• Panel-Practioners Speak: Learning from Each Other (Goecker, McAnuff, Romero da Silva & Wesley Cash)
• Reporting Out: Research Agenda

Panel Discussion: Practitioners Speak: Learning From Each Other

• Yvonne Romero da Silva, Vice Dean, Director of Admissions, University of Pennsylvania
• Courtney McAnuff, Vice President, Enrollment Management, Rutgers University
• Arlene Wesley Cash, Vice Dean for Enrollment Management, Guilford College
• James Goecker, Vice President of Enrollment Management and Strategic Communication, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Dr. Lucido began the discussion with a simple question to the panel:

What would you add to what we have learned thus far in the conference?

Romero da Silva shared the Strategy Project, that was grounded in an analysis of who was applying to Penn. They were doing holistic evaluation and realized that they were behind pace in terms of the number of applications that they were receiving from specific subgroups. However, they also determined that if they had received more applications they would not have capacity to evaluate them. They realized that they needed to create a new model in admissions and the idea came from “lifting their heads up” from their daily work.

Goecker shared that Rose-Hulman noticed a small but steady decline in retention and they asked themselves, what does an engineer need to be successful?  They came to the conclusion that an engineer must be curious and have some sense of control (locus of control) related to the world around them. This was the beginning of an attempt to investigate the use of noncognitives at Rose-Hulman. They identified locus of control and curiosity indexes and began to investigate these noncognitive factors with incoming students as a means for understanding if institutionally they could use these elements as part of admissions. Another question for them is that if we cannot change the student body, can we do something at a curricular level? Can you teach curiosity? Can you change one’s view of the world and control related to it? These are other areas they are examining.

Next, Wesley Cash shared a transformation at Guilford in terms of how they look at applicants. They realized that they were not evaluating students in a way that aligned with or reflected the values of the institution. They also wanted the application to be a teaching moment. They had gone test-optional several years prior and did not see a change other than more applications and while they did see an increase in applications of students of color, enrollment by students of color didn’t really change significantly. Guilford truly examined their core values–who they are and what they want? They incorporated these values into the process. They created a scale to give value to the items they collected from students–including how the students reflect the values of the institution in their applications. What students are engaged in–extracurriculars, responsibilities, contributions–related to the values of the institution. Having made changes in the application process, they are seeing a change, particularly a significant increase in students of color. Faculty asked: “Will they be qualified? Will they have the academic strength? Are they ready? Will we be able to support them?” Ultimately these students of color performed at and above the level of other students academically. It turns out that the new way of looking at students that reflected their values brought in a diverse class that was academically prepared.

McAnuff continued the discussion with a look at Rutgers University. He emphasized that a strategic plan was critical for accountability in terms of striving for diversity. At Rutgers, ten percent of the slots are held for low-income students and part of their issue was how to develop the pipeline of qualified students. One element to support this is a program through which Rutgers offers scholarships to 200 low-income families (on welfare) of 7^th grade students each year. These students receive support with the end goal of being prepared for a scholarship and entrance into Rutgers. As for applicants, they received so many that they needed to create a method for handling these. They devised a self-reported record that converts all grade points to the same scale, assigns a “grit” factor- or serve as an indication of their work ethic. Since they started including grit/work ethic in their applications, their retention rate has increased from 78%-84%.

What transitioning into a self-reported grades approach mean for staffing? How can we use the staff we have rather than eliminate positions?

Courtney shared that they re-channeled 7 clerical positions as there is virtually no paper at all. They put more into digital communication. They did not eliminate positions but rather retooled them.

Romero da Silva also responded by sharing that during the Strategy Project that people were very concerned that jobs would go away. They did not anticipate having to create a goal around culture and value, but ended up doing so and including convening a group that meets once a month to be able to handle such issues. They have repurposed roles and have also given staff new responsibilities as the organization has changed their approaches.

What dialogues have you had on campus to support new approaches or initiatives?

McAnuff shared that at Rutgers, power is really in the schools and with the deans. They bring together these stakeholders and build strong relationships between deans and faculty. He notes that he also needs to answer to the president. And he feels an obligation to serve the students / citizens of the state. As they admit more out-of-state and international students, that focus is reduced, but as state support has decreased from 80%-16%, they have had to do these things.

Wesley Cash shared that Guilford is a Quaker School founded by the Friends Society. Consensus is highly valued and thus transparency is a very important part of their values and process. They have an engaged faculty committee that participates in all aspects.

Rose-Hulman staff, according to Goecker, also participated in the process. They ask what kind of person do we want to graduate and thus, how do we recruit and educate them. He suggests that we miss an opportunity if we don’t go beyond the four years that we have the students. We must look beyond. Thus, Goecker’s “dream” is to go out after graduation and find out what the students believe were important about their experience–what characteristics were important to be successful. Then, they can bring those factors into the admission process. It is a long process, but one that Goecker does hope to include. So, in addition to faculty, engaging with graduates and capturing their perspectives is an important part of the process.

Romero da Silva shared another unanticipated outcome: the need to engage with constituents on campus in a more purposeful, rather than reactionary way.

Audience Question For Courtney McAnuff: How did the Summer Bridge Program Begin?

McAnuff shared that the Chairman of the Board of Rutgers asked why they did not have more students from their local areas attending. These schools had graduates of 50%, few have access to a rigorous curriculum, and those who do have strong academic credentials have other choices. After a discussion with his president, they began to raise money, as it is expensive. It is 90% run on private money, including private donors (AT&T and Merck) and 5 key philanthropists. It is expensive and is a constant ask, but 1,800 kids have gone through this pipeline and it is a great investment. Also, Rutgers created two new honors colleges. One is based on test scores and the other is based solely on the students’ work as young leaders ascertained through interviews. McAnuff notes that it will be interesting to see down the road where the students from each honors colleges end up.

Other thoughts that we should take away from the conference?

Wesley Cash made the comment that there seems to be an interest in change but we tend to fall back on where we are comfortable. These conversations may move us to a place that we are not comfortable. She discusses the language that we use–the idea of a student being “undermatched”. What does that mean for the school that received this student? Is this to suggest that it is not a good school? Despite our discussions of fit, we continue to slip into celebrating students who fit our norms (perfect scores on the SAT, admission into an Ivy League school). Our language does not always match our values, and our values don’t always shift easily.

McAnuff asked, “How do we open opportunities for students who don’t get served?” Rutgers initiated a program that allows students starting in 9^th grade the opportunity to enter their own grades and get feedback on their likelihood to be admitted. This was implemented as part of the Future Scholars program so that students would not get to their senior year and be disappointed if they were not admitted.

The session continued with a Q&A and sharing from the conference participants.

---

Breakout Sessions and Reporting Out on the Research Agenda

After one-hour breakout sessions in which three small groups convened, answers to these three questions were presented:

1. Of the ideas presented in the conference, which are the most immediately relevant to your work?

• Collaborate with existing organizations doing relevant work like USC CERRP, College Board, ETS, etc.
• Evaluate your admission website in terms of your values (Swarthmore U. was an example)
• Role of contextual information in admission as presented by Bastedo
• Role of nonacademic factors and validity and reliability of instruments
• ETS and the Personal Potential Index (PPI)
• Better way to provide feedback to students and families about the admission process

2. Of these ideas, which hold the most promise for the future? What would it take for you to adopt them?

• Finding the bandwidth to retool admission process. Training materials around bias for admission practice would be very helpful!
• Need more information on Committe Based Review and how to change admission review (UPenn, Swarthmore, etc.)
• Individual leadership–need to think about value in region vs. strategy in division of responsibilities
• Need to take caution in overestimating value of noncognitive factors in admission. Perhaps see potential more in terms of advising and placement.
• Need better way to understand and explain process of using noncognitive factors in admissions with perhaps strategies like data visualization or narrative storytelling
• Hard to engage with senior leaders on campus and boards on perspective of societal needs and public good
• Rethinking institutional use of test scores

3. Given your perspective, what areas of research would you like to see pursued?

• Better understanding across field about what comprises “holistic review.” Need standard definition before changing the practice.
• Are noncognitive factors value-added to academic aspect or evaluated separately?
• How should interviews be mined for data on noncognitive factors?
• How are other sectors using nonacademic assessments? K-12, international (e.g. Cambridge in UK admission), private (P&G)
• What are alumni doing and how do noncognitive factors predict these outcomes? (Rose-Hulman is about to implement: 1. How were we unhelpful to attainment; 2. How were we helpful to attainment)
• How do nonselective institutions use noncognitive factors well in terms of admission and student success? CUNY City College and Baruch and CSU LA are some examples. With most recent studies, doesn’t seem that elite institutions are actually serving a diverse population!
• What is leadership in enrollment management and what qualities of leadership are related to positive outcomes

• Welcome and Morning Keynote-How Admissions Decisions are Made and Why (Lucido & Baker Tew)
• Panel Session I-History and Future of Nonacademic Factors in Admission Decisions (Hossler, Lucido & Chung)
• Master Class 1-Importance of Context in Admissions Decision Making (Bastedo)
• Panel Session II-The Systematic Identification of Disadvantaged in Educational Opportunity (Ballinger & Perfetto)
• Master Class II-The Systematic Identification of Personal Attributes in Admissions (Rikoon & Wright)
• Dinner and Keynote-Meeting Institutional and Student Needs in Admissions: Recipes for Selecting Qualified & Diverse Applicants (Payne)

Welcome and Morning Address: How Admissions Decisions are Made and Why?
Jerry Lucido, USC CERPP
Laurel Baker Tew, Viewpoint School

Lucido slides
Baker Tew Independent Schools Response slides

Dr. Lucido began by welcoming guests and thanking supporters and sponsors. He also reviewed the mission of the Center for Enrollment Research:

The Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice (CERPP) at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles analyzes enrollment issues through the critical perspectives of social science researchers, policymakers, and college and university practitioners. The center is rooted in the belief that the educational attainment goals of the nation will be more fully realized as college admission, student financial aid, and degree completion processes become better informed, more expertly practiced, and more equitable. The teaching, research, and service activities of the center are devoted to these ends. In a phrase, the center is devoted to the social benefit of college admission and enrollment policies and practices in the United States and internationally.

The Center is currently involved in research related to nonacademic factors, the test-optional movement, classifications for international schools, and “the rankings” project – a new way to give the power of the rankings back to the consumer. It provides teaching through the Leadership in Enrollment Management program and we are currently developing a management program. From a service perspective, the Center engages in other activities, including this conference, and the College Counseling Corps.

Next, Lucido introduced his agenda for his presentation, which included the following discussion points:

• Admissions and the institutional mission
• Where are admissions decisions made?
• Originally the Center focused on undergraduate admissions, but we are seeing more and more conversation from independent schools and graduate schools who are also examining and applying these principles.
• Admission policy
• Admission practice
• Legitimacy: the courts and public opinion

Lucido continued by citing Sweezy vs. New Hampshire (1957) and asked several key questions (see slide deck). He quoted B. Alden Thresher (1966), noting that admissions decisions occur outside of the admissions office not within it.

Examining the term admission, we see the Latin roots: toward the mission and how that mission is formulated. Mission also has to do with education focus- what is the school trying to accomplish?

Participants were encouraged to think about their own missions and consider the following admissions models (see slide deck for additional information):

Eligibility-Based Model

•             Entitlement
•             Open Access

Performance Based Model

•             Meritocracy
•             Character

Student Capacity to Benefit Models

•             Enhancement
•             Mobilization

Student Capacity to Contribute

•             Investment
•             Environmental/Institutional
•             Fiduciary

The helpfulness of these models is to think about which of these constructs operate at your institution? Why? How can these lead to better alignment of admissions practices? What is your ability to move them further?

Lucido shifted gears to examine the admissions decision elements. He suggests that we must distinguish admission criteria from the evidence that those criteria are present. Criteria are academic achievement and personal characteristics. The evidence is the application information such as transcripts, essays, personal statements, school, extracurricular records, and recommendations. He shared a host of decisions elements- all of which play a role in decisions:

• Coursework
• Grades
• Relative achievement among peers
• Standardized testing
• Time spent and achievements when not in class
• Insights evident in essays/recommendation
• Talent: Athletics, art, music, drama, etc.
• Diversity
• Legacy
• Globalization
• Fiduciary (full payers and net tuition revenue)
• Influence/pressure points (board, donors, legislature, etc.)

As these criteria are evaluated in the admissions office; there must be equity and fairness. There are limitations to standard measures as many other factors are in play. Another question we must ask is what is merit? Who is meritorious? How do we balance all of these questions and considerations to create the society that we want?

Lucido highlighted the notion that admission policy is a reflection of institutional purpose and highlighted additional models (see slide deck for elaboration):

• Open and Eligibility Models
• Selectivity Models- It is very difficult to be transparent when we are balancing all of these factors.

Lucido then shifted from undergrad/college-wide models to program-based models used in Graduate, Professional, and Medical School models. Here we have greater reliance on academic record, testing, faculty judgment, etc. Lucido notes that there is some evidence that academic credentials do not portend professional excellence.

Lucido concludes by pointing to constraints that are also in play as we work toward the mission, reminding us of the complexity of this work.

Laurel Baker Tew

Baker Tew took to the stage with the aim of sharing a response from Independent Schools to how admissions decisions are made. Baker Tew came from working in admissions at USC and describes the transition into independent schools as “eye-opening”. She suggests that the independent schools are constantly looking to higher education (HE) for practices but notes that HE could learn from independent schools!

Why do people go to independent schools? Who will teach your child, what they will be taught, how they will be taught, and who are their peers? These are the key questions for higher education and the same questions exist at independent or private schools. The independent school experience is highly relationship and this relationship continues after admission is granted (unlike higher education). The philosophy of admission is completely driven by the mission and the criteria are highly differentiated depending on the type of school. For example, boarding schools have a very different set of criteria than an elementary school. They must also consider that students are “added along the way” (older students entering the school) and how they fit into the school culture.

What are the biggest differences between Independent Schools and Higher Education?

Baker Tew notes that independent schools never admit students- they admit families who are going to be with them for a very long time. Thus, it is important to assess the fit of the family for the institution. With regard to the issue of selectivity, it is highly idiosyncratic and dependent on the age of the child, the school’s position in the marketplace (highly competitive or growing). The question at independent schools is more about “growing” the best students than “selecting” them.

Baker Tew notes that another key question is related to predicting success. How do you predict success for incoming kindergartners? What is the relative achievement? Who is meritorious? What does the child do outside of class? These are very difficult to assess with young children. Baker Tew pointed back to Weissbourd’s opening presentation yesterday evening and the importance of caring. Very young children can and do show their caringtendencies. They can lose these tendencies along the way and our work is to develop them.

Baker Tew asks if independent schools are the canary in the coalmine for higher education. She describes the educational landscape as “not good”. Dropping birth rates, growing educational options and offerings, and fewer levers than HE to pull to influence the market are among the challenges. Thus, independent schools are already dealing with the decline and are doing the best they can to meet their missions and goals, giving higher education a system to observe to predict the change they can expect to see and how to deal with it.

---

Panel Session 1: The Past, Present, and Future Use of Non-Academic Factors in Admission Decisions
Don Hossler, USC CERPP
Jerry Lucido, USC CERPP
Emily Chung, USC CERPP

Hossler Lucido Chung Slides

Lucido introduced the purpose of the session, noting that we want to look at the study and rationale, the literature review, the research questions, methods, findings, and implications for change related to the use of non-academic variables.

The use of non-academic variables is not new. In the early 1900’s the ability to pay was considered, there was the notion of athleticism, etc., related to nonacademic factors being used. At Yale, academic factors were the main criteria but character and personality matter. During the Civil Rights movement, using race as a factor and diversity became a question and debate. This brief history points to where we are heading- what is the contemporary context. How are things being used? There is a trend toward reliance on standardized test scores as the sole criteria. There is a desire to enroll a more diverse student body and concern that the standardized test scores don’t capture the potential for a student to be successful. The test optional movement is growing and there is a need for additional information to craft a class. These concepts undergird why this study was conducted.

The literature began by looking at how scholars have thought about nonacademic factors. One of the most useful tools was the 21^st Century Skills rubric from the National Research Council (2012). These include cognitive, interpersonal/social, intrapersonal/emotional and self-regulatory. They also looked at the work of Sedlacek, Conley, and Duckworth. They wanted to look at how these are actually being used, classified, and talked about. Kyllonen’s work (2005) provided the framework used for this study, it includes: personality factors, affective competencies, performance factors, attitudinal constructs, and learning skills.

Next, Chung spoke to the research study. She pointed to the two research questions:

1. Are nonacademic factors used in the institution’s admissions decisions?
2. What is the relative importance of all of the factors used in the institution’s admissions decisions

This was a qualitative study with a purposeful sample that included ten four-year undergraduate institutions. These institutions use nonacademic factors in admissions decisions and were chosen to represent a range in terms of selectivity, public/private, size, and location. A structured interview protocol was followed and anonymity encouraged greater candor. Two people from each institution were included, the senior enrollment officer and senior admission officer. There was variability in terms of how terms were used. “Grit”, for example, could mean improvement of performance over time or being a first generation college-goer.

Next, Hossler presented the findings of the study related. In order of importance, they found that schools are using academic indicators, school and personal context, and nonacademic factors/constructs including performance, attitudinal, and character. They found that there were some experimentation with instruments designed to measure creativity, locus of control, emotional intelligence, and emotional quotient. In some cases, these were locally designed tools (within the institutions) and in other places they were “off the shelf”. They found that there was relatively little research done by institutions to shape their class- regardless of selectivity. Said differently, they don’t know if the nonacademic factors they are using work or produce the results that they are hoping for.

Lucido continued by sharing some of the observations that they made along the way as they conducted the study. He notes that we spend a lot of energy altering practices to fit demographic and society trends but they are still somewhat unexamined. Moving forward, we must continue discourse, yield “demographic dividend”, look to advances in neuroscience to point to learning opportunities in character development, and implement more expert and equitable practice.

Lucido pointed to what is needed, including new measures are needed to rebalance the equation, transparency, and a critical mass of practitioners working on these issues.

---

Master Class I: The Role of Context in Admission Decisions
Michael Bastedo

Bastedo slides

Bastedo shared paradoxes that he saw that got him into this work. He asked, what does it mean to do holistic admissions? He pointed to several quotes (see slide deck) that suggest that we are looking at applicants from the context from which they come. Bastedo surveyed over 300 admission offices to learn what they think when they say holistic admission. He found that about ½ meant that they mean “whole file” by holistic review. They read everything and consider everything. It isn’t a formula. The next approach (20%) was “whole person;” they want to get to know the whole person, grades, etc. Approximately 30% said, “whole context”. Thus the idea of holistic review is not consistent.

Bastedo asked, what is the evidence of holistic review?

One idea was “maxing out” the curriculum. Did the student take all AP courses or all challenging courses that was available to them? The results, however, were that maxing out was not a predictor of getting into a selective colleges. Many students who did not “max out” are admitted to selective colleges. Additionally, the practice itself may not produce the effects that we are hoping for.

The next idea was “standardized tests”. College Board suggests that tests should be one factor among many. But if you look at the research, standardized test scores are the strongest predictor for admission to highly selective colleges.

Why is there a disconnect between what we say and the research results? There is a need for organizational thinking that addresses how decisions are made and shaped in real-world contexts. Bastedo notes two primary biases that admissions officers are subject to:

1. Anchoring Bias- The human tendency to consider arbitrary numerical values from the recent past when estimating future numerical values, particularly when those values are uncertain or ambiguous. This influences both expert and lay judgments. People inadequately adjust to anchors particularly if the anchor is provided externally.
2. Correspondence Bias- the tendency to attribute decisions to a person’s dispositions rather than to the situation in which the decision occurs. Also “fundamental attribution error”. With the right information, people properly account for situational information rather than relying on dispositional inferences, and thus make more accurate attributions.

Bastedo then moved into a discussion of “Cognitive Repairs”. He pointed to the norming process. Much of the definition in rubrics relates to a comparison to the pool, so to be able to score, you would have to see the entire pool. One strategy Bastedo observed was a scoring process in which the initial score was based on the GPA and SAT and in other cases, these are the last things to be reviewed. Even when instructed NOT to preview the GPA and SAT was difficult, as the tendency was to review those first. In a sense, these folks were creating, or desired to create, their own anchors. Bastedo observed that paying attention to context, rather than just the raw credentials, was a big theme in one of the schools.

There were three primary cognitive repairs that Bastedo encountered.

1. Language Monitoring: People would use phrases and admissions officers would “snap back” at them, providing different language that prevented a toxic atmosphere. For example, “bad grades” would be replaced with “low grades for us”, “great essays” was restated as “helpful personal statement”, “red flags” (“raising questions”, “a poor essay” (“missed opportunity”). This includes the concept of “building” or looking at a file for ways to build up, rather than “taking points away” or “pulling down”.
2. Reducing Cognitive Closure: People have a tendency to want to reduce the amount the information that they have to process. “Seizing and Freezing”- meaning, at a certain point people may believe that they have enough information to make their decision and will make that decision, or stop taking in more information. This relates to cognitive load. There is only so much information that a person can take in and working against the tendency to “blur together” files is difficult. Bastedo suggests that we may not give readers enough tools to deal with this.
3. Error Correction: A second reader or committee review either validates or reverses the decision. One note of caution however: A reader who becomes an “outlier” by making errors in these high stakes decisions can be devastated by this designation. It is common to not hit normal distributions in the first couple of weeks, but people feel like they are supposed to be “normalized” from the start. For the reader, however, the anxiety related to error correction can lead to overcorrection and more errors.

Bastedo then asked, if cognitive biases are common in admissions decisions, could we demonstrate the biases in a randomized lab experiment?

Through the support of the National Science Foundation, 300+ admissions officers from selective colleges were recruited and were asked to review simulated files “as usual”. They read 3 simulated files (see slide deck for details). They provided two conditions- one with limited information and the other with detailed information. The results (slide 33 on slide deck) lower SES applicant were 13-14% more likely to be admitted if they had more contextual information–even if all of the other information was the same. It made a substantial difference in their propensity to admit. It didn’t make any difference how experienced the admissions officer was, how selective their institution was, or the demographic background of the officer.

Thus, a fairly simple intervention (more detailed information) related to propensity to admit. Bastedo does point out that the participants of this study knew it was a simulation and thus the “high stakes” anxiety issues were not in play. Nonetheless, the results point to a need for more detailed information to play a role in the decision making process.

In Q&A, he noted that a simple way to provide more contextual information for admissions purposes would be for the College Board and ACT to provide test (SAT/ACT) scores in terms of the percentile achievement at the applicant’s high school and in terms of the applicant’s zip code.

---

Master Class II: The Systematic Identification of Disadvantage in Educational Opportunity
Phil Ballinger, University of Washington
Greg Perfetto, College Board

Ballinger slides
Perfetto slides

Phil Ballinger began with a discussion of the work being done at the University of Washington related to identifying disadvantage. The University of Washington conducts a full holistic review of students. This process began in 2005 and the goal was to create a community built around academic potential, broad backgrounds, and a degree of social engineering (or a hope that there are social effects that relate to the common good).

They created the Geo-Index, which is derived from a combination of geographic and high school variables in tandem with applicant level socioeconomic factors. (Please see slide deck for specifics). Ballinger emphasized that all of the information comes from the students (not the schools or the parents). Additionally, everything that has to do with admission policy has to be approved by the faculty, so the Geo-Index importantly did not add new factors to the current holistic review policy, but rather added more detail to current factors. They created geographical indexes and organized their applications into “buckets”. This allowed readers of the applications to focus on applications that came from similar contexts. In this way, they can review academic records, etc., in view of that context.

Challenges after the first year of use include the reality that the effects of the Geo-Index are difficult to measure. However, they had the most diverse class admitted this past year. Training, norming, and implementing this approach is difficult and the faculty has expressed concern that the statistical methods used in the Geo-Index are not sufficiently vetted. Despite challenges, they proposed a 3-year implementation of the approach and are examining each step of the way.

Next, Dr. Greg Perfetto from the College Board continued the discussion with his presentation: Access, Adversity, and Context. Perfetto began by sharing the historical context for the work of the College Board (please see the slide deck for a brief review of the key activities that the College Board has engaged in over the last three decades). In the Future Admissions Tools and Models Project, they learned and described needs and priorities and determined that more research on best practices research and tool development was needed. Among the four key areas focus that the project described, environmental context was discussed in detail in this presentation.

The College Board envisioned an applicant-based contextual dashboard to support admissions offices in more systematically measuring and utilizing environmental context. They wanted to (among other things) create a race neutral tool. They heard from many colleges that were interested in better understanding context, but didn’t have the time or resources and also wanted a collaborative, national effort.

The College Board then:

1. Convened experts
2. Developed a framework
3. Prototyped a toll
4. Conducted preliminary research

They defined educational context based on three dimensions:

1. The High School Environment
2. The Family Environment
3. The Neighborhood Environment

Bringing this all together, they designed the prototype dashboard (see slide deck). It includes:

• High School Demographics and Opportunity
• SAT Scores in Context
• Neighborhood Context (note “Undermatch”- students could have potential accessed a more rigorous opportunity but they are undermatched. This is not to be judged at an individual level, but as neighborhood trends emerge it is worthy of examination)
• High School Level Adversity Percentiles
• There is also an overall adversity index, that corresponds largely to what Ballinger had shared related to the Geo-Index.

Perfetto asks, assuming this tool is valid, consistent, and systematic, what does this mean? At this point, Perfetto dove into the Attributes of Disadvantage, asking do we find adversity where we would expect? At a global level, the answer is yes. As they drilled down they found that areas of disadvantage seem to match what people would expect in terms of how it is distributed geographically. Perfetto continued to dissect the data from a socioeconomic, diversity, and educational outcomes perspective. Please see the slide deck for these details.

---

Master Class II: The Systematic Identification of Personal Attributes in Admissions 
Sam Rikoon, ETS
Keith D. Wright, The Enrollment Management Association

Rikoon slides
Wright slides

Rikoon began with a definition of noncognitive skills (although he said he does not prefer this designation but as it is commonly used, he will do so as well). He notes that “noncognitive” is often referred to as everything that is not targeted by standardized tests of academic ability,” which really is not specific enough a definition. He continues by describing these variables as demonstrable personality, motivation, attitudinal, self-regulator, and learning approach constructs for which there are observable differences among people that are not measured by traditional tests. ETS has a history of noncognitive assessment research that began in the 1950s. Elements such as drive, intellectual stamina, and conscientiousness were among those factors. More recently, ETS has had a dedicated center on noncognitive assessment since 2000.

One challenge is to recognize that traditional concepts like reliability and validity are not binary in nature. The reliability of an assessment can be expected to vary over the range of a noncognitive skill’s expression. Validity is also a concern as questions related to evidence that validates the data and what are the related outcomes must be considered. There are also issues of concern regarding certain types of observed response patterns in high-stakes applications like admissions. Among other reasons, these patterns may be due to “socially desirable responding” on the part of students (“faking good”), a tendency to respond in the center or extreme ranges of a scale due to construct-irrelevant cultural differences, or the halo effect (i.e. raters providing uniformly positive or negative ratings of students based on a general impression).

One way to address these issues is to use a mix of item types, including Likert scales, forced choice, situation judgment tests, performance tasks, biodata, anchoring vignettes, fluency, others’ ratings, and game-based, or conversation-based assessments.

Rikoon moved next to discuss how one might determine the quality of noncognitive assessment. There are four key areas:

1. Development: Is the development of the tool supported by literature in the field? Is it ad hoc or organized?
2. Evidence that Claims are Supported by Data: Are cognitive labs and pilot studies part of the process? Is the process implemented with fidelity? Are institutions basing claims they confirm with their own students, or external studies?
3. Sufficient Reliability and Validity for Task(s) at hand? Are scores sufficiently stable across subgroups? Are scoring rubrics available for performance tasks? Do different raters agree in their judgments?
4. Use Multiple Sources of Information: Do sources agree or disagree?

Rikoon continued to describe The Personal Potential Index, a tool available for research purposes. The study described simulated an admissions process and found that achievement gaps decreased and the admission of underrepresented minorities increased when noncognitive assessment criteria were taken into account. Applied to graduate admissions, the PPI predicted academic performance and added predictive value over standardized tests.

Rikoon concluded by noting that we have a good start but much more work and research needs to be done in the area of applying noncognitive assessment to admissions decisions.

Keith Wright next took the podium and began his presentation, Character Skills Assessment-Our Journey. He began by describing his own trajectory as an African American child growing up in an underserved school in Chicago. He described himself as taking “regular” classes and hadn’t heard about standardized tests until two months before he had to take them. As someone with average standardized test scores but a good work ethic, he thanked the universities for digging deeper–taking the time to read his essay and learn who he was–and ultimately admitting him.

He began by noting that we have standards for educational and psychological testing (from AERA, APA, and NCME). Do we take the time to consider the purposes of the test we are using and how we apply these measures to all applicants? Important psychometric concepts include:

1. Reliability: Are we measuring consistently?
2. Validity: Are we measuring what we think we are measuring? Three types of validity:
Content Validity (committees)
Construct Validity (research)
Predictive Validity (research)
3. Equating: This is an empirical statistical procedure used to adjust the form difficulty differences so that scores from different test forms have the same meaning and can be used interchangeably over time.

Wright continued by reviewing the assessment development cycle (please see slide deck) for the Character Skills Assessment (CSA). The first step is item writing by content expertise in what should be measured on a test. Next, they move through a committee (peers) and vendor review. From there, they pre-test the items and conduct an item analysis. Depending on the result, they either revise the question or move it to the next stage of the development cycle. Next, they move to the assembly stage for that item. This includes a robust, methodical, rigorous process.

Next, Wright asks why does character measurement matter? He posted a graphic that shows that cognitive measures only explains 10-20% of the first year GPA; other factors make up 80-90%.

The vision of The Enrollment Management Association with the CSA was to provide schools with a more holistic profile of students. The CSA is: Cognitive + Character, identifies character skills that are important, builds a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess character skills, and is accompanied by an easily understandable score report. Please see the slide deck for the 7 constructs and sample questions. The assessment will be rolled out in Fall 2017.

---

Dinner & Keynote Address: Meeting institutional and student needs in admissions: Recipes for selecting qualified and diverse applicants
David Payne, ETS 

Payne slides

David Payne began his session by asking, what are the ingredients for appropriate graduate school admissions? He notes that this conversation will be focused on graduate admissions, but is applicable to undergraduate admissions. Payne shared that ETS firmly stands behind the GRE; however trends in graduate education suggest that there may be undue emphasis on GRE scores. Note the article on slide 2 in the slide deck.

ETS stands behind the GRE and its utility. According to Payne, the GRE and UGPA are generalizably valid predictors of graduate grade point average, 1st-year graduate grade point average, comprehensive examination scores, publication citation counts, and faculty ratings. He notes that for decades ETS had been good at supporting faculty in how to use the test scores and defend their use of them. In fact, they publish a guide and note that a cut-off score should NEVER be used as the only criterion. ETS also has a social mission and is concerned about social issues, and thus they also emphasize that the context of individuals should be taken into account as scores are evaluated. At the same time, Julie Posselt had published a study and noted that common graduate admission practice includes a two-step process that includes quantitative measures (with a GRE cut-score) and a holistic file review. Only after applicants make it past that first screening are they given a more detailed evaluation and more factors considered. Thus the cut-score in practice excludes many potential students, despite the caution from ETS that the GRE score should not be used as the only criterion for denial of admission. There are other aspects of concern, including risk aversion in general, with where applicants went to undergrad being given more weight in the admissions process.

On January 4, 2016, the AAS (American Astronomical Society) shared a statement that recommended against using GRE and PGRE test scores for admission, but noted that if you are going to use them, you should use them in alignment with ETS guidelines. While the GRE and PGRE are actually valid predictors of graduate student success (see above), it’s important to note that ETS had itself highlighted that GRE and PGRE test scores should never be the sole criterion for admissions or fellowships.

What are the components for effective and impactful admissions policies that foster qualified and diverse applicants? What does the recipe involve?

• ETS and the GRE program and board believe that we need to continue to engage with researchers
• ETS and the GRE program and board have a commitment to conducting on-going research of their own
• ETS, as a research organization, also invests in research each year, including examining the fairness of the admissions process
• Continued engagement with those who use their scores
• Seek and identify best practices

Payne pointed to the efforts of James Madison University as an example of a best practice. Their process includes holistic file review plus targeted interventions that use GRE scores for developmental purposes. The Fisk-Vanderbilt Bridge program is another promising practice that ETS is looking at to engage with the HE community.

Continuing with the recipe, Payne notes that there must be:

• Continued investment in development of new assessment approaches
• Continuing engagement with score users to identify and share best practices

Payne highlights that changing institutional practice is no easy task.

From here, Payne discussed the Personal Potential Index (discussed earlier). In 2001 the GRE board convened a group of researchers who were examining noncognitive skills to discuss ways to assess noncognitive skills in a way that is not coachable. Starting in July 2009, the PPI became available at no cost to students. Additionally, GRE funded a validity study–but they hit the challenge of not being able to find 10 schools to participate. They dug into why and found out that faculty were very reluctant to change their admission processes to factor in the noncognitive skills. Payne notes that they as ETS didn’t give faculty enough guidance in terms of how to use the information.

In summary, Payne notes that student selection is truly an art and a science. While there are exciting new trends, it is critical that we work collectively and adapt empirical approaches to investigate the impacts of innovations. He reminds us that institutional change is challenging and there are powerful forces that serve to maintain the status quo. That said, this is important work and ETS is committed to work in this area and partnering with educational communities for change.

Dr. Jerry Lucido opened up the 2017 conference: Student Selection: Art, Science and Emerging Trends. He noted that it is important to examine our practice, always. We must bring data to bear on what we do to further student and societal progress. He warns, “What we ask for is what we get”. We must ask if what we are trying to accomplish is appropriate. He noted several agencies and their efforts and activities related to these issues, many of whom will be presenting at this conference.

Speaker Introduction: David Holmes, Institute on Character and Admission

Mr. Holmes introduced Richard Weissbourd, identifying “The Parents We Mean to Be”, authored by Weissbourd, as one of his favorite books. He notes Weissbourd’s commitment to taking authentic actions to promote attributes of good character. Admissions reform is taking hold across the nation and Richard is at the center of this action. With that, he welcomed Mr. Weissbourd.

Opening Keynote Address: Turning the Tide, Inspiring Concern for Others and the Common Good Through College Admissions
Richard Weissbourd, Senior Lecturer on Education; Faculty Director, Human Development and Psychology, Harvard Graduate School of Education

Weissbourd Turning the Tide slides

Weissbourd began by identifying what he planned to discuss in his presentation:

1. Background- Research
2. Turning the Tide: Key Recommendations
3. Report Feedback
4. Moving Forward

He began by noting that they have been asking middle and high school students: What is most important to you? 1) Being Happy? 2) High Achievement, or 3) Being Kind? They also asked how they thought their parents would respond. After 50,000 student surveys, “achievement” came in first, “happiness” second, and “caring” came in third. This is unprecedented in our history, according to Weissbourd. Historically schools promoted ethical character and nurtured kids to have good character. There has been an evaporation of our moral lives and religious commitment. Rituals with ethical content have evaporated. Respect for ancestors and decedents has diminished.

When parents were asked what is most important, the top responses was “caring for others”. But when students were asked what they thought parents would say, they say “achievement”.

Weissbourd asks: How do we restore in young people a deep commitment to the collective and the skills to be constructive, ethical community members and citizens? How do we help people talk to each other across these differences?

The messages that high school students are hearing are that what is important to adults. Turning the Tide was an effort to counteract some of these issues.

College admissions is a crucial rite of passage in adolescence and Turning the Tide provides the opportunity to send messages collectively. 50 colleges got together to say what matters, with an emphasis on authentic intellectual and ethical engagement.

Ethical Engagement

Meaningful, sustained community service that is authentically chosen, immersive, and sustained should be central. It is an experience rather than an achievement. Finally, such activity allows students to work in diverse groups.

This is also about equality and access. Weissbourd found that doing high profile community work (abroad) is often seen as more valued in college admissions as opposed to local, community based or even family commitments. Family commitments were undervalued and some kids don’t consider their day-to-day “duties” to be of value or interest in the admissions process. Thus, it is important that students are invited or encouraged to highlight such activities.

Prioritizing the quality, not quantity of activities. The committee suggests make testing optional based on predictive validity, that colleges describe how much these tests count in the admissions process and that they discourage students from taking the SAT more than twice.

The report also tries to address the misconception that there are only a handful of excellent colleges that can lead to career success. Students are stressing themselves to get into the “few” select colleges–while there are so many that are excellent.

Response to Report

In general, the report has received a widespread positive response. There is, however, skepticism that colleges will actually change their practices. It was also suggested that encouraging community service just adds to the stress.

Collective Action
A number of colleges have made important steps. The goal is to have continued communication with colleges. A second report is in the works that focuses not just on college admissions but also on high schools and parents and what they can do.

One challenge is the “it’s not me….” culture. A large majority of parents think it is a large majority of other parents that are the problem. Schools think it is the parents. The question is what will help us get out of this dynamic. How do you create a positive contagion among colleges? One promising practice is school and parent compacts. For example, limiting APs, avoiding promoting of students attending high status colleges, limiting SAT test prep, etc.

Another action that is in the works is the Dean’s Commitment Letter. This will free up high schools to make curricular choices in terms of limiting APs or supporting new ways of assessing mastery. Additionally, a powerful media campaign focused on elevating great colleges that are not highly selective and challenging harmful ranking systems would support change.

Assessing and motivating ethical engagement is another area of focus, as well as efforts to support 9th and 10th grade students who demonstrate promise on traditional and/or non-traditional measures.

Weissbourd closed by posing the following key questions to the group:

1. How do we spark collective action at the high school level? Is it through a positive contagion or is there another way to motivate?
2. How do we stop the finger pointing and change the high school-college parent dynamic
3. Are there examples of effective practices for assessing?

In conclusion, Weissbourd asked: If not us, then who? If not now, then when?(John Lewis)

January 13-15, 2016 (Newport Beach, CA)

Over 150 participants from around the country joined together in Newport Beach, CA to discuss the question of the year: Is college worth it? With political candidates debating debt-free education, student loan debt skyrocketing, and sticker prices exceeding the annual income of many families, it was a time for a true examination of college costs, student aid, and sustainable solutions. The event brought together college presidents, higher education economists, and student aid experts to breakdown the realities of college cost and how to make it affordable for all.

---

Three Key Themes of Affording College: Costs, Debt, and the Way Forward by Donald Hossler

Senior Scholar Don Hossler Breaks Down Three Key Themes of Affording College: Costs, Debt, and the Way Forward, CERPP’s Conference 2016

In the 9th annual conference sponsored by the Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice, we examined the intersection of societal concerns, public policy debates, and institutional anxieties about college costs. We focused on how institutions are dealing with more accountability, rising internal costs, less willingness to pay on the part of students, and the implications of a growing use of loan debt to pay for college costs.

There is no doubt that Great Recession exacerbated concerns about college costs. In addition, increases in underemployment and unemployment, stagnating or declining income, and historic high levels of tuition at all higher education sectors have resulted in increasing doubts about whether or not a college is affordable, whether it is worth it, and how students will repay growing levels of loan debt. Declines in state support for public institutions and a growing realization amongst non-medallion private institutions that they were losing prospective students because of costs – despite high discount rates, have resulted in greater internal scrutiny of institutional expenditure patterns.

With this introduction, there were 3 major themes for colleges and universities, but also for public policy makers, students, and parents. Read More Here

---

2016 Conference

---

Sponsors

We gratefully acknowledge our sponsors whose generosity made our conference possible:

College Board	ACT	Texas IB Schools
Hobsons	International Baccalaureate	USC Rossier School of Educ

8:30 a.m. – MORNING KEYNOTE: A Critical Look at the Business Model of Higher Education

Presentation

Richard Staisloff, Founder and Principal of rpkGROUP

Richard Staisloff presented a Critical Look at the Business Model of Higher Education. He dove into the session by posing fundamental questions that must be considered: Why talk about the business model in higher education? He began by defining “Cost” as institutional cost. He notes that it is time to shift from cost-cutting and focus on return on investment- what do I et for what I spend in terms of people, time, what we do with our time, and what is the value. Why are we shifting? We have had two big jobs: 1) Access… in all areas we have gone up. The job is not done, but we have done well here. There are still people who need our help but access has helped. We have the other issue of 2) Attainment: Are we doing the job that we need to do to get them to the finish line based on their educational goals? The world is different and the rules of the game have changed – have we caught up? We must make a shift from a focus on spending to really thinking about investment. Changes in infrastructure and culture- the way we think about what our jobs and roles are.

So why talk about the business model?

Four key concepts:

1. Value proposition: what is the job that we are trying to do? What is the job to be done, how
2. Resources: People, technology, etc. The things that we
3. Processes: Link resources to value proposition
4. Margins for Reinvestment: How do we invest enough to continue to get the job done.

What is the Problem in higher education? We get stuck in the processes and resources. Instead of thinking how we link these to a changing value proposition.

Considering what happens during the budget process. In most cases we are focusing on how do we do next year everything that we did this year? We don’t think about if we are connecting resources to student success. We must redefine the goal- get away from spending and budget balancing and redefine investment in terms of how it supports student success. We should look at what we get for the money we spend and if there is a way to redistribute to support goals.

Staisloff continued by examining how spending relates to completion. Efficiency in producing completion has varied over the last 10 years. Two-year schools are doing well. The re is a decline in the private, 4-year space. We are “buying” fewer completions for the money that we spend. How do we re-frame our business model to get the job done?

If what we want to do is increase efficiency and productivity while maintaining quality, how do we do that? We need a new set of tools to adopt a “return on investment” lens. We need to understand where our economic engines are so that we can make the right decisions about economic allocations.

One step is to consider NET revenue – not GROSS. What is left at the end of the day after we do the job that we set out to do. This is a question of sustainability. Next, we need to take apart our academic and service portfolios. Think about it the same way as a retirement portfolio. We invest in multiple things. An academic portfolio is the same way- each piece should do a different thing. We also need to look at services and how they fit into the equation. This helps support understanding our next best investment. We tend to focus on content and quality- but we should ask what is the next best thing we should do as we focus on student success, allocation, and reallocation.

Staisloff reiterates- we do not want to sacrifice quality or our mission. We do want to ask, What is the number one revenue opportunity that you have at your institution today?Considering the money that we have – do we know how we are using it and what we get for it?

Next, Staisloff shifted to net revenue, sharing a high level model of an institution that identifies every penny spent and earned to determine net. The campus believed that the undergraduate program drives gross revenue and is “where the mission is”. But as they began to drill down into the undergraduate program, they found that it wasn’t what they thought. Despite 80% of facility investment, technology, faculty, etc. placed in the undergraduate area, the return was not as great. They asked could they invest more appropriately around other programs and change thinking about the undergraduate program. More specifically, with declining enrollment, more faculty, programs, courses, and sections, they were diluting themselves. They completely changed their dialogue and focus when they understood where the economic engines were and made changes. Ultimately, they actually improved quality while focusing on students.

A scorecard-based approach to an academic portfolio review connects the dots between demand, yield, outcomes, and net revenue. Things that people may want may lose money, despite the perception that a lot of people want that particular program. The point isn’t that we need to pay attention to profit, but rather we need to know where net is. There will be some things that won’t cover their own costs- and that is OK. We just need to know what we are subsidizing. Myths drive perceptions. If we are operating from the myths and not looking at the data, we may not make the right decisions.

Cost “Pers”- we need to get down to the level of unit costs (cost “pers”):

• Costs per completion (what does it take to get students to the finish line?)
• Cost of student credit hours completed
• Net revenue impact for every 1% change in retention
• Cost to achieve gateway course completion

The best way to reduce cost is not to cut cost, but to increase completion. You can spend more depending on what you produce for that.

Next, Staisloff shared thoughts related to Business Pro Formas, asking What’s in it for me?

Pro Forma analysis benefits stakeholders:

• Sets expectations for analysis
• Creates milestones throughout the process (go/no go)
• Resource are identified up front to support the initiative
• Creates accountability

He asserts that you always have money; it is just a matter of what choices you are willing to make. Mission, market, margin- preservation/enhancement of quality can be achieved with new tools. Before you start the conversation, however, you must have a shared vision about what the institution will look like in 10 years. Staisloff concluded with an examination of the key question, “How can we jump from one curve to the next?” Part of the breakdown is that when we get into design thinking, we “pretend” that we can just change it up. We don’t understand our current model, so we cannot figure out where we need to go next.

---

9:45 a.m. – PRESIDENTIAL PANEL: The Presidential View of Cost, Price, and Value

Catharine Bond Hill, President, Vassar College

Barry Glassner, President, Lewis & Clark College

Hill began by referencing the keynote from last night (blog), emphasizing that there really shouldn’t be any question whether college is worth it or not. She noted that while it is not “just about earnings”, it would be a mistake not to talk about it. She pointed to job security, health, benefits to society, and the relationship between education and social/economic mobility.

Higher education should continue to make the case about earnings- most families do care about this, especially as we diversify the student body that come to institutions. The only people who don’t care about money are the ones who already have it!

She notes the “education bubble” and “college is not for everyone” comments typically come from folks who are not talking about their own children. The accountability issue is a challenge. What drives it is maybe not uncertainty about the value of higher education, but concerns about access. In the past, people didn’t care about this because it didn’t matter as much. Today, the stakes are much higher. The higher education degree has a much higher impact on the standard of living.

US College attainment rates have stalled. Recessions tend to push rates up. Other countries have passed us by. Whereas we were ranked number one in the world, we are now between #11 and #14. Other countries are responding to a need for skilled labor and in the US we are not responding as well.

Related to attainment is who gets to go to college. Who goes depends on race and income, not just merit. Rates also differ based on gender, income, etc. If we want to increase educational attainment, we need to get it up for the groups for whom attainment is low. Students of color, low-income, and men need to be targeted.

Turning the attention to cost, Hill warns, we must distinguish cost, price, and net price. It is amazing how “cost” is used generically for all of these things, which confuses the discussion.

Cost– what it takes to teach a student (faculty salaries, lights, paper clips… not financial aid.).

Price- Price is the sticker price. This often goes with cost but doesn’t have to do so.

Net Price– What we ask financial aid students to pay.

The conclusion is that cost, price, and net price are up. Society has decided to shift the responsibility of higher education to families, which is not good from an access perspective.

Solutions: Other societies are dedicating more resources to higher education. It is not looking like that will happen through the public sector in the United States any time soon. Thus, families will take on the costs. Hill notes that because the returns are private, it is fine that families bear the cost, but we do need to make sure that low-income families have access. We do allocate quite a bit of public resources, but we need to make sure that they are appropriately allocated and it would be very wonderful if there were some kind of technology fix. MOOCs got us off on the wrong foot- we all thought this would be the solution. That said, some answers might lie in new technologies that help educate greater numbers while controlling costs.

Barry Glassner followed Hill, emphasizing a need to focus on macrosociological forces at work. 70% of students at selected privates come from the wealthiest 20% of families. Glassner continued by identifying effects of income and equality, and their increases, have strong effects on health outcomes, civic participation rates, throughout the society (not just those who participate).

Glassner discussed income and equality as they relate to financial aid. He describes his institution, endowment covers 8% of financial aid (endowment per student is very small. Even if the endowment were to double or triple, they would still be highly tuition dependent. The effects of income and equality are felt very strongly.

The small percentage of families that can afford the full sticker price are being courted by everyone else. Wealthy schools have advantages, as they have larger and higher paid admissions staff, better amenities (fancier dorms, better food, climbing walls!), and haggling! The most disturbing form is increasing pseudo merit scholarship to students from wealthy families in anticipation from calls from families looking to save- pitting deals from schools against each other.

One option, as noted by Hill, is to cut back on financial aid for lower income families. At Lewis & Clark, they have not yet done that. Other strategies include gapping (we don’t meet the full need), increasing the number of high-income and upper middle class students (increasing these allow schools to not cut financial aid for low-income students, but these are the students involved in haggling). Gapping means 2^nd and 3^rd jobs for families or the students themselves- which means delayed degree attainment.

There are silver linings. The challenges provoke possibilities. Lewis & Clark has expanded their horizons by assigning a full-time admissions officer to the east coast, with an excellent result, including both diversity and net revenue. It has also resulted in revenue positive Masters and summer programs.

---

10:30 a.m. – MORNING SESSION: The Evolution of Student Aid, Where it Has Been, and Where it is Heading: Implications for Students and Families

Presentation

Georgette DeVeres, Associate Vice President and Dean of Admission and Financial Aid, Claremont McKenna College

Shirley Ort, Associate Provost and Director of the Office of Scholarships and Student Aid, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Youlonda Copeland-Morgan, Associate Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management, UCLA

Georgette DeVeres began the panel discussion with a look at the evolution and history of federal and public aid policy. Over time, the federal and state partnership has resulted as the state having a diminished role. Public institutions are forced to rely more on tuition revenue and receive less from state subsidy.

Another element worthy of examination is the creation of Needs Analysis. What is the method for identifying a family’s need to pay?

The federal government, Keppel Task Force, examined a uniform methodology, then congressional methodology, and now federal methodology.

Rethinking student aid, DeVeres continued, includes examining what federal student aid should do:

• Help those who are unlikely to meet the educational goals without help
• Provide federal grant aid adequate for a four-year degree objective for all qualified students
• It should be transparent and simple
• Communication should be early and straightforward
• Make use of IRS data

DeVeres continued with an examination of the past, revisiting past principles (please see presentation slide deck).

Next, Shirley Ort continued the presentation with a look at “The Future, in Retrospect”. She described the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Masterpiece in American Higher Education. Ort detailed the personal benefits she enjoyed, and how it led to her pursuit of further education. She said borrowing $100,000 to fund her education was a privilege, as it opened up opportunity to her. She said that to her, the support meant that she was worthy. Someone thought she was worth the investment.

Ort shifted her focus to the changing landscape. The drivers of change including demographics shifts, growth in the non-traditional student population, pressures to contain college costs, questions about the sustainability of current models, rapid advances in technology and data/information exchange, and openness to new ideas, new modes of instruction. The problem we face, however, is a largely static student aid delivery system juxtaposed against dynamic changes within higher education.

As Ort shifted the conversation toward a look forward, but paused to share a thought about predictions from an article she read recently:

“Predictions are some people’s future hopes and other people’s present fears”

Looking forward, Ort predicts that Aid Delivery may become more direct between the Department of Education and the student. College cost, branding, accreditation are other notable areas of focus as we look ahead.

Youlonda Copeland-Morgan next presented, “A New Roadmap: Same Values, New Directions. She underscored the importance of maintaining a focus on values. It is critical, as without it we run the risk of ending up in a place that we do not want to be. One of the challenges with a new roadmap is considering what we keep and what we change.

Copeland-Morgan described her fear that the good that we are doing is not going to be enough to move the needle. The way forward is to make drastic changes- and perhaps be “unreasonable”. When external forces challenge us and force us to do things, change occurs more rapidly, even when we don’t like it. Why? Because it is required. Are we, however, strong enough to make that change today, without that external force?

Copeland-Morgan outlined many current programs and future challenges (see slide deck), asking how do we move forward among these challenges? Copeland-Morgan suggests:

We need an exit strategy; we must be willing to take ACTION:

• Acknowledge that we have a problem
• Consider the viewpoints of thet
• Trust in the principles and underpinnings of the aid system
• Identify new ways of achieving old values
• Own the solutions
• Never give up!

---

1:15 p.m. – MASTER CLASS I: The Current Landscape of Financial Aid and How Families Pay for College

Sandy Baum, Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute, Professor Emerita of Economics at Skidmore College

Presentation

Baum framed her session with a key consideration: When we talk about affordability, we need to ask, affordable for whom? And we need to focus on resource before, during, and after college. We also need to ask what we mean by how do people pay for college? Are we talking about tuition and fees, books and supplies, living expensive, foregone wages? Which postsecondary options? What expenses would you only have to pay if you went to college? Food, for example, is not a real cost of going to college. Living expenses is a “stand in” for forgone earnings, you can’t count both or you are double counting.

The public dialogue wants the question to be simple, but it is not. A lot of what they pay with is future earnings, while others pay through their parents. We should be focusing on the STUDENT. How can the STUDENT afford to go to college?

The key question is will the long-term standard of living be higher after paying for college?

We must get people think differently about what they are “buying” – this is not just a consumer good.

How are people paying for college and what are they paying for?

The College Board Trends in College Pricing publication (http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing) shows current tuition, room and board, etc., for various types of colleges. There is such huge variation, which makes the whole conversation much harder. When we have a national conversation about paying for college, we don’t take into account the variation between states. Dramatic differences exist between states.

How do people pay for college? You have to start by asking:

• Where did they enroll?
• Where do they live?

There is also an entirely different story when looking at community colleges as compared to private four-year schools. Thus, how do they pay for college becomes a very different question.

Another issue related to how we pay for it relates to state appropriations on a per-student basis. One way to pay for college is to pay taxes. That is one way to pay for your own college and that of others. As a society, we are paying less as taxpayers per student and we are paying less of the resources that we have. Could we afford to pay more? If we pay higher taxes, we would put more students through college (who will then pay higher taxes)?.

Baum also asked the asked for a consideration of net budget before, during, and after college. What were the resources before, during and after college?

Next, Baum examined the average published and net prices for various institution types (see slide deck). For community college students from families making less than $30,000, 85% pay ZERO net tuition and fees. Another 5% pays less than $1,000. 16% came from the top income quartile ($106,000).

Driving back to the question of what students have to pay for, we need to be able to ask questions to answer this better. The national average per student doesn’t take into account differences between states. Where you live makes a big difference in how you pay.

Baum also dispelled the idea that “loans have replaced grants”. Grant aid continues, but we are chasing a higher price. Institutional grants are more and more important, but, again, it depends on where you go. In public doctoral institutions, for example, 35% received grant aid in 2002-2003, in 2012-2013 it was 51%.

When examining how people pay for college, we must consider personal resources. Tuition has risen, but family incomes are stagnant. The personal savings rate has dropped significantly. The post-college earnings trend is bleak. We are making a big push for people get degrees, but we must be mindful of which degrees pay off. If earnings is the goal, we need to be more specific, rather than just saying go to college.

---

2:45 p.m. – MASTER CLASS II – Understanding Federal and State Government Funding of Postsecondary Institutions

Nicholas Hillman, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Ozan Jaquette, Assistant Professor of Higher Education, University of Arizona

Presentation: Hillman

Presentation: Jaquette

Hillman began with a look at “Understanding federal and state government funding of postsecondary institutions”. He examined the shared responsibility between students, government, and philanthropy (see slides). States are big funders of public higher education, the federal government is a big contributor, students contribute, and endowments are contributors. It is a $300+ billion enterprise, or 2% of US GDP for 19 millions students (Fall 2015). Net tuition alone out of the $300,000 billion is 120 billion.

Hillman asks, do we have a cost, subsidy or price problem? Costs rise very slowly- maybe 1% over inflation. The costs of delivering education are not going up, but students’ share of the costs is rising quickly. When will students cover the majority of the expenditures?

State appropriations per students are dropping. As appropriations drop, student costs rise. What are the consequences of rising prices? More student loan debt, longer time to degree, pressure on the aid program, alternative revenue generation are among the consequences.

Hillman turned to Performance Based Funding. Currently 32 states use it, although there is some disagreement about who is really doing it. There has been renewed interested since 2009. Today, 52% of community colleges operate in a state that operates through these mechanisms. Performance Based Funding provides incentives to encourage colleges to increase completion. We see versions of performance based funding (PBF) proposed or implemented at the federal level: American’s collge promise, College rating system, gainful employment, cohort default rate, risk taking and the Pell grant. Next, Hillman walked through exemplars (see slide deck) and his conclusions.

Next Ozan Jaquette began a presentation of research related to public institutions’ looking for out-of-state students. He shared his own experience going to Oxford and being surrounded by Americans, and his related disappointment. He was at Oxford during a time when the university tried to cover a budget gap. International/American students were recruited because more money could be collected from them. This aligned with, and triggered Jaquette’s research interest in, what was happening within states.

His hypothesis was that as state appropriations go down, the non-resident student population goes up. They found that a 10% decline in state appropriations is associated with 2.7% increase in nonresident freshman (all public universities), research universities had a 5% increase, and Master’s universities show a 2.1% increase.

Another study examined “Tuition Rich, Mission Poor”. Nonresident students generate more revenue. They score higher on standardized test scores but not necessarily higher GPAs, and tend to be white or Asian.

The results of their studies can be seen in the slide decks.

One on-going research question is does the nonresident student “crowd out” the residents?

We don’t really know much about where public universities are recruiting when we see a dramatic increase in nonresident students. This is an area of future research for Jaquette. If we understand where universities are actually recruiting, that is a big statement about what students they value. Jaquette continued to elaborate on future research interests that we can expect to see in the next few years

---

7:00 p.m. – EVENING KEYNOTE: The Politics of Student Aid and College Costs

Barmak Nassirian, Director of Federal Relations and Policy Analysis, American Association of State Colleges and Universities

Nassirian congratulated Jerry for the extraordinary and substantive conference and then moved into what he described as broad and contextual concepts related to politics. He noted that we are involved in an agenda creating process that gets quickly hijacked by competing priorities and conceptual mistakes. It is important to understand both side- all have attempted to reach positive goals. In the old days we had a trust in polity where the public trusted institutions- and some institutions (military, police, for example) still hold this support. Virtually all of the institutions that you identify as trustworthy (churches, colleges, university) are below and congress is below them all.

There is an erosion of public trust. You end up with “amateur” hour, where politicians end up in things that they shouldn’t be engaged in at that level. The advocacy for higher education represents a more structural failure that we cannot speak with one voice and we don’t have a single response. We simply do not have a good narrative. It appears that we don’t know the answer. He asks, is college worth it? And answers his own question, “Of course it is worth it!”

Curriculum, instruction and assessment- higher education has been merciless in terms of trying to squeeze the faculty and show discipline on the cost front. There are factors that are beyond our reach. Archibald and Feldman‘s work on college cost, he notes, makes a number of important points, including  the impact of the macro economy. If good jobs are disappearing, the best education or credentialing system would not be able to sustain itself without subsidies. We don’t have a cost escalation problem as much as a cost-shifting problem as the state investment is shifting. The cost of education has become a private responsibility. For those who are able to get a good education, it pans out. But we just don’t know who they are.

Another significant issue is that the temporality of issues. Higher education is like an annuity. You incur the cost of education and it is supposed to pay off over the decades. There are some real theoretical issues with regard to how we forecast out need and squeeze more efficiency, but the problem that we run into politically is the tendency to seek easy, Utopian solutions. Several years ago, the internet- distance education- was supposed to solve everything. Of course, we managed to get distance education and we learned that it requires enormous infrastructure costs and it only works on scale. And it is not the same – there are expensive pedagogical changes. MOOCs were there for a nanosecond. The idea that everyone will have a Harvard professor for free did not pan out. The odds are the people that we need to educate, students from varied backgrounds, etc., are not going to be the beneficiaries of these new approaches- easy solutions.

The sky isn’t falling, Nassirian notes, but when you see income stagnation for 4 decades, the notion of student debt, putting the debt onto the student, and betting on student earnings, means you must assume that the student will have a different wage trajectory than their parents.

Next Nassirian turned his attention to Washington, nothing that we are lucky to have Senator Alexander. He is thoughtful well-intentioned, serious, and of good worth. He managed to get NCLB reauthorized, which is phenomenal, stunning!  But, he jokes, “that don’t mean nothing” to HEA because there are some things that work with NCLB that don’t work with HEA. NCLB became a political hot potato for both parties for different reasons. Teachers and teacher unions and parents hated it because “the pig don’t get any fatter the more you weigh it”. But, NCLB did not involve an enormous sum of money- it was ideology.

HEA has difficult problems that we don’t have answers to. He reflects his boss telling him that there are 3 ways to lobby:

1-Show up with money

2- Show up with vote

3- Show up with just enough technical knowledge that they need you in the room to accomplish whatever it is they want to do.

The third strategy has typically been higher education’s role. We have a lot of tactical knowledge, but we are not good at strategizing. We don’t have an affirmative solution- even if they gave us the power. What is it that we want from college? Higher education basically seems to be saying the system is extraordinarily expensive and we are choking under micromanagement- but please don’t change anything. There is a belief that change can only mean bad things.

Nassirian concludes with a discussion on the financial aid system, using his cell phone as a metaphor. He points out that a cell phone is easy to use, but it is a complex device. My message, he said, is that to simplify student aid, we need to complicate the back office. It can be complex, but must be easy to use.

8:30 a.m. – MORNING SESSION I: Is the Current Higher Education Funding Model Sustainable?

Kent Chabotar, President Emeritus and Professor of Political Science, Guilford College

Neil Theobald, President, Temple University

Chabotar Presentation

Theobald Presentation

Kent John Chabotar began our morning with his session, “Visions of Higher Education: Is the Current Model Sustainable?” He described his job as “the Hell” part of this topic. He is going to talk about data that is not comforting.

He began by describing the idea of, The End of the University as We Know It. Chabotar reviewed literature and quotes that criticized higher education (see slide deck).

Underlying assumptions: Predictions of any future are hard. Today we have Cloud computing, Skype, iPad, Facebook, twitter, iPhones, etc. It is hard to talk about the future. But here are some things that we can predict: By 2020 total undergrad will grow by 10% to 19.7 million of which 75% will be public institutions. Private education accounts for 40% of the institution yet only 15% of the college population attends such schools. 1/3 of colleges didn’t meet enrollment goals in 2015 (of survey respondents). The average debt among graduates of 4-year colleges is $28,950. 80% of the public and 40% of college presidents believe that college education is not worth the price. Between 2000 and 2011, debt doubled to $205 billion dollars while fundraising dropt 40%. In 20 years, net tuition has increased 220% compared to 120% cost of living. The average annual tuition in public institution has increased 29%, or $2,068. Chabotar notes that we need to focus on net tuition and put reality back into the equation. Over half of college bound seniors rule out college on sticker price alone. Students don’t understand financial aid options.

Chabotar turned now to Moody’s 2016 Outlook. The most important thing for Moody’s is admissions. This is what the most recent outlook suggestions: Moderate revenue is going to grow, mainly because states are loosening the purse strings just a little bit. All revenue streams are expected to grow modestly. On-going expense discipline will contribute to steady operation performance and reserves will remain stable with continued strategic capital investment. The outlook will be more positive if the growth is more than 5%. More information from Moody’s was presented and can be found on the slide deck.

The most at risk, those who are least likely to adapt and survive, are universities in rural locations, low enrollment, high tuition dependence, high tuition discount, low endowment, high debt, few unallocated dollars, and those that do not differentiate/look too much like the competition.

Chabotar concluded by saying that he has put us through hell for the last 20 minutes, and Neil is here to save us!

With that, Neil Theobald began his presentation on the current higher education funding model. He began by asking if the model is sustainable and responding that it is not, but we can talk about what to do about it. Theobald suggests that the statistics are clear: if you are 18 years old, you should pursue a university education, as it gives you a return on your investment. Families are more interested in the here and now. This should be an easy sell, but we must confront a “new pragmatism”- a higher scrutiny. We really need to talk about the value that universities provide and why an individual should invest in a degree from a particular institution.

Theobald argues that we have gotten ourselves into a cul-de-sac, as we have presented unsustainable choices. Universities are either accessible, affordable, or excellent. At Temple University, Theobald has attempted to promote an accessible, affordable, and exception option.

The bottom 25% of the lowest income levels, only 8% of their children gradate from college. In the top 25%, 75% of children graduate by the age of 24.

The four foci at Temple are:

Faculty Excellence:

• More full-time hires, bucking the higher education trend
• 200+ new tenured or tenure-line faculty since 2012
• 60% of non-tenure-line faculty have mutli-year contracts

4-Year Graduation

• Current trend is that the longer time to degree relates to higher student debt.
• Temple implemented FlyIn4, which maps a path to graduation in 4 years.
• Students on track save an aggregate of $20 million

Accessibility and Diversity

• Theobald asks what are other ways for students to showcase themselves beyond the SAT? They set up a model in which the student has a choice. They still send in grades/references. They can choose, however, to send in SAT or write 4 essays. 20% of the 2019 class used the “Temple Option” and it yielded the most diverse freshman class in Temple history.

Aggressive Cost Containment

• The first three ideas above either lower revenue or cost money. Thus, they implemented aggressive cost containment.
• Temple held the line while higher education tuition hikes outpaced inflation
• Decentralized financial aid decision-making holds growth below CPI: 1.8% per year.
• Commonwealth funding has not caught up- off 13.4% since 2012
• In-state tuition has risen by 2.4%
• They have identified five priority areas in their higher, aggressively recruited international students, cut 3 varsity sports,

Theobald asks, What are the Dividends of the Sustainability Strategy?

He describes Temple as thriving in an era of “new pragmatism”. They view scrutiny as an opportunity. He notes that the road to sustainable funding is paved with concrete steps. Concrete tactical action is needed. He concludes, stating that when we prove relevance and value while prizing excellence, we sustain our institutions for the future.

---

10:00 a.m. – MORNING SESSION II: Are We Too Reliant on Student Loans?

Presentation

Robert Shireman, The Century Foundation

Bob Shireman described his goal to answer the question, “If higher education is so great, and such an excellent value, why are people so upset about the debt they need to take on to attain a degree in higher education?” Shireman showed a poster from Rose State University (see slide deck) that was used to try to get students to stay in school. The college Scorecard from the US Department of Education says, “On average, college graduates make $1 million more over a lifetime than high school graduates”. Shireman describes this as misleading and deceptive. Giving someone the impression that they should take out a loan for the financial benefits of college is like telling someone to take out a loan to play the stock market. By putting the $50,000 in the stock market, based on historical returns, you would earn over a million dollars in a lifetime.

Shireman moved into a discussion of the distribution of earnings by education level (see slide deck). The high school compared with college distribution charges show that there are more people on the higher income side of the slide. About half of the people who go to college, however, don’t graduate. So we cannot say that by borrowing, you will have a bachelor’s degree. Unlike borrowing for a car or house, when borrowing for college, you don’t necessarily have a degree. With this, Shireman showed the distribution of degrees based on those who attending and completed college. Shown together (see slide deck), the true picture is shown. The best way to get the messages across is by having someone who is trustworthy to the individual advising them about whether or not this debt will be good for them. It is important to add the disclaimer that the future is a best predictor of the past, but there have been periods of the collapse of the credential.

Shireman discussed Senator Simon (his first boss) and initiatives that they worked on. Taxation is the best way to avoid issues of debt, but if we are going have student loans, we need to be able to tell students that the loans they are taking are safe. If the value of the credential collapses, if they don’t get the high paying job, etc., they need to know they will be OK. They need an insurance policy. The goal a system that an 18 year old can understand, but rather those who advise them can understand and use with them.

Shireman continued by describing the role of Clinton, Gingrich, Spelling, Ted Kennedy, and others in student debt discussion. Bush signed the income based repayment (at 15%) plan. Obama included in the health care bill to 10% for some borrowers and then by regulation over time it has been reduced for more and more borrowers. With the simplicity of messaging, Shireman feels that we “have arrived” at the highest level. Saying “no one has to pay more than 10% of their income for their student loan” seems to be understandable, make sense, and makes people feel protected from the downside.

In the grand scheme of things, Shireman note, 10% is not necessarily the definition of affordability. He describes a college where people borrow $250,000-$300,000 a year to attend and no one worries about it…. Where is that? WestPoint. When students sign up they agree to serve in the military or pay the loan back. Students can drop out after the first year and have no liability. If they continue, the loan is forgivable and the job is guaranteed. It is telling that it is a huge amount of debt, but with the advising and financial incentives, the system seems to work.

Public perception sees colleges as both used car salesman. Additionally, the shift in terms of a young person getting a decent paying job without a college degree were 60% in 1979 and 27% in 2014. This undermines the importance of attending.

Shireman concludes with an emphasis on inequality and how we might move forward. The three goals include: affordability, upward mobility, and quality.

• Affordability: We have given colleges money, but haven’t done anything to understand what they did with it.

• Upward Mobility: We get dinged by Moody’s when we engage in our mission of supporting low-income students. We need to change the equation so that when institutions worry about their bottom line, rather than saying we need to find more rich students; we need to change the equation to say we need to find more poor students.

• Quality: The program has to be strong.

Affordability and Mobility work together. Shireman suggests that there needs to be more money in the system. When the government is funding an institution, they are funding maximum next price. Schools are saying EFC, work, grans, and safe loans are needed to meet cost of attendance. There also needs to be some flexibility to allow for alternative need methodology. Shireman suggests that GRAD Plus loans need to be capped or eliminated. He suggests a capitation grant for economically underrepresented students, AND, by enrolling low-income students, institutions can earn safe loan funds that can used for higher income and graduate students.

The quality issue can be addressed by program review processes that involved independent experts outside the university and reviewing actual student work. Shireman also suggests that examples of typical student work be made public..

---

11:00 a.m. – EXPERTS RESPOND: Reverse Press Conference with Senior Education Writers

Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Education

The conference concluding with Scott Jaschik sharing his thoughts and observations related to financial aid issues, followed by a question and answer period from those in attendance.

Dr. Lucido kicked off the conference by thanking the sponsors and staff that make the conference possible. Each year, he noted, this conference serves as an opportunity to take a deep dive into a topic of timeliness and importance. Over the years, he reflects, we have asked ourselves to define the meaning of merit; we have gone beyond the usual with a look at non-academic/non-cognitive factors, and we have examined the future of college admissions. It is time, he continued, for an examination of cost, aid, and sustainable solutions. We start by asking the basic question: Is College Worth It?

With this, Dr. Lucido introduced Martin Van Der Werf.

6:00 pm – OPENING ADDRESS: Is College Worth It? Cost, Value, and Workforce Projections

Presentation

Martin Van Der Werf, Associate Director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce

Van Der Werf began by noting that we have experienced 1.7% drop in college enrollment in the recent semester, which is expected along with economic recovery. The drop of enrollment, according the Wall Street Journal article Van Der Werf read, was related to a perception that college is not necessary to be successful. The perceived success of college dropouts (collegedropoutshalloffame.com) in recent years aligns with an increase in the cost of college and the fear of not being able to pay for it. The question used to be “Will I be smart enough?” and today the question is “Can I afford it?”

Van Der Werf notes that people talk about cost, but not value. A high price tag leads to avoidance behavior. People begin to think and talk about how they are going to build their career without college education.

Next, Van Der Werf moved into an overview of Five Reasons College is Worth the Cost:

1. The college wage premium continues to increase: In 1970, 10,000,000 people had college degrees. Now 50,000,000 have them. The wage premium has doubled and the number of people who benefit has quintupled. People with a Bachelor’s degree make more than 50% of all of the income in the economy, although they only make up 1/3 of the volume. People with an Associate’s degree will make $500,000 more than someone with a high school diploma over the course of a career.
2. Recent college graduates are NOT stuck in dead-end jobs. At the height of the recession of 2009, the unemployment rate for college grads was 10.9%. But, Van Der Werf notes, recent grads often have high unemployment rates. It takes them a while (up to 3 years) to work their way into their career of choice. They may intern, moonlight, or do something else to build their case for a job. By 2012 the unemployment rate for recent college grads was 5.5%. Another myth is that people who were recently hired would be the first let go. The research does not support this. Only about 9% of recent college grads were stuck in dead-end job, even at the height of the recession.
3. Unemployment rates decline with age and each level of educational attainment.
4. Economy is eliminating high school jobs. Long-term change in our economy, from agrarian, to manufacturing, to high-tech/info-based has been roughly paralleled with education levels of the people in that society. Right now, high school workers are being squeezed out of the economy. Since 2010, the economy has created 7 million jobs for people with a Bachelor’s degree or higher and 2.3 million jobs for people with some college or an Associate Degree. Only 266,000 jobs have been created for people with a high school diploma or less. The economy, for the least educated among us seems hopeless because, frankly, it is.
5. Jobs of the future will require postsecondary credentials. By 2020, 65% of jobs nationwide will require some education or training beyond high school. In 1970 44% of top three income deciles were college graduates, today that number is 81%.

Van Der Werf continued by asking, What should we make of the idea that people can make it without college? Bad economic times tend to have bad “hangovers”, with the thought being that this will go on forever. There is a reluctance to believe and engage in higher education. This is, however, short-term thinking. Individuals need to think of college as a life-long investment decision.

Van Der Werf shifted gears to the topic of college accountability and transparency. It is a topic that has been brewing for a long time and should be talked about more. What is the value of college? How do people view it? Van Der Werf showed a clip from “Animal House”, noting that the “Knowledge is Good” mantra that sets the tone for the movie is not enough for the public. They are looking more for accountability- they want to force you to prove outcomes.

Amid this talk of fundamental change, how has higher education responded? Van Der Werf suggests that they have not responded well. Education is the pathway to the middle class. As people put more into this institution, they want to know what they will get for it, and “knowledge is good” is not enough. Van Der Werf suggests that college/universities must become more transparent. While higher education talks about the “preeminence of the degree”, the public wants to know about the bottom line.

Next Van Der Werf showed a clip of Sir Robinson on creativity (http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity) suggesting that degrees aren’t worth anything. Van Der Werf notes that this 19-minute talk is the most popular TED Talk with 36 million vies and was recorded 10 years ago. He suggested that higher education needs to worry about this. He continues by referencing Selingo’s book, which suggests “Google doesn’t care about degrees, they are about what you know.” The take-away is that the college degree does not mean as much as it used to mean.

Van Der Werf suggests that higher education institutions join with other colleges and universities to agree to metrics that measure the quality of graduates. If discussions related to the value and worth of college is happening, the public doesn’t know about it. You need to talk about quality and outcomes. Defending Liberal Arts, for example, should be grounded in the outcomes to which that course of study leads.

January 16-18, 2013 (Los Angeles, CA)

The research is clear. The attributes of a successful college student go well beyond measures of the defined components of standardized tests and high school grades. The abilities to adapt, persist, interpret, lead, be creative, handle disappointment, and negotiate complex systems often make the difference between a student who is a good choice or a poor one in admission and a student who is engaged and successful on campus or one who is not.

How can these attributes be identified and cultivated? Which explain success and for whom? How are they considered in college admission policies and how can they be given their due? How might high school preparation change if these attributes were more widely understood to be critical in college admission and success?

175 participants, comprised of leading graduate and undergraduate admission deans, campus enrollment policy makers, higher education scholars, K-12 educators, and state and federal policy makers, came together for Attributes That Matter: Beyond the Usual in College Admission and Success.

---

2013 Conference

---

Sponsors

We gratefully acknowledge our sponsors whose generosity made Attributes That Matter: Beyond the Usual in College Admission and Success possible:

• The College Board
• Hobsons
• International Baccalaureate Organization
• Rossier School of Education