November PCACAC Case Study: The Questionable College Essay

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). This month’s case was submitted by Julia Ross, a member of the PCACAC AP Committee as well as owner and counselor for Professional Tutoring, LLC in VA. If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

November Case: Sheila, an independent counselor has worked with a high achieving student (4.1 weighted GPA and 34 ACT), Alexandra, since the end of the student’s junior year.  Alexandra is a busy young woman (potential NCAA I athlete, congressional intern, volunteer, coach) and has very, very high aspirations.  She will not accept anything less and will do whatever it takes for her to meet her goals.

As fall approaches, Alexandra focuses on her many essays.  Because of her intense schedule, Alexandra requests lots of hand-holding to organize and outline her ten plus essays. Sheila supports Alexandra by advising, but realizes that the essays need to be the student’s work and encourages Alexandra to do her best.

Soon Alexandra receives the devastating news that she has been deferred from PERFECT Ivy.  Alexandra is devastated; “no” is not a word in her lexicon.  She meets with Sheila to discuss the way forward.  At the end of the meeting, Alexandra mentions that an English teacher who once worked in the PERFECT Ivy admissions office helped her to put more oomph in her essay.  Sheila asks to read the essay and sees that it bears absolutely NO resemblance to any of Alexandra’s earlier drafts.  In fact, the essay seems to have been written by a flamboyant and dramatic nineteenth century novelist. 

Is there a NACAC SPGP issue here?

Discussion: There are two questions here. First, is an independent counselor addressed by NACAC SPGP? Secondly, what advice does SPGP give us concerning help on an essay/application?

Concerning the first issue: According to the  Introduction to NACAC’s Statement of Principles and Good Practices (SPGP), “Since its founding in 1937, when a select number of college and university professionals and high school counselors came together to create a Code of Ethics within the admission-counseling profession, NACAC has striven to ensure principled conduct among professionals in the recruitment of students and the transition to postsecondary education.” At the time, many of the professionals were admission officers and school-based counselors.

Since then, the landscape has evolved, at times quickly, to include related professionals including independent counselors, consultants, counselors at Community Based Organizations and others.  This is recognized in the SPGP Introduction which continues,  “Member schools, colleges and universities, as well as other institutions, organizations and individuals dedicated to the pursuit of higher education, believe in the dignity, worth and potential of each and every student.”

This fact is relevant because some people might believe those other entities are not beholden to the SPGP. But, if the individual or organization is a member of NACAC, then (s)he/it agrees to meet the ethical guidelines (SPGP) of NACAC. Not doing so would be terms for NACAC sanctions.

As to the second question, can a counselor help on an essay? According to NACAC’s SPGP Best Practice III. A. 6, “Counseling Members will encourage students to be the sole authors of their applications and essays and counsel against inappropriate assistance on the parts of others.” Many students approach counselors, peers, teachers, parents and others to brainstorm, discuss, proofread and provide insight concerning essays. While there is no distinct “line in the sand” that delineates too much help,  those acting ethically work hard to balance advising a student with making sure students maintain their voice and ownership. In addition, it is important to note that this is a Best Practice and not a Mandatory Practice.

Conclusion: A growing number of non-school (college and high school) based professionals are becoming involved in the college admission process. While they may not work at a school, the SPGP does still affect them. In this case, Sheila is working to try to help a student while following the ethical principals stated in the SPGP Best Practices. Unfortunately, there is a chance that the teacher involved with advising this student may not have followed SPGP. Perhaps, the teacher is even unfamiliar with NACAC and/or the SPGP. Even so, there would be no true violation as the practice is not Mandatory.

Moving forward could be politically sensitive, but could also provide an important educational opportunity for the teacher who has chosen to become involved in the process . If Sheila wished to help educate the teacher, there are several possible approaches. For example, she could check to see if the school is a NACAC member and reach out to the a counselor at the school in order to let the counselor know about the issue. Then, the counselor could work to educate the teacher. Or, if she knew the teacher, Sheila could reach out to the teacher directly to provide information about NACAC, SPGP and the issues. Another option would be to contact the local AP Committee for them to reach out to the school to provide education materials (such as a copy of the SPGP). If it came though the AP Committee, the student, independent counselor and possibly even teacher name would be kept confidential.

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

PCACAC 2017 Executive Board Candidates Call Out

Dear Colleague,

The PCACAC Nominating Committee values your opinion as we identify the following 2017 Executive Board candidates:

• President-Elect
• Delegate (One at-large position available)

Please review the duties of each available office in the Call for Nominations and consider either a self-nomination or identify a PCACAC member who is ready to take the next step in PCACAC leadership.  Newly elected officers and delegates will take office July 1, 2017.  If you have already submitted a nomination - THANK YOU!
Nominations require completion of two electronic forms that are combined in one easy process:

1. Candidate Application - The links provided in this email will take you to a login page before accessing the nomination form.
2. Institutional Support Form - The Institutional Support Form is the second page of the Candidate Application and is only required at this time for those who are completing a self-nomination.  All candidates will need to submit an Institutional Support Form before the election.

The official candidate nomination deadline is Friday, December 30, 2016.
Thank you for your commitment to PCACAC and we look forward to receiving your nominations!

Sincerely,
Mike Oligmueller
Director of College Counseling
The Potomac School
Past President, Potomac & Chesapeake Association for College Admission Counseling (PCACAC)
1301 Potomac School Road
McLean, VA  22101
moligmueller@potomacschool.org

Call out for Session Proposals for the 52nd Annual Conference

Dear Colleagues:

This is your weekly reminder to submit your session proposal to present at PCACAC's 52^nd Annual Conference in April at the Kingsmill Resort in Williamsburg, VA.  Share your expertise whether you've been in the profession for two years or twenty years.  Proposals can be on any topic of interest to counselors and admission professionals, including topics related to those on our list of Suggested Session Topics.

1)     The Call for Session Proposals can be found by clicking here.

2)     The form to submit a session proposal can be accessed with this link.

If you are a public high school counselor and a first time presenter at a PCACAC conference, inquire about the special incentive for you.

The deadline to submit a proposal is Monday, December 5, 2016. 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.  We're happy to help! 

Conference sessions: Robyn Lady, Sessions Chair, ralady@fcps.edu
General Conference: Rosemary Martin, Conference Chair, rmarti2@umd.edu

Other Conference Items: Annie Hilten, Executive Assistant, info@pcacac.org

Thank you! 

October's Spooky Scholarship Dilemma Case

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). This month’s case is an adaptation of one used last spring with a new wrinkle. If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

October Case: A student has come to see her counselor first thing in the morning. Visibly upset, the student says, “Mr. C, I don’t know what to do. I just received this letter about a scholarship from JustAnother U. They say that I have to deposit 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 deposit.”

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.  According to SPGP Mandatory Practice 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.” In this case, the situation is unclear about whether the college is adhering to the May 1 common reply date because they are not following the direction to “state this deadline explicitly in their offer of admission.”

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 no later than 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 Mr. C do? In the short term, he or the student might want to call JustAnother U to ask for clarification about the deadline. The college may be following the May 1 common reply date. If not, Mr. C should also be prepared to ask for an extension to May 1.

Whether May 1 becomes an issue or not, Mr. C should also complete a NACAC Confidential Complaint form so the National Committee or Regional Committee can follow up with JustAnother U. 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 understand the importance of SPGP II. B. 3. and work fairly with all students. 

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

Dear Colleagues:

Share your expertise whether you've been in the profession for two years or twenty years and submit a session proposal for PCACAC's 52^nd Conference next April. Proposals can be on any topic of interest to counselors and admission professionals, including topics related to those on our list of Suggested Session Topics. 

If you are a public high school counselor and a first time presenter at a PCACAC conference, there is a special incentive to submit a proposal.  If your session proposal is selected, your hotel costs will be reimbursed! Either you or your school will be required to pay for your conference registration and travel costs.  As many as six (6) public school counselors will be selected. Click here for eligibility and important details regarding the special incentive for public high school counselors.

Gather your information now because the deadline is Monday, December 5, 2016.  

QUESTIONS? We're happy to help!

Conference page: www.pcacac.org/conferences
Conference sessions: Robyn Lady, Sessions Chair, ralady@fcps.edu
General Conference: Rosemary Martin, Conference Chair, rmarti2@umd.edu

Other Conference Items: Annie Hilten, Executive Assistant, info@pcacac.org

Double Deposit Dilemma

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). This month’s case study was submitted anonymously by a PCACAC member as a question for the AP Committee. All questions and allegations are treated as confidential; therefore, this case has been adapted to protect the identity of the professional who called seeking advice. If you have a question about a situation or SPGP, please contact a member of the AP Committee.

September Case:   This past August, Great College called our office seeking the final transcript for Student Q who had sent in an enrollment deposit. However, our records indicated the student was enrolling at a US Service Academy.  We were surprised by the request because we work to educate our families well about the unethical behavior and complications that result in double-depositing. Therefore, we contacted the parents to tell them of the transcript request and that the school would not be sending another transcript unless the parents provided proof that the Academy had been notified of the student’s withdrawal. The parents responded that they double-deposited because they were unsure if the student would survive the physical and intellectual rigors at the Academy and that they wanted a backup plan. Furthermore, since the Academy starts earlier in the school year, the student would be able to decide if (s)he is staying before Great College begins freshman orientation.  We continued to reply "no" to releasing the transcript. The parent then stated that they may consult legal action as they believe the records are the ownership of the student and that the school must release if requested.

The member asks, “Does NACAC’s SPGP provide guidance? Are the rules bendable in this scenario because of the nature of the service academies and the parents’ concern for their child? Should we have just released the transcript and left the lesson behind? Called Great College and explained the situation?”

Discussion:  NACAC does provide some guidance on this, but not as a Mandatory practice. According to NACAC’s SPGP Best Practice III B 13, “All Counseling Members should counsel students not to submit more than one admission deposit, which indicates their intent to enroll at more than one institution.”  

Also important to note, the SPGP is written to guide counselors and admission officers, not students. NACAC does provide advice geared towards students, such as the “Deciding” page the NACAC website section, Breaking Down the Admission Process, which states, “You should never submit an enrollment deposit to more than one school. It is an unethical practice that may result in your acceptances being withdrawn by the colleges involved.” This information is also part of a flyer, “College Breakdown”, available on the NACAC website. Furthermore, NACAC provides more depth to this message on page 18 of the Guide to the College Admission Process  which states, “Colleges typically require admitted students to verify their intention to enroll by submitting a deposit or fee. The money (also known as admission deposit, commitment deposit, or commitment fee) is usually applied to a student’s tuition charges for the upcoming academic year. Colleges that are members of the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) allow accepted applicants the opportunity to learn the decisions of all colleges they have applied to before requiring deposits, provided that all decisions are made before May 1. The student, in turn, is obligated to submit a tuition deposit to only one college before the required deadline (typically May 1). Colleges view dual or multiple deposits by students as serious violations of trust. They may revoke a previous offer of admission from any student who is found to have sent tuition deposits to more than one college.”

Conclusion:   This is a tough situation and puts the counselor in an awkward position. The counselor and school are following NACAC’s Best Practice because they have made numerous efforts to educate parents about the issues involved with double-depositing. The fact that the parent threatens to consult lawyers can be frightening. Therefore, before they encounter such a situation, many counselors work with their administration/district to make sure they have written and published policies that have been vetted by their school and/or lawyers. Examples of topics they might wish to have covered in policies might include academic record definitions, sending of final transcripts, discipline reporting, etc.  

As to the additional questions, it is hard to predict how Great College would react—it would probably depend on the situation, school, and college involved.  The counselor would need to work with the school administration to determine how to best proceed and might want to get additional information from Great College (possibly by calling an admission officer to discuss the situation in hypothetical terms) before proceeding.

Thank you to the member who brought this question to the AP Committee. This summer, several similar situations were also brought forth—it is certainly a complex issue with no easy answer.

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

August PCACAC Case Study - Guidance for School Profiles

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). The basis for this month’s case was submitted anonymously by a PCACAC member. All questions and allegations are treated as confidential; therefore, this case has been adapted to protect the identity of the professional who called 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 jtalmage@stpaulsschool.org