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.
