I have always believed that at its core, the spirit of college admissions is—or at least should be—more about evaluating future potential than evaluating past performance. If we are to accept that these are not necessarily one and the same, we must also accept that the current admissions process is flawed.
Ask anyone to name the most important factors in a college application, and he or she will undoubtedly say high-school grades and standardized-test scores. Although these are extremely important, the historic numbers-trump-all model has become increasingly outdated in its ability to assess an applicant’s true potential, especially among low-income, first-generation, and minority students. Despite this, the vast majority of institutions continue to rely too heavily on a “cognitive” admissions process simply because that’s how it has always been done.
A cognitive process evaluates a candidate only on the most obvious, generally quantitative indicators, with little or no effort to explore below the surface. It often forces a singular definition of “stellar” and does not adequately allow for the natural variance that occurs among students from a dizzying array of backgrounds. The students who typically rise to the top are those who conform to cognitive formats, but they are not always the best applicants.
IN THE RIGHT COLUMN: More on Student Diversity
BROWSE THE FULL ISSUE: News, Commentary, and Data
BUY A COPY: Digital and Print Editions at the Chronicle Store
Admissions offices must begin to embrace an alternative system that incorporates noncognitive factors—primarily the context of a student’s education and his or her interpersonal qualities—in our collective search for the most promising students. If used properly along with cognitive selection, noncognitive criteria would provide a selection committee with indicators that more accurately predict future potential.
We must incorporate a consistently holistic approach to application review and acknowledge an applicant’s entire application, paying particular attention to what is revealed between the lines. That means identifying the markers that will accurately and consistently predict future success, including persistence, hard work, love of learning, commitment to the learning process, long-term goals, and ability to recover from failure, willingness to take academic risks, a strong work ethic, and a desire to seek help when needed. All of these, I might add, are completely compatible with cognitive selection criteria.
Here are steps that admissions offices and application readers can take to support a noncognitive admissions philosophy:
The admissions office. The process begins here. Officials must first identify and correct the microinequities, or subtle biases, inherent in their institution’s own admissions process. For example, is the rate of admission higher for students who have interviews, even though interviews are technically “optional?” Is it really easy for students to obtain application-fee waivers?
Admissions officers must be willing to build external relationships with high-school counselors and nonprofit groups that work with underrepresented students, and who can help provide valuable context and information about student potential.
- Recognize and transcend the institutional barriers that prevent you from fully incorporating a noncognitive system.
- View each application as a puzzle that requires you to pull details from between the lines. Look for the “backbeat” in the application, the signs of hidden or easily overlooked factors that can affect your review.
- Be prepared to set aside (within reason) standardized-test scores.
- Concentrate on the rigor of the high-school transcript within the context of the school and curriculum.
- Look for community affiliations that may give you a sense of the applicant’s commitment to learning.
- Create checklists that track disadvantages stemming from first-generation status, race, gender, sexual orientation, family dynamics, and income levels.
- Give added weight to glowing teacher recommendations. Don’t be afraid to call the teacher for further discussion.
- Look for the interview report to reveal insights on other parts of the application. (Sometimes you must look very closely.)
- Finally, do not discount the intangibles in your personal sense of the applicant’s potential.
- Educate the institution. It is imperative to cultivate support by securing allies both within and outside the admissions office and educating the institution as a whole. It’s not just about changing the admissions process at your institution—it’s about changing educational policy.
- Do your homework. Work to understand the inherent institutional landscape. Develop noncognitive processes that are appropriate for your college’s culture. Tie your process as closely as possible to all institutional-diversity plans. The more that your process can reflect the culture and goals of the institution, the better your chance of acceptance.
- Expect pushback—and embrace it. Be open. Invite everyone (within reason) to be part of the discussion and execution. Document everything and share openly. Include as many constituents as possible, including faculty members and university lawyers, but bring them into the conversation at the right time: It is important to make your plan first and then tailor it with advice from others.
- Be prepared to manage success. Ask the tough questions of your colleagues up front. For example, can our campus support the needs of a 10-percent increase in admitted African-American students? If we increase our population of low-income students, will we have the financial aid to support them through the completion of their degrees?
Why should you go through the time and expense of setting up this approach to admissions?
Using this system during my three years in the admissions office of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, we were able to make drastic changes to the student body. Applications from underrepresented students rose 32 percent from 2005 to 2008, while their enrollment increased 46 percent. But far more important than pride in numbers is the opportunity to empower more students with a transformative education.
Isn’t that why we became admissions officers in the first place?