Really? You Want to go there?

As part of the PCACAC AP Committee’s desire to proactively discuss ethics, we will be sending out monthly “case studies.” In these cases, we will offer a situation and discuss whether the issue is in compliance with NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practices (SPGP). Thanks to Dale Bittinger, Assistant Vice Provost for Admissions and Orientation at UMBC (MD) and PCACAC AP Committee Vice-Chair, for this month’s case. If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

April Case: A student walks into her counselor’s office after attending an admitted student day at Myperfect College and is excited to share how much she enjoyed the program.  The counselor replies that this surprises her as she really thought Myperfect College was not as academically rigorous and the students did not grow as much personally as at the student’s other choice, Herfavorite College.  The counselor goes on to state that Herfavorite College invited her to fly out and visit the college this past year and she could see many of her students enrolling there.  The counselor adds that Myperfect College has had a number of changes in senior leadership over the past few years and that some of the students from their high school did not have a good experience while enrolled at Myperfect College. 

Is this compliant with NACAC’s SPGP?

Discussion:  According to NACAC’s SPGP Mandatory Practices I A. 2, “All Members agree they will not use disparaging comparisons of secondary or postsecondary institutions.” Furthermore, according to the interpretations section of the SPGP, “Members will refrain from publicly disseminating biased, unflattering and/or potentially inaccurate information about secondary or postsecondary institutions, their admission criteria and/or their curricular offerings.”

While many think of this section of the SPGP applying to college admission officers recruiting students, it should be noted that section I A addresses, “All members.” Therefore, school and non-school based counselors should also be following this ethical guideline. The questions to consider are, “Was this a disparaging comparison?” and “Was this publicly disseminating that information?”

Conclusion: As always, this is not as easy as it first seems. While the counselor may have had good intentions to help her student, her negative inferences (“surprises her as she really thought…not as academically rigorous and the students did not grow as much…”) about Myperfect College would be unethical. However, another statement (“number of leadership changes”) is factual and is not necessarily disparaging. Finally, the concern that some students from the high school did not have a good experience is in a gray area—it is factual but infers a negative that may or may not be applicable.  

The AP Committee might have a difficult time considering sanctions as the comments were not made in a public forum. This situation, though, would provide an opportunity for a member of the AP Committee to discuss the issues with the counselor and help her better understand NACAC’s SPGP.

Want to learn more about similar Ethical Situations? Attend the “So What’s Ethical? Current Case Studies in Admissions Ethics” at the PCACAC Conference on Monday, April 18.

If you wish to file a complaint, please complete a NACAC Confidential Complaint form. All personal information will be kept confidential, but the information will be forwarded to the appropriate affiliate AP committee. This committee will follow up on the issue in order to help the college work fairly with all students. 

Want to review previous case studies?

View all of the Admissions Practices Case Studies here.

New Interactive Admission Practices December Case!

Want a break from reading applications or proofreading last minute essays? Want to be quoted in our Case Study review? Want a hot drink on a cold day? Participate in our first interactive Case Study. The AP Committee will send a $25 Starbucks Gift Card to the member who provides the best insight concerning the below situation.

Just a reminder, as part of the PCACAC AP Committee’s desire to proactively discuss ethics, we will be sending out monthly “case studies.” In these cases, we offer a situation and discuss whether the issue is in compliance with NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practices (SPGP). This month’s case was submitted by Casey Zimmer,  a member of the PCACAC AP Committee as well as Director of College Counseling of Samford School (DE). If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

December Case: Charlie, the College Counselor for his school, was quite happy for his student, Schroeder, when Schroeder happily walked into Charlie’s office on December 15^th to share the news – he’d been admitted to Peanuts U Early Decision! Schroeder had also been responsible in keeping his options open, and he had already submitted several other applications Regular Decision.  Charlie felt that Schroeder had played his cards pretty well, getting his applications out of the way while making a prudent decision to apply ED to his first-choice school, Peanuts. He reminded Schroeder that he was supposed to withdraw his other applications, and Schroeder went on his way to play the piano for the school’s holiday concert.

One day in late February, Schroeder came into Charlie’s office and asked him, “So Mr. Brown, have you sent my mid-year reports to my other colleges yet?” Alarm bells went off in Charlie’s mind. Schroeder shouldn’t be worried about his other applications or mid-year reports! He sat Schroeder down for a talk, and found out the scoop. The Financial Aid Award presented by Peanuts to Schroeder and his family was way off what the family thought it could afford to pay for Peanuts.

Schroeder had not officially withdrawn his other applications after he had been admitted to Peanuts, because they had not yet received a Financial Aid package. Once they did receive it in late January, the family quickly started filing appeals with Peanuts – and Schroeder started to get concerned about keeping his other options open – hence his question about his mid-year reports. Schroeder was unsure when they would get a final decision from Peanuts.

To complicate matters, Schroeder proceeds to ask him to send materials to two new schools not previously on his list.

What should Charlie do? What are the ethical issues?

Discussion and Conclusion: E-mail your thoughts to PCACAC AP Chair Jake Talmage (jtalmage@stpaulsschool.org) by December 21. Winner does not have to be a member of PCACAC, but should work at an institution that belongs to a regional ACAC or NACAC. The PCACAC AP Committee will pick a winning submission and send out a comprehensive discussion that will quote from the winning, and possible other, submission by January 15. Submissions will be viewed in terms of content, not creativity or writing style. Please remember, the discussion should include how NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practices (SPGP) relates to the issue.

 __________________________________________________________________________________

If you wish to file a complaint, please complete a NACAC Confidential Complaint form. All personal information will be kept confidential, but the information will be forwarded to the appropriate affiliate AP Committee. This committee will follow up on the issue. 

Want to review previous case studies? 

View all of the Admissions Practices Case Studies on The Anchor here.

Want to submit a case for consideration? Please e-mail the PCACAC AP Committee Chair at jtalmage@stpaulsschool.org

August PCACAC Case Study - Guidance for School Profiles

As part of the PCACAC AP Committee’s desire to proactively discuss ethics, we will be sending out monthly “case studies.” In these cases, we will offer a situation and discuss whether the issue is in compliance with NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practices (SPGP). The basis for this month’s case was submitted anonymously by a PCACAC member. All questions and allegations are treated as confidential; therefore, this case has been adapted to protect the identity of the professional who called seeking advice. If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

August Case:   The Director of Counseling at Prepared Institute, a regional magnet program, is meeting with the Director of Recruitment and Director of Communication to discuss updating the school profile. Even though it is a counseling office publication with the primary audience being college admission offices, the Recruitment Office uses the profile to attract students and the Communications Office supplies it to the School Board and other interested groups. The counselor has run the numbers and plans to simply update the class statistics. However, in the meeting, the other Directors ask, “Can we drop out some ‘special groups’ of students from the averages-- test scores, grade distribution, college list, etc. As you know, we have some populations—athletes, international students, etc.-- here and do not think they represent our typical students.” At first, the counselor feels that not including all students might be disingenuous; but, upon further consideration, thinks that “finessing” the statistics might actually help future applicants to college as well as to recruit future families. The counselor is torn about what to do and has called the AP Committee to ask for advice.

Does the NACAC SPGP provide guidance in this situation?

Discussion:  Over the past few years, the media reported on several colleges where the student profile had incorrect statistics—ranging from deflated admission rates to inflated test scores. But, the pressure to make a profile look better is not just directed at college admission offices; counseling offices and independent counselors might feel pressure to “finesse” their statistics for various reasons.

Luckily, as a professional organization, NACAC provides direction for such ethical quandaries. In this situation, there are two pertinent SPGP sections that can help the counselor determine how she might proceed. The more direct statement addresses test scores. According to SPGP Mandatory Practice III B 7, “All counseling members will report on all students within a distinct class (freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior) and subgroups, including non-native speakers, in the reporting of standardized test scores.”

Furthermore, Mandatory SPGP Mandatory Practice III B 1 states, “All counseling members agree that they will provide colleges and universities with a description of the school’s marking system, if available, that will provide some indication of grade distribution that may include the rank in class and/or grade point average.” Dropping select students from the profile may affect the rank in class and/or grade distribution (if reported) for a school.

While this case relates to a school profile, NACAC’s SPGP provides similar guidance to post-secondary professionals, too.  According to NACAC’s SPGP Mandatory Practice II B 11, “All postsecondary members agree they will initially report on all first-year admitted or enrolled students, including subgroups in the reporting of test scores. If data on subgroup populations are also provided, clear explanations of who is included in the subgroup population will be made.” Furthermore, in the Interpretations Section, the SPGP expands, “a. Postsecondary members will furnish data describing the currently enrolled freshman class and will describe in published profiles all members of the enrolling freshman class; b. subgroups within the profile may be presented separately because of their unique character or special circumstances.”

Conclusion: So what can the counselor do? She could use the SPGP as a guiding document to discuss the issues with her colleagues. Many people think of contacting the Admissions Practices Committee when they encounter a violation. However, the Committee’s purpose includes serving as an educational resource. The counselor could contact the AP Committee to discuss the proposed situation and possible SPGP issues. Such conversations, similar to complaints, are treated confidentially by the AP Committee.  Not only could the AP Committee be a sounding board for the issues, the Committee could support the counselor by providing additional resources (for example, copies of the SPGP or in-office training) for the counselor to provide her colleagues.

If you wish to file a complaint, please complete a NACAC Confidential Complaint form. All personal information will be kept confidential, but the information will be forwarded to the appropriate affiliate AP committee. This committee will follow up on the issue.

Want to review previous case studies?

   

View all of the Admissions Practices Case Studies on The Anchor here.

Want to submit a case for consideration? Please e-mail the PCACAC AP Committee Chair at jtalmage@stpaulsschool.org

October's Spooky Scholarship Dilemma Case

As part of the PCACAC AP Committee’s desire to proactively discuss ethics, we will be sending out monthly “case studies.” In these cases, we will offer a situation and discuss whether the issue is in compliance with NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practices (SPGP). This month’s case is an adaptation of one used last spring with a new wrinkle. If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

October Case: A student has come to see her counselor first thing in the morning. Visibly upset, the student says, “Mr. C, I don’t know what to do. I just received this letter about a scholarship from JustAnother U. They say that I have to deposit to keep the scholarship. But, I have not heard from my other colleges. What should I do?” The student passes the letter to the counselor, and the letter does say, “To guarantee your scholarship, please send your deposit.”

Is this situation compliant with NACAC’s SPGP?

Discussion:  One of the most common violations of NACAC’s SPGP relates to colleges not adhering to the May 1 Common Reply date.  According to SPGP Mandatory Practice II. B. 3., “All postsecondary members agree they will: permit first-year candidates for fall admission to choose among offers of admission and institutionally-affiliated financial aid and scholarships until May 1, and state this deadline explicitly in their offers of admission, and not establish policies nor engage in practices whose effect is to manipulate commitments prior to May 1.” In this case, the situation is unclear about whether the college is adhering to the May 1 common reply date because they are not following the direction to “state this deadline explicitly in their offer of admission.”

Lou Hirsh, National AP Chair, recently wrote, “One thing we are trying to impress upon colleges is that, apart from Early Decision, the only deposit/confirmation deadline that a college may cite is ‘May 1.’ That means that none of the following statements is acceptable:

• Congratulations on being awarded our Presidential Scholarship. Presidential Scholars have until March 15 to return the enclosed form to let us know that they are accepting their award. Tuition deposits must be submitted no later than May 1.

• Congratulations on your Presidential Scholarship. To accept their award, Presidential Scholars must submit a tuition deposit no later than March 15. Deposits are refundable if students cancel their admission no later than May 1.

• Congratulations on your admission. We would appreciate your submitting a deposit within 30 days of the receipt of this letter, but no later than May 1.

What is acceptable is a statement like this: "Since there are other students to whom we will offer this award if you decide to decline it, we would appreciate hearing from you as soon as you have made your decision but no later than May 1."

What still remains a "grey" area is housing. When a college cannot house all of its first-year students, we must grudgingly acknowledge that they may need to assign housing on a first-come, first-served basis (which, of course, benefits early depositors) or set a housing deposit deadline that falls before May 1.

On the other hand, when schools have sufficient housing and -- especially -- when schools have a policy of requiring first-year students to live on campus, then these early deadlines seem to have only one purpose, and that is to manipulate students into depositing before May 1.”

Conclusion: What should Mr. C do? In the short term, he or the student might want to call JustAnother U to ask for clarification about the deadline. The college may be following the May 1 common reply date. If not, Mr. C should also be prepared to ask for an extension to May 1.

Whether May 1 becomes an issue or not, Mr. C should also complete a NACAC Confidential Complaint form so the National Committee or Regional Committee can follow up with JustAnother U. The counselor’s and the student’s name and school will be kept confidential, but the information will be forwarded to the appropriate affiliate AP committee. This committee will follow up on the issue in order to help the college understand the importance of SPGP II. B. 3. and work fairly with all students. 

If you wish to file a complaint, please complete a NACAC Confidential Complaint form. All personal information will be kept confidential, but the information will be forwarded to the appropriate affiliate AP Committee. This committee will follow up on the issue. 

Want to review previous case studies? 

View all of the Admissions Practices Case Studies on The Anchor here.

Want to submit a case for consideration? Please e-mail the PCACAC AP Committee Chair at jtalmage@stpaulsschool.org

December PCACAC Case Study with the Winning Submission!

This is a follow-up to the PCACAC December Case. As you may remember, we hosted a competition to solicit replies concerning the following case. Below, please find the case, the winning submission and additional discussion. Watch for the January Case by the end of the month.

Just a reminder, as part of the PCACAC AP Committee’s desire to proactively discuss ethics, we will be sending out monthly “case studies.” In these cases, we offer a situation and discuss whether the issue is in compliance with NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practices (SPGP). This month’s case was submitted by Casey Zimmer, a member of the PCACAC AP Committee as well as Director of College Counseling of Samford School (DE). If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

December Case: Charlie, the College Counselor for his school, was quite happy for his student, Schroeder, when Schroeder happily walked into Charlie’s office on December 15^th to share the news – he’d been admitted to Peanuts U Early Decision! Schroeder had also been responsible in keeping his options open, and he had already submitted several other applications Regular Decision.  Charlie felt that Schroeder had played his cards pretty well, getting his applications out of the way while making a prudent decision to apply ED to his first-choice school, Peanuts. He reminded Schroeder that he was supposed to withdraw his other applications, and Schroeder went on his way to play the piano for the school’s holiday concert.

One day in late February, Schroeder came into Charlie’s office and asked him, “So Mr. Brown, have you sent my mid-year reports to my other colleges yet?” Alarm bells went off in Charlie’s mind. Schroeder shouldn’t be worried about his other applications or mid-year reports! He sat Schroeder down for a talk, and found out the scoop. The Financial Aid Award presented by Peanuts to Schroeder and his family was way off what the family thought it could afford to pay for Peanuts.

Schroeder had not officially withdrawn his other applications after he had been admitted to Peanuts, because they had not yet received a Financial Aid package. Once they did receive it in late January, the family quickly started filing appeals with Peanuts – and Schroeder started to get concerned about keeping his other options open – hence his question about his mid-year reports. Schroeder was unsure when they would get a final decision from Peanuts.

To complicate matters, Schroeder proceeds to ask him to send materials to two new schools not previously on his list.

What should Charlie do? What are the ethical issues?

Winning Submission: We would like to thank the numerous professionals from around the country, particularly the numerous members of Illinois ACAC, who took the time to think about and submit an entry to the December Case. The response was enthusiastic and the PCACAC AP Committee had a tough time picking a winner.  In the end, the following write up submitted by Samantha Schneider on behalf of the Towson University of Admission Office was selected:

“SPGP defines Early Decision (ED) as the application process in which students make a commitment to a first-choice institution where, if admitted, they definitely will enroll. While pursuing admission under an Early Decision plan, students may apply to other institutions, but may have only one Early Decision application pending at any time. Should a student who applies for financial aid not be offered an award that makes attendance possible, the student may decline the offer of admission and be released from the Early Decision commitment. The institution must notify the applicant of the decision within a reasonable and clearly stated period of time after the Early Decision deadline. Usually, a nonrefundable deposit must be made well in advance of May 1. The institution will respond to an application for financial aid at or near the time of an offer of admission.

We felt it was within the student’s right to re-consider the binding agreement if they are no longer able to afford the cost of attendance. Charlie is burdened with #1 of the member conventions: protecting the best interests of all students a primary concern in the admission process.  It didn’t seem like Charlie or the Schroeder family could foresee how far off the financial aid package for Peanut U was during the process but what type of financial research did the student complete before applying? Is there any documentation from the school indicating that they could promise a certain amount of aid (merit or need?). This may also fall back to the net-price calculator if scholarship calculations are included. From the school’s perspective, what language do they include on the website about the procedure for an ED student to question their financial aid? Must it be done by a certain date? The counselor is certainly in a tough spot, but it seems that he might have followed up with Charlie about his notifications or had a conversation with the ED institution and the student jointly. We would want Charlie to speak with the ED school before doing anything more with the other applications in question.”

Further Discussion: Since this case was posted in mid-December, there has been an active and lively related discussion on the NACAC Exchange. The AP Committee has been enthused to see the timeliness of the case; the responses that we have received, as well as the opinions on the NACAC Exchange,  demonstrate this issue is relevant and murky. In reading the various thoughts on this topic, we see multiple viewpoints and considerations ranging from college (from the ED college and others involved), student-counseling (high school, CBO or independent professional) and student/family perspectives. For example, some of the issues that affect each viewpoint include:

-          How does the acceleration of the application process (application creep) effect Early Decision? Is ED really early anymore? 

-          How does the advent of Estimated Cost Calculators effect this process? Do they provide enough accurate information ahead of time for families? What is a fair timeline for an ED college to get a package to a student?

-          With the FAFSA process opening in October, will more colleges package earlier? Will this effect students’ interpretation of “affordable”? How is “affordable” defined given differential packaging and tuition discounting?

-          What is the role of the counselor when this becomes messy? Gatekeeper not allowing more applications, student advocate or combination? 

-          How do other (non-ED) colleges react to a student withdrawing from an ED commitment? 

 __________________________________________________________________________________

If you wish to file a complaint, please complete a NACAC Confidential Complaint form. All personal information will be kept confidential, but the information will be forwarded to the appropriate affiliate AP Committee. This committee will follow up on the issue. 

Want to review previous case studies? 

View all of the Admissions Practices Case Studies on The Anchor here.

Want to submit a case for consideration? Please e-mail the PCACAC AP Committee Chair at jtalmage@stpaulsschool.org

Does She Love our College?

As part of the AP Committee’s desire to proactively discuss ethics, we will be sending out monthly “case studies.” In these cases, we will offer a situation and discuss whether the issue is in compliance with NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practices (SPGP). Thanks to Jake Talmage, Director of College Counseling at St. Paul’s School and PCACAC AP Committee Chair, for this month’s case. If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

February Case: A high school counselor is working in her office when the phone rings. On the other line is an admission officer from Cupid College who visited the school the past few years and has developed a strong professional relationship with the counselor. After exchanging pleasantries, the admission officer asks, “Can you tell me about Applicant Adele? I love her music, and think she would be a great addition. But, does she love our college? It would really help me in committee knowing that we are one of her top colleges.”

Is this situation compliant with NACAC’s SPGP?

Discussion: At first blush, this seems like an easy case—don’t ask students, or counselors, for a rank order. But delve a little deeper, and the water gets murky.

According to NACAC SPGP II B 2. “All postsecondary members agree they will: not ask candidates, their schools, their counselors or others to list or rank order their college or university preferences on applications or other documents.”  However, was this a ranking? Maybe, maybe not. Furthermore, this was done as a phone call—it is not an application or document. Is this ethical?

If we look to another section, we can find additional guidance on this issue. According to NACAC SPGP III B 5. “All counseling members agree they will: not reveal, unless authorized, candidates’ college or university preference.” Thus, by asking this question, the admission officer might have put her colleague in an ethical quandary which could be quite uncomfortable. Does the counselor truly know the interest of the student? Has she been authorized to release that information? Would the situation be as difficult if the question was worded differently (for example, “Is she still interested?” instead of “Does she love my college?”)?

Conclusion:  This is a grey area. Although not technically a breach of SPGP, the situation approaches SPGP guidelines for college admission officers and counselors. And, it could make counselors uncomfortable. Perhaps the college admission officer did not even realize the quandary being put on the counselor.

Even though this situation may not be in technical conflict with SPGP, the counselor could contact the AP Committee to discuss the issue. Even if there were not an allegation, the AP Committee might contact the Dean/Director of the college to let them know that a concern had been raised. The student, counselor and school asking the question would be kept confidential, but this could help educate the admission staff about the issues placed on school counselors by such calls.

Want to review previous case studies?

View all of the Admissions Practices Case Studies here.