Monday, January 28

Dr. Jerry Lucido opened up the morning by recognizing the sponsors: College Board, ACT, Texas IB Schools, the USC Rossier School of Education, and InitialView. Their support of this conference is very much appreciated. Lucido presented the mission of Rossier with this video. Additionally, he briefly shared an overview of the USC Center for Enrollment Research, Policy and Practice. Next, he introduced Dr. Julie Posselt, who shared her presentation: Does Whiteness=Meritocracy in Admissions.

Session 1. Does Whiteness=Meritocracy in Admissions?

Julie Posselt, University of Southern California

Posselt CERPP 2019 Presentation

Dr. Posselt’s presentation began with an image of a fish and noted that it does not know water until it gets out of it. Reading books, articles, etc., give us the opportunity to step out of the “water” that we are in. She notes that it is difficult to see how much whiteness is embedded in our system. Meritocracy rests on what appears to be neutral condition, but that is not the case.

What is whiteness? She describes whiteness as a cultural quality that relates to the assumptions, privileges, and benefits that accompany the status of being white and implicitly characterizes organizations, products and institutions (established law, practice, or custom) that were created by and for white people. It is in the nature of institutions to resist change. White people benefit from the fact that the institution is there and serves to reproduce itself.

Posselt next described the tenets of Critical Race Theory. Those tenets include:

• Racism is endemic and institutionalized in the fabric of society
• Claims of meritocracy and liberalism must be questioned
• Intersectionality and interdisciplinarity
• Attention to history and experiential knowledge of people of color
• Civil rights laws cannot assure racial equity.

Dr. Posselt continued by describing the three ways that whiteness is embedded in admissions, including:

• Racialized metrics
• Judgments of “fit” that privilege white interests
• Social identities and biases of (mostly white) decision makers

Racialized Metrics

Using the GRE as a case study, Posselt shared data related to GRE performance. Asian American, White, and males are the top performers in physical, life sciences, business, social science, humanities and arts, education, and “good students” as identified by GPA. Similar patterns exist with SAT math, 8th grade math, and 4th grade math scores. A look at who is living in poverty demonstrates that White and Asian students continue to be at the top. What differences explain these disparities? Differences in educational access at an early age and stereotype threat (and stereotype lift for White and Asian students) contribute.

Dr. Posselt next presented two student profiles (see “Pop Quiz” in presentation). She asks, who would you admit and engaged the audience in a very lively discussion. In folder A, the GRE-Q Score was 740 (80%). In folder B, the GRE-Q score was 800 (perfect). From there, Dr. Posselt shared the Guide to Use of Scores from ETS, noting that the score is an inexact measure and that in essence, the two scores were equal, given the standard error of measurement (60 points).

The conversation turned toward holistic review and “fit”. But “fit”, Posselt suggests, can inherently privilege Whites. She noted the intra-racial discrimination highlighted in the Thornhill (2018) study. They did an audit study in which they sent four different types of emails to 517 white college admission counselors: two were not racially salient, one described racial unity, and one was anti-racist. Similar to this study, in her own research Posselt found that faculty were very reticent about applicants of color (and white women) who they thought might “rock the boat”, “come with a chip on their shoulder”, and “have an axe to grind”. Please see the presentation for an example of this dialogue.

Implicit Biases and Identities

Posselt notes that we all have blind spots and biases. Our assumptions tend to be both racialized and inaccurate.She points to the Milkman study (2015) in which they sent emails to 6,500 professors in which the emails were the same except for the names on the bottom. Professors responded significantly less often to prospective students whose names suggested that they were Black, Latino, Chinese, Indian, or female.

Trix and Psenka (2003) looked at letters of recommendation written for men and women. Letters for women were shorter and less robust in terms of how the author knew the applicant, concrete references about the applicant’s records, evaluative comments about their traits or accomplishments, etc. A chart in Dr. Posselt’s presentation presented the differences side by side (see presentation).

Reviewer identities also matter, please see slide on the Bowman and Bastedo (2018) study of 311 admissions officers.

Posselt returns to her original question: Does Whiteness=Meritocracy in Admissions? She answers: In important ways, YES. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Some recommendations:

• If you are using test scores, know how to interpret them properly, then establish systems for ensuring everyone involved is doing so.
• Control the weight of test scores at all stages of the review process
• Remember the range of factors that contribute to a student’s score

Posselt encourage holistic review that is:

• Comprehensive
• Systematic
• Contextualized

Strategies to reduce implicit bias:

• Devote adequate time
• Avoid premature ranking
• Use a rubric or other evaluation form
• Be transparent: What criteria are you using? Are they right?
• Select diverse groups for review
• Be accountable. Be prepared to explain your decisions.

Dr. Posselt closes by asking, “What would it take to disrupt the inherent whiteness of meritocratic admissions?”

• De-emphasize or do not consider student qualities in which whiteness has demonstrated advantages
• Check yourself! What impresses you–why? What turns you off–why?
• Change who runs admissions and reviews files
• Think systemically and work across units

Julie Posselt is Assistant Professor of Education at the University of Southern California. She investigates institutionalized inequalities in graduate education and academic disciplines, working in research-practice partnerships aimed at rethinking the norms and practices by which students are admitted and educated. Her book, Inside Graduate Admissions: Merit, Diversity, and Faculty Gatekeeping was published by Harvard University Press in 2016. She received her PhD from the University of Michigan and was a 2015 National Academy of Education/ Spencer Foundation postdoctoral fellow. Recently, Posselt was honored with the 2018 American Educational Research Association Early Career Award and 2017 Association for the Study of Higher Education Early Career Award. 

---

Session 2. Identity Formation and Intersectionality

Ange-Marie Hancock Alfaro, University of Southern California

Hancock Alfaro CERPP 2019 Presentation

Dr. Hancock Alfaro begins by noting that if you Googled “intersectionality” a few years ago, you would have had 600,000 hits. Now you will get up to 9.3 million hits. Intersectionality has shot up significantly in popularity in the last few years.

Next she asked the audience to stand up and gave the following directions:

• If you are your race on Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays only, sit down.
• If you are your gender Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, sit down.

Everyone remained standing and she congratulated them for their understanding of intersectionality. Intersectionality is that we are more than one thing at a time.

Next Hancock Alfaro discussed that she has an interest in intersectionality. It began for her with a book called “The Oppression Olympics: The Common Zero-Sum Cognitive Filter”. This is the cultural context in which the students that you are assessing come from.

Dr. Hancock Alfaro asked the audience to turn to each other and discuss:

• Do your admissions practices create division and competition for resources for the “most oppressed groups”?

She asked if anyone had not had this experience. No one in the audience had not had this experience. The question then is how do we shift to intersectional logic–but first we must understand what that is. Intersectionality involves categories of difference as complex social phenomena operating in multiple directions simultaneously.

Dr. Hancock Alfaro points to founding narratives on intersectionality, including Mariah Steward (1831), Savitribai Phule (1890), and Mirta Virdal (1971) (see presentation). She continues by describing ways to consider intersectionality, including this quote: “Once you’ve blended the cake, you can’t take the parts back to their main ingredients” (Lisa Bowleg, 2013; Health Psychology). She describes intersectionality as a theory of POWER. People are navigating access and opportunity to get to higher education institutions. Some people have shorter, more clear, more supported pathways, while others have more circuitous routes. What does the institution consider to be a legitimate pathway? Is there a rationale for why some pathways are not considered legitimate? Does it have to do with white meritocracy?

Intersectionality was next discussed as a policy project. What happens with the remedy perpetuates invisibility?

Hancock Alfaro moved into a discussion of paradigm intersectionality. This approach fights the Oppression Olympics and meaningfully addresses social problems that are marked by their causal complexity. Elements include:

• Categorical multiplicity
• Time dynamics
• Diversity within
• Individual-institutional relations
• Categorical intersection

Next, the discussion turned to: How do we determine which categories matter for our specific analysis? She provided three questions to collaboratively consider:

• What signs of stigma or social inquiry are present, and which categories are implicated?
• What is the substantive issue of social justice?
• What is the scope and target of critique?

Dr. Hancock Alfaro suggests the following steps:

• Analyze the ways in which difference axes of power are constructed within your organization
• Decipher how the different axes of power are enmeshed (co-construct each other)
• Link those axes of power with how political and social identities are constructed by those within and outside the group in question
• Understand where those axes of power and their intersections operate.

Next, the focus shifted to a discussion on updating our concepts and locating ourselves, in diversity,  inclusion and and equity. Where are we? Where is our institution and enrollment team?

Dr. Hancock moved into a focus on Intersectional Equity. This blends what we know about intersectionality with what we know about equity as an aspirational ideal. It includes attention to processes of deliberation like transversal politics and avoids false universalism and assumptions that groups are homogeneous.

Hard-wiring intersectional equity into your process:

• Step 1: Uncover complex hidden narratives. What don’t you know about what you should know?
• Step 2: Identify and. connect institutional practices to seemingly unrelated society processes.
• Step 3: Develop a reputation through practices that demonstrate your commitment to intersectional equity as your standard performance.

The presentation concluded with questions from the audience.

Ange-Marie Hancock Alfaro is Dean’s Professor and Chair of the Department of Gender & Sexuality Studies at the University of Southern California. She is a globally recognized scholar of intersectionality theory, the leading analytical framework for analyzing and resolving inequality. Her publications on the intersections of race, gender, class, sexuality and citizenship include the award-winning The Politics of Disgust and the Public Identity of the “Welfare Queen,” (2004), Solidarity Politics for Millennials: A Guide to Ending the Oppression Olympics (2011) and Intersectionality: An Intellectual History (2016). In 1993, under the mentorship of NBA Hall of Famer Tom “Satch” Sanders, Hancock Alfaro conducted original survey research and designed the business model for the Women’s National Basketball Association, the only women’s professional basketball league to succeed in the US. Today Dr. Hancock Alfaro is also Founder of RISIST, the Research Institute for the Study of Intersectionality and Social Transformation, a cooperative social enterprise that consults with organizations seeking to apply intersectionality to the challenges they face.

---

Session 3. Workshop: Identity in Holistic Review

• Marie Bigham, Isidore Newman School
• Richard Shaw, Stanford University
  
• Kedra Ishop, University of Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This panel on holistic review began with Rick Shaw, who noted that they will present from the perspective of practitioners engaged in the review process. Shaw notes that over the course of 35 years and five universities, he has had the awesome experience of embracing the beauty of humankind and the narrative related to identity. He notes that there has been a consistent approach to evaluate students: academic excellence. In a holistic approach we look at intellectual interests outside of the classroom, all embedded in the context. Student experience perspective and identity in their late adolescence. One barrier, he notes, is the admissions application. Applications allow students to tell their story, aspirations, identity, accomplishments, realizations that sparked personal growth, etc. The problem is when students lose control of their own voice when adults get involved and over-manage the process. Shaw described the foundational principles of Stanford, including criteria for selecting a class embracing a policy of inclusion to create opportunities for all identities.

Shaw pointed to the book Clash, identifying 8 cultural conflicts which give people the raw material to craft the “self”. No two selves are exactly alike. No two people reconcile the clashes between their cultural identities the same way. To support and encourage the next generation, we must be aware of the ever-changing context of the student experience.

Their admissions approach demands authenticity and is implemented internally through in-depth training with case-studies and norming exercises. Each candidate should be reviewed with respect, understanding, and without bias. In concert with traditional measures, the examine inquisitiveness, curiosity, caring, passion, innovation, resilience, kindness, heart, excellence, self-identity, motivation, humility, and grit–together with potential. Identity is individual and united and must be embraced with all of its complexity and richness. They urge thoughtfulness and inclusion. Shaw concluded with a Walt Whitman quote: I am large, I contain multitudes.

Next, Marie Bigham spoke about her work with ACCEPT, a social justice action group that she describes as a group with a “Join for the activism and stay for the discomfort” culture. Bigham described her own history as a multiracial student. She felt her story didn’t fit anywhere when faced with the admissions process. She notes the “other” racial box that she had to check, noting that no one wants to be an “other”. Bigham describes her self-development and how “other” as a positive now.

Bigham described a discussion with her students in terms of how the admissions process makes them feel. The students reported that admissions people say they don’t want to put you in a box, but the first thing they do is put you in a box. She highlights that the students of color feared getting good news from colleges because of the “you got in only because…” kind of response from peers– noting that athletes and development students do not get these kinds of reactions. She emphasizes that our profession must be anti-racist. The conversation about whiteness is not happening. Bigham describes this conference as the first time she has seen this topic taken head on. She says we need to rethink our processes down to the studs. None of us would design college admissions the way we do it today. We do a great job tweaking around the edges, but how would we do it from scratch?

Next, Dr. Kedra Ishop discussed the “powerful transformation” that higher education can afford students. She started by critiquing her bio, which is not reflective of who she is–where she is from, the moments of racism and sexism that she has experienced, and more that shapes who she is and what she does–and gives her the credentials to be at the University of Michigan.

Ishop notes that we ask students to tell us about the water in which they swim. One of the many challenges is how to confront how we see ourselves in the world. She described he work at the University of Michigan and her task to apply a different lens to achieve the mission of the university. She asked if they were getting the apps that they wanted that align with the mission. They did a small internal study to understand if they are communicating what they intend to communicate to the students they intend to communicate to… and who are those students? The study took place in the non-traditional market and asked students to review marketing materials, etc. They found the students didn’t care about any of the institutionally branded things that they cared about (legacy and tradition). They were interested in authenticity, diversity.

The presentation concluded with questions from the audience.

Marie Bigham is Director of College Counseling at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. The founder of ACCEPT: Admissions Community Cultivating Equity and Peace Today, a social media- based action group for the admissions profession, Marie is committed to centering social justice and equity in the work and community of college admissions. ACCEPT was honored by Facebook 2017 at the 2017 Facebook Community Summit, a gathering of 100 groups that exemplify strong community engagement. In 2018, ACCEPT received the Excellence in Education Award from NACAC, awarded to those who use their prominence to advance equity and access in education. With over 20 years in the profession, Marie has served on the Board of Directors for the National Association of College Admission Counseling (NACAC); as Vice Chair of the Board for Association of College Counselors in Independent Schools (ACCIS); and on the Board of Directors of Texas Association of College Admissions Counseling (TACAC). Marie entered admissions at her alma mater, Washington University in St. Louis (Class of 1995), where she earned a BA in Political Science and Women’s Studies and a minor in Glassblowing.

Kedra Ishop, PhD, serves as Vice Provost for Enrollment Management at the University of Michigan–Ann Arbor. She is a nationally recognized expert, speaker and advisor on issues in higher education related to diversity, affordability, assessment, admissions and enrollment. She has served on various domestic and international boards for the College Board, ACT, Coalition for College Access, NCAA and others. In overseeing undergraduate admissions, financial aid, new student programs, registrar, marketing and communications, technology, and enrollment research, Dr. Ishop leads a dynamic team in Michigan’s enrollment effort and strategic initiatives. Prior to her tenure at Michigan, she served for 17 years at the University of Texas Austin, departing as Vice Provost and Director of Admissions. Dr. Ishop received her Bachelor’s, Master’s, and PhD in Higher Education Administration from UT Austin.

Richard H. Shaw began his tenure as Stanford’s dean of admission and financial aid as of September 1, 2005. Upon his appointment Stanford Provost John Etchemendy said, “Rick Shaw offers proven experience in several areas of vital importance to Stanford, including creating a diverse student body. He also knows the challenges involved in selective admissions, in making the case for the liberal arts and for ensuring that higher education is accessible to everyone.” Dean Shaw led Yale’s undergraduate admissions and financial aid office from 1993–2005. Prior to joining Yale, Shaw served as Director of Admissions at the University of Michigan from 1988 to 1993, Associate Director of Admissions and records at the University of California-Berkeley from 1983 to 1988.

---

Session 4. The Salience of Racial Identity

Sylvia Hurtado, University of California, Los Angeles

Hurtado CERPP 2019 Presentation

Hurtado began the afternoon program with her presentation, Racial Salience: Building a Campus Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity. She began with a look at admissions and the student success context. She emphasized that it is based on the notion that if we just admit more diverse students we could create the society that we aspire to become. While this is all well and good, when students arrive on campus, students come face to face with racial/ethic inequalities- if not just outright discrimination. She continues, if we are already admitting the most talented class in their history of our campus, why are we failing our students? Now is the time for internal reflection on how we become more student-centered and identity focused for institutional change.

Hurtado referred to her article Thinking About Race (see citation at the end of the presentation) and the idea of understanding the salience of race. They asked students–how often do you think about your race or identity? What makes you think about it? Please see the presentation to view the results. In summary, white students almost never think about race whereas American Indian, Arab American, Black, Latino, and “Other/Two or More” thought about race much more.

The predictors of thinking about race included background and socialization, native language other than English, friends, family, and schools. By the time students get to college, they have formulated their thoughts regarding race and other groups. The campus climate is very important. Incidences of discrimination or bias contributed to thinking about race frequently, as did in-depth conversations about race. Inclusive curriculum and co-curricular diversity activities were also related to frequency of thoughts about race.

Hurtado moved into a look at the elements influencing the climate for racial diversity on campus. These elements include:

• Historical legacy of inclusion/exclusion
• Compositional diversity
• Psychological dimension
• Behavioral dimension
• Policy dimension

She asks, “What happens when racial identities are the target of discrimination and bias?” There is a lot of under-reporting but the less diverse the institution is, the more likely they are to report incidents of discrimination.

How do we minimize bias or its effects?

• Increase reporting and investigate promptly
• Educate all students to increase their awareness about bias to improve tolerance, acceptance, and diversity skills (proactive)
• Encourage faculty and staff to develop inclusive practices in classrooms and educational programming (proactive)

Hurtado emphasized validation which is when agents actively assist students to trust their innate capacity to learn and acquire confidence in being a college student (Rendon, 1944). Discrimination and bias effects students sense of belongingness in college. Validation, as described above, mediates the effects of discrimination and boas on students’ sense of belonging.

Hurtado described another study that used the pluralistic orientation scale to understand how students rate themselves relative to their peers. This looked at:

• Tolerance of others with different beliefs
• Ability to work cooperatively with diverse people
• Openness to having my own views challenged
• Ability to discuss/negotiate controversial issues
• Ability to see world from someone else’s perspective

The conversation turned to the challenges for diversity. These challenges include:

• Lack of knowledge about diverse groups—only social categories—that differ by identity salience, ethnic traditions, and immigration/migration histories
• Lack of awareness about diversity, privilege, and imposition of norms
• Cognitive challenge regarding effortful thinking and tendency towards social categorization that result in everyday forms of bias. Hurtado encourages people to get out of their comfort zone and explore effortful learning.

Hurtado shared quotes from students that describe “failure to differentiate ethnicity and individuals or recognition bias” (see presentation). Another issue in play is competency proving and stereotyping (again, see quotes in presentation). Next, Hurtado gave the group time to explore the kinds of things that we can do to think about racial identity and diminish some of the issues associated with race.

After moderating a discussion, Hurtado spoke about actions that can be taken. These actions include:

• Move from representation to authentic forms of engagement (contact)
• Raise awareness and levels of diversity skills and competencies for faculty, staff and students (enlightenment)
• Use a conflict as an opportunity to educate
• Reduce and eliminate forms of bias, discrimination, and harassment—identify implicit bias, microagressions, and stereotype threat.

Hurtado turned next to skills and competencies to advance a diverse democracy. These skills include:

• High social skills and non-routine analytic skills characterize the highest paying jobs (David Deming)
• Consistent research evidence about the importance of interactions across racial groups in college that result in cognitive and democratic outcomes (Denson, Bowman)
• Creating the conditions for authentic intergroup relations—practicing citizenship.

More recently, Hurtado shares that she has been examining culturally aware mentoring. The emphasis will be on culturally responsive mentoring (more on this in the presentation). Additional information and resources are found in Hurtado’s presentation.

Sylvia Hurtado is a Professor of Education and was Director of the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles for over a decade. She has written extensively on student development and college experiences, campus climate, and diversity in higher education. She is co-editor of two recent books that won awards from the International Latino Book Awards: Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Advancing Research and Tranformative Practice (2015, Routledge Press) and The Magic Key: The Educational Journey of Mexican Americans from K-12 to College and Beyond (2015, University of Texas Press). She received the 2018 Social Justice in Education Award from the American Educational Research Association, was named an AERA Fellow in 2011, and served as President of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) in 2005. Black Issues in Higher Education (Diverse magazine), named her among the Top 15 influential faculty who personify scholarship, service and integrity and whose work has had substantial impact on the academy. She has led several national projects on diverse learning environments and student retention, STEM education and diversification of the scientific workforce, and innovation in undergraduate education.

---

Session 5. Workshop: Training to Avoid Implicit Bias

• Joyce Balak, Laguna Blanca School
• Rakin Hall, University of Utah
• Kasey Urquidez, University of Arizona

Hall Balak Urquidez CERPP 2019 Presentation

 

Balak, Urquidez, and Hall examined implicit bias, and more specifically how to avoid it, in their workshop presentation.

Mr. Hall opened up a discussion on implicit bias. He notes that it is easy to say that in this conference we are preaching to the choir–but sometimes the choir needs to practice. He speaks of his own intersectionality as a large, black, male–but highlights who he is, how he sees himself and shares his own narrative and how it has changed over time–father, a husband, a professional, a leader. Hall described his own need to develop a growth and strategic mindset to not be so outcome-driven but help those under his leadership to develop and contribute. He emphasized the ability to work together and lessen bias as critical to the work we do.

Hall moved the discussion into implicit bias. Implicit bias was first described in a 1995 publication by Tony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji. It develops through our environment, the people with whom we engage, and the culture in which we grow up. These interactions shape the expectations we have of ourselves and others and operates at subconscious level. Hall suggests that implicit bias often runs contrary to conscious stated beliefs and is triggered through rapid and automatic mental associations we make between people, ideas, and objects and stereotypes we hold about them.

Next, he moved into the “isms” of implicit bias:

• Racism: “The systemic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites). This subordination is supported by the actions of individuals, cultural norms and values, and the institutional structures and practices of society.” (Wijeysinghe, et al, p. 88-89)
• Passive Racism: Beliefs, attitudes and actions that contribute to the maintenance of racism, without openly advocating violence or oppression. The conscious and unconscious maintenance of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors that support the system of racism, racial prejudice and racial dominance. (Wijeysinghe, et al, p. 89)
• Racial Microaggressions: “Microaggressions are acts of disregard or subtle insults stemming from, often unconscious attitudes of white superiority…While microagressions appear innocent and harmless to members of the white dominant group, the constant burden they place on people of color has a cumulative, harmful psychological, physiological, and academic toll. (Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000; Kohli & Solórzano, 2012 & Bell, et al., p. 136)

Next, Dr. Kasey Urquidez, continued the discussion on implicit bias. Urquidez shared her own background, the daughter of parents from different religions, with a Mexican-American mother who couldn’t speak Spanish and a white father who could. At the age of 10, her father left, but with her father’s last name, she felt she had more privilege than friends with names that indicated Mexican heritage. Those implicit biases sometimes becomes explicit. We have to think about those unconscious biases.

We tend to be attracted to people who are like us or other attributes that advantage certain groups. She highlights the relationship between CEOs and height, and the disproportionate percentage of CEOs over 6 feet tall as compared with the percentage of people over 6 feet tall in the general population. We must think about this in the hiring process. Urquidez shares that it takes practice and suggests the following practice steps:

• Find something in common
• Practice empathy actively
• Consider the opposite
• Counter stereotypical exemplars

Urquidez closed with a powerful quote: “We see things not as they are, but as we are.”

Next, Joyce Balak moved us even deeper into the discussion on implicit bias. She shared several images and actions and asked the audience to identify them as male or female (changing diapers, for example). Balak moved us into a test of automaticity–reminding us that when we were youngsters and learned multiplication tables, teachers administered timed tests and rote practice to help students attain automaticity.

She continued with additional exercises and concepts (see presentation):

• Categorization and implicit social cognition
• Stroop Test (see slide with colorful words-interrupts automaticity)
• Development of implicit biases
• Stereotypes

Balak provided a brief overview of bias in schools:

• Preschools-Yale Study (see “Track the Eyes” in slides for the results of this study of teachers and their eye movements while scanning for behavior)
• Junior High and High School
  • School Suspensions
  • Identity and Racial Anxiety
• Biases in Admissions-Clearly there is bias in admissions. If we all have implicit bias, admissions has implicit bias. Balak describes her own bias towards boys because her frame of reference was growing up with five brothers and the dearth of female children in her neighborhood.

So what can we do about this? Balak points us towards several opportunities for improvement:

• Self awareness and knowledge
  • Implicit Association Test (IAT)
  • Understanding own personal biases
  • In-group preferences and diversity
• Parent Education
• Teacher Education
• Admission Team Education
  • Train admission team to read files
  • Avoiding implicit bias in reading files and decision process

After Balak’s presentation, the team asked participants to think of 10 people who are not family members that you trust, and handed out folded papers (that were not to be opened). This is the Circle of Trust activity. She asked us to identify what characteristics we shared with the people that we trust based on: Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Age, Sexual Orientation, Education Level, Marital Status, Religion, and Native Language. Urquidez led a discussion as participants shared patterns of who they trusted. Considering who we trust and those patterns, how does that influence who we hire?

Urquidez closed the session encouraging conference attendees to take what they have learned and put it into practice.

Passionate about schools, students, and education, Joyce Balak has over 30 years of experience in independent education. Joyce currently serves as the Director of Admission and Financial Aid at Laguna Blanca School in Santa Barbara, California. She says that admission work is her passion, and she loves working with students and families in their exploration of school options. Supporting admission work in Santa Barbara, Joyce worked in concert with admission colleagues in the area to establish the Santa Barbara Consortium of Independent School, which she served as president. Prior to Santa Barbara, Joyce planned and orchestrated the marketing, advertising, and communication plans for St. Margaret’s Episcopal School in San Juan Capistrano as their Director of Marketing and Communications. Joyce earned her undergraduate degree from USC and is now back in the classroom as a member of the inaugural class of USC’s Rossier School of Education Master’s of Education in Enrollment Management and Policy program.

Rakin Hall (USC ME ’13) is the executive director of admission at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. He leads the areas of recruitment and assessment, data and enrollment research, processing and file management, and campus experience. Rakin strategically builds and manages Utah’s annual undergraduate admitted student cohort. A higher education professional with over 20 years of experience, he is now working at his fourth university.

Dr. Kasey Urquidez is the University of Arizona’s (UA) Vice President for Enrollment Management and Dean of Undergraduate Admissions. She serves as the university’s chief enrollment officer and oversees the units involving admissions, first-year and transfer recruitment, early academic outreach, new student enrollment and services, and scholarships and financial aid. Urquidez is active in many regional, statewide and national boards, including Arizona’s Commission for Postsecondary Education and the Metropolitan Education Commission. In addition, she is a Trustee for the Women’s Foundation of Southern Arizona, a Trustee for the College Board, a council member for the National Hispanic Fund’s Advisory Council for Arizona and Cambridge Assessment’s Higher Education Western Regional Council. In 2012, Urquidez was selected as one of Tucson’s 40 under 40, and in 2015 she received the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Distinguished Alumni of the Year Award. During her UA career, Urquidez earned two Master’s degrees, from Chapman University and UA respectively, and a doctoral degree in educational leadership with a concentration in higher education administration from Northern Arizona University.