A road less traveled: in 2003-2004, public and private IHEs are facing directly opposing admissions challenges. How well they rise to their markedly different tests may mean leaving the crowd behind and thinking long-term, not knee-jerk - Admissions

University Business, Sept, 2003 by Jennifer Grayson

We all know the economy is "the problem" for both public and private IHEs nationwide: State and federal cuts and shrinking or non-existent endowments make it increasingly difficult for admissions administrators to meet enrollment challenges. What is historically interesting, however, is how diametrically opposed those challenges are, depending upon which side of the fence you sit. For public universities and colleges, the challenge of maintaining access and financial aid for an everswelling flood of applicants has become acute. On the other hand, many smart to midsize, middle-tier privates now find themselves scramming to attract students--many of whom are choosing more affordable state and community schools. Some public IHEs are meeting their access and aid challenges through high school "percentage" enrollment plans or aggressive early decision programs; many privates are countering enrollment slide by lowering tuition or bumping up merit and needs-based aid to keep qualified applicants interested. But what happens when a school opts to do none of these things, adopting a no-knee-jerk approach in the name of a longer-term vision or mission?

Publics: Managing Overwhelming Demand with Shrinking Dollars

According to independent education consultant Matthew Greene, co-author of the Greenes' Guides to Educational Planning, "Fifteen years ago, the question for state schools was, 'Where are we going to get the kids?' Now it's, 'How are we going to handle this demographic boom?" Greene notes the 80 percent of all U.S. college students who are now enrolled in public institutions--a number that is only increasing in an economic climate where ability to pay remains restricted--and echoes the all-too-familiar conundrum of higher ed in our time: How will publics meet this demand? How will they provide financial assistance to the growing rosters of needy students, while at the same time enduring (often severe and sometimes repetitive) cuts to their own state funding?

Percent plans/aggressive early decision. Greene points to the growing number of state schools guaranteeing admission to students in a specified top percentage of their high school graduating class. But to make up for the lack of state funding, he says, many publics are now securing higher levels of tuition revenue by admitting up to 40 or 50 percent of their incoming freshman class via early decision. With the increased number of early decision commitments from traditionally wealthier students, plus the resulting earlier yield picture and inability of students to compare award offers with other schools, says Greene, IHEs can offer their ED enrollees less financial aid. So, he says, the challenge now becomes even more complex: How can these schools balance their institutional needs with the needs of their students (who are, in fact, their customers), while also maintaining a diverse class?

UNC-Chapel Hill: Diversity--No Matter What

Jerry Lucido is director of Undergraduate Admissions and vice provost of Enrollment Management for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. First and foremost on his mind, he says, has been the challenge of maintaining a diversified class. That's why UNC-Chapel Hill--which has for some time had an affirmative action policy in place--was following the University of Michigan case "very carefully," he says.

According to Stephen Farmer, Chapel Hill's senior associate director of Admissions, "our [application] reading doesn't assign points or percentages to various parts of the students' applications; there's no formula, either written or implied. Rather, we try to weigh carefully everything that the student presents to us, and to understand each student's achievement as fully as we can. While we do tend to weigh academic credentials more heavily than other things, we never ignore those 'other things.' As strange and nebulous as it may sound, we encourage our staff to exercise good judgment--not to apply a fixed formula." During the many months of the Supreme Court's deliberations in the Michigan case, Lucido and his staff reassured minority students that they should continue with their applications as planned, and keep their aspirations high. The official UNC Admissions office position was, "No matter what happens, we will maintain a commitment to diversity." And indeed, a June 2002/June 2003 comparison of admitted/enrolled percentages of diversity students reveals only a slight drop in the figures for Black/African-American students (a .5 percent drop in admissions; a 3.6 percent drop in enrollments), and a whopping rise in Hispanic figures (a 51.3 percent rise in admissions; a 66.7 percent boost to enrollments). Farmer sees no need to change the reading process or admissions policy since the Michigan decision was handed down.

As for guaranteeing admission to a specified top percentage of high school students, "That would compromise what we are trying to accomplish," Lucido says, explaining that North Carolina has not yet solved its problem of highly segregated high schools. And if a high school is not fairly balanced, he maintains, then the top percentage of a high school class won't be, either. The percentage approach may be a solution for some schools, says the admissions director, but it would ultimately be detrimental to UNC.