As part of the PCACAC AP Committee’s desire to proactively
discuss ethics, we will be sending out monthly “case studies.” In these cases,
we will offer a situation and discuss whether the issue is in compliance with NACAC’s
Statement of Principles of Good Practices (SPGP). If you have a question
about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.
Please note, because the results of the multiple choice were
sent in early March and the PCACAC conference is in April, the March/April
edition is being combined.
March/April Case:
Over the past couple of years, the Lily Honors Program in Business at Azalea University
program has not enrolled some of their top admitted prospects. These top
students were also offered additional scholarship to the program. Because these
students did not enroll, there was available space and scholarship money.
Therefore, through an undergraduate seminar class, the program Director has set
up a “think-tank” of faculty and students to apply business theory in an effort
to improve yield.
After researching the problem, one of the major observations
made by the think-tank was that many non-enrolling students were making their
college enrollment decision in April. Therefore, in an effort to increase yield
and capture the customer by being “first in the door,” the group suggests moving
the deadline to accept an Honors Program Scholarship to April 1. Thanks to
training from the VP of Enrollment, the Honors Program Director knows that
students have until May 1 to matriculate to the university; but, the Director
sees no reason why students can not be asked to accept the scholarship earlier.
After all, the money is run by the Honors Program, not admissions or financial
aid. Therefore, the Honors Program Director sends an e-mail to accepted
students who were offered an Honors Scholarship informing them that they have
until April 1 to accept the scholarship or risk losing that additional money.
What are the ethical (SPGP) issues in this situation?
Discussion: There
are actually two issues here: May 1 and Non-admission Office Involvement.
According to SPGP II B 3, “All postsecondary members agree
that they will permit first-year candidates for fall admission to choose among
offers of admission and institutionally-affiliated financial aid and
scholarships until May 1, and state this deadline explicitly in their offers of
admission, and not establish policies nor engage in practices whose effect is
to manipulate commitments prior to May 1.”
In reading this ethical guideline closely, there are several
important parts:
a.
Permit
students to choose among offers of admission…until May 1
b. Permit students to choose
among…institutionally-affiliated financial aid and scholarships until May 1
c. State this deadline explicitly
d. Not establish policies…whose effect it is to
manipulate commitments prior to May 1.
The SPGP II B 3 c. Interpretations further expounds:
C. Colleges will neither retract
nor adversely alter their offers of admission and/or financial aid prior to May
1 for candidates who choose not to reply until that date, nor will they state
or imply that candidates might incur such a penalty by waiting until May 1
(including time zone) to submit an enrollment deposit
Thus, the SPGP is clear about the
intention of May 1; but, let us explore the issue of Non-Admission Office involvement. In this case, the idea initially
came from a “think-tank.” And the e-mail is sent from the Honors Program, not
the Admission Office. How does the SPGP
look at these entities, which are not part of the Admission Office, per se? In
SPGP II B 1, “Postsecondary Members will accept full responsibility for
admission and financial aid decisions and for proper notification of those
decisions to candidates.” This
fact is further reflected in SPGP II B 3 Interpretation D which states, “The
May 1 deadline also applies to any academic major or special program to which
the candidate has been offered admission. Examples of special programs can
include, but are not limited to, honors programs, dual-enrollment master’s, or
professional-degree programs.”
Conclusion: The
e-mail from the Director of the Honors program would be a violation of SPGP II
3 B in three ways:
1.
The e-mail gave an April 1 deadline to accept
the institutional affiliated scholarship
2.
The e-mail did not mention May 1
3.
The intent was to manipulate commitments prior
to May 1
Although the office sending the letter was NOT the Admission
Office, the Admission Office would be expected to educate, communicate and work
with other parts of the university to insure that the institution was in
compliance with SPGP. Although the enrollment division had provided initial
training in the above case, the primary NACAC member (often the Director of
Admission) would be contacted by the AP Committee in order to work with other
offices on campus to rectify a violation like this.
This year, the PCACAC’s AP Committee has received many complaints
involving May 1—it has been the most common accusation over the past year.
Several cases were similar to above in that the office involved was not the
Admission Office, but a special program or scholarship. In each situation, when contacted by the
appropriate AP Committee, the Admission Office readily worked with the other
campus offices to bring the institution into compliance.
If you wish to file a complaint, please complete a
NACAC Confidential Complaint form. All personal information will be kept
confidential, but the information will be forwarded to the appropriate
affiliate AP Committee. This committee will follow up on the issue.
Want to review previous case studies?
View all of the Admissions Practices Case Studies on The Anchor
here.
Want to submit a case for consideration? Please e-mail the
PCACAC AP Committee Chair at jtalmage@stpaulsschool.org
No comments:
Post a Comment