College admission is rapidly evolving in ways that challenge professionals to reevaluate practices that have been historically accepted in the field. Additionally, these forces are driving institutions to consider explicit admission practices that impact college equity and access. As a result, admission professionals are thinking more holistically about students in the selection process by including factors such as local environment and character traits in association with traditional measures of academic preparedness.
Given this scrutiny, there is an emerging recognition that many of the measures used to assess qualifications for admission to college have inherent limitations or flaws. Though a significant amount of research on college admission exists, there is also an acknowledgment that this field is not a perfect science nor is it perfectly predictable. Yet, the perceived stakes in gaining admission to a selective college remain high.
The postsecondary education world is a complex, multifaceted enterprise with many participants and forces at play. There are situations where people and institutions may test the ethical boundaries of the admission process—either deliberately or unintentionally. Just recently, the Varsity Blues scandal brought national attention to the college admission process and the way individuals will act to affect selection decisions. A fundamental question for the profession is whether, in our actions, we keep faith with what we believe is ethical, moral, and right.
Because the admission process and its outcomes are laden with high expectations, we must consider how we conduct ourselves both now and into the future. Of course, professionals in every field wrestle with similar questions, but our world is particularly complex. College admission is a system of interconnected stakeholders, events, and roles, and admission leaders are often confronted with conflicting goals and political crosscurrents that can create ethical issues and dilemmas.
Fortunately, our shared organization, NACAC, has set forth a guide to ethical practice. The guide is a working document that addresses ethical issues such as truthfulness, confidentiality, educational equity and access, civility, transparency, and standards pertaining to the recruitment and selection process. In reflecting on the current state of college admission, we must think critically about our actions and priorities. Most importantly, we must ask if we can do better and how potential improvements will affect all parties in the process of admitting students to college.
In addressing these questions, we need to acknowledge the myriad stakeholders involved in admission. They include students, parents, secondary schools (including college placement staff), testing agencies, admission consultants, colleges and universities (including admission staff, boards, faculty, and alumni), professional organizations, private vendors, and governments (local, state, and federal). Each constituency has a stake in college admission and can influence the admission process.
We know that colleges and universities must operate like other successful organizations, with effective management, balanced budgets, and accomplished goals. However, problems can arise when admission priorities are altered to meet institutional needs. For example, an institution may seek students who can contribute to the success of a team or program (e.g., athletics or performing arts); grow financial resources (e.g., donors or legacy); increase a student profile (e.g., historically underrepresented); or expand goals (e.g., headcount or academic program offerings) but may also present identifiable gaps in institutional fit. This situation is exacerbated if the college or university lacks bridge programs to facilitate student growth and achievement. Such action reflects an institution’s desire for recognition but lacks appreciation of the potential toll on a student’s ability to succeed and persist to graduation. As such, admission decisions should align with core values as well as institutional goals.
We also experience students and parents who attempt to sway the college admission process for their own benefit. Parental motivations can be more self-serving than child-focused. The phenomenon of family branding, for example, implies getting one’s child admitted to a nationally branded institution with the purpose of looking good within a social circle.
Our process is dependent upon a student’s honesty. Yet, we see examples of students cheating on standardized tests or participating with parents and others in schemes to manipulate admission selection. All too often, we see students and parents seeking access to institutions they consider prestigious over placement into other excellent colleges and universities better equipped to facilitate student success.
For all these reasons, we need to understand what a better college admission process means and what it entails. If nothing else, college admission must be perceived to be ethical, transparent, and fair. Collectively, we must encourage students toward colleges and universities that match their abilities and aspirations and where they are likely to experience success. In doing this, we must also think broadly about the capacity of individual students. Fortunately, there are many sources of information for colleges and universities to identify and consider when making an admission decision. A holistic admission process encourages the engagement of a wide array of evidence in a consistent and valid manner. This situation, of course, brings complexity to the decision process.
We know, too, that these sources of information have inherent limitations. Standardized test scores and letters of recommendation are known to be influenced by socioeconomic status. The depth and breadth of academic rigor accessible to a student is dependent upon institutional resources. The number of Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate classes offered by high schools is tied to the capacity to support such rich curriculums. Without equitable funding, not all students have access to curricula of high quality. Even in the same school, the depth of course content and grading practices can vary. Research suggests that personal interviews or extracurricular activities, including leadership roles, may be biased toward extroverted personalities and miss the contributions and potential of more-introverted students.
College admission is a system where multiple actors can influence outcomes, and decisions are dependent upon assessments that may have limitations or flaws. Improvement in the college admission process is a timely and necessary goal.
Holistic admission, specifically the elevation of character in the selection process, is an avenue for students to better represent themselves to colleges and universities. Numerous admission offices across the nation, along with innovative organizations such as Harvard’s Making Caring Common project, Coalition for College, the Common App, and the Character Collaborative, are furthering the consideration of character in college admission. To better serve students, it is critical that we pursue a path of maturing holistic admission into a practice with tested and accepted standards.
More and more colleges are communicating to their constituencies that they are looking for students of character, defined according to each institution’s norms and objectives. This implies that an institution has declared that particular elements of good character are fundamental to what it stands for and may serve as standards by which it will carry out and evaluate its work. This stance also reflects research showing that character attributes are related to success in school, work, and life.
Holistic admission looks at a person in totality as opposed to a limited number of indicators, particularly quantitative data points. This approach signals a determination to better understand not only a student’s academic profile but also their character strengths, while acknowledging that character is neither easily assessed or static. For students, this signaling encourages greater investment in their personal growth as well as the opportunity to demonstrate to colleges the ability to make contributions to the campus community as well as the world beyond.
In adopting a more holistic, character-based approach to admission, institutions must also model the behaviors desired in students. When colleges assess students for evidence of service, honesty, curiosity, perseverance, respect for others, kindness, and integrity, these qualities should be demonstrated in the way offices of admission do their work. In fact, there are several dimensions to ethical action in implementing holistic admission.
First, the decision to admit means a college believes a student possesses the ability to be successful at the institution—academically, socially, and personally. There is never a guarantee, but a strong sense of confidence must prevail in the admission decision. There is also an acknowledgement by the college that if the admitted student has deficiencies in her or his academic or personal readiness, the resources exist on campus to bridge these gaps. To admit for any other reason burdens a student unfairly and does a disservice to both the institution and the student. As such, an admission decision represents an institution’s intention to act in an ethical manner.
Second, in holistic admission, there is an obligation to employ a wide array of evidence in a consistent, fair, and valid way. There are many sources of information available to colleges and universities in the admission process: 1) academic indicators such as high school grades, strength of curriculum/academic rigor; 2) standardized test scores, if submitted; 3) letters of recommendation; 4) student essays; 5) personal interviews, if available; 6) extracurricular involvement and engagement; and 7) submitted portfolios, if requested. Offices of admission must use these indicators in a thoughtful, disciplined way to assess a student’s fit with their first-year class and the culture of the campus. This acquisition of information supports annual evaluations of selection practices to ensure effectiveness in serving both institutions and students.
An acknowledgement in the admission process of what matters for selection should be communicated to prospective students.
Without such a statement, students are left to believe that they need to bring a portfolio that demonstrates mastery in all dimensions to the application process. The mental pressure felt by students to be accomplished in every conceivable dimension is unhealthy and unproductive. Colleges and universities should encourage a student’s demonstration of genuine interests as well as their accomplishments. Otherwise, assessment of institutional fit is compromised. In response to a student’s submission of materials, admission teams must work hard, explore deeply, filter out biases, manage distorting indicators, and read applications with consistency across applicants.
In light of the above, we know that incorporating character traits into a holistic admission process adds complexity and challenge. Admission officers, for example, have an obligation to employ tools and methods for identifying and assessing these traits to distinguish fairly among students. Moreover, a college must be transparent about the importance of character in admission and indicate the traits that are sought. These traits should be communicated across the campus community and, of course, be aligned with an institution’s stated mission and vision. By communicating what character traits are important and how those are identified in the admission process, the selection process becomes more transparent and credible.
Given the complexities of holistic admission and the desire to elevate attributes of character in admission, several specific strategies are important:
1. Students must be encouraged to put forward the most complete and honest presentation of themselves.
This is not an acceleration toward more intense competition in the application process, but rather a reassurance that offers of admission are made to facilitate students’ ability to find best-fit institutions. The review of multiple reference points about a student, both quantitative and qualitative, enables a summation allowing for greater confidence in the admission decision.
2. Institutions must devote the time, energy, training, and resources to read and assess each student in a comprehensive, fair, and empathetic manner.
A more holistic submission of information allows for a truer assessment by increasing data points for review. However, with a likely increase in workload and a greater need for expertise, it is critical to train readers to be both efficient and effective in understanding and interpreting what the student has presented. Having multiple readers devoted to each application offers some assurance that full consideration was granted every student and that consistent evaluation rubrics were used.
3. Colleges and universities should strive to understand and define a student body that both fits their institutional values as well as ensures that students are likely to succeed academically, socially, and personally. Furthermore, institutions should publicly state the traits valued in their student body.
In sharpening their overall enrollment aims, institutions must convey this information to prospective students in a consistent manner. This step toward increased transparency leads to more efficient and effective matching in the college admission process. As institutions better articulate traits valued in their student body, the more distinct colleges and universities become, allowing for students to differentiate and self-identify best fit.
In sum, the enrollment profession must advance the knowledge and practice of holistic admission. Assessment points, including grades, academic rigor, standardized test scores, letters of recommendation, essays, interviews, activities, and even portfolios, need assigned value and shared understanding among all players in the admission process. Ultimately, we believe holistic admission will improve the admission process, advance the educational experience for students, enhance the ethos and culture of college campuses, and provide improved outcomes for students, colleges, and the world at large.
As greater emphasis is placed on character in the college selection process, admission professionals must demonstrate the same traits as desired in the students they seek to enroll. This means admission professionals must strive to do better and act ethically as they serve both their own institutions and student populations.
Authors’ Note: The Character Collaborative is a national organization of like-minded enrollment leaders that includes 74 member institutions and 200 active participants. Its goal is to influence school and college admission practices to reflect the significance of character strengths in attaining success in school and work.
The Character Collaborative is committed to working with admission and enrollment professionals in support of these strategies and goals. Through member-initiated courses, podcasts, workshops, publications, and collaboration with NACAC, the Character Collaborative provides the tools and a network to assist professionals in the development of consistent and valid processes that factor character attributes into the admission equation.
More information on the Character Collaborative can be found at www.characteradmission.org.
David Holmes is the executive director of the Character Collaborative.
Thomas Bear is the board chair of the Character Collaborative and vice president for enrollment management at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology.