NAGAP Annual Conference Displays Meshing of Professional and Scholarly Identities

Most folks who know me, understand my core philosophy of higher education admissions work to be: if done right, admissions changes lives.  Since wednesday 25 April to saturday 28 April I have been at the annual conference of the National Association of Graduate Admissions Professionals (NAGAP).  My big takeaway from this conference has been that the graduate admissions profession distinguishes itself through a synthesis of scholarly work and outcomes based practice.  At times this synthesis still feels to be in a formative stage, but I can see the direction the association wants to go and it is good.  Academe ought to pay attention to NAGAP if not for the simple reason that graduate admissions professionals are responsible for helping funnel ambitious, talented minds into the myriad graduate and professional programs available in the United States.

Perhaps the most clear example of the synthesis of scholarship with practice (aka praxis) was furnished by Julie Renee Posselt, a PhD candidate from the University of Michigan at Ann-Arbor.  Her hour-long presentation covered the results from her study of how cultural scripts of merit (i.e. worthiness) affect diversity outcomes in PhD admissions processes.  In her research, Posselt found that faculty committees tended to use quantifiable metrics, such as cumulative GPA and standardized test scores, as an initial screening mechanism for advancement to subsequent stages of the admissions review process.  The effects on diversity were not good, despite the qualitative data that was collected demonstrating a surface interest in the ideals of diversity and equity.   What Posselt's work makes clear is that despite our well-intentioned efforts to increase the diversity of our incoming classes, unless an applicant's file can appeal to a faculty member's emotional core and coheres to prevailing cultural scripts favoring a specific ideology of merit/ worthiness, the positive outcomes will slow to accrue; the glacial rate of institutional change will persist.

Other sessions, while varyingly entertaining and informative, bespoke a professional commitment to meet prospective graduate students "where they are."  Yet, references to "sales" and "market segmentation" were frequent in many of the sessions I attended.  While I generally cringe at the notion of framing my career as  one in sales, beholden to impersonal business principles of products and profits, I found these expressions indicative of the association's hope to establish a broad grasp on relevance; it was as if NAGAP was saying to its membership, "We matter and this is why."

By rights, NAGAP does matter.  Admissions professionals of all stripes enter this career because of a common desire to help others accomplish their dreams, goals, and life ambitions.  My hope for NAGAP is that our association establish itself firmly in praxis and use scholarship deftly to advance the causes of diversity, equity, and access.  This is a vibrant community of professionals, who have come together from myriad backgrounds, and are beginning to distill a more specific identity.  For my part, I will be a colleague who holds up our moral and professional compass to show where the needle points.