Category: Diversity

Fisher vs. Texas… It’s all about the data

I just returned from a 3-day hiking trip in the Pacific Northwest with a couple friends that I’ve known for 30 years. It was an amazing time to catch up and unplug. Before we left we downloaded a GPS app, purchased a topographic map of the area, and checked multiple trail and weather reports. As we gathered our gear at the trail head, we talked to people coming out about the downed trees, river crossings, and overall conditions. We did all of this to try to understand what to expect, how to prepare, and what to bring in order to have a fun and safe trip. We all do this when we buy a car or are thinking about asking someone out on a date, right? We read reviews, we talk to friends, we “shop around.” For any important decision we always want moIMG_1607re information, not less. And so it goes too for the college admission process.

Fisher v. Texas 

If you have been reading or watching the news lately, you know the Supreme Court is adjourning for the summer. In advance of that, they released a bevy of rulings last week, including the Fisher v. Texas decision, in which they ruled 4-3 (with Justice Kagan recusing herself) to uphold the University of Texas at Austin race-conscious admission policy.  For those of utilizing holistic admission processes, this is important because it protects the current precedent (established in Bakke, Grutter, Gratz and Fisher 1), which allows for race to be one of many factors in the admission process.

One of Many Data Elements

In my opinion, however, upholding the ability to utilize race in admission is symbolic of the larger win. To be honest, it’s more about the data. Maybe someone should write a song called, “It’s all about the data, ’bout the data.” Not sure that quite has the same punch as “the bass,” but the concept is absolutely accurate. If you start to take away data points, you begin to deteriorate the effectiveness of a holistic file review process. The entire reason you go beyond a formulaic process (only looking at classes, grades, and test scores) is to get a full picture of each student while reading an application. Take away data elements and you begin eroding the complete picture. It’s like removing critical pixels in a larger graphic. First, you remove race, then gender, then parents’ marital status, and the list goes on.

In fact right now the White House is pushing a “Beyond the Box” initiative and is encouraging schools to sign the Fair Chance Pledge. This calls for “colleges and universities to help remove barriers… that prevent citizens with criminal records from pursuing higher education.”  One of the factors that they cite is that students are less apt to apply if these questions are on the form. I’d like to see the research on that because certainly if that is deemed to be prevalent, it’s a reasonable argument. However, in general, I like to see those questions and the responses. Questions we ask in committee are: “What did the student do… and when? What has happened as a result? Is there evidence of grit or lessons learned?  Did they write about that?” Most of the questions we ask are in hopes of finding evidence that the student has grown and will contribute and flourish on campus.

Seeing the Bigger Picture

Applications are built to form a picture, to tell a story, and to provide context. This is why we want to know what extra-curricular activities a student has chosen to pursue; it’s why we read the essays; it’s why admission officers or alumni take the time to interview students. We are constantly looking for history, background, and context.

Undeniably, race is a sensitive subject. And the court points to this stating, “it remains an enduring challenge to our Nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity.” The race/ethnicity of students, however, is only one facet of a much broader diversity goal that schools have—and what’s crucial to remember is why diversity in all of its forms (geographic, gender, extra-curricular, etc.) matters.

When students live and study alongside classmates from a wide variety of backgrounds, their experience is ameliorated. Rich dialogue and enhanced learning stems from differences. And those differences serve to improve classroom discussion and the overall campus ethos. Being respectfully asked “Why are you wearing that? Why do you believe that? Why did you jdiversityust say that?” in a college setting produces graduates who enter the workplace capable of being challenged and excited about being stretched to broaden their perspective. Ultimately, these graduates go on to bolster communities and enrich their workplace, because they are more aware of people’s differences, needs, challenges, and desires. They create better products, better policies, better communities, and a fundamentally better world.

So while many will take a myopic view of the Fisher result as being about race- it’s really about the data—and colleges need that to improve not only the learning environment on campus but, more importantly, our nation and workforce in the future.

Coalition Application

Solace in Uncertainty

Rick Clark
Director of Undergraduate Admission

Recently, as I was en route to visit a high school, the counselor called my office to let me know their AV system was down. She was concerned the malfunction would jeopardize my slide presentation. My assistant assured her, “Don’t worry. He’ll just speak from the heart.” That’s what I’m hoping to do today regarding The Coalition for Access, Affordability and Success.
If you are skeptical:

Understandably, there has been a good bit of speculation about whether this aspirational new platform will accomplish its goal of helping a more diverse population of students enroll in thriving universities across the nation. At this point, nobody can make that guarantee; however, the effort is noble, well-intentioned, and worth striving for, especially given the need to enhance socio-economic and geographic diversity on campuses and, ultimately, in the workforce.

If you’ve been walking around with one eyebrow raised since this press release, then kudos to you. Skepticism is part of what brings about excellence, innovation, and improvement. The people of St. Louis in the 1870s would not walk over the first steel bridge across the Mississippi until an elephant did.  Still, let’s commit to “benefit of the doubt” support and check back after a year — or better yet after three or four years (given that the platform aims to bring students into the process earlier in their high school experience) to see if participating schools have indeed been able to enroll more Pell-eligible or first-generation students.
I’m excited…

If you are in the college counseling or admission field, you believe in competition. We tell students all the time to compete against the curriculum: to push themselves and try new things, even if they sometimes fail, in order to be stronger, better, faster, smarter, and more successful long term.

So one reason I’m glad to see “The Coalition” option emerge is because it introduces a new mechanism for college search and entry, forcing those of us in the marketplace to respond, review, revise, and ultimately consider how we can make our product, communication, and results better. And who wins in that? Students.
I’m nervous…

Sure, I have some reservations about installing a new application system. What will this mean for staff training and multi-app file review? How can we effectively communicate to high school freshmen and sophomores through this platform and develop logical and distinct messaging based on grade, stage, etc.?

How about practical questions such as: What’s the schedule for application release, review, launch? How will we upload documents and which ones? When will students create accounts and who needs to be involved to help them do that successfully? What will be required for initial set up and maintenance? Even writing all this makes me sweat a little. So, yes, there’s concern on the college side about what this will mean for our processes.

But here’s what I keep coming back to as it pertains to change: Progress in history has always demanded disruption. And for me personally, when fear of a new process trumps the potential to provide access to currently underserved students and enhance institutional diversity, I’ll know it’s time to quit my job.
We’ve seen this before…

A few years ago, Georgia Tech migrated to The Common Application. That announcement was met internally and externally with skepticism, some heavy breathing, and a good bit of caffeine consumption. Many in Georgia and beyond felt the Common App was simply a ploy to increase applications or raise selectivity. Many on our staff accurately foresaw the work this would necessitate from IT, as well as  Institute Communications.Our goal, however, was to diversify geographically, in gender, in ethnicity, in curriculum, etc.

Two years later, those goals have been met — this year’s freshman class boasts the most women and African-American students in Tech history. Our first generation population is up, and our Tech Promise scholars are thriving. And the truth is, the collective and at times herculean effort required to implement the Common App bonded staff in our office and around campus. This is my hope for The Coalition too.

The Coalition for Access, Affordability and Success is not a panacea. Not all low SES students will even hear of this platform and option, let alone successfully use it to be admitted to a top tier school. Yes, it will create more work, and yes, it will create some confusion. But I believe it will all be worthwhile in our collective effort to serve students, improve the college academic environment, and ultimately serve our nation in producing a diverse workforce for the future.