"Admissions Revolution"

<p>Hopefully, there won't be much of an upheaval. In any case, on the college side of the equation, teaching quality is only one aspect tied to college admissions marketing and hype. Many colleges are not in the position of HYPS and other well endowed elites and find it hard to keep their application and admissions numbers up and so they are in caught in a crunch to have something attractive that they can market. </p>

<p>"It's an arms race to lure new students, keep pace with growing enrollments, provide the latest technology and stay current with changing tastes." Just as colleges have become more sophisticated marketers, students have become more sophisticated consumers - campus construction is booming across the country because "it's all about attracting students ... and giving them not only a good education, but a good student life experience" that includes better student housing, recreational facilities, and more dining options. Put this way, it seems that these days students go college shopping for much more than academic departments and course offerings or athletic programs. And so, "the arms race continues" and, of course, none of this comes free. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060626/1045998.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060626/1045998.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As the new crop of parents and students go bravely out into the world of college "shopping", questions about the whole admission's process just keep on coming which is as it should be. This 1999 article by L. Thacker maps out his position that the "battle in and for the soul of liberal arts education" is just one battle in a struggle to define the values of American society in the 21st century.</p>

<p>May the force be with us in our quest to find the right fit.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3955/is_199907/ai_n8830519%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3955/is_199907/ai_n8830519&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>wow! At least his name is reflective of him: LOUD. In (several) thousand words over 12 pages, he has just two recommendations: dump the SAT and dump ED. The rest of his ramblings are just plain illogical. </p>

<p>I fail to see how Thacker can conclude that the admissions race is antithetical to a liberal arts education. It sure ain't at UChicago! Once a kid is accepted into a college, the liberal arts education is there for his/her taking, even at a school with no curriculum requirements. Moreover, selective colleges prefer students with four years of the five main academic subjects....is this not a liberal arts education at the HS level?</p>

<p>It seems to me that the only 'negative' about ED is the finaid awards, which are easy to fix. Instead of dumping ED, why not require colleges to agree that their FinAid award to ED acceptees will be no different than those to RD acceptees AND subject themselves to random, outside audits. ED does benefit hundreds of non-athlete kids each year. ED also REDUCES applications as the ED acceptee doesn't send out ten more by Jan 1.</p>

<p>But, from a practical matter, selective colleges are like a cartel. Even if they all agree to the NCAC 'rules', there are built-in, institutional reasons for individual institutions to cheat. There will always be a USC that wants to climb in prestige and chases test scores. Or, a UPenn who publishes unsubstantiated numbers. Or, a WashU that wait lists nearly everyone instead of rejection. So, instead of exorcising all 3,000 colleges, why not just point out the eggregious examples. Now, that would have been a great presentation!</p>

<p>Xiggi is correct. This guy's a buffoon.</p>

<p>Looking from the outside in is never easy and keeping our finger on the pulse of the going-ons related to Thacker's admissions revolution is, if anything, not easy. Just as Thacker's message is an intricate combination of the subtle and the loud so will be the fruits of the NYC meeting that took place at NYU. </p>

<p>In any case, one thing is certainly true - Thacker would probably view adjectives such as loud and bold to be highly complimentary. Indeed, maybe being loud is what Thacker is doing best. When you sound a wake-up call, as he was doing in the above linked "Journal of College Admission" 1999 article, the last thing you would want to be is too subtle or too quiet. Thacker's efforts to call attention to the growing, rampant problems plaguing the professional aspects of the admission's process (not to be confused with the student's side of it re: the admissions race, which is related to questions of open enrollment, selectivity and other internal admissions criteria or the actual "getting in") is, as he clearly tells us, not new. </p>

<p>Thacker makes no claim to originality - and duly credits the seminal work of the late B. Alden Thresher of MIT, for the core of his ideas. What he does make a claim to is passion - pure and simple. Nothing is static especially in the diverse world of college admissions, and just as obviously, the message and content of his argument will change and be refined as his message gets out there and more and more people respond. He won't be the first visionary, dreamer, idealist to be called a looney or even a buffoon and he will not be the last. In the final analysis, whatever you may think of Thacker it is moot - what does matter is that increasingly in the 7 years since Thacker wrote that article and in the 2 years since he created the Education Conservancy more and more people in a position to affect the admission's process are not just listening but taking steps to do something. Just what those steps are ... well, that remains to be seen.</p>

<p><a href="http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/20/admit%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/20/admit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I don't know if Thacker is a visionary or naive, but having read his book and heard him talk, he shoots himself in the foot. While saying that prestige and status should have little to do with college selection and preparation for life, he uses quotes to recommend his book and efforts from people associated with such highly regarded "brand" colleges as Berkeley, Harvard and Dartmouth, thus lending credence and respect to him and his efforts by the status and prestige of the recommenders. What would have been the effect on the cachet and gravitas of his book and efforts if they had been recommended by people associated with such colleges as, e.g. College of the Canyons, SUNY Morrisville or Florida International.</p>

<p>Well, even books have to be marketed - it would be naive to think otherwise. Marketing and hype are not going to go away and neither is hypocrisy nor all the internal contradictions that riddle the admissions imbroglio. In great part, Thacker aside, that is what makes this whole thing so interesting. Rankings, a desire for prestige and status (just take a look at the CC polls) aren't going to go away either (and I hope the SAT doesn't go either, btw) at least not any time soon. It may very well be that "College Admissions in the Public Interest" will remain primarily in the purview of elite colleges - or simply that its time has not yet come. No manifesto was drawn up and none is expected. Indvidual colleges will deal with this issue as they see fit and least for now. Why do some movements take off and set roots and others not? That's a another question and once again, time will tell.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060703-123445-8832r.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060703-123445-8832r.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>While I am at it, I am a great supporter of the SUNY system and I tell you it gets frustrating when much of the argument against SUNY, especially in certain parts of New York, revolves around lack of prestige - especially when the quality of education offered is excellent. I don't think we need thinktanks to tell us this; most of all of this is just plain common sense.</p>

<p>In this Inside Higher Ed article from February, 2006 a parent notes that the debate related to the "scandalous commercialization of admissions and the consequent erosion of educational values and integrity" is basically an internal dialogue taking place within the admissions community itself. On the parent-student side of the issue, the admissions frenzy is a rational response to a process that is transparent only in the sense that the elite admissions process is viewed, by these parents and students, to be the clearly "manipulated and commercialized" result of colleges that operate admissions on the market model. </p>

<p>No wonder, then, that consumerism and the admissions revolution seems to be first and foremost a phenomenon that affects elite and highly selective colleges. On another note, I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of these parents worked in advertising. </p>

<p><a href="http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/02/28/henderson%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/02/28/henderson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The long list of possible remedies, as well as the posted comments to the article, make good food for thought.</p>

<p>Asteriskea, forgive me for continuing my harpooning of Thacker's contributions!</p>

<p>Let me get this straight: 6 years ago, he wrote an article -which I happen to find as interesting and compelling as its author- and credits his inspiration to a 30 year old manifest? Does anyone truly believes that the state of admissions in 2006 is anything like it was in 1969? Were the biggest issues facing education in 1968 really the growing commercialization of the process and the deterioration of the liberal arts education. For some reason, I would think that students and college administrators had more pressing issues in 1968 ! Students did not lose their life on campus because Stanley Kaplan made too much money.</p>

<p>So, after six year of passionate interest, wouldn't one expect that Thacker would have an embryo of an idea, an inkling of a positive contribution to the debate. Yet, there is ... just a sea of nothingness. </p>

<p>Sorry, but reading his pseudo-babble of 1999 simply reinforces my poor opinion of the guitar-strumming high school counselor.</p>

<p>Oh I forgot this little tidbit. In his 1999 article, Thacker mentions "liberal arts education" more than THIRTY times in seven pages. How many times does the same term appear on his web site? Unless I missed it, I think the answer is ZERO. Did he spend the years between 1999 and the launching of his commercial venture to understand what "liberal arts education' means. </p>

<p>Oh well!</p>

<p>asteriskea, thanks for referencing that Henderson article -- I'd scanned it when it was published, when I was rushed and distracted, and didn't take time to ponder; revisiting it confirms for me that her "list" is spot on and should be shared. As a hopeful Reed parent, and a parent of kids whose high school years were not enriched by the arms race , I share her dream:</p>

<p>"In my dreams I see the presidents of Harvard, Yale and Princeton announcing they will not cooperate with the magazine rankings; and, when HYP fall in the U.S. News rankings as Reed did, the credibility of the ranksters is destroyed, magazine sales plummet, and the rankings house of cards collapses."</p>

<p>While I agree that the admissions process at many schools needs reforming, I had to laugh at the Henderson article, which completely shirks parents' and students' responsibility for having done much of this to themselves. Rankings, expensive test prep services, and the like happen because of demand. It's quite possible these days to apply for college without falling victim to the ridiculous "arms race". Take the rankings with a tablespoon of salt, buy a $20 book instead of a $200 prep class to study for the SAT, take AP classes because you want to take them and not because they look good, accept that there are other schools besides the overemphasized HYP, join clubs that you want to join and not ones that exist solely for resume-padding like NHS, and watch the stress level go down!</p>

<p>And come on, do you really think that all schools should get rid of merit aid? I'm a big fan of need-based aid, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be merit aid! Amazingly enough, a state school might have reasons to want to attract bright kids other than rankings - for example, slowing a "brain drain" in the school's state.</p>

<p>Yes, I truly do think colleges should stop offering merit aid. "Brain drain" happens because bright kids pick better schools. Duh. So put that merit-aid cash into improving the school. It's patently wrong to bribe wealthy families to send their students to a college they'd otherwise not choose.</p>

<p>Here's the latest article on Lloyd Thacker from this week's Chronicle of Higher Education:</p>

<p>It Took Awhile, But Some Presidents Are Now Listening to Pleas for Admissions Reforms</p>

<p>By ELIZABETH F. FARRELL</p>

<p>Lloyd Thacker is a man in demand. After giving a presentation at a conference in Aspen one afternoon last month, he hopped on a red-eye flight to New York City. The plane touched down at 5:30 a.m., and he made a beeline for the Harvard Club in midtown Manhattan. A producer from CBS News was waiting there to confer with him about a forthcoming television segment on college admissions.</p>

<p>Mr. Thacker had two more meetings before noon, when he opened a conference for college presidents. In between those appointments, he somehow managed to get his wrinkled suit dry-cleaned.</p>

<p>The former high-school guidance counselor has become a skilled road warrior. But he was not always so confident. Two years ago, when Mr. Thacker founded the Education Conservancy, a nonprofit group intended to make the world of college admissions more equitable, more transparent, and less focused on rankings, his future was shaky.</p>

<p>Sure, guidance counselors and admissions officials praised his mission and the book he edited, College Unranked: Affirming Educational Values in College Admissions (Harvard University Press, 2005). But early supporters of the group, which is based in Portland, Ore., worried that Mr. Thacker's cause would not make a lasting difference. They also thought that Mr. Thacker was too idealistic.</p>

<p>Even a year ago, when sales of College Unranked reached 3,000 copies, and three dozen admissions deans flew to Portland to discuss the conservancy's future, no clear reform plan had crystallized. Mr. Thacker fretted constantly that his cause might be rudderless.</p>

<p>By last January, however, he started to feel more optimistic — and with good reason. What began as a steady trickle of donations became a constant stream of checks. Cornell University, Dartmouth College, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology gave between $1,000 and $5,000 each. Over 100 colleges and individuals have sent checks.</p>

<p>Independent foundations have also taken notice. In April the New York-based Christian A. Johnson Endeavor Foundation, which initially gave the conservancy a $25,000 grant in July 2005, made an additional $70,000, two-year grant to the group. The Spencer Foundation in Chicago gave $9,750 a year ago, and the conservancy has applied for an Andrew W. Mellon Foundation grant, which would bring in more money than it has collectively received from all other grants, says Mr. Thacker.</p>

<p>The financial windfall means that for the first time since Mr.Thacker started the conservancy, he does not have to worry about money — the group now has reserves of $50,000. He still pays himself a salary of $60,000, without benefits, which is less than he made as a guidance counselor. Even when Mr. Thacker receives speaking fees of $10,000, or when colleges pay daily rates of $1,500 to $2,000 for his consulting services, the money goes back to his nonprofit group. And he still drives a 1993 white Toyota van, wears jeans most days, and brings his lunch to work.</p>

<p>The story really isn't about me," says Mr. Thacker. "I'm just the carpenter who built the stage by asking questions."</p>

<p>Mr. Thacker has a point. His impassioned speeches about the need for the college admissions world to emphasize educational values over rankings and SAT scores have tapped into the zeitgeist of the profession. Enrollment-management consultants, test-preparation companies, and private admissions consultants had set the rules of the admissions game for the worse, he said, because there was no real leadership in higher education to challenge their influences.</p>

<p>The message inspired some higher-education leaders to rally behind the conservancy. Without their donations of time and money, the stage would have remained empty. They were the ones who invited Mr. Thacker to more than 60 speaking engagements and bought some 9,000 copies of his book to date.</p>

<p>But Mr. Thacker is still a big part of the organization's story. After all, his own evolution from education idealist to pragmatic businessman has helped propel his organization.</p>

<p>Mr. Thacker used to feel uncomfortable soliciting donations; now he gladly encourages them. The man who once recoiled at the notion of adopting a marketing strategy for his group now talks openly about "deliverables."</p>

<p>"I'm more realistic," he says. "I need to serve the cause, and to the extent that business practices further that cause, I'm comfortable using them."</p>

<p>That approach has helped him attract the attention of top administrators. Twenty college presidents attended his invitation-only conference last month to discuss how college admissions can better serve the public interest. Many attendees called it a breakthrough event.</p>

<p>"It's rare for a bunch of presidents to get together and talk about admissions candidly," says Douglas C. Bennett, president of Earlham College in Richmond, Ind., "because it's often an area where we are most competitive with each other."</p>

<p>One of the biggest challenges the Education Conservancy faces is convincing these colleges to put aside their individual institutional interests for the greater good, says Ann Marcus, director of the Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education Policy at New York University. "Most institutions are under enormous pressure in terms of rankings, selectivity, and bottom-line concerns in enrollment," she says. "It's very hard to change institutional behavior without some risk."</p>

<p>But small changes are starting to happen. Some colleges now hand out copies of the Education Conservancy's statement of values, titled "We Admit," to prospective students. The document advises applicants to avoid taking the same standardized test more than twice and urges them to choose a college based on fit, not ranking. An additional 250 colleges have links to the statement on their Web sites.</p>

<p>Other projects are in the works. The Education Conservancy has a tentative pledge of $300,000 for a proposed three-year, $1.5-million study of the impact of college-admissions policies on student attitudes and behaviors, both during high school and once students reach college. Mr. Thacker also plans to create a DVD that includes advice on college admissions.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, he must decide whether to give himself a raise. He also needs to hire an assistant to keep track of all his speaking engagements and projects. But at least the carpenter now has a blueprint.</p>

<p>Collegeparent, thanks for posting the article. I particularly liked the phrase "The former high-school guidance counselor has become a seasoned road warrior." It is significant that much of this article on the admissions revolution should focus on Thacker's own coming to terms with the business and public relations side of the dealing with the "real" world. Thacker's "evolution from education idealist to pragmatic businessman" is without doubt a big part of the story. How he gets his message across to college presidents, foundation heads, as well as parents and students, is vital to the future of the Education Conservancy and the success of its projects - and another reason to look back at what he wrote in 1999 and appreciate just how much he has (or has not) grown and refined his arguments. Not that I want to drive Xiggi over the edge, but the image of Thacker as the carpenter building a stage for the architects to work on is compelling. The following 2004 Chronicle of Higher Ed artilce entitled "The Education of Lloyd Thacker" seems to me to highlight his steady determination to see his vision of education in the public interest become a tangible force in the admissions process. Who knows we might even find entires in future, updated dictionaries for "studenthood" and "rangster". Stranger things have happened. </p>

<p><a href="http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i13/13a03601.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i13/13a03601.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>FWIW, in this internet driven, flat world, information flows at lightening speed and change in education now must keep pace. Frankly, this is a far cry from the pace of change in education not so long ago - and we don't have to look as far back as the 60s. Nonetheless, as I have tried to point out in previous posts, the admissions process is dynamic and constantly changing and educators are acutely aware that today different responses are needed to keep it sane and "on-track". In regard to such questins as financial aid, early decision options, and holistic admissions, this is, in greatest part, the responsibility of the colleges to chart out a map or blueprint even though every one of us - parents, students, and high schools have to play an active role in the process. That said, "everything changes but it all stays the same" can be invoked - B. Alden Thresher's work on admissions and the public interest is still considered by experts in the field to be the seminal study on the subject. </p>

<p>The following article "Does Meritocracy Work" is long but, again, worth the read.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.questbridge.org/resources/articles/meritocracy.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.questbridge.org/resources/articles/meritocracy.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Unlike some colleges that are frustrated with the current admissions system, Tufts isn't eliminating the SAT, curricular requirements or anything else. All of that matters, Tufts officials say ..." It is not surprising that with Steinberg at the helm, Tufts will be the first university to make such a bold experimental move to depart from the norm and change its admissions process nor that change is coming from "the academic side of the house". The admissions revolution is taking shape ...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/07/06/tufts%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/07/06/tufts&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Meanwhile, he must decide whether to give himself a raise."</p>

<p>Was this EVER about anything else? By the way, Thacker has ignored my requests to provide the financial details of his organization--as he should. Wonder why?</p>

<p>"The story really isn't about me," says Mr. Thacker. "I'm just the carpenter who built the stage by asking questions.""</p>

<p>ROFL!</p>

<p>Now that Tufts is breaking into uncharted territory, we are brought back to the root of the admissions revolution: for too many people "attending certain colleges today is not just conspicuous consumption; it is also conspicuous achievement- accomplishments displayed as signs of social status." Not just in light of Sternberg's notions of successful intelligence but in view of any viable reassessment of the college admission process, we need more than ever to have "a balanced, philosophical and individualized perspective on the meaning of success." </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/education/edlife/NOTEBOOK.html?ex=1152331200&en=f68cbf369f429c2d&ei=5070%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/education/edlife/NOTEBOOK.html?ex=1152331200&en=f68cbf369f429c2d&ei=5070&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>" "... we are brought back to the root of the admissions revolution: for too many people "attending certain colleges today is not just conspicuous consumption; it is also conspicuous achievement- accomplishments displayed as signs of social status." "</p>

<p>Yes, that's certainly part of it, but the same article cites "apocalyptic angst," which feels just as significant. There may be no real defense against the horrors of our times, but a fine liberal arts education is the best coping tool I can come up with for my kids.</p>

<p>Asteriskea, do you really believe that there is a "revolution" brewing in admission, or that Tufts is blazing new trails? How can a field be revolutionary if THE seminal "bible" was written by Brainerd Alden Thresher who happen to retire in ... 1961? </p>

<p>I may be overly cynical, but I strongly believe that NOTHING will happen unless the colleges themselves decide to support changes. Colleges do not change their admission criteria or procedures because Thacker-like nitwits starting barking louder. Colleges do what serves them the best! Oh yes, they'll pay a modicum of lip service or even send a few dollars to show support to the EC, but will they spend less on fancy consultants? Have Bates and Mt Holyoke, among others, reduced their reliance on the SAT to offer their aspiring students a few more hours of sleep on a Saturday? Baloney, I'd say! Those schools have and are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to maximize their enrollment strategies, and very little, if any has much to do with the "lofty" concerns of Lloyd and other misguided high school guidance counselors. Ol' Lloyd can build a huge stage, but it will not change how little he knows about the issues he professes to change, and that he doesn't understand the needs of parents and students -which is highly typical of guidance counselors who toil at Catholic schools that are clinging to their once glorious past. </p>

<p>There is a reality that is inescapable: highly selective college are just what the adjective implies. Parents and students KNOW that. Is the nemesis of Thacker- the so-called commercial industry- responsible for the explosion in the number of people who believe they have a shot at our more prestigious schools? Does Lloud long to a return of a world where a few GC working at feeder schools directed the traffic towards a few chosen schools? Long live the good ol' boys network, I guess! </p>

<p>From my vantage point, the "industry" is also responsible for such egregious acts as making information available to almost everyone in the country. A kid in Woolabo, Montana is able to order a $20 dollar book and prepare for the standardized test and be competitive. He probably can get a copy of the US News at his local library and read about colleges his Thacker-clone GC does not how to spell, let alone locate on a map. Ah, the horror, the horror!</p>

<p>Thacker probably means well; he just doesn't realize that his message might fill rooms of similarly clueless and inept counselors at the NACAC conferences, but still mean nothing to parents and students who apply in 2006. The BWRK kid of the past is no longer a great candidate; wishfully hoping for his return is just a pipe dream, as much as Lake Wobegon is fictional.</p>

<p>Xiggi, my,my my, so young and so cynical. What a shame. As for me, if you bothered to read my posts you would know that whether you call this a revolution or non-revolution it really makes no difference at all. Is Tufts embarking on an experiment in admissions that is new - well, the answer must be yes. Sternberg's notions of intelligence and his triarchic paradigm challenges other theories of IQ and has yet been put to the test (pardon the pun). A revolution is not just a sudden, drastic overthrow of an existing paradigm or institution/s but can also reflect significant long-terrn changes in deep structured approaches - the fact that a particular concept was conceived and developed several decades ago does not invalidate it as a seminal work (I have not come across any reference to it as a bible btw) - a work that is used to build on and here I am drawing on the carpenter metaphor. The admissions process or racket or whatever you want to call it is not static and the rules of the game are not written in stone. Just as there is more than one game in town- and Thacker is just one voice out there. Will people listen? Apparently, "he is in much demand" or that is what I keep on reading and students and parents are coming out in increasing numbers to listen to him. I think just in terms of common sense and indeed from the real admissions stories of friends and family it is more than apparent that the day of the BWRK is not over and more than a few of these great kids grace the halls of ivy and other elite, highly selective universities and colleges across the country. Nonetheless, these institutions are going to remain highly selective - it would be naive to think differently. The goings on at Tufts are also closely connected to enrollment management and admisssions strategies - wouldn't make sense otherwise but that does not detract from the attraction of the rainbow.</p>

<p>Also, if you had read my other posts, you would know that I have already stated several times that it is primarily a game that is in the colleges' court - the fascinating and important changes that are up in the air and in the experimental stages now can only make pragmatic business sense - both in terms of institutional finances and of human capital - because that is what you are as a student - if foundations such as the Mellon lend their clout to what would otherwise be called a lot of hot air. Saying that the onus falls on the colleges, however, does not exclude or excuse parents and students from collusion in the process.</p>