Previous Next Title Page Contents NCRVE Home




INTRODUCTION





       College admissions standards affect the implementation and survival prospects of secondary school reform. Supporters of the progressive education movement recognized this fact in the 1930s: "The reason for the nearly complete failure of the secondary schools to respond to the progressive stimulus seems to lie in the college-entrance requirements, which effectively determine the major part of the secondary school curriculum" (McConn, 1933, as cited in Tyack & Tobin, 1994, p. 467). The following comment from the Coalition of Essential Schools newsletter suggests that little has changed in the intervening half-century: ". . . ask any Essential school person to name the biggest obstacle to reshaping curriculum and assessment practices at the secondary level, and the answer inevitably turns to college admissions" (Cushman, 1994, p. 1). Do such comments reflect true barriers to reform, or do they reflect a perception among reformers that colleges and universities refuse to recognize and accommodate reform? To date, the evidence is limited to anecdotal reports of resistance by colleges (e.g., General Accounting Office [GAO], 1993; Nathan, 1995).

       To the extent that reforms alter the way secondary school learning experiences are organized and recorded, recognizing and accommodating those changes in the college admissions process clearly affects the reform's acceptance by students and their parents, and thus by schools. If new courses and new ways of documenting student learning depart from the conventional language of Carnegie units and discrete academic disciplines in which most colleges frame their entrance requirements, the response by colleges may be a deciding factor in the ability of schools to support, adopt, and institutionalize the new approaches. The point is not that the admissions process should necessarily accommodate all reforms, but, rather, that acceptance by colleges is sufficiently important to the viability of reform that claims of resistance and obstruction deserve careful scrutiny and empirical assessment.


Relevance to Reforms That Target Students Who Are Not College-Bound

       Some reforms explicitly target students who will not attend college--the so-called forgotten half--and, therefore, reformers concerned with this population might be unconcerned with winning acceptance by colleges and universities. However, while "non-college-bound" is an unambiguous category for policymakers and reformers, the realities of students' plans and aspirations render it problematic. Consider the following evidence from High School and Beyond (HS&B) and the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS):

       In short, the notion that high school students can be reliably classified as either college-bound or not is unrealistic: many are undecided about college, and many have college aspirations that will go unrealized. While this evidence supports reforms that seek to eliminate tracking and other high school program distinctions, it also means that reformers concerned with the forgotten half cannot assume that the target population can be identified while they are in school. These difficulties have important consequences for the course-taking decisions of students who will later constitute the forgotten half: students who are undecided should plan their curriculum so as to preserve their chances at college admission, and those who expect to attend should keep admission requirements in mind when choosing their courses. Moreover, students who do not plan to attend college might be well-advised to preserve their chances of attendance should their educational goals change in the future.


Specific Reform Efforts and Their Implications for College Admissions

       In recent decades we have seen considerable ferment and experimentation in schools. When Education Weekdetailed the major reform efforts under way in the 1990s, dozens of independent national reform networks were identified (Olson, 1994). Many current strands of reform affect the credentials that students present to college admissions offices, whether through new curricula or new means of assessment. Because the high school transcript is one of the principal mechanisms colleges rely on to assess a student's preparation, and the only source for assessing whether a student has met curricular entrance requirements, changes to the way this information is recorded on transcripts pose a challenge to admissions procedures that assume standardized categories and formats. Confronted with such challenges, colleges must decide how the new information will be processed and interpreted in the admissions process.

       The following is a brief description of selected reforms that have direct implications for the admissions process, with an explanation of how these innovations might be problematic for or conflict with the college admissions process.

Interdisciplinary Courses

       Some reforms break down conventional disciplinary boundaries with interdisciplinary courses. When admission requirements are framed in terms of discrete subject areas--a near universal practice--it is not always clear how to map interdisciplinary courses to discipline-based requirements. If admissions offices do not count these courses toward requirements, or count them as electives rather than core courses, students taking such courses may have difficulty meeting entrance requirements.

Integrated Academic and Vocational Content

       Another strand of reform seeks to integrate academic and vocational content in courses, blurring the traditional separation between the academic and vocational branches of the curriculum. These integrated or "applied academics" courses are intended to teach the same concepts as traditional academic courses, but with a greater emphasis on real-life, hands-on applications of those concepts so that they will be engaging and accessible to a wider range of students. By offering more academic content than traditional vocational courses, integrated courses improve the skills and knowledge of students who may not continue their education beyond high school (Stasz, Kaganoff, & Eden, 1994).

       There is considerable variation in the way applied academics courses appear on high school transcripts.[3] College personnel who scan transcripts for courses identified as college preparatory may perceive the absence of such labels, or indeed the mere presence of the word "applied" in a course title, as signaling courses that lack the rigor of traditional academic courses--in other words, that they are "dumbed down" versions of the academic curriculum. In such cases, they may not count integrated courses toward subject area admission requirements. If the new courses do not satisfy requirements, or indeed if there is any doubt as to whether they will satisfy requirements, both college-bound students and those who are uncertain about their college plans will confront a powerful disincentive to enroll in applied academics courses.

Unconventional Ways of Recording Students' Knowledge, Skills, and Achievement

       The movement to shift measurement of student learning and even graduation criteria away from accumulated Carnegie units toward demonstrated competencies represents a major departure from practices that have been in place for most of this century. College admissions procedures presuppose that the vast majority of schools record students' academic experiences and achievements as a series of discrete course titles with associated grades and Carnegie units, and curricular admission requirements are almost universally expressed in Carnegie units. In selective admissions settings, students' grades and rank in class are typically used (in combination with other factors such as standardized test scores, recommendations, and personal essays) to gauge their achievement relative to that of their peers.

Tech Prep or Applied Associate's Degrees

       In addition to reform at the secondary level, curricular reform at the community college level may have implications for transfer admission. Policymakers have expressed concern that students completing a Tech Prep associate's degree may face limitations should they later decide to pursue a bachelor's degree (GAO, 1993; Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1994). The ability of Tech Prep graduates from community colleges to transfer into baccalaureate programs has important consequences for students' future educational opportunities and, thus, for the attractiveness and viability of such programs.


Realities of the Admissions Process

       The discussion thus far, like many discussions of these issues in the literature, makes four-year institutions out to be the villains: they obstruct reform by their stubborn adherence to the status quo and their refusal to accommodate innovation at the secondary or community college level. While many college personnel are indeed hesitant to overhaul their procedures in response to reform, there are justifiable reasons for this attitude that derive from the demands of the admissions function and the track record of reform.[4]

Information Processing Demands

       A primary area of concern to admissions personnel is the sheer volume of applications to be processed: public institutions handle several thousand applications each year. High volume drives a need for generalizable procedures whereby the mass of applications can be classified and compared efficiently, equitably, and inexpensively. This translates to a strong bias in favor of classification mechanisms that are easily quantifiable and that can be reliably compared across students and schools. For the admissions director who must process several thousand applications in a matter of months on a limited budget, the definition of the college preparatory curriculum as a set of discrete courses with relatively standard titles; the uniform scheme for measuring course taking that the Carnegie system provides; and the use of standardized tests and class rank as common metrics for academic preparation and achievement all hold great appeal. The following statement, from a 1993 forum on college admissions and school reform organized by the National Governors' Association (NGA), illustrates the admissions director's dilemma:

Most of our universities don't give individual attention to the individual when admitting. We don't really look. It's mechanistic. . . . I don't see us sitting down and reading an application portfolio from every student. . . . [W]e will never be funded to perform that task for all applicants. . . . The university has rhetoric about what it wants, while the admissions officers have to triage the applicant pool. (Houghton, 1993, p. 8)

The Importance of Evaluating Students' Academic Preparation

       Admissions staff may face pressure to maintain or increase enrollments and they may want to give certain marginal candidates a chance to prove themselves in the classroom, but they also have a responsibility to determine students' readiness for college-level work. If a poorly prepared student is admitted and then drops out or is dismissed due to unsatisfactory academic performance, it reflects badly on the judgment of the admissions office. More importantly, the offer of admission may not have served the student's best interests. Furthermore, public institutions must ensure accountability and equity in their admissions process. These factors engender a strong preference among admissions personnel for "proven" approaches to assessing a student's preparation and an aversion to new approaches.

       That said, the information available for this assessment is quite limited. This is especially true in the case of curricular requirements. Even when a student's transcript shows the required number of credits in the required subject areas, the actual content and rigor of those courses is often unknown. Thus, the institutionalized practice of requiring a standard list of courses on transcripts reveals relatively little about a student's readiness for college work. Indeed, this is one of the factors that drives institutions to rely on standardized test scores in assessing a student's preparation.[5]

Practical Challenges in Accommodating the Range of Reforms

       By relying on a combination of Carnegie units, high school class rank and grades, and standardized tests, admissions offices can classify and compare students from schools that vary widely with respect to resources, curricula, grading standards, academic rigor, graduation requirements, and many other factors. When institutions are asked to accommodate reform, the operational implications are daunting. There are many different strands of reform operating nationwide, and implementing schools typically adapt reforms to meet their particular needs. The prospect of discarding the few common elements that facilitate relatively objective comparisons across schools and developing new procedures for the range of reform as realized in schoolsis deeply worrisome to admissions personnel. Consider the following statements from the 1993 NGA forum and from a 1994 meeting of members of the Association of Chief Admissions Officers of Public Universities (ACAOPU) that was sponsored by American College Testing (ACT) and The College Board:

I get nervous when we talk about removing my ability to rank applicants. . . . So far our discussion has centered on removing those things from a high school record that enhance my ability to quickly assess how a student has done. (Houghton, 1993, p. 8)
Admissions officers are very dependent on fair, external, objective assessments. . . . [They] have to justify their decisions to various constituencies and they can't do that without national assessments. (Houghton, 1993, p. 8)
We need to be able to distinguish between students, and a portfolio isn't realistic. . . . Currently, we evaluate students on the margin using additional information, but we just can't do it for everyone. (ACT and The College Entrance Examination Board, 1994, p. 5)

Skepticism About Reform

       Finally, many admissions directors are skeptical about whether reform will endure. They are reluctant to overhaul their procedures to accommodate what may be no more than a short-lived fad. To some extent this is a chicken-and-egg dilemma, since as previously noted, the response by universities will affect reform's prospects for adoption and survival. Nevertheless, the historical record shows that many reforms have shown little staying power. Indeed, the practice of reporting course taking in Carnegie units is one of the few reforms that has endured (Tyack & Tobin, 1994).


Will It Be Different This Time?

       In the current round of reform, more communication has taken place between reformers and college personnel, and there are some indications that colleges may be recognizing their role in supporting reform efforts. As noted above, both the NGA and the sponsors of the major college admissions tests have convened reformers and admissions personnel to discuss reform efforts and the importance of accommodation at the college level. The reports from these meetings acknowledge the participants' common and unique interests and the practical difficulties in aligning reform and admissions practices. Although some promising developments are highlighted in the NGA report, little is known about what changes took place after the participants returned to their daily work and local constituencies.

       There are other indications of increased attention to the relationship between reform and college admissions. For example, the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) and the Education Commission of the States (ECS) have issued two reports on the topic. The first, from SHEEO, summarizes reform efforts and collaborative initiatives across the 50 states (Rodriguez, 1994). The second, a joint SHEEO-ECS publication, is a case study of admission requirements at public institutions in ten states (Rodriguez, 1995).[6] At the state level, California's Education Round Table has reported on the relationship between K-12 reform and higher education (Intersegmental Coordinating Council, 1995). Oregon is instituting a proficiency-based admissions system; Wisconsin has been piloting such a system; and other states are initiating similar experiments. The Center for Occupational Research and Development (CORD), which develops curricula that integrate academic and vocational content, has convened university representatives to acquaint them with the content and objectives of these courses. Finally, the presidents of 24 private institutions, including many of the nation's most prestigious and selective private institutions, signed a statement endorsing reform efforts and acknowledging their role in supporting reform (the statement was drafted by the Coalition of Essential Schools).[7]

       The fact that this issue has received attention from the ECS, the NGA, ACT, The College Board, and highly selective private institutions attests to its importance. Other than anecdotal reports about resistance by colleges, little is known about how college admissions offices are responding to educational reform efforts. The present study aims to subject those claims to empirical scrutiny and to provide reformers and policymakers with better information about this important issue.


Overview of the Study

       This study is based on structured telephone interviews of personnel at state higher education agencies or coordinating boards and in the admissions offices of public flagship institutions. The following questions were asked:

       The study consisted of a series of telephone interviews with personnel in state higher education agencies or coordinating boards and public flagship institutions in 48 states. (We were unable to gain cooperation from flagship institutions in Colorado and Nevada.) The scope of the study did not permit us to interview personnel at more than one public four-year institution in each state. We chose to focus on flagship institutions because they generally enroll more students than other single campuses, and because they often set a standard that other public institutions seek to emulate. However, because these institutions are more selective and prestigious, they may also be under less pressure to innovate or adapt in response to reform efforts. See Appendix A for a detailed discussion of sampling considerations, interview procedures, and coding of interview responses.

[1] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School and Beyond (HS&B) Senior Cohort Third Follow-up Study, Data Analysis System. The "undecided" group includes students who said they were not sure and those who said they had not yet thought about it.

[2] Examining first and longest enrollment yields comparable results, but last enrollment shows the largest percentage at four-year institutions.

[3] In some cases, whether an applied academics course is designated as an academic course on transcripts varies with the teacher's certification.

[4] The discussion that follows draws heavily on two reports based on meetings of reformers and college admissions personnel: Houghton, 1993, and American College Testing and The College Entrance Examination Board, 1994.

[5] It should be noted, however, that students who take a conventional college preparatory curriculum average higher scores on standardized achievement tests than students with less rigorous programs (e.g., see McCormick & Tuma, 1995).

[6] The latter publication acknowledges the need to support K-12 reform, but primarily presents admission requirements as colleges have traditionally used them: as a lever to force change at the secondary level.

[7] Although this statement has been hailed as an important step in gaining support from higher education, it is remarkably vague and lacks any firm commitment to accommodate reform. The institutions acknowledged "that institutions of higher education must be partners in bringing forth the changes so urgently needed"; endorsed reforms that "emphasize rigorous independent thinking and the direct engagement of students in serious work"; and promised to "welcome applications" from students at schools implementing those reforms. It is also worth noting that these institutions already give applications far more individual attention than their public counterparts, and thus are far better prepared to process nonstandard applications.

Previous Next Title Page Contents NCRVE Home
NCRVE Home | Site Search | Product Search