This week's post examines the intersections of selective college admissions and college costs. Inside Higher Ed recently released results from their 2011 survey of college and university admission directors. Owing to the continued volatility of domestic and world markets it is unsurprising that the number one concern across all institution types is over rising costs and the effects on families. The problem of rising costs ought to concern administrators at selective schools for several reasons. First, the prestige arms race is not sustainable. The drain on resources to add amenities has been countered by increasing the price students and families pay. Second, the demographics of higher education are shifting. The National Center for Educational Statistics is projecting increased enrollments in postsecondary institutions for minority students, women, and students between the ages of 25-29. The price of obtaining a college education and the costs of producing a degree can either align with the projected trends or disregard these projections and remain enclaves of privilege. Finally, selective admissions policies are likely to met with increased scrutiny from federal and state funding agencies. Degree productivity either has to increase or taxpayers are likely question the value of publicly subsidizing the privileges of the wealthy.
Why should we care about the most selective schools and their admissions policies? Most US citizens will not complete a college degree at the most selective schools. Folks that do complete a bachelor's degree are most likely to have come from more inclusive public schools or less-selective private schools. The problem is that these inclusive schools are seldom the subject of news reports on television or in print media; all the media attention is lavished on the brand names of the Ivy League and their west coast contemporaries. This has the unfortunate effect of shaping public perceptions of college admission and also distorts the value attached to obtaining admission. Indeed, the USC Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice (CERPP) reports that, "The values and behaviors [selective admissions] signals as important, and its tendency to reward only a narrow band of students, undermine progress toward our nation's education attainment goals" (p.2). Moreover, as more US colleges and universities enter the fray of the prestige arms race the access pathways become more constrained.
When I talk about selective admissions what I refer to is a constellation of practices whereby schools seek to "craft" or "build" their incoming freshmen and transfer classes. Students are sorted through a variety of methods aimed at determining whether a given applicant possesses the academic and social chops to succeed at a given school. While concerns over a student's ability to succeed are well-founded, the means of accomplishing this feat are dubious. The foremost feature of selective admissions is the standardized testing requirement. According to the above-mentioned Inside Higher Ed survey 71.7% of respondents indicated that they still required either the SAT or ACT as part of the application process. The unfortunate reality of standardized tests is that they predict something they, at least facially, aren't supposed to predict: students' socioeconomic status (Au, 2009; Sternberg, 2011). Additionally, research has shown that standardized tests are weak indicators of student success (Kuh and Pascarella, 2004). If tests are measuring SES better than predicting academic success, why do so many schools insist on them?
The answer is simple: high scoring test takers tend to come from families better able to pay the high tuitions charged at selective schools. While merit aid (another topic unto itself) allows high achieving students to eliminate or significantly reduce their tuition, many high scoring students simply have parents that can afford the exorbitant tuitions. But, why is tuition at selective schools so much higher than at more inclusive schools? The answer is twofold: 1) amenities; and 2) scarcity of seats. First, amenities allow schools to offer the trappings of luxury in order to lure applicants away from their competitors. New student centers, athletic and exercise facilities, or elaborate research facilities increase the costs schools have to cover. Second, selective schools are not adding seats to their incoming classes. Indeed, if these school have added anything over the past two decades it has been the above-mentioned amenities. The increased costs of providing new or expanded services is covered either through cuts to other services and program or by increasing tuition and service fees. However, were a selective school to increase the number of seat in a class by any significant number they would be penalized in the rankings. Thus, it behooves schools chasing prestige to maintain the size of incoming classes and to be just a little better than those below them.
The national and world economies are troubled and it appears that we are in for a long recovery process. In the meantime, the US is facing significant changes in the demographic distribution of students entering postsecondary education. President Obama has challenged the nation to increase the number of associate's and bachelor's degree holders by 2020. If schools can put aside the prestige arms race and focus on collaboration, we stand a better chance as a nation to reassert ourselves as a world economic power and as a leading education provider. Schools need incentives to keep costs down and families need tuitions to flatten out to meet the future goals of our country. Unfortunately, much of what the average person hears and reads about American higher education concerns the top 15% of schools. Indeed, if the admission process is being referred to as "madness," the time is ripe to rethink and retool. One of my favorite books about college admissions was written the by late Loren Pope: "Colleges That Change Lives." His work lives on at www.ctcl.org. Take a minute to check out the website and maybe buy the book. The best schools are the ones that focus on student learning almost to a fault.
Learners first, students always!
Why should we care about the most selective schools and their admissions policies? Most US citizens will not complete a college degree at the most selective schools. Folks that do complete a bachelor's degree are most likely to have come from more inclusive public schools or less-selective private schools. The problem is that these inclusive schools are seldom the subject of news reports on television or in print media; all the media attention is lavished on the brand names of the Ivy League and their west coast contemporaries. This has the unfortunate effect of shaping public perceptions of college admission and also distorts the value attached to obtaining admission. Indeed, the USC Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice (CERPP) reports that, "The values and behaviors [selective admissions] signals as important, and its tendency to reward only a narrow band of students, undermine progress toward our nation's education attainment goals" (p.2). Moreover, as more US colleges and universities enter the fray of the prestige arms race the access pathways become more constrained.
When I talk about selective admissions what I refer to is a constellation of practices whereby schools seek to "craft" or "build" their incoming freshmen and transfer classes. Students are sorted through a variety of methods aimed at determining whether a given applicant possesses the academic and social chops to succeed at a given school. While concerns over a student's ability to succeed are well-founded, the means of accomplishing this feat are dubious. The foremost feature of selective admissions is the standardized testing requirement. According to the above-mentioned Inside Higher Ed survey 71.7% of respondents indicated that they still required either the SAT or ACT as part of the application process. The unfortunate reality of standardized tests is that they predict something they, at least facially, aren't supposed to predict: students' socioeconomic status (Au, 2009; Sternberg, 2011). Additionally, research has shown that standardized tests are weak indicators of student success (Kuh and Pascarella, 2004). If tests are measuring SES better than predicting academic success, why do so many schools insist on them?
The answer is simple: high scoring test takers tend to come from families better able to pay the high tuitions charged at selective schools. While merit aid (another topic unto itself) allows high achieving students to eliminate or significantly reduce their tuition, many high scoring students simply have parents that can afford the exorbitant tuitions. But, why is tuition at selective schools so much higher than at more inclusive schools? The answer is twofold: 1) amenities; and 2) scarcity of seats. First, amenities allow schools to offer the trappings of luxury in order to lure applicants away from their competitors. New student centers, athletic and exercise facilities, or elaborate research facilities increase the costs schools have to cover. Second, selective schools are not adding seats to their incoming classes. Indeed, if these school have added anything over the past two decades it has been the above-mentioned amenities. The increased costs of providing new or expanded services is covered either through cuts to other services and program or by increasing tuition and service fees. However, were a selective school to increase the number of seat in a class by any significant number they would be penalized in the rankings. Thus, it behooves schools chasing prestige to maintain the size of incoming classes and to be just a little better than those below them.
The national and world economies are troubled and it appears that we are in for a long recovery process. In the meantime, the US is facing significant changes in the demographic distribution of students entering postsecondary education. President Obama has challenged the nation to increase the number of associate's and bachelor's degree holders by 2020. If schools can put aside the prestige arms race and focus on collaboration, we stand a better chance as a nation to reassert ourselves as a world economic power and as a leading education provider. Schools need incentives to keep costs down and families need tuitions to flatten out to meet the future goals of our country. Unfortunately, much of what the average person hears and reads about American higher education concerns the top 15% of schools. Indeed, if the admission process is being referred to as "madness," the time is ripe to rethink and retool. One of my favorite books about college admissions was written the by late Loren Pope: "Colleges That Change Lives." His work lives on at www.ctcl.org. Take a minute to check out the website and maybe buy the book. The best schools are the ones that focus on student learning almost to a fault.
Learners first, students always!
Au, W. (2009). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kuh, G. D., & Pascarella, E. T. (2004). What does educational selectivity tell us about
educational quality? Change, 36(5), 52-58.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A broad view of intelligence: The theory of successful intelligence.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55(3), 139-154. doi:
10.1037/1061-4087.55.3.139
