One
of my favorite catch phrases comes from a nearly-forgotten TV Western from the
1960s. The Guns of Will Sonnett
starred the legendary character actor Walter Brennan, and in every episode he
would make some outlandish claim, followed by the catch phrase—“No brag, just
fact.”
Last
spring I met with an admissions friend at an elite national university located
in the South. We were talking about how
the year had gone and he mentioned that the university had passed the 30,000 mark
in applications for the first time. No
brag, just fact. I asked if there was a
point where receiving more applications was no longer beneficial. “We’re already at that point,” he responded,
“but we’re under pressure from the board and administration to increase numbers
and quality every year.”
I
thought back to that conversation numerous times throughout 2012, whenever
there were news reports about colleges misreporting admissions
information. I thought about it in
August when an internal investigation revealed that Emory University
intentionally misreported admissions data for more than a decade, substituting
SAT and ACT scores for admitted rather than enrolled students as well as
inflating the percentage of entering freshmen coming from the top 10% of their
high school class.
Emory
was not the first time in 2012 that a prominent institution admitted to lying
about admissions statistics. In February
(before the conversation mentioned above) the Dean of Admissions at ClaremontMcKenna resigned after admitting that he falsely reported the College’s SAT
stats dating back to 2005. It was also
not the last time. In November George Washington University admitted
extrapolating and exaggerating class rank for incoming students, and in
December the American Association of Law Schools placed Villanova on probation
for two years after 2011 revelations that it had falsified admissions data.
The
Emory revelations bothered me most of all, bringing forth a flood of
conflicting emotions. These scandals
damage all of us in the college admissions/counseling profession, calling into
question our truthfulness and trustworthiness.
It reinforces the belief that college admission is a business ruled by
self-interest rather than a profession serving the public interest. At the same time I know and respect both of
the Admissions Deans in charge at Emory during the time when the
misrepresentation occurred, and neither fits the narrative of the rogue
admissions officer perpetrating fraud.
Both had moved to the secondary side, and both have left their jobs. In no way can I condone their actions, and
yet I hurt for both of them.
What
would lead experienced admissions officers at two excellent institutions like
Emory and Claremont McKenna to misrepresent data? It is easy to blame the U.S. News and World
Report college rankings, poster child for the myths that selectivity=prestige
and that the name on the diploma is more important than the quality of the
college experience itself. I have
criticized U.S. News in a previous post (in a loving, helpful way), but in
neither case would the changed statistics have led to a significant change in
ranking.
The
pressures are more subtle and substantial, coming from Boards, Provosts, Presidents,
and even bond-rating agencies. At one
selective medium-sized university I am aware of, a new provost opened his first
meeting with the admissions staff by announcing that the only agenda item was
how to increase the mean SAT score of the entering class. I have also heard
about an Ivy League institution worried that its bond rating might be lowered
after receiving 150 fewer applications just one year after a record admissions
year.
An
internal report at Claremont McKenna places the blame squarely in the hands of
a single individual, the long-time Vice President of Admission and Financial
Aid (at Emory, the Office of Institutional Research was also implicated). It concludes that he, “acting alone, compiled
and reported inaccurate SAT, ACT, class rank and application statistics,
starting as early as 2004.” The report
further states that “the College’s leadership did not direct, encourage or know
about the VP’s misconduct.”
The
report’s conclusions put Claremont McKenna in a long tradition of internal
investigations of other corporate and governmental scandals. Typically the
investigations conclude that the culprit is a rogue individual who acts alone,
with higher ups having no knowledge and bearing no responsibility. Maybe that’s the case both at Claremont McKenna
and at Emory. Occam’s Razor is a
philosophical principle that the simplest explanation is usually right, and
that would be the simplest explanation.
I
can’t help believing that broader institutional issues contribute to these
scandals. That’s why I go back to the
conversation I had back in the spring.
Claremont McKenna and Emory are outstanding institutions that attract
the kind of students that most institutions crave, but it’s not enough. Admissions
success becomes a burden. If our SAT mean is 1380, we must get to 1400. If we admitted 30% last year, we’ve failed if
it’s not 25% next year. No brag, just
fact. Call it Ivy Envy, call it the most insidious of the business practices
taking over higher education, call it crazy.
The
start of a new year is an opportunity for reflection and for resolutions. The
admissions statistics scandals were the ethical issue of 2012 for college
admissions. That can’t be the case in
2013. We may understand and empathize with the pressures our colleagues feel,
but college admissions can’t afford another scandal of this type. It is time to get our house in order. No brag, just fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment