NACAC State of College Admissions

A government relations and leadership program for

NACAC members

NACAC

State ofCollege AdmissionTHE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING

AUTHORS:

Melissa E. ClinedinstAssistant Director of ResearchNACAC

Edited by

David A. HawkinsDirector of Public Policy and ResearchNACAC

SEPTEMBER 2008

ST

AT

E OF C

OL

LE

GE A

DM

ISSIO

N 2008

State of College Admission2008

Melissa E. ClinedinstNACAC Assistant Director of Research

Edited by

David A. HawkinsNACAC Director of Public Policy and Research

Copyright © 2008National Association for College Admission CounselingAll rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the pub-lisher, except for brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Additional copies of the 2008 State of College Admission are available for members ($20) and for nonmembers ($35) plus $5 shipping by sending orders to:

NACAC1050 N. Highland StreetSuite 400Arlington, VA 22201Phone: 800/822-6285Fax: 703/373-2403www.nacacnet.org

2008 NACAC Board of Directors

PresidentKimberly Johnston

The University of Maine, ME

President-ElectWilliam McClintick

Mercersburg Academy, PA

Past PresidentMary Lee Hoganson

Retired College ConsultantHomewood Flossmoor High School

and The University of Chicago Laboratory High Schools, IL

Coordinator of the State and Regional Presidents’ CouncilTerry Knaus

Indiana University, IN

Chief Executive OfficerJoyce E. Smith

DirectorsRichard P. AlvarezCity University of New York, NY

John BoshovenCommunity High School/Ann Arbor Public Schools, MI

Scott HookerAllendale Columbia School, NY

Allen V. LentinoNorthwestern University, IL

James L. MillerUniversity of Wisconsin–Superior, WI

Carl F. Peterson Forest Hills Eastern High School, MI

Lisa SohmerGarden School, NY

Evelyn Boyd WhiteThomas Dale High School, VA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING

The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) wishes to acknowledge the following key individuals and groups for their contribution to this report.

Most importantly, NACAC would like to thank the secondary school counselors and admission officers who gave of their valuable time to participate in the annual Admission and Counseling Trends surveys. The report would not be possible without the data collected from these surveys.

The association also appreciates the US Department of Education and the College Board for sharing the education data they collect for inclusion in this report.

Finally, the authors of the report wish to thank the following members of the NACAC staff for their assistance with survey development and administration, and with compiling, reviewing, editing, designing, and promoting the final report: Joyce Smith, Chief Executive Officer; Anita Bollt, Deputy Executive Director; Shanda Ivory, Director of Communications, Publications and Technology; Kristen Bourke, Assistant Director of Communications, Publications and Technology; Sarah Cox, Graphic Designer; Kate Miller, former Publications Assistant; Daisy Kinard, Publications Coordinator; Mohamoud Gudaal, Senior Computer Systems Administrator; Michelle Lucas, Assistant Director of Information Technology; James Dodd, Office and Facilities Manager; and Lindsey Triplett, former Public Policy Assistant.

Acknowledgements

STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION 20 08 I i i i


expansive growth, while others are already coping with declines. Many colleges and universities already have begun to make plans to mitigate the impact of these changes on their institutions, reevaluating their recruitment strategies and, in some cases, the scope of their missions.i NACAC has commissioned a white paper to be released in 2009 that will illustrate the effects of the current admission environment on the practices adopted by colleges and universities and will suggest strategies for ensuring ethical practice as the surplus of high school graduates begins to decline in many areas of the nation.

Notable in 2007–08Access and Equity

Minority racial and ethnic groups continue to be under-represented in four-year colleges and universities compared to their share of the college-age population, due to both lower high school graduation rates and lower rates of transition from high school to college, as documented in Chapter 1. Despite the efforts of educators and policy makers, these gaps have improved only marginally in the past two decades. According to the 2008 edition of Knocking at the College Door, the nation will experience a dramatic shift in the racial/ethnic composition of high school graduates in the next 15 years, as the share of White, non-Hispanic students declines and minority student populations—particularly Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders—increase.ii

Preface

The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) offers the State of College Admission each Fall to describe key trends in the transition from high school to college. The 2008 edition marks the sixth anniversary of this report.

Competition in College Admission

In recent years, the perceived increase in competition for spots at the nation’s colleges and universities has garnered much media attention and fueled a great deal of anxiety among students, parents and counselors. While college and university admission statistics do show that competition has increased at the most selective colleges, they also demonstrate that the overall acceptance rate, across all four-year institutions, has remained relatively unchanged. As shown in Chapter 2, the average acceptance rate is nearly seven out of ten. Increased competition at some schools is likely due to the record high number of high school graduates and increases in the number of applications that each student submits, as documented in Chapter 1 and 2.

A record high 3.33 million students are expected to graduate from college in 2009, so, for the immediate future attention will remain focused on competition in admission. However, the graduating class of 2009 represents the crest of a national population wave that will begin a slow but steady decline at least through the class of 2017. National figures mask stark variations by state and region. During the anticipated national decline in high school graduates, some states will continue to experience

i In a 2008 survey of senior-level admission officers conducted by the Chronicle of Education, 45 percent indicated having a plan to address demographic changes of prospective undergraduates, and 43 percent indicated that a plan was in development. Results are available at: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i34/34b01501.htm. ii Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). 2008. Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates by State and Race/Ethnicity, 1992–2022. Boulder, Colorado: WICHE.

STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION 20 08 I v

iii Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR). (2008). From High School to the Future: Potholes on the Road to College. Chicago: CCSR.iv

Colleges and universities will be increasingly challenged to assess the impact of their recruitment and admission practices on access for students who have traditionally been under-served by the higher education system. It also will be critical to ensure that appropriate support services are in place to help these under-represented students succeed once in college. The challenge of these demographic changes will be amplified by opposition to the practice of considering race in admission in a growing number of states.

Secondary school counselors, particularly those serving public schools, also will play a critical role in increasing postsecondary transition rates for under-represented groups. Research shows that even academically qualified students who are first-generation and/or low-income have a difficult time navigating the process of applying to college, selecting a school to attend and enrolling.iii

Research also shows that counselors have a positive impact on students’ aspirations and achievement when consistently and frequently available.iv Unfortunately, as shown in Chapter 5, most public school counselors are faced with exceedingly high student-to-counselor ratios. On average, each public school counselor serves nearly 500 students, well above the ideal ratio of 100:1 recommended by NACAC.

Financial Aid and Student Loans

The price of college and the availability of financial aid for low- and moderate-income students is a perpetual concern among students, parents, and all educators and policy makers who care about access to postsecondary education. These concerns were magnified in the past year due to fear that the credit instability affecting the lending industry would reduce the availability of

student loans. Although some lenders did scale back student lending or pull out of the student loan market entirely, both colleges and students have continued to have access to student loan funds. In addition, Congress enacted emergency legislation to guard against a potential crisis in the student loan industry.

New financial aid initiatives which expand affordability for moderate- and upper-income families through enhanced grant aid and/or loan elimination also drew renewed attention to how colleges use their own funds to support student financial aid and for what purpose. A NACAC-commissioned white paper—released concurrently with this report—explores how financial need and financial aid are considered and utilized in the admission process. Need-aware admission and financial aid practices, including tuition discounting and merit aid, have re-emerged as prominent practices, and this paper explores implications for access and fairness in college pricing.

Student Disciplinary Information and College Admission

The tragic events at Virginia Tech in April 2007 raised concerns among educators, parents and school officials about the safety of students and amplified an ongoing discussion among school counseling and admission professionals regarding the conditions under which confidential student information can and should be shared. To help inform this conversation, NACAC conducted survey research in 2007 to learn more about secondary schools’ policies and practices related to disclosure of disciplinary information to colleges, as well as colleges practices related to retraction of admission offers.

McDonough, P. (2006). Counseling and College Counseling in America’s High Schools. Alexandria, VA: National Association for College Admission Counseling.

v i i I STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION 20 08


v National Research Council. (1999). Myths and Tradeoffs: The Role of Tests in Undergraduate Admissions. Alexandra Beatty, M. R. C. Greenwood, and Robert L. Linn, Editors; Steering Committee for the Workshop on Higher Education Admissions.

NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practice (SPGP) recommends that secondary members establish written policies on disclosure of student disciplinary information to colleges, but NACAC’s research found that nearly three-quarters of secondary schools do not have these policies, as shown in Chapter 5. However, school counselors and high schools are making judgments about whether and what to disclose to colleges. Nearly one-quarter of counseling offices indicated that they do disclose information and an additional 39 percent disclose at least in some cases. NACAC released a Research to Practice Brief in conjunction with this report that describes our research on the subject in more detail and includes sample disclosure policies from a variety of secondary schools.

Admission offices reserve the right to revoke offers of admission, and 35 percent of colleges exercised this right for the Fall 2007 admission cycle. As shown in Chapter 4, admission offers were revoked most commonly due to students’ final grades. Falsification of application information and disciplinary issues also resulted in admission offer retractions. When asked how likely various disciplinary issues were to result in retraction of an admission offer, institutions rated violence as most likely.

Early Admission Policies and Wait Lists

When several selective institutions eliminated or scaled back their early admission programs in 2006, many expected that other colleges would respond similarly. Although that did not happen, the change in admission policies at these institutions may have had other implications for peer institutions. Media reports suggest that some institutions that eliminated early admission

programs utilized their wait lists more heavily in order to ensure a full freshman class without the benefit of early admits. This situation had a cascading effect on other institutions, compounding an already increasing difficulty in predicting yield due to growth in application volume and increased price sensitivity among students as a result of the weak economy. As shown in Chapter 3 of this report, NACAC’s Admission Trends Survey showed for the first time an increase in the percentage of institutions utilizing a wait list—from about one-third to 41 percent. Chapter 3 also provides data on the number of colleges that utilize early admission options, as well as the percentage of students who are admitted through early admission and off of wait lists. Standardized Admission Testing

Although an increasing number of colleges have adopted test-optional admission policies in recent years, NACAC survey data show that the importance of standardized testing across all four-year colleges and universities has increased over the past 15 years (see Chapter 4). In addition, standardized admission tests (SAT and ACT) have gained increased prominence in secondary schools as both assessment and accountability tools. The increased emphasis on testing has heightened the debate about the appropriate use of these tests and fairness implications for how they are used in admission.

NACAC appointed a Commission on the Use of Standardized Tests in Undergraduate Admission to make practice-related recommendations based on group discussion and on the core observations made by the National Research Council in its 1999 Myths and Tradeoffs report.v The Commission’s recommendations—outlined in its final report,

STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION 20 08 I v i i


released at NACAC’s 2008 National Conference—encourage colleges to support independent evaluation of test use and to take into account disparities in access to test preparation when making admission decisions; and asks secondary schools to share best practice information for test preparation and to offer test preparation only as part of a larger college preparation effort.

Looking Ahead

College admission trends will continue along the current trajectory for the foreseeable future, despite a gradual decline in the number of high school graduates in the coming decade. Trends will vary by state and region, meaning that colleges are likely to feel the impact of this decline in different ways. Education reform efforts may increase the percentage of high school graduates seeking entry into college—a desirable result that may mitigate the decline in the number of graduates. Whether the number of students enrolling in college grows or declines, colleges are likely to continue to resort to increasingly sophisticated techniques to sort through abundant applications to find students who are truly interested in attending their institution. Students may respond to the increasing sophistication by introducing their own techniques to hedge their bets and obtain the offer most appealing to them. For the bulk of Americans wishing to enroll in postsecondary education, there is plenty of opportunity to go around. Our primary mission, as it has been throughout the history of modern college admission, is to ensure equal access to educational opportunity for all who seek it.

v i i i I STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION 20 08

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 1

High School Graduation and College Enrollment . . . 7

Chapter 2

Applications to College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Factors in the Admission Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Chapter 5

School Counselors and College Counseling . . . . . . 47

Chapter 6

The College Admission Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55


Admission Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


Executive Summary

pronounced at four-year colleges. In 2005, blacks and Hispanics constituted only 20 percent of students enrolled in four-year colleges, even though together they constituted 32 percent of the national college-aged population.

Applications to College

Applications to four-year colleges continued to increase, fueled by a combination of growth in the number of high school graduates, the ease of online applications and growth in the number of applications each student submits. Although the most highly selective colleges have become even more selective, four-year institutions nationwide accepted an average of about seven out of every 10 applicants who applied for admission.

• Applications Increase Again: For the third year in a row, approximately three-quarters of four-year colleges and universities reported an increase in the number of applications from the previous year. The number of applications that individual students submit also has continued to increase. Nineteen percent of Fall 2007 freshman had submitted seven or more applications for admission.

• Colleges Accept 68 Percent of Applicants: The average selectivity rate—percentage of applicants who are offered admission—at four-year colleges and universities in the United States was 68 percent for Fall 2006. The average institutional yield rate—percentage of admitted students who enroll—was 46 percent.

• Online Applications Increase: Colleges received 68 percent of all applications for Fall 2007 admission online, up from 58 percent in the Fall 2006 admission cycle.

Highlights from the 2008 State of College Admission report include the following findings pertaining to the transition from high school to postsecondary education in the United States.

High School Graduation and College Enrollment

A population wave has fueled record numbers of high school graduates and students enrolled in postsecondary education. However, the proportion of high school graduates that directly enroll in college has not changed substantially in the last decade. Racial/ethnic minorities continue to be under-represented among both high school graduates and college students.

• Continued Increase in Number of High School Graduates: In 2007–08, an estimated 3.3 million students graduated from high school in the US. The number of high school graduates is expected to peak with a graduating class of 3.33 million in 2008–09, but is not expected to fall below 3.2 million through 2016–17. However, there are wide variations by state and region, and some states are experiencing substantial declines in high school graduates.

• College Enrollment Continues at All-Time High: As of 2005, approximately 17.5 million students were enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions. Total college enrollment is expected to continue increasing until at least 2016.

• Racial/Ethnic Enrollment Imbalance: White high school graduates have been consistently more likely to enroll directly in college in comparison to black and Hispanic students. Under-representation in postsecondary education was most

STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION 20 08 I 1


Factors in the Admission Decision

The factors that admission officers use to evaluate applications have remained largely consistent over the past 15 years. Students’ academic achievements—which include grades, strength of curriculum and admission test scores—constitute the most important factors in the admission decision.

Admission Offices Identify Grades, High School Curriculum and Test Scores as Top Factors: The top factors in the admission decision were (in order): grades in college preparatory courses, strength of curriculum, standardized admission test scores, and overall high school grade point average. The application essay and class rank placed fifth and sixth, followed closely by student’s demonstrated interest in attending, counselor recommendations and teacher recommendations.

• Students’ Demonstrated Interest in Attending: Over the past five years, an increasing proportion of colleges and universities have rated a student’s demonstrated interest in attending an institution as “considerably important.” The percentage increased from seven in 2003 (the first year it was included on NACAC’s Admission Trends Survey) to 22 percent in 2007.

• Use of Class Rank in Admission: Eighty-one percent of high schools in the US indicated that they recognize individual students with top numeric ranks, such as valedictorian and salutatorian. However, only 68 percent of high schools reported that they regularly provide a student’s numeric rank to colleges. Public schools were seven times more likely than private schools to report that they regularly provide class rank to colleges (78 percent versus 11 percent).

Admission Strategies: Early Decision, Early Action, Wait Lists, and Priority Applications

Though employed by a minority of institutions in the US, admission strategies like Early Decision, Early Action and wait lists are fixtures of the college admission landscape, likely due to the presence of such policies at America’s most selective colleges and universities.

• Early Decision Applications Down/Early Action Applications Up: Early Decision (ED) application volume appears to have declined after two years of increases. In 2007, just under half (49 percent) of institutions reported increases from the previous year in ED applications compared to 63 percent in 2006 and 58 percent in 2005. However, a majority of institutions reported increases in Early Action application volume for the third year in a row—81 percent of institutions in 2007, 70 percent in 2006 and 80 percent in 2005.

• More Institutions Use Wait Lists But Chances of Acceptance Are Slim:

Forty-one percent of colleges reported using a wait list for the Fall 2007 admission cycle, which represents a substantial increase from previous years when the proportion using a wait list was approximately one-third. However, a student’s likelihood of being admitted from the wait list remained at less than one in three. On average, 30 percent of students who opted to remain on a wait list in 2007 were ultimately admitted, which is similar to 2006.

• Use of Priority Applications: In 2007, NACAC asked colleges to report for the second time on their use of priority applications, defined as “an application process—different from the traditional ‘student-initiated’ application—in which students are sent partially completed applications by mail or email.” Sixteen percent of colleges reported using this type of application process.

2 I STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION 20 08


• Student Background Information: About one-quarter of colleges rated race/ethnicity, first-generation status, high school attended, and alumni relations as at least moderately important as contextual factors in evaluating the main admission factors.

• Why Colleges Revoke Admission Offers: More than one-third (35 percent) of colleges reported that they had revoked an offer of admission during the Fall 2007 admission cycle. Final grades was the most common reason for these retractions, followed by falsification of application information and disciplinary issues. When asked to indicate how likely various disciplinary issues were to result in the retraction of an admission offer, violence was by far the most likely, followed by cheating, drug-related offenses and theft.

School Counselors and College Counseling

Access to college information and counseling in school is a significant benefit to students in the college application process. For many students, particularly those in public schools, college counseling is limited at best. Counselors are few in number, often have large student caseloads and are limited in the amount of time they are able to dedicate to college counseling.

• Student to Counselor Ratio: According to data from the US Department of Education, in 2004–05, the national public school student-to-counselor ratio was 474:1, including K–12 schools. NACAC survey data indicated an average secondary school student-to-counselor ratio, including part-time staff, of 247:1.

• Time Spent Counseling for College: On average, public school counselors spent 23 percent of their time on postsecondary counseling in 2007, while their private school counterparts spent 58 percent of their time on college counseling.

• College Counseling Staff: In 2007, 37 percent of public schools reported employing at least one counselor (full- or part-time) whose exclusive responsibility was to provide college counseling, compared to 76 percent of private schools.

• Disclosure of Student Disciplinary Information to Colleges: Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of secondary schools do not have written policies related to disclosure of disciplinary information to colleges. As general practice, 23 percent of secondary schools reported that they disclose student disciplinary information to colleges, and an additional 39 percent disclose in some cases.

The College Admission Office

College admission offices are comprised of individuals who have varied academic and professional backgrounds. Admission office requirements, expenditures and procedures vary based on the type of institution.

• Ratio of Applicants to Admission Officers: On average, the ratio of applications to admission officers at colleges and universities in the US was 423:1 in 2007. The average ratio at public institutions was 756:1, compared to 299:1 at private institutions.

• Skills to Lead the Admission Office: Marketing/public relations skills and statistics/data analysis skills were rated second only to previous admission experience as very important qualifications for the position of chief enrollment officer.

• Cost to Recruit: On average, colleges and universities spent about $578 to recruit each applicant for Fall 2007 admission, $836 to recruit each admitted student and $2,366 to recruit each enrolled student (when admission staff salaries and benefits were included in the admission office budget).



This report provides current and time series data on a number of factors related to college counseling in secondary schools, the activity of postsecondary admission offices and other issues of relevance to the transition from high school to college. Data included in the report come from four main sources:

NACAC’s annual Counseling Trends Survey•NACAC’s annual Admission Trends Survey•Data provided to NACAC from the College •Board’s annual survey of collegesPublicly available data collected by the •federal government, including data from the US Department of Education and the US Census Bureau.

NACAC’s Counseling Trends Survey

The purpose of this survey is to collect information from secondary school counselors and counseling departments about their priorities and work responsibilities, particularly in relation to their roles in helping students get into college; their

students’ academic options and experiences; and their practices in communicating with students, parents and colleges. Past surveys also have included special sections on a variety of topics, including professional development, financial aid and parent involvement.

In April 2007, NACAC distributed its annual Counseling Trends Survey to 10,000 high school guidance offices across the United States—1,844 NACAC member high schools (including private schools) and 8,156 nonmember public high schools. The nonmember public high schools were selected by random sample using a list of all public high schools from the US Department of Education’s Common Core of Data. A paper survey was mailed, but respondents also were given the option of completing an online version of the survey. NACAC received 2,306 responses to the survey—a 23 percent response rate.

Table 1 provides a comparison of the characteristics of NACAC Counseling Trends Survey respondents

Introduction

Table 1. NACAC 2007 Secondary School Counseling Trends Survey respondent characteristics compared to national school characteristics

NACAC respondents

All schools

NACAC public

respondents

All public

schools

NACAC private, non-

parochial respondents

All private, non-

parochial schools

NACAC private,

parochial respondents

All private,

parochial schools

Total percent of schools 100% 100% 83.9% 89.4% 11.1% 3.3% 5.0% 7.3% Locale1 Urban 17.2 28.4 10.7 25.5 46.8 36.5 60.9 34.1 Suburban 30.5 34.2 30.6 33.2 29.4 44.0 32.7 32.4 Rural 52.3 37.4 58.7 41.3 23.8 19.5 6.4 33.5 Enrollment Mean enrollment 954 596 1028 629 509 141 665 392 Free and reduced price lunch2 Percent eligible 25.6 -- 29.8 41.6 4.1 -- 2.1 --

-- = not available 1 For NACAC respondents, locale is defined according to the population of the city or town in which the school is located (rural = fewer than 25,000 people; suburban = 25,000 to 249,999 people; and urban = 250,000 or more people). For national data, locale is defined based on US Department of Education community type classifications. 2 Survey respondents were asked to indicate participation in both federal and state-sponsored programs; national data is available for the federal program only. NOTE: For each column, data are for the most recent year available. All NACAC respondent data are for 2006–07. Data for all public schools are for 2005–06. Data for all private schools and for all schools are for 2003–04. For locale and free and reduced price lunch, national data are for elementary and secondary schools combined. All other data are for secondary schools only. SOURCES: Hoffman, L. (2007). Numbers and Types of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2005–06 (NCES 2007-354rev). US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (Tables 6 and 7). Digest of Education Statistics. (2007). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (Tables 5, 36, and 55). Digest of Education Statistics. (2005). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (Table 87). NACAC Counseling Trends Survey, 2007.



to those of all public and private secondary schools in the US. (For locale and percent eligible for free and reduced price lunch, national data is for elementary and secondary schools combined. Data were not available for a comparison to secondary schools only.) NACAC survey respondents were 84 percent public, 11 percent private, non-parochial and five percent private, parochial, making the survey sample somewhat over-representative of private, non-parochial schools.

Table 1 also shows that public school respondents were somewhat under-representative of all public schools in the percentage of students who were eligible for free or reduced price lunch programs. Public NACAC respondents were disproportionately located in rural areas compared to all public schools. Private NACAC respondents, particularly parochial schools, were more likely to be located in urban areas in comparison to all private schools. NACAC respondent schools also reported larger enrollments on average than all secondary schools in the US.

NACAC’s Admission Trends Survey

The purpose of this survey is to collect information from college admission offices about application volume; the use of various enrollment management strategies, including wait lists, Early Decision and Early Action; the importance of various factors in the admission decision; and admission office functions, staff, budget, and operations.

In September 2007, NACAC distributed its annual Admission Trends Survey to all 1,916 four-year, not-for-profit, baccalaureate degree-granting, Title IV-participating institutions of postsecondary education in the United States. NACAC received 382 responses to the survey—a response rate of 20 percent. Of these respondents, 28 percent were public and 72 percent were private, which is fairly representative of all institutions. Respondents also were largely representative by region, selectivity and yield. Respondents were somewhat over-representative of institutions located in the Midwest region, and public respondents were larger on average (see Table 2).

Table 2. NACAC 2007 Admission Trends Survey respondent characteristics compared to national college/university characteristics

NACAC

respondents All

colleges

NACAC public

respondents All public colleges

NACAC private

respondents All private colleges

Total 100% 100% 28.0% 32.4% 72.0% 67.6% Mean enrollment 4,405 3,976 10,786 8,195 2,024 1,952 New England 10.7% 8.6% 6.5% 7.0% 12.4% 9.4% Middle States 19.4 20.1 18.7 18.0 19.6 21.3 South 17.5 22.3 20.6 23.8 16.4 21.5 Midwest 34.8 28.0 30.8 24.6 36.4 29.8 Southwest 5.0 7.8 6.5 11.7 4.4 5.7 West 12.6 13.2 16.8 14.9 10.9 12.3 Selectivity and Yield Mean Selectivity 68.9% 68.3% 71.3% 70.4% 68.0% 67.4% Mean Yield 40.3 45.6 45.3 45.6 38.4 45.6

1 New England—Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island Middle States—New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia South—Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida,

Arkansas Midwest—Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota,

Nebraska, Kansas Southwest—Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico West—Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado

NOTE: Data for all colleges are for 2006–07. Twenty-three percent of colleges reported admission statistics (i.e. selectivity and yield) for Fall 2005. The list of colleges used to represent all colleges was drawn from the 2005–06 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and is the same list that was used for the survey mailing. Institutions were selected using the following criteria: US location, four-year, not-for-profit, baccalaureate degree-granting, and Title IV-participating. SOURCES: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2007. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Peer Analysis System. (2005–06 and 2006–07). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.


Contents

• HighSchoolCompletion

• TheTransitionfromHighSchoolto College

• CollegeEnrollment

Chapter 1. High School Graduation and College Enrollment


Helping all students make the transition from high school graduation to college enrollment is at the core of NACAC’s mission. Students’ success in secondary and postsecondary education is critically important for the economic future of the nation. High school graduation is a necessary first step to individuals’ economic independence, but postsecondary education is becoming an increasingly important gateway for entrance into the middle class—particularly for low-income and first-generation students. In 2007, only 29 percent of all adults age 25 and older had obtained at least a bachelor’s degree.1

In 2006, workers with a high school diploma earned an average of only $31,071, compared to $56,788 for those with a bachelor’s degree and $82,320 for those with a master’s, professional or doctoral degree.2 The typical lifetime earnings of a bachelor’s degree recipient total $800,000 more than a high school graduate. College graduates also are more likely to receive employer-sponsored pensions and health insurance. Other factors that are associated with increased levels of education include: lower levels of unemployment and poverty; lower smoking rates, more positive perceptions of personal health and healthier lifestyles; and higher levels of civic engagement, including volunteer work, voting and blood donation.3

High School Completion

Increase in High School Graduates

The number of high school graduates has been steadily increasing since the mid-1990s and is expected to reach a peak of 3.33 million in 2008–09. Although the number of graduates will begin to fall after the 2009 graduating class, it is not projected to fall below 3.2 million through 2016–17.4 This pattern of change in the number of high school graduates—illustrated in Figure 1—reflects overall changes in the high-school-aged population, rather than increases in the percentage of students completing high school. High school completion rates have increased very little in this 35-year time period (see Figure 3).5

SOURCES: Digest of Education Statistics. (2007). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (Table 100). Projections of Education Statistics to 2016. (2007). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (Table 24).

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1970

-71

1972

-73

1974

-75

1976

-77

1978

-79

1980

-81

1982

-83

1984

-85

1986

-87

1988

-89

1990–9

119

92–9

319

94–9

519

96–9

719

98–9

920

00–0

120

02–0

320

04–0

520

06–0

720

08–0

920

10–1

120

12–1

320

14–1

520

16–1

7

Num

ber o

f stu

dent

s (th

ousa

nds)

Figure 1. Number of high school graduates, actual and projected: 1970-71 to 2016-17

Total Public

1 US Census Bureau. (2008). “Educational Attainment in the United States: 2007.”2 US Census Bureau. (2008). “Educational Attainment in the United States: 2007.”3 Baum, S. and Ma, J. (2007). Education Pays 2007: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. College Board: Washington, DC.4 Projections of Education Statistics to 2016. (2007). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.5 Laird, J., DeBell, M., Kienzl, G., and Chapman, C. (2007). Dropout Rates in the United States: 2005. US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.



Despite an overall increasing trend at the national level, there is wide variation by state and region. Between 2003–04 and 2016–17, high school graduates are expected to increase by six percent nationally. However, some states will experience much higher rates of increase, including Nevada (68 percent), Utah (45 percent) and Arizona (43 percent); and others will experience substantial decreases, including North Dakota (28 percent), Vermont (22 percent) and South Dakota (20 percent). Overall, increases will be seen in the West, South and Northeast, and decreases will be seen in the Midwest.6 Figure 2 illustrates the relative magnitude of changes in the number of high school graduates by state. High School Completion Rates7 by Race/Ethnicity, Income and Gender

High school completion rates vary substan-tially among different groups of students. For example, in 2005, 92 percent of white 18- through 24-year olds completed high school, compared to 86 percent of black and 70 percent of Hispanic youth. As shown in Figure 3, the gap between black and white students narrowed considerably between the early 1970s and mid-1980s, but has remained between five and eight percent-age points since that time. The gap between white and Hispanic students has decreased slightly in the last decade, but still stands at over 20 percentage points.8

Important differences also exist among students from different income backgrounds. In 2006, the average high school completion

6 Projections of Education Statistics to 2016. (2007). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.7 High school completers include both diploma and GED recipients.8 Laird, J., DeBell, M., Kienzl, G., and Chapman, C. (2007). Dropout Rates in the United States: 2005. US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

NOTE: Status completion rates measure the percentage of 18- through 24-year-olds who have left high school and who also hold a high school credential, including regular diplomas and alternative credentials such as GEDs. Because of small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives and Asian/Pacific Islanders are included in the totals by not shown separately. SOURCE: Laird, J., DeBell, M., Kienzl, G., and Chapman, C. (2007). Dropout Rates in the United States: 2005. US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (Table 11).

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Hig

h sc

hool

com

plet

ion

rate

(%)

October of each year

Figure 3. High school completion rates of 18- through 24-year-olds by race/ethnicity: 1972 to 2005

Total White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic



rate among the top quartile of dependent 18- through 24-year olds was 92 percent. Students in the third quartile fared nearly as well at 88 percent, followed by 84 percent for the second quartile. However, the average graduation rate for students in the bottom quartile was only 68 percent—24 percentage points below that of students with the highest family incomes. Moreover, this gap has decreased only seven percentage points since 1970.9

In every year since 1976, women have completed high school at a higher rate than men. In 2005—the most recent year for which data are available—the gap was 4.5 percentage points (see Figure 4).

The Transition from High School to College

College Enrollment Rates of High School Completers

From the early 1970s to late 1990s, the percentage of high school completers who go on to college fluctuated but also showed an overall pattern of increase, peaking at 67 percent in 1997. For the last decade, the percentage has hovered in the mid-60 percent range—decreasing slightly to a low of 62 percent in 2001, reaching a new peak of 69 percent in 2005, and returning to 66 percent for 2006 (see Figure 5).

9 Mortenson, T. (2008). “Family Income and Higher Education Opportunity, 1970 to 2006.” Postsecondary Education Opportunity, Number 192, June.

NOTE: Status completion rates measure the percentage of 18- through 24-year-olds who have left high school and who also hold a high school credential, including regular diplomas and alternative credentials such as GEDs. Because of small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives and Asian/Pacific Islanders are included in the totals by not shown separately. SOURCE: Laird, J., DeBell, M., Kienzl, G., and Chapman, C. (2007). Dropout Rates in the United States: 2005. US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (Table 11).

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Hig

h sc

hool

com

plet

ion

rate

(%)


Figure 4. High school completion rates of 18- through 24-year olds by gender: 1972 to 2005

Males Females



College Enrollment Rates by Race/Ethnicity, Income, Gender, and High School Characteristics

As with high school completion, there are persistent gaps in rates of transition from high school to postsecondary enrollment among different groups of students. As shown in Figure 5, both black and Hispanic students who complete high school are less likely than white students to enroll in college.

Even more dramatic differences are seen among high school completers of different income backgrounds. High school completers age 18 through 24 who are from the highest family income quartile transition to postsecondary education at a rate of 88 percent. Students from

the third and second income quartiles continue to college at rates of 77 percent and 70 percent, respectively. However, students from the lowest income quartile transition to college at a rate of only 56 percent.10

Results of NACAC’s Counseling Trends Survey provide further evidence of this pattern. Coun-selors at schools with the highest proportion of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch (FRPL)—a proxy for family income—reported much lower college enrollment rates for their graduates.11 In fact, there was a difference of 30 percentage points between schools with more than 75 percent eligible for FRPL and schools with 25 percent or fewer eligible. In addition, students who graduated from private high

10 Mortenson, T. (2008). “Family Income and Higher Education Opportunity, 1970 to 2006.” Postsecondary Education Opportunity, Number 192, June.11 Correlation between percent eligible for FRPL and total college attendance rate = -.513, p < .01

NOTE: Enrollment in college as of October of each year for individuals ages 16 through 24 who completed high school during the preceding 12 months. High school completers include both diploma and GED recipients. Data for Hispanics for all years except 1972 and 2006 are three-year moving averages to compensate for relatively large sampling errors caused by small sample sizes. SOURCE: Digest of Education Statistics. (2007). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (Table 192).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Col

lege

enr

ollm

ent r

ate

(%)


Figure 5. College enrollment rates of recent high school completers by race/ethnicity: 1972 to 2006

Total White, non-hispanic Black, non-hispanic Hispanic



Table 3. Mean college enrollment rates of high school graduates at Counseling Trends Survey respondent schools: 2007

Four-year

institutions Two-year

institutions Total college

enrollment rate Total 55.0% 24.5% 79.3% Control Public 47.5 28.3 75.9 Private 92.7 4.5 96.9

Private non-parochial 94.7 2.6 97.1 Private parochial 88.1 8.8 96.5

Population of city/town Fewer than 25,000 people 47.3 28.0 75.2 25,000 to 249,999 58.8 22.8 81.6 250,000 or more 71.1 16.9 87.6 Enrollment Fewer than 500 students 54.7 23.5 78.0 500 to 999 56.5 24.0 80.2 1,000 to 1,499 56.9 23.2 80.0 1,500 to 1,999 54.5 26.0 80.5 2,000 or more 51.2 29.2 80.2 Free and reduced price lunch 0 to 25% of students eligible 65.7 20.6 86.1 26 to 50% 41.4 30.5 72.0 51 to 75% 36.7 29.4 66.1 76 to 100% 27.2 29.1 56.2 Student-to-counselor ratio 100:1 or fewer 62.1 19.5 81.3 101:1 to 200:1 59.4 22.0 81.2 201:1 to 300:1 54.0 26.0 79.9 301:1 to 400:1 49.1 27.3 76.3 401:1 to 500:1 47.6 29.1 76.7 More than 500:1 50.4 27.4 77.0

SOURCE: NACAC Counseling Trends Survey, 2007.

schools were much more likely to enroll in postsecondary education immediately after high school than students from public high schools (see Table 3).

Gender differences in transition rates also have emerged since the late 1980s. Since this time, women have enrolled in college at a higher rate than men in almost every year. The gender gap in college enrollment reached a peak of 10 percentage points in 2004, but has decreased in the past few years. In fact, in 2006––the most recent year for which data are available––women and men enrolled at virtually the same rate of 66 percent. More data will be needed to determine whether this is a temporary fluctuation or a more persistent narrowing of the gender gap (see Figure 6).

College Enrollment

In 2005—the most recent year for which data are available—17.5 million students were enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions. Of that total, 13 million (74 percent) were enrolled in public institutions and 11.0 million (63 percent) were enrolled in four-year institutions. Due to changes in both the number of high school graduates and the rate at which they enroll in college, the total number of students enrolled in postsecondary education has increased steadily over the past 35 years. Most of that growth has been at public institutions. The total number of college students is expected to continue increasing

NOTE: Enrollment in college as of October of each year for individuals ages 16 through 24 who completed high school during the preceding 12 months. High school completers include both diploma and GED recipients. SOURCE: Digest of Education Statistics. (2007). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (Table 191).

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Col

lege

Enr

ollm

ent r

ate

(%)


Figure 6. College enrollment rates of high school completers by gender: 1972 to 2006

Males Females



at least through 2016. Total enrollment increased 22 percent from 1991 to 2005 and is projected to increase an additional 17 percent between 2005 and 2016.12

College Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, Income and Gender

Under-representation of certain groups in postsecondary education is a direct consequence of the different rates of high school completion and transition to college discussed earlier in the chapter. Although minority enrollment in postsecondary education has become slightly more reflective of the national population, some minority groups are still under-represented. In 2005, black and Hispanic persons constituted approximately 32 percent of the traditional college-aged population, but they represented only about 23 percent of students enrolled in postsecondary education. Hispanics

12 Projections of Education Statistics to 2016. (2007). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Digest of Education Statistics. (2007). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (Table 180).13 Information Sharing Could Help Institutions Identify and Address Challenges Some Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Students Face. (2007). US Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC.14 Mortenson, T. (2008). “College Participation Rates for Students from Low Income Families by State, FY1993 to FY2006.” Postsecondary Education Opportunity, Number 188, February.15 Projections of Education Statistics to 2016. (2007). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Digest of Education Statistics. (2007). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (Table 181).

and American Indian/Alaska Natives were particularly under-represented among private and four-year institutions. Asian/Pacific Islanders were somewhat over-represented in all sectors of higher education compared to their population share (see Table 4). However, a recent study by the US Government Accountability Office highlighted important differences among subgroups of this population.13

Students from low-income families also are under-represented in postsecondary education. In 2005, about 24 percent of low-income 18- through 24-year-olds were enrolled in college, compared to 45 percent of those from other income backgrounds.14 In addition, more women than men have been enrolled in college for over 25 years, and Department of Education projections indicate that this gender gap will continue to widen until at least 2016.15

Table 4. White, black and Hispanic enrollment in postsecondary education in comparison with age 18 through 24 population share: 2005

White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander American Indian/

Alaska Native Percent of population age 18 through 24 61.7 14.8 17.3 4.4 1.2

Percent of racial/ethnic group enrolled in postsecondary education1 Total 68.7 12.4 11.0 6.8 1.0 Control Public 67.3 12.5 12.1 7.0 1.1 Private 74.1 12.1 6.8 6.4 0.7 Type Four-year or higher 72.3 11.7 8.3 6.8 0.9 Two-year 63.0 13.6 15.2 6.9 1.3

1 Includes not-for-profit institutions only. SOURCES: Digest of Education Statistics. (2007). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (Table 220). Annual Estimates of the Population by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005. (2006). US Census Bureau, Washington DC: Population Division. (Tables 2 and 4).


Chapter 2. Applications to College

Contents• ApplicationChangeOverTime

• SelectivityandYield

• TheAdmission“Interface”

• ApplicationTypesandDeadlines

• CostofApplyingtoCollege

• GenderTrendsinCollegeApplications


Application Change Over Time

Results of NACAC’s 2007 Admission Trends Survey indicate that colleges continued to experience increases in the number of applications they received. For the third year in a row, approximately three-quarters of the responding institutions reported receiving more applications than in the previous year. Only 20 percent of institutions reported application decreases (see Figure 7).

The application increases documented in recent years are due in part to the increased number of high school graduates (see Chapter 1) but also to an increase in the number of applications each student submits. Seventy-one percent of Fall 2007 freshmen applied to three or more colleges, an increase of 10 percentage points since 1990. The percentage of students who submitted seven or more applications also increased, reaching 19 percent in Fall 2007 (see Figure 8).

SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2007.

53

6764

73 7471

74 76

67

7375 78

32

25

1916 17 19 18 16

2320 18 20

15

8

1411 9 10 8 8 10

7 73

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Perc

enta

ge o

f col

lege

s

Figure 7. Percentage of colleges reporting change from the previous year in number of applications for fall admission: 1996 to 2007

Number of applications increased

Number of applications decreased

Number of applications stayed the same

SOURCES: Pryor, J.H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V.B., Santos, J.L., and Korn, W.S. (2007). The American Freshman: Forty Year Trends, 1966–2006. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Pryor, J.H., Hurtado, S., Sharkness, J., and Korn, W.S. (2007). The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2007. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

61 6062 63 62 61 62 61

63 6467 67 67

70 6871 71 71

9 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 13 14 14 16 16 17 18 19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dent

s

Figure 8. Percentage of students submitting three or more and seven or more college applications: 1990 to 2007

Submitted three or more applications Submitted seven or more applications



Selectivity and Yield

Selectivity

Selectivity is defined simply as the proportion of applicants who are offered admission, and is usually expressed as a percentage—(number of acceptances/number of applications) x 100. Higher selectivity is equated with lower acceptance rates (i.e. a relatively small number of applicants are admitted). The selectivity of US postsecondary institutions ranges from acceptance rates of fewer than 10 percent to more than 90 percent. Although the mainstream media tends to focus on the most selective colleges, the average acceptance rate across all four-year institutions in the US is nearly 70 percent, according to most recent data. In addition, average acceptance rates for private institutions are only slightly lower than those of publics (see Table 5).

Institutions that accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants are generally considered to be the most selective. On average, this group of colleges and universities receives many more applications per institution when compared to their less selective

counterparts (see Table 6). These institutions also are much more likely to offer the Early Decision application option and to maintain a wait list, in part to manage the increased application volume (see Chapter 3).

Table 6. Applications and enrollment by selectivity: Fall 2006

Selectivity

Total number of

institutions1

Total number of

applications

Average number of

applications per institution

National share of

applications

National share of first-year

students enrolled2

Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 257 1,911,333 7,437 31.1% 17.9% 50 to 70 percent 513 2,151,572 4,194 35.0 34.5 71 to 85 percent 519 1,627,484 3,135 26.5 35.1 More than 85 percent 276 448,819 1,626 7.3 12.6

1 351 institutions were missing data for selectivity, and could not be included in the analysis. 2 Refers to full-time, first-time, undergraduate students.

NOTE: Twenty-three percent of colleges reported selectivity for Fall 2005. The list of colleges was drawn from the 2005–06 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and is the same list that was used for the Admission Trends Survey mailing. Institutions were selected using the following criteria: US location, four-year, not-for-profit, baccalaureate degree-granting, and Title IV-participating. SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Peer Analysis System. (2005–06 and 2006–07). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Table 5. Mean selectivity and yield rates by institutional characteristics: Fall 2006

Selectivity Yield Total 68.3% 45.6% Control Public 70.4 45.6 Private 67.4 45.6 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 69.6 47.6 3,000 to 9,999 67.3 41.3 10,000 or more 63.4 42.9 Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 36.3 45.4 50 to 70 percent 61.6 40.8 71 to 85 percent 77.6 42.4 More than 85 percent 93.3 60.7 Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 64.6 24.1 30 to 45 percent 67.9 36.9 46 to 60 percent 70.5 51.6 More than 60 percent 71.6 83.1

NOTE: Twenty-three percent of colleges reported selectivity and yield for Fall 2005. The list of colleges was drawn from the 2005–06 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and is the same list that was used for the Admission Trends Survey mailing. Institutions were selected using the following criteria: US location, four-year, not-for-profit, baccalaureate degree-granting, and Title IV-participating. SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Peer Analysis System. (2005–06 and 2006–07). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.



However, as Table 6 also shows, the most selective colleges as a group received only 31 percent of all applications in Fall 2006. They also represented only 18 percent of all full-time, first-year undergraduate students enrolled in four-year colleges and universities. Most students (70 percent) were enrolled in institutions with selectivity rates between 50 and 85 percent.

Yield

An institution’s yield rate is defined as the percentage of admitted students who decide to enroll—(number of enrollments/number of admitted students) x 100. From an institutional perspective, yield is a very important statistic. Admission office staffs conduct sophisticated analyses to predict yield rates in order to ensure that they will fill their freshman classes with students who are a good fit for their institutions. Admission officers also engage in a variety of outreach efforts to enhance the likelihood that students will attend their institutions.

For the Fall 2006 freshman class, the average yield rate among four-year colleges and universities was 46 percent, meaning that fewer than half of all students admitted to a given institution accepted those offers of admission (see Table 5). As shown in Figure 8, many students apply to multiple institutions and are accepted to more than one. Consequently, the admission office’s task of predicting yield rates and filling (but not overfilling) the freshman class is quite complex.

The Admission “Interface”

Although the admission process continues to rely heavily on personal contact and paper, technology is being used in specific ways to make the process more manageable. For example, students use

technology to research college options, to contact colleges with admission inquiries and, in many cases, to submit applications. Institutions rely on technology to market to prospective students and to more easily and effectively disseminate information about their institutions and their admission procedures.

Online Applications

For the Fall 2007 admission cycle, four-year colleges and universities received an average of 68 percent of their applications online, up from 58 percent in Fall 2006. Enrollment size was directly related to the proportion of applications received online. More selective institutions and those with lower yield rates also received higher percentages of online applications compared to their counterparts (see Table 7).16 The association with yield rate suggests that the ease of applying online may result in more applications that are not likely to translate into enrollments.

16 Correlation between percent of online applications and: enrollment (.310), selectivity (.210), yield (-.294), p < .01

Table 7. Mean percentage of applications received online by institutional characteristics: 2007

Mean percentage of

online applications Total 68.2% Control Public 70.3 Private 67.4 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 64.7 3,000 to 9,999 69.3 10,000 or more 82.3 Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants

80.6

50 to 70 percent 68.4 71 to 85 percent 65.4 More than 85 percent 64.6 Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students

75.7

30 to 45 percent 67.5 46 to 60 percent 68.1 More than 60 percent 50.7




How Students Approach Colleges

Students use a variety of media to contact colleges about admission; however, email/Internet is the most popular. For the Fall 2007 admission cycle, colleges reported that 30 percent of all admission inquiries were received via email/Internet. Written sources were the second most prevalent at 18 percent, followed by college fairs (15 percent) and high school visits (11 percent) (see Figure 9). Telephone calls were the least utilized means of contacting colleges. In the “other” category, colleges reported hearing from students through drop-in visits to the campus; open houses and other on-campus events; referrals; and submission of application components, including test scores and transcripts.

In comparison to private institutions, public colleges and universities reported receiving more student inquiries through both high school visits (14 percent versus 10 percent) and college fairs (20percentversus14percent).Yieldratealsowas associated positively with inquires through phone calls and high school visits, suggesting

that contacts through these means may result in a greater likelihood of enrollment if admitted.17

College Admission Web Sites

Many institutions post admission-related information and services on their Web sites, making it easier for students to learn about and apply to their institutions. Nearly all institutions have certain features, including detailed admission information, information about campus tours, college cost and financial aid information, online course catalogs, online forms allowing prospective students to request information via mail, and online applications. In fact, more institutions offered online applications than offered downloadable applications that could be sent via mail (see Figure 10).

In 2007, 77 percent of colleges and universities reported offering information on their Web sites that is tailored to parents of prospective students, up from 72 percent in 2006. Over half (58 percent) reported that they offer information intended for high school counselors. A smaller, but still substantial, number of institutions have blogs written by current students (42 percent) and online chat rooms (32 percent).

How Colleges Notify Students of the Admission Decision

Mailing letters is the standard practice for colleges and universities to notify students of admission decisions. Only one institution that responded to NACAC’s 2007 Admission Trends Survey reported not mailing letters. However, colleges do use other means, in addition to letters, to contact students about admission decisions. For the Fall 2007 admission cycle, 29 percent allowed applicants to check their admission status on the college’s


Telephone8.1%

Email/Internet30.2%

Written sources18.0%

College fairs15.4%

High school visits

10.9%

Other17.5%

Figure 9. How prospective students approached institutions with admission inquiries: 2007

17 Correlation between yield and: percent inquiries from phone calls (.262), percent inquiries from high school visits (.174), p < .01



Web site, and 25 percent contacted students by email. Nearly half (45 percent) notified students by phone.

Public colleges were much more likely than private colleges to allow prospective students to check their admission status on the Web site (51 percent versus 20 percent), and private institutions were more likely to notify students by phone (51 percent versus 30 percent). Larger colleges also were more likely to use the Web site for admission notification, while both smaller and less selective colleges were more likely to use phone calls. In contrast to the 2006 survey results, no relationship between yield and phone call notification was observed.18

Application Types and Deadlines

A large majority of colleges and universities use their own institution-specific applications, according to results of NACAC’s 2007 Admission

Trends Survey. However, about 40 percent of institutions also use the Common Application, either instead of or in addition to their own applications. The Common Application, founded in 1975, is a not-for-profit organization that provides both online and print applications that students can submit to any member institution. Common Application membership is open to all institutions who commit to evaluating students through a holistic admission process. As this publication went to print, there were 347 members of the Common Application.19 A smaller number of colleges (6 percent) reported that they will use the newer Universal College Application (UCA). The UCA was established in 2007 to make applying to college online more accessible and is available beginning with the Fall 2008 admission cycle. Any college that is accredited and agrees to uphold NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practice is eligible to join the UCA consortium. The consortium had 77 member colleges as this report went to print.20 A small proportion of colleges also report using

18 Correlation between using Web site for admission notification and: enrollment (.377), p < .01; Correlation between using phone for admission notification and: enrollment (-.189), selectivity (-.302), p < .0119 The Common Application Web site: http://www.commonapp.org. Information retrieved on August 18, 2008.20 The Universal Common Application Web site: http://www.universalcollegeapp.com. Information retrieved on August 18, 2008.


18.132.1

41.643.6

57.663.3

70.271.1

77.288.8

95.896.396.396.397.998.499.2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Blogs by admission officersOnline chat rooms

Blogs by current studentsEmail newsletters

Information for high school counselorsVirtual tours

School profilesOnline course registration

Information for parentsDownloadable applications submitted via mail

Online forms to request information by mailOnline applications

Online course catalogInformation about campus toursDetailed admission information

College cost informationFinancial aid information

Percentage of institutions with Web site feature

Figure 10. Features of college admission Web sites: 2007



either state-wide or system-wide applications (seven percent and eight percent, respectively) (see Table 8).

As expected, public colleges and universities are more likely than private institutions to use both state-wide and system-wide applications. Private institutions are three times more likely than publics to use the Common Application. More selective institutions also are more likely to use the Common Application (see Table 8).21

Over half (58 percent) of 2007 Admission Trends Survey respondents reported rolling admission deadlines, meaning they accept and evaluate applications for Fall admission on an ongoing basis. Only 14 percent of colleges and universities reported having early regular deadlines in either December or January. An additional 18 percent had deadlines in February or March. Ten percent reported having deadlines in other months, with a few in November and the remainder in April or later.

Table 8. Percentage of institutions using various types of admission applications: 2006

Common

Application

Universal College

Application State-wide application

System-wide application

Institution-specific

application Total 41.6% 6.0% 7.3% 8.1% 80.9% Control Public 15.9 2.8 15.9 26.2 76.6 Private 51.6 7.3 4.0 1.1 82.5 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 44.2 5.8 4.5 4.1 85.5 3,000 to 9,999 47.1 10.3 17.6 13.2 69.1 10,000 or more 19.1 0.0 6.4 17.0 76.6 Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 61.1 5.6 5.6 9.3 48.1 50 to 70 percent 46.3 5.8 6.6 9.9 84.3 71 to 85 percent 33.6 5.9 9.2 5.0 87.4 More than 85 percent 35.3 5.9 8.8 7.4 91.2 Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 70.0 7.0 3.0 7.0 69.0 30 to 45 percent 40.4 8.4 9.6 7.8 85.5 46 to 60 percent 27.1 1.7 11.9 6.8 86.4 More than 60 percent 7.5 0.0 5.0 10.0 85.0


21 Correlation between use of the Common Application and: selectivity (.197), p < .01



Table 9. Percentage of institutions with application fees and fee waivers and mean application fee amounts by institutional characteristics: 2007

For those institutions that have application

fees:

Percentage of institutions

with application fee

Mean application fee

amount

Percentage of institutions allowing fee waiver for

financial need Total 90.6% $38.00 83.7% Control Public 91.0 37.10 76.8 Private 90.4 38.45 87.2 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 90.1 34.71 88.2 3,000 to 9,999 93.2 39.78 80.2 10,000 or more 97.6 43.64 83.2 Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 93.3 49.88 91.1 50 to 70 percent 91.3 37.49 89.4 71 to 85 percent 90.6 33.97 89.4 More than 85 percent 92.5 32.55 68.8 Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 96.6 41.51 95.3 30 to 45 percent 93.5 36.85 91.3 46 to 60 percent 94.6 34.09 67.9 More than 60 percent 85.7 30.23 51.2

SOURCE: College Board annual survey, 2007-08 (includes four-year, not-for-profit institutions).

22 Correlation between application fee amount and: enrollment (.120), selectivity (.367), yield (-.265), p < .0123 NACAC recommends that institutions of higher education consider waiving application fees for low-income students. The fee waiver guidelines are available on the NACAC Web site: www.nacacnet.org/MemberPortal/Products/forms.html. 24 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Peer Analysis System. (2005–06 and 2006–07). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Cost of Applying to College

According to results of the College Board’s 2007–08 annual survey, the vast majority of colleges had an application fee, which averaged $38. On average, larger institutions had slightly higher fees, as did more selective colleges and those with lower yield rates (see Table 9).22 Eighty-four percent of institutions that had fees waived them for students with financial need.23 Private colleges were somewhat more likely than public colleges to waive fees (87 percent versus 77 percent). (Similar patterns were found in results of NACAC’s Admission Trends Survey, with the exception of the relationship between yield rates and fee amounts.)

NACAC’s 2007 Admission Trends Survey asked institutions to report fee amounts by type of application—paper, online and international. Eight percent of institutions did not have any application

fees. Average fee amounts by type of application for those institutions that had any fees were $38 for paper, $29 for online and $42 for international applications.

Gender Trends in College Applications

According to US Department of Education data, females, on average, comprised 57 percent of applicants to four-year colleges for Fall 2006 admission. They comprised 57 percent of accepted students and 55 percent of enrolled students.24

The average acceptance rates for male and female applicants were nearly identical (67.6 percent versus 67.9 percent).

According to NACAC’s 2007 Admission Trends Survey results, colleges received an average of 57 percent of applications from women. Private colleges received a somewhat greater percentage of female applicants than public colleges (59 percent versus 54 percent).


Chapter 3. Admission Strategies

Contents• DefinitionsofEarlyDecisionandEarlyAction

• PrevalenceofEarlyDecision,EarlyActionand Wait Lists

• EarlyDecisioninDepth

• EarlyActioninDepth

• WaitListsinDepth

• PriorityApplications


Definitions of Early Decision and Early Action

In 2005, NACAC adopted a new set of provisions aimed at clarifying the admission options available to students. The association approved the use of the terms “restrictive” and “non-restrictive” to describe the effect of each type of policy on the choices that students may make in applying to and selecting a college. A summary of NACAC’s revised definitions is included on the next page.

For purposes of this report, we continue to categorize early application policies using the Early Decision and Early Action terms, as variances on these two main forms of early application policies are too few for national data collection purposes. Early Decision (ED) is defined briefly as the application process in which students make a commitment to a first-choice institution where, if admitted, they definitely will enroll. Early Action (EA) is the application process in which students make application to an institution of preference and receive a decision well in advance of the institution’s regular response date.

Prevalence of Early Decision, Early Action and Wait Lists

According to NACAC’s 2005 Early College Application Directory—which was compiled using information from college’s Web sites—379 institutions offered one or both early application options for students (15 percent of all four-year colleges). 25 Two hundred institutions

(eight percent) offered Early Action and 219 (nine percent) offered Early Decision.26 Among respondents to NACAC’s 2007 Admission Trends Survey, 18 percent reported offering Early Decision and 25 percent reported offering Early Action, indicating that NACAC’s survey sample is somewhat over-representative of institutions offering these early application options (see Table 10).

Survey results also indicate that both private colleges and more selective colleges are much more likely to offer Early Decision policies in comparison to their counterparts. Colleges with the lowest yield rates were more likely to offer both of these early application options in comparison to their higher yield counterparts (see Table 10).27

25 National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2005). Early College Application Directory. Alexandria, VA.26 These percentages add to greater than the total of 15 percent because they include 40 institutions (two percent) that offered both Early Decision and Early Action.27 Correlation between offering Early Decision and: selectivity (.393), p< .01; yield (-.182), p < .01; Correlation between offering Early Action and: yield (-.147), p < .01

Table 10. Percentage of institutions with Early Decision, Early Action and wait lists by institutional characteristics: 2007

Early Decision Early Action Wait list Total 18.3% 25.2% 40.6 Control Public 4.8 23.3 34.6 Private 23.5 25.9 42.9 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 21.0 23.1 35.0 3,000 to 9,999 19.1 33.3 59.1 10,000 or more 4.3 23.9 46.8 Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 55.6 22.2 79.6 50 to 70 percent 17.5 37.1 50.8 71 to 85 percent 12.8 27.4 30.3 More than 85 percent 3.0 7.7 16.7 Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 31.0 43.9 57.0 30 to 45 percent 18.2 18.6 41.7 46 to 60 percent 6.8 17.5 32.2 More than 60 percent 10.8 20.5 20.5




28 National Association for College Admission Counseling. (October 2007, Revised). “Statement of Principles of Good Practice.” Available at: www.nacacnet.org/MemberPortal/AboutNACAC/Policies.

The use of multiple admission plans by colleges and universities often results in confusion among students, par-ents and college admission counseling professionals. NACAC believes institutions must clearly state policies, and counselors are advised to assist students with their understanding of the various admission decision options. The following outlines agreed-upon definitions and conditions.

Non-Restrictive Application Plans: These plans allow students to wait until May 1 to confirm enrollment.

• Regular Decision is the application process in which a student submits an application to an institution by a specified date and receives a decision within a reasonable and clearly stated period of time. A student may ap-ply to other institutions without restriction.

• Rolling Admission is the application process in which an institution reviews applications as they are completed and renders admission decisions to students throughout the admission cycle. A student may apply to other institutions without restriction.

• Early Action (EA) is the application process in which students apply to an institution of preference and receive a decision well in advance of the institution’s regular response date. Students admitted under Early Action are not obligated to accept the institution’s offer of admission or to submit a deposit prior to May 1. Under non-restrictive Early Action, a student may apply to other colleges.

Restrictive Application Plans: These plans allow institutions to limit students from applying to other early plans.

• Early Decision (ED) is the application process in which students make a commitment to a first-choice institu-tion where, if admitted, they definitely will enroll. While pursuing admission under an Early Decision plan, students may apply to other institutions, but may have only one Early Decision application pending at any time. Should a student who applies for financial aid not be offered an award that makes attendance possible, the student may decline the offer of admission and be released from the Early Decision commitment. The institution must notify the applicant of the decision within a reasonable and clearly stated period of time after the Early Decision deadline.

Usually, a nonrefundable deposit must be made well in advance of May 1. The institution will respond to an application for financial aid at or near the time of an offer of admission. Institutions with Early Decision plans may restrict students from applying to other early plans. Institutions will clearly articulate their spe-cific policies in their Early Decision agreement.

• Restrictive Early Action (REA) is the application process in which students apply to an institution of preference and receive a decision well in advance of the institution’s regular response date. Institutions with Restrictive Early Action plans place restrictions on student applications to other early plans. Institutions will clearly articulate these restrictions in their Early Action policies and agreements with students. Students admitted under Restrictive Early Action are not obligated to accept the institution’s offer of admission or to submit a deposit prior to May 1.28



Nearly 41 percent of institutions reported using a wait list for the Fall 2007 admission cycle, up from 33 percent in 2006. Both institutions with higher selectivity and those with lower yield rates were more likely to have maintained a wait list (see Table 10).29

Early Decision in Depth

Compared to the previous two years, a smaller proportion of colleges reported increases in Early Decision applications. In 2007, just under half (49 percent) of institutions reported increased ED application volume compared to more than 60 percent in 2006. Only 36 percent reported increases in the number of students admitted through Early Decision, which is down from 47 percent in 2006 (see Table 11).30

Early Decision applicants represent only a small portion of the total applicant pool at colleges that have ED policies. Only six percent of all applications for Fall 2007 admission to ED colleges were received through Early Decision. As expected, colleges with Early Decision policies reported a slightly higher acceptance rate for their ED applicants as compared to all applicants (65 percent versus 53 percent). Given the binding nature of Early Decision policies, the average yield rate for Early Decision admits was more than 90 percent, substantially higher than the average yield rate for all students admitted to ED colleges (34 percent) (see Table 12).

29 Correlation between maintaining a wait list and: selectivity (.438), yield (-.223), p < .0130 Results of the survey do not indicate the magnitude of these changes.

Table 11. Percentage of colleges reporting change from the previous year in the number of Early Decision applications and the number of students admitted Early Decision: Fall 2000 to Fall 2007

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Percentage of colleges reporting change in ED applications

Increased 58% 58% 53% 43% 37% 58% 63% 49% Stayed the same 27 29 28 33 18 24 12 19 Decreased 15 13 17 24 45 18 25 31

Percentage of colleges reporting change in students admitted ED

Increased -- -- 42 30 29 48 47 36 Stayed the same -- -- 41 44 22 31 16 32 Decreased -- -- 18 26 49 21 38 32

-- Data are not available. SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Surveys, 2000 through 2007.

Table 12. Key statistics for Early Decision colleges: Fall 2007

Mean

Mean percentage of all applications received at ED colleges through Early Decision 5.8% Mean percentage of Early Decision applications accepted (ED selectivity rate) 65.4 Mean overall selectivity rate for institutions with Early Decision 53.4 Mean percentage of admitted ED students who enrolled (ED yield rate) 91.7 Mean overall yield rate at ED colleges 33.8




Early Action in Depth

For the third year in a row, a large majority of colleges reported increases in Early Action application volume. As shown in Table 13, more than 80 percent of institutions reported increases between the Fall 2006 and Fall 2007 admission cycles. In addition, more than 70 percent of institutions reported increases in the number of students admitted through Early Action.31

More than one-third of applications to colleges that had Early Action admission policies were received through Early Action (see Table 14). These colleges reported a slightly higher acceptance rate for EA applicants in comparison to the overall applicant pool (72 percent versus 65 percent). Unlike Early Decision, Early Action did not benefit institutions in terms of yield rates. In fact, for the Fall 2007 admission cycle, EA colleges reported a lower yield rate for their EA applicants compared to the overall applicant pool (28 percent versus 36 percent).

Wait Lists in Depth

According to results of NACAC’s annual Admission Trends Surveys, the percentage of institutions that used wait lists had remained around one-third from 1996 to 2006. However, 41 percent of colleges reported using a wait list during the Fall 2007 admission cycle. More data are needed to determine if this is the beginning of an upward trend or a temporary escalation in wait list utilization. In addition, more than half of colleges reported increases in the number of students who were placed on wait lists between the Fall 2006 and Fall 2007 admission cycles (see Table 15).32

31 Results of the survey do not indicate the magnitude of these changes.32 Results of the survey do not indicate the magnitude of these changes.

Table 13. Percentage of colleges reporting change from the previous year in the number of Early Action applications and the number of students admitted Early Action: Fall 2000 to Fall 2007

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Percentage of colleges reporting change in EA applications

Increased 73% 65% 72% 68% 56% 80% 70% 81% Stayed the same 19 27 21 22 7 6 18 7 Decreased 8 8 7 10 37 14 12 13

Percentage of colleges reporting change in students admitted EA

Increased -- -- 53 53 48 73 57 72 Stayed the same -- -- 35 36 15 7 24 13 Decreased -- -- 9 11 37 20 20 15


Table 14. Key statistics for Early Action colleges: Fall 2007

Mean

Mean percentage of all applications received at EA colleges through Early Action 36.4% Mean percentage of Early Action applications accepted (EA selectivity rate) 71.5 Mean overall selectivity rate for institutions with Early Action 65.2 Mean percentage of admitted EA students who enrolled (EA yield rate) 28.1 Mean overall yield rate at EA colleges 36.0


Table 15. Percentage of institutions reporting change from the previous year in the number of students placed on the wait list: Fall 2000 to Fall 2007

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Increased 48% 40% 48% 52% -- 49% 47% 56% Stayed the same 29 34 32 34 -- 25 26 23 Decreased 23 21 16 14 -- 26 27 21




Institutions reported placing an average of 10 percent of all applicants on the wait list for the Fall 2007 admission cycle, and an average of 59 percent of wait-listed students opted to remain on the wait list. Institutions accepted an average of 30 percent of all students who chose to remain on wait lists, which is relatively unchanged from Fall 2006. As expected, chances of being admitted off the wait list were lowest at the most selective colleges—on average, only 14 percent of wait-listed students were ultimately admitted (see Table 16).33

Priority Applications

On NACAC’s Admission Trends Survey, a priority application is defined as “an application process—different from the traditional ‘student-initiated’ application—in which students are sent partially completed applications by mail or email.” Only 57 of the survey respondents (16 percent) indicated using this type of application. Private colleges were more likely than public colleges to report the use of priority applications. Colleges with lower yield rates also were more likely to report using priority applications in comparison to their higher yield counterparts (see Table 17).34

33 Correlation between percent of students admitted off the wait list and: selectivity (-.458), p < .0134 Correlation between using priority applications and: yield (-.196), p < .01

Table 16. Mean percentage of students admitted off the wait list: Fall 2007

Mean percentage admitted

Total 29.6% Control Public 37.7 Private 27.0 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 30.1 3,000 to 9,999 33.1 10,000 or more 20.3 Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 13.5

50 to 70 percent 29.2 71 to 85 percent 45.8 More than 85 percent 53.6 Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 25.3

30 to 45 percent 26.9 46 to 60 percent 45.2 More than 60 percent 48.8


Table 17. Mean percentage of institutions that used priority applications: Fall 2007

Mean percentage Total 15.5% Control Public 5.8 Private 19.3 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 18.0 3,000 to 9,999 15.2 10,000 or more 4.4 Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 0.0 50 to 70 percent 19.3 71 to 85 percent 18.3 More than 85 percent 17.2 Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 28.9 30 to 45 percent 13.7 46 to 60 percent 8.6 More than 60 percent 2.8




Institutions also were asked about the criteria that were used to select students to receive priority applications. The most common criterion was contact with the admission office, followed by test scores and geographic region. Other criteria that were less common were high school attended, participation in a summer enrichment program and economic status (see Figure 11).


3.5

5.3

21.1

55.4

64.9

78.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Economic status

Summer enrichment program

High school attended

Geographic region

Test scores

Contact with admission office


Crit

eria

Figure 11. Criteria used by colleges to select students to receive priority applications

Finally, survey respondents were asked to indicate if particular application components were waived for priority applicants. The application fee was waived by 38 percent of institutions that used priority applications. The essay and letters of recommendation were each waived by seven percent of institutions. No institutions reported waiving transcript submission or submission of test scores.


Chapter 4. Factors in the Admission Decision

Contents

• FactorsintheAdmissionDecision:2007Summary

• FactorsintheAdmissionDecision: Change Over Time

• FactorsintheAdmissionDecision by Institutional Characteristics

• KeyFactorsInDepth

· Grades and Strength of Curriculum

· Standardized Admission Test Scores

· Class Rank

· Demonstrated Interest

• StudentCharacteristicsasContextualFactors

• WhyCollegesRevokeOffersofAdmission


Factors in the Admission Decision: 2007 Summary

Grades in college preparatory courses, •strength of curriculum, admission test scores, and overall grades were the top four factors in the college admission decision. More than half of all colleges and universities rated each of these factors as “considerably important.”

A second set of factors were each rated as •considerably important by 20 to 25 percent of colleges—essay or writing sample, class rank, student’s demonstrated interest in attending, counselor recommendation, and teacher recommendation. These factors provide additional information about students’ academic performance and interests, as well as their personal qualities.

Other factors that add depth to the •admission application include the student interview, subject test scores, extracurricular activities, and work. Admission officers consider these factors as supplemental to the main academic factors, and as such, rated them with low to moderate importance. They can provide important information for comparing candidates with similar academic qualifications.

Both SAT II scores and state graduation exam •scores were among the lowest rated factors in admission decisions for 2007. Subject tests were primarily used in highly selective ad-mission, though they are used more often for placement rather than admission decisions.

Table 18 shows a complete overview of the relative importance of factors in the admission decision in 2007.

Table 18. Percentage of colleges attributing different levels of importance to factors in the admission decision: 2007

Factor Considerable importance

Moderate importance

Limited importance

No importance

Grades in college prep courses 79.9% 14.4% 2.9% 2.7% Strength of curriculum 63.8 23.9 8.0 4.3 Admission test scores (SAT, ACT) 58.5 30.9 8.0 2.7 Grades in all courses 51.6 40.1 6.1 2.1 Essay or writing sample 25.8 37.9 19.9 16.4 Class rank 23.4 43.8 23.4 9.4 Student’s demonstrated interest 22.0 30.3 23.9 23.9 Counselor recommendation 21.1 40.4 28.1 10.4 Teacher recommendation 20.8 40.0 28.6 10.5 Interview 10.8 23.7 35.8 29.8 Subject test scores (AP, IB) 6.8 32.2 34.9 26.2 Extracurricular activities 6.5 45.7 32.8 15.1 SAT II scores 6.2 13.8 28.2 51.8 State graduation exam scores 4.4 13.7 28.7 53.3 Work 1.9 24.2 46.8 27.2




Factors in Admission: Change Over TimeTable 19 illustrates how the importance of factors in the admission decision has changed over time, from 1993 to 2007. Academic performance in college prep courses has been consistently rated as the top factor in admission decisions over this 14-year time frame. The importance of other factors, such as teacher and counselor recommendations, the student interview, and work/extracurricular activities has remained relatively unchanged.

Factors that have shown the most change are illustrated in Figure 12. The importance of admission test scores and grades in all courses increased from 1993 to 2003 and leveled off in more recent years. The percentage of colleges rating the essay as considerably important increased

throughout the time frame, while the proportion that rated class rank as considerably important decreased nearly 20 percentage points. NACAC has only measured the importance of demonstrated interest in the admission decision for the last five years, during which the proportion of colleges rating it as considerably important increased from seven percent to 22 percent.

Factors in Admission by Institutional Characteristics

The following section highlights differences among various types of institutions. Nearly all institutions attributed some level of importance to each of the factors discussed below, and the relative importance of factors did not differ widely. With few exceptions, colleges viewed four factors—grades in college prep courses, strength of curriculum, admission

Table 19. Percentage of colleges attributing “considerable importance” to factors in the admission decision: 1993 to 2007

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Grades in college prep/ strength of curriculum1 82% 83% 80% 78% 81% 79% 84% 78% 80% 76% 78% 80% 74% --

--

Grades in college prep -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 76 80 Strength of curriculum -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 62 64 Admission test scores 46 43 47 48 50 51 54 58 52 57 61 60 59 60 59 Grades in all courses 39 37 41 38 41 44 42 43 45 50 54 57 54 51 52 Essay 14 17 21 20 18 19 19 20 20 19 23 25 23 28 26 Class rank 42 40 39 36 34 32 32 34 31 35 33 28 31 23 23 Counselor recommendation 22 20 19 17 20 16 18 16 17 16 17 18 17 21 21 Demonstrated interest -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 7 7 15 21 22 Teacher recommendation 21 19 18 19 19 16 14 14 16 14 18 18 17 20 21 Interview 12 12 15 13 11 11 9 11 11 10 9 9 9 10 11 Extracurricular activities/work2 6 6 7 6 6 4 5 7 6 7 7 8 8 --

--

Extracurricular activities -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8 7 Work -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 2 Subject tests (AP, IB) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 7 5 7 8 7 State exams -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6 7 6 7 6 4 SAT II scores -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 6

-- Data are not available.

1 Beginning with the 2006 survey, grades in college prep courses and strength of curriculum were listed as two separate factors. In previous years, one factor was listed as grades in college prep courses/strength of curriculum. 2 Beginning with the 2006 survey, extracurricular activities and work were listed as two separate factors. In previous years, one factor was listed as work/extracurricular activities. SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Surveys, 1993 through 2007.



test scores, and overall grade point average—as the top four factors in the admission decision. However, the institutional characteristics determined, to some extent, the way each factor in the admission process was rated. For a complete comparison of institutions by selected characteristics, see Table 20.

Public and Private Institutions

Differences between public and private institutions reveal that in many ways, private college admission is more “holistic” than public college admission. Private colleges considered a broader range of factors in the admission decision, which is likely due, in large part, to differences in application volume. Admission officers at public institutions were responsible for reading an average of 2.5 times more applications for Fall 2007 admission than their counterparts at private institutions (see Chapter 6).

• Privatecollegesassignedgreaterimportance than public colleges to many factors other than the top four, including the essay/writing sample, the interview, counselor and teacher recommendations, work and extracurricular activities, and demonstrated interest.

• Privatecollegesalsoascribedslightlymoreimportance to grades in all courses in comparison to their public counterparts.

• Publiccollegesweremorelikelytoconsider class rank to be considerably important, while private colleges most often rated it as moderately important.35

Institutional Enrollment

Some of the same differences existed between large and small institutions as existed between public and private institutions. Larger institutions also had to process a higher volume of applications in relation to the size of their staffs, in many cases necessitating a more methodical process (see Chapter 6).

• Smallercollegesattributedmoreimportance than larger colleges

to the interview, counselor and teacher recommendations, and

demonstrated interest.36

Institutional Selectivity Level

More selective institutions tended to place greater emphasis on many of the factors beyond the top four. Because applicants to the most selective institutions often have similarly high grades and test scores, these colleges need more information with which to evaluate each applicant. As a result,


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Perc

enta

ge o

f col

lege

s

Figure 12. Factors showing the most change in percentage of colleges rating as "considerably important": 1993 to 2007

Demonstrated Interest

Essay

Class rank

Admission test scores

Grades in all courses

35 Correlations between private college status and attribution of importance in admission: essay/writing sample (.317), interview (.476), counselor recommendation (.409), teacher recommendation (.421), work (.243), extracurricular activities (.311), demonstrated interest (.247), grades in all courses (.199), p < .0136 Correlations between enrollment and attribution of importance in admission: interview (-.397), counselor recommendation (-.221), teacher recommendation (-.242), demonstrated interest (-.324), p < .01



Table 20. Percentage of colleges attributing “considerable importance” to factors in the admission decision by institutional characteristics: 2007 (continued)

Grades in college

prep courses

Strength of curriculum

Admission test

scores

Grades in all

courses

Essay/ writing sample

Class rank

Counselor rec.

Teacher rec.

Total 79.9% 63.8% 58.5% 51.6% 25.8% 23.4% 21.1% 20.8% Control Public 77.1 59.2 67.9 43.7 11.8 34.0 3.9 2.9 Private 81.0 65.6 54.8 54.6 31.1 19.3 27.7 27.6 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 76.8 61.2 54.2 53.4 28.7 18.6 23.5 24.3 3,000 to 9,999 88.1 69.7 70.1 51.5 18.2 30.3 21.2 15.4 10,000 or more 87.0 73.9 66.0 52.2 24.4 34.8 15.2 15.2 Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 88.5 86.5 48.1 43.1 45.1 28.8 34.6 37.3 50 to 70 percent 82.6 66.4 60.3 56.7 26.7 21.7 20.8 21.7 71 to 85 percent 81.2 64.1 61.0 53.8 21.6 24.3 16.2 15.7 More than 85 percent 74.2 47.0 56.1 47.8 15.2 18.2 19.7 15.2 Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 89.9 79.8 44.4 44.9 33.7 18.2 19.2 18.4 30 to 45 percent 87.1 70.4 67.5 54.6 22.2 28.4 22.1 20.5 46 to 60 percent 77.6 53.4 57.6 57.6 22.4 19.0 22.4 22.4 More than 60 percent 43.6 23.7 51.3 52.6 23.7 18.4 23.7 27.0

Table 20 continued. Percentage of colleges attributing “considerable importance” to factors in the admission decision by institutional characteristics: 2007

Demonstrated

interest Interview Extracurricular

activities Subject test

scores (AP, IB)

State graduation

exam scores

SAT II scores Work

Total 22.0% 10.8% 6.5% 6.8% 4.4% 6.2% 1.9% Control Public 15.7 1.0 1.0 7.0 5.1 8.1 0.0 Private 24.4 14.4 8.5 6.7 4.1 5.6 2.6 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 27.3 13.5 7.2 5.9 3.8 5.9 2.5 3,000 to 9,999 12.3 6.2 4.6 9.4 1.6 6.2 0.0 10,000 or more 13.0 2.2 8.7 6.8 4.7 6.8 2.2 Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 15.4 15.4 11.5 11.8 3.9 13.7 1.9 50 to 70 percent 20.0 13.3 8.4 5.9 6.1 6.7 2.5 71 to 85 percent 24.8 9.5 4.3 4.3 3.4 4.3 1.7 More than 85 percent 21.5 3.0 3.0 7.6 3.0 3.0 0.0 Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 19.2 12.1 10.1 5.1 5.2 3.1 3.0 30 to 45 percent 15.4 8.1 5.0 7.5 4.4 4.4 0.0 46 to 60 percent 27.6 8.6 5.2 8.6 5.2 13.8 3.4 More than 60 percent 44.7 18.4 5.3 2.7 0.0 10.5 2.7




their admission process is more “holistic,” like that of private and smaller colleges. However, they still reviewed far more applications for the Fall 2007 admission cycle relative to their staff size in comparison to less selective institutions (see Chapter 6).

More selective colleges attributed •greater importance to strength of curriculum in comparison to their less selective counterparts.

Institutions that accepted fewer applicants •also placed more emphasis on many other factors outside of the top four. These factors included the essay, counselor and teacher recommendations, extracurricular activities, and work.

The more selective institutions also placed •more emphasis on subject test scores (AP and IB) and SAT II scores.37

Institutional Yield Rate

Institutions with high yield rates are those that enroll most of the students they accept. Although this is an important statistic from an institutional perspective, it is very difficult to generalize about institutions on the basis of yield rates. Very different types of colleges have similar yield rates. For instance, highly selective schools, such as those in the Ivy League, share similar yield rates with large, open-enrollment public colleges.

Institutions with higher yield rates attributed •less importance to grades in college prep courses and strength of curriculum than institutions with lower yield rates. The most likely cause of this finding is the behavior

of high-yield, non-selective colleges, which accept almost all of the students who apply and enroll large numbers as a result.

Institutions with higher yield rates also •attributed lower importance to some of the other factors, including the essay/writing sample, extracurricular activities and work.

Nearly 45 percent of institutions with the •highest yield rates attributed considerable importance to a student’s demonstrated interest in attending.38

Key Factors In-DepthGrades and Strength of Curriculum

As previously discussed, grades in college prep courses, strength of curriculum and grades in all courses—in that order—are among the top factors that colleges consider in making admission decisions (along with admission test scores, which ranks third). Although overall GPA serves as an indicator of a student’s academic success in high school, strength of curriculum—and particularly grades in college prep courses—are better indicators of a student’s likelihood of succeeding in college.39 College prep courses—which include Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), dual enrollment, and other advanced/college-level coursework—are designed to approximate college-level work. Therefore, participation in a college prep curriculum and performance in the courses can indicate to college admission officers both motivation and ability to succeed in postsecondary education. In fact, results of two major research studies show that students who complete a rigorous high school curriculum are much more likely to complete a bachelor’s degree than those who complete less rigorous curricula.40

37 Correlations between selectivity and attribution of importance in admission: strength of curriculum (.255), essay (.283), counselor recommendation (.240), teacher recommendation (.262), extracurricular activities (.299), work (.355), subject test scores (.231), SAT II scores (.285), p < .0138 Correlations between yield and attribution of importance in admission: grades in college prep courses (-.407), strength of curriculum (-.420), essay (-.160), extracurricular activities (-.346), work (-.180), p < .01 39 Sixty-five percent of respondents to NACAC’s 2007 Counseling Trends Survey reported that they weight students’ high school GPAs to account for course difficulty. About half of the colleges that responded to NACAC’s 2005 Admission Trends Survey reported that they recalculate GPAs.40 US General Accounting Office. (2003). College Completion: Additional Efforts Could Help Education with Its Completion Goals (GAO 03-568). Washington, DC.; Adelman, C. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through College. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.



Unfortunately, students across the nation do not have equal access to college preparatory curricula. According to results of NACAC’s 2007 Counseling Trends Survey, there were important differences among types of schools in both college prep offerings and average enrollments in those curricula (see Table 21). For example, private high schools were more likely than public high schools to have offered AP and enriched curricula. Private high schools also reported higher enrollments, on average, in these curricula, as well as in IB courses. Public high schools were much more likely to offer dual enrollment, but no difference was found in the percentage of students enrolled.41

In addition, schools located in rural areas (populations fewer than 25,000) were less likely

than suburban and urban schools to offer AP, IB and enriched curricula, and a smaller proportion of students enrolled in both AP and enriched curricula. Larger schools were more likely than smaller schools to offer all four types of college prep curricula, but smaller schools had a greater proportion of students enrolled in both IB and dual enrollment courses (see Table 21).42

Schools with higher percentages of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch programs (FRPL) were less likely to offer AP and enriched curricula, and the average enrollment in these courses also was lower. However, there was a small positive association between the percentage of students eligible for FRPL and offering dual enrollment courses (see Table 21).43

Table 21. Percentage of schools that offer college preparatory curricula and mean percentage of 11th and 12th graders enrolled by school characteristics: 2007

Advanced Placement (AP)

International Baccalaureate (IB) Enriched curriculum Dual enrollment

% of schools that offer

Mean % enrolled


Mean % enrolled


Mean % enrolled


Mean % enrolled

Total 82.4% 25.8 4.6% 23.9% 85.6% 37.0% 78.8% 12.7% Control Public 81.1 20.9 4.7 20.3 84.6 32.0 87.6 12.6 Private 89.7 48.5 4.3 42.9 90.4 60.9 32.2 13.7

Private non-parochial 87.5 54.4 3.6 64.1 88.6 65.9 24.5 12.7 Private parochial 94.8 36.4 6.1 15.6 94.5 50.1 49.5 14.8

Population of city/town Fewer than 25,000 71.7 19.0 1.6 21.2 79.5 31.9 84.2 13.6 25,000 to 249,999 96.2 27.3 7.5 23.1 92.6 38.1 79.5 10.5 250,000 or more 90.6 39.2 8.4 26.3 91.2 49.6 60.6 14.0 Enrollment Fewer than 500 students 63.1 28.3 1.4 52.0 73.4 38.8 73.0 16.2 500 to 999 88.1 24.5 4.2 31.4 90.2 37.8 77.9 11.4 1,000 to 1,499 96.9 23.8 4.5 12.3 93.7 35.7 80.4 10.6 1,500 to 1,999 99.1 26.3 7.5 19.9 95.2 37.0 85.5 10.2 2,000 or more 98.8 24.4 13.6 16.5 93.5 32.3 89.8 10.0 Free and reduced price lunch 0 to 25% of students eligible 87.7 30.6 5.3 22.6 88.5 42.7 73.0 12.7 26 to 50% 73.2 17.9 3.8 26.0 81.2 29.3 88.5 14.3 51 to 75% 72.5 14.8 1.7 11.7 82.9 26.7 86.4 9.8 76 to 100% 71.9 17.1 4.2 10.0 78.5 20.3 80.9 9.5 Student-to-counselor ratio 100:1 or fewer 67.9 30.7 3.2 39.3 76.7 42.8 64.3 15.6 101:1 to 200:1 82.1 28.9 3.4 32.9 86.4 39.2 72.7 12.5 201:1 to 300:1 84.5 24.0 5.5 17.2 86.0 35.3 82.4 12.8 301:1 to 400:1 89.0 21.8 6.6 21.8 88.2 32.5 88.9 12.3 401:1 to 500:1 88.2 23.8 3.4 26.2 88.6 36.0 85.5 9.6 More than 500:1 77.1 24.2 4.3 9.7 80.9 39.2 81.2 13.9


41 Correlation between private college status and mean percentage of students enrolled in college prep curricula: AP (.506), IB (.328), enriched curriculum (.441), p < .0142 Correlation between enrollment and offering college prep curricula: AP (.329), IB (.179), enriched curriculum (.201), dual enrollment (.133), p < .01; Correlation between enrollment and mean percentage of students enrolled in college prep curricula: IB (-.310), dual enrollment (-.142), p < .0143 Correlation between percent eligible for FRPL and offering college prep curricula: AP (-.180), enriched curriculum (-.105), dual enrollment (.196), p < .01; Correlation between percent eligible for FRPL and mean percentage of students enrolled in college prep curricula: AP (-.359), enriched curriculum (-.361), p < .01



Results of the College Board’s 2007–08 annual survey show the average number of high school course units (years of study) that colleges required and recommended for students interested in attending their institutions. On average, colleges required the most years of study in English (3.9), academic electives (3.3) and math (2.9). Institutions with higher selectivity levels required more foreign language credits and recommended more math, science and foreign language units than their less selective counterparts (see Table 22).44 These data do not indicate the level of coursework that colleges required or recommended, which also are likely to differ by institution type.

Standardized Admission Test Scores

As reported earlier in this chapter, standardized admission test scores ranked as the third most important factor in admission decisions. Eighty-nine percent of colleges placed considerable or moderate importance on this factor (see Table 18). According to the College Board’s annual survey, an average of 61 percent of enrolled students submitted SAT scores for Fall 2007 admission, and 51 percent submitted ACT scores. Students enrolled in public colleges

in private colleges to have submitted ACT scores. Students enrolled in more selective institutions were more likely to have submitted SAT scores and less likely to have submitted ACT scores in comparison to those enrolled in less selective institutions (see Table 23).45

Class Rank

Secondary schools have different ways of recognizing students for their academic achievement. In response to NACAC’s 2007 Counseling Trends Survey, 81 percent of high schools indicated that they recognize

individual students with top numeric ranks, such as valedictorian and salutatorian. A little more than half (54 percent) indicated that they recognize a group of students based on percentile rank—i.e. designating the top five or 10 percent as “cum laude,” “honors,” or some other form of distinction. Sixty-four percent recognized groups of students based on GPA cut-off points—i.e. designating all students with an “A” or “B” average as “cum laude,” “honors,” or some other form of distinction (see Table 24). Public high schools were more likely than private high schools to have engaged in each of the three types of ranking. Schools with higher percentages of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch programs (FRPL) also were more likely to recognize students with both numeric and percentile ranks (see Table 24).46

Secondary schools also had different policies about reporting class rank information to college admission offices, and these policies varied more widely by institution type. As shown in Table 25, 68 percent of high school counseling departments reported

44 Correlation between selectivity and course units required: foreign language (.268), p < .01; Correlation between selectivity and course units recommended: foreign language (.357), math (.206), science (.202), p < .0145 Correlation between institutional selectivity and percentage of enrolled students who submitted test scores: SAT (.314), ACT (-.279), p < .0146 Correlation between percent eligible for FRPL and: recognize individual rank (.205), recognize percentile rank (.141), p < .01

Table 23. Mean percentage of first-year students who submitted standardized test scores by institutional characteristics: 2007

SAT ACT Total 61.3% 51.4% Control Public 61.9 54.9 Private 61.0 49.6

Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 58.8 51.6 3,000 to 9,999 68.8 49.6 10,000 or more 66.3 52.4 Selectivity Accept less than 50 percent of applicants 80.1 33.0 50 to 70 percent 68.3 45.6 71 to 85 percent 55.0 56.5 More than 85 percent 46.2 63.7 Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 78.2 34.2 30 to 45 percent 62.5 52.1 46 to 60 percent 48.1 64.4 More than 60 percent 44.0 62.0

SOURCE: College Board annual survey, 2007-08 (includes four-year, not-for-profit institutions).

were slightly more likely than those enrolled



Table 22. Mean number of high school course units required and recommended by colleges: 2007 (continued)

Total academic units History English Foreign language Req. Rec. Req. Rec. Req. Rec. Req. Rec.

Total 16.0 18.1 1.6 2.2 3.9 4.0 2.1 2.4 Control Public 16.2 18.2 1.5 1.9 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.4 Private 15.8 18.1 1.7 2.2 3.9 3.9 2.1 2.4

Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 15.8 18.2 1.7 2.2 3.9 4.0 2.1 2.4 3,000 to 9,999 16.3 18.8 1.6 2.3 4.0 4.0 2.1 2.6 10,000 or more 16.2 18.3 1.3 1.8 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.7

Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 16.9 19.0 1.8 2.5 3.9 4.0 2.3 3.0 50 to 70 percent 16.2 18.8 1.7 2.1 4.0 4.0 2.1 2.5 71 to 85 percent 15.8 17.9 1.6 2.1 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.3 More than 85 percent 15.5 17.1 1.5 2.0 3.9 4.0 1.9 2.2

Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 16.0 18.3 1.5 2.4 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.5 30 to 45 percent 16.0 18.5 1.6 2.2 4.0 4.1 2.0 2.4 46 to 60 percent 16.3 17.8 1.6 1.7 4.0 4.1 2.0 2.2 More than 60 percent 16.0 16.3 1.8 1.9 3.8 4.0 2.1 2.0

Table 22 continued. Mean number of high school course units required and recommended by colleges: 2007

Math Academic elective Social studies Science Req. Rec. Req. Rec. Req. Rec. Req. Rec.

Total 2.9 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.3 2.7 2.4 3.0 Control Public 3.1 3.6 3.1 2.9 2.4 2.9 2.6 3.2 Private 2.8 3.3 3.5 3.4 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.9 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 2.8 3.3 3.6 3.4 2.2 2.6 2.4 3.0 3,000 to 9,999 3.0 3.7 3.2 3.2 2.4 3.0 2.5 3.2 10,000 or more 3.1 3.8 2.8 2.3 2.2 3.1 2.5 3.2

Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 3.0 3.7 3.7 2.9 2.2 2.8 2.5 3.3 50 to 70 percent 3.0 3.5 3.2 3.4 2.2 2.6 2.5 3.2 71 to 85 percent 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.4 2.7 2.5 3.0 More than 85 percent 2.8 3.3 3.4 3.3 2.2 2.8 2.3 2.8

Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 2.9 3.5 3.0 2.9 2.1 3.0 2.3 3.0 30 to 45 percent 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.6 3.1 46 to 60 percent 3.0 3.5 3.2 3.5 2.3 2.7 2.5 3.0 More than 60 percent 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.1 2.2 2.8 2.5 2.7

SOURCE: College Board annual survey, 2007–08 (includes four-year, not-for-profit institutions).



that they regularly provide the numeric rank for individual students. This practice was largely a function of the school’s public/private status. More than three-fourths (78 percent) of public schools reported that they regularly provide this information. However, while 58 percent of private schools reported recognizing students based on top numeric ranks, only 11 percent indicated that they regularly provide individual rank information to colleges. Larger schools and schools with higher percentages of FRPL-eligible students also were somewhat more likely to report that they regularly provide this information (see Table 25).47

Only 31 percent of secondary schools reported that they regularly provide percentile rank for individual students. Public schools were more likely to report doing so in comparison to their private school counterparts, as were schools with higher percentages of FRPL-eligible students.48 Thirty-nine percent of schools indicated that they

regularly provide the general grade distribution for their graduating classes, which may be an alternative for many schools to providing individual student ranks. Private schools were more likely than public schools to report that they regularly provided these grade distributions (see Table 25).

Demonstrated Interest

For the past five years, NACAC’s Admission Trends Survey has documented colleges’ attention to applicants’ interest in attending their institutions as a factor in admission decisions. During those five years, colleges have reported placing a greater level of importance on demonstrated interest (see Table 19). In 2007, 76 percent of colleges assigned some level of importance to a student’s interest in attending the institution (22 percent considerable, 30 percent moderate and 24 percent limited) (see Table 18). As shown earlier in the chapter, both

47 Correlation between reporting individual rank and: enrollment (.102), percent eligible for FRPL (.339), p < .0148 Correlation between reporting percentile rank and: percent eligible for FRPL (.188), p < .01

Table 24. Percentage of high schools that recognized students based on class rank: 2007

Recognized individual students with top

numeric rank

Recognized group of students based on

percentile rank

Recognized group of students based

on GPA Total 81.1% 53.5% 63.5% Control Public 85.4 56.5 66.2 Private 58.4 38.0 49.2

Private non-parochial 49.2 38.1 45.6 Private parochial 78.9 37.7 57.4

Population of city/town Fewer than 25,000 people 86.9 56.1 67.0 25,000 to 249,999 77.2 53.6 62.0 250,000 or more 69.9 46.6 52.7 Enrollment Fewer than 500 students 81.4 46.7 61.0 500 to 999 82.4 57.1 64.9 1,000 to 1,499 80.0 55.5 63.6 1,500 to 1,999 78.9 52.9 64.4 2,000 or more 79.7 63.0 64.4 Free and reduced price lunch 0 to 25% of students eligible 75.9 48.4 59.6 26 to 50% 88.5 59.0 70.5 51 to 75% 93.9 62.4 66.5 76 to 100% 91.7 62.8 62.4




private colleges and smaller colleges placed greater emphasis on students’ demonstrated interest during the admission process (see Table 20).

Likely methods that colleges and universities could use to ascertain a student’s interest include campus visits, interviews, content of open-ended essays, contact by students with the admission office, letters of recommendation, and early application through either Early Action or Early Decision.

Student Characteristics as Contextual Factors

NACAC’s 2007 Admission Trends Survey asked colleges for the second time to indicate how various student characteristics may influence how the main factors in admission are evaluated. These student characteristics included race/ethnicity, gender, first-

generation status, state or county of residence, high school attended, alumni relations, and ability to pay.49 As shown in Table 26, institutions attributed relatively little importance to these student characteristics, even as contextual factors. However, they did have some influence on how the main admission factors were evaluated. About one-quarter of colleges rated race/ethnicity, first-generation status, high school attended, and alumni relations as at least moderately important.

49 In surveys prior to 2006, race/ethnicity, state or county of residence, alumni relations, and ability to pay were listed along with the other factors.

Table 25. Secondary schools’ practices regarding the reporting of class rank information to colleges: 2007

Numeric rank for individual students

Percentile rank for individual students

General grade distribution for graduating class

Regularly provided

Provided only if asked

Did not provide

Regularly provided


Did not provide

Regularly provided


Did not provide

Total 67.6% 11.8% 20.6% 31.0% 38.5% 30.5% 39.2% 23.1% 37.8% Control Public 78.4 12.5 9.1 34.7 40.1 25.2 35.9 24.8 39.4 Private 10.9 7.9 81.2 11.3 30.4 58.3 55.3 14.5 30.1

Private non-parochial 4.0 7.5 88.5 9.6 24.9 65.5 60.9 10.3 28.9 Private parochial 26.1 8.7 65.2 15.0 42.5 42.5 42.9 24.1 33.0

Population of city/town Fewer than 25,000 people 77.6 11.8 10.7 33.4 41.2 25.4 36.9 27.0 36.1 25,000 to 249,999 65.0 10.9 24.1 31.1 37.4 31.4 39.2 19.4 41.4 250,000 or more 41.7 13.7 44.6 24.7 31.9 43.4 47.2 18.2 34.6 Enrollment Fewer than 500 students 62.2 14.2 23.6 28.1 39.7 32.2 40.3 25.1 34.6 500 to 999 67.1 10.8 22.1 30.0 40.7 29.2 40.0 27.5 32.6 1,000 to 1,499 69.5 9.6 20.9 31.4 36.0 32.6 39.1 19.8 41.1 1,500 to 1,999 76.5 9.1 14.3 31.0 36.7 32.3 31.7 19.8 48.5 2,000 or more 73.9 12.2 13.9 42.1 35.0 22.9 39.1 16.4 44.5 Free and reduced price lunch 0 to 25% of students eligible 59.4 8.8 31.8 26.0 36.5 37.5 40.6 21.6 37.8 26 to 50% 81.5 14.8 3.8 36.3 40.2 23.5 35.6 27.4 37.0 51 to 75% 77.7 18.4 3.9 34.5 50.0 15.5 33.7 33.1 33.1 76 to 100% 70.8 25.0 4.2 40.0 45.3 14.7 45.8 20.8 33.3


Table 26. Percentage of colleges attributing different levels of importance to the influence of student characteristics on the evaluation of factors in the admission decision: 2007

Considerable importance

Moderate importance

Limited importance

No importance

Race/ethnicity 8.0 20.9 16.8 54.3 First-generation status 5.9 22.3 22.8 48.9 Gender 4.6 10.0 20.5 65.0 Alumni relations 4.3 20.0 34.7 41.1 High school attended 2.9 23.1 27.6 46.4 State or county of residence 2.9 15.0 26.0 56.0 Ability to pay 2.1 8.6 14.2 75.1


4 4 I STATE OF COLLEGE ADMISSION 20 08


Institutions varied in how they rated the influence of these student characteristics. For example, private colleges rated race/ethnicity, gender, high school attended, alumni relations, and ability to pay as having more influence in comparison to public colleges. Larger colleges attributed more influence than smaller colleges to first-generation status and state or county of residence. More selective institutions rated each of the student characteristics (except for ability to pay) as having more influence in comparison to less selective colleges.50

Why Colleges Revoke Offers of Admission

More than one-third of colleges (35 percent) reported that they had revoked an admission offer during the Fall 2007 admission cycle. Colleges

with higher selectivity levels were more likely to have revoked an admission decision.51 The most common reason for which admission offers were rescinded was final grades, followed by falsification of application information and disciplinary issues (see Figure 13). Public colleges were more likely than private colleges to have rescinded an offer of admission due to final grades (83 percent versus 59 percent), while private colleges were more likely to have done so due to a disciplinary issue (33 percent versus 13 percent). More selective colleges also were more likely to have revoked an offer of admission for disciplinary reasons.52

NACAC’s 2007 Admission Trends Survey also asked colleges to indicate the likelihood that various disciplinary issues would result in the retraction of an admission offer. Colleges indicated that violence,


2.3

25.0

26.7

68.7

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Multiple deposits

Disciplinary issue

Falsification ofapplication information

Final grades


Rea

son

for r

evok

ing

adm

issi

on o

ffer

Figure 13. Percentage of institutions who revoked offers of admission for various reasons: Fall 2007

50 Correlation between private college status and influence in evaluation of admission decision factors: race/ethnicity (.159), gender (.232), high school attended (.172), alumni relations (.306), ability to pay (.181), p < .01; Correlation between enrollment and influence in evaluation of admission decision factors: first-generation status (.210), state or county of residence (.199), p < .01; Correlation between selectivity and influence in evaluation of admission decision factors: race/ethnicity (.366), gender (.301), first-generation status (.399), state or county of residence (.245), high school attended (.249), alumni relations (.253), p < .0151 Correlation between selectivity and: revoked admission offer (.176), p < .0152 Correlation between selectivity and: revoked admission offer for disciplinary reasons (.262), p < .01



cheating, drug-related offenses, and theft were the most likely to result in an admission offer being revoked. Both private colleges and smaller colleges rated all disciplinary issues as more likely to result in retraction of an admission offer in comparison to their public and larger counterparts. More selective colleges rated both violence and cheating as more likely to result in an admission offer being revoked, in comparison to less selective institutions (see Figure 14).53

53 Correlation between private college status and likelihood of disciplinary issue resulting in admission offer retraction: violence (.253), theft (.330), cheating (.229), truancy (.356), drug-related (.283), underage drinking (.304), Web posting (.316), p < .01; Correlation between enrollment and likelihood of disciplinary issue resulting in admission offer retraction: violence (-.192), theft (-.296), cheating (-.146), truancy (-.298), drug-related (-.324), underage drinking (-.307), Web posting (-.330), p < .01; Correlation between selectivity and likelihood of disciplinary issue resulting in admission offer retraction: violence (.155), cheating (.222), p < .01


Chapter 5. School Counselors and College Counseling

Contents

• CollegeCounselingDefined

• Student-to-CounselorRatios

• CounselingDepartmentPrioritiesand “Time on Task”

• ProfessionalDevelopmentandCompensation

• PoliciesonDisclosureofStudentDisciplinaryInformation to Colleges


average of 437 students. Moreover, these ratios have changed very little over the past 10 years (see Figure 15).55 A 2002 study focusing specifically on high school counselors found a ratio of 315:1 for full-time counselors and 284:1 when part-time counselors were included.56

Results of NACAC’s 2007 Counseling Trends Survey indicated a secondary school student-to counselor ratio, including part-time staff, of 247:1, on average. NACAC’s Counseling Trends Survey also asked respondents to report the number of counselors at their schools based on the extent to which college counseling is part of their job responsibilities, allowing for the calculation of a student-to-college counselor ratio. For 2007, the average student-to-college counselor ratio was 311:1, including part-time counselors (see Table 27).57

54 National Association for College Admission Counseling. (1990). “Statement on Precollege Guidance and Counseling and the Role of the School Counselor.” Available at: www.nacacnet.org/MemberPortal/AboutNACAC/Policies.55 In this case secondary is defined as grades 6 through 12.56 Parsad, B., Alexander, D., Farris, E., and Hudson, L. (2003). High School Guidance Counseling (NCES 2003-015). U.S. Department of Education. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 57 The student-to-college counselor ratio is based on both the total number of counselors who exclusively provide college counseling for students and the total number who provide college counseling among other services for students. As such, it overestimates the focus on college counseling.

College Counseling Defined

NACAC’s “Statement on Precollege Guidance and Counseling and the Role of the School Counselor” defines precollege counseling as generally including activities that help students: 1) pursue the most challenging curriculum that results in enhanced postsecondary educational options; 2) identify and satisfy attendant requirements for college access; and 3) navigate the maze of financial aid, college choice and other processes related to college application and admission.54

Assisting students in reaching their full potential requires the cooperative efforts of school administrators, teachers, community representatives, government officials, parents, and the students themselves, as well as a trained staff of school counselors who are able to facilitate student development and achievement. Of particular importance to student success is access to a strong precollege guidance and counseling program that begins early in the student’s education. Counselors can be significant assets in the college admission process. Students face additional challenges without strong counselors to help them, which can make the college application and admission process more difficult.

Student-to-Counselor Ratios

According to US Department of Education data, in 2005–06, each public school counselor (including elementary and secondary) had responsibility for 474 students, on average. Counselors at secondary schools had slightly smaller caseloads, serving an

SOURCE: Common Core of Data Build a Table. (2005–06). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

0100200300400500600700

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

Stud

ents

per

cou

nsel

orAcademic year

Figure 15. Public school student-to-counselor ratios by school level: 1995–96 to 2005–06

Elementary Secondary Total



Variation in Student-to-Counselor RatiosStudent-to-counselor ratios varied widely from state to state. In 2005–06, some states had exceedingly high student-to-counselor ratios including California (902:1), Minnesota (811:1), Arizona (797:1), DC (761:1) and Utah (741:1). See Table 28 for the public school student-to-counselor ratios for all states. Public schools also had higher student-to-counselor ratios and slightly higher student-to-college counselor ratios in comparison to private schools.58 As shown in Table 27, public school counselors were responsible for about 80 more students, on average. In addition, more than three-quarters of private schools (76 percent) reported that they had at least one counselor (full- or part-time) whose sole responsibility was to provide college counseling for students, compared to 37 percent of public schools. High schools with large enrollments also had significantly higher counseling caseloads than smaller schools.59

Counseling Department Priorities and “Time on Task”Counseling Department Priorities

On NACAC’s 2007 Counseling Trends Survey, respondents were asked to rank order the importance of four main counseling department goals. As shown in Table 29, “helping students with their academic achievement in high school” was ranked as the highest priority of counseling departments, followed closely by “helping students

58 Correlation between public school status and: student-to-counselor ratio (.207), p < .01 59 Correlation between enrollment and: student-to-counselor ratio (.356), student-to-college counselor ratio (.358), p < .01

Table 27. Mean student-to-counselor ratios and student-to-college counselor ratios by school characteristics: 2007

Mean number of students per

counselor

Mean number of students per college

counselor Total 247 311 Control Public 260 321 Private 177 254

Private non-parochial 175 251 Private parochial 181 261

Population of city/town Fewer than 25,000 people 238 275 25,000 to 249,999 267 334 250,000 or more 239 375 Enrollment Fewer than 500 students 190 220 500 to 999 259 328 1,000 to 1,499 271 337 1,500 to 1,999 291 340 2,000 or more students 334 515 Free and reduced price lunch 0 to 25% of students eligible 242 305 26 to 50% 265 307 51 to 75% 237 330 76 to 100% 209 332


Table 28. Public School Student-to-Counselor Ratios, by State: 2005–06

State Students Counselors Students

per counselor U.S. Total 48,912,085 103,268 474 Alabama 741,547 1,814 409 Alaska 133,292 277 481 Arizona 1,094,454 1,373 797 Arkansas 474,206 1,441 329 California 6,312,103 6,998 902 Colorado 779,826 1,424 548 Connecticut 575,058 1,399 411 Delaware 120,937 282 429 District of Columbia 76,876 101 761 Florida 2,675,024 5,584 479 Georgia 1,598,461 3,536 452 Hawaii 184,925 672 275 Idaho 261,844 594 441 Illinois 2,111,706 3,172 666 Indiana 1,034,782 1,804 574 Iowa 481,099 1,169 412 Kansas 466,266 1,135 411 Kentucky 641,685 1,456 441 Louisiana 654,397 2,955 221 Maine 195,498 633 309 Maryland 860,020 2,300 374 Massachusetts 971,909 2,141 454 Michigan 1,711,544 2,726 628 Minnesota 839,084 1,034 811 Mississippi 494,954 1,023 484 Missouri 915,850 2,635 348 Montana 145,416 439 331 Nebraska 286,646 777 369 Nevada 412,407 794 519 New Hampshire 205,767 826 249 New Jersey 1,395,602 2,312 604 New Mexico 326,758 774 422 New York 2,838,209 6,865 413 North Carolina 1,416,436 3,646 388 North Dakota 98,284 275 357 Ohio 1,836,991 3,840 478 Oklahoma 634,739 1,586 400 Oregon 534,823 1,324 404 Pennsylvania 1,828,287 4,404 415 Rhode Island 151,690 2,541 60 South Carolina 701,544 1,775 395 South Dakota 122,008 319 382 Tennessee 953,798 2,023 471 Texas 4,523,873 10,251 441 Utah 508,430 686 741 Vermont 96,638 431 224 Virginia 1,214,229 2,669 455 Washington 1,031,985 2,011 513 West Virginia 280,703 693 405 Wisconsin 875,066 1,930 453 Wyoming 84,409 399 212

SOURCE: Common Core of Data Build a Table. (2005–06). US Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.



plan and prepare for postsecondary education.” “Helping students with personal growth and development” and “helping students plan and prepare for their work roles after high school” were ranked third and fourth.

High schools differed in how they ranked the priorities of their counseling departments. For example, public schools ranked “helping students with their academic achievement in high school” as the top priority while private schools ranked “helping students plan and prepare for postsecondary education” as most important. Public schools also ranked “helping students plan and prepare for their work roles after high school” more highly than their private school counterparts.60 In comparison to higher income schools, lower-income schools—as defined by

the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch (FRPL)—ranked “helping students to plan and prepare for postsecondary education” significantly lower and “helping students plan and prepare for their work roles after high school” significantly higher (see Table 29).61

Time on Task

Most counselors have a variety of job responsibilities in addition to college counseling. Results of NACAC’s survey showed that in 2007, high school counseling staffs spent an average of only 29 percent of their time on college counseling. Counselors in public schools reported spending only 23 percent of their time on postsecondary counseling, while private school counselors were

able to spend more than half of their time (58 percent) providing college counseling.62 Counselors at higher-income schools also spend more time on postsecondary counseling compared to those at lower-income schools (see Table 30).63

Counselor Activities Related to College Counseling

Counselors engage in a variety of activities to assist students with the process of applying to college. As shown in Figure 16, the most frequent activities for 2007 included having individual meetings with students and hosting college representatives. More than 40 percent of counselors also reported that they frequently engaged in actively representing students to college admission offices and reviewing student applications.

60 Correlation between public school status and ranking of: “helping students plan and prepare for postsecondary education” (-.297), “helping students with their academic achievement in high school (.192), “helping students plan and prepare for their work roles after high school” (.171), p < .0161 Correlation between percent eligible for FRPL and ranking of: “helping students plan and prepare for postsecondary education” (-.210), “helping students plan and prepare for their work roles after high school” (.176), p < .0162 Correlation between private school status and: percent of time spent on postsecondary counseling (.681), p < .01 63 Correlation between percent eligible for FRPL and: percent of time spent on postsecondary counseling (-.353), p < .01

Table 29. Mean ranking of counseling department responsibilities by school characteristics: 2007 (1 to 4 scale)

Help students plan and prepare for postsecondary

education

Help students with their academic achievement in

high school

Help students with personal growth and

development

Help students plan and prepare for their

work roles after high school

Total 3.0 3.2 2.2 1.6 Control Public 2.9 3.3 2.2 1.6 Private 3.6 2.8 2.3 1.2

Private non-parochial 3.6 2.8 2.4 1.2 Private parochial 3.5 3.1 2.3 1.1

Population of city/town Fewer than 25,000 people 2.9 3.2 2.2 1.7 25,000 to 249,999 3.0 3.4 2.1 1.5 250,000 or more 3.3 3.2 2.2 1.3 Enrollment Fewer than 500 students 3.0 3.1 2.2 1.6 500 to 999 3.0 3.2 2.2 1.6 1,000 to 1,499 3.0 3.3 2.1 1.5 1,500 to 1,999 2.9 3.5 2.1 1.4 2,000 or more 2.9 3.5 2.1 1.5 Free and reduced price lunch 0 to 25% of students eligible 3.1 3.2 2.2 1.4 26 to 50% 2.8 3.3 2.1 1.7 51 to 75% 2.9 3.3 2.1 1.7 76 to 100% 2.6 3.2 2.3 1.9 Student-to-counselor ratio 100:1 or fewer 3.1 3.0 2.3 1.6 101:1 to 200:1 3.1 3.2 2.2 1.5 201:1 to 300:1 3.0 3.3 2.2 1.5 301:1 to 400:1 2.9 3.4 2.1 1.6 401:1 to 500:1 3.0 3.3 2.1 1.6 More than 500:1 3.0 3.2 2.1 1.7




There are variations in the extent to which students at different types of schools benefit from these services. For example, counselors at private schools engaged more frequently than those at

public schools in having meetings with parents, providing advice to students and families on standardized testing, reviewing applications, and actively representing students to college admission offices. 64 Counselors at lower-income schools engaged less frequently in each of these four activities. However, counselors at lower-income schools provided counseling on financial aid options and organized tours of college campuses more frequently than those at higher-income schools.65

Access to Technology for College Search

According to results of NACAC’s 2007 Counseling Trends Survey, 43 percent of high schools had a computer

station or computer resource center exclusively designated for college searches for students. Larger schools were more likely to have had this service.66

Professional Development and CompensationProfessional Development on College Counseling

In 2007, 37 percent of high schools reported that counselors responsible for college counseling were required to participate in professional development related to postsecondary counseling. Forty-nine percent of private high schools had this requirement compared to 34 percent of public high schools. Private high schools also were more than twice as likely as public high schools to cover all of the costs of this professional development (70 percent versus 33 percent). Also more likely to cover all professional development costs were smaller schools and those with fewer low-income students (see Table 31).67

64 Correlation between private school status and frequency of: parent meetings (.242), testing advice (.268), reviewing applications (.220), actively representing students (.265), p < .0165 Correlation between percent eligible for FRPL and frequency of: parent meetings (-.286), testing advice (-.214), reviewing applications (-.135), actively representing students (-.148), financial aid counseling (.205), organizing college tours (.277), p < .0166 Correlation between enrollment size and: computer station for college search (.219), p < .0167 Correlation between level of professional development cost coverage and: percent eligible for FRPL (-.162), enrollment (-.112), p < .01

Table 30. Mean percentage of time that counseling staffs spent on various tasks by school characteristics: 2007

Postsecondary admission counseling

Choice and scheduling of high school

courses

Personal needs

counseling Academic

testing

Occupational counseling and job placement

Other non-guidance activities

Total 28.7% 23.7% 19.7% 14.6% 7.3% 6.0% Control Public 23.1 25.9 21.4 15.5 8.3 6.0 Private 57.5 12.6 11.5 10.3 2.5 5.7

Private non-parochial 62.0 11.4 8.4 10.1 2.0 6.1 Private parochial 47.6 15.4 18.2 11.0 3.5 4.9

Population of city/town Fewer than 25,000 people 24.4 22.9 20.9 16.6 8.4 6.8 25,000 to 249,999 28.7 26.4 20.0 13.2 6.7 5.0 250,000 or more 41.6 21.4 15.7 11.2 5.3 4.8 Enrollment Fewer than 500 students 31.3 19.1 18.3 16.3 7.5 7.5 500 to 999 30.4 22.8 20.0 14.3 7.2 5.4 1,000 to 1,499 26.2 26.1 21.3 14.2 7.3 4.9 1,500 to 1,999 24.5 29.6 21.7 12.4 7.1 4.7 2,000 or more 23.0 32.0 20.9 12.0 7.3 4.8 Free and reduced price lunch 0 to 25% of students eligible 33.0 22.7 19.2 12.9 6.5 5.6 26 to 50% 21.1 25.3 21.3 16.9 8.3 7.1 51 to 75% 21.9 24.6 19.6 17.9 9.6 6.4 76 to 100% 21.7 23.7 21.3 17.2 9.5 6.6 Student-to-counselor ratio 100:1 or fewer 35.0 18.4 17.1 14.2 7.4 8.1 101:1 to 200:1 32.3 21.7 18.9 14.3 7.4 5.3 201:1 to 300:1 27.1 24.4 22.0 13.6 7.3 5.7 301:1 to 400:1 23.5 26.9 20.5 15.8 7.6 5.6 401:1 to 500:1 23.0 28.0 19.5 15.7 6.7 7.1 More than 500:1 27.7 26.1 17.8 15.7 7.2 5.6 SOURCE: NACAC Counseling Trends Survey, 2007.

SOURCE: NACAC Counseling Trends Survey, 2007

32

79

30

29

24

43

26

7

71

32

41

49

19

50

51

48

33

36

22

23

34

36

16

2

19

19

26

21

28

37

5

23

19

0% 50% 100%

Group guidance/counseling sessions with students about postsecondary education

Individual meetings with students to discuss postsecondary options

Meetings with parents to discuss students' postsecondary options

Postsecondary financial aid/scholarship counseling for students

Advice and education for students and families on standardized testing

Reviewing/proofing student applications for postsecondary admission

Electronic communication with students or parents about postsecondary admission

Organize tours of college campuses

Host college representatives

Work with school leadership to develop curricula aligned with college requirements

Actively represent students to college admission officers

Percentage of respondents

Figure 16. How frequently counselors engaged in activities related to postsecondary admission counseling: 2007

Frequently

Occasionally

Infrequently

Never



Compensation

According to the Educational Resource Service, the mean public school counselor salary has increased steadily over the past 13 years. In the 2006–07 school year, the mean salary for a public school counselor was $55,930, up from $41,355 in 1993–94 (see Figure 17).68

Policies on Disclosure of Student Disciplinary Information to Colleges

NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practice (SPGP) includes a best practice for counseling members to establish written policies on the disclosure of disciplinary information to colleges.69 However, results of NACAC’s 2007 Counseling Trends survey indicate that nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of secondary schools do not have written disclosure policies. Irrespective of having a written policy, counselors also were asked to report on their schools’ general practices related to disclosure of disciplinary information during the college application process. Nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of counseling offices responded that their schools disclose student disciplinary information, and an additional 39 percent reported that their schools disclose in some cases (see Table 32).

Private schools were more than twice as likely as public schools to both have a written policy on disclosure (49 percent versus 21 percent) and to report that they disclosed student disciplinary information (44 percent versus 19 percent).

68 Educational Resource Service. (2007). Salaries and Wages Paid Professional and Support Personnel in Public Schools, 2006–07. Arlington, VA.69 National Association for College Admission Counseling. (October 2007, Revised). “Statement of Principles of Good Practice.” Available at: www.nacacnet.org/MemberPortal/AboutNACAC/Policies.

Table 31. Percentage of secondary schools that require college counselors to participate in professional development and that cover professional development costs: 2007

Percentage of schools that require professional

development

Percentage of schools that cover professional development costs

All costs Some costs No costs Total 36.6% 39.2% 47.5% 13.2% Control Public 34.2 33.3 51.5 15.2 Private 49.2 70.3 26.6 3.1


Population of city/town Fewer than 25,000 people 33.8 39.4 47.6 12.9 25,000 to 249,999 34.4 33.8 52.2 14.0 250,000 or more 49.1 48.4 39.1 12.5 Enrollment Fewer than 500 students 36.8 46.5 42.8 10.8 500 to 999 39.0 41.6 45.6 12.8 1,000 to 1,499 32.1 32.9 49.4 17.7 1,500 to 1,999 33.6 29.1 57.0 13.9 2,000 or more 37.2 26.3 59.6 14.2 Free and reduced price lunch 0 to 25% of students eligible 37.5 44.9 44.9 10.2 26 to 50% 31.8 28.2 54.1 17.8 51 to 75% 38.6 33.5 49.7 16.8 76 to 100% 46.3 29.8 53.2 17.0 Student-to-counselor ratio 100:1 or fewer 44.2 46.0 42.3 11.7 101:1 to 200:1 42.9 46.1 41.9 12.0 201:1 to 300:1 35.7 34.5 54.5 10.9 301:1 to 400:1 28.2 32.1 50.5 17.5 401:1 to 500:1 22.6 30.8 54.1 15.1 More than 500:1 30.0 40.0 45.7 14.3


SOURCE: Educational Resource Service. (2007). Salaries and Wages Paid Professional and Support Personnel in Public Schools, 2006–07. Arlington, VA.

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

Sala

ry (i

n do

llars

)

Figure 17. Mean public school counselor salary: 1993–94 to 2006–07



Results of the survey also indicated that schools that had written policies about the disclosure of student disciplinary information were more likely to report that they allowed disclosure compared to those schools that did not maintain written policies (31 percent versus 20 percent). School leaders may be more comfortable allowing disclosure of information when a policy is in place to protect against any challenges from students or parents.

Differences also were observed by other school characteristics, including enrollment size, percentage of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch (FRPL) and student-to-counselor ratios. Interestingly, no differences were observed by enrollment size in whether a school had a policy, but larger schools were found to be more likely to disclose information (see Table 32).

Table 32. Percentage of secondary schools that have written policies on the disclosure of student disciplinary information and percentage that allow disclosure, by selected school characteristics: 2007

Percentage of schools that have written policies

on disclosure

Percentage of schools that allow disclosure

Yes In some cases No

Total 25.9% 23.1% 38.8% 38.0% Control Public 21.4 18.7 38.2 43.0 Private 48.6 44.0 41.8 14.2


Population of city/town Fewer than 25,000 people (rural) 19.7 16.3 36.4 47.2 25,000 to 249,999 (suburban) 27.9 28.2 41.6 30.2 250,000 or more (urban) 40.7 34.4 42.2 23.5 Enrollment Fewer than 500 students 26.4 18.7 38.1 43.2 500 to 999 24.0 24.7 36.9 38.4 1,000 to 1,499 26.2 22.8 42.0 35.2 1,500 to 1,999 22.5 28.4 37.3 34.3 2,000 or more 29.6 30.8 40.1 29.1 Free and reduced price lunch 0 to 25% of students eligible 28.0 29.0 39.0 32.0 26 to 50% 22.4 14.6 37.3 48.1 51 to 75% 20.7 15.6 35.3 49.1 76 to 100% 17.4 14.6 35.4 50.0 Student-to-counselor ratio 100:1 or fewer 32.3 21.0 40.1 39.0 101:1 to 200:1 28.8 25.2 39.6 35.3 201:1 to 300:1 24.7 20.3 39.8 39.8 301:1 to 400:1 22.2 24.9 36.0 39.1 401:1 to 500:1 13.7 24.4 37.5 38.1 More than 500:1 28.8 23.5 30.9 45.6



Chapter 6. The College Admission Office

Contents

• AdmissionOfficeStaff

• BudgetandCosttoRecruit


annual salary survey conducted by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR). Salaries for all positions vary according to the institutional budget, but they vary most widely for higher-level positions. For example, an admission counselor earned $33,139, on average, in 2007–08, and this salary varied only slightly by the institutional budget quartile. The median salary for a chief admission officer was $78,978, and this salary ranged from $60,436 at institutions in the lowest budget quartile to $104,962 at institutions in the highest budget quartile. Chief enrollment managers earned the highest median salary in 2007–08 at $106,332.

70 Correlation between application-to-admission officer ratio and: public college status (.525), enrollment (.644), selectivity (.340), p < .01

Admission Office Staff

The admission office staff typically includes a dean or vice president for admission or enrollment management, middle-level managers or assistant directors, admission officers, and administrative support staff.

Ratio of Applications to Admission Officers

As shown in Chapter 2, colleges continued to report increases in the number of applications they received, due to increases in both the number of high school graduates and the number of applications each student submits. These factors result in very high application loads for admission officers. For the Fall 2007 admission cycle, colleges reported that the average admission officer was responsible for reading 423 applications (see Table 33).

The burden of large application volume was particularly prevalent at certain types of institutions. For example, admission officers at public institutions were responsible for reading more than 2.5 times more applications than their counterparts at private institutions. Admission officers at larger colleges and those at more selective institutions also had to contend with higher application volumes (see Table 33).70

Compensation

Table 34 shows the median salaries for various admission positions according to results of an

Table 33. Mean ratio of applications to admission officers by institutional characteristics: 2007

Applications per admission officer

Total 423 Control Public 756 Private 299 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 249 3,000 to 9,999 686 10,000 or more 962 Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 668 50 to 70 percent 473 71 to 85 percent 370 More than 85 percent 252 Yield Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 503 30 to 45 percent 409 46 to 60 percent 452 More than 60 percent 270




Professional Qualifications for Chief Enrollment Officers

The job of a college admission officer involves attracting students to apply to the institution, evaluating applications and attempting to enroll students who have received offers of admission. The admission process, though different at each school, has attained a level of standardization that enables admission officers to move between institutions and apply similar practices. Figure 18 shows how colleges rated the importance of various skills to the position of chief enrollment officer in 2007. Previous admission experience was rated as the most important qualification. The second most important qualifications were marketing/public relations and statistics/data analysis, followed closely by personnel/resource management, higher education administration and holding an advanced degree.

Different types of institutions rated most of the chief enrollment officer skills in very similar ways. However, there were some

noteworthy variations by institutional characteristics. For example, institutions with lower yield placed greater importance on previous admission experience and higher education administration and somewhat more importance on personnel/resource management and statistics/data analysis in comparison to higher yield institutions. Both public and larger institutions also considered having an advanced degree to be more important than their private and smaller counterparts.71

71 Correlation between yield rate and importance of chief enrollment officer skills: previous admission experience (-.270), higher education administration (-.211), personnel/resource management (-.143), statistics/data analysis (-.167), p < .01; Correlation between public college status and importance of chief enrollment officer skills: advanced degree (.226), p < .01; Correlation between enrollment and importance of chief enrollment officer skills: advanced degree (.239), p < .01

Table 34. Median salary of admission staff by institutional budget quartiles: 2007–08

Median salary

Median salary by institutional budget Lowest quartile

Second quartile

Third quartile

Highest quartile

Admission Counselor $33,139 $30,480 $32,397 $34,201 $35,802 Associate Director, Admission 53,150 42,000 47,117 55,356 62,795 Director, Admission and Registrar 69,431 55,084 70,293 74,980 91,257 Director, Admission and Financial Aid 91,776 59,450 84,400 109,974 105,184 Chief Admission Officer 78,978 60,436 69,921 85,970 104,962 Chief Enrollment Management Officer 106,332 82,968 103,000 112,200 138,122

SOURCE: College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. (2007–08). Mid-Level Administrative and Professional Salary Survey and Administrative Compensation Survey.


56%

51%

53%

56%

51%

46%

43%

69%

13%

34%

34%

32%

31%

26%

42%

44%

18%

42%

7%

11%

13%

9%

16%

10%

10%

9%

32%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Marketing/public relations

Higher education administration

Personnel/resource management

Statistics/data analysis

Advanced degree

Writing

Business management

Previous admission experience

Technology/Web design


Figure 18. Institutional ratings of the importance of various qualifications for the position of chief enrollment officer: 2007

Very important Important Somewhat important Not important



Budget and Cost to Recruit

Admission office budgets include funds to cover expenses such as staff salaries and benefits, publications and mailings to prospective and admitted students, staff travel for recruitment and yield-related purposes, application printing and processing, Web site maintenance and enhancements, and other activities conducted by the admission department or third-party contractors. Data collected on NACAC’s annual Admission Trends Survey indicate that admission office budgets have rebounded in the last several years, after a period of stagnation. In 2007, a vast majority of institutions reported that their admission office budgets had either increased or stayed the same. The percentage of institutions reporting decreases has declined substantially since 2003 (see Figure 19).

Cost to Recruit

As in 2006, NACAC’s 2007 Admission Trends Survey asked institutions to report their total fiscal budget for the Fall 2007 admission cycle.

The survey also asked institutions to report the total number of applicants, accepted students, and enrolled students, allowing for the calculation of “cost to recruit” figures.72 In an effort to measure cost to recruit as accurately as possible, the survey also asked institutions to report what categories of expenses were included in the total admission budgets they provided. The percentage of institutions that included each of the expense categories were as follows:

• admissionstaffsalaries(71percent)• admissionstaffbenefits(52percent)• stafftravelexpensesforrecruitment/yield

(99 percent)• expensesforparticipationincollegefairs

and other recruitment/yield events (99 percent)• publicationexpenses(88percent)• paymentsmadetothirdpartycontractors

for admission or recruitment/yield services (90 percent)

72 Each cost to recruit figure is obtained by dividing the total admission budget by the respective pool of students (applicants, admitted students and enrolled students).

SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Surveys, 2000 through 2007.

54

48

36 36 37

42

48 49

5

10

22 23

18

119

11

41 42 42 41

46 4743

39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Perc

enta

ge o

f ins

titut

ions

Figure 19. Percentage of institutions reporting change from the previous year in the admission office budget: 2000 to 2007

Increased

Decreased

Stayed the same



Table 35 shows 2007 cost to recruit figures for two sets of respondents: 1) those who included all expense categories except for staff salaries and benefits in their total admission budgets; and 2) respondents who included all of the expense categories, including staff salaries and benefits in their total admission budgets.73

For the 2007 admission cycle, an average college admission office spent $310 in recruitment and office costs for each student who applied, $450 for each student who was admitted and $1,207 for each student who enrolled. When staff salaries and benefits were included, the average cost to recruit figures were $578 per applicant, $836 per accepted student and $2,366 per enrolled student (see Table 35).

As shown in Table 35, costs to recruit varied widely among different types of institutions. The following examples refer to cost to recruit figures which included staff salaries and expenses.

• Privatecollegesspenttwiceasmuchas public colleges to recruit both applicants and admitted students, and nearly three times as much to recruit enrolled students for Fall 2007.

• Coststorecruitwereabout2.5to3.5times higher at the smallest institutions compared to the largest.74

• Moreselectivecollegesspentlesstorecruit applicants, but more to admit and enroll students in comparison to their less

selective counterparts. This pattern likely

73 Eighteen percent of respondents reported data that allowed the calculation of a cost to recruit figure that included all categories except for staff salaries and benefits. Thirty-two percent of respondents reported data that allowed the calculation of a full budget cost to recruit figure. All cost to recruit figures were then trimmed five percent due to extreme outliers.74 Correlation between enrollment and cost to recruit (full budget): applicant (-.476), admitted student (-.517), enrolled student (-.552), p < .01

Table 35. Mean cost to recruit per applicant, admitted student and enrolled student: 2007

Respondents who excluded staff salaries and benefits from the total admission budget

Respondents who included all expense categories in the total admission budget

Mean cost per applicant

Mean cost per admitted

student

Mean cost per enrolled

student Mean cost

per applicant


student


student Total $309.51 $450.35 $1,207.35 $578.08 $836.49 $2,366.08 Control Public 123.80 153.47 343.12 342.54 470.21 1,002.02 Private 325.80 482.73 1,298.32 668.23 976.67 2,894.65 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 334.97 485.75 1,292.75 710.79 1,042.88 2,963.46 3,000 to 9,999 125.60 240.65 906.70 365.68 512.47 1,743.22 10,000 or more -- -- -- 293.27 389.79 841.30 Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 189.24 640.37 1,643.51 422.01 1,072.23 3,384.62 50 to 70 percent 235.89 312.59 1,052.22 555.45 875.30 2,451.30 70 to 85 percent 414.14 531.63 1,285.19 611.64 769.29 2,138.28 More than 85 percent 304.72 409.56 1,115.55 642.03 774.06 2,053.44 Yield Rate Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 241.69 365.82 1,298.22 559.13 836.70 3,030.48 30 to 45 percent 313.86 476.45 1,320.46 566.12 813.55 2,303.32 46 to 60 percent 292.41 457.80 834.40 503.41 834.43 1,756.79 More than 60 percent 635.76 739.22 1,128.49 830.31 955.80 1,535.16

-- Mean could not be provided, as cell included only one institution. NOTE: Figures in italics should be interpreted with caution due to low sample size (fewer than 15 institutions per cell). SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2007.



reflects an environment where institutional reputation delivers many applications, but where a great deal of effort is spent

selecting among academically similar applicants and enrolling chosen candidates.75

• Institutionswithloweryieldratesspent more to recruit their enrolled students in comparison to their higher yield

counterparts. This pattern likely reflects the focused approach that institutions with low yield rates must take to increase the chances that admitted students will enroll.76

75 Correlation between selectivity and cost to recruit (full budget): applicant (-.221), admitted student (.202), p < .05; enrolled student (.281), p < .01 76 Correlation between yield and cost to recruit (full budget): enrolled student (-.348), p < .0177 Figures published in the 2006 State of College Admission report for respondents who included all expense categories expect for staff salaries and benefits have been corrected. The 2006 figures were inflated due to an error in categorizing institutions according to expense categories included in the budget.

Table 36. Mean cost to recruit per applicant, admitted student and enrolled student: 2006

Respondents who excluded staff salaries and benefits from the total admission budget

Respondents who included all expense categories in the total admission budget

Mean cost per applicant


student


student Mean cost

per applicant


student


student Total $305.38 $465.41 $1,287.68 $614.20 $879.67 $2,349.61 Control Public 86.50 164.79 367.04 324.12 463.24 1,082.50 Private 360.10 540.56 1,492.27 720.42 1,034.35 2,802.16 Enrollment Fewer than 3,000 students 374.13 557.42 1,510.73 770.81 1,072.18 2,862.14 3,000 to 9,999 113.36 242.13 776.34 288.40 508.00 1,533.17 10,000 or more 128.38 159.89 373.74 189.81 273.75 657.69 Selectivity Accept fewer than 50 percent of applicants 254.53 573.87 1,906.96 304.62 780.84 2,263.29 50 to 70 percent 253.05 369.57 1,055.16 595.43 887.81 2,669.77 70 to 85 percent 351.63 499.95 1,315.63 696.81 965.21 2,492.19 More than 85 percent 332.37 440.07 921.94 713.24 793.51 1,791.34 Yield Rate Enroll fewer than 30 percent of admitted students 266.32 474.72 1,529.35 564.19 748.68 2,752.79 30 to 45 percent 315.41 445.45 1,290.90 626.20 952.76 2,690.82 46 to 60 percent 257.01 379.05 837.04 438.26 670.55 1,287.04 More than 60 percent 517.57 737.53 1,081.36 1,145.58 1,293.18 1,714.12

NOTE: Figures in italics should be interpreted with caution due to low sample size (fewer than 15 institutions per cell). SOURCE: NACAC Admission Trends Survey, 2006.

Table 36 shows corrected data from NACAC’s 2006 Admission Trends Survey.77 The magnitude of the average cost to recruit figures across all four-year institutions is similar to 2007. Patterns of variation among different types of institutions also were similar, with a few exceptions. In 2006, no differences were found by selectivity in costs to recruit admitted and enrolled students. Data from the 2006 survey also showed that institutions with lower yield rates spent less to recruit applicants and admitted students in comparison to their higher yield counterparts, whereas no differences were found in 2007.


Documents

NACAC State of College Admissions