Common App Board acknowledges mistakes in CA4 rollout

In a report emailed yesterday to member colleges and universities, the Common Application Board of Directors for the first time publicly acknowledged that mistakes were made during the rollout of the new application (CA4) last year.  Drawing on findings from a review conducted by Censeo, a DC based management consulting firm, the Board agreed that the project plan for CA4 was “not realistic in scope” and did not “provide sufficient time for member testing.”

Last December, the Board contracted with Censeo to evaluate and make recommendations for the governance and operations as well as the technology and technical support capabilities of the Common App. Surveys were emailed to all 517 member institutions as well as to 50,000 school counselors.  Censeo also conducted interviews with Common App staff, Hobsons staff, admissions officers, and college-based technical staff. Neither student applicants nor independent college advisers were included in the review.

Although the survey failed to probe deeply into problems experienced by students and counselors, it did surface a series of issues in the management and implementation of the CA4 system.  Findings from the survey conducted by Censeo touched on five key areas:

• Mission.  The Common Application mission is not consistently understood and shared across the membership.  In fact, the Common App board has historically “struggled” with the question of whether the Common App is a membership organization or a technology vendor.
• Governance.  Decision-making processes, which depended on a committee of the Board, the membership, and technical staff, have not kept up with the growing complexity of the organization.
• CA4.  While the system was found to be basically sound, there were technical problems caused by inconsistent and/or insufficient testing.
• Management.  The project plan for CA 4 was unrealistic in scope and timing and failed to adequately include member feedback.
• Support.  The supervision and oversight of various “business operations” have failed to grow with the complexity of the organization.

Interestingly, Censeo used the number of “submitted tickets” as a measure of student and counselor problems with the CA4.  As a result, Censeo reported that “member perception of technical issues among students and counselors was worse than the reality.”

But whatever the “perception” might have been among front-end users of the CA4, Censeo concedes that complaints about communication and processes as well as executive and Board leadership were “reasonable under the circumstances.”

Since contracting with Censeo, the Common App Board has removed the executive director and begun the process of becoming more transparent and collaborative.  But to be successful, the Board will have to make major changes in the culture of the organization, which has tended toward secrecy sometimes bordering on hostility.   And the conversation needs to be opened to a broader constituency.

In conveying Censeo’s findings to the membership, the Board underscored its commitment to strengthening management and focusing on “member driven” changes that benefit a broad range of  institutions.  While steering clear of too many specifics, the Common App Board wants the emphasis to be on the future of what they hope will be a growing and even more powerful player in the admissions industry.

Tomorrow:  Going forward.

17 public colleges with out-of-state tuition under $10K

Bemidji State University courtesy of Wikipedia

Not long ago, a high school counselor in New Hampshire challenged her students with a list of ten public colleges and universities advertising out-of-state tuition of less than $10,000 per year and asked, “Are you adventurous?”

Setting aside tuition-free colleges (the service academies and several others), the Chronicle of Higher Education lists 17 residential public institutions with out-of-state tuition coming in under $10K.  In fact, adding in room and board, all 17 post totals of under $20,000 per year for out-of-state students.

Of course this doesn’t take into account important expenses like travel, and there may be a few hidden fees not included in posted tuitions.

But the counselor’s point is well taken.  Given increased stress over the escalating cost of college, these schools could represent a relatively good value, particularly when compared with more expensive public colleges and universities where in-state tuition far exceeds $10,000, like the University of Pittsburgh ($17,100), Penn State ($16,992), the University of New Hampshire ($16,496), or the University of Vermont ($15,718).

There’s certainly food for thought here!

For the record, here are the 17 residential public institutions listed by the Chronicle of Higher Education with out-of-state tuition under $10,000 per year for 2013-14 (and note that ALL are still accepting applications):

• Institute of American Indian Arts, NM:  $3600
• Chadron State College, NE:  $5637
• Peru State College, NE:  $5776
• Mississippi Valley State University, MS:  $5916
• Delta State University, MS:  $6012
• Minot State University, ND:  $6,087
• New Mexico Highlands University, NM:  $6,383
• West Texas A&M University, TX:  $7620
• Bemidji State University, MN:  $8124
• Southwest Minnesota State University, MN:  $8385
• Mayville State University, ND:  $8675
• Midwestern State University, TX:  $9204
• Northern State University, SD:  $9563
• Black Hills State University, SD:  $9617
• Wayne State College, NE:  $9774
• South Dakota State University, SD:  $9795
• Harris-Stowe State University, MO:  $9853

There are definitely some geographic themes here. 

And yes, you may have to be a little adventurous

Waitlisted: When colleges hold all the cards

Cal Tech didn't take any students off their waitlist last year.

The National Association of College Admission Counselors (NACAC) asks that colleges provide each waitlisted student with a fair assessment of their odds of being ultimately being admitted. 

Under a published list of student “rights,” NACAC states

“If You Are Placed on a Wait/Alternate List:  The letter that notifies you of that placement should provide a history that describes the number of students on the wait list, the number offered admission, and the availability of financial aid and housing.”

Yet according to a study completed by NACAC in 2012, 72 percent of the colleges and universities responding to NACAC's annual admissions trends survey did not inform students about their position on the waitlist or their likelihood of admission. 

Although 80 percent provided some written information about waitlist policies, this information generally pertained to directions for remaining on the waitlist (93%), the amount of time students had to respond to being accepted from the waitlist (64%), and the last date that admission offers would be made (59%)

A year later, NACAC found that 43 percent of colleges used a waitlist—up from 32 percent in 2002. Forty-one percent of colleges and universities reported increases from fall 2011 to fall 2012 in the number of students who were placed on waitlists.  And colleges with wait lists admitted an average of 25 percent of all students who chose to remain on waitlists—down from 31 percent the previous year.

NACAC began studying waitlist policies and procedures out of a growing concern for students being used in an aggressive war among colleges to improve “yield.” Specifically, it came to NACAC's attention that some colleges were suggesting an offer of admission to waitlisted students but not providing them with adequate time or information with which to make decisions. 

In fact, it's not unusual to hear about coy conversations between admissions staff and waitlisted students starting something like, “If you were offered admission from the waitlist, would you accept?” 

In some circles this doesn’t count as an "admit."  If the student demurs or doesn’t respond positively, then the offer isn’t formally made and the number doesn’t count against yield. 

Sadly in the waitlist game, colleges hold all the cards.  Not only can they use the waitlist to further enrollment management goals, but they often do so with callous disregard to the anxiety and stress these lists cause.

Although some colleges do provide waitlist statistics for families to review, most do not.  The clever and well informed applicant can check various publications and websites or use Common Data Set (CDS) information to try to get at the numbers and trends.  But not all colleges cooperate.

For example, Columbia University, Tufts, and the University of Chicago don’t make the CDS public.  Brown, NYU, UCLA, and Washington University publish the CDS but mysteriously leave the question pertaining to waitlist numbers (C2) blank.  Wake Forest specifically states on their CDS form that they “do not publish” waitlist information. And although Georgetown and Harvard publish all the data, what they have online is several years out of date.

Why some colleges are so hesitant to be public about their waitlists isn’t such a mystery.  Waitlists are getting longer and the odds of being plucked off the list are stacked against the average applicant.  But colleges need waitlists and have no problem stringing along several thousand students for the purpose of admitting only a handful. 

And they know it isn’t a pretty picture.

Here are some numbers from a few well-regarded institutions (except where noted, these figures come from 2013-14 CDS information): 

Boston University
Waitlisted:  2649 (1191 accepted a position on the waitlist)
Admitted:  65

Cal Tech
Waitlisted:  550 (432 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  0

Carnegie Mellon University
Waitlisted:  4843 (1864 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  87

Case Western Reserve (2012-13)
Waitlisted:  3480 (1737 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  39

Cornell University
Waitlisted:  3144 (1966 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  168

Duke University (2012-13)
Admitted:  310

Georgia Tech
Waitlisted:  2612 (1655 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  270

Johns Hopkins University (2012-13)
Waitlisted:  2730 (2442 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  1

MIT (2012-13)
Waitlisted:  849 (766 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  0

Northwestern University (2012-13)
Waitlisted:  2852 (1606 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  14

Princeton
Waitlisted:  1395 (906 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  33

Rice (2012-13)
Waitlisted:  2304 (1402 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  52

Stanford University
Waitlisted:  814 (576 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  0

University of Michigan
Waitlisted:  10,709 (3523 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  89

University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill
Waitlisted:  2445 (1191 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  384

University of Notre Dame (2012-13)
Waitlisted:  2461 (1153 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  86

University of Pennsylvania (2012-13)
Waitlisted:  2017 (1249 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  87

University of South Carolina
Waitlisted:  1903
Admitted:  3

University of Virginia
Waitlisted:  4172 (2606 accepted waitlist)
Admitted:  185

Vanderbilt University
Admitted:  223

Yale University (2012-13)
Admitted:  70

This is the second in a series of articles on waitlists.

April Fools' Day 2014: Campus pranks are alive and well

Squatters were found in President Gutmann's bathroom.

It’s April Fools’ Day.  And to celebrate this annual rite of spring, college publications have been busy cooking up pranks—some funnier and more thoughtful than others:

Colgate University announced that it would open a graduate school of dentistry (see video).  “We conducted an incisive review of our curriculum,” said President Jeffrey Herbst.  Provost and dean of faculty Douglas Hicks added, “When you’re in the dentist’s chair, do you want a doctor who makes small talk about the weather, or do you want a Colgate-trained dentist who can wax eloquent on current events and ancient philosophy?”

The GW Hatchet at George Washington University reports Bravo will soon make GW the first college in the country with its own reality show based on widely publicized bickering among faculty and administrators.  “The producer said the mega-network’s interested was piqued once GW’s fourth dean was pushed out of a job in as many years.”

Northeastern University’s campus paper announced that the school will now have paths for students to safely text and walk.  “To handle sit­u­a­tions in which text-​​and-​​walkers are wearing head­phones or show no signs of stop­ping, vol­un­teers will also be dis­patched with air horns and buckets of con­fetti to use at their discretion.”

Clearly marked satirical, a headline from The Pitt News announced that four Student Government Board members resigned because “SGB is just flat-out not a cool thing to do anymore.”  Referring to the fact that only 10 students had competed in the 2014 election for eight board member positions, one student remarked that board members had undertaken a “pretty big social risk in the fall by running for election to a Board that no one really wanted to be on.”

NYU’s Washington Square News reports that NYU Residential Life and Housing Services will open the Astor Place Cube as a freshman residence hall for the 2014-15 school year.  “The Cube, as the hall will be known, will provide housing for 50-75 students in one common area.”

The Guilford College Goofordian  reveals that the Early College Program is actually a front for a campus-based drug ring.  “According to one parent, who asked to remain anonymous, there is an organized system of distributors that coincides with carpooling."

In Philadelphia, the Daily Pennsylvanian  discovered three students squatting in President Gutmann’s bathroom where they were running a business.  “The squatters did not sign up for meal plans because they found the leftover food from Gutmann’s many parties to be sufficient.”

Further west, the University of Nebraska’s “Daily Halfasskan” issue announced the discovery of an ancient campus located in Lincoln, Nebraska.  According to a university explorer, “We were passing through territory we thought had previously been mapped out, but to our shock, there was an entire campus there.”

And finally, check out the Daily Cardinal Action Project produced by students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  The second edition of this project “attempts to take a 360 degree look at a college experience” and covers everything from drug fixes to how to market yourself on Facebook. 

Profane, mean and sometimes a little libelous, campus satire isn't dead yet.