BEYOND THE NUMBERS: THE NATIONAL TRENDS TOWARD HOLISTIC ADMISSIONS CSU Professional Development Institute January 6, 2010

A brief history of public college admissions  1940s-1960s: GI Bill, Affirmative Action  1970s-1980s: enrollment limit pressures, evolution of “EOP” admissions programs  1990s: Further selectivity, Anti-affirmative action, EOPs shut down  2000s: comprehensive/holistic review takes off

National factors in college admission  Number of available students is in flux  Distribution of students is changing in regard to:  Race/ethnicity  Socioeconomic status  Geographic location  National imperatives to educate/innovate

What it means to review holistically  Take “non-traditional factors” into account, not just grades, scores and curriculum minimums  Consider that different students bring different strengths to the class, some of which are not yet evident  Assess the difference between a student’s choices and opportunities  Select a person, not just a student  As much about recruitment as selection

Misconceptions about holistic review…  …makes admission easier  …makes admission harder  …is a back door for Affirmative Action  …is non-predictive  …is only for highly selective colleges

What are “the right” approaches?  Admit students based on future potential, not just past performance  Carry out a system that is as consistent as possible  Recognize that “objectivity” is elusive at best  Shape a class to fit the institution’s mission  Don’t penalize students for things they cannot control  Know the student’s “local context”  Assess and refine process each year

What are grades worth?  Weighting as help vs. hindrance  Connecting to performance at college  Class rank often helps  Grading practices always reflect a school’s culture, not just its rigor  Are grades given out equitably and fairly?

What are test scores worth?  Standardization is generally a good thing  What do these tests measure?  Are tests inequitable, or do they simply illustrate inequities? Sent scores to CSU Enrolled at CSU

SES and first-generation by race Race/ethnicity% Pell eligible% First-gen attend% both African-American44%30%19% Asian-American33%25%14% Hispanic/Latino41%31%23% Native American34%15%7% Not Indicated15%11%4% Pacific Islander43%20%13% White14%7%2% Total/Average20%15%7% University of Washington resident enrolls, 2007

Education in the Local Context (ELC)  What is the average % of students on FRL at Colorado high schools?  How many are over 50%?  How many Colorado high schools offer an IB program?  How many offer AP courses?  How many of those offer only five or fewer sections of AP?

ELC variance among CO high schools # of AP Sections offered# of high schoolsAverage % FRL % % % % % % High schools with 41+ sections of AP: Smoky Hill High School (41)23% Eaglecrest High School (45)22% Grandview High School (52)11% Cherry Creek High School (66)6%

A few examples: California  Proposition 209 (1996)  Variations among the ten campuses  Essays but also extensive use of scores  In very selective system, ELC of critical importance

University of Michigan  Subject of Supreme Court case (2006)  “points” system specifically barred  Drawing on external data for ELC

University of Washington  Initiative 200 (1998)  First used a comprehensive review then went to a more “true” holistic one  Considers long-term school performance data for ELC

Oregon State University  Institutional Imperative  Based on the research of William Sedlacek, professor at the University of Maryland  Insight Resume©- assesses non-cognitive attributes To read more:

Oregon State Results  Using the Insight Resume © has allowed students with different learning styles to demonstrate their potential, which often is not the case with traditional admission criteria.  It has provided valuable information for use in academic advising.  Academic profile has increased slightly, retention rates have gone up and minority enrollment has increased.

Overview- CSU Approach  Emphasis on the high school curriculum- both the number of courses completed and the academic rigor of those courses.  Academic preparation may take several forms; students contribute to the campus community in a variety of ways.  The university has deemed non-academic factors, personal characteristics and individual experiences as important and positive for the campus community.  Committed to meeting state requirements as set forth by CCHE.

Process- CSU Approach  Each applicant receives a holistic review by one or more CSU admissions staff members who assess academic rigor and performance and personal qualities.  Applicants who meet the Admissions Standards are considered priority candidates for admission.  Applicants who do not meet the priority consideration requirements are still considered for admission; files are reviewed by an admissions committee.

Thank you for attending!  Jim Rawlins –  Renee Orlick –