STUDENT-CENTERED SOLUTIONS FOR COLLEGE PLANNING

A few days ago, a friend asked my opinion about a dilemma that had come upon one of her advisees. A young man she had been advising had been accepted Early Decision to his first choice school, a highly selective institution in the Northeast. Upon receiving the acceptance letter, he withdrew the applications he had submitted to half a dozen other elite institutions in order to honor his Early Decision commitment. He was understandably elated because he had been admitted to the college of his dreams.

Weeks later, however, the elation turned to shock and dismay when he received a financial aid award based on an expected family contribution that was much greater than he had anticipated. Instead of the $10,000 he thought his family would need to pay out of pocket, he was told their contribution would be closer to $17,000. He was in a bind and didn’t know what to do. He couldn’t afford his ED school and he had withdrawn his applications to what had been his other options.

From what I could tell, the student had completed an online FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) forecaster prior to applying to any of the colleges. When the information he provided projected an Expected Family Contribution (EFC) of $10,000 for the first year, he and his parent were confident enough in their ability to come up with that amount that he had gone ahead with the ED application. Now, the school to which he was committed was expecting more—much more.

During the next two Web-Side Chats I will provide insight into how this situation and others like it might be averted and/or rectified. See below to learn how you can join the conversation.

Unfortunately, this is not likely to be an isolated incident in the coming weeks as colleges and universities stretch their diminished financial aid budgets to accommodate the students whom they have accepted. In some instances, institutions will use the “need analysis” of the College Scholarship Service Profile to justify EFC’s that can range anywhere from $5,000-$10,000 greater than is projected by the FAFSA. By doing so, they can claim to meet the demonstrated needs of their admitted students without ever having to reconcile the differential in the respective need analyses to the families involved.

In other cases, colleges will simply elect not to meet the full need of the admitted student. Instead, they will provide a basic financial aid award that covers a fraction of the demonstrated need and fill the ”gap” of unmet need with additional loans for the student and/or the parents. However it is manifest, expect this type of gapping to be prevalent in the days to come.

As you weigh your educational options in the coming weeks, it is important that you understand the terms of the enrollment agreements you are considering. Sometimes in the euphoria associated with “getting in” it is easy to overlook the details and, in the case of managing college costs, the “devil may indeed be in the detail.”

The good news is that, even in these days of deep recession, there are good deals to be found. To find them, though, you need to manage expectations and focus on finding the best “fit.” The next two Web-Side Chats (interactive webcasts) will help you interpret your options and give you the confidence you need to make the best possible choice among your college options.

On Wednesday, March 25, the topic is “Admission Decision Letter Preview.” We will take a look at the range of admission decisions that are likely to come your way. The April 13 webcast, “Evaluating Financial Aid Options,” lends insight into the various financial aid awards you may have received and helps you make “apples to apples” comparisons. Both hour-long webcasts begin at 7PM ET and are interactive so audience members can submit questions throughout. (All webcasts are archived for member access.)

The middle of March is a time of year when admission decision-making comes into focus at many levels—when the finest distinctions are made with regard to who gets in and how financial assistance will be administered. It is also a time of countless huddles involving enrollment strategists as they seek to refine their calculations of yield. In other words, “What is the right number of students to admit in order to secure the desired enrollments?”

For enrollment strategists (a.k.a. senior admission officers) predicting yield can seem like “booking” a horse race. It’s all about calculating the odds. In this realm, however, getting it right has real implications for any institution that is even marginally tuition driven.

Part science and part instinct, yield forecasts are largely influenced by an institutions’ enrollment experience over time. In fact, actual yield rates are remarkably constant—they fluctuate very little from year to year.

Therefore enrollment strategists are guided by their own histories. If, for example, one out of four admitted students have enrolled at a given institution in the past, it stands to reason that four students must be admitted to get one in the present.

Historically based yield models are wonderfully accurate and highly cherished by enrollment strategists. While they don’t determine, “who gets in,” they provide answers with regard to how many students should be admitted. Such models work very well as long as the schools’ enrollment climate remains constant. However, throw in an event that changes the institutional equilibrium—a national championship, a natural disaster or scandal of major proportions—and the certainty disappears from the yield models.

The current state of the national economy ranks as such an event and enrollment strategists are scrambling to understand how it will affect the yield for their respective institutions. In a thoughtful report in the New York Times this past weekend, Kate Zerniky (“Uncertain Colleges Worry about Who Will Accept Them”) revealed the plausible angst that is felt by those responsible for predicting enrollment yields at their institutions. Perhaps Jennifer Delahunty, Dean of Admission and Financial Aid at Kenyon College, summed it up best when she said, “Trying to hit those numbers is like trying to hit a hot tub when you’re sky-diving from 30,000 feet.”

So what is going on in those huddles and what can you expect as admission decisions are revealed in the coming weeks?

The uncertainty regarding college funding is affecting both families and institutions. Just as families are more inclined than usual to proceed cautiously with enrollment commitments, colleges and universities are trying to stretch their financial aid dollars as far as possible. As a result don’t be surprised to see:

• Colleges admitting more students than usual as a hedge against lower yields this spring.
• More students than usual will be placed on Wait Lists—again, as insurance against lower than anticipated enrollments through Regular Decision offers of admission.
• Active Wait Lists. Colleges have become adapt at managing Wait Lists to achieve high yields. That experience will be put to the test this spring.
• “Gapped” financial aid awards. In other words, students, especially those on the competitive “margin,” will be admitted and offered financial aid that falls short of meeting their respective needs.
• Aggressive merit scholarship offers to students who do not otherwise need financial aid.
• The enrollment process to linger well past the May 1 Candidates’ Reply Date as families continue to explore viable funding options and institutions continue to work their Wait Lists to reach enrollment goals.

The activity surrounding the final choice of a college this spring will be unprecedented in terms of its volatility and, frankly, the opportunities it will present to families that are patient and well-informed about the process.

The next two Web-Side Chats will provide further interpretation of this activity and give strategic advice to families as they sort through their enrollment options. The webcast dates are:

• March 25, 7:00PM (ET)—Admission Decision Letter Preview
• April 13, 7:00PM (ET)—Evaluating Financial Aid Offers

Families with seniors in the throes of making final decisions will find the time spent well worth their while. I look forward to receiving your questions, comments and concerns.

Note for families with younger students in the college planning process: Click here to download a pdf copy of one of my articles, “The Importance of Finding a Good College Fit in a Tough Economy,” from the latest edition of Central PA Magazine. In it I provide a framework for understanding your college search in light of today’s economic climate including six steps to help you manage your expectations and lead you to discover the best college fit for you.

You are a college applicant. It’s mid-winter. Your applications have been submitted and all you can do is wait. After months of mail, interviews, phone conversations, and campus visits, the chatter from the colleges has all but disappeared and the silence is deafening.

What happens to your application when it reaches the admission office? Who reads it? What will they think? How will they decide? Surprisingly, the answers aren’t that simple.

The credential review processes at colleges and universities vary widely according to applicant volumes, levels of selectivity, and institutional agendas. For example, colleges with “rolling admission” programs make decisions on applications as they come in, admitting those who are qualified.

Conversely, institutions that process tens of thousands of qualified applications often presort credentials electronically using a formula involving standardized tests and GPA. Many of the most selective schools apply an index derived from a more complex set of variables in order to prescreen applicants. In each case, candidates who meet predetermined standards are referred to the admission committee for further review.

In just about every admission process, the “committee” is where the more difficult decisions are often made. I use the term committee loosely because committee members or “readers” may meet together in conference rooms, in their offices or the quiet comfort of their homes. Once in committee, applications are often reviewed by at least two readers before any decisions are made. Readers can be part-time staff hired to participate in credential review, specialists in particular majors or subgroups of students (international students, for example) and members of the admission staff.

In some cases, faculty members are invited to read applications from students interested in their respective academic disciplines. This is more likely at universities that are comprised of “colleges” or “academic programs” to which you apply directly.

What follows is an attempt to arrive at a consensus regarding your application. As readers review your credentials, they start with your transcript, noting both the strength of your academic program and your academic successes relative to other students in your school. In all likelihood, you will be regarded as qualified—you could do the work academically if given the opportunity.

Having been established as a viable candidate on their competitive “playing field,” readers begin to dig more deeply into your application. They look at extracurricular activities, test results and essays for “hooks” or points of distinction. Quite often, the question directed at your application will be as simple as, “What do we get by admitting this student?” As the research into your application continues, committee members probe for authenticity and sincerity of purpose in all your application materials.

Readers will also look for explanations that might shed light on any irregularities in your program and/or performance. Such explanations might be found in personal statements, interviews and letters of recommendation.

In a very short period of time, admission officers develop a bias—a sense of what you have to offer and where you fit in the competition. The more intense the competition the more important it is to have a decisive or “over the top” credential—and the more important it is for that credential to be authentic. This is when arguments on behalf of students with special talents, interests and perspectives begin to emerge.

Assuming the bias is favorable, readers quickly scan letters of recommendation to look for validation—evidence that supports the information on your application. Sometimes these letters provide an added dimension of understanding regarding your performance. This insight can be very powerful.

As the selection process moves into March, the focus turns to the students who remain on the “bubble” or the margin of the competition. Questions such as “What is the likelihood that she will enroll if we take her?” and “How are his third marking period grades?” and “Are we sure we will get a good return on our investment if we give him that much financial aid?” dominate the deliberations. While candidates at opposite ends of the competitive spectrum are sorted quickly and easily, those in the middle continue to get lots of attention as the process winds down.

Complicating this process is the impact of the readers’ personalities in the decision-making as well as the collective accountability for creating a freshman class that will further the university’s aims. All of this, along with the pressure to make fine distinctions between excellent candidates, leads to the widespread notion that the selection process is neither “fair” nor “logical.”

In truth, the process can be very arbitrary. If, however, you have applied to colleges that represent good fits for you—places that value you for what you do well—you should find yourself in possession of happy outcomes when the decision letters arrive!