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
new Statement of Principles of Good Practice (SPGP): NACAC's Code of Ethics and Professional Practices. 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.
January Case: Counselor Rick was facing an age-old situation. One of his high-anxiety, somewhat disorganized, uniquely talented seniors, Carl, was trying to schedule all of his auditions for several schools' Musical Theater departments. In typical form, many of the colleges had different deadlines, different processes to go through for registering for - or even qualifying for - auditions, and different notification dates. Getting Carl to meet all of these deadlines was an onerous task, but by January Rick thought Carl was in the clear.
Carl was thrilled when Hilltop College offered him a spot in February for their Musical Theater program, which is a part of Hilltop's renowned Daryl Dixon Institute for Performing Arts. Carl was even more thrilled when the Dixon Institute's Musical Theater Department wrote him a second letter, informing him that the department was offering him an additional $10,000 merit scholarship.
Even though Carl hadn't heard from a few other schools, including his top choice, Alexandria University, he told Rick he was sending in his deposit to Hilltop. When asked why, Carl informed Rick that he needed to take advantage of the Dixon Institute's scholarship offer before it expired and was offered to a different student.
Discussion: This didn't sound right to Rick - and Rick was concerned about Carl taking an offer before hearing the results from his other auditions, what with all the organization which was necessary for Carl to navigate through the process. Is Rick right to be unsettled? What should Rick do?
Conclusion: Rick is right to be concerned that Carl might be unduly influenced to make a decision too soon. In the newly-adopted Statement of Principles of Good Practice (SPGP): Code of Ethics and Professional Practices (CEPP), rule II.B.3.b states that: "Colleges will honor their admission, scholarship, and financial aid commitments to students and will not adversely alter their offers 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 to submit an enrollment deposit." In addition, rule II.B.3.c. continues that: "The May 1 deadline also applies to any academic major, institutional scholarship, or special program to which the candidate has been offered admission. Examples of special programs may include honors programs and dual-enrollment graduate or professional degree programs."
Therefore, the fact that the scholarship comes from the Musical Theater Department rather than the Admission or Financial Aid Office is immaterial; the award, offered by a division of Hilltop College, MUST be extended to the May 1st National Candidate Reply Date to give Carl a fair opportunity to evaluate all offers. This rule holds true for majors, special programs, and even separate institutions owned and operated by a larger, NACAC-member institution.
January Case, Part II: In the end, Rick contacted both the Dixon Institute and Hilltop College, which informed him that in January, to improve his chances of admission, Carl had switched his application from "Regular Decision" to "Early Decision", an option which Hilltop had recently adopted for those applicants who changed their minds about their commitment to Hilltop after the Early Decision admission deadline. Now Rick was really confused. Given that new piece of information, Rick had two more questions:
Discussion, Part II:
1) Was the scholarship offered because he's an ED candidate?
2) Can Carl actually change his application type?
Conclusion, Part II: Upon inspection, there is no specific rule in the SPGP/CEPP outlawing the policy of switching an applicant's status from RD to ED. In fact, several schools have permitted students to declare themselves "ED" at any point for several years now. As long as the Scholarship is not tied to his status as an ED candidate, then there is no violation.
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?
Want to submit a case for consideration? Please e-mail the PCACAC AP Committee Chair at
bittinge@umbc.edu.
