Toward reflective admission work: New directions for thought and practice

Journal of College Admission, Spring 2003 by Hicks, Mark A, Shere, Carla

Part I of this series, "Toward Reflective Admission Work: Making the Case for a Transformative Approach to Admission Practice and Reflection in Action," was published in the Winter 2003 issue of The Journal of College Admission.

Part II

As participants in the ongoing experiment of American democracy, we struggle to find opportunities for growth while being sensitive to persons undervalued or systematically marginalized. Our educational system, far more than any other institution, is a place in our society where individuals are able to develop a capacity to negotiate the boundaries of race, class, religion, and other affiliations that separate one group from another. Indeed, the university setting might be the last place where young adults with different views, life experiences, value structures, and priorities share the same space as they work toward similar goals. For this reason, the work of admission officers takes on significant meaning. Officers are not simply "building a class," or "paying the university's bills," they are also strengthening (or weakening) the very fabric of our democratic way of life.

Historically, universities have not been bastions of diversity. Perhaps, like the characters in Sartre's play, "No Exit," our human condition is both attracted to and repelled by that which is familiar to us. Such close associations can either be hellish, or they can provide an opportunity to move beyond our differences. Too often, our human inclination is to surround ourselves with those who share our own views, hopes and dreams. Universities, in that sense, are remarkable in their homogeneity. But, we also know that we learn and grow through paradoxical experiences. Most everyone can recount an electrifying moment of realizing a new way of doing or seeing things, or when the experience of another person caused us to seriously consider an alternative view.

In January 2000, the admission staff of Fordham University in New York City entered into a 12-month process through which they seriously reviewed the nature of how they know themselves (How is it that I see myself and the world?) and considered how that particular view influenced their admission process. During that time, they participated in monthly seminars in which they shared insights, discussed provocative texts and ideas, and probed the structures and value systems that guide the admission choices they make. As a result, and as has been outlined previously in the Winter 2003 issue, Fordham staff became much more conscious of their ideologies and were able to align them in such fashion to better recruit and matriculate students into the entering class. The relationships among staff were more visible, real and trustworthy. Staff members found themselves more aware of their thinking and assumptions, and of how those frames of reference enhanced or lessened a student's chance of admission. In sum, staff members became present to themselves and their own worldviews, resulting in a more reasonable ability to transform aspects of their admission process.

This project, funded by NACAC's Fund for the Future, is an initiative to promote fresh thinking about the problem of increasing access and diversity on our college campuses. The nagging question, "Why has representation of underrepresented groups not increased since the landmark events of the 1960s?," lurks throughout the entire project. In responding to that question, we hope this research disentangles how the structures of the admission process lead prospective students to assimilate into mystified "standards." We argue that such a pejorative process, de facto, leaves little room for the student who represents "difference" in wholesale fashion. The student whose life experiences and intellectual/social gifts fall outside the standardized norm of university life must climb a mountain that dominant students are not required to contemplate. (The standards for admission most frequently reflect the standards of middle-class, European Americans. If one is holistically nurtured in that environment, one is not required to operate outside that comfort zone). Metaphorically, non-dominant culture students are expected to wear boots; they instead wear sandals. What is amazing, in keeping with this metaphor, is that students from non-traditional groups have the ability to reach the top of the mountain, but are penalized because they did not reach the mountaintop according to "our rules."

This project seeks to undermine, even shake loose, the assumption that all students with great potential for contributing to our society think, write, test, speak, and represent their personness in similar ways. As researchers, we ask the question: Is there potential for the number of underrepresented students to increase if we look differently (and still with an eye toward fairness) at ourselves and the process of recruiting and admitting students?

The first article makes a case for how the project broadened the thought process and practices of the Fordham admission staff, which already had a strong presence of underrepresented students. We argued that admission officers must find new ways to think about their work, ones that resist the errors that occur when one's views and assumptions are never questioned. This goal was accomplished with the through a series of seminars and small group encounters in which Fordham staff members considered alternative ways of working. During those sessions, staff probed, questioned and formulated problems regarding their views and practices. They deepened their relationships with one another and found ways to approach their craft by reaching outside conventional wisdom.