ADMIT WEALTHY AND INTERNATIONAL AND FORGET ABOUT AVERAGE
JOE
At a time when universities across the nation are
struggling financially to survive, admissions directors have begun practicing
or in some cases have been practicing what some may consider a practical
solution while at the same time, others may see as favoring the rich. Who is to
blame for these new strategies? The state? The institutions? Controversial strategies
that admissions directors are using are described as well as the rise of using
agents to recruit international students. Implications of these new strategies are
considered regarding access to higher education and the ethics of the
admissions profession.
A disturbing trend that has been going on for a few years is
some admission directors are intentionally recruiting more students who can pay
more. A survey done by Inside Higher Ed revealed that 462 top
admissions officials nation wide, claim to target students who come from out-of-state,
because they pay more than in-state students, and international students. According to the survey, at public doctoral
and master’s institutions admissions directors admit that recruitment of
full-pay students is a key strategy rather than providing aid for low-income
students. To the extent, that at
doctoral institutions the gap was 47 percent to 40 percent, and at master’s
institutions, the gap was 45 percent to 38 percent. What’s more is that 10
percent of four-year colleges admit that the full-pay recruits have lower grades
and test scores than other applicants.
Admissions directors cite that they have been under
pressure for quite some time by their colleges to fill classes for economic
reasons rather than educational. Inside
Higher Ed has also reported that flagship universities have been recruiting
out-of-state applicants for years. The main reason is that public universities
can charge them more plus lowers the chances of raising in-state rates since
the well of the state has run dry. Robert Birgeneau, chancellor for the University
of California at Berkeley, hopes to send a message to the state by admitting
more out-of-state applicants. He hopes that he will anger California residents
and the state will once again contribute to paying for the University of
California.
By recruiting out-of-state and international students, this
strategy has yet to unfold. For example, admissions directors worry that
recruiting out-of-state students who can pay high tuition rates will
marginalize others; therefore, access to higher education will again only
benefit white wealthy students. Patrick M. Callan, president of the National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, agrees that if universities like
California only focus on non-resident students then the student population will
be less diverse. Similarly, issues concerning international students are companies
complaining that they will not hire international students due to visa issues, also
the concern of whether the international students will contribute back to their
alma maters as much as other alums, and an increase in communication challenges
with faculty and staff.
The survey also reported that 22 percent of four-year
universities are recruiting international students with the use of agents who
are paid in part on commission. Conversely, 33 percent who are not using agents
are considering doing so in the near future. Some agents do not have a good
reputation. Some have been known to assist international applicants to
fabricate information. Even proponents of the use of agents claim that they are
often dishonest, which is why there needs to be regulation. At least some
admissions directors are still holding on to the student affairs code of ethics
by supporting the policy by the National Association for College Admission
Counseling (NACAC) to bar the use of agents to recruit international students.
Finally, it seems that who ever has more money has
preferable access to higher education.
Where is the code of ethics? Is it not true that student affairs practitioners
are to abide by a code of ethics such as “do not harm” or “benefit of others.” It’s
a shame that we live in a time when admissions directors are losing control
over who they should admit. Also from the survey, here are some statistics of
the outside pressure they face: 28 percent claim that they experienced pressure
from senior-level administrators; 24 percent claim that they experienced
pressure from trustees and; 24 percent claim that they have experienced
pressure from the development office and big donors. Notwithstanding all this,
I am an optimist and I hope that admissions directors will redirect the current
trend by believing in their set values and once again promote educational
opportunity and diversity in higher education.
I concur with Dion, that there are new trends that indicate that higher education institutions are looking at recruiting students that are more “fiscally sustainable”. This is unfortunately the new philosophy of enrollment management offices based on a market based recruitment strategy.
ReplyDeleteNew admissions and recruitment strategies question equal access to higher education. Carnevale & Strohl (2011) state that our progress on access has been “bittersweet”. In a Chronicle article entitled “Our Economically Polarized College System: Separate and Unequal.” published on September 25h, 2011, they assert “America’s college system has become more economically polarized.”
Furthermore, polarization of the college system exacerbates the educational and resource gap among students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
In this specific example, out-of-state- students and international students are preferred because they provide higher yield rates for any institution, based on “capitalist market economy.”
However, the consequences of focusing only on economic profit and “financially sustainability” could be disastrous for higher education institutions in the long run.
The goal of public higher education institutions should continue to be providing access and educational opportunity to all students of our communities and society as a whole, regardless of their economic status.
I agree in principle with Dion and Aldo that basing student recruiting efforts simply to promote "higher yield rates" (i.e. more bang for the recruiting buck) is potentially a bad practice on the part of our national institutions of higher education.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe the issue is more complicated than at first glance, as intimated by the referenced article in Inside Higher Ed. and by the Survey of Admission Directors itself (see at: http://www.insidehighered.com/content/download/417008/4850399/version/1/file/9-20finaladmissionsreport.pdf ).
Yes, more colleges and universities across the Carnegie classification spectrum are targeting and pursuing full-pay students, including foreign students from China, Europe, and other regions. This is quite understandable, given that institutions of higher education throughout our nation have been suffering comparably substantial decreases in traditional sources of funding, including federal, state, and alumni giving. If this is so, and colleges and universities are to somehow maintain quality academic and student affairs services without making (more) drastic cuts to popular programs, then how are financially-strapped institutions supposed to make up the difference? Within such a context, it is perhaps not surprising to learn that many colleges and universities are putting more of an emphasis on recruiting full-pay students rather than providing financial aid for financially needy students.
I think the real ethical concern is not whether full pay students are pursued, but whether the pursuit itself is conducted unscrupulously. And whether the above-average financial return collected from full-pay students is actually reinvested in promoting the greater higher educational good (such as diverting some of this profit to supporting financially needy students and their admissions) instead being used for less noble purposes such as funding expensive out-of-town conference attendance on behalf of administration members, or hiring a more expensive football coach.
As Dino points out from the Higher Ed. article, increasing numbers of admissions departments are either already employing recruiting agents paid at least in part by commissions (22% of four-year universities), or considering doing so (another 33%) in the 'near future'. This of course opens the door to fraudulent admissions practices and so is a real concern. On the other hand, a majority of admissions directors (65%) report in the Higher Ed. survey that they support the barring of commission-based agent hiring even in the face of increasing institutional and external pressures to do so. Also heartening in the Higher Ed. survey was the fact that 99% of admissions directors continue to support the active recruiting of minority students even when their respective individual test scores fall short of typical standards, in order to continue promoting institutional diversity and access.
Meanwhile, the U.S. isn't the only nation actively recruiting full pay international students. The United Kingdom (especially), as well as Australia, Germany, France, and even China and Japan, are doing so as well (see http://www.topuniversities.com/studying-abroad/advice/recession-and-international-student-mobility ). And, as another article points out (http://www.economist.com/node/16743639 ), foreign nations like the United Kingdom not only recruit international students for the cold, hard cash, but also because such students tend to be well mannered, hard working, non-remedial, and add diversity to the local mix. So, there are more benefits associated with the recruitment of international students than merely economic, of course.
We can only collectively hope that the current and long-running economic downturn that has affected so many states does not worsen and thus create even more serious financial concerns for U.S. Higher Education.
PLEASE NOTE: I apologize for mis-spelling Dion's name as "Dino" in my comment posted above.
ReplyDeleteThis post adds to my growing concern that many colleges operate on a "what have you done for me lately" mindset. Instead of students selecting institutions that they believe will match their personal and professional interests, institutions are selecting students based on what they can offer the university. Does something seem backwards here?
ReplyDeleteAs noted in the post, I understand that enrollment personnel are constantly under immense pressure to bring in students to help balance the economic landslide that many institutions are experiencing. However, there has to be a better solution than penalizing students by decreasing the opportunities for those who can't afford to fund their education.
I agree with Michael that the funds collected from full-pay students should benefit multiple programs across campus (including helping students who could benefit from financial assistance). However, if institutions continue to embrace the idea of admitting students who add more financial stability to the university then it won't matter where the money is being utilized. We will have created and environment where the rich feed the rich and leave the rest of the students (who may be in greater need for educational opportunities) to fend for themselves.
I would encourage readers to look at this practice a little differently.
ReplyDeleteI am a huge advocate of making higher education more accessible. Those that know me can vouch for that. So, with that said, I have to defend what is happening to some extent.
Yes, this practice is happening everyday and I would be lying if I said that it is not happening to some degree on our campus. Are we admitting students differently based on economic privilege....no, the actual admission decision is not based on that at all. However, there has been a more concerted effort to recruit the more economically affluent student into the application pool. We have had no choice given the state of the world right now. With rising tuition, there is no other way to sustain and reach out to provide more access unless we have the "wealthier" student subsidizing on the back end. I don’t think this is unethical, at least not where I work. I think it is creative. We do get more "bang for the buck" by having a recruiter in an affluent school. While it is not specifically the more socioeconomically stable student we are looking for, it is the more college-ready, more prepared student we look for. But, we all know that those two go hand in hand. The more of those applicants we get, the more room we have for lesser prepared students (the admission term for that is "using the window"). An institution must have both the full-pay student and the financially needy student. As an institution, we can’t survive without the student that pays their own way. As a human, I could not sleep at night if we did not provide opportunity for the financially challenged.
It is a conundrum...but don’t fault the admissions leaders (not all of us anyway :) )