ReportWire

Tag: Admissions & Enrollment

  • When There’s Nowhere to Live, What’s a University to Do?

    When There’s Nowhere to Live, What’s a University to Do?

    [ad_1]

    Peyton Quijano spent the summer before junior year consolidating her life into her Honda.

    She squeezed her pared-down wardrobe into two small boxes, which fit in the trunk. School supplies and some packaged food went in the passenger seat. The back seat became her bed.

    Quijano, a biology major at the University of California at Santa Cruz, had hoped to win a coveted spot on campus, but she didn’t get one before classes began.

    UC-Santa Cruz has enough campus housing for more than half of its 18,000 undergraduates. That’s a lot; in fact, the university houses one of the highest percentages of its students in the UC system. But Santa Cruz faces a challenge: Housing stock off campus is extremely limited and expensive. Most residences are single-family homes with independent landlords, many of whom are hesitant to rent to students.

    On campus, housing priority is given to freshmen, new transfers, and sophomores, depending on whether they meet certain conditions, as well as first-generation students from California, military veterans, and international students. Even then, there’s no guarantee.

    LiPo Ching for The Chronicle

    Peyton Quijano, a rising senior at the University of California at Santa Cruz, lived temporarily in her car.

    So Quijano started the 2022 fall term living in her car.

    It’s not that university leaders oppose building more student housing. They can’t — at least not easily.

    The topography of the Santa Cruz campus — carved into the side of a mountain, surrounded by a protected forest — means there’s almost nowhere to build. When university officials find land on campus and make a plan, they get sued by local residents who fear the impacts of growth. The court fights drag on for years. Meanwhile, the University of California’s Board of Regents wants the system’s campuses to enroll even more students, citing high demand for a UC education.

    Across the country, colleges struggle with housing shortages from time to time, and administrators make contingency plans. What’s happening at Santa Cruz, though, isn’t a one-time crunch. It’s a systemic, structural logjam with no clear way out.

    University leaders say they’re committed to easing the strain, pushing ahead on construction projects that will take years to complete. In the meantime, many Santa Cruz students must shoulder the stress of trying to get through college without having their basic needs fully met.

    Ask any Santa Cruz student about housing, and they’ll have a story to tell.

    Their housemate who dropped out for a quarter to save money for rent; their friends who commute 35 miles from San Jose every day, up and down the notoriously hazardous narrow shoulders and tight turns of Highway 17; the guy in their econ class who rents a driveway so he can live safely in his car for $500 a month.

    Most students will also tell you that they didn’t know just how hard it would be to find housing until they arrived.

    Homelessness and housing insecurity are longstanding problems in Santa Cruz, a beach town nestled between the central coast and the redwood-forested Santa Cruz mountains that consistently ranks among the most unaffordable places in the country to live.

    The UCSC sociology professors Miriam Greenberg and Steven McKay surveyed Santa Cruz County residents between 2016 and 2018, and found that 50 percent of 1,737 respondents spent over half of their income on rent. The government defines that threshold as “extremely rent burdened.” The researchers then had to invent a new category, “obscenely rent burdened,” for the 26 percent of respondents who said they spent at least 70 percent of their income on rent.

    Then the pandemic hit. Newly remote tech workers moved in. The median price of a single-family home skyrocketed, as did rents. Off-campus houses that had historically been rented to students were bought up and converted into owner-occupied housing.

    The squeeze became untenable — and further complicated an already complicated relationship between Santa Cruz and its largest employer, the university.

    For much of the 20th century, Santa Cruz was a sleepy retirement community. As the U.S. economy boomed in the 1950s, local business leaders pushed for more development. They eagerly lobbied the University of California regents to choose Santa Cruz for the next UC campus.

    The Nine & Ten apartments and International Living Center are surrounded by trees at UC Santa Cruz, in Santa Cruz, California, on Monday, January 23, 2023.

    LiPo Ching for The Chronicle

    UC-Santa Cruz is surrounded by a protected forest, making it difficult to build new campus housing. Off-campus housing is limited and expensive.

    The university’s founding in 1965, though, brought about a sharp political turn to the left. An environmentalist consensus took hold that saw any growth as harmful. Residents didn’t want to see their town grow out or up. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, city and county leaders adopted measures to limit housing density. They worked.

    “The university’s and the city’s issues became inseparably related to the growth and development sentiments at the time, which was essentially 5,000 ways to say no to growth and development,” said Mayor Fred Keeley of Santa Cruz in an interview.

    City officials have long taken the position that UC-Santa Cruz should house its students on its own campus. The university hasn’t completed a new dorm since 2004. But that’s not for lack of trying.

    In 2017, the university proposed a housing project to accommodate an additional 2,000 students, part of which would be built on the East Meadow, a 17-acre open field on the southern edge of campus. The project has been tied up in court ever since.

    “It’s been extremely frustrating because those lawsuits have real impacts in terms of what it means for UC-Santa Cruz students,” said Scott Hernandez-Jason, assistant vice chancellor for university relations.

    This spring, the UC system’s Board of Regents approved the university’s latest plan for the project, known as Student Housing West. One lawsuit against the plan is pending. For now, construction is slated to begin in early 2024.

    Faculty, alumni, and community members who oppose the project have argued that it would disrupt the aesthetics of the campus. One student retorted: “I don’t have the luxury of worrying about aesthetics.”

    Housing is something that Santa Cruz students always have to think about.

    For the first three weeks of the 2022 fall term, Quijano parked near her friends’ on-campus apartment so she could use their shower. She spent most of her free time at the library. In a pinch, she wrote a couple of papers in the backseat. It wasn’t comfortable, and the Wi-Fi was spotty.

    Then she heard about an open room in the Village, a sprawling collection of cabinlike temporary structures on the east side of campus. She reached out to the university’s housing coordinators and was placed in one of the units, at a cost of $978 a month.

    The walls were thin; cold air and noise could easily get through. There was one shared kitchen. The location was isolated from much of campus, requiring students to hike up a 100-step staircase or walk to the nearest bus stop.

    Quijano worked two part-time jobs: one at a day-care center off campus, and one cleaning the university science department’s autoclaves. Her paychecks were going entirely toward housing, and she wasn’t even that comfortable. She wondered: How would she pay her other bills?

    Peyton Quijano, a third year molecular biology major at UC Santa Cruz poses for a portrait with the car that she lives in, parked at the Crown lot on campus in Santa Cruz, California, on Monday, January 23, 2023.

    LiPo Ching for The Chronicle

    Quijano with her Honda. She recently found housing: a one-bedroom off-campus apartment, shared with three roommates. She considers herself “really lucky.”

    At the end of the fall 2022 term, she made the difficult decision to terminate her housing contract. When classes resumed in January, she was back in her car.

    Zane Chaplin, meanwhile, shared a dorm room with three other sophomores this past academic year. The room used to be a communal lounge for the whole floor. “You can tell because this is here,” Chaplin said, moving the hanging mirror aside to reveal a long rectangular window on the door.

    Over the past two decades, the university has placed 3,300 additional students into existing dorms by “increasing the density.” Officials have added new floors to some buildings. Some rooms host five or six students in bunk beds.

    So Chaplin and his friends felt lucky to have a bit of private space, with lofted beds and desks placed underneath. But as they looked ahead to their junior year, they knew they most likely wouldn’t have a chance at campus housing again.

    Instead, they steeled themselves for the off-campus bidding wars.

    At one point, Chaplin and his friends were eyeing an eight-person house going for about $8,500 per month — a great deal, he said, even though it was a “fixer upper,” to put it nicely. But they knew at least five other groups of students interested in the same property.

    Typically, Chaplin said, students are forced to bid against one other. A landlord will tell a student that another group has put in an offer and ask if the students wants to raise their bid. Or a landlord will just give the property to the other group without sharing the winning price. “It’s a very secretive exchange,” he said.

    Some students will attempt to get on a landlord’s good side by wooing them with baked goods or promises of home improvement. “I have a friend whose group wrote a letter to their landlord about how they were going to do a bunch of gardening while they lived there, and the landlord ended up giving them the place,” Chaplin said.

    Chris Minnig, who graduated this spring, hit the jackpot for his last year: a spot in Camper Park. The 42-space complex “is similar to living in a campground,” the university’s website states. It’s by far the most affordable campus-housing option, at around $700 a month.

    Residents have to do without a few things that most undergraduate students would take for granted. “If having a consistent internet connection with reliable service within your campus residence is important to you, or for the academic work that you are engaged in,” the university says, “then the Camper Park is not an appropriate choice for you.”

    Still, each trailer has a full bed, a kitchen with running water, a mini fridge, and a small table. If students can put up with minor inconveniences, like sharing communal bathrooms and emptying out the water tank every week, “it’s a frickin’ no-brainer,” Minnig said. Especially compared with his accommodations in 2020, as a first-term transfer student.

    At the time, Minnig said, he managed to find a place to live off campus a few days before classes began, for $400 per week. But he wasn’t sure how long he’d have the room. The landlord, he said, was trying to sell the property.

    So while acclimating to campus life, an immensely stressful period for new students, Minnig wasn’t sure where he’d be living the following week.

    Students are frustrated. Some say they feel lied to — as though the university encouraged them to come to Santa Cruz even though there was nowhere for them to live.

    Yet many students understand the challenges. They don’t want the university to lower acceptance rates; that hurts access. They’re also worried about the environmental impacts of growth. And they’re trying to work with the city to bridge the divide.

    Zennon Ulyate-Crow is founding president of UC-Santa Cruz’s Student Housing Coalition. The group shares the city’s view that the university has a responsibility to house its students. But the coalition also believes that the city has a responsibility to provide for its constituents, including students.

    The group has practical goals: more housing, period. Multifamily housing, especially. More tenant protections, like rent control and eviction protections. And they want to get more students registered to vote in Santa Cruz County.

    “Both sides are pointing at one another to blame for this crisis,” Ulyate-Crow said of the university and the city. “And in the end, nothing happens because nobody takes responsibility.”

    Ulyate-Crow said the coalition has tried to forge a middle ground, but it’s been difficult. The group has even been met with resistance on campus when it has tried to partner with some student groups. There’s a “leftist purity test” that the coalition doesn’t meet when it endorses “imperfect” — in other words, market-rate — developments, Ulyate-Crow said.

    Zennon Ulyate-Crow, president of the UCSC Student Housing Coalition, at the Camper Park on campus at UC Santa Cruz.

    LiPo Ching for The Chronicle

    Zennon Ulyate-Crow, founder and president of UC-Santa Cruz’s Student Housing Coalition, in Camper Park. The 42 trailer units are the most affordable housing on campus.

    Santa Cruz — like San Francisco and many other cities in California — is markedly progressive when it comes to most social issues. “And yet it is also the city with some of the most extreme inequality and the greatest affordable housing crisis in the country,” said Greenberg, the sociology professor.

    As a planning commissioner for the city, Greenberg has seen firsthand how difficult it is to get homeowners to budge on legislation that could make housing more affordable. There’s a lack of political will, she said, to take steps to regulate the market and produce more affordable housing. Lobbyists from the real-estate industry, statewide and nationally, and local homeowners’ associations have blocked many proposed changes.

    The city has tried and failed many times over the past three decades to pass local rent control. (California passed a statewide rent-control law in 2019, becoming one of the first states to do so.) Measure N, which was on the ballot for Santa Cruz voters last November, would have taxed “empty homes” to raise funds for affordable housing. But it died after Santa Cruz Together, a grassroots political group that says it fights “radical” policies, raised $140,000 to campaign against the measure. The group received a $37,000 donation from the California Apartment Association.

    UC-Santa Cruz officials don’t want to be the villains in this story. But for now, they’re working within strict constraints.

    In 2022, the university enrolled 700 fewer students than in 2021, due to a lack of beds, marking the first time in years that the institution had reduced its number of acceptances. Officials said they’ll hold enrollment as steady as possible until more housing is available.

    That approach runs up against pressure from lawmakers and the UC system for campuses to enroll more California students amid soaring demand. The university received nearly 69,000 first-year applications for the fall of 2023, a record. Last year, UC-Santa Cruz admitted about 31,000 students and enrolled about 5,100.

    “When we enroll students to become Banana Slugs, we want them to come here and succeed,” said Hernandez-Jason, the university spokesman. “So we want to make sure that we have campus housing available, and that we feel like if they are not living in campus housing, that they’re going to be able to find some housing in the community.”

    New state funding specifically aimed at solving the housing crisis across California campuses will help subsidize some of the cost of developing more housing.

    The university’s most recent project — an expansion of Kresge Hall, which includes the construction of a new building — will create 600 new beds by the fall of 2025. Officials also plan to shift the roofline of the existing residence hall to add another floor. Of those new beds, 320 will be offered to undergraduates at 20-percent below the average campus housing rate.

    Keeley, the mayor, said the city’s politics are changing. In the most recent November election, he said, every voter he talked to wanted to see more housing. It used to be, he said, that about 70 percent of the electorate opposed development. Now, he estimated, about two-thirds of voters favor “appropriate development.”

    That development will take years.

    In the meantime, UC-Santa Cruz officials said they’re working to provide immediate aid to students who are struggling.

    “No UC-Santa Cruz student should be without a safe and reliable place to live,” Hernandez-Jason said.

    The Slug Support program offers a range of housing resources. If students find themselves suddenly without housing, they can get connected with a case manager who can get them placed in a local hotel or partner shelter. Students can also seek financial assistance with a housing deposit, look up tenant legal codes, and get legal help with housing issues.

    “What we’ll often see is a student comes in for housing assistance, but it turns out they can’t afford food either, and on top of that, maybe they’re failing their classes,” said Estefania Rodriguez, a basic-needs program manager at the university. “It’s a lot of everything.”

    The Redwood Free Market, which Rodriguez helps operate, is one of several free-food options across campus. These cafés, markets, and pop-up produce stands are operated largely by students. The food comes from local food banks, and some of the produce comes from the university’s garden.

    Students are continuing their advocacy, too, despite hitting some roadblocks. In January 2021, a group of them tried to open a shelter for students experiencing homelessness. They talked with community organizations, churches, and the university itself, to no avail.

    “Off-campus locations would tell us to search on campus for a location, and the university would tell us to look off campus,” said Guneet Hora, who was recently the co-president of Slug Shelter, as the group is called. “It was like a wild-goose chase.”

    The club has since pivoted to become a basic-needs service for students, focusing on food and clothing donations, as well as mutual aid.

    The Student Housing Coalition is advocating for the university to create a safe-parking program for students who live in their cars. Evan Morrison, a local resident who organized the city’s safe RV-parking program, has advised the coalition on its idea. (Scott-Hernandez said that a parking program “is not a viable short- or long-term solution for our housing challenges.“)

    Morrison is the founder of the Free Guide, a nonprofit that serves the general homelessness population in the city of Santa Cruz. Students largely don’t use the resources aimed at the city’s homeless population, Morrison said. Their needs are different.

    “There seems to be a good portion of students whose plan to end homelessness is to graduate,” he said. “So while they’re in school, they’re not trying to end their homelessness. That’s a different set of needs than the general homeless population.”

    The Redwood Grove apartments are surrounded by trees at UC Santa Cruz, in Santa Cruz, California, on Monday, January 23, 2023.

    LiPo Ching for The Chronicle

    The university is moving ahead with two housing projects. One will add 600 beds to an existing dorm. The other is a planned new complex that would house more than 3,000 students; it has faced lawsuits.

    While Morrison has no definitive data on how many students sleep in their cars, “my gut is if we had 30 parking spots, those would be full pretty darn quick,” he said.

    For much of the past year, Peyton Quijano was among them.

    During the toughest moments, she was comforted, at least in part, by the knowledge that she wasn’t alone.

    Then, a few weeks into the spring-2023 term, Quijano found a place to live — an off-campus apartment. She signed a lease that would go through the next academic year, when she’s scheduled to graduate.

    She and three roommates are splitting a one-bedroom apartment with a loft in downtown Santa Cruz. The rent is nearly $900 a month per person. It took some convincing for the landlords to rent to them, she said. Subletting would’ve been too complicated, so they’re paying rent for an empty apartment all summer.

    She considers herself one of the lucky ones.

    [ad_2]

    Carolyn Kuimelis

    Source link

  • SFFA Urges Colleges to Shield ‘Check Box’ Data About Race From Admissions Officers

    SFFA Urges Colleges to Shield ‘Check Box’ Data About Race From Admissions Officers

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court outlawed the use of race in admissions last month, but the scrutiny of colleges’ responses to the landmark ruling is just beginning.

    Students for Fair Admissions made that clear on Tuesday when it sent a stern letter to 150 public and private colleges citing several passages from the court’s majority opinion, including its emphasis that the law requires “color-blind” admissions practices: “It is therefore incumbent upon your institutions to ensure compliance with this decision.”

    The letter, which was signed “Sincerely yours,” by Edward Blum, SFFA’s founder, instructed colleges to take four specific actions. One was to stop making “check box” data about applicants’ race available to admissions officers.

    You remember the check box, right? It came up again and again during oral arguments last fall. Lawyers for SFFA argued that admissions officers shouldn’t be able to consider which box applicants check on applications to note their race and ethnicity. The consideration of “race by itself,” one of those lawyers told the court, was unlawful. And in the end, the court’s majority agreed with that.

    But does that mean colleges now must remove the check box from their admissions applications?

    Art Coleman, co-founder and managing partner at EducationCounsel LLC, was asked that question during The Chronicle’s recent webinar about the implications of the court’s ruling. “Nothing should stop an institution from collecting the information,” he said. “There’s just nothing in the opinion that suggests that. … There are important reasons to take that data and evaluate it for educational purposes that affect all students. The question, legally, is: How are you using that information in the context of making decisions about whether a student is admitted or not?”

    EducationCounsel, a consulting firm that advises colleges on legal issues, has published a working draft of its preliminary guidance on complying with the court’s decision. “The mere collection of disaggregated data based on race and ethnicity should remain as a viable, lawful practice,” it said.

    That guidance also included the following: “It is important to segregate such collection practices from any effort to monitor class composition in real time with respect to rolling or other admissions practices, by which awareness of evolving class racial composition might influence the admissions decisions being made. In other words, maintain a clear separation between information accessible to those who are building an applicant pool and those involved in the individual applicant decision-making process.”

    The check box is a powerful symbol. It has long figured prominently in the debate over race-conscious admissions. Critics of the practice, either in ignorance or a willful attempt to mislead, have helped popularize the widely held notion that underrepresented minority applicants gained admission to highly selective colleges merely by checking a box to indicate their race. But in holistic evaluations of applicants, race was one of many factors colleges considered — and just one.

    The check box has remained a subject of considerable attention as colleges prepared to adjust their practices in anticipation of the court’s decision. This spring, the Common Application, the online platform used by more than a million students each year to apply to college, announced that it would allow its 1,000-plus member institutions to hide information about students’ race and ethnicity starting in August, but applicants may still choose to answer those voluntary questions. Member colleges already can hide information about an applicant’s birthday, gender, Social Security number, and test scores.

    The court’s ruling has prompted confusion about the purpose of the check box now that colleges can’t consider an applicant’s race. “It’s a confusing issue because the assumption is that if it’s there, people will use it” in admissions decisions, said W. Carson Byrd, an associate research scientist at the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. “So the question people have is: If you don’t use it, then why do you need it?”

    But that demographic data has many uses beyond evaluations of applicants for admission. “It’s helpful for understanding who’s applying,” said Byrd, who described the importance of such data in an op-ed for the Times Higher Education on Wednesday. “If we start to see a dramatic decrease in in-state students who are Black and Latino, there are going to be questions about what it was that made them decide that this wasn’t the place for them. These are really important kinds of questions. If you don’t have basic data about who these students are, you can’t really make any adjustments, you can’t make any programmatic changes or policy changes.”

    This is what their endgame is — to literally get rid of data on race.

    SFFA’s letter arrived during an especially anxious period for higher education. Throughout the nation, admissions and enrollment officials are huddling behind closed doors with general counsels and other administrators to make sense of the court’s decision, determine how to adjust their policies, and insulate their institutions from lawsuits as best they can.

    Some admissions officials on Wednesday privately described SFFA’s letter as an attempt to bully and intimidate colleges into making changes that the court’s decision doesn’t necessarily compel them to make. The letter also instructed colleges “to prohibit your admissions office from preparing or reviewing any aggregated data (i.e., data involving two or more applicants) regarding race or ethnicity; eliminate any definition or guidance regarding ‘underrepresented’ racial groups; promulgate new admissions guidelines that make clear race is not to be a factor in the admission or denial of admission to any applicant.”

    When asked via email if a specific incident or concern had prompted the letter, Blum wrote: “It’s common in various legal settings.”

    No one should mistake SFFA’s letter for a list of legal commandments handed down from on high. Later this summer, the U.S. Education Department plans to issue federal guidance for complying with the court’s ruling. That document will provide specific advice on how colleges should adjust institutional practices to meet new race-neutral requirements.SFFA’s letter, on the other hand, was a growl from one of higher education’s self-appointed watchdogs.

    But Byrd saw a deeper implication in what the group wrote. “This is what their endgame is — to literally get rid of data on race,” he said. “If we know that we have a lot of racial inequality, one of the ways we know whether something is getting better or worse is being able to have this kind of data. So, really, this is meant to undercut the ability to make policy changes or cultural changes. You can’t point at something if you don’t have the data. That is their ultimate goal: to prevent people from pointing out that systemic racism is still an everyday reality for people.”

    [ad_2]

    Eric Hoover

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court’s Admissions Ruling Mainly Affects Selective Colleges. They’re a Tiny Slice of Higher Ed.

    The Supreme Court’s Admissions Ruling Mainly Affects Selective Colleges. They’re a Tiny Slice of Higher Ed.

    [ad_1]

    The lawsuits that ultimately led to the Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision on race-conscious admissions centered on two colleges where most prospective students who apply won’t get in.

    At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, just two in 10 applicants were admitted for the fall of 2021, according to the most recent federal data. The odds of enrolling at Harvard were even slimmer: The Ivy League institution had an admission rate of 4 percent.

    Institutions like them — selective enough to need to use race as a factor in admissions to diversify their student bodies — have garnered outsize attention in the long-running debate over affirmative action’s role in higher education. That’s in part because the road to high-level positions in government and industry often includes a stop at a highly selective institution. One example: Five out of six living U.S. presidents earned undergraduate degrees at colleges that admit less than 15 percent of applicants.

    Still, in the landscape of colleges and universities, highly selective institutions are far outnumbered by those with much higher acceptance rates. Most students never participate in an admissions process that considers race in the manner of UNC and Harvard. Although it’s hard to say definitively which colleges use race in some way when making admissions decisions, selectivity is a useful lens through which to view the practice’s real reach, as the following data visualization shows.

    Methodology

    This analysis considered more than 3,000 degree-granting institutions in the United States that participate in the Title IV student-aid program. The percentages by race include the total minus students who identified as nonresidents or of unknown race. “Underrepresented minority” is the sum of students who are American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and two or more races. Only institutions that received more than 50 applications for first-time, first-year students for 2021-22 and had 150 or more undergraduates in the fall of 2021 are included. The percentages may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding.

    [ad_2]

    Audrey Williams June and Jacquelyn Elias

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court Is Poised to Rip ‘the Bandage Off the Wound’ in Admissions. Healing Would Mean Many Reforms.

    The Supreme Court Is Poised to Rip ‘the Bandage Off the Wound’ in Admissions. Healing Would Mean Many Reforms.

    [ad_1]

    The debate over race-conscious admissions policies has been blazing for so long that an observer might have trouble seeing the world beyond the flames. But as a new report from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce clarifies in great detail, those controversial policies have never been an adequate remedy for the vast racial and socioeconomic inequities found throughout all levels of American education.

    Now, with the U.S. Supreme Court seemingly poised to end or curtail race-conscious admissions nationwide, the report’s authors argue that it’s high time to confront those inequities — and for colleges to help lead the way. “We need to recognize that the campus diversity achieved through race-conscious admissions practices has served to conceal, and divert attention from, much bigger problems in education and elsewhere,” the report says. “The Supreme Court will have ripped the bandage off the wound, leaving us no choice but to tend to the segregation, inequality, and bias in education and broader society that hinder” underrepresented minority students applying to selective colleges.

    The robust report underscores an important fact: While race-conscious admissions policies have helped colleges enroll more Black and Latino students, those policies haven’t resulted in their equitable representation, relative to their share of the college-age population, at the nation’s most-selective institutions. “Over the past 30 years, white students have consistently held a significant advantage in terms of access to selective colleges, with their share of enrollment more than 10 percentage points above their share of the graduating high-school class,” the report says. “Over the same time frame, the Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino share of enrollment at such institutions has been one-quarter to one-half of their share of all of the nation’s high-school graduates.”

    The demise of Grutter, the 2003 Supreme Court decision upholding the limited use of race in admissions, would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for selective colleges to maintain current levels of racial and ethnic diversity — such as it is — on their campuses, the authors write. Recently, the center conducted simulations of enrollment outcomes using six different admissions models, including race-neutral ones, as described in a previous report. Its conclusion: “Nothing substitutes for explicitly considering race or ethnicity in admissions when trying to promote racial and ethnic diversity.”

    But if that long-used admissions tool is taken away, what can colleges do? Only by enacting sweeping reforms can institutions offset major declines in underrepresented minority students that would result from a ban on race-conscious admissions, the authors argue. The catch: Many prominent institutions have long resisted substantive changes to the status quo in the admissions realm. Selective colleges, the report says, “would have to take steps they have been loath to consider, such as eliminating admissions preferences for legacy students, student-athletes, and other groups now favored, such as wealthy students who won’t need financial aid.”

    The authors argue that so-called class-conscious admissions models could result in greater student diversity than the current system does — but only if all institutions adopted those models, drew from larger, more diverse applicant pools, and discontinued admissions practices that favor legacies, the children of big donors, and athletes. And selective colleges, the report says, also would have to enroll more students with lower standardized-test scores and high-school grade-point averages.

    The above scenarios, the authors write, “envision an idealized world that ignores the way that selective colleges now compete: on the basis of prestige and exclusivity. Given the decades that colleges have invested in their brands and attaining their advantages in admissions, they are not at all likely to throw away that model and start anew.” Nor are so-called elite institutions likely to support the report’s unlikely recommendation that the federal government require that federal Pell Grant recipients account for at least one-fifth of enrollment at every college in the nation. (Hold your breath at your own peril, dear reader.)

    As the report explains in great detail, the racial and socioeconomic inequities at selective colleges are deeply rooted in the K-12 system. If and when race-conscious admissions becomes extinct, the authors write, the push for greater equity in education will shift to courts and state legislatures grappling with racial segregation and inequitable funding in the nation’s schools.

    But colleges leaders, especially admissions and enrollment officials, surely shouldn’t act as if they, too, won’t remain in the spotlight of the nation’s enduring debate about who gets a seat — and an affordable offer — at selective colleges. The choices those officials make, the strategies they emphasize, and the priorities they pursue will continue to shape the educational opportunities of living, breathing students who are underrepresented in higher education.

    Colleges tend to operate in a bubble, in which their own wants and wishes reign supreme. The report includes a reminder about the importance of admissions and enrollment leaders helping their institutions see beyond that bubble: Enrollment officials, the report says, “can end up so focused on achieving specific numerical outcomes that they lose sight of how their decisions are affecting students and broader society.”

    At the same time, admissions and enrollment leaders are often keen observers of the world beyond their campuses — and are among the staunchest proponents of race-conscious admissions. Its demise, the report concludes, should serve as a wake-up call, one that opens the nation’s eyes to “the conditions that made race-conscious admissions necessary in the first place.”

    [ad_2]

    Eric Hoover

    Source link

  • Prospective College Students Increasingly Say They Feel Unprepared for Higher Education

    Prospective College Students Increasingly Say They Feel Unprepared for Higher Education

    [ad_1]

    A growing share of high-school students say they feel unprepared for college, academically and emotionally, and are choosing not to enroll right away — suggesting that long-term effects of the pandemic are stunting college enrollment.

    What’s more, some students increasingly doubt that college is worth the cost.

    The findings come from a report released on Monday by the Education Advisory Board, a consulting firm focused on higher education. EAB surveys more than 20,000 high-school students each year on their college-going plans, whether or not they decide to pursue a higher education. This year, the survey results tracked a significant shift.

    Twenty-two percent of respondents said they weren’t ready for college due to a lack of emotional and academic preparedness, compared with 14 percent who said so in EAB’s 2019 survey. An even larger share of first-generation and low-income students said they felt unprepared.

    The pandemic disrupted students’ social and academic development, the EAB report said. That may have taken a toll on a student’s confidence in finding success or a sense of belonging at college.

    “I believe there’s a pretty long hangover from Covid,” Hope Krutz, president of EAB’s enrollment division, said. “Students that are coming to us are less prepared, but it’s not their fault. This is a systemic issue, not a personal one.”

    Total undergraduate enrollment has dropped by more than a million students since the pandemic began, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

    Not Ready

    First-generation students, in particular, said they felt not mentally ready for college: 28 percent shared that sentiment. The comparable figure for their non-first-generation peers was only 20 percent.

    First-generation and low-income students typically lack their peers’ access to college preparation, can’t visit campuses to inform their college choice, and can’t afford such essential resources as transportation, a computer, or at-home Wi-Fi, Krutz said.

    However, the study found the highest rates of indifference to college among middle- and high-income students.

    I believe there’s a pretty long hangover from Covid. Students that are coming to us are less prepared.

    “Affordability takes a lot of shapes and forms,” Krutz said. “The ultimate bigger question is one of value. Especially when this expands out, you’re seeing a higher rate of middle- and higher-income prospective students making the same choices.”

    Alongside a lack of preparedness, students cited not feeling that college was worthwhile — a jump to 20 percent of respondents from only 8 percent in 2019.

    To mitigate those problems, Krutz said, colleges should offer boot camps and bolster orientation and first-year-student programs to help students catch up academically and socially.

    Regarding mental-health concerns, the EAB report suggests that colleges talk to families about their concerns, as well as available resources for academic and mental-health support, when their students arrive on campus.

    Colleges should send the message that students aren’t alone in feeling unprepared, Krutz said.

    “The more colleges embrace what are the stories of the typical students on their campus, they are meeting this population,” Krutz said. “Versus putting the two or three best-in-class students on a pedestal and saying everyone should be like them.”

    [ad_2]

    Emma Hall

    Source link

  • The Number of U.S. Adults With Some College but No Degree Keeps Growing

    The Number of U.S. Adults With Some College but No Degree Keeps Growing

    [ad_1]

    In the wake of pandemic-related enrollment losses, many colleges have been more focused than ever on recruiting and re-engaging a key student demographic: those who attended college but left without earning a credential or degree. A new report provides some insight on this growing market of former students who might one day re-enroll.

    As of July 2021 that population had grown by more than one million from a year earlier to reach 40.4 million, an increase of 3.6 percent, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. That represents almost one in five people in the United States who are age 18 and older, the report said.

    Of the “some college, no credential” students for whom gender data is known, the share of women, at 45.8 percent, was slightly larger than that of men, at 45.3 percent. Forty-four percent of the more than 40 million former students were under 25 when they dropped out of college.

    The report highlights two subsets of students on whom colleges can focus their re-enrollment efforts. One group is designated as “potential completers”; they’re the 2.9-million adults who have each amassed what amounts to two years of full-time enrollment over the last decade. The other is “recent stop-outs,” or those who were last enrolled at some point in 2019.

    According to the data, potential completers and recent stop-outs were more likely to enroll and to complete a credential within a year after re-enrolling.

    For more data on students who went to college but didn’t earn a credential see below:

    [ad_2]

    Audrey Williams June

    Source link

  • The Search for Prospective Students Is About to Change

    The Search for Prospective Students Is About to Change

    [ad_1]

    The way that many colleges connect with prospective applicants is on the verge of an overhaul. Last week, the College Board shared its plans to provide a way for admissions offices to connect with high-school students via mobile app. Starting this fall, the new service, called Connections, will supplement the organization’s existing Student Search Service, which colleges have long used to obtain information about teenagers they wish to recruit.

    As a result, institutions must soon navigate a new frontier of student engagement. And a nation full of standardized-test takers will have yet another place to hear from colleges — if they choose not to tune them out.

    College Board officials say that the new service will give students more control over their personal information. In an age when standardized testing is going digital, restrictions on data collected online are tightening. “Data privacy has become a major concern for many states and districts, and for lawmakers,” Paul Weeks, vice president for recruitment and enrollment solutions told The Chronicle this week. “We wanted to be proactive in developing a privacy-forward solution. This is better for students, better for schools. We’re trying to balance that with what higher ed has asked for.”

    For anyone who’s been stuck in a board meeting for the past few decades, here’s how things have worked for a long time: High-school students can opt into the Student Search Service when they register for or take the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, or Advanced Placement exams. Each year, nearly 2,000 colleges buy access to, or “license,” troves of student data stored in the College Board’s vast database. Institutions set their own parameters to find, say, Black students from the Southeast who scored at least 1200 on the SAT and who have expressed interest in engineering, or women from the suburbs of Seattle planning to choose pre-med majors. Colleges obtain test takers’ home addresses and, usually, their email addresses, too. And then institutions can bombard those students with brochures, letters, and electronic come-ons. Though inefficient for colleges and often annoying for students, it’s a time-tested way to expand an applicant pool.

    What’s changing: Before, there was just one bucket for colleges to draw from (Search). Now, there will be a second (Connections). The difference between them has to do with where students take exams. Starting this fall, the College Board’s in-school assessments — the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and PSAT 10 — will be administered online. Students who take one of those exams will be asked to share their cell number with the College Board, which will then text them a link to download an app called BigFuture School, through which they can get their scores and see some general advice about applying to college. Students will then be able to opt into Connections, which will be loaded with profiles of colleges that are — you know it — interested in them.

    By opting into Connections, students will not be transmitting any personally identifiable information (PII) to colleges. All that an institution will know about them at that point is which “audiences” they fall into: when they will graduate from high school, which of 29 geographies they live in, and the range in which their test score falls. Colleges will be able to share general messages with students from a specific audience: “And then the student controls it from there,” Weeks says. “They get to scroll through and investigate that institution without turning over their PII.”

    Students can then choose when, or if, to share their personal information with a particular college. Doing so will turn on the ol’ recruitment fountain. (The College Board plans to limit the number of messages an institution can send a particular to 10 or less, Weeks says.)

    We want this to have personality and to have the personality of your institution. That’s what’s going to get students to want to interact with you.

    All of this will be a big change for colleges, which won’t be able to search for prospective applicants in Connections the same way that they do in Student Search Service. In a webinar last week, Kevin Corr, a strategic-initiatives consultant for the College Board, explained how searching by audience in Connections will work. “We’ve always talked about, Hey, when you go into Search, you want to start with the most narrow focus that you can think of, and then go wide,” he said. “Connections flips that paradigm on its head a little bit. We’re going to start with a broad audience. And then when we get to our communication plans, that’s the point where we’re going to narrow down our messaging.”

    What will students see in Connections? “There will be text, there will be photos, there will be ways for you to to leverage materials that they already have,” Corr said. “We want this to have personality and to have the personality of your institution. That’s what’s going to get students to want to interact with you.”

    It’s too soon to say how colleges will adjust to these changes. “You’re going to have to buy access to a much bigger audience, which may or may not be cost-efficient as Search,” said Jon Boeckenstedt, vice provost for enrollment management at Oregon State University, who offers some thoughts on the College Board’s plans here.

    Whether teenagers will really want another way to receive plaintive pitches from colleges remains to be seen. The College Board says that more than three-quarters of students it surveyed recently said hearing from colleges via mobile app would be “very helpful.” If you know any teenagers, though, it’s easy to imagine that many of them will delete it or ignore it after getting their test scores.

    Either way, the College Board’s plans will shake up the business of student-recruitment. For many years, Search was a pay-per-name operation (current price: 53 cents). Then the organization introduced subscription-plan pricing, with eight tiers, for the 2022-23 admissions cycle. It plans to sunset the pay-per-name option at the end of August. The subscription plan for 2023-24 will be tiered by the total number of Search records and Connections audiences (One access level, for example, gets you 200,000 of the former, and 60 of the latter, for $105,000). Got that?

    Students who take a Saturday administration of the SAT — which will remain a pencil-and-paper exercise, for now — will be able to opt into Search as usual. The same goes for those who create a College Board account or register with BigFuture, its college-search site. Currently, two million juniors are in Search, 1.4 million sophomores, and 450,000 freshmen, according to the College Board.

    “Search is very strong,” Weeks says. “Search isn’t going anywhere. Certainly not in the near term.”

    But wait, a sharp enrollment leader might ask, won’t some students end up in both buckets, say, by taking the PSAT/NMSQT, and later taking the SAT on a Saturday?

    The answer is yes.

    “We understand that duplication … is something of concern,” a College Board official said during last week’s webinar. The organization, he added, is working to “minimize any complication there,” and would provide further details soon.

    One thing is for sure: The next recruitment cycle won’t be for the faint of heart.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Hoover

    Source link

  • 1 in 4 Prospective Students Ruled Out Colleges Due to Their States’ Political Climates

    1 in 4 Prospective Students Ruled Out Colleges Due to Their States’ Political Climates

    [ad_1]

    States’ political climates are significantly influencing where high-school seniors are choosing to attend college in the fall, according to the results of a survey released Monday by the Art & Science Group, a higher-education consulting firm.

    One in four students said they had ruled out institutions due to the politics, policies, or legal situation in the state where the college was located. Students who identified as LGBTQ+ reported rejecting institutions for these reasons at a higher rate than did students who identified as straight.

    There had been anecdotal evidence and speculation in recent months to suggest that some prospective students, among the small subset of those who travel out-of-state to attend college, might rethink their choice of institutions because of increasingly disparate state policies, particularly on issues such as abortion. So David Strauss, principal of Art & Science, said the researchers weren’t necessarily surprised by the survey’s findings, but rather, by the magnitude of the number of students who indicated they felt the way they did. “What this suggests is that institutions that are in states where significant parts of their constituencies might not be comfortable, they’re going to have to mount an appeal that is strong enough to be compelling that it would overwhelm these kinds of concerns,” Strauss said.

    The results were consistent across the ideological spectrum — conservative students (28 percent) indicated they were about as likely as liberal students (31 percent) to reject an institution based on the political climate of a state. And while conservative-leaning students said they were more likely to avoid institutions in California and New York, liberal-leaning students said they were more likely to avoid schools in the South or Midwest.

    “We’ve been struck by the observation that liberals seem to be reacting mostly to very particular policies,” Strauss said. “Conservative students seem to be reacting a little bit to particular issues, but more to a general sense of a state being democratic or too liberal in a kind of generalized sense.”

    The states most likely to be ruled out overall included Alabama (38 percent), Texas (29 percent), Louisiana, and Florida (21 percent for each). The most common policy issues cited by students were a lack of concern about racial equity and conservative restrictions on abortion and reproductive rights.

    A third of students said they had declined considering institutions in their home state because of a political or legal situation they deemed unacceptable. Self-identified Republican students were more likely to have done so than Democrats.

    Strauss said the results indicate that institutions should do what they can do to advocate for the interests of their students — whether that means fostering dialogue across the political spectrum or finding outlets to help students access something the state does not provide.

    “That’s hard work, but it’s eminently controllable,” Strauss said.

    The survey was conducted between January and February and reflects interviews with 1,865 high-school seniors, 778 of whom said they intended to attend a four-year institution as a full-time student in the fall. Responses were weighted by income, race, region, and gender to make the findings representative of the college-going population. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percent.

    [ad_2]

    Eva Surovell

    Source link

  • Tuition Revenue Has Fallen at 61% of Colleges During the Pandemic

    Tuition Revenue Has Fallen at 61% of Colleges During the Pandemic

    [ad_1]

    Net-tuition revenue — the money that institutions earn through enrollment minus any discounts and allowances provided to students — is the lifeblood of many universities.

    It’s the largest source of revenue for private four-year colleges, and it accounts for just over $1 of every $5 of revenue for public four-year institutions, about the same, on average, as their combined earnings from state grants, contracts, and appropriations.

    But over the first part of the Covid-19 pandemic, 61 percent of campuses saw that source of revenue fall. A likely factor in the dip was colleges’ struggle to bring back students two years into the pandemic, according to a Chronicle analysis of finance data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, which examined how net-tuition revenue fluctuated from 2019 to 2021.

    While the majority of colleges did see a decline in their net-tuition revenue, some types of institutions fared worse than others. More than seven out of 10 community colleges saw that source of revenue drop from 2019 to 2021, while four-year institutions fared slightly better: 60 percent of public colleges and 58 percent of private colleges experienced drops in their net-tuition revenue.

    A larger share of highly residential colleges saw a decline in their net-tuition revenue compared with nonresidential and primarily residential institutions; nearly two out of three highly residential campuses reported tuition-revenue drops, while 48 percent of nonresidential institutions and 62 percent of primarily residential campuses experienced declines.

    Institutions that were more selective in their admissions weren’t spared. The majority — 55 percent — of institutions defined as more selective by the Carnegie classifications saw a negative change in revenue from tuition, which was not much better than the 59 percent of inclusive institutions reporting net-tuition revenue declines. Sixty-two percent of selective institutions experienced drops.

    While net-tuition revenue typically accounts for a substantial share of a college’s income, investment returns became the leading source of revenue for private nonprofit institutions in 2021 (a trend that seems unlikely to repeat itself in 2022).

    Notes:

    The two charts in this story and the description of four-year colleges’ finances are based on an analysis of over 3,400 degree-granting institutions in the United States that are eligible to participate in Title IV financial-aid programs. The table and other information presented at the institution level are based on a smaller subset of 2,400 colleges with enrollments over 500 students and tuition revenue greater than $500,000. Enrollment and financial figures used throughout this analysis are from the falls of 2019 and 2021, and from the 2021 fiscal year.

    Values are compared over time using a college’s Ipeds unit identification number. Institutions can merge, consolidate, or split using the same unit ID, which may account for some large variations from year to year.

    Definitions of institutional selectivity and residential type follow the Carnegie classification’s Undergraduate Profile and Size and Setting listings.

    [ad_2]

    Jacquelyn Elias

    Source link

  • What Do Big Tech Layoffs Mean for STEM Programs?

    What Do Big Tech Layoffs Mean for STEM Programs?

    [ad_1]

    One of the hottest fields for recent college graduates has recently cooled off, as layoffs have hit the technology sector.

    On Tuesday, Zoom announced it will be eliminating 15 percent of its staff. Spotify, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have all made cuts in their work forces in the past month. In November, the Facebook parent company Meta announced it would be cutting 13 percent of its workers. Amazon and Google are also expected to hire fewer interns in 2023 than in past years.

    It is being called the largest wave of tech layoffs since the dot-com crash in the early 2000s, and it’s creating headaches for colleges’ career-counseling offices and soon-to-be-graduates who flocked to majors that once promised plentiful jobs.

    For the past two decades, colleges, think tanks, and policy makers have touted the wage-earning potential of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics degree programs. Enrollments in many of those fields have grown accordingly, particularly in computer science.

    The number of students pursuing bachelor’s degrees in computer and information sciences and support services has increased by 34 percent since 2017, according to data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

    Interest in data science has risen as well. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that demand for data scientists will rise by 36 percent, much faster than the average for all occupations, from 2021 to 2031.

    If history is any guide, it will most likely take some time for students and undergraduate academic programs to adjust to the changing job market.

    The number of undergraduate computer-science degrees conferred in the United States began rising in 1995-96 and continued to do so until just after the dot-com bubble burst in the early 2000s. That started affecting freshmen’s choices. By 2005-6, the number of computer-science degrees as a share of all degrees awarded dropped to 3.2 percent from 3.5 percent in 2000-1. The Great Recession dealt a further blow to the field, as computer-science degrees made up only 2.5 percent of all degrees earned in 2010-11.

    Since then, the share of such degrees conferred has grown each year, reaching almost 5 percent in 2019-20.

    It’s just a matter of researching the employers that are engaging with the campus, as opposed to pining away for the ones that maybe aren’t at the moment

    The drop in enrollment after the dot-com bubble burst was felt on campuses in many ways, said Amruth Kumar, professor of computer science at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Classes that were held once a semester were only held once a year, and some courses were combined in an attempt to fill them up.

    Kumar said that he isn’t yet sure what to make of recent tech layoffs. Graduates who are just entering the job market could be disadvantaged by the layoffs and rapid rehiring of tech employees, he said, but the long-term effects on computer science as an academic field remain uncertain.

    Besides, computer-science departments may face more immediate threats to their enrollment, and they come from within the campus. Soaring interest in data-science programs could divert institutional resources and draw students. Kumar said that while the increased interest in data science could cause a slight decline in computer-science enrollment, the two areas focus on different ways of problem-solving with technology.

    “It seems to me that data science caters to a different skill set than computer science,” said Kumar, who is co-chair of CS 2023, a multi-association effort to create curricular guidelines for computer-science programs across the world.

    Kumar believes computer science has become so popular because of the myriad fields computers are now used in.

    “It used to be the case that only people use them in STEM disciplines, but now you have computer science being used for communication, social interaction like Facebook and Twitter,” he said. “All these are nothing but computer-science products appealing to other areas, other walks of life.”

    Undergrad Programs Forge Ahead

    For now, undergraduate programs across the country remain optimistic about interest in their disciplines and students’ job prospects.

    The College of William & Mary plans to expand its data-science program; data is one of the four tenets of its “Vision 2026” plan. That’s because data fluency is a skill that students can apply in a variety of industries, said Kathleen Powell, chief career officer at William & Mary.

    “Our students are understanding that if they’re combining that data fluency with strong communication skills, strong critical-thinking skills, that is actually opening up pathways for different types of internships and full-time opportunities,” Powell said.

    She’s confident most 2023 graduates will find jobs. Companies plan to hire 14.7 percent more graduates from the Class of 2023 than were hired from the Class of 2022, according to a report by the National Association of Colleges and Employers.

    For their part, students seem to be optimistic, too. Full career fairs and continued demand from companies that are not tech giants may be giving them a false sense of security amid a possible economic downturn.

    “It takes about six months for students to realize that, you know, maybe the job market isn’t as great,” said Gail Cornelius, director of the career center at the University of Washington’s College of Engineering. “It’s also somewhat deceiving in the fact that when we have our career-fair employer activities on campus, we are still full.”

    The fairs still attract between 70 and 100 employers, she said, and she hasn’t noticed companies rescinding offers made to students, though some employers have delayed students’ start dates.

    Students at Washington have flocked to computer science in recent years. In 2017, the university created a school of computer science, the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering. Since then, the number of undergraduate students enrolled in the university’s computer-science program at its Seattle campus has more than doubled. At the start of the winter quarter in January, the university’s Seattle campus had over 1,500 undergraduate computer-science majors. As of the autumn-2022 quarter, computer science was the most popular major at all three University of Washington campuses.

    Many graduates have gone on to jobs at tech companies. About 55 percent of engineering graduates from the university got jobs with large technology companies, said Cornelius, citing data collected by the career center. And 44 percent of graduates found jobs with roughly 500 other companies, including those in nontechnology industries.

    “Our students are savvy enough to know that even though I didn’t get the Amazon job, the first job I get out of school isn’t going to be the dream job, and isn’t going to be the place that I die in,” Cornelius said.

    Closer to Silicon Valley, career counselors are advising students to be flexible in their career choices.

    “There’s always companies and industries that are going to be thriving depending on what the market is,” said Kelly Masegian, a technology and engineering career counselor at San Jose State University. “It’s just a matter of finding those, and figuring out how you can pitch your skills in those environments.”

    For example, Masegian and her colleagues are trying to introduce students to technology fields seeing major investments, like the semiconductor industry.

    Like Cornelius in Washington, Masegian hasn’t seen job offers to new grads being rescinded, but she has seen some delays. Masegian said about 85 students who received job offers from Amazon had their start date postponed by six months. Many of them are international students, she said, whose ability to remain in the United States hinges on being employed within 90 days of graduating.

    Despite the delayed starts for some students, Masegian said, she hasn’t seen companies reducing their hiring. Over 125 employers have signed up for the university’s upcoming STEM career fair, which can accommodate only 80 companies.

    “It’s just a matter of researching the employers that are engaging with the campus, as opposed to pining away for the ones that maybe aren’t at the moment,” Masegian said.

    She said that some students have been nervous about their ability to get internships, but she tries to remind them of the nature of the internship market. Students vying for internships are not competing with recently laid-off professionals, most of whom have years of experience.

    Even recent graduates seeking entry-level positions might not be competing with recently laid-off workers, she said, because of differences in their experience levels.

    A Market for M.B.A. Programs

    If the changing nature of the tech job market poses a challenge for undergraduate programs, it’s looking like an opportunity for graduate business programs. Some M.B.A. programs are seeking to capitalize on the layoffs, redirecting their recruiting efforts toward unemployed technology workers.

    In November, some business schools started waiving fees and testing requirements for applicants to M.B.A. programs who can provide proof of being recently laid off.

    For example, the S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University has waived GMAT or GRE requirements and application fees for laid-off tech workers. The University of California at Berkeley’s Haas School of Business waived its application fee and extended the deadline to apply for its full-time M.B.A. program. Santa Clara University’s Leavey School of Business is waiving application fees and test requirements, as well as promising some prospective students a minimum $3,000 scholarship.

    Workers with STEM backgrounds are attractive prospective M.B.A. students because of the skills they’ve picked up in the workplace, said Greg Hanifee, associate dean of degree operations at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, which announced it was waiving testing requirements in November.

    Our students are savvy enough to know that even though I didn’t get the Amazon job, the first job I get out of school isn’t going to be the dream job, and isn’t going to be the place that I die in

    Hanifee said Kellogg decided to waive GMAT scores and market to those experiencing tech layoffs out of a sense of empathy for tech workers whose sudden layoffs meant they may not have had much time to study for exams. Kellogg will continue evaluating the economy to determine whether it will waive the exam for next year’s class.

    He also said that the high hiring standards of major tech companies, like Meta and Google, mean laid-off workers are strong candidates, even without graduate exam scores supporting their applications.

    “I think we’re at the point now where, fingers crossed, the economy rebounds from some of this, and there aren’t additional sectors that go through a similar sort of mass layoff experience,” Hanifee said.

    And, while some displaced tech workers may find refuge in an M.B.A. program, many may well be headed right back into the field after earning their graduate degrees. Twenty-four percent of Kellogg’s full-time graduates in 2022 found employment in the technology industry.

    The ranks of the newly unemployed may fill a need for M.B.A. programs, said Martin Van Der Werf, director of editorial and education policy at Georgetown University’s Center for Education and the Workforce, and a former Chronicle editor.

    Many M.B.A. programs are facing enrollment declines similar to those plaguing institutions across the country. The U.S. is home to over 500 colleges with masters programs accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.

    Applications for admission to graduate business schools increased only by 0.4 percent from 2020 to 2021, a far cry from the average annual increase of 3.6 percent from 2016 to 2020, according to a report by the Council of Graduate Schools.

    The report also says that overall enrollment in graduate business programs declined by 3.4 percent from 2020 to 2021. During that period, part-time enrollment for first-time graduate students fell by 15.6 percent, while full-time enrollment for first-time students rose by 4.1 percent.

    “They’re looking to fill as many seats as they can,” said Van Der Werf.

    [ad_2]

    Kate Marijolovic

    Source link

  • After Years of Drops, Undergraduate Enrollment Shows ‘Signs of Recovery’

    After Years of Drops, Undergraduate Enrollment Shows ‘Signs of Recovery’

    [ad_1]

    Undergraduate enrollment has stabilized according to new data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, which provide a final tally on enrollment for the fall of 2022. It marks a slowdown of a trend that had been in effect for years, and which had worsened during the pandemic.

    Undergraduate enrollment in the fall of 2022 fell only 0.6 percent, or by 94,000 students, from a year ago. Total enrollment in the fall of 2022 was essentially flat as well — down by 0.7 percent from a year earlier.

    But the odds of a bounce-back to pre-pandemic levels are still remote. Since the pandemic began, undergraduate and total enrollment have each dropped by more than a million students.

    Here are three takeaways from the data:

    A bright spot during years of somber enrollment news has faded.

    During the early years of the pandemic, graduate enrollment was on the rise. In the fall of 2020, it was up 3 percent from the year before, followed by 2.4 percent in the fall of 2021.

    But “we’re now seeing the end of that growth trend,” said Doug Shapiro, the center’s executive director, in a call with reporters. In 2022, graduate attendance fell 1.2 percent across all four-year sectors — public, private nonprofit, and private for-profit.

    More would-be freshmen opted for college.

    According to the data, freshman enrollment was up 4.3 percent, or 97,000 students. The increase is a reversal of the 10.2-percent slide in enrollment for first-time students in the fall of 2020.

    Freshman enrollment rose in all sectors, including a 6.1-percent increase from a year ago at community colleges, where the steepest enrollment declines had surfaced during the pandemic.

    “It’s very encouraging to start seeing signs of recovery here,” although freshman attendance still has a “long way to go” to return to 2019 levels, Shapiro said.

    Some of the top majors have lost their shine.

    Of the top-five majors at four-year colleges, only one of them, business management, grew in the fall of 2022. Business management was up 1.2 percent from the year before, after multiple years of decline. The other four majors — health professions, liberal arts and sciences, biological and biomedical sciences, and engineering — all declined in the fall of 2022.

    Some of the other majors that saw gains: computer science at 10.7 percent; natural resources and conservation at 3 percent; visual and performing arts at 1.7 percent; agriculture at 1.4 percent; and psychology at 1.1 percent.

    [ad_2]

    Audrey Williams June

    Source link

  • What a Possible U. of Phoenix Sale Says About the State of Higher Ed

    What a Possible U. of Phoenix Sale Says About the State of Higher Ed

    [ad_1]

    The University of Arkansas System has confirmed that it’s eyeing a complete acquisition of what was once the premier mega-university in the country.

    The for-profit in question, the University of Phoenix, has roughly 85,000 students, down from a peak of nearly half a million in 2010. Most of its courses are online, with a primary focus of serving adult learners.

    Any purchase would be done through a newly created nonprofit affiliate, which would “support and facilitate” the transition of the University of Phoenix to nonprofit status, system spokesperson Nathan Hinkel confirmed. The Arkansas Times, which broke the news, reported that the price tag could sit somewhere between $500 million and $700 million. The system has not confirmed those estimates.

    “The goal … is to advance the system’s mission of providing affordable, relevant education to a broad range of students, and introducing the UA System to new educational markets,” Hinkel wrote in a prepared statement to The Chronicle.

    The system already bought a smaller for-profit — Grantham University — in 2021, creating the University of Arkansas Grantham. It then folded in its existing online arm, eVersity, last summer.

    While many details, including the timing for a potential deal, remain unclear, four experts who spoke with The Chronicle say the news underscores the further dismantling of the for-profit market, and traditional institutions’ continued banking on online education as a funnel for new students and revenue — even though most campuses shuttered by the pandemic have reopened.

    If a deal goes through, “This is the culmination of the era of the for-profits,” said Phil Hill, a partner at the ed-tech consultancy MindWires. “It’s not that there are no for-profits anymore … but it’s putting a real definitive cap on this decade-and-a-half decline of the for-profit sector. “

    Downfall of for-profits

    For years, for-profit institutions have faced both ideological and regulatory battles.

    Bad press about deceptive marketing practices and poor post-graduate outcomes has largely soured public opinion of the sector. The University of Phoenix itself agreed to shell out $191 million in 2019 to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint accusing the institution of advertising nonexistent partnerships with employers such as AT&T and Microsoft.

    With a for-profit, “you’re enrolling at a school where the less they spend on actually serving you, the more they get to pocket,” said Robert Shireman, director of higher-education excellence and a senior fellow at The Century Foundation. So in many consumers’ eyes, attending a nonprofit institution “provides some protection.”

    For-profits also have an increasing amount of red tape to navigate, said Eddy Conroy, a senior adviser with the education-policy program at New America. The recently revised 90-10 rule requires for-profits to draw at least 10 percent of their revenue from areas outside of Title IV financial assistance and military-education benefits. The latest Education Department regulatory agenda, posted in early January, also announced plans to revisit a “gainful employment” rule that would hold institutions accountable for their graduates’ abilities to pay off debt.

    Basically, “for-profits no longer want to be defined as for-profit,” Conroy said.

    Some of the more high-profile acquisitions include Purdue University’s acquisition of Kaplan University in 2017 to form Purdue Global, and the University of Arizona’s purchase of Ashford University in 2020 to create the University of Arizona Global Campus. If an acquisition of the University of Phoenix goes through, it would leave Grand Canyon University as the largest remaining for-profit institution.

    (Grand Canyon has itself tried to shed its for-profit designation, and sued the Education Department in 2021 for rejecting its bid to be considered a nonprofit entity.)

    University of Phoenix spokesperson Andrea Smiley told The Chronicle that the institution recognizes that the higher-ed landscape is changing, and that officials’ main priority is finding a solution that keeps — and expands — Phoenix’s mission to serve adult learners.

    “Entities are always evolving; they have to because the marketplace changes. The environment that you’re in changes,” Smiley said. “We’ve seen significant success over the last five to seven years in serving the adult learner, and we’d like to see that success continue.”

    A December 2021 article from Work Shift, a project of Open Campus Media, captured some of that growth. It reported that the University of Phoenix had been trimming its catalog of available programs to focus more on graduating its students and getting them into better-paying jobs, and that its official retention rate — which covers first-time, full-time students in bachelor’s programs — had risen to 41 percent, up from about 27 percent in 2017.

    In some instances, acquisitions of online for-profits haven’t been clean breaks. In the University of Arizona’s case, for example, Ashford University’s owner, Zovio Inc., stayed on as an online-program manager for Arizona’s newly minted Global Campus (that arrangement prematurely ended last year). This would not be the case here, Hinkel confirmed in an email.

    “The structure being considered, from what I understand, would not entail any ongoing relationship between University of Phoenix’s current ownership and the nonprofit,” he wrote.

    The online-ed calculation

    The University of Arkansas System’s interest in the University of Phoenix aligns with another trend, experts like Hill said: Public colleges or systems trying to quickly expand their online offerings, and extending their reach to nontraditional students — including adult learners — as undergraduate enrollment on the whole continues to fall.

    The pandemic accelerated the adoption of online courses and programs at many institutions. And data shows that even with many in-person restrictions lifted, student interest in learning online remains strong. Recently released Fall 2021 Ipeds data analyzed by The Chronicle revealed the percentage of students enrolled only in distance education was nearly double the percentage in 2017 — 30.4 percent and 15.7 percent, respectively.

    “Covid helped alert us to the fact that there are a lot of people who are still going to want in-person learning, but it also made people more comfortable with online as an option,” Shireman said. So universities, the University of Arkansas System included, are “trying to find ways to have larger-online footprints to help protect them against enrollment declines.”

    Why the for-profit acquisition route, though? Most institutions have established an online presence in other ways: Many have contracted with private companies for online-program-management services, which can include everything from recruiting and marketing to tech support and software. In another approach, the University of North Carolina system is tapping $97 million in pandemic-recovery funding to form its own online-learning platform. Others, like the University of Florida, began their venture into online education with outside help, but now maintain smaller-scale, and fully in-house, operations.

    Experts say acquiring a for-profit might feel less risky, and more streamlined.

    “They’ve already got the infrastructure in place, and they’ve already got students in place,” said Dominique Baker, associate professor of education policy at Southern Methodist University. “A lot of these pieces can be appealing.”

    The University of Arkansas System declined to say more about why it’s interested in a for-profit acquisition in particular. The system’s proposal for buying the for-profit Grantham University, though, spoke to its ambitions to seize a large proportion of the online market. “Higher education is in a period of disruption,” the proposal read. “We believe we are well positioned to take a bold step toward being the premier online institution serving working adults in the south.”

    Outstanding questions

    Apart from these initial musings, experts are waiting to learn more. Where will the financing come from? Will the University of Phoenix’s name be preserved? Who would be responsible in the case of future lawsuits or borrower-defense claims?

    Baker wonders about quality assurance too. Who will teach these courses? Are University of Arkansas System faculty members involved in these discussions?

    “I see value in online education,” she said. “My concerns are around: How do we deliver that education? And what is our goal? … It’s the method of how we’re doing this that I think is incredibly important. ”

    [ad_2]

    Taylor Swaak

    Source link

  • Want to Close Gaps in College Enrollment? Improve Academic Preparation, a New Study Says.

    Want to Close Gaps in College Enrollment? Improve Academic Preparation, a New Study Says.

    [ad_1]

    Racial and gender-based disparities in college-going rates disappear when students receive similar levels of academic preparation in high school, according to a new study by the Brookings Institution. The findings highlight a potential path forward for college leaders who are eager for solutions to their enrollment problems.

    Over all, Black students typically enroll in college at lower rates than Asian, white, and Hispanic students. But Black students enroll at higher rates than all of those groups when they receive the same level of academic preparation, with Hispanic students second highest.

    Socioeconomic status is also a major factor influencing the likelihood that students will go to college. According to the analysis, though, socioeconomic status isn’t the primary driver; academic preparation is.

    Although college-enrollment gaps for students in different socioeconomic brackets are alleviated when they receive the same level of academic preparation, wide disparities still exist.

    The analysis also looked at gender disparities; it’s been well documented that women are more likely than men to go to college. Among students with similar levels of academic preparation, men and women enrolled in college at similar rates.

    The study comes from Brookings’s Center on Children and Families , which analyzed data from the High School Longitudinal Survey of 2009 , a survey of over 23,000 students who were in ninth grade that year. Students were surveyed several times during high school and early adulthood, and took a standardized math exam in their expected ninth- and 11th-grade years.

    The survey records were linked to data from high-school transcripts and college enrollment records, as well as surveys completed by the students’ parents or guardians, school administrators, counselors, and teachers, according to the report.

    Sarah Reber , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and one of the authors of the report, said that the report’s findings show that closing gaps in academic preparation during high school is key to making progress on college-enrollment disparities.

    “Public discussions about inequality in access to college often center around admissions and cost,” Reber wrote in the report. “While these issues are important, our findings suggest that policy makers should also pay careful attention to disparities in academic preparation earlier in students’ educational careers, which are important determinants of college enrollment.”

    For students from different economic backgrounds, improving academic preparation is a key way to tackle college-enrollment gaps, Reber said, as is reducing the cost of attendance and making the admissions process less confusing.

    Reber said in an interview that Brookings determined “academic preparation” using factors including overall grade-point average from high school, separate grade-point averages for math and English, the number of Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses taken, the highest-level math course taken, and the math score students received on the standardized test administered as a part of the survey.

    Overall grade-point average was the most important factor in predicting college enrollment, Reber said.

    Reber emphasized that the report is silent about the source of the gaps in academic preparation. But other research has shown that students’ academic-preparation levels are determined by factors outside of school as well as within it, she said.

    “From a policy perspective, it’s not clear whether you want to be focused on in-school or out-of-school factors,” Reber said. “Things like family income, violence, racism, environmental toxins in the community — all of these things could be contributing. So it’s important to keep that in mind.”

    Nathan Grawe , a professor of economics at Carleton College who studies the connections between family background and educational outcomes, said the Brookings report is important because it reveals information about the causes of racial and gender enrollment disparities.

    “If we’re going to make progress on mitigating those gaps, we need to fully understand where they occur,” Grawe said. “This research, for instance, makes clear that it’s not that the differences emerge at the very last moment in the process, when students are age 18.”

    College leaders shouldn’t draw the conclusion that these academic gaps are K-12 problems, Grawe said. In order to reduce enrollment disparities, he said, college administrators should collaborate with primary and secondary educators to expand access to academic preparation earlier on.

    “A better conclusion would be one that underscores the importance of higher education collaborating with K-12 in all sorts of ways,” Grawe said.

    Colleges have to focus on adapting and meeting students where they are, Grawe said, “so that even if they don’t have the preparation that we might ideally hope for, they nevertheless can find a path into and through higher education.”

    [ad_2]

    Julian Roberts-Grmela

    Source link

  • After Law-School Revolt, Harvard Medical School Will Stop Cooperating With ‘U.S. News’ Rankings

    After Law-School Revolt, Harvard Medical School Will Stop Cooperating With ‘U.S. News’ Rankings

    [ad_1]

    Harvard Medical School’s dean announced on Tuesday that the institution would no longer send data to U.S. News & World Report for its annual rankings.

    “As unintended consequences, rankings create perverse incentives for institutions to report misleading or inaccurate data, set policies to boost rankings rather than nobler objectives, or divert financial aid from students with financial need to high-scoring students with means in order to maximize ranking criteria,” the dean, George Q. Daley, wrote in a message to the medical-school community.

    The move suggests that institutional protest of the magazine’s ubiquity in higher education may be far from over. Two months ago, deans of top-ranked law schools began announcing they would stop cooperating with U.S. News. Soon after, former deans of the University of Chicago’s School of Medicine published an op-ed in STAT that urged leaders of top medical schools to do the same. Daley wrote that the law-school protest had “compelled” him to act.

    Like Daley, many of the withdrawing law deans cited concerns about how the rankings’ methodology discourages schools from accepting lower-income students. Ultimately two dozen law deans said they wouldn’t cooperate anymore, according to the New York Law Journal. After the law-school revolt, U.S. News promised changes in its methodology.

    Daley was not available for an interview, but his message suggests an algorithm change may not be enough to entice him to start working with U.S. News again. “Educational leaders have long criticized the methodology used by USNWR to assess and rank medical schools,” he wrote. “However, my concerns and the perspectives I have heard from others are more philosophical than methodological.” Rankings can’t tell individual students if a school will be a good fit for them, “no matter the methodology,” he wrote.

    U.S. News did not respond directly to a request for comment on Daley’s announcement. In the past, its editors have said they will continue to rank schools that don’t cooperate, using publicly available data. In a statement late Tuesday, U.S. News’s chief executive, Eric Gertler, said in part that “millions of prospective students annually visit U.S. News medical-school rankings because we provide students with valuable data and solutions.”

    U.S. News has two “Best Medical Schools” lists. Harvard ranks No. 1 on the “Best Medical Schools: Research” list and No. 9 on “Best Medical Schools: Primary Care.”

    [ad_2]

    Francie Diep

    Source link

  • Where Applications to College Have Swelled During the Past Decade

    Where Applications to College Have Swelled During the Past Decade

    [ad_1]

    Admissions officers at North Carolina A&T State University sifted through 6,216 applications to build its fall 2011 entering class. A decade later, according to federal data, the institution’s applicant pool of first-time undergraduate students was more than three times that.

    The 246-percent increase in applications to North Carolina A&T reflects a broader trend in higher education: Over the last decade, the volume of applications submitted to the nation’s colleges has mushroomed, according to a Chronicle analysis of recently released U.S. Department of Education data.

    The 1,229 public and private nonprofit four-year colleges in the Chronicle’s analysis received 11.4 million applications for the fall of 2021. That’s an increase of 46 percent from the 7.8 million applications those same institutions saw for the fall of 2011. The increase was concentrated among a smaller subset of institutions in The Chronicle’s data set: Nearly 880 colleges — or about seven in 10 — saw their application volume rise during the decade.

    At least some of the growth in applications in recent years can be attributed to more colleges introducing test-optional policies during the pandemic. With that barrier to college attendance stripped away, the number of applications received by some institutions — particularly highly selective ones — has swelled. At many historically Black colleges and universities, like North Carolina A&T, application pools have been buoyed by a surge in student interest along with record levels of financial investment.

    Also at play is an increase in applications per student. A recent report from the Common Application, which has more than 1,000 member colleges, showed that the average number of applications submitted rose from 4.63 in 2013-14 to 6.22 in 2021-22. The share of students applying to more than 10 colleges roughly doubled, to 17 percent, between 2014-15 and 2021-22, the report said.

    The application data reported to the Department of Education also reveals some sharp declines, mostly among private colleges and institutions whose enrollment in the fall of 2021 was fewer than 5,000 students.

    Here’s what else we found:

    Note: This analysis includes public and private nonprofit four-year colleges and universities that had a Carnegie Classification of doctoral, master’s, or baccalaureate in both 2011 and 2021 and that had at least 100 applications in both years. Application figures are for first-time, degree-seeking undergraduates for the fall 2021 admissions cycle.

    [ad_2]

    Audrey Williams June

    Source link

  • ‘Everybody Hates Them’: Why One Researcher Says Legacy Preferences in Admissions Must End Soon

    ‘Everybody Hates Them’: Why One Researcher Says Legacy Preferences in Admissions Must End Soon

    [ad_1]

    Legacy preferences in admissions have been around forever. So they might seem as permanent as any monument. But as recent history reminds us, sometimes monuments must fall.

    James S. Murphy puts it this way in a new report: “It is time for colleges and universities to catch up to the 1770s and say goodbye to what essentially amounts to an aristocratic system, in which a few children inherit a birthright advantage in a process that wraps itself up in the cloth of meritocracy.”

    It’s baked into the mythology of America: We don’t believe in aristocracy. And we think education is, in fact, the antidote to aristocracy.

    Murphy, a senior policy analyst at Education Reform Now, brings his researcher’s chops and writer’s voice to a longstanding debate: Is it right for colleges to give children of alumni a leg up in the admissions process? The question gained new urgency after the Supreme Court agreed this year to hear legal challenges to race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    If the highest court bars the use of race in admissions, as many experts predict it will, then selective colleges will have to reassess all of their admissions practices. And, Murphy argues, they will have an even greater moral obligation to scrap legacy preferences, which overwhelmingly benefit white, affluent students. Unless, of course, they want existing enrollment gaps between white and nonwhite students to grow even wider.

    Opposition to legacy preferences dates all the way back to the 1960s, as Murphy explains. Since then, Democratic and Republican politicians have taken aim at them (if any T-shirt could unite the right and left, it just might say “Ban Legacy Admissions Now!”). Murphy traces that history and offers an illuminating snapshot of the present, including a tally of colleges using legacy preferences (nearly 800 in 2020, or about half of all institutions that completed the Common Data Set).

    That’s a big number, but it’s getting smaller. In 2020, the Johns Hopkins University announced that it had stopped considering legacy status. The following year, Amherst College announced the same. Those institutions might seem like outliers, but Murphy’s research confirms that they’re not: Recent data, he found, show that dozens of colleges have abandoned the practice, only with little or no fanfare.

    Colleges aren’t so transparent about their use of legacy preferences. It took an epic lawsuit to pry loose the revelation that, as the report notes, the children of alumni at Harvard with the highest academic ratings are more than twice as likely to get an acceptance than low-income applicants with similar ratings. Among Murphy’s recommendations: The U.S. Department of Education should require disaggregated data reporting on the use of legacy preferences at each college, allowing the public to see how the practice affects various subgroups of students: “If the Supreme Court strikes down the use of race-conscious admissions policies in its current term, as is expected, disaggregated data will be essential for tracking the effects of that ruling in the years to come.”

    Recently, Murphy talked with The Chronicle about his research, the grip of aristocratic traditions on college admissions, and the intricacies of what he calls “a shameful practice.”

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Courtesy of James S. Murphy

    James S. Murphy

    Many experts predict that the Supreme Court will soon bar the use of race in admissions. If that happens, you write, it will be “absolutely necessary” for colleges to end legacy preferences. Why?

    One thing the Harvard case did was expose the influence of a range of admissions practices in college admissions, including legacy preferences. The other thing it did was make very clear just how important diversity is to highly selective colleges. That’s not to say other colleges don’t care about diversity. It’s just that it’s a more pointed issue at highly selective colleges, because the standards they set are very tilted in favor of wealth. And in American society, wealth is tilted toward white students. So it’s important to say that places like Harvard really have a strong commitment to racial and ethnic diversity. I don’t doubt that in any way whatsoever.

    One of the planks of the Students for Fair Admissions case was that Harvard hasn’t taken enough race-neutral steps to protect diversity or to enhance diversity on campus. While I think the SFFA argument about race is wrong, I do think they’re right that Harvard could go further. So if campuses are going to maintain the level of diversity they have, let alone enhance it, they’re absolutely going to have to chip away anything that gets in the way of diversity. And there’s just no debate about this: The numbers are there in the Harvard case, and they show clearly that legacy preferences favor white students.

    So a major shift in context — a land without race-conscious admissions — could have ripple effects.

    Six months ago, I don’t know that I thought that the likely outcome of the Harvard and UNC cases was going to have much impact on the use of legacy preferences. But as I thought about it, two things became apparent. One is that, from a practical perspective, colleges are going to have to look at anything they can to free up spots that are currently reserved for largely white, wealthy students.

    But then there’s the other ethical question, or the question of public perception. Come next June, if the Supreme Court says that colleges can no longer take into consideration a student’s race, which is an important part of a person’s whole being, it is almost impossible to imagine that colleges will then stand up and say, “Oh, but we’re fine with giving a preference to the children of our alumni.” It just becomes impossible, I think, to to say that without blushing, right?

    As you make clear in your brief, legacy preferences are unpopular, among the general public and among admissions leaders, who give them a major thumbs down.

    One of the findings of this study, not a big surprise at all, was that people hate legacy preferences. Seventy-five percent of Americans said legacy status should not be a factor in admissions, according to a Pew survey, which was reinforced by a recent Washington Post survey. The more surprising finding was the Inside Higher Education survey, where a large majority of admissions directors did not support the use of legacy preferences. So everybody hates them, even people working in colleges, except for alumni.

    I think the Supreme Court decision is going to give college presidents and boards the cover they need to do something that they know is the correct thing to do, and that they have probably wanted to do for a while. I don’t think that the presidents of Stanford, Yale, and Princeton looked at Johns Hopkins’s decision to drop legacy preferences and said, “Oh, what a terrible idea.” I suspect they were deeply jealous of their bravery.

    One eye-opening finding of yours is that 102 colleges have stopped considering legacy status since 2015, which, in most cases, seems to have happened rather quietly. Did that number surprise you? And what do you make of this trend?

    It did surprise me. The reason I wanted to look at that is because there’s a myth that legacy preferences are an intractable problem, that they’re so beneficial for universities that they’re going to fight to the death to hold on to them.

    The reality is I found that 80 percent of the 64 uberselective colleges — colleges that admit 25 percent or less of their applicants — do indeed offer legacy preferences. So when when Amherst did it, we were like, “OK, cool. But what about all these other liberal-arts colleges?” When Johns Hopkins did it, we were like “Cool. But what about all these other places?”

    Most places that drop legacy preferences don’t do it noisily. Going through the data, I identified 102 colleges, and a ton of them were state institutions. In many cases, the flagships had dropped the practice quietly, and did it with some thoughtfulness and consideration, because they had to tell somebody to go in and change the box from considered to not considered. That was really surprising to me, and it pushes back against this notion that this is an intractable practice, that we’re never going to get rid of it.

    Well, over 100 institutions have done so, they just haven’t all done so quite so loudly. I would like them to be louder and clearer about it. But that number also gave me hope that it would inspire similar confidence, especially in our public institutions. It’s shocking that any public college or university would provide a legacy preference. That’s a betrayal of their particular mandate to serve students in their state, where taxpayers are supporting them.

    Some college leaders have described legacy preferences as a means of building and sustaining a special kind of community over time, one that helps nourish the institution, maintain bonds, and so on. Duke’s president recently described this in terms of “family.” What’s your response to this rationale?

    It’s, at best, laughable. But honestly, I think it’s kind of grotesque because, as I write in the report, you’re talking about an institution that has a lot of wealth, that has a lot of power, that has a continuing influence on the broader society. When you confuse institutions like that with family, you’re not talking about college anymore, you’re talking about aristocracy.

    It’s baked into the mythology of America: We don’t believe in aristocracy. And we think education is, in fact, the antidote to aristocracy. This notion that by using legacy preferences, colleges are preserving a community or a family runs right in the face of that.

    I want to circle back to something you mention in the report: The tendency of some admitted legacy students who wonder if they deserved to get in. Does this reveal or suggest a truth about legacy preferences on a human level?

    There are many reasons to get rid of legacy preferences, and the basic question of justice and fairness is the main one. But I also think legacy preferences can be bad for the beneficiaries, and there’s been reporting on this. If you have been admitted knowing that your father and mother grandparents went there, and knowing that this helps you get in, there’s going to be lingering doubts. Do I belong here? Did I only get in because my parents went here?

    All college admissions officers, presidents boards and trustees want students to feel like they belong on campus, right? They want them to feel part of it. Let’s go back to that word “community.” The irony is that legacy preferences can undermine that very principle of community, of family, of belonging, that defenders of the practice are trying to invoke as a reason to use legacy preference. It can have the opposite effect.

    So it seems like the bottom-line question here is this: Knowing what we know in 2022, can an institution truly claim that it stands for racial equity and socioeconomic diversity if it gives preferences to legacies?

    I hope that is the question they ask themselves. And I hope the answer they arrive at is No. Because the correct answer is that you cannot possibly stand up for this preference if you also think your mission is to create a diverse campus that will benefit every single student on that campus and prepare them for the workplace.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Hoover

    Source link