Admissions Blog

Undergraduate Admissions Uncensored

Ready this LD/ADHD documentation to get best college support options

Posted on by Leave a Comment

Students with learning differences (LD) including Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and their parents, while taking into account grades, scores, goals, and preferences like other students and parents navigating the college admissions process, should also take time to investigate special college programs and to provide supplementary application materials to colleges if students are to have the most positive four year experience. To that end, and with the help of Peterson’s Colleges for Students With Learning Disabilities or AD/HD, let’s elucidate the research/application process for students and parents and answer two key questions:

What do you need to prepare and organize?

What should you be looking for when reviewing your college options?

The More Documentation The Better

Unlike when applying to or dealing with high schools, students with LD/ADD must provide more documentation than just an IEP (Individualized Education Program) or 504 Plan (a program of instructional services to assist students with special needs who are in a regular education setting) when applying for special support programs at colleges and universities. For the best chance at getting the resources you need for four years, get ready to provide most (if not all) of the following documentation (in addition to any college-specific requirements) in order to give yourself the best shot at receiving the most comprehensive accommodations available at colleges on your list:

  • A Diagnostic Statement Identifying Condition(s)

Classification codes should be from the most up to date editions of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) or the International Classifications of Disease (ICD). Original diagnosis dates along with most current evaluation dates should be included

  • Current Functional Impact of the Condition

Detailed results from formal and informal tests should be sent in the form of both raw results and narrative explanations

  • Treatments, Medications, and Assistive Devices/Services Currently Prescribed or In Use

In addition make sure to include detailed information on any side effects resulting from such methods

  • The Expected Progression or Stability of The Impacts Described Over Time
  • Recommended Accommodations And Services
  • Credentials of The Evaluator

A brief description of the evaluator’s experience is also helpful

The Best Psychoeducational Batteries Include 5 Key Components

  1. Adult Referenced Testing
  2. A Measure of Aptitude
  3. A Standardized Measure Of Academic Achievement
  4. Measures of Cognitive Processes Impacted
  5. Clinical Observations

What About Your Evaluation of Colleges?

Enough about you! How do you find the colleges that will be most receptive and accommodating to your needs? It’s up to you to figure out what types of support you are going to need for four years in college, but keep in mind you will be in a new environment, so you may want to err on the side of more support. Four-year colleges can be nicely broken down into two categories depending on how they deal with LD/ADD students.

The first type of college has what can be referred to as “Aggressive/Structured” Programs. These colleges go beyond what is mandated by law to support their LD or ADD population and as a result often include extra fees and separate admissions processes for students with LD/ADD. In some cases, these schools have an entire department or program devoted specifically for LD/ADD students. This translates into support at almost every stage of your undergraduate educational experience.

The second type of college has what can be referred to as “Passive/Self-Directed” Programs. These colleges will require LD/ADD students go through the same process for admissions as everybody else, rarely charge extra fees, but as a result also rarely monitor the student’s progress or performance. Depending on the college, different offices or multiple offices may be tasked with supporting the LD/ADD student, but the student will be responsible for acting as the conductor.

What does all this mean in practice? Well, different things at different colleges, even within colleges that advertise similar services. The best place to begin your search it to look at three very different size colleges (briefly described below) that provide top of the line “Aggressive/Structured” Programs. As you search, remember to compare and contrast services at the three colleges. Once you want to expand your search to more colleges, refer back to the pros and cons of these three colleges when formulating questions to ask of college officials.

The general idea is: Even if you can’t buy the Rolls Royce, you want to see how many of the add-ons of a Rolls Royce are available in other cars, so look at the Rolls Royce first so you will be comparing all future cars to it. You may find you don’t need or want “Aggressive/Structured” Programs, and will look at only at “Passive/Self-Directed” Programs. Or you may find you would be successful at either type of college, and therefore include both types on your list. Visit college websites, and as your search becomes more serious, visit the colleges.

**Note: Just because a college is not summarized below does not mean it is not a great destination for LD or ADD students. In fact, some of the smallest, most obscure colleges specialize in offering programs for LD or ADD students (Mount Ida, McDaniel, Mitchell, and Beacon), while some of the most well-known colleges also offer “Aggressive/Structured” Programs (George Mason University, American University, and Hofstra University). Good Luck with your search!

Large

University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
The Strategic Alternative Learning Techniques (SALT) Center
http://www.salt.arizona.edu/
520-621-8493 or 520-621-1427, ask for assistant director of admissions or head of LD program
University of Arizona in beautiful and hot Tucson, Arizona is the largest school on this list with around 34,000 students. The school has a generally numbers-based admissions process. Most importantly, Arizona’s fee-for-service Strategic Alternative Learning Techniques (SALT) Center provides students with Learning Differences a way to focus their course of study and not get lost amidst all the hustle and bustle of such an exciting and busy campus as Arizona’s. 500 undergrads are served by SALT, which has roughly 22 full-time staff members including tutors, graduate assistants, tutors, and specialists. A mandatory one-day orientation is required before classes start. Tutoring (one-on-one and group) is provided in most subjects. According to its Website, “SALT students receive individualized educational planning and monitoring, assistance from trained tutors with course work, and an array of workshops geared toward the individual academic needs of these students.” Students must apply directly to the program and fees range anywhere from $1,600 – $4,000.

Medium

University of Denver
Denver, Colorado
The Learning Effectiveness Program (LEP)
http://www.du.edu/disability/lep/index.htm
303-871-2372, ask for head of LD program or director of University disability services
Out west like University of Arizona, but further to the north, is the University of Denver. Why the University of Denver? Denver, with roughly 6,000 students offers one of the most comprehensive programs in the country for students with learning differences. The fee-for-service Learning Effectiveness Program (LEP) has roughly 11 full-time staff members and serves roughly 200 undergrads each year while also providing “a variety of services designed to support each student’s academic experience, including individual academic counselors, tutoring, and organizational and study strategies specialists.” The LEP philosophy emphasizes student responsibility, self-awareness, and self-advocacy. At its core LEP strives to empower students to develop the skills needed to attain academic and personal success while at DU and beyond. Tutoring is available in all subjects, either one-on-one or in groups. 

Small

Lynn University
Boca Raton, Florida
The Institute for Achievement and Learning
https://www.lynn.edu/academics/individualized-learning/institute-for-achievement-and-learning
561-237-7900 or 561-237-7881, ask for head of LD program or executive director of the IAL
Lynn University in sunny and warm Boca Raton, Florida offers arguably the best program for bright, sociably independent students with learning differences. Lynn’s Institute for Achievement and Learning comprehensive support program serves several hundred of the school’s 2,000 undergraduate students and has a staff of 11 full-time employees and 35 part-time employees. Staff includes tutors (tutoring is available in all subjects), LD specialists, and diagnostic/learning specialists. A two-day orientation is mandatory before freshman year. It provides tutoring by professional tutors in all subjects. The more support needed by a student, the greater the cost; however, this is one university where the higher price tag is worth it.

—

For more information, please contact the colleges directly.

For a full directory of special programs for LD/ADD students, a good first stop is Peterson’s Colleges for Students with Learning Disabilities or AD/HD.

The Common App introduces new features for 2017-18

Posted on by Leave a Comment

While far and away the most popular and frequently-used online college application platform, serving more than three million students, parents, counselors and teachers, the Common App recently announced a series of “enhancements” that appear to directly respond to features introduced this year by the Coalition Application, proving that competition isn’t always a bad thing.

According to a statement from the Common App, “Many of the changes for next year’s application stem from the feedback we receive from the admissions, high school, and CBO counselors on our applications and outreach advisory committees and from the suggestions of the students and counselors who have used our platform.”

And it seems that some of the feedback the Common App has been receiving suggests the Coalition might be coming up with ideas that benefit the industry as a whole.  It’s evident that the Common App is taking the opportunity to look at what might be working to support their stakeholders—colleges, students, and counselors—and “go one better.”

So regardless of where you come down on the confusion caused by having multiple college application platforms, the one undeniable benefit is that competition encourages innovation.

Here are some of the new features recently announced by the Common Application (don’t be surprised if a few sound a little familiar):

Google Drive Integration: Students will now be able to easily access and upload documents, resumes, and school assignments while completing the Common App and college-specific sections of the application. Recognizing that many school districts have adopted Google Docs and Google Drive to enable their students and teachers to create, collaborate, and access shared documents from any internet connected device, the Common App is introducing a feature that looks remarkably similar to the much-maligned Coalition Student Locker, only possibly more efficient. Some students do not have personal computers at home but use Google Drive on school or library computers to store documents. And by using systems students are already using, the Common App is certainly making the process more accessible. But the Coalition’s Student Locker also supports video, pictures and other multimedia files (not just documents), so the jury may still be out on which enhancement has the greatest general usefulness.

CBO, Advising, and Recommender Enhancements: Students receiving support from advising and community-based organizations will be able to work with those counselors just as they work with their school-based counselors and teachers within the application. These individuals will then be able to manage caseloads and view student progress within the Common App system. In addition, any student who wishes to do so will be able to share a view of their in-progress application with their school counselor, CBO counselor, or other advisor. Again, the Coalition pioneered this kind of application management capability, which supports schools and counselors without Naviance or other similar systems.

Courses & Grades: At times, students are required to submit self-reported high school academic records when applying to some colleges and universities. With Courses & Grades, students will be able to self-report transcript information as part of their Common Application, just as they are currently able to do on the Coalition Application. By integrating the Courses & Grades section into the Common App, students who are already sending this information will be able to complete and submit it with their Common App, making the process of self-reporting transcripts more standardized and streamlined for students, counselors, and colleges. Courses & Grades will launch in limited release on August 1, 2017.

Spanish Language Resources: Key information for using the Common App will be translated so that students, parents, and other family members who speak Spanish as their first language can better understand the college admission process, including applying for financial aid and receiving virtual mentoring. This new tool will also benefit counselors who will be working with these families and need Common App materials in Spanish. This is one enhancement that will be of enormous benefit to some families and is truly unique to the Common App.

The Common App announces new members for 2017-18

Posted on by 1 Comment

The Common Application recently announced the addition of 38 new members to a roster of what will be over 740 colleges and universities accepting the Common App for 2017-18. The popular online platform and college planning website currently serves and supports over three million students, teachers and counselors in the U.S. and around the world every year.  And with the addition of several large public institutions including Appalachian State University, Kent State University, as well as the Universities of Houston, Oregon, Nevada, Missouri and Wyoming, these numbers are bound to increase significantly.

“Our new members represent the best in geographic and institutional diversity. Together, they offer unique experiences for our applicants, one-third of whom are the first in their families to go to college, while also sharing our mission of access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process,” said Jenny Rickard, The Common Application President & CEO. “We are excited and honored to welcome these colleges and universities into our membership.”

Membership in the Common Application is open to colleges sharing the organizations mission of advancing college access and must be

  • Not-for-profit
  • Undergraduate degree-granting
  • Accredited by a regional accrediting association (if inside the U.S.)
  • A member of the Council of International Schools (if outside the U.S.)
  • Committed to the pursuit of equity and integrity in the college admission process

Members are no longer required to be members of the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC). The requirement to evaluate students using a “holistic” selection process including a recommendation and an untimed writing sample (essay) has also been dropped to accommodate a wider variety of member institutions.

As a result, the Common App membership for 2016-17 included

  • Colleges from 48 states plus Washington, DC
  • More than 250 colleges with no application fee
  • 100+ public universities
  • 44 international universities from 4 countries
  • 9 Historical Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
  • More than 200 test-optional/test-flexible institutions

But the Common App isn’t the only online application from which students can choose. This year, the Universal College Application (UCA) was welcomed by 34 colleges and universities, including Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Cornell University, Princeton, Vanderbilt and the University of Chicago. The Cappex Application, with its promise of no application fees and no supplemental essays, was accepted by 67 institutions including Beloit, Cornell College, Florida Southern, Ohio Wesleyan, Queens University of Charlotte, and the Universities of Tampa, and Dayton. And 47 out of 95 Coalition members finally launched applications during 2016-17 (it is expected that all will be online by next summer).  With new membership guidelines in place effective January 1, the Coalition expects to add more colleges for 2017-18. So far, new  members include Arizona State University, Bucknell University, Case Western Reserve University, Elon University, Rutgers University—Newark, University of Arizona, University of Kentucky, University of Delaware and University of New Mexico. By May 1, the Coalition plans to make a final announcement of all members for the upcoming cycle.

In the meantime, the following colleges and universities will be offering the Common Application for 2017-18:

Anderson University (IN)
Appalachian State University (NC)
Art Academy of Cincinnati (OH)
Barton College (NC)
Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar
Catawba College (NC)
Cleveland State University (OH)
Defiance College (OH)
Dominican College (NY)
Duke Kunshan University (China)
East Carolina University (NC)
Eastern Mennonite University (VA)
Fairleigh Dickinson University (NJ)
Hellenic College (MA)
Kent State University (OH)
Lincoln Memorial University (TN)
Marshall University (WV)
Missouri University of Science and Technology
Monash University (Australia)
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (IN)
Southern California Institute of Architecture
Trine University (IN)
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (Spain)
University College Dublin (Ireland)
University of Houston (TX)
University of Minnesota, Morris (MN)
University of Missouri (MO)
University of Missouri—Kansas City (MO)
University of Missouri—St. Louis (MO)
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (NV)
University of Northern Colorado (CO)
University of Oregon (OR)
University of the West (CA)
University of Wyoming (WY)
Vermont Technical College (VT)
Western Michigan University (MI)
Wheaton College (IL)
York College (PA)

This is the first in a series of two articles. Come back tomorrow for a review of the Common App’s new features for 2017-18.

Waitlisted in 2017—you have lots of company

Posted on by Leave a Comment

For the admissions office, it’s a critical tool used to control the flow of students admitted to the institution. But for the applicant who has waited six long months for a decision, the wait list feels like a one-way ticket to nowhere.

And for students manipulated by enrollment management systems designed to attract thousands only to admit a select few, all we can say is, “Welcome to purgatory.”

The wait list scenario is particularly frustrating for the subset of applicants who were organized enough to submit early—Early Action, Early Action II, Single Choice Early Action, Restricted Early Action, Early Decision I or even Early Decision II—only to find themselves sitting on one or several wait lists.

And despite what “experts” might say, waitlisted students can only rely on anecdotal evidence as to what has worked in the past to move an application from wait list to admit.  What may have been successful last year, won’t necessarily work this time. There are just too many factors at play.

But hope springs eternal.

For the most part, colleges are unapologetic about using the hopes of waitlisted students to further enrollment goals designed to fill freshman classes with the best, brightest and most highly qualified high school students.

And those familiar with the game know the wait list is used to shape a class profile that aspires to be balanced between males and females, is geographically and racially diverse, meets legislated residency requirements, fills the needs of obscure departments or sports teams, and still covers some part of the college operating budget.

“Essentially, the wait list exists to accommodate for demographics that were not met in the initial round of admission offers,” explains Richard Clark, director of undergraduate admissions for Georgia Tech, in a blog post titled, The Wait List Sucks. “If you have the right number of deposits from the West coast, you go to your wait list for more East coast students. If you have enough Chemistry majors, you may be going the wait list for Business students. Ultimately, the job of admission deans and directors is to make and shape the class, as defined by institutional priorities. Meeting target enrollment is critical to bottom line revenue, creating a desired ethos on campus, proliferating the school’s brand, and other factors.”

For the record, wait lists are almost never prioritized and are almost always unpredictable.

And all too often, schools promoting “needs blind” admissions quietly convert to “needs sensitive” when it comes to plucking a few lucky students from the list. Consequently, most bets are off for financial aid if you come through the wait list.

In other words, there’s no ranking, no money, and not much hope.

Sometimes, the list is hardly more than a thinly disguised public relations scam designed to keep agitated parents, alums, and other interested parties at arm’s length. It represents a political solution to an uncomfortable situation.

We can all agree that waitlisted is not a great place to be. If you’ve been accepted or rejected, your status is clear. You can move on with your life. But waitlisted is living with uncertainty.

And at the end of the day, very few waitlisted students are invited to the dance.

Here are some 2016-17 Common Data Set statistics (Question C2) published by a handful of colleges and universities:

Amherst College
Waitlisted: 1269 (582 accepted places on the wait list)
Admitted: 3 (33 in 2015; 61 in 2014; 49 in 2013)

Barnard College
Waitlisted: 1615 (1340 accepted places)
Admitted: 59 (6 in 2015; 21 in 2014; 41 in 2013)

Carnegie Mellon University
Waitlisted: 3809
Admitted: 7 (4 in 2015; 73 in 2014; 87 in 2013)

College of William and Mary
Waitlisted: 4115 (2037 accepted places)
Admitted:  154 (187 in 2015; 59 in 2014; 96 in 2013)

Cornell University
Waitlisted: 4571 (2874 accepted places)
Admitted:  61 (81 in 2015; 96 in 2014; 168 in 2013)

Dartmouth College
Waitlisted: 2064 (1194 accepted places)
Admitted:  16 (129 in 2015; 0 in 2014; 87 in 2013)

Dickinson College
Waitlisted: 810 (238 accepted places)
Admitted: 29 (0 in 2015; 0 in 2014; 10 in 2013)

George Mason University
Waitlisted:  1218 (839 accepted places)
Admitted:  200 (350 in 2015; 684 in 2014; 252 in 2013)

Georgetown University*
Waitlisted:  2184 (1249 accepted places)
Admitted:  149 (114 in 2014; 82 in 2013)
*2016-17 data is not being made available

Goucher College
Waitlisted: 102 (46 accepted places)
Admitted: 20 (7 in 2015; 8 in 2014; 2 in 2013)

James Madison University
Waitlisted:  2560 (1585 accepted places)
Admitted:  205 (500 in 2015; 166 in 2014; 405 in 2013)

Princeton University
Waitlisted: 1237 (840 accepted places)
Admitted: 18 (39 in 2015; 41 in 2014; 33 in 2013)

University of Michigan
Waitlisted: 11,197 (3970 accepted places)
Admitted: 36 (90 in 2015; 91 in 2014; 89 in 2013)

University of Richmond
Waitlisted: 3209 (1236 accepted places)
Admitted:  60 (151 in 2015; 12 in 2014; 95 in 2013)

University of Virginia
Waitlisted: 4987 (2871 accepted places)
Admitted:  360  (402 in 2015; 42 in 2014; 185 in 2013)

Villanova University
Waitlisted: 5452 (2677 accepted places)
Admitted: 26 (50 in 2015; 464 in 2014; 350 in 2013)

Virginia Tech
Waitlisted:  2118 (1544 accepted places)
Admitted:  0 (750 in 2015; 110 in 2013)

Washington and Lee University
Waitlisted:  1529 (652 accepted places)
Admission offers: 48 (193 in 2015; 72 in 2014; 96 in 2013)

Williams College
Waitlisted:  2343 (864 accepted places)
Admission offers: 24 (53 in 2015; 70 in 2014; 44 in 2013)

Numbers vary by year depending on how accurately the admissions office pegged its “yield” or how desperate the need to control the composition of the freshman class. For colleges with unfilled seats after May 1st, the pool of waitlisted students is like a candy jar from which they can pick and choose depending on wants and needs.

“The wait list is a reminder that I’m not very smart,” continues Clark.  “If I were better at my job, I could predict exactly how many students each year would accept our offer of admission.”

Sure there are steps you can take to try to get off the list—write a letter, get another recommendation, meet with an admissions rep—but there is an emotional cost which must be factored in.

“This is probably the toughest decision to get from a school,” explains Dean J, in her UVa admission blog. “For now you need to look at your other options and think about which one feels right to you.  Some of you will want to hold on and see what happens with the waiting list and others will want to fully invest themselves in another school.”

There is no right or wrong here—only what is right for the individual student.

But is the list generally worth the wait?

Sometimes, but not usually.

Top game design programs for 2017

Posted on by Leave a Comment

The Princeton Review recently released its eighth annual report on undergraduate and graduate schools with top programs for studying or launching a career in game design.

And the University of Southern California captured the No. 1 spot on the undergraduate list of schools (up from #2 in 2016). Southern Methodist University (SMU) took the top place on the graduate schools list (also up from #2 last year).

“USC Games represents an exciting collaboration between the School of Cinematic Arts’ Interactive Media & Games Division and the Viterbi School of Engineering’s Department of Computer Science,” explains the USC Games website. “Incorporating elements of design, artistry, production and engineering, USC Games offers an utterly unique educational experience for students, and serves as the launching pad for them to play significant roles in the game design field.”

According to CNN Money and PayScale, video game design is in the top third of “best jobs” in America, with potential for substantial growth, great pay and satisfying work. What’s particularly appealing about the profession is that the industry is relatively new, so it’s still an innovative field open to pioneers and creative minds.

Formerly assigned to a far corner of the computer science department, game design has emerged as a respectable, multidisciplinary course of study. And schools hoping to cash in on the growing market for designers are building glitzy new facilities tricked out with cutting-edge technology and equipment.

The Princeton Review selected schools based on a survey of 150 institutions in the U.S., Canada and abroad offering video game design programs or courses. The 40-question survey asked schools to report on a range of topics from academic offerings and lab facilities to starting salaries and career achievements.

“Game design is an exciting field and programs are springing up in colleges all over the world, said Robert Franek, The Princeton Review’s Editor in Chief. “The top schools on our lists have outstanding faculties and great facilities which will give students the skills and experience they need to pursue a career in this dynamic and burgeoning field.”

Although relatively new, George Mason University has a well-respected game design program in the Washington metropolitan area and has received recognition, along with the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA) as among the 50 best game design schools and colleges by gamedesigning.org. Using slightly different criteria from that used by Princeton Review, GameDesigning ranks the University of Southern California, the University of Utah, and DigiPen Institute of Technology as the top three programs in the field.

And for the record, the Princeton Review’s top 25 undergraduate schools to study game design for 2017 are:

  • University of Southern California (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Rochester Institute of Technology (Rochester, NY)
  • University of Utah (Salt Lake City, UT)
  • DigiPen Institute of Technology (Redmond, WA)
  • Becker College (Worcester, MA)
  • Hampshire College (Amherst, MA)
  • New York University (Brooklyn, NY)
  • The Art Institute of Vancouver (Vancouver, British Columbia)
  • Drexel University (Philadelphia, PA)
  • Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI)
  • Vancouver Film School (Vancouver, British Columbia)
  • Bradley University (Peoria, IL)
  • Northeastern University (Boston, MA)
  • Champlain College (Burlington, VT)
  • University of Wisconsin-Stout (Menomonie, WI)
  • Worcester Polytechnic Institute (Worcester, MA)
  • The University of Texas at Dallas (Richardson, TX)
  • DePaul University (Chicago, IL)
  • Abertay University (Dundee, Scotland)
  • Ferris State University (Big Rapids, MI)
  • University of California-Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz, CA)
  • Shawnee State University (Portsmouth, OH)
  • Cogswell College (San Jose, CA)
  • Savannah College of Art and Design (Savannah, GA)
  • Miami University (Oxford, OH)

Keep in mind that like any other “ranking,” this list represents one organization’s opinions and should provide little more than “food for thought” or a starting place for a more thorough investigation of a whole range of video game design programs.

NOTE:  George Mason University will be holding Game Design Open Houses on April 8 and April 22, 2017. This could be a great way to learn about game design in general and the George Mason program in specific.  Interested students can reserve a space by emailing Mary Bean ([email protected]) or calling 703.993.5734.

Top schools continue to see more ACT scores

Posted on by Leave a Comment

Despite whatever feelings he has about the ACT, Georgetown’s admissions dean Charles Deacon concedes that the highly-selective university saw an increased number of students taking and submitting ACT scores this year. According to The Hoya, Georgetown’s student-run newspaper, the number of students submitting ACT scores was about even with those submitting SAT scores among this fall’s early applicants.

And this is a relatively new phenomenon.

For more than a half century, the ACT ran a distant second to the SAT in the high-stakes college admissions race. It was the “We Try Harder,” entrance exam—popular in the Midwest and the South but hardly worthy of notice on either coast.

But that all changed several years ago, as the ACT pulled ahead of the SAT in terms of test-taking popularity.  And since then, the ACT has continued to widen the gap.

It’s not that the College Board is hurting for customers. In fact, more test-takers completed the new SAT from March through June of 2016 than took the old SAT during the same period in 2015, according to a report published by the College Board last fall.

But the number of high school graduates taking the ACT soared to a record 2.1 million students—nearly 64 percent of graduating seniors. From 2012-2016, the number of ACT test-taking high school grads increased by 25.5 percent, while the estimated overall number of graduates has increased by only 1.3 percent, leaving the College Board with something serious to think about.

In all fairness, a significant percent of the growth experienced by the ACT is a direct result of the adoption of the ACT for statewide assessment. For the graduating class of 2016, the ACT was administered to all public school graduates in 20 states. These students were pretty much required to take the ACT—like it or not.

But the good news for the ACT doesn’t end there. Not surprisingly, the number of tests submitted for admissions purposes shows a similar trend.  Colleges are definitely seeing way more ACT scores than they did a decade ago. And it appears that many more students are taking both tests and submitting both sets of scores for consideration by colleges, particularly uber-selective institutions.

According to the New York Times, there appears to be a real “shift in the behavior of top high school students,” as many more choose to work toward high scores on both tests.  And that’s okay with top colleges.

“I don’t know all the pieces of why this is happening, but I think more students are trying to make sure they’ve done everything they can,” said Janet Rapelye, dean of admissions at Princeton University, in an interview with the Times. “And for us, more information is always better. If students choose one or the other, that’s fine, because both tests have value. But if they submit both, that generally gives us a little more information.”

And applicants are getting the message.  Those with top scores on both tests want colleges to have the benefit of knowing they did well on both.  On the flipside, those who did significantly better on one test or the other tend to only submit the better set of scores—depending on the specific rules of the particular college or university.

It will be interesting to see how this trend evolves as “new” or redesigned SAT test results make their appearance among this year’s admissions decisions, particularly as the SAT has transformed itself into yet another curriculum-based test and blurred its differences with the ACT.

Regardless, based on test-submission patterns easily tracked for colleges posting Common Data Set information, the College Board has a very real challenge making up for ground lost to the ACT.

Here is a sample of test-submission statistics for the freshman class entering in 2005 as compared to the classes entering in fall 2016 (note that yearly totals exceeding 100% indicate colleges considered both the SAT and the ACT for some students):

Amherst College
2005 SAT:          87%                         vs.          2005 ACT:          13%
2016 SAT:          52% (53% in 2015)vs.          2016 ACT:          51% (49% in 2015)

Auburn University
2005 SAT:           31%                        vs.          2005 ACT:          69%
2016 SAT:           12% (14%)             vs.          2016 ACT:          87% (85%)

Carnegie Mellon University
2005 SAT:           98%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           17%
2016 SAT:           78% (84%)             vs.         2015 ACT:           41% (37%)

Case Western Reserve
2005 SAT:           89%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           58%
2016 SAT:           50% (57%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           66% (62%)

College of William and Mary
2005 SAT:           97%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           3%
2016 SAT:           77% (80%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           44% (44%)

Cornell University
2005 SAT:           98%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           18%
2016 SAT:           69% (75%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           51% (45%)

Dartmouth University
2005 SAT:           89%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           11%
2016 SAT:           53% (59%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           47% (41%)

Georgetown University*
2005 SAT:          95%                         vs.           2005 ACT:            7%
2015 SAT:          78% (84% in 2014)vs.           2015 ACT:          47% (40% in 2014)

Lehigh University
2005 SAT:           98%                        vs.          2005 ACT:            2%
2016 SAT:           58% (63%)             vs.          2016 ACT:          42% (37%)

Princeton University
2005 SAT:           100%                      vs.         2005 ACT:           N/A
2016 SAT:           73% (80%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           45% (36%)

Stanford University
2005 SAT:           97%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           23%
2016 SAT:           77% (80%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           51% (51%)

Swarthmore College
2005 SAT:           99%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           14.9%
2016 SAT:           67.5% (73%)          vs.         2016 ACT:           48.7% (46%)

University of Michigan
2005 SAT:           55%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           66%
2016 SAT:           26% (27%)             vs.         2016 ACT            82 (83%)

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
2005 SAT:           99%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           22%
2016 SAT:           71% (76%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           78% (74%)

University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh campus)
2005 SAT:            99%                       vs.         2005 ACT:           20%
2015 SAT:            80% (85%)            vs.         2015 ACT:           50% (47%)

University of Virginia
2005 SAT:           99%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           14%
2015 SAT:           77% (82%)             vs.         2015 ACT:           50% (44%)

Vanderbilt University
2005 SAT:           89%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           53%
2015 SAT:           37.6% (41%)          vs.         2015 ACT:           67.2% (63%)

Virginia Commonwealth University
2005 SAT:           95%                        vs.         2005 ACT:            15%
2015 SAT:           81.1% (87.4%)       vs.        2015 ACT:              26.4% (26.9%)

Washington and Lee University
2005 SAT:           80%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           18%
2015 SAT:           37% (46%)             vs.         2015 ACT:           63% (53%)

Wesleyan University
2005 SAT:            94%                       vs.         2005 ACT:           18%
2015 SAT:            58% (61%)            vs.         2015 ACT:           41% (38%)

*The most recent Common Data Set posted online is 2015-16

Ten Tips To Elevate Your Extracurricular Activities

Posted on by Leave a Comment

Elevate Your Extracurriculars!

If you are a high school student keeping up your grades and keeping busy with some activities you enjoy, while also spending time with family and friends, congratulate yourself! You are obviously managing your time well as you work towards your goals.

Having said that, many students decide they want to do more. Specifically, they hope to differentiate themselves on their college applications with an outstanding extracurricular resume.

It’s a problem, however, when students think this translates to taking pricey service trips abroad; or starting a club for the primary purpose of claiming the title “founder”; or gaining membership in multiple organizations without really doing anything.

To develop a resume that will truly stand out, one that deeply showcases your interests, highlights your leadership skills, and underscores your values and character, consider other ways to upgrade your involvement.

First, What Not To Do

It is meaningless to randomly join groups or undertake projects that do not underpin or intersect with the things that are important to you. Be thoughtful and selective about how you spend your time; a school counselor, mentor or other advisor can give you some feedback for your ideas if you’re unsure about where to start.

Also, don’t wait until the end of junior year to decide you need to do something… (Anything… and quickly!) There is nothing wrong, of course, with trying something new senior year; but an activity that represents a natural progression of your interests — rather than a resume line you’d like to fill — will authenticate your interest and involvement.

Being authentic — being true to who you are at your core — and perceptive about what motivates you, is key. Choose activities that help you grow (at your own pace). You’ll know you are on the right track when you feel challenged, but not overwhelmed; energized, but not depleted, by your choices. Here are some ideas to help you elevate your extracurricular activities:

  1. Promote a passion

Maya’s favorite pastime was knitting. She learned it from her grandmother, who enjoyed it as a relaxing social activity. Knitting also provided an outlet for Maya’s creativity and developed her problem-solving skills. After her grandmother passed, Maya decided to organize a group at a nearby senior center, exchanging tips with other knitting enthusiasts and inspiring novice knitters to learn more.

  1. Explore a career interest

Job internships for high school students are limited and competitive. You’ll need to start early and do some research to land one. But remember, there are other ways to learn more about your fields of interest. Some ideas include job shadowing, summer programs, personal research, a community college class, or a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course).

  1. Create your own opportunity

If what you want doesn’t exist, create it! Here is one example: Jen wanted a temporary means of earning money to pay for a summer engineering program, but babysitting and tutoring weren’t adding much to her savings. She used her mechanical inclinations to her advantage by buying old bikes, cleaning and repairing them, then reselling them for a nice profit. She paid for her summer program and learned some basic lessons of entrepreneurship, too.

  1. Step outside your comfort zone

When Devin resolved to create his own opportunity to explore his career interest in teaching, it made sense to combine it with his love of dance — he’d been dancing competitively for years. With the support of his dance studio, Devin initiated a year-round weekly dance class for students with special needs. He was a little nervous at first because he did not know what to expect — and he was in charge! But he took a risk, reached out to an underserved population, and in the end, reinforced his faith in both his desire and his abilities to instruct and connect with others.

  1. Solve your problem

Do you shake your head on a regular basis wondering why something is the way it is, and how you’d like to make it better? If you want to improve something, start where you are. Whether your inner engineer cringes at the poor design of the school cafeteria’s lunch line or your heart for social justice longs to inspire a local service group, step up to see the difference you can make in your own world.

  1. Commit to your community

Even as a sixth grader Ray could not get enough of math. After competing in middle school math competitions, he realized he would have loved that same opportunity years earlier. He began a math club at his old elementary school, starting with games, adding tutoring the next year, and organizing district competitions the next.

  1. Learn logistics

Ray’s math club required preplanning to lay the groundwork. He needed to secure permission from the school principal, enlist the aid of a club advisor, arrange for classroom space, get help with publicity, and set up a system to communicate with parents. As he gained further insight into the tasks required behind the scenes, he also gained self-confidence in his abilities to execute his expanding plans.

  1. Demonstrate dependability

Part of developing maturity and cultivating success is following through. This means that if you commit to a part-time job or volunteer position every Saturday morning, you arrive every Saturday — in the morning. This is not to say you won’t ever have a scheduling conflict or fall ill, but if you find yourself regularly making excuses to cancel, rethink your choice of activity.

  1. Leave a legacy

Let’s return to Ray – although it was difficult for him to think about leaving his math club, he wanted to make certain it would endure. During senior year he trained two of his former students (who were now high school freshmen) to co-lead the group once he left for college; they will do the same when they are seniors. Ray’s longer view of this activity further conveyed his commitment to improving his community.

  1. Uplift others

Some students demonstrate high achievement and involvement in athletics or academics or performing arts, for example. But if everything you do seems to focus entirely on yourself, try to incorporate some of the suggestions above to find activities that will also uplift others.

You may or may not find a new passion in service; but at the very least, you’ll have a better appreciation for your own advantages. And without a doubt, colleges will be noting what you’ve contributed to the greater good, as opposed to just yourself, when they envision what you might contribute to their campus.

UVa admits 9,957 for Class of 2021

Posted on by Leave a Comment

Hours before Associate Dean of Admission Jeannine Lalonde (Dean J) posted her usual heads up to applicants that the University of Virginia was getting ready to post decisions, gizmo18 let the cat out of the bag on College Confidential: “Decisions come out today!”

Seven hours later, Dean J confirmed that applicants could expect to see one of three decisions—admitted, denied or waitlisted—sometime in the next few hours. And by 5:00, the wait was over.

“I can’t believe it! I got in,” crowed one happy applicant.  “After straight rejections from Northwestern and GaTech I thought it was over. Words cannot describe my excitement.”

Another reported, “Didn’t expect much after rejections from Northwestern and Uchicago last week. But I’m happy I was proven wrong!!!! I was worried that writing my essay about Nike and Adidas in the sneaker industry was weird, but I guess not!!!!!!!!”

And from KingUU: “I got accepted! I’m so happy! Dreams can be real! UVA was my number 1 choice.”

But the news wasn’t universally happy.

“Deferred then waitlisted in state,” moaned another applicant. “Bruh just reject me already.”

Others were more philosophical, “Deferred EA, rejected RD. It was a long shot, but I definitely learned a lot about myself through it. Congrats to all who got in and good luck to everybody!”

To give the decisions context, Dean posted preliminary numbers for this year later in the week and recommended that admissions junkies with a real “need to know” could research numbers using a new tool devised by the UVa assessment team for presenting data in Tableau.

But the simple comparison with 2016 is interesting enough. Last year at this time, UVa reported receiving 32,426 applications (this number tends to jump around a little)—a significant increase from the previous year—and made initial offers to 9,416 students.

For this year’s class, the total number of applications soared to 36,807, with the number of in-state applicants increasing from 9,653 reported a year ago to 10,942 for the class of 2021.

The biggest contributing factor to the overall increase in applications, however, was the bump from out-of-state students who submitted 25,865 applications—up from 22,773 during 2015-2016.

To account for a steadily decreasing yield (percent of students accepting offers), which dropped from 53 percent in 2005-06  to 38 percent in 2016-17, as well as a need to continue growing class size, admissions increased offers to 9,957—about six percent more than last year. Of these offers, 4,276 went to Virginians (4,019 last year), and 5,681 went to out-of-state students (5,397 last year).

Early action admits accounted for 5914 of total.  And the initial admission rate decreased to about 27 percent from 29 percent last year.

According to information provided by UVa to the Common Data Set, 4,987 students were offered spots on the wait list last year, and 2,871 accepted the offer.  Of those students, 360 were eventually admitted.

In any event, here are all the “unofficial” numbers released by the UVa admissions office:

Total number of applications: 36,807 (up from 32,426 last year)
Total number of VA applications: 10,942 (up from 9,653 last year)
Total number of out-of-state applications: 25,865 (up from 22,773)

Overall offers: 9,957 (9,416 this time last year)
Total VA offers:  4,276 or 39% of resident applications (4,019/41.6% last year)
Total out-of-state offers:  5,681 or 22% of nonresident applications (5,397/23.7% last year)

Note that the offers of admission for nonresidents are higher because historic yield for nonresidents is generally lower than that for in-state student.

In a press release, UVa reports that of those admitted, over 1,000 are first-generation college students and more than 35 percent identify as members of a minority group. They come from all 50 states and 89 countries around the world.

And they present outstanding credentials. For those admitted who submitted new SAT scores, the middle 50 percent range was 1330-1490 (Dean J notes that “way more” students submitted the new SAT than the old, so she dropped the stats about the old exam). The middle 50 percent ACT composite was 31-34. And 93.4 percent of admitted students were in the top ten percent of their high school class, for those who attend schools that report rank.

Georgetown dean suggests admissions advantage for students submitting the ‘new’ SAT

Posted on by Leave a Comment

Students submitting ACT scores to Georgetown University this year could have been at an admissions disadvantage relative to those submitting results from the new or “redesigned” SAT, according to a statement made last week by Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Charles Deacon.

“A lot of people are advised by their high school counselors maybe to take the ACT, which we don’t think is great advice,” said Deacon in an interview published by The Hoya, Georgetown’s student-run newspaper, in reference to testing strategies used by applicants for fall 2017 admission.

Why would that be? Because Dean Deacon believes, based on what he heard from the College Board, that scores from the redesigned SAT appear higher than those from either the old SAT or the ACT.

And he’s right—sort of. But there’s a reason. In fact, there are several reasons why the scores are higher, including that it’s an entirely different test.

While rumors have circulated for years about Georgetown’s alleged preference for College Board products, this is the first time a statement seeming to confirm the bias has appeared in print. And it comes in the context of transitioning from the “old” SAT, last given in January, 2016, to the redesigned SAT, which debuted in March, 2016.

During the transition to the new test, a large number of students planning to apply for fall 2017 opted to take the ACT, to avoid what appeared to be a significant number of unknowns in content and scoring for the new SAT. Still others took the old SAT for some of the same reasons.

And many took various permutations and combinations of the three tests. But for Georgetown, it seems that students submitting the new SAT might have had an advantage over those submitting only the old SAT or the ACT.

Once initial scores from the new SAT came in and were analyzed by the College Board, a conversion tool was devised and posted online that compared those scores with those from the older test and the ACT.

While the ACT initially protested that the concordance was completed without sufficient study, the resulting comparisons made it clear that students taking the new test were coming in with numerically higher scores than in the past. It didn’t mean they necessarily did better and could look forward to applying to more selective schools. It simply meant the numbers were higher and a translating tool between the old and new tests was necessary to compare applicants.

As a result, a number of test prep organizations and individual colleges devised detailed tables designed to facilitate these comparisons. Princeton Review distributed a quick SAT-ACT comparison table as a bookmark for counselors to keep at their desks.  Compass Prep compiled and published “estimated” new SAT score ranges for 360 popular colleges and universities, using most-recently reported old SAT scores translated via concordance into new SAT scores.

According to this translation, Georgetown went from a published midrange of 1320-1500 for the old SAT to an estimated midrange of 1390-1560 for the new SAT. In other words, students taking the new SAT would have to score higher to stay within Georgetown’s most recent 25th-75th percentile of entering freshmen.

But Georgetown evidently didn’t look at it that way. A counselor newsletter circulated last fall said, “We do not plan to use the College Board’s concordance tables to adjust SAT I scores in either direction.” This policy was recently confirmed by a representative from the Georgetown admissions office.

Instead, admissions readers were asked to look at scores “contextually” and without a tool to facilitate comparisons among applicants submitting different tests.

At the same time, The Hoya reported Deacon as noting that Georgetown saw an increased number of students taking and submitting scores for the ACT that looked “lower” when compared to the new, inflated SAT scores.  “Deacon said this trend could have hurt students who preferred to submit ACT scores instead of the new SAT scores they received because they considered it to look more impressive.”

Reacting to concerns about any disadvantage suffered by students submitting the ACT only, Dean Deacon, speaking through a representative, said he was concerned that students “traditionally preparing” for the SAT were interrupted in their preparations by counselors who encouraged them to switch to the ACT, and this may have produced lower scores.

In other words, he felt that any harm done was a result of switching tests and not a result of any Georgetown bias produced by failing to recognize the new scale and use concordance tables to translate scores from one test to the other.

James Murphy, the Director of National Outreach for The Princeton Review disagrees, “The decision to treat the new SAT scores as if they are equivalent to the old test is a misuse of the exam, and College Board would be the first to say so.  It almost certainly hurt students who applied to Georgetown.”

Georgetown is still working on compiling numbers for the Class of 2021, and admissions results will be mailed by the end of this week.

College commitment to global volunteerism reflected in Peace Corps numbers

Posted on by Leave a Comment

Colleges and universities showed high levels of alumni commitment to global volunteerism in 2016, by making impressive showings on lists of top volunteer-producing schools recently announced by the Peace Corps. And the numbers reveal campus cultures that strongly support international study and understanding.

“Peace Corps service is an unparalleled leadership opportunity that enables college and university alumni to use the creative-thinking skills they developed in school to make an impact in communities around the world,” Acting Peace Corps Director Sheila Crowley said. “Many college graduates view Peace Corps as a launching pad for their careers because volunteers return home with the cultural competency and entrepreneurial spirit sought after in most fields.”

For the first time in three years, the University of Wisconsin-Madison reclaimed the top spot among top volunteer-producing large colleges and universities. There are currently 87 Badgers serving in 40 countries around the world.  And UW-Madison has maintained its place as the second highest all-time volunteer producer with 3,239 alumni having served since 1961. Denison University topped the list of small schools, while American University came in first among medium-sized schools.

In fact, DC-area schools continue to have a strong hold on spots in the medium-sized colleges and universities category with American University’s across-town rival, George Washington University, ranking No. 3 this year. Georgetown University and Howard University earned the No. 6 and No. 14 spots, respectively.

For the 13th year, the University of Mary Washington also found a place on the Peace Corps’ list of top colleges among schools with fewer than 5000 undergrads, jumping six spots from its No. 8 ranking last year, all the way up to No. 2. In all, 253 UMW alumni have served the 27-month commitment since the Peace Corps launched in 1961.

Now serving in Kedougou, Senegal, in West Africa, Maura Slocum, came to Mary Washington for precisely that reason.

“I read that UMW had such a high number of alumni who go on to serve,” said Slocum, who discovered her passion for providing for others on a mission trip to Guatemala. “The University of Mary Washington was fundamental in my journey to the Peace Corps.”

Celebrating over a half century of promoting peace and friendship around the world, more than 225,000 Americans have served with the Peace Corps in 140 host countries.  Although a college degree is not mandatory for service, relevant experience in areas such as education, health, business, environment or agriculture is required.

The Peace Corps’ eight regional offices, located across the US, recruit and provide information and guidance to prospective volunteers including current undergrads. Potential applicants can connect with local recruiters on the Peace Corps website.

And returning Peace Corps volunteers may receive support from the Paul D. Coverdell Fellows Program, which partners with more than 90 universities across the country.  Among DC-area colleges and universities supporting this program by offering graduate fellowships are American University, Catholic University, the College of William and Mary, George Washington University, Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland-Baltimore,  UMBC, University of Maryland-College Park, and Virginia Commonwealth University.

For more information on the Peace Corps or the Coverdell Fellows Program, visit the Peace Corps website.