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
the current NACAC’s
Statement of Principles of Good Practices (SPGP). These cases are submitted
anonymously by PCACAC members. All questions and allegations are treated as
confidential; therefore, cases have been adapted, when necessary, to protect
the identity of the professional seeking advice. If you have a question about a
situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.
August Case: The Director of Counseling at Prepared
Institute, a regional magnet program, is meeting with the Director of
Recruitment and Director of
Communication to discuss updating the school profile. Even though it is a counseling
office publication with the primary audience being college admission offices,
the Recruitment Office uses the profile to attract students and the
Communications Office supplies it to the School Board and other interested
groups. The counselor has run the numbers and plans to simply update the class
statistics. However, in the meeting, the other Directors ask, “Can we drop out
some ‘special groups’ of students from the averages-- test scores, grade
distribution, college list, etc. As you know, we have some populations—athletes,
international students, etc.-- here and do not think they represent our typical
students.” At first, the counselor feels that not including all students might
be disingenuous; but, upon further consideration, thinks that “finessing” the
statistics might actually help future applicants to college as well as to
recruit future families. The counselor is torn about what to do and has called
the AP Committee to ask for advice.
Does the NACAC SPGP provide guidance in this situation?
Discussion: Over the past few years, the media reported
on several colleges where the student profile had incorrect statistics—ranging
from deflated admission rates to inflated test scores. But, the pressure to
make a profile look better is not just directed at college admission offices;
counseling offices and independent counselors might feel pressure to “finesse”
their statistics for various reasons.
Luckily, as a professional organization, NACAC provides
direction for such ethical quandaries. In this situation, there are two
pertinent SPGP sections that can help the counselor determine how she might proceed.
The more direct statement addresses test scores. According to SPGP Mandatory
Practice III B 7, “All counseling members will report on all students within a
distinct class (freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior) and subgroups,
including non-native speakers, in the reporting of standardized test scores.”
Furthermore, Mandatory SPGP Mandatory Practice III B 1
states, “All counseling members agree that they will provide colleges and
universities with a description of the school’s marking system, if available,
that will provide some indication of grade distribution that may include the
rank in class and/or grade point average.” Dropping select students from the profile
may affect the rank in class and/or grade distribution (if reported) for a
school.
While this case relates to a school profile, NACAC’s SPGP
provides similar guidance to post-secondary professionals, too. According to NACAC’s SPGP Mandatory Practice II
B 11, “All postsecondary members agree they will initially report on all
first-year admitted or enrolled students, including subgroups in the reporting
of test scores. If data on subgroup populations are also provided, clear
explanations of who is included in the subgroup population will be made.”
Furthermore, in the Interpretations Section, the SPGP expands, “a. Postsecondary
members will furnish data describing the currently enrolled freshman class and
will describe in published profiles all members of the enrolling freshman
class; b. subgroups within the profile may be presented separately because of
their unique character or special circumstances.”
Conclusion: So what can the counselor do? She
could use the SPGP as a guiding document to discuss the issues with her
colleagues. 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 counselor could contact the AP
Committee to discuss the proposed situation 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
counselor by providing additional resources (for example, copies of the SPGP or
in-office training) for the counselor to provide her colleagues.
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 bittinge@umbc.edu
