the reported data will be forwarded to the colleges listed on the form. It is not uncommon for admission officers to cast side-long glances at such lists as they make their final determinations about whom to admit.

When asked for this information on the FAFSA, consider the implications of your response. You can list the schools in order of preference or you can confuse the issue by listing the schools in alphabetical order. While the ordering of schools on the FAFSA will not effect your eligibility for financial aid, just remember that it might have a bearing on how admission officers assess the likelihood of your enrollment.

The thing to remember about this whole discussion is that it is important to get on–and stay on–the “radar screens’ of the colleges that interest you. By making sure the authenticity of your interest in a college is clear and undeniable, you force admission officers to make decisions based on the strength of your academic and personal credentials.

Periodically, a prominent college or university will gain notice by virtue of announcing bold new initiatives that are sure to improve the college-going landscape. In the last year alone, colleges dropped Early Decision programs, eliminated student loan programs in favor of new scholarships, and modified entrance test requirements–all in the interest of improving access while reducing the angst associated with college entrance. The problem with these announcements is that universities are adept at cloaking institution-specific enrollment strategies as social initiatives. Therefore, you must read carefully to appreciate just who is being served.

In doing so, you have probably noticed that “access” is a buzzword commonly associated with emerging initiatives. And why not? Access to post-secondary education is an important element of this nation’s social agenda. Thousands of underserved students who would benefit from a college education come up short when they fail to receive the support needed to complete the application process and/or secure the funds necessary to afford college costs. Presumably, then, initiatives in the name of “access” are targeting these areas of need. As such, they are greeted warmly–especially when they come from this country’s most prominent universities.

It happened again when Harvard University recently announced a plan to overhaul its financial aid program for undergraduates. Citing the need to improve access for students from middle income families–and to get a greater share of these students who are also admitted to public flagship universities–Harvard has determined that, for families whose incomes range up to $180,000, family contributions to student costs will not exceed 10 per cent of family income in a given year. The University will also remove home equity from calculations of family wealth and eliminate all loans from financial aid awards.

On the surface, the Harvard announcement reads well. An institutional leader–one of the most widely known and highly respected places on the face of the earth–steps forward with a bold new financial aid strategy to, you got it, create access. It sounds great. But before you add Harvard to your short list of colleges, read the fine print. “Where” and “how” will improved access be truly realized? Will this move–and the $22 million that it puts into play–make it possible for more kids to go to college? Will it even make a Harvard education more accessible to thousands of qualified students who dare to be encouraged by the promotional rhetoric? More importantly, how might it affect you?

In reality, this plan is not likely to inspire more middle-income students to go to college, so improving access to education isn’t a likely outcome. And, while more deserving middle-income students will probably apply to Harvard because of the financial aid plan, they must first be admitted before they can take advantage of it. As enticing as the new financial aid plan might be, it offers no assurance that qualified middle-income students will actually be among the 10% or so of students who apply and are admitted at Harvard.

So, take this plan–and the rhetoric that surrounds it–for what it is. In this case, all roads lead back to the institution and not the common good. While a relative handful of students and families might benefit, it is really the institution’s best interests that are being served as it seeks to attract and retain more students whose families fit Harvard’s new definition of “middle income.”

As promising as it might sound, this initiative means little to most students who are considering their college options. It is not going to reshape the social fabric of higher education and it certainly isn’t going to create access outside of the ring in which Harvard competes for students. The good news is you can experience quality options at scores of other colleges across the country. The best course of action, then, is to stay student-centered. Sidestep the distracting rhetoric raised by announcements such as this and focus on finding colleges that represent the best fit for you. Find your point of access by putting yourself into competition at places that will value you for what you do well.

During the December 19 (9 PM ET) installment of the Straight Talk About College Admission teleseminar series, I will go “Inside the Financial Aid Application Process” (9PM ET) with guest expert, Carl Buck. A long-time financial aid professional (Rice, UCLA, Rutgers) and author of Best College Deals, Carl is currently a Vice President at CHASE Bank. Join us to learn how you can make the financial aid process work for you. For more information and to register for the seminar, go to: http://www.theadmissiongame.com/teleseminar_registration.php

Or, more specifically, “Will I have a better chance of getting in if I apply Early Decision?” That seems to be the question for many students as they try to calculate the best route to approach their top choice colleges. If a first choice is emerging from your short list of colleges, this question may be weighing on your mind as well.

Between the Lines: The Early Decision Commitment
Early Decision (ED) is an application option that enables you to apply for admission and receive a decision in advance of the Regular admission process. In order to apply ED, you must declare your intent to enroll if accepted. Should you be accepted, you also promise to immediately withdraw any other applications for regular admission that you may have submitted to other colleges.

The Early Decision or ED option has become very popular among students as they seek to improve their chances of admission in what are bound to be tight competitions. Students who choose to apply ED are prepared to forego potential opportunities at other institutions in favor of an early–and binding–commitment to one. If they are dead certain of that commitment, choosing to apply ED can make a difference. Many also see a successful ED application as the ticket out of an application process than can drag on interminably throughout the senior year.

If you have found a clear favorite on your short list of colleges, you might be considering an ED application yourself. This is serious stuff, though. ED embodies a commitment–kind of like taking the “big” step in a relationship. Before moving forward, you need to be absolutely, beyond a shadow-of-a-doubt certain you are ready to do it. Just as in a relationship, there are lots of factors to consider.

“What if they don’t take me?” “What if I get in but they don’t give me the financial aid I need?” “Can I change my mind if a better offer comes along later?” “How can I be sure I will feel the same way about the school six months from now?” Unfortunately, there are no guaranteed outcomes when considering the ED option. Thus it is clear, Early Decision is not for everyone.

So, what’s the scoop with Early Decision? Colleges’ tendencies with regard to Early Decision (ED) have changed dramatically over the years. Originally an application option extended by elite institutions to their best candidates, ED has become the perfect marriage between institutions with complex enrollment agendas and students on the competitive bubble who are eager to improve their chances of admission at those schools. Let’s take a closer look at how and why colleges utilize their ED programs.

The admission process is an opportunity for colleges to manage enrollment–to maintain or improve levels of selectivity while enrolling just the right number of students. When the number of applicants far exceeds the number of places to be filled, institutions must calculate closely the number of students to be admitted or run the risk of missing badly on their enrollments. One way they can reduce this risk is by accepting students in smaller increments (with staggered deadlines) that allows them to monitor the yield on offers more closely. At many places, the first such increment is the Early Decision or, in some cases, Early Action (non-binding) program.

A secondary benefit to the process of incrementally admitting and enrolling the class is that admission officers are able to keep an eye on selectivity (a.k.a. admit ratio) and yield as it relates to the overall enrollment process. In addition to enrolling the class, admission officers at most schools are eager to demonstrate greater selectivity (limit the number of offers made) while improving the yield (percentage of accepted students who enroll). By planning to admit more high yielding Early Decision candidates, they address both of these objectives.

Clearly, then ED presents advantages to both students and the institutions they are considering. It’s not a perfect solution, however, and the decision to apply ED cannot be taken lightly. To learn more about the “pluses and minuses” of the Early Decision option, join the “Straight Talk About College Admission” teleseminar at 9 PM ET on Tuesday, November 20. Click here to register.

Note: The text for this blog is taken from Chapter 13, “Playing the Early Decision Card,” of Winning the College Admission Game: Strategies for Students.

Amidst concerns that college rankings have subverted the college planning process, a new tool is emerging that helps families find good college “fits.” On Monday, November 5, USA Today announced its plans to partner with the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to reveal institution-specific data that measures the levels of student engagement with their undergraduate experiences.

According to USA Today’s Mary Beth Marklein, NSSE “seeks to gauge the quality of an undergraduate education by looking at how actively involved students are with their studies, professors and the campus community” with the underlying premise that the “more engaged students are, the more likely they are to learn.” For consumers about to invest in four years of an undergraduate education, this is a good beginning point in identifying colleges that represent good fits for their students.

The NSSE survey employs 85 questions that address various activities common to most learning environments. As Marklein reports, “Research shows that these activities, while not direct measures of learning, are associated with student success.” Students are asked to reflect on their experiences in five categories each of which produces a benchmark for the institution that can be compared with the national average for similar types of institutions. Categories include the level of academic challenge, student-faculty interaction and the extent to which a college offers an active and collaborative learning environment.

By utilizing the NSSE surveys, college and universities are able to produce a powerful set of data that defines the learning experiences on their campuses–data that can help shape refinements to their respective educational programs while providing valuable insight to consumers about the relative health of those same programs.

This kind of transparency into the educational process is both welcome and needed. In its absence, consumers have had little choice but to try and tease meaningful insight out of the various college ranking guides. The problem with the NSSE initiative, though, is that only a fraction of the colleges and universities want to play. While nearly 1,200 schools (roughly one-third of four year institutions in the U.S.) have participated in the NSSE survey at least once since 2000, only 250 have agreed to reveal their scores in the guide that USA Today and NSSE are planning to publish.

In my opinion, there are a number of reasons for this. Chief among them are cost and risk aversion. Participating institutions pay NSSE anywhere from $1,800 to $7,800 (depending on enrollments and other factors) in order to have the survey administered to their students. While this may not be a line item for many operating budgets, I find it curious that quite a few institutions spend much more than the amount of the NSSE participation fee on an annual basis to burnish their images/credentials in the face of scrutiny from the ranking guides. The greater issue for many, however, may well be the unwillingness to take the chance that the survey results may not coincide with the rhetoric of their promotional campaigns.

Nonetheless, it is important that you, as a consumer of higher education, take stock of this opportunity to look past college rankings and become well-grounded in student-centered college planning. Whereas rankings are often used to justify the transaction, the NSSE data gets at the real substance and satisfaction associated with education. Rankings attempt to quantify the mythical pecking order among colleges; NSSE quantifies the learning experience within colleges. If families are to make good, student-centered decisions about colleges, NSSE provides a welcome perspective on the question, “What do we get for our tuition dollars?” One can only wonder why more colleges aren’t willing to open themselves to this type of assessment.

To read the USA Today story in its entirety, go to :
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-11-04-nsse-cover_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

A question I hear more frequently as application deadlines draw near is one that relates to the relationship between admission and financial aid. Specifically, parents want to know if checking “yes” or “no” to the question on the application for admission: “Will you be a candidate for financial aid?” will effect their student’s admission status. It’s a fair question given the way the world of college admission is spinning these days.

Unlike the relatively laid back admission process that most parents experienced, the present-day deliberations at many colleges are strongly influenced by the desire to enroll the most impressive entering classes possible and, thus, increase their standing among their peers. As institutions seek to burnish their reputations by increasing their selectivity and enrolling high profile students, the role of financial aid has shifted from that of “enabling” students who need assistance to “leveraging” the enrollments of those who possess talents/interests that are valued most highly by the institution.

A student’s ability to be self-supporting financially, then, has become an important credential in the eyes of many admission officers. And, yes, the fact that a student can indicate that s/he is not applying for financial aid can only help. On the other hand, checking “yes” to this question on the application for admission should not hurt. Why? While colleges may, in fact, discriminate based on financial status, they are foolish to do so at the front end of the process before they have seen any real data that demonstrates a student’s need. It is often the case that up to one-third of the students who check “yes” (that they will be applying for financial aid) either never apply for aid or they do apply and demonstrate that they don’t need it. As a result, admission officers are likely to wait (usually until early March of the admission process) so they can see all of the financial aid data for all of the students whom they might admit before deciding, albeit discretely, who will get what.

Years ago, before colleges became concerned about improving their admit ratios and yields (percent of admitted students who enroll), it was not uncommon for them to recognize the strength of a student’s credential by admitting him/her even if they were not going to offer financial aid to meet that student’s need. While consistent with the notion of “need blind” admission–the belief that a family’s financial circumstance should not influence the admission outcome–such a strategy would prove counter-productive for colleges that are concerned about improving their respective yields and becoming more selective.

While claims of “need-blind admission” status continue to emanate from many institutions, they should be regarded somewhat cynically. Institutions, both rich and poor, are becoming increasingly adept at strategically deploying their financial resources in order to leverage the enrollments of students whom they value most highly. When they make decisions to admit and to aid students, with either need or merit-based assistance, they are “resource aware.” In effect, they are making business decisions intended to benefit their institutions. An absolute concept, “need-blind admission” can only exist when it applies to every student in every circumstance of the admission process. When there are exceptions–and one doesn’t need much of an imagination to see the possibilities–institutions fail to meet the “need-blind test.” Unfortunately, “need-blind” is a great idea that is rarely, if ever, achieved.

This brings us back to the original question of, “How do we check the financial aid box on the admission application?” The answer: respond honestly. If you need assistance, say so. At this point, it costs nothing to express an interest. Besides, the simple fact of the checkmark in the “yes” box doesn’t provide sufficient information for an admission committee to discriminate one way or the other.

If you know you don’t need assistance, say “no.” Answering with a checkmark in the “no” box doesn’t eliminate a student from merit scholarship consideration nor does it preclude him/her from receiving assistance from government sources. In fact, there is nothing binding at all about the checkmark. In my experience, the checkmark serves of little value to admission officers except to alert them that you might be submitting a financial aid application in which case they can help to make sure it is complete.

In light of the revelation about “resource aware” admission, it should behoove the student to focus on finding the best college fit. Critical to the discussion of good fit is the notion that the college that is a good “fit” will value the student for what s/he does well. In this instance, a good college fit will not let a student’s financial status stand in the way of admission.

This is an important topic for many families and I will address it at greater length during the December 19 Straight Talk telesminar, “Inside the Financial Aid Application Process.” I look forward to having you join us with comments and questions.

In its September 25 issue, InsideHigherEd.com ran a story on a report released by the Education Conservancy regarding the perceptions of high school seniors of the college-going process (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/09/24/admit). The report, citing findings from focus group interviews held in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco, cast a cynical spin on the manner in which colleges engage students in the recruitment and selection processes.

According to those surveyed, there is growing frustration regarding the disingenuous overtures of colleges in a courtship that drains the personal joy and educational benefit from young people as they approach the college application process. Quite frankly, it is about time these voices are heard. The process has lost its balance as young people struggle to maintain a competitive edge in search of the places to which they are told they must aspire. Test prep, essay coaching and prescriptive summer programming have taken over the teenage years in place of lives well lived. While few would argue with this assessment, I was amazed by the callous and cynical response the article drew from some of its readers.

Rather than hailing the initiative, a number of readers characterized Thacker as money-grubbing and opportunistic. One also chimed in to suggest that the students surveyed are simply reaping the outcomes of their own misguided ambitions. While “one robin doesn’t make a spring”–and these responses certainly can’t be characterized as overwhelming and conclusive–I find their tone disturbing. One might take exception with Thacker’s gameplan, but he is far from a charlatan. And I have trouble assessing young people with responsibility for the predicament in which they find themselves. They are simply responding to the process and expectations that have been set before them.

Rather, educators–and I count myself in that group–have the opportunity if not the responsibility to help students feel “comfortable in their own skin” as they make their way through the college process. We can begin by reminding them that the pathway to happiness and success does not have to lead through the campuses of a select few institutions.

Regrettably, the whole of higher education is becoming tainted by the lack of sincerity and transparency in the recruitment and selection processes. As Thacker’s study points out, the gap between the rhetoric and the reality is growing perceptibly. Much like other service providers in this space that are considered boorish and insensitive in their relationships with consumers, the institutions of higher education are on the brink of losing their exulted status as educational icons.

Last month, Christopher Newport University announced that it was making college entrance testing optional for students with strong grade point averages. More than 740 institutions across the country, including some of the most selective, have now moved away from an emphasis on testing in considering students for admission. It begs the question: “Why don’t the others follow suit?”

Well, in point of fact, the number of “test optional” colleges and universities has grown rapidly over the last ten years as more places are publicly acknowledging what their own validity studies have been demonstrating for years: testing has a limited—at best—impact as a diagnostic in the admission process. Ironically, that is the purpose of the test—to predict who can do the work academically in the first year of college. The reality is that most students (80-90%) applying to most colleges have chosen places where, given the chance, they could do the work, a fact that is borne out in the academic credentials they submit.

So, why do many institutions still require test results? One reason is the need for efficiency. At many schools that deal with overwhelming numbers of applicants, it is certainly more efficient to screen candidates based on an index that includes grade point average and test results (not to be mistaken for a determination of who can do the work!). Test scores provide a convenient solution in that an institution’s ability to report higher scores supports the common misperception that test results are reflective of intelligence. The higher the scores, the better are your chances in such environments. Rather than a meaningful diagnostic—the rationale behind the SAT/ACT—test results have become competitive credentials.

If you would rather not get caught up in the emotional frenzy that often consumes students (and their parents) with regard to testing, be comforted in the knowledge that you have options. The 740+ institutions with a reduced emphasis on testing are all listed on the following website:

www.fairtest.org

The way I see it, the colleges and universities that appear on the FairTest.org list are places that will value you as a candidate for what you have done well in high school as well as the promise you exhibit with regard to future success. I saw this personally when my institution went test optional nearly 20 years ago. That decision was a point of liberation for my colleagues and me. Free from the tyranny of numbers, we could focus on the breadth of credentials in making decisions about young people whom we valued most. Isn’t this the sort of solution that makes sense as you look for a college home that is a good fit for you?

We’ll talk more about testing in this space throughout the year. It will also be the featured conversation in the December 19 installment of the “Straight Talk About College Admission” teleseminar series.

Over the last week, I have had the good fortune of being able to talk about my new book, “Winning the College Admission Game,” with nearly twenty radio talk show hosts around the country. While no two conversations are the same, it seems that everyone wants to talk about college rankings, mistakes people make in the application process and the timing of the college planning process.

If you have read my postings last week, you know I am concerned with growing obsession on families seem to have with labels—and having the best. Not much has changed there except that I would urge you once again to look past the numbers to find the place that is best for you or your student. Rankings in and of themselves are not the issue. Taken to extremes, however, they become an intoxicant that affects the way you see the college picture and your place in it. I will refrain from saying more as this will be the topic of our first “Straight Talk About College Admission” teleseminar series on September 19 (9PM EST).

Talking about the biggest mistakes people make in college planning could take a while as there are plenty out there. For parents, though, it is often the inability or reluctance to turn the process over to the student. Quite often parents are consumed with the dreaming and scheming about college from the time their kids are born. And in some cases, they think they have figured out where the child will go to college and what they’re going to need to do to get him “in” before the he has begun grammar school! This becomes a problem for the student who at age 16 or 17 wants to become forming his own thoughts about college—and he has trouble finding his own voice in the matter. I talk about this in the first chapter of “Winning the College Admission Game” entitled “Adjusting to Life in the Passenger Seat.” In short, parents need to back off and students need to step up if college planning is to be productive in the long run.

Finally, talk show hosts are always curious to know when students should start thinking about and preparing for college. “When should this process start,” they ask. The answer is that students become candidates for college as soon as they set foot on their high school campuses in the freshman year. From that point forward, everything you do has a bearing on how you will eventually compete for admission. And I mention this not to create a panicked obsession with “doing all the right things” and packaging yourself for college. Bad idea! Don’t deny yourself a life well lived through your teenage years. Just understand that waiting until you are a junior or senior to find any focus in the classroom, or in life, can have a limiting effect on the college options you might eventually consider.