Article on admissions changes

[MomatHWTK]

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/05/24/changes-admissions-could-create-great-confusion-essay?utm_content=buffer3d8b3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin&utm_campaign=IHEbuffer

[Serenade]

It's all so complicated.  Makes me want to bury my head in the sand.

[shawthorne44]

" ...elimination of colleges’ access to the selected institution list on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid"

 

This seems long overdue.  

[Corraleno]

The language in that article is just ridiculously hyperbolic: chaos/chaotic (used 4 times!), startled, shocked, unprecedented changes, sleepless nights, fear, hopeless, confusion, angst.

 

In fact, all of the changes he's lamenting will make things easier for parents and students, and they really aren't going to make things much harder for colleges.

 

For example, the idea that allowing students to submit FAFSA as early as October somehow implies that colleges will have to make financial aid offers "before the student even applies" is ridiculous — there's no reason they can't have students submit those together, and no requirement that colleges must review the FAFSA and make an award as soon as it's submitted. And the fact that colleges can no longer use the "FAFSA list order" to make often unwarranted assumptions about student intentions (when the vast majority of students had no idea it was being used that way) is not the horrible burden that Barnds makes it out to be. So now colleges will have to award aid based on actual merit and need, instead of using some random and often totally inaccurate short-cut to gauge interest? Tragic. 

 

And his comment regarding expansion of Medicaid affecting eligibility for aid under the SNT makes no sense: "It’s hard to argue with this change, which will benefit the truly needy. But given the vast expansion of Medicaid in the last five years, I fear it will force public policy makers to develop a system of rationing financial aid at the national level." Huh? Aid is already "rationed" in the sense that not everyone gets it — that's what the FAFSA does. So Barnds "fears" that a possible expansion in the number of students who qualify for aid will eventually lead to a reduction in the number of students who qualify for aid? 

 

Barnds concludes that all these shocking/chaotic/unprecedented changes mean that "those of us in enrollment work need to be more engaged in the public debate about important policy issues. ... We can no longer rely on associations and lobbyists." Oh no — paying lobbyists to make sure the rules favor colleges instead of students is no longer a guarantee that colleges will get what they want! 

 

:001_rolleyes: 

[FaithManor]

I think the college admission's game has gotten completely out of control and the author acted like it was a huge disservice to academia to rein it in a little. He needs a dose of reality. He's ranting rather irrationally.

 

Get a coffee and some chocolate dude, breath deep, this is making a mountain out of a mole hill and you and your precious game will survive!

 

:glare:

[angela in ohio]

That article rather made me angry. The article definitely took the point of view of the colleges...

 

I believe the target audience was admissions professionals, not students and parents.

 

It's helpful to see "behind the curtain" in order to gain insight, but we can't be surprised when an article discusses the impact of changes on its target audience.

Edited May 25, 2016 by angela in ohio

[MarkT]

It least one commentator pointed out this gem:

David B

"

I agree with the surprise that eliminating the visibility of FAFSA position drew such protestations from the author. Really, from my own research (as both a professor and the parent of a child applying for college this coming fall), it appears that it was simply yet another part of the application process that disadvantaged applicants who were not coached in how to game the system.

Really, it sounds like those objecting to that change are simply taking their own increase in uncertainty over yield and projecting it onto the applicants without actually finding out whether it's problem, which is never a good rationale for objecting to a policy change.

"

[Dmmetler]

Speaking of gaming the system, I wonder how many of his applicants listed "Augustana College" higher than "University of Illinois" solely because they listed them in alphabetical order? I could SO see my DD doing so

I feel like the author is missing the forest for the trees.  Isn't the root cause here the complete opaqueness in the admissions process, leading to a shotgun approach from the students, and yield anxiety from the administrators?  Students and their families seem to have no idea which colleges they can get accepted to, and the Common App has made it very easy to apply to a lot of colleges.  It isn't unheard of for students to apply to 20+ colleges, and it appears that there are some public high schools, which, for PR reasons, encourage their students to apply to every Ivy League school, as a matter of course.  Because students are applying to so many more colleges than in previous generations, I bet they are getting accepted into many more, even though they can only enroll in one, causing enormous headaches for admissions offices to fill their classes, and working their waitlists, which results in more stress for the students.

[daijobu]

I admit I haven't done much thinking on this topic, but I did just read that the Common App itself is the root of all evil here, and it doesn't actually add value to the application process, both for students and schools.  

 

Should we advocate for the end of the Common App?  

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I admit I haven't done much thinking on this topic, but I did just read that the Common App itself is the root of all evil here, and it doesn't actually add value to the application process, both for students and schools.

 

Should we advocate for the end of the Common App?

On one hand CA makes it easy to apply to more schools which may lead to more applications. But schools don't seem reluctant to get more applications. They flood email with offers, have basic quick apps, and waive application fees. They have higher selectivity as a goal but don't seem to get that students will apply widely in order to have choices.

I was thankful for the CA because it made it much easier to collect the paperwork for the applications. It was hard enough to do transcripts and course descriptions and to request recommendations. It would have been much harder if each school had their own format.

[Murphy101]

We never did the ca. We narrowed down which schools we were interested in and only applied directly to those. For one son it was 3 schools, for the other it was one.

 

Partly bc the applications fees of between $40-100 each can really add up, tho many institutions will wave them if you call and ask, especially if you have an excellent transcript/ACT or SAT scores.

 

But overall, I thought the article showed a distinct lack of interest in doing the right thing by students and was petty whining.