beyond the numbers: the national trends toward holistic admissions csu professional development...

BEYOND THE NUMBERS: THE NATIONAL TRENDS TOWARD HOLISTIC ADMISSIONSCSU Professional Development InstituteJanuary 6, 2010

A brief history of public college admissions

1940s-1960s: GI Bill, Affirmative Action

1970s-1980s: enrollment limit pressures, evolution of “EOP” admissions programs

1990s: Further selectivity, Anti-affirmative action, EOPs shut down

2000s: comprehensive/holistic review takes off

National factors in college admission Number of available students is in flux

Distribution of students is changing in regard to: Race/ethnicity Socioeconomic status Geographic location

National imperatives to educate/innovate

What it means to review holistically Take “non-traditional factors” into account,

not just grades, scores and curriculum minimums

Consider that different students bring different strengths to the class, some of which are not yet evident

Assess the difference between a student’s choices and opportunities

Select a person, not just a student As much about recruitment as selection

Misconceptions about holistic review…

…makes admission easier

…makes admission harder

…is a back door for Affirmative Action

…is non-predictive

…is only for highly selective colleges

What are “the right” approaches?

Admit students based on future potential, not just past performance

Carry out a system that is as consistent as possible

Recognize that “objectivity” is elusive at best

Shape a class to fit the institution’s mission

Don’t penalize students for things they cannot control

Know the student’s “local context”

Assess and refine process each year

What are grades worth?

Weighting as help vs. hindrance

Connecting to performance at college

Class rank often helps

Grading practices always reflect a school’s culture, not just its rigor

Are grades given out equitably and fairly?

What are test scores worth?

Standardization is generally a good thing What do these tests measure? Are tests inequitable, or do they simply

illustrate inequities?Sent scores to CSU Enrolled at CSU

SES and first-generation by race

Race/ethnicity % Pell eligible % First-gen attend

% both

African-American

44% 30% 19%

Asian-American 33% 25% 14%

Hispanic/Latino 41% 31% 23%

Native American

34% 15% 7%

Not Indicated 15% 11% 4%

Pacific Islander 43% 20% 13%

White 14% 7% 2%

Total/Average 20% 15% 7%University of Washington resident enrolls, 2007

Education in the Local Context (ELC) What is the average % of students on

FRL at Colorado high schools?

How many are over 50%?

How many Colorado high schools offer an IB program?

How many offer AP courses?

How many of those offer only five or fewer sections of AP?

ELC variance among CO high schools# of AP Sections

offered# of high schools

Average % FRL

0 146 40%

1-10 69 31%

11-20 54 29%

21-30 27 15%

31-40 6 8.5%

41+ 4 16%

High schools with 41+ sections of AP:Smoky Hill High School (41) 23%

Eaglecrest High School (45) 22%

Grandview High School (52) 11%

Cherry Creek High School (66) 6%

A few examples: California

Proposition 209 (1996) Variations among the

ten campuses Essays but also

extensive use of scores In very selective system,

ELC of critical importance

University of Michigan

Subject of Supreme Court case (2006)

“points” system specifically barred

Drawing on external data for ELC

University of Washington

Initiative 200 (1998) First used a

comprehensive review then went to a more “true” holistic one

Considers long-term school performance data for ELC

Oregon State University

Institutional Imperative

Based on the research of William Sedlacek, professor at the University of Maryland

Insight Resume©- assesses non-cognitive attributes

To read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/02/holistic

Oregon State Results

Using the Insight Resume © has allowed students with different learning styles to demonstrate their potential, which often is not the case with traditional admission criteria.

It has provided valuable information for use in academic advising.

Academic profile has increased slightly, retention rates have gone up and minority enrollment has increased.

Overview- CSU Approach

Emphasis on the high school curriculum- both the number of courses completed and the academic rigor of those courses.

Academic preparation may take several forms; students contribute to the campus community in a variety of ways.

The university has deemed non-academic factors, personal characteristics and individual experiences as important and positive for the campus community.

Committed to meeting state requirements as set forth by CCHE.

Process- CSU Approach

Each applicant receives a holistic review by one or more CSU admissions staff members who assess academic rigor and performance and personal qualities.

Applicants who meet the Admissions Standards are considered priority candidates for admission.

Applicants who do not meet the priority consideration requirements are still considered for admission; files are reviewed by an admissions committee.

Thank you for attending!

Jim Rawlins – jim.rawlins@colostate.edu

Renee Orlick – renee.orlick@colostate.edu