Admissions Blog

Undergraduate Admissions Uncensored

Common App introduces an improvement that largely goes unnoticed

Posted on by Leave a Comment

Pepperdine University

For nearly a decade, the Universal College Application (UCA) has offered students the opportunity to include on their applications a “live” link or URL to online content such as YouTube, LinkedIn, personal websites, blogs, etc. In this regard, the UCA was way ahead of the competition, offering an option that both colleges and students seemed to want. Despite repeated calls to include a similar field on their application, the Common App opted to strengthen partnerships with outside vendors like SlideRoom (frequently charging applicants a separate fee) and resisted signs that colleges were increasingly transitioning to inclusion of digital credentials as part of the admissions process.

With the debut of the Coalition platform, the idea of making digital media available as part of the college application became more institutionalized. Videos, audio presentations and pictures can be easily uploaded to the Student Locker and transferred to applications for colleges requesting them. And most Coalition colleges opted to also use the upload function for the personal statement—something the Common App dropped a couple of years ago in favor unwieldy “text boxes,” which definitely limit an applicant’s ability to control format, embed live links and use different characters or pictures as part of their essays.

As the Coalition built on a precedent established by the UCA and opened students to the possibility of introducing colleges to their digital sides, the Common App responded by creating a relationship with ZeeMee, originally an online resume-building site high on visuals and low on written content. In the spring of 2016, the Common App introduced the new partnership with an “infomercial” at their annual conference and offered colleges the opportunity to have a field dedicated to ZeeMee included in their “member questions.” A number of colleges accepted the offer, some by stridently advertising for and recruiting students to the ZeeMee platform. Others were moderate in their requests and still fewer (one or two) suggested that students could include a link to ZeeMee or other online media if they chose.

But the times are changing. Without any promotion or advertisement from the Common App, many member colleges adopted the more “generic” URL field in their 2017-18 applications and are using this opportunity to encourage students to provide links to any site—not just ZeeMee. In fact at least 45, or about six percent of Common App members with live applications at this point, intentionally give students a wider opportunity to provide a link to a website of their choosing.

For the record, an additional 125 Common App members (as of this writing) appear to limit their requests to or provide dedicated fields for ZeeMee URLs—some with very strong marketing language.

But this welcome application development seems to have largely gone unnoticed. Perhaps it would be even more welcome if the link were “live” and a reader could click on the URL and go directly to the site—an opportunity the UCA has offered students and admissions readers for close to ten years! Unfortunately, the current state of Common App technology apparently requires readers to copy and paste the URL into an internet browser to access content. Nevertheless, the inclusion of a more general question in the bank of member questions is an acknowledgment of the value of this information to the admissions process.

Here is a sample of Common App members electing to move away from promoting a single site to opening their application to the inclusion of any URL:

  • Antioch College
  • Brown University
  • Centre College
  • Colorado College
  • Earlham College
  • Eckerd College
  • Florida Institute of Technology
  • Florida Southern College
  • Hampshire College
  • Kenyon College
  • Lafayette College
  • Marist College
  • Occidental College
  • Pepperdine University
  • Pitzer College
  • Texas Christian University
  • Union College
  • WPI

Franklin and Marshall, Hamilton and the University of Mary Washington make similar requests on the Coalition application.

And while the URL requests are fairly generic and don’t steer applicants in any particular direction, the award for best wording by a Common App member goes to the University of Mary Washington:

“Some applicants maintain an electronic profile (such as ZeeMee) that exhibits talents, creativity or other information to share with the Admissions Committee. If you maintain such a site, and would like the Admissions Committee to view it, please enter the URL here.”

The cleverest college award goes to SUNY Purchase, which gets around the deficiency in Common App technology by instructing applicants to be creative about uploading a document containing a link:

“For video submissions, post your video to YouTube or Vimeo and submit a document here with the URL link to the video.”

Note: For the nearly one-third of Common App members providing for submission of fully-formatted résumés, you can include URLs on those documents, upload them as PDFs and assume the links will be conveyed as live, thereby providing direct access to any online content you wish readers to see. Click here for more information on colleges that welcome your résumé.

Yale finds creative use of technology opens new possibilities for admissions

Posted on by 1 Comment

Yale University.

Yale University is experimenting with the role digital media can play in college admissions. Using technology advanced last year by the Coalition for Access, Affordability, and Success, Yale’s admissions readers in some cases became admissions viewers and experienced what will likely become a third dimension in college admissions—the creative use of media to present the case for admission to a highly selective institution.

Staying on the cutting edge of technology is challenging in any field, but changes in college admissions since the introduction of the electronic application are almost beyond description. Stacks of manila folders tucked into walls of file cabinets have been replaced by application “platforms” configured to align with enrollment management software, which oversees a process that is increasingly data-dependent and data-driven.

 

And the work has become less cyclical and more continuous as applicants have the luxury of starting applications earlier by entering information that “rolls over” from one year to the next.  Marketing begins with the administration of the first PSAT, with even the earliest scores sold to colleges anxious to get their names before potential applicants. There’s hardly a moment to reflect on successes and failures before it’s time to gear up for the next group of recruits turned applicants.

But as almost anyone involved in college admissions would agree, something isn’t quite right with this picture—the entire college admissions process is due for a major overhaul. And a handful of deans and enrollment management experts are ready to try.

“Technology has transformed how we process applications and how we read applications, but not how we create content for these applications,” commented Jeremiah Quinlan, Yale’s dean of undergraduate admission.

Like many others charged with overseeing admissions, Quinlan felt the time had come for Yale to experiment with application content that responded to the pervasiveness and availability of digital media.  While the Common Application set the standard, others saw a market ripe for innovation.

“I really felt we needed to make a change. We were looking at more and more essays that felt like they had been written by 47-year olds and not 17-year olds,” said Quinlan. “We thought we needed more material—different material—in the review process.”

Enter the Coalition application. Born out of concern that reliance on a single electronic application was a risky proposition and developed with a view toward attracting a wider, underserved audience, the Coalition application as built by CollegeNet looked for ways to integrate creativity and give colleges the kind of basic flexibility they wanted in an application platform.

“After the fall of 2013, we needed to bring more options into the application space,” Quinlan explained. “We thought giving students a choice of applications would be better for colleges and better for applicants.”

One of over 90 colleges that originally joined the Coalition and 47 that actually launched applications for 2016-17, Yale viewed this as an opportunity to design a substantially different set of application specifications from those contained in the Common Application.

Students applying to Yale could choose to write two additional 200-word essays (beyond the personal statement and other short-answer questions) for the Common Application or they could choose to write one 250-word essay and provide an upload related to that essay on the Coalition application.

While many Coalition members chose to simply replicate requirements laid out on the Common Application, Quinlan decided to offer alternate but not totally different requirements on Yale’s Coalition application. He kept the prompts the same for both applications, but used the Coalition application’s functionality to support links to digital media.

“It was critical to our review process that we not give preference to one application type over another. Our results from the first year bear this out; the rate of admission for students who submitted the Common Application and for students who submitted the Coalition Application were nearly identical.”

Nevertheless, the results were exciting. While only about one percent or 300 of Yale’s applicants used the Coalition application, the advantage of providing students with a choice of how to present themselves was clear. In some cases, the online media helped “separate” a student or verified some element of the application that didn’t come through strongly enough in a recommendation or through a student’s writing.

“We found certain situations, for example, where a video component made a difference—showed examples of kinds of characteristics we’re looking for.”

To illustrate his point, Quinlan talks about an application Yale received from Justin Aubin, an Eagle Scout who lives and attends high school in the southwest suburbs of Chicago. Justin’s recommendations were excellent, and he was an outstanding student. But Yale has lots of those applicants.

What made Justin stand apart was a video his older brother filmed to document the construction of Justin’s Eagle project. In this distinctly amateurish record of decisions made as the work progressed, the Yale admissions office could easily see how Justin managed and supervised younger scouts and how he exhibited compassionate leadership, which inspired respect from the group as a whole.

The additional essay Justin provided put the video in context. But most importantly, he presented information that highlighted and underscored character traits Yale values and wants to bring to campus in the classes they admit. Other information on the application suggested this was possibly the case, but the video nailed it.

Justin Aubin was eventually admitted and will be attending Yale in the fall as a member of the class of 2021. And Quinlan credits Justin’s creative use of digital media—submitting the video—as making the difference

In all fairness, Yale isn’t the first institution to allow videos and other digital media to be submitted as part of an application for admission. Goucher College in Maryland and George Mason University in Virginia and others have video options available through institutional applications.

And it’s not all that unusual for colleges to offer several different application formats with differing requirements. In fact, smaller colleges make clear that their institutional applications are often more popular than the standardized Common Application.

In addition, last year’s applicants could use ZeeMee, an online resume promoted in questions on the Common Application, or SlideRoom—a Common App partner—to provide more visual support for their talents and interests.

But the difference for colleges using the Coalition application was that they could design their own questions and media integration. They didn’t have to rely on a third-party website that might encourage more “freeform” or off-message responses.

Yale’s new application was no more difficult for staff to review than the two-essay Common App version and could be scripted to allow for comparable responses across applicants using either platform. Linking the digital media to an essay prompt was key to the success of the experiment.

“Staff enjoyed doing something else. It was a way to experiment with new ways of interpreting new kinds of application content.”

Quinlan has a great deal of respect for the Common Application and has no interest in changing that relationship, which has worked very well for Yale. But he does want to offer students a choice of application platforms.

“We want the two applications to be different so students can be thoughtful about which they use and what they decide to present to us.”

While he expects to “tweak” the essay prompts offered in the Yale supplement, Quinlan will continue to provide the digital media option in the Coalition application. “We will maintain the two applications for next year with the same set-up.”

And students will be free to choose the application platform that best presents their credentials and makes their case for admission to Yale University.

For the record, the Coalition application will make available new functionality on June 15. And for the coming year, the roster of institutional members will grow to 135.  After July 1, colleges can open individual applications according to their own timelines.

National Merit® ‘Commended Student’ cutoff up by 2 points

Posted on by Leave a Comment

The National Merit® Scholarship Corporation (NMSC) has confirmed that the national cutoff score for the ‘Commended Student’ designation will be 211 for the class of 2018—or 2 points higher than the cutoff for the class of 2017. While the higher cut score isn’t particularly predictive of state-by-state ‘Semifinalist’ cutoffs (except possibly at the lowest levels), it does reinforce speculation that continued upward pressure on PSAT/NMSQT® scores may result in higher score requirements for students hoping to earn National Merit Scholarships in some states.

“A simple response to a 2-point increase in the Commended Student cutoff would be to assume a 2-point increase in state Semifinalist cutoffs. It turns out that things are far from simple,” writes Art Sawyer in the Compass Education Group blog. “Based on our research, we are predicting that the most common state cutoff changes will be +0, +1, and +2. We expect that a small number of cutoffs may drop a point or go up by 3 points.”

And between changes in test scoring eliminating the guessing penalty and changes in the scale (from 20-80 to 160-760), the use of data from years prior to 2016 make estimates for state-by-state cutoffs a little complicated.

In addition, the scoring changes together with a new computation for the PSAT/NMSQT “Selection Index” (math, writing/language and reading on a scale of 8 to 38 multiplied by two) also put into play the possibility that two students from the same state with identical Total PSAT/NMSQT scores from the October test could have very different outcomes—one commended (or semifinalist) and one not.

According to the NMSC website, of 1.6 million NMS entrants, roughly 50,000 with the highest Selection Index (SI) scores qualify for recognition in the scholarship program. Note that only students taking the PSAT/NMSQT in the 11th grade qualify.

About 34,000 or more than two-thirds of the high scoring juniors receive Letters of Commendation. These students are named on the basis of a “nationally applied” SI score which varies from year-to-year and is typically below the level required for participants to be named semifinalists in most states. For the class of 2017, the cutoff score was 209.  In 2016, the last year to use the “old” PSAT, the cutoff score was 202. In 2015, it was 201 and in 2014, it was 203.

The increase in this year’s cutoff for commended status is in line with generally inflated PSAT scores, which may have been encouraging to students initially hoping to qualify for a National Merit Scholarship. Unfortunately, life isn’t always so straightforward and the NMS competition is anything but straightforward. State-by-state semifinalist cutoffs are predictable within a range. But only after the NMSC applies a little politics to its formula and the announcement is made in September will there be any certainty as to who qualifies as a semifinalist. To earn the title of “finalist,” these students will have to jump through an additional series of largely bureaucratic administrative hoops.

To facilitate the conversation about the class of 2018, however, Compass Education Group has come up with a chart predicting “estimated ranges” (with 1330 comments) for the state-by-state semifinalist cutoff.  The ranges “reflect the variability of year-to-year changes within a state” and are based on research conducted by the test wizards at Compass Prep. While interesting, the ranges and “most likely” scores are by no means guaranteed.

At this point, it’s not worth spending a whole lot of time worrying about PSAT/NMSQT® results. They are predictive of very little beyond possible achievement on the SAT. Colleges will never see these scores, and how the NMSC determines state-by-state semifinalist cutoffs is entirely out of anyone’s control.

James Madison University goes ‘test-optional’ for 2017-2018

Posted on by 3 Comments

James Madison University

Joining a growing number of colleges and universities, James Madison University (JMU) will be rolling out a test-optional admissions policy for 2017-18. Students seeking admission will no longer be required to submit tests results from either the SAT or the ACT as part of the JMU application process.

Unlike other Commonwealth universities, which have also decided to downgrade reliance on standardized tests in admissions, JMU will not be adding any “strings” to their new policy. There will be no minimum GPAs, similar to test-optional policies in use by Christopher Newport University, George Mason University or Virginia Commonwealth University.  Applicants will be entirely free to decide whether they want to include test scores along with their applications.

“We’re providing applicants to Madison the opportunity to build their best application which could include test results, recommendation, or personal statement,” explained Joe Manning, JMU’s Associate Dean of Admission. “We’ve determined that our students’ high school curriculum is a more consistent indicator of their academic success.”

As the university works to update their website to reflect the change in policy, information on the application process for the coming year has been communicated during on-campus information sessions, including one for counselors last month.  In a nutshell, JMU will only require that applicants submit an application for admission (one choice will be the Coalition Application), a high school transcript, and a senior schedule of classes. An applicant can also submit, if they choose, a personal statement, a letter of recommendation and/or standardized test results to be used in the review of their application. Because this is a substantial change from how things were done in the past, JMU is developing a method for applicants to request the university delete test results that may already be on file in the admissions office.

The new policy didn’t come as a huge surprise to counselors who have worked with Madison over the years. It’s been evident by their decisions that application readers placed significant importance on information conveyed via the transcript—grades and consistent rigor of coursework throughout high school. Test results, while considered, appeared to be of secondary importance in Madison’s admissions decisions.

And JMU is joining an impressive group of colleges and universities that have made the decision to reduce the role of scores in admissions.  According to the nonprofit National Center for Fair and Open Testing (FairTest), the list of test-optional schools has grown to more than 950 accredited institutions awarding bachelor’s degrees, with more than 275 highly “ranked” in their “tiers” by U.S. News, including such familiar names as Bowdoin, Mount Holyoke, Pitzer, Smith, Trinity College, Wesleyan, Wake Forest, Providence and College of the Holy Cross.

In addition to James Madison, the most recent schools to announce test-optional policies are Emerson College in Boston, University of the Ozarks and Wofford College in South Carolina.  In the DC/Maryland/Virginia region, American, Catholic, Christopher Newport, GMU, George Washington, Goucher, Hampton, Hood, Loyola Maryland, Marymount, Old Dominion, Radford, Roanoke, Salisbury, St. John’s College, Trinity Washington University, Mary Washington, VCU and Washington College have either test-flexible or test-optional policies in place.

There appear to be a number of reasons for the recent “surge” in test-optional colleges. According to Robert Schaeffer, public education director for FairTest, “Admissions offices increasingly recognize that they do not need ACT or SAT scores to make good decisions. They know that an applicant’s high school record—grades and course rigor—predicts undergraduate success better than any standardized exam.”

Register NOW: Test sites are in short supply for August SAT

Posted on by 1 Comment

When the College Board first announced the addition of an August test date for the SAT beginning this summer, cheers went up among those who had lobbied for adjusting the test schedule to accommodate the reality of earlier application deadlines. ACT added a September test several years ago, which turned out to be enormously popular among students with time to prep over the summer who wanted one last try before going the early admissions route. And the College Board finally saw the wisdom of doing the same.

But enthusiasm for the August test date wasn’t universally shared, particularly among test site administrators in school districts starting late in August or after Labor Day. They could easily see how difficult it would be to open buildings and find staff willing to end summer vacations early to proctor one more test.

And it appears they were right. A quick comparison of test site availability for the August 26 SAT as compared with the October 7 SAT shows that so far the College Board has come up a little short in finding seats for the test.

For example, the College Board ordinarily offers up to about 40 sites that are considered a reasonable distance (under 40 miles) from my Virginia zip code. For August, there are only 12 locations, and they do not include the high schools closest to my home which have been popular sites in the past. Instead of traveling 3.6 miles to take the test, my nearest site is about double the distance away–admittedly not too much of a hardship as long as seats remain open. But I certainly would not want to have to travel to some of the further locations suggested by the College Board, which would take me 35 miles from home and across the Washington Beltway!

Using information provided by the College Board, it appears that about 1,970 sites in the U.S. (including D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) will be administering the SAT and SAT Subject tests on August 26. On October 7, however, almost 3,440 sites will be giving the test.

In Virginia, there will be 134 test locations for October and 84 in August. Pennsylvania will open 231 sites in October, but only 87 in August. In New York, it’s 263 locations for October, and 53 in August. Massachusetts has 140 test sites in October and 37 in August. And in New Jersey, students will have 203 locations from which to choose in October, but only 69 in August.

Note that the number of available test sites offered doesn’t necessarily correlate with or predict the number of seats available. In this area, it appears that the larger sites will be open for business in August, while some of the smaller sites have opted out.

The August date is also replacing the relatively unpopular January test, which will no longer be given. And it’s possible that sites simply don’t want to add another working Saturday to their calendars.

But given the convenience of the new August test relative to making decisions about application strategies—binding Early Decision vs. nonbinding Early Action vs. Regular Decision–and ensuring timely delivery of scores, it seems entirely possible that the new date could be very popular–possibly more popular than October.

“We’re seeing a great degree of interest for the August test in all of our markets, coast to coast. Students have so many academic demands as juniors. APs wrap in May, then final exams, and then the early application deadlines hit in Mid-October to November.  August stands out as an excellent time to take an SAT, fully prepared, with minimal academic distractions,” explained Jed Applerouth, founder and CEO of Applerouth Tutoring. “I’m personally a huge fan of summer testing.  Ideally students will be able to take these college assessments entirely on their own schedule.  The summer, not surprisingly, is one of the most spacious times for many students, affording them the time to focus, prepare, and go in with the greatest chance of success.”

In other words, if I lived in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Virginia, I would be registering NOW and not later!

ACT is countering with a summer test of their own. In 2018, the ACT will be adding a July test date to the standardized test calendar.

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.

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

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.