Admissions

Guest Post: Five Questions for Colleges

Ed Policy — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:45:00 -0400

By Travis Reindl

Every year, colleges and universities send reams of data to the federal government, on subjects ranging from campus crime to research by foreign nationals. Yet, there's still a lot we don't know about our system of higher education. Congress and the executive branch bear some responsibility for this state of affairs, continually adding to an already massive and uncoordinated regulatory structure. But some higher education leaders are also on the hook here, having fought efforts over the years to bring more transparency to colleges' admissions and financial aid practices, as well as their performance in educating and graduating students.

This is no longer acceptable. Higher education is a major enterprise in the U.S., representing three percent of the total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employing more than 3.5 million Americans. Taxpayers also play a big part in this enterprise, contributing $21 billion toward federal student grants and billions more for research grants and contracts. Given that, it is troubling that we can't get better answers about who's getting into college, what happens to these students, and how much it costs to educate them.

As Congress and the Obama administration prepare to invest billions more in our colleges and universities, they should require colleges to provide better answers to the following five questions:

1. Who's getting in? At a time when major public universities are capping or cutting enrollment, high-achieving, low-income students are less likely to go to college than lower achieving, high-income students, and nearly three-quarters of Americans believe that qualified students are being shut out of college, we need greater transparency about who is making the cut. Colleges that receive federal student aid and have a selective admissions policy (i.e. anything other than open admissions) should be required to annually disclose the number and percentage of students admitted under special provisions, such as those who get a leg up because of their legacy status, or because of their athletic talent. The recent debacle at the University of Illinois, where admissions slots were traded as political favors, underscores why this is a timely question.

2. Who's getting institutional aid, and how much? As tuition rises and federal and state grants lose purchasing power, it is important to know how colleges are using their institutional aid dollars. Are they devoting their resources to expanding access by providing need-based aid? Or are they engaging in financial aid leveraging tactics to try to win the competition for the best and brightest, and in many cases, wealthiest students? We have some information about this from the U.S. Department of Education's National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), but a survey can't tell us what is happening at individual institutions. What NPSAS data do tell us, though, is that nearly one-third of students from families making $100,000 or more per year receive institutional aid, and the average award they receive is significantly larger than the average award for students from families making less than $20,000 per year. More comprehensive research is needed in this area.

3. How many students successfully transfer and/or graduate-on time or at all? Meeting President Obama's goal of regaining world leadership on the percentage of students who earn college degrees will require a major improvement in completion rates. But to figure out where and by how much we need to improve, we must have better data about what happens to our students. The information the government currently collects from colleges provides an incomplete picture of student success because it tracks only first-time, full-time students and fails to take into account transfer students. The administration has committed a quarter of a billion dollars of stimulus finding to improve postsecondary data, and hopefully some of that money will be used to either link state data systems or develop a federal unit record system so we have a better idea how students are progressing through our higher education system.

4. How much does it cost to produce a college degree? The dramatic price increases of the past decade beg the question of what is going on with respect to college costs. In other words, where is the money colleges are getting going? The Delta Cost Project, a non-profit research organization, is making progress on this front by conducting the first comprehensive analysis of higher education revenues and spending in more than a decade and by developing models for calculating cost per degree. Given the President's call for colleges to contain their costs as part of his push to improve attainment rates, the federal government should invest in more regular tracking of cost trends and in research on strategies for containing costs. Additionally, Congress needs to include cost, not just price, in its efforts to hold institutions accountable.

5. What are our graduates learning? In our knowledge-driven economy, not knowing our graduates' abilities in basic areas such as communications and problem solving leaves us ill-equipped to answer questions about the strength of our human capital and identify ways to improve it. Rather than restarting the debate about measuring student learning spawned several years ago by the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education (otherwise known as the Spellings Commission), we can take a smaller but still significant step. The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), administered by the Department of Education, provides valuable data about the reasoning and comprehension skills of our adult population. Unfortunately, the most recent data available are from 2002-2003, and not enough information is being gathered to do state-level analyses. Again, if the administration is going to make substantial new investments geared toward improving results, then spending a bit more to measure those results seems like a wise use of money.

In these difficult economic times, it is heartening to see the Obama administration putting its money where its mouth is with respect to investing in higher education. But without some better answers to questions such as the ones raised above, major new investments could be misdirected -- leaving the nation well short of the president's goal and the public more frustrated than ever with their colleges and universities.

Travis Reindl is the state policy and campaigns director at CommunicationWorks, a public affairs firm that specializes in educational improvement. Prior to joining the firm, he had 15 years of experience in higher education policy and advocacy. Most recently, he served as program director at Jobs for the Future, where he led a national initiative focused on increasing productivity in higher education. Before that, he headed the state policy analysis unit at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. He has written extensively on issues of college affordability, accountability, and governance. His views are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New America Foundation.

More Scrutiny Needed of the University of Phoenix's Recruiting Practices

Stephen Burd — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:15:00 -0500

At Higher Ed Watch, we recently called on U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan to open an investigation into allegations that the University of Phoenix, the country's largest chain of for-profit colleges, had deliberately tried to manipulate its cohort default rate. While he's at it, he should also examine the university's student recruiting practices.

In theory, this investigation has already been carried out. In 2004, a Department program review report found that the university had knowingly violated a federal law that bans colleges from compensating admissions officers on the basis of enrollments. The report blasted the university for fostering a high-pressure sales culture that rewarded recruiters who put the most "asses in the classes," including those of unqualified students.

Ultimately, the Education Department reached a $9.8-million settlement agreement with the Apollo Group, the university's parent company, to resolve issues that were raised in the review. The settlement, however, did not include any admission of wrongdoing by the corporation, and university officials continued to defend their practices. "If we were guilty of everything being said in that report, there's no way they'd be willing to reach a settlement or no way they'd be willing to sign a settlement agreement that says there is no admission of guilt," Todd Nelson, the university's then-president and chief executive officer, said in an interview with The Arizona Republic at the time.

Given that level of denial, it's probably not too surprising that things haven't changed that much at the University of Phoenix. At least that's the impression we got from reading internal memoranda made public last month (available on PACER) as part of a federal false claims, employment discrimination, and wrongful termination lawsuit brought against the for-profit college chain by Chad McKinney, a former recruiter at two of the university's San Diego campuses.

At Higher Ed Watch, we have no opinion on the merits of McKinney's case against the University of Phoenix regarding his employment status. However, we do believe that the case raises serious concerns about whether the university is continuing to defy the incentive compensation prohibition. Congress imposed this ban in 1992 as part of an effort to stop for-profit trade schools from actively recruiting unqualified students who could not benefit from the training being offered.

University of Phoenix officials say they are in compliance with the law. They claim to use an intricate matrix to determine the compensation of recruiters - evaluating them on such measures as job performance, judgment, communication skills, and customer service. But according to the lawsuit, the matrix is just "a guise." McKinney alleges in the lawsuit that "all the Corporate Defendants and management were truly concerned about, or took into account when calculating his adherence to the ‘matrix,' were how many students he was able to enroll into the university each month."

The internal University of Phoenix documents revealed in the case appear to bear these allegations out. Managers at the San Diego campus regularly sent e-mails to McKinney and his fellow enrollment counselors (EC's) prodding them to meet their enrollment quotas (for McKinney, it was admitting at least four new students a month), and warning them of the consequences of failing to achieve these goals:

12/19/06 e-mail from Enrollment Manager to McKinney's team

Let's blow January out of the water. Our budget is 48 lives...Some of you have reviews coming up and need January to be BIG...[emphasis added]

3/28/07 e-mail from Associate Director of Enrollment

These 6 EC's have taken over half the applications for the entire campus! These 6 EC's have taken more applications than the other 51 EC's combined. We have two more days. What are you going to accomplish this week? What are you bringing to your team, your campus, your next review? [emphasis added]

As part of his lawsuit, McKinney unearthed a document that lays out the "performance matrix" that the San Diego campuses were using to evaluate enrollment counselors. Under this matrix, job performance is judged almost exclusively on recruiters' success in bringing in new students. For example, the schools reward recruiters for being "motivated to achieve results independently." But this quality is determined solely by the recruiters' "consistency" in "clearing a minimum number of enrollments each month." For example, new employees who enroll three students per month earn "1 review point toward their overall performance evaluation." Those who enroll five students earn "2 review points." But those who fall short of these goals don't get any points. In addition, those who fail to admit more than one student a month are judged to be "unsatisfactory."

McKinney fell short of his quotas, and in March 2007, his supervisor sent him a letter warning him that he would face "disciplinary action" unless he improved his performance "specifically regarding appointments, applications, and starts."

3/13/07 "Discussion Memo" from the Enrollment Manager to McKinney

In the month of February 2007, you had 6 appointments seen, you took 5 applications and 3 of your students started class. This falls below meets expectations for your level.

Your matrices clearly state that as a level 1 your meeting expectation goal for appointments seen is 3.5 per week, applications taken per week is 1.5 and starts per month is 4..

As always, I am available to assist you in correcting your performance...however, understand that failure to improve your performance may result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination.

In May 2007, McKinney's pay was reduced, from $37,000 to $35,500, because he had failed to meet his quota of enrolling four students that month. Eventually, after complaining to the university's human resources department about the way he had been treated, he was fired.

The documents released as part of McKinney's lawsuit also show how the university's "recruit at any cost" policy encourages the school to lure in unqualified students. In one particularly illuminating e-mail to her staff in December 2006, the enrollment manager wrote:

Remember, students have to attend THREE nights or post THREE weeks in order to get START credit, which is what counts in the end.

In other words, all that counts is getting students in the door. It doesn't matter whether they are adequately prepared, as long as they are enrolled long enough to be considered a "start." Publicly-traded, for-profit higher education companies, like the Apollo Group, have much incentive to pump up their enrollment numbers. To keep their stock prices up and investors happy, these companies know they have to keep on expanding, even if doing so is not good for the colleges or their students.

The allegations in this case against the University of Phoenix are serious and the new leadership at the Department of Education needs to pay attention to them. And hopefully if the accusations are borne out, the agency will not let the school off the hook so easily this time.

Higher Ed Roundup: Week of October 13 - October 17

Ed Policy — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:30:00 -0400

Small Private Colleges Could Suffer in Credit Crunch

Baylor Pays Students to Retake SAT

Colleges Worried About IRS Questionnaire

NCAA Reports Higher Graduation Rates Among Student Athletes

Small Private Colleges Could Suffer in Credit Crunch

The credit crunch may be starting to hit small private colleges hard -- particularly ones that have miniscule endowments and rely predominantly on tuition payments to finance their operations, according to a report released on Thursday by bond rating agency Moody's. Many of these private colleges rely on variable rate bonds with interest rates that could spike if the credit market continues to dry up. With the deteriorating financial situation, banks are also more likely to ask for early repayment on these bonds, the report warns. While banks haven't started demanding accelerated payments yet, Moody' states, they will likely do so if the credit markets remain as tight as they have been. These higher-priced colleges could also suffer, the report states, if students shift in large numbers "to lower cost alternatives," such as state universities and community colleges. "We are not worried about the vast majority of colleges," John Nelson, the managing director of Moody's told Inside Higher Ed. "That message can't be lost. The vast majority of colleges are going to be fine. But for any of them to be in financial stress is kind of news."

Baylor Pays Students to Retake SAT

Baylor University came under fire this week after its student newpaper revealed that the institution had been providing financial incentives to incoming freshmen to retake the SAT. This fall, the institution began offering admitted freshmen a $300 campus bookstore voucher to retake the exam. Those students who raised their score by 50 points could receive a $1,000 discount on tuition. Nearly one-third of the incoming class took the university up on its offer. At first, campus officials defended the practice, saying that the financial incentives amounted to "merit aid." But admissions experts and other higher education officials and commentators criticized the university, saying it was trying to game its U.S. News & World Report college rankings, which take into account the average SAT scores of a college's incoming students. On Tuesday, the Baylor Faculty Senate condemned the practice as "academically dishonest." Yesterday, the university announced that it would curtail it.

Colleges Worried About IRS Questionnaire

More than 400 colleges are expecting a 42-page questionnaire from the IRS to arrive in their mailboxes soon, and many worry that the "compliance check questionnaire" signals more extensive regulation of their institutions. Two higher education associations -- the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) -- recently sent a letter to their members warning that the effort by the IRS "portends a significant shift in the way colleges and universities are regulated and governed." Responses by colleges to the questionnaire "will be used by the IRS to determine where tighter regulation is necessary and, in some instances, to initiate audits," the groups wrote. In addition, the IRS is expected to use the responses it receives to "serve as a foundation" for a new 990 tax form for colleges.

With those concerns in mind, the groups said that they planned to conduct their own analysis of their members' answers "in order to promote clarity and understanding in the higher education community, the general public, and for policymakers, regarding what these responses say about the college and university sector." According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who has been demanding greater scrutiny of higher education, said that if colleges were going to share the responses, he'd like to see them too. Policymakers and the public should not be asked to just accept the findings of a "higher education group funded study," he stated.

NCAA Reports Higher Graduation Rates Among Student Athletes

More college athletes are making it to graduation day, according to new data released on Tuesday by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The NCAA reported that 78 percent of Division I athletes who entered college between 1998 and 2001 graduated within six years. That's one percentage point higher than last year's data. The NCAA's "Graduation Success Rate" is higher than the federal graduation rates during the same period (64 percent for college athletes) because unlike the government figure, the association's doesn't penalize colleges for students who transfer out of school who are in good standing and rewards schools for students who transfer in to the institutions and graduate. Still, graduation rates for the most high profile college sports, such as men's basketball, continue to lag, with some schools graduating less than one-third of their players.

A Debate Over Legacy Students

Ed Policy — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:47:00 -0400

[Editor's note: While Higher Ed Watch was on break in August, USA Today ran a debate on its editorial page over whether the federal government should ban colleges from giving legacy students a leg up in their admissions' decisions. On one side was the newspaper's editorial board, which argued against government intervention. On the other was Michael Dannenberg, the founder of the New America Foundation's Education Policy Program and former editor of Higher Ed Watch, who argued that a full-fledged ban is needed. We have reprinted the debate in its entirety with one factual clarification regarding Notre Dame University included at the request of Mr. Dannenberg.]

USA Today's view: Let alma maters decide

A fair number of freshmen arriving at their colleges this week are legacies, a term that sounds faintly disreputable. Aren't these the students who get into top-tier colleges because their parents went there and donate heavily?

That's what the critics of admission preferences for children of alumni say, and those critics got a boost from research released earlier this month.

A paper by a Duke University sociology professor and a graduate student concluded that legacy students entered Duke with lower grades and had poorer grades the first year (before recovering). Not only did the Duke legacy students earn lower grades initially, they were more likely to be wealthy, white, Protestant graduates of private schools.

The study is bound to fire up anti-legacy campaigns. On Capitol Hill in recent years, some senators have threatened colleges with reporting requirements on legacy students or, worse yet, sought to revoke tax exemptions for gifts made by legacy parents.

The motives of the anti-legacy advocates are understandable, and if a college decides on its own not to give extra points to legacy applicants, more power to it. But bans on legacy advantages could trigger unintended consequences:

Reduced diversity.

Once government starts tinkering with the admissions process, there's no stopping it. If preferences for legacies are barred, so might those for minorities, athletes, tuba players or modern dancers. Colleges, not legislators, should determine their optimal mix of students, one that isn't necessarily based solely on grades and SAT scores.

Revenue drops.

States are dotted with regional colleges with limited national pull. These colleges lack the deep pockets afforded by the multibillion-dollar endowments found at elite universities. Encouraging the children of alumni, including alums who are steady givers, is an economic necessity. Denying colleges those donations would inflict serious financial damage.

Limited loyalty.

Colleges like legacy students for the same reason they like "early decision" applicants who list a college as their top choice and promise to attend if accepted. Students who really want to be at a college add spirit, carry on traditions and get involved in activities that benefit all students.

To date, only a few public universities have banned legacy advantages. At elite private colleges, legacy students make up as much as 12% of the freshman classes, although most legacies get only a modest edge and intense competition for admission makes getting in far tougher than it used to be. (Satirist Andy Borowitz suggests a LegacyPlus program to allow rejected Harvard legacies to "enjoy all of the perks of students who actually got into Harvard - except for the education part.")

At lesser-known colleges, which are worried about their economic survival, legacy admissions appear to be rising, say college counselors, and might make up as much as 30% of the freshman class.

It's easy to appreciate the unease about legacy admissions. But depriving colleges of the ability to shape their freshman classes as they see fit, as long as they abide by anti-discrimination laws, amounts to denial of an important academic freedom.

Dannenberg's view: Ban legacy preferences

There is no good argument for a legacy preference in college admissions. Legacies are less qualified and perform less well academically than their non-legacy peers. The preference is inefficient for fundraising, and it undermines the role of colleges as engines of socioeconomic opportunity. Schools should do away with it voluntarily, or Congress should ban it just like discrimination against racial minorities.

At elite institutions, typically one in eight students is a legacy. In many schools, there are more legacies than African Americans, Latinos or Pell Grant recipients. Notre Dame, where one in four students gets a legacy preference, has more legacies than African Americans and Latinos combined.

Harvard's legacy admission rate is 40%. Yet according to the Education Department Office for Civil Rights, legacies on average are "significantly less qualified" than their peers.

Elite colleges - with endowments such as Notre Dame's $6 billion and Harvard's $35 billion - claim the preference is "necessary" for fundraising. But students get a legacy preference even if their families haven't contributed a dime. From a fundraising standpoint, it would be fairer and more efficient to auction off acceptance letters on eBay than to give a legacy preference.

Colleges such as Yale claim the preference furthers a sense of tradition. That's the same argument used to exclude racial minorities, women and Jews a generation ago, not to mention justify racial segregation nationally.

Defenders such as USA TODAY hide behind the concept of "academic freedom." But academic freedom has to do with research and what goes on inside the classroom - it's not a blank check for discriminatory admissions policies. It's not as if legacies have an important perspective or special talent that contributes to the intellectual or cultural environment of a school.

The legacy preference doesn't reward achievement, doesn't promote diversity and isn't fair. It should be banned. The last thing colleges and universities should be doing is extending an extra helping hand to those already advantaged by birth.

Michael Dannenberg is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

Higher Ed Roundup: Week of March 24 - March 28

Ed Policy — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:44:00 -0400

Study Reports Record Congressional Earmarks for Higher Ed

Unforeseen Consequences from Changes in Texas Admissions Policies

Concern about Credit Cards on College Campuses

Study Reports Record Congressional Earmarks for Higher Ed

While many in Congress have decried the practice of pork-barrel spending, a new study reveals that U.S. lawmakers handed out $2.25 billion in earmarks for colleges and universities in the 2008 fiscal year, mostly for scientific research. The analysis, which was conducted by The Chronicle of Higher Education, found that spending on academic earmarks is up $300 million since the Chronicle's last survey on the subject in 2003, and about $1.75-billion since 1998. The number of institutions receiving earmarks has increased significantly too, up 25 percent from 2003, with the most going to Mississippi State University, which received $43-million for 30 such awards. Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, was the most frequent seeker of earmarks, followed by Senators Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Pete Domenici (R-NM).

Critics say that many colleges lobbied for earmarks to circumvent the more rigorous grant review process used by federal science agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Chronicle questions whether the money spent on these pork-barrel projects would have been better spent on the NIH, whose budget has failed to keep pace with inflation over the past several years.

Unforeseen Consequences from Changes in Texas Admissions Policies

A change in the admissions policies at Texas's public universities that was intended to increase minority enrollment and socio-economic diversity of the campuses -- without using affirmative action -- has not achieved its goals, according to several new studies presented at the American Education Research Association's annual meeting this week. The studies, which were conducted by the Texas Higher Education Opportunity Project, looked at the impact of a policy the state put into effect in 1999 that guarantees students admission to the public college of their choice if they graduate in the top ten percent of their high-school class. The state implemented this new policy after a federal appeals court in 1996 barred the use of race-based admissions in admissions at the state's public colleges.

Researchers found that the 10 percent plan did not lead to higher minority enrollment even though more black and Hispanic students were eligible for admission, suggesting that fiscal concerns and a lack of college-going history in their families may have prevented matriculation. Similarly, another paper found that there was not as much of an increase in socioeconomic diversity as expected at the flagship campuses, as the bulk of new applicants were top students from wealthier high schools.

Concern about Credit Cards on College Campuses

As credit card companies deploy more aggressive marketing tactics on college campuses, a new survey from the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups finds that more than two thirds of college students have credit cards and are using them in ways that put them at a perilous risk for increased debt. According to the report, 34 percent of students reported carrying a balance on their credit cards, the amount of which increased throughout their college years, to an average of $2,623 by the senior year. That amount increases to $2,785 for student loan borrowers, and to $4,116 for those with a history of defaulting on their credit card debt. Meanwhile, 24 percent of students say they use their credit cards to pay for tuition.

Soaring credit card use on college campuses has already attracted the attention of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who announced plans last month to investigate colleges relationships with credit card companies. Four-fifths of students surveyed by U.S. PIRG said they support stricter rules for credit card marketing, saying that they receive an average of five mail solicitations and four phone calls from credit card companies each month.

Roundup: Week of January 28 - February 1

Ed Policy — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0500

PHEAA May Pay $15 Million For 9.5% Loan Payments

The Department of Education has asked the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), one of the country's largest nonprofit student loan providers, to repay as much as $15 million in federal payments it improperly obtained by exploiting a subsidy program that guaranteed loan providers a 9.5 percent rate of return on government-backed student loans. The request comes two months after an audit by the Department’s own Inspector General found that PHEAA had improperly obtained $34 million in subsidy payments. The Department rejected these findings and suggested the $15 million price tag but is ultimately letting PHEAA decide how much it has to repay. A PHEAA spokesman suggested to The New York Times that the lender may end up with "zero liability." PHEAA is the first party in the 9.5 scandal to be held financialy accountable for its actions. In 2006 another lender, Nelnet, was caught with $278 in improperly obtained Department funds. The Department asked for the money back, but then let Nelnet off without paying anything. In light of Nelnet’s free pass, Rep. George Miller, the California Democrat who is chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor, called the PHEAA request "a step in the right direction."

25 HBCUs Send Letter to House Ed Committee in Favor of Default Rate Change

The presidents and chancellors of 25 historically black public colleges and universities sent a letter on Tuesday to the leaders of the House Education and Labor Committee supporting a provision in a bill reauthorizing the Higher Education Act that would extend the window the federal government uses for measuring student loan defaults from two to three years. By sending the letter, which was also signed by the American Association of State Colleges, the leaders of these colleges sought to undercut arguments being put forward by for-profit college lobbyists -- who are vigorously opposing the amendment -- that historically black colleges would suffer if the provision is enacted. "This amendment will provide more meaningful and accurate information that will help institutions, lenders, and the Department of Education help students avoid student loan default," the black-college leaders wrote. "Default is avoidable, and we know that student borrowers usually default because they are not aware of all the student loan repayment options afforded to them under the law." The House is expected to take up its version of the Higher Education Act legislation next week.

Sallie Mae Settles

Sallie Mae has reached an agreement with its onetime buyers, ending a months-long legal battle and injecting some needed credit into the embattled lender. As a result of the settlement, Sallie Mae dropped a lawsuit it had filed against a consortium of potential buyers — including Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and the private equity firm J. C. Flowers & Co. — after they backed out of the proposed $25 billion buyout deal in October. As part of the agreement, the consortium will refinance about $30 billion of Sallie Mae’s debt. The settlement is good news for the financially-troubled lender, which posted a $1.6 billion loss for the fourth quarter last year and recently announced it will cut back on its "subprime" student loans.

Asian Americans, Not Whites, Gain When Affirmative Action Axed

Asian-Americans, not whites, gain the most when affirmative action is eliminated from college admissions processes, according to a forthcoming study (summarized in the Chronicle of Higher Education, subscription required). Using enrollment data from 1990 to 2005 at the University of Florida, the University of Texas at Austin and the University of California campuses at Berkeley, Los Angeles, and San Diego, the study found that enrollment of blacks fell by up to 50 percent after the schools eliminated race as a factor in admissions decisions. Asian-Americans, the same data shows, filled four out of every five spots previously held by black students. For example, at UC-Berkeley, enrollment of Asian-Americans rose from 37 percent in 1995, the year before a ban on affirmative action went into effect, to 47 percent in 2005. The study will be published next week in InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies.

Minority Recruitment: Athletics Success, Admissions Failure

Lindsey Luebchow — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:00:00 -0500

Diversity and minority recruitment are hot button words in most four year college admissions offices. There's congratulations when enrollment demographics show greater racial diversity and consternation when minority numbers drop.

But are college admissions office recruitment efforts working? Colleges will, in a knee-jerk fashion, say: yes, look at our racial and ethnic percentages! College access for minorities is a reality here! But how much is minority recruitment in admissions offices really contributing to the diversity of college campuses?

Unfortunately, at some Division I schools, not much. The black-white diversity on many campuses is not always the result of better minority recruitment. It’s often the result of athletics, and in particular, football.

Inside Higher Ed analyzed data from the NCAA and found that at 46 colleges (of the almost 330 colleges that participate in Division I athletics) athletes comprise at least a third of the black male student population. At 96 schools, athletes comprise at least 20 percent. Compare that to the percentage of all male students who are athletes: 3 percent.

The concentration of athletes in the black male population at public universities in predominantly white states and at smaller elite institutions with high admission standards is particularly striking. For example, at Oregon State University, 46 (35 football) of 122 black male undergraduates, or 38 percent, were athletes. At Wake Forest University, 69 (53 football) of 128 black male undergraduates, or 54 percent, were athletes.

What’s troubling about these statistics isn’t the large number of black student-athletes; it’s the low number of black non-athletes. Minority athletic recruitment is a well-oiled machine, and coaches do a great job recognizing potential in black athletes and providing them with a path to access higher education. (Of course, the issue then becomes, are these schools actually treating these players like students and supporting their academic development, or are they using them as professional money-makers?)

The problem arises when athletic recruitment is used as a substitution for minority recruitment in the non-athlete student population. An admissions office can tout the racial diversity of its student body as a sign of minority recruitment success when in reality it is simply masking its own failures with the athletic department’s success.

This "masking" could become a strategy at schools with large endowments who—in response to criticism from Higher Ed Watch and Congress that they are hoarding their wealth—have been promising to spend more of their money on efforts to increase both socioeconomic and racial diversity. When these schools report their diversity numbers without mentioning how many of their minority students were recruited for athletics, we don’t get a true picture of whether their academic minority recruitment strategies are producing results.

Unfortunately, the NCAA does not collect data from the Ivy League because they don’t give athletic scholarships, so we don’t know the percentage of black males who are athletes at some of the wealthiest schools. But it’s likely that their student populations are similar to other top-tier, wealthy schools like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, and Notre Dame.

It’s important that schools are held accountable for their recruitment of non-athlete minorities. Many young black males believe that their only path to success is through athletics. If colleges don’t actively recruit them for academic achievement and potential, that perception becomes a reality in many high schools throughout the country.

And admissions offices should take note—there are lessons to be learned about recruitment from athletic departments. Coaches and their staffs are highly successful at finding athletic talent (and the potential for talent) in all types of places. They scour the country looking for students in communities across the socioeconomic spectrum, including in many places not normally paid attention to by the traditional higher education community. Admissions offices should communicate with athletic staff and consider how they can replicate successful recruitment models.

Minority recruitment takes money, time, and new ideas. Many wealthy schools are promising to revamp their recruitment efforts—we just need to make sure those efforts are coming from both the admissions office and the athletic department.

Replace the SAT

Ed Policy — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:00:00 -0400

In August, the College Board announced that for the first time since the early 1990s average SAT scores in reading and math had declined two years in a row. The announcement caused hand wringing in the news media and among pundits. Have students' scores dropped because…

Note: This post pre-dates Higher Ed Watch's shift to a new publishing system. For the complete original post, including any comments, please click here.

Making Wealth Work

Ed Policy — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:00:00 -0400

Last week, we discussed the paucity of low-income students at the country's wealthiest colleges and universities. We offered a proposal that would require the richest private colleges to devote a portion of their yearly endowment income to help increase the socioeconomic diversity of their students. Some might argue that there aren't enough qualified underprivileged students…

Note: This post pre-dates Higher Ed Watch's shift to a new publishing system. For the complete original post, including any comments, please click here.

When Work Doesn't Pay

Ed Policy — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:00:00 -0400

Financing a college education isn't easy for anybody these days, but it's an especially Herculean task if you're a working-class student living paycheck to paycheck. The obstacles to attending college are high, and the more you have to work to support yourself and your family, the less help…

Note: This post pre-dates Higher Ed Watch's shift to a new publishing system. For the complete original post, including any comments, please click here.