Supporting Diversity in Turbulent Legal Times Findings from a New Survey of Admissions and Enrollment Management Leaders
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•302 views
Supporting Diversity in Turbulent Legal Times Findings from a New Survey of Admissions and Enrollment Management Leaders Presented by Lorelle L. Espinosa and Matthew N. Gaertner, Hobsons University 2015
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (14)
Similar to Supporting Diversity in Turbulent Legal Times Findings from a New Survey of Admissions and Enrollment Management Leaders
Similar to Supporting Diversity in Turbulent Legal Times Findings from a New Survey of Admissions and Enrollment Management Leaders (20)
More from Hobsons
More from Hobsons (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Supporting Diversity in Turbulent Legal Times Findings from a New Survey of Admissions and Enrollment Management Leaders
- 1. Supporting Diversity in Turbulent Legal Times Findings from a New Survey of Admissions and Enrollment Management Leaders Hobsons University, July 29, 2015 Lorelle L. Espinosa, Ph.D., ACE Matthew N. Gaertner, Ph.D., Pearson
- 2. About the Study • Seeks to examine how legal challenges to race-conscious admissions have changed and are changing practices at selective (i.e., not open-access) four-year U.S. institutions • First of its kind national survey study of admissions and enrollment management leaders
- 3. Study Research Questions 1) How have statewide legislation and Supreme Court rulings influenced outreach, recruitment, and admissions decisions at selective U.S. 4-year colleges and universities? 2) What strategies are admissions/enrollment management leaders using to support diversity and which strategies appear to be working? 3) How can the research, policy, and legal communities assist institutions in preparing for the future?
- 4. Participants/Study Sample 338 institutions enrolling more than 2.7 million students and receiving more than 3 million applications in 2013-14 – 92 currently consider race; 19 discontinued consideration of race; 227 have never considered race – 153 public, 185 private institutions – Median selectivity of 64% – Median Pell: 33%; median URM: 16%
- 5. Race is a Consideration Across the Selectivity Spectrum
- 6. What Are the Most and Least Widely Used Diversity Strategies? (racial/ethnic, socioeconomic diversity)
- 7. “We need more programs that teach children, especially those from low-income families, at an earlier stage that college is an option open to them, that there are financial aid programs to help them and that support services are available to help them along the way.” Santa Ono
- 8. Which Diversity Strategies Are Perceived as Most and Least Effective? (racial/ethnic diversity)
- 9. How Did Admissions Factors Change After Fisher? How Did Diversity Strategies Change After Fisher? -10 0 10 20 30 SAT/ACTScore Race/ethnicity Cumulative GPA Gradesincollege prepcourses Strengthof highschool curriculum Anticipatedchoice of major Childof alumni or faculty Highschool reputation AP/IB/SATIIassessmentscores Classrank Admissionsinterview Pre-college enrichment Essayor personalstatement Leadership,activities,work Overcomingadversity/grit Lettersof recommendation U.S.orstate geographic diversity Abilityto pay Internationaldiversity SESdisadvantage Percent -10 0 10 20 30 SAT/ACTScore Race/ethnicity Cumulative GPA Gradesincollege prepcourses Strengthof highschool curriculum Anticipatedchoice of major Childof alumni or faculty Highschool reputation AP/IB/SATIIassessmentscores Classrank Admissionsinterview Pre-college enrichment Essayor personalstatement Leadership,activities,work Overcomingadversity/grit Lettersof recommendation U.S.orstate geographic diversity Abilityto pay Internationaldiversity SESdisadvantage Percent -10 0 10 20 30 SAT/ACTScore Race/ethnicity Cumulative GPA Gradesincollege prepcourses Strengthof highschool curriculum Anticipatedchoice of major Childof alumni or faculty Highschool reputation AP/IB/SATIIassessmentscores Classrank Admissionsinterview Pre-college enrichment Essayor personalstatement Leadership,activities,work Overcomingadversity/grit Lettersof recommendation U.S.orstate geographic diversity Abilityto pay Internationaldiversity SESdisadvantage Percent -10 0 10 20 30 Percentage plan Reducedemphasisonlegacyadmissions Provisionalor conditional admission Test-optionaladmissions Targetedfinancialaid (racial minorities) ProfessionaldevelopmentforK-12 ReducedemphasisonSAT/ACTscores Bridge or summerenrichmentprograms Targetedrecruitment(racialminorities) Targetedfinancialaid (low-SES) Additionalconsideration(low-SES) Articulationagreements Targetedyieldinitiatives(low-SES) Targetedyieldinitiatives(racial minorities) Holistic application review Targetedrecruitment(low-SES) Recruitingcommunitycollege transfers Percent Decreased Increased
- 10. -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Childof alumni or faculty Admissionsinterview Anticipatedchoice of major Abilityto pay Cumulative GPA Gradesincollege prepcourses AP/IB/SATIIassessmentscores SAT/ACTScore Classrank Highschool reputation Lettersof recommendation Strengthof highschool curriculum Pre-college enrichment SESdisadvantage Leadership,activities,work U.S.orstate geographic diversity Internationaldiversity Essayor personalstatement Overcomingadversity/grit Percent -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Childof alumni or faculty Admissionsinterview Anticipatedchoice of major Abilityto pay Cumulative GPA Gradesincollege prepcourses AP/IB/SATIIassessmentscores SAT/ACTScore Classrank Highschool reputation Lettersof recommendation Strengthof highschool curriculum Pre-college enrichment SESdisadvantage Leadership,activities,work U.S.orstate geographic diversity Internationaldiversity Essayor personalstatement Overcomingadversity/grit Percent -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Childof alumni or faculty Admissionsinterview Anticipatedchoice of major Abilityto pay Cumulative GPA Gradesincollege prepcourses AP/IB/SATIIassessmentscores SAT/ACTScore Classrank Highschool reputation Lettersof recommendation Strengthof highschool curriculum Pre-college enrichment SESdisadvantage Leadership,activities,work U.S.orstate geographic diversity Internationaldiversity Essayor personalstatement Overcomingadversity/grit Percent -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Test-optionaladmissions Provisionalor conditional admission Reducedemphasisonlegacyadmissions Targetedfinancialaid (racial/ethnicminorities) ReducedemphasisonSAT/ACTscores Bridge or summerenrichmentprograms Percentage plan ProfessionaldevelopmentforK-12 Articulationagreements Recruitingcommunitycollege transfers Targetedfinancialaid (low-SES) Targetedrecruitment(racial/ethnicminorities) Targetedyieldinitiatives(racial/ethnic minorities) Additionaladmissionsconsideration(low-SES) Targetedrecruitment(low-SES) Holistic application review Targetedyieldinitiatives(low-SES) Percent How Did Admissions Factors Change After Ending Race- Conscious Admissions? How Did Diversity Strategies Change After Ending Race- Conscious Admissions? Decreased Increased
- 11. What Are the Most Important Admissions Factors, When Race Is Not a Factor?
- 12. How Often Are Other Diversity Strategies Used… …at Schools that Do Not Consider Race in Admissions?…at Schools that Consider Race in Admissions? 0 20 40 60 80 100 Test-optional admissions Percentageplan Reduced emphasis on legacy admissions Additional consideration (low-SES) Targetedfinancial aid (racial minorities) Reduced emphasis on SAT/ACT scores Professional development for K-12 Targetedyield initiatives (low-SES) Targetedyield initiatives (racial minorities) Bridgeor summer enrichment programs Targetedfinancial aid (low-SES) Provisional or conditional admission Targetedrecruitment (low-SES) Holisticapplication review Targetedrecruitment (racial minorities) Recruiting community college transfers Articulation agreements PERCENT 0 20 40 60 80 100 Test-optional admissions Percentageplan Reduced emphasis on legacy admissions Additional consideration (low-SES) Targetedfinancial aid (racial minorities) Reduced emphasis on SAT/ACT scores Professional development for K-12 Targetedyield initiatives (low-SES) Targetedyield initiatives (racial minorities) Bridgeor summer enrichment programs Targetedfinancial aid (low-SES) Provisional or conditional admission Targetedrecruitment (low-SES) Holisticapplication review Targetedrecruitment (racial minorities) Recruiting community college transfers Articulation agreements PERCENT 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentageplan Test-optional admissions Reduced emphasis on legacy admissions Provisional or conditional admission Reduced emphasis on SAT/ACT scores Targetedfinancial aid (racial minorities) Professional development for K-12 Bridgeor summer enrichment programs Targetedfinancial aid (low-SES) Articulation agreements Targetedyield initiatives (low-SES) Additional consideration (low-SES) Recruiting community college transfers Targetedrecruitment (low-SES) Targetedyield initiatives (racial minorities) Targetedrecruitment (racial minorities) Holisticapplication review PERCENT
- 13. “A commitment to diversity is a philosophy not an event. Thoughtful and strategic approaches to the entire process are necessary, from recruitment to yield to enrollment, in order to both realize your goals but also to demonstrate true commitment.” Kedra Ishop
- 14. Where are Institutions Seeking Guidance around Fisher?
- 15. “It is always best if we know that the initiatives we pursue are evidence-based and that they are accomplishing what we hope they are. [Researchers] can assist us best by helping us assess which tools are most effective and impactful.” Santa Ono “We don’t struggle for a lack of information and research. Rather, taking the information that we live with every day and making it digestible for a university community that has to equally invested is the more difficult challenge.” Kedra Ishop
- 16. What Research and Guidance Do Schools Need?
- 17. Race, Class, and College Access Achieving Diversity in a Shifting Legal Landscape www.acenet.edu/adreamundone “Diverse education is not an initiative, it’s who we are. The legal landscape may change how we do our work but it will not change the work that we do.” Kedra Ishop
Editor's Notes
- Offer background CPRS and our research themes, emphasis on theme 1 About a year ago, launched a study on the evolving role of race in admissions decisions with Pearson’s Research and Innovation Netowork, UCLA CRP An issue that as individuals we are all deeply invested in; as organizations, an issue that has been on the front burner
- By selective – not open access More specifically: 1) How statewide legislation and recent Supreme Court rulings have impacted outreach, recruitment, and admissions practice; and 2) How admissions deans and enrollment managers are preparing for a future where the only legal constant seems to be change. We also intend to learn how the research, practitioner, and legal communities can better support institutions seeking to enroll diverse student bodies now and in the future. Launched survey in September of last year in collaboration with NACAC, AACRAO, College Board, EducationCounsel
- Closed the survey in January Our final pool of participants represent 338... 92 institutions that use race, 19 institutions that don’t currently use race but once did (13 are in banned states), 227 that don’t use race and never have Median Pell of 33 percent; median URM of 16 percent
- RCA is quite popular at “more selective” schools. Among “more selective” schools, publics are substantially less likely than privates to use RCA. This may be because many prestigious publics (UCLA, UW, Berkeley, UCSD, Michigan) are in ban states. The use of RCA goes down as selectivity goes down, but it’s important to emphasize this is a relevant and important policy across the selectivity spectrum; more than 20% of the publics that accept more than 80% of their applicants use RCA.
- This question was asked of all universities – we just tallied up how many of them used different RN strategies. The most popular are articulation agreements with other institutions, targeted recruitment of minorities, and holistic review. But not everybody said they use everything! To wit, reducing legacy admissions, test-optional admissions, and percentage plans are far less popular. This brings up an important point about media & research coverage versus real-world prevalence. Legacy admissions, test-optional policies, and percent plans are sexy and controversial and they get covered a lot. They speak to deep disagreements about privilege, opportunity, segregation, and testing. But they’re used way less often than the less sexy strategies at the top. Research & media coverage may need to shift if it’s going to reflect what happens on the ground in admissions. We need to make articulation agreements sexier.
- So we’ve seen what’s popular, now let’s see what works. This slide refers to effectiveness in supporting racial diversity, but the rankings don’t change much if we focus on socioeconomic diversity. Note that strategies only got an effectiveness vote if respondents said they had data to prove these strategies were effective. The top three are targeted yield initiatives for racial minorities, test optional admissions (we’ll return to that in a second), and holistic review. Holistic review is actually the only strategy that’s on both the “most popular” and “most effective” list. Here’s hoping that in the future the most popular things are also the most effective things! But I digress… Fortunately, not everyone said they have data to prove everything they do is effective! Percentage plans, prof dev for K-12 educators and guidance counselors, and reducing legacy admissions are far less likely to be deemed effective. Now couple notes – first, remember that test-optional admissions was not a widely used strategy. But IHEs are finding it to be an effective strategy. This is a relatively new policy; more research and broader implementation will help us better understand its effects on diversity. Matt’s skeptical, but whatever. Finally, reducing legacy admissions seems strikingly ineffective, at least in the eyes of our respondents (and their data). This is notable because many of those who call for an end to RCA suggest that simultaneously eliminating legacy admissions will soften or even cancel out the diversity impact. These data cast some doubt on that assumption – few respondents seem to think reducing legacy admissions yields a positive diversity dividend.
- So we’ve talked about what’s happening and what’s working in IHE diversity efforts. Now let’s talk about what’s changed after Fisher, and we’re going to start with admissions factors. The next few slides are going to show a few more bars at a time. We’ve done that because the point here is not to focus so much on individual bars, but rather to explore general patterns of change. Don’t worry, we’ll walk you through it. Note that in order to register, an admissions factor had to move up or down in importance (e.g., moderate to considerable is an increase). We only asked this question of the schools that still use race. Socioeconomic disadvantage was the factor most likely to get a boost, and SAT/ACT and race/ethnicity were the most likely to receive decreased emphasis, which makes sense. But the real story is that very little has changed in the admissions calculus. And really, that shouldn’t be too surprising, as Fisher didn’t impose requirements on what could and could not be considered in admissions. Fisher just emphasized the need to explore options outside the consideration of race in admissions. So, when we switch our focus to examine diversity strategies rather than admissions factors, we see more activity. While it might be tempting to look at the admissions factors results and conclude schools have ignored Fisher, that interpretation wouldn’t be accurate. Also note that the most likely diversity strategies to get a post Fisher boost focus on those familiar areas of recruitment, yield, and holistic review. And yet again, legacy admissions and percentage plans sit farther down the list than the headlines would have us believe.
- So we’ve talked about what’s happening and what’s working in IHE diversity efforts. Now let’s talk about what’s changed after Fisher, and we’re going to start with admissions factors. The next few slides are going to show a few more bars at a time. We’ve done that because the point here is not to focus so much on individual bars, but rather to explore general patterns of change. Don’t worry, we’ll walk you through it. Note that in order to register, an admissions factor had to move up or down in importance (e.g., moderate to considerable is an increase). We only asked this question of the schools that still use race. Socioeconomic disadvantage was the factor most likely to get a boost, and SAT/ACT and race/ethnicity were the most likely to receive decreased emphasis, which makes sense. But the real story is that very little has changed in the admissions calculus. And really, that shouldn’t be too surprising, as Fisher didn’t impose requirements on what could and could not be considered in admissions. Fisher just emphasized the need to explore options outside the consideration of race in admissions. So, when we switch our focus to examine diversity strategies rather than admissions factors, we see more activity. While it might be tempting to look at the admissions factors results and conclude schools have ignored Fisher, that interpretation wouldn’t be accurate. Also note that the most likely diversity strategies to get a post Fisher boost focus on those familiar areas of recruitment, yield, and holistic review. And yet again, legacy admissions and percentage plans sit farther down the list than the headlines would have us believe.
- Not every institution uses race in admissions – the majority don’t. These schools might offer us a preview of a world without RCA. So what do they emphasize? What applicant traits do they value? What gets “considerable importance”? Their top 4 factors are all conventional academic indicators – grades, test scores, and high-school course-taking. You can see in the graph (and it’s fairly striking) that after the top 4, other factors’ importance tails off. That’s where you’ll find personal qualities like grit, leadership, diversity, and socioeconomic disadvantage, which is way over on the right. This contradicts a popular narrative that schools who don’t use race instead turn to more creative, more progressive, less divisive diversity tools. We see about 1 in 20 schools who don’t use race instead placing considerable emphasis on socioeconomic disadvantage. That doesn’t bode well for the prospects of racial diversity by alternate means. This lesson emerges elsewhere in our data…next slide
- We also took a look at the use of other diversity strategies for the schools that do not consider race. Again the point here is not to focus on individual strategies, but to ask ourselves – do the schools that consider race in admissions rely less heavily on other diversity strategies? Do they just lean on RCA and forget the rest of this stuff? No. Actually, schools that use race in admissions are more likely to also use other diversity strategies. The point here is that race-conscious and race-neutral diversity tools can and do coexist. It isn’t either/or; both are critical.
- We now know a little more about who’s pursuing which diversity strategies and how all that has changed after Fisher. But given that the case is still in play and more lawsuits are coming, it’s important to understand where institutions are getting their information. We asked the schools who still use race; the answers vary a bit, and those patterns are worth exploring. For the respondents who were “very familiar” versus just “familiar” with Fisher requirements, we don’t see too many differences across sources of guidance. The “familiar” crowd was a bit less likely to consult general counsel or USED. But for the respondents who were only “somewhat familiar” more striking differences emerge. These respondents were much less likely to consult general counsel, USED, or peer institutions. We cannot claim causality, but this suggests to us it will be important for USED to publish Fisher (and other) guidance and advertise it widely, and for networks of peer institutions to be established so that schools that need information will be able to find it. One last note on media coverage – it’s widely consulted, and not all media outlets are created equal so it’s possible schools are getting good information from credible sources. But this underscores the critical role journalists will play and how important it is that they accurately report on legal developments that may (or may not) affect RCA.
- NOTE: “Effects of bans” means the effects of admissions strategies (e.g., percent plans) on diversity outcomes following a ban on RCA, while “how to assess” means methodological guidance for estimating the isolated impact of a given RN strategy on campus diversity. So “effects of bans” is what the best research says, and “how to assess” is how you can do your own research. Selective publics are most interested in critical mass – not surprising, as this issue has surfaced in multiple cases before the Supreme Court, and it has yet to be fully resolved Selective privates are different – they’re more interested in the educational impacts of diversity. That’ll also probably be an important feature of court cases to come, but there is already substantial research out there on this topic (see UCLA CRP). Perhaps it isn’t being communicated well. This may represent an opportunity to strengthen research-to-practice efforts. In general, less selective schools are a little less interested in any of this research and guidance – BUT – less selective schools are still, in large numbers, indicating interest in more information. This underscores a central point. Research on diversity, RCA, and RN alternatives is valued across the selectivity spectrum.