The Coalition session at College Board Forum 2016 |
WASHINGTON, D.C. It
would have been hard to leave yesterday’s session on the Coalition for Access,
Affordability, and Success, at the College
Board Forum 2015 and not be convinced that over 80 very committed colleges
and universities are set to launch their controversial new application platform
during the summer of 2016. Whether it will go forward with the support of the
counseling community remains another matter.
As a large crowd gathered in a room way too small for the
level of interest, it became clear that this session was “the” place to be for
the most visible if not powerful deans and vice presidents of enrollment
management in the industry, most of whom gravitated to the front of the
room. But despite collegial backslaps
and friendly hugs, there was no mistaking the tension among members of the
audience questioning the need for and appropriateness of the Coalition’s
approach to introducing a new set of “tools’ into the already chaotic college application
process.
Acknowledging false steps in the original rollout of the
Coalition plan at the National
Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC) conference in San
Diego, Zina Evans, vice president for enrollment management at the University of Florida, opened the session with a
promise to “articulate a broad vision” and provide more in depth explanations
missing from the earlier introduction.
“There are a lot of questions and a critical need for
information,” said Dr. Evans.
Reading from a script familiar to anyone following the
issue, Evans assured the audience that the Coalition believes “the college
admissions process needs improvement” but does not believe they have “a
corner on access” or “all the answers.” While much progress has been made
developing the tools, she conceded they are works in progress subject to
refinement and change. In fact, there were several references over the course
of the session to years two and three and subsequent
“iterations” of the technology, which Evans described as three distinct “stand
alone” parts—the virtual locker, the collaboration platform, and the
application portal.
Virtual Locker
According to Jeremiah Quinlan, dean of undergraduate
admissions at Yale University, there has
been a great deal of “misinformation about the use of the virtual locker,” an
element of the technology in which students would be invited to store a variety
of contents throughout their high school careers. He described the locker as a
free tool “fully owned and controlled by the student” who could choose to share
or not share its contents.
Clarifying Coalition intent, Quinlan made a distinction
between time in high school to prepare for college and time to
apply. The locker would be viewed as a lead-up to the application
process and entirely distinct from the application portal. The Coalition hopes
to structure use of the locker for those students benefiting from early intervention,
particularly those taking advantage of mentorship opportunities provided by counselors,
community-based organizations (CBOs), and teachers.
In terms of the application process, universities would be
free to determine how locker contents could be used or transferred to
individual applications. He suggested that in lieu of writing Yale’s second 500-word
essay, a student might be able to upload a graded paper, a science fair abstract,
or a video.
Will this benefit “well-resourced” students and result in
“professionally curated” lockers filled with content meant to impress
admissions staff? Perhaps. But even if
it did, Dean Quinlan pointed out that most colleges simply don’t have the time or
interest in reviewing this kind of information.
But Quinlan did think that in some cases, the material could
be helpful in advising students once they actually reach campus. He concluded it will be a resource “offered
to all and used by some.”
Collaboration
Platform
Seth Allen, vice president and dean of admissions and
financial aid at Pomona College, described
the application’s collaboration platform as a “gateway to helping” some
students “prepare the skills” to go to college. He described the structure of the platform as designed
to capitalize on “something students like to do anyway”—post content on social
media. Only in this case, they would be encouraged to invite
mentors—counselors, teachers, CBOs—to comment and provide feedback on that
content.
In addition to promoting early engagement in the application
process for those who could benefit, Allen suggested students would be able to
practice networking skills, learn how to ask for help, as well as identify and
find mentors. Critical thinking skills would
be improved as they discovered that “not all advice is good advice.” Through
collaboration, students would hopefully “adopt a stronger way of presenting
themselves when it comes time to apply.”
Application Portal
Vern Granger, director of enrollment services at The Ohio State University, characterized this
tool as “a contemporary, mobile-friendly interactive application, intuitive to
the 21st century audience.” It’s meant to be an “alternate”
application that will hopefully stabilize an industry that didn’t fully
understand its vulnerability until the Common
Application crashed two years ago.
“The application will not start in the 9th
grade,” said Granger. “And it is not meant to replace existing applications.”
Set to launch in July 2016, the application will be designed
to capture common elements of data but will also allow members to better
control content and tailor their applications to meet institutional needs. He noted that students would not be required
to use the locker to use the application. It is a separate and distinct element
of the technology.
During a question and answer session, members of the
Coalition panel repeatedly stressed that specifications were still evolving and
many questions remained. As a group, the Coalition “intentionally” delayed
implementation of the locker until April 2016 pending beta testing and feedback
from a group of 47 counselors representing 24 public and 20 private high
schools (five international) as well as three CBOs. The application portal will
undergo a similar review starting the first of next year. According to Dr. Evans, “The process is
moving forward deliberately and collaboratively.” Dean Allen added, “We built the motherboard
and now we need to see how it will work.”
In response to questions about how the Coalition will assure
the tools will be just for under-resourced kids, Dr. Evans responded, “This is
not exclusively for any one population,” adding the locker will be a tool that
will allow “all students to differentiate themselves.” And to answer questions about limitations in
Coalition membership, the panel announced the formation of a committee chaired by Dr. Evans and
William Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial aid at Harvard College, which will be charged with
looking at widening the membership in year two of the Coalition.
Will these tools reach the target population, engage
low-income, minority and first-generation students, or simplify the process in
meaningful ways? And if successful, will
Coalition members unconditionally commit to supporting these students financially?
The jury is still out. And many questions remain as to how
the development of the new technology is being funded and what kind of a
financial obligation the Coalition has already incurred with CollegeNET—the software
developer. But one thing is for certain, the train is gaining momentum and
counselors are becoming increasingly convinced the platform will launch—with or
without their initial support.
“It’s going to happen,” said one counselor attending the
session. “I feel a little better about
their intentions, but I still have lots of questions.”
And in that, she was not alone.
“This isn’t an ‘If you build it, they will come,’” explained
Dr. Evans. “This is going to take a lot of work on our part to get the word
out.” She added that she sees this is an opportunity to “build something we can
be proud of.”
No comments:
Post a Comment