“These
are the times that try men’s souls.”
Thomas Paine wrote those words, using the pseudonym Common Sense, in the winter of 1776 during a particularly bleak
time in the American struggle for independence, but the quote (with the coeducational
addition of “and women’s”) could very easily have come from a college
admissions dean or college counselor in the fall of 2013 using the pseudonym Common App.
It’s
been an interesting fall in the college admissions world, thanks to the Common
Application’s rollout of CA4. The myriad
of technological issues associated with the new CA version has created
headaches and increased stress for colleges, counselors, and students. At the NACAC conference in Toronto I left the
session where I had presented to encounter a line running the length of the
Convention Center waiting to get into an adjacent room for the next session. For a moment I was jealous that another
session would be more of a draw than mine until I realized that the line was
for a session devoted to Common App issues.
There
are a couple of occupational hazards associated with writing about ethics. There is a fine line between being a
moralist, someone concerned only about the behavior of others, and an ethicist,
someone concerned about the ethical implications of his or her own
behavior. In addition, it is easy to see
the glass as always half empty, to focus only on what is missing or what is
flawed. I am aware that I am prone to both,
which is why both as an ethicist and as a college counselor I strive to be an
asker of questions rather than a provider of answers.
That
being said, I have to admit that I have been generally proud of the way our
profession has handled the CA4 fiasco (I don’t think that’s too strong a word)
this fall. If it is true that the
measure of an individual’s character is how one deals with adversity, it is
also true for corporate entities such as professions. We show our true colors in tough times, and
this fall we have largely kept our exasperation to ourselves, kept the sniping
and finger-pointing to a minimum, and kept our focus on how to make the best of
a bad situation. That’s stoic at worst,
and heroic at best.
If
we need any excuse to pat ourselves on the back, all we need to do is look at
the parallel universe inhabited by the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. The similarities between CA4 and
Healthcare.gov have been striking, with both being hyped, “new and improved”
product launches that have demonstrated the limitations and even dangers of
reliance on technology. I can’t be the
only one who has joked about both being designed by the same IT people.
But
whereas the incompetent rollout of Obamacare has been made worse by those who
have done their best to sabotage implementation by filibustering, defunding,
and making political hay out of the problems,
most of us have bitten our tongues, trusted that the folks running
Common App were trying their best to make it work, and focused on helping
students navigate the new system. A
number of colleges extended early deadlines (which they should have, following
the ethical principle that you shouldn’t punish someone for something they can’t
control). To my knowledge, no one in our
profession has called for closing down the college admissions process because
of concerns about CA4. Of course, being
more functional and professional than Congress is a low bar to clear and not
much to be proud about.
What
are the bigger lessons to learn from CA4?
One is that “new and improved” technology may be new, but it’s not
necessarily improved. Technology makes
our lives easier—except when it doesn’t.
We take the benefits of technology for granted, but the launch of both
CA4 and Healthcare.gov show the importance of having an infrastructure in place
that has been fully tested and vetted.
On
a related note, this fall has been a psychological boost for those of us who
are slow to adopt the latest technology.
My office went into the fall intending to move to electronic submission
of school documents, but decided we weren’t ready to pull the trigger until
some internal issues were resolved. Within
a couple of weeks our decision to submit using paper had moved us from “behind
the times” to “cutting edge.”
The
larger question is whether power over the college admissions process is being
concentrated in the hands of the few.
Common App, the College Board, and Naviance are an oligarchy with
enormous control over the college application process. Is that desirable? None of them are evil--well, maybe the
College Board (A JOKE!)—but does having power in the hands of a few vendors and
corporations/membership organizations serve the public? Eric Hoover has a fascinating article on the
growth of the Common App to over 500 members in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education.
The
problems with the Common App this fall also should lead us to revisit the
question that should always be on our mind when we design the application
process. What are we trying to
accomplish? Are changes in deadlines and
requirements driven by convenience for us or because they make the process
better for students? Does the college
admissions calendar and process encourage students to make thoughtful decisions
about their futures? The Common Application
was originally designed to make it easier for students to apply to multiple colleges,
but have we made it too easy? Does Common
App lead students to apply to more schools?
Has Common App become a brand, a means for colleges to increase
application numbers, rather than a tool to benefit students? Is applying to college a Goldilocks process,
neither too easy nor too hard?
P.S. In my previous post I made a reference to “games
played in the name of enrollment management.”
Shortly after I published it, I received an e-mail from Jon Boeckenstedt
at DePaul objecting to my generalizing about enrollment management as if must
be associated with questionable practices.
It is a point that Jon (whom I respect greatly) has made in his own
writing, and he’s right. Enrollment
management is a neutral concept, a positive force for colleges and
universities, and the kinds of games I was objecting to are products of forces
independent from enrollment management. I thank Jon for calling me out privately and gracefully,
and apologize for the broad-brush portrayal.
My larger point was that all of us are hurt whenever any of us engage in
practices that damage public trust in what we do, and my generalization might
prove that point.