What if we offer Early Decision (ED) Students New Housing?

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). Thanks to Jake Talmage, Director of College Counseling at St. Paul’s School (MD) and PCACAC AP Committee Chair, for this month’s case. If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

June Case:   Having just completed the admission cycle for the fall of 2016, the Dean of Admission at Aspiring College (AC) goes to meet with her new boss, the VP for Enrollment, who was recently promoted from the Dean of Students Office.  In this meeting, the new VP tells the Dean, “You had a great year—best class ever! But, I see you and your staff had to work exceptionally hard to make the class. I think we could make your life easier by getting more students through Early Decision. What do you think if we offered ED students a guarantee to live in our new Living and Learning Center?”  While this idea seems like it may help attract more students through ED, the Dean is unsure how to answer.

Is this idea compliant with NACAC’s SPGP? What should the Dean do?

Discussion:  According to SPGP II B 4, “All Postsecondary Members agree that they will not offer exclusive incentives that provide opportunities for students applying or admitted Early Decision that are not available to students admitted under other admission options.”  Furthermore, the SPGP Interpretations section states, “Examples of exclusive incentives include special dorms for ED admits, honors programs only for ED admits, full, need-based financial aid packages for ED admits only, special scholarships for ED admits only, any promise of an advantage in the admission process if student(s) convert from Regular Admission to Early Decision.”

Under the VP’s proposal, ED students would be offered the special incentive of guaranteed housing in a new residence hall. At first glance, this certainly seems like a clear “exclusive incentive.”  But, there are some issues that could make the situation fall into a gray area. There are many different types of institutions that are NACAC members and the context of any scenario becomes very important. Let’s explore some of the questions that might be considered:

-        How large is the new Living and Learning Center? Would non-ED enrolling freshmen be able to live in the housing? How many spots does the college predict would be available to non-ED?  The perspective of whether this situation was “exclusive” could be affected if the new center housed a significant number of students or was limited to a very select population.

-        Is the new Center truly a special housing situation? Or is it just a title of a new residence hall? Understanding how this new center might vary from other residence halls would help determine whether this was an incentive.

-        Would ED enrollees be required to live in housing or just guaranteed the opportunity? How would non-ED enrolling students be considered for the housing (ie, an additional application or something else)?  Again, understanding whether the ED students are truly getting a benefit is necessary.

-        How does the college normally assign freshman housing?  Is this guarantee to ED different than their overall process? There are many different ways colleges approach freshman housing. For example, some use date of deposit.  If this were the case, and there are other admission decisions (EA, rolling) occurring on a similar time-line, then the question about whether this option was just for ED or for all students deposited by a certain date would need to be a consideration. 

-        How would the college market this possibility?  An important concept of the SPGP is to protect the Ethics of the Profession while working with students. In this case, the messaging could affect whether an AP Committee felt the college was offering an exclusive incentive that pressured students in an un-Ethical way.

Conclusion: So what can the Dean do? Many people think of contacting the Admissions Practices Committee when they encounter a violation. However, the Committee’s purpose includes serving as an educational resource. The Dean could contact the AP Committee to discuss the proposed policy and possible SPGP issues. Such conversations, similar to complaints, are treated confidentially by the AP Committee.  Not only could the AP Committee be a sounding board for the issues, the Committee could support the Dean by providing additional resources (for example, copies of the SPGP or in-office training) for the Dean to provide her staff, including the new VP.

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 in order to help the college work fairly with all students. 

Want to review previous case studies?

View all of the Admissions Practices Case Studies here.

Is it poaching or part of the process?

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). Thanks to Corey Fischer, Director of College Counseling at Fredericksburg Academy (VA) and PCACAC AP Committee Member, for this month's case. If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

May Case: On May 2nd, Suzie showed up in her counselor's office to show her an email she had just received from a college she had applied to and really liked, but was not planning to attend as she had deposited elsewhere. The email said, "We have not heard back from you, but want you to know we would love to have you attend Wonderful Univ. Recognizing that college costs are often a big factor in deciding where to attend, we are offering you an additional scholarship of $24,000 ($6,000 per year) if you send your enrollment deposit by May 7. We look forward to welcoming you to Wonderful Univ. in August!" 

This additional money would mean Wonderful Univ. would be more manageable for her family financially and she really liked the college, so she wanted to switch colleges.

Is Wonderful U compliant with NACAC's SPGP?

Discussion:  According to SPGP II A 2, "All postsecondary members agree they will not knowingly recruit students who are enrolled or registered or have initiated deferred admission, declared their intent or submitted contractual deposits to other institutions, unless the students initiate inquiries themselves or unless cooperation is sought from institutions that provide transfer programs."

Conclusion: Seems pretty straight forward, doesn't it? It is after May 1, so Wonderful U must be "poaching." Not so quick. As is often the case, this situation is not so simple.

The key words of SPGP II A 2 are "knowingly recruit students who… declared their intent or submitted contractual deposits to other institutions…" Essentially, did Wonderful U send this e-mail knowing that Suzie had deposited to another college?  Had Suzie notified Wonderful U of her intentions?

If so, there is a violation. But, there is a good chance WU did not know that Suzie was planning to enroll elsewhere (the e-mail read, "We have not heard back from you.").  Even though it is after May 1, many students and colleges have not finished their process. For example, NACAC recently posted the College Openings Update listing more than 400 colleges that still have space. Many colleges operate a rolling process that extends into the summer.

Therefore, if a complaint about Wonderful U was filed, the AP committee would follow up with the university to ask about their process. What happens when a student withdraws his/her application? Do they stop recruiting students who commit elsewhere? Whether the college was in compliance or not, this conversation can prove positive and educational.

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 in order to help the college work fairly with all students. 

Want to review previous case studies?

View all of the Admissions Practices Case Studies here.

Really? You Want to go there?

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). Thanks to Dale Bittinger, Assistant Vice Provost for Admissions and Orientation at UMBC (MD) and PCACAC AP Committee Vice-Chair, for this month’s case. If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

April Case: A student walks into her counselor’s office after attending an admitted student day at Myperfect College and is excited to share how much she enjoyed the program.  The counselor replies that this surprises her as she really thought Myperfect College was not as academically rigorous and the students did not grow as much personally as at the student’s other choice, Herfavorite College.  The counselor goes on to state that Herfavorite College invited her to fly out and visit the college this past year and she could see many of her students enrolling there.  The counselor adds that Myperfect College has had a number of changes in senior leadership over the past few years and that some of the students from their high school did not have a good experience while enrolled at Myperfect College. 

Is this compliant with NACAC’s SPGP?

Discussion:  According to NACAC’s SPGP Mandatory Practices I A. 2, “All Members agree they will not use disparaging comparisons of secondary or postsecondary institutions.” Furthermore, according to the interpretations section of the SPGP, “Members will refrain from publicly disseminating biased, unflattering and/or potentially inaccurate information about secondary or postsecondary institutions, their admission criteria and/or their curricular offerings.”

While many think of this section of the SPGP applying to college admission officers recruiting students, it should be noted that section I A addresses, “All members.” Therefore, school and non-school based counselors should also be following this ethical guideline. The questions to consider are, “Was this a disparaging comparison?” and “Was this publicly disseminating that information?”

Conclusion: As always, this is not as easy as it first seems. While the counselor may have had good intentions to help her student, her negative inferences (“surprises her as she really thought…not as academically rigorous and the students did not grow as much…”) about Myperfect College would be unethical. However, another statement (“number of leadership changes”) is factual and is not necessarily disparaging. Finally, the concern that some students from the high school did not have a good experience is in a gray area—it is factual but infers a negative that may or may not be applicable.  

The AP Committee might have a difficult time considering sanctions as the comments were not made in a public forum. This situation, though, would provide an opportunity for a member of the AP Committee to discuss the issues with the counselor and help her better understand NACAC’s SPGP.

Want to learn more about similar Ethical Situations? Attend the “So What’s Ethical? Current Case Studies in Admissions Ethics” at the PCACAC Conference on Monday, April 18.

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 in order to help the college work fairly with all students. 

Want to review previous case studies?

View all of the Admissions Practices Case Studies here.

Reply before May 1

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). Thanks to Jake Talmage, Director of College Counseling at St. Paul’s School and PCACAC AP Committee Chair, for this month’s case. If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

March Case: A student has come to see her counselor first thing in the morning. Visibly upset, the student says, “Mrs. D, I don’t know what to do. I just received this letter from the honors program at OutofState U. They say that I have to deposit by March 15 to keep the scholarship. But, I have not heard from my other colleges. What should I do?” The student passes the letter to the counselor, and the letter does say, “To guarantee your scholarship, please send your refundable deposit by March 15.”

Is this situation compliant with NACAC’s SPGP?

Discussion:  One of the most common violations of NACAC’s SPGP relates to colleges not adhering to the May 1 Common Reply date.  Even if the deposit is “refundable,” asking for an early deposit is considered a violation of SPGP II. B. 3., “All postsecondary members agree 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.”

As Lou Hirsh, National AP Chair, recently wrote, “One thing we are trying to impress upon colleges is that, apart from Early Decision, the only deposit/confirmation deadline that a college may cite is ‘May 1.’ That means that none of the following statements is acceptable:

Congratulations on being awarded our Presidential Scholarship. Presidential Scholars have until March 15 to return the enclosed form to let us know that they are accepting their award. Tuition deposits must be submitted no later than May 1. 

Congratulations on your Presidential Scholarship. To accept their award, Presidential Scholars must submit a tuition deposit no later than March 15. Deposits are refundable if students cancel their admission by May 1.

Congratulations on your admission. We would appreciate your submitting a deposit within 30 days of the receipt of this letter, but no later than May 1.

What is acceptable is a statement like this: "Since there are other students to whom we will offer this award if you decide to decline it, we would appreciate hearing from you as soon as you have made your decision but no later than May 1."

What still remains a "grey" area is housing. When a college cannot house all of its first-year students, we must grudgingly acknowledge that they may need to assign housing on a first-come, first-served basis (which, of course, benefits early depositors) or set a housing deposit deadline that falls before May 1.

On the other hand, when schools have sufficient housing and -- especially -- when schools have a policy of requiring first-year students to live on campus, then these early deadlines seem to have only one purpose, and that is to manipulate students into depositing before May 1.”

Conclusion: What should Mrs. D do? In the short term, she or the student might want to call the college to ask for an extension.  If the honors program at OutofState U does not offer the extension, they could try talking to the admission office. In reality, that may or may not work. Furthermore, because the college might be outside of her ACAC region, she should also complete a NACAC Confidential Complaint form. The counselor’s and the student’s name and school will be kept confidential, but the information will be forwarded to the appropriate affiliate AP committee. This committee will follow up on the issue in order to help the college work fairly with all students.  

Want to review previous case studies?

View all of the Admissions Practices Case Studies here.