Admissions administrators speak out: three top admissions officials consider early admissions, need-based aid, and more in a special virtual roundtable

University Business, Jan, 2007 by Caryn Meyers Fliegler

IN 2006, THE BUZZ SURROUNDING COLLEGE admissions grew into a quiet roar. From Harvard's decision to end its nonbinding Early Action option to the release of Daniel Golden's book on admissions for the rich and famous, several events turned admissions offices on campus into some of the busiest and most interesting departments around.

With so much to discuss, University Business asked three administrators from very different institutions about their current practices, trends in the field, and the year's controversial happenings. Ted Spencer, associate vice provost and executive director of Undergraduate Admissions at the University of Michigan; Lee Stetson, dean of Admissions at the University of Pennsylvania; and Mary Beth Carey, dean of College Admissions and Financial Assistance at Drew University (N.J.), provided us with interesting insights into the state of admissions as 2007 begins.

Read on to see what these influential administrators from a large public university, a midsize Ivy League school, and a small private university had to say.

Okay, let's address the elephant in the living room. Do you think early admission is a fair option that deserves a place in higher education?

LEE STETSON: Early programs have been and will continue to be a major part of many colleges' and universities' admissions options. Used properly, they can be very helpful and responsive to both the needs of students and institutions.

Penn has had a binding Early Decision program for decades. We plan to continue with this successful option since it brings many students to Penn, for whom it is their first choice.

MARY BETH CAREY: We tell students upfront that an ED application is the strongest statement they can make about their interest in Drew and as a result, they are given special consideration for admission. In addition to their being part of a smaller applicant pool and receiving an earlier decision, they also receive earlier consideration for financial aid funds.

TED SPENCER: For several years we've looked at both the advantages and disadvantages of early programs. Each year, we review our admissions process to see if it is achieving our goals, and to make adjustments as necessary. Currently we use a modified rolling admissions system, in which students apply between mid-August and February 1 and are notified of our decision in batches at various points throughout the admissions cycle beginning in November. Our offer of admission is nonbinding.

Will the recent decisions by Harvard, Princeton, and the University of Virginia to end early admissions have a widespread impact?

T.S.: It doesn't appear that it will have a widespread impact--in as much as schools like Georgetown, Penn, Dartmouth, Yale, and other schools that currently use both Early Decision and Early Action have not followed suit.

L.S.: The elimination of early programs will most likely prompt ongoing discussions of the advisability of these options. However, I don't believe there will be a major change of the landscape.

So in a perfect world, what would be the best form of early admissions practice?

L.S.: I would be inclined to recommend Early Decision since it allows students to finalize their choice during the middle of their senior year. I've heard it said by proponents that it "clears the deck" a bit and allows them to focus on their senior year experience.

M.B.C.: From the students' perspective the ideal would be to offer early admissions but not have it be binding until May 1. This would allow them to receive all the necessary financial aid information before they would have to commit.

T.S.: The best form of early admissions would be for colleges to not admit the majority of their students during the early deadlines, thereby leaving spaces for kids who are minorities or low socioeconomic status, to apply either early or during the regular deadline periods. And also, to have a program that is non-binding.

Your answer touches on sticky issues of economic and racial diversity. So does the balance between merit aid and need-based aid. How do you feel your institution should approach that balance?

T.S.: We have taken substantial steps over the past few years to ensure that low-income, in-state students can attend the university with little or no loan burden. At the same time we seek students who are academically excellent or who possess certain talents, so we feel that merit aid is also part of building a great educational community.

M.B.C.: Drew welcomed our 11th president last year--Dr. Robert Weisbuch--who has been outspoken on this issue. This has been one of his and the school's most important agenda items this past year. The discussion is unfortunate because it implies that some aid isn't meritorious. At Drew we believe that all students who receive aid are meritorious--otherwise we wouldn't give it. It is our goal to increase accessibility to Drew.

Minority enrollment has climbed, but still remains lower than many administrators would like. What steps are you taking to recruit and admit under-represented minorities?