I am always looking for variety in the issues and topics I write about for ECA. Recently I have felt like I spent far too much time digging into admission-related court cases. I am not a lawyer, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in recent memory, so trying to plough through arcane legalese gets tricky–and old.
The Potomac and Chesapeake Association for College Admission Counseling (or PCACAC, pronounced “pack-ack”) produces a monthly educational offering called Ethical Navigation. Ethical Navigation presents a case study to shed light on the principles embodied in NACAC’s Guide to Ethical Practice in College Admission (or GEPCA). The series was created by my friend (and loyal ECA reader) Jake Talmage, the Director of College Counseling at St. Paul’s School for Boys in Baltimore. Jake is a Past President of PCACAC as well as a former chair of its Admission Practices committee.
The February case study for Ethical Navigation (the March edition is now out) was devised by Jake in conjunction with PCACAC’s current AP chair, Kathleen Voss from Georgia Tech. It focused on the evolution of NACAC’s process for adjudicating ethical issues.
NACAC was founded back in the 1930s by a group of colleges in the Midwest, and concerns about ethical practices were raised as early as the organization’s second meeting. There were three original issues of concern. From the beginning NACAC asserted that admission officers should be seen as counselors rather than salesmen or recruiters, not compensated on a per head basis. The other two original ethical concerns are interesting. One was how college day /night events at high schools should be conducted, and the other was trying to rein in high schools from promoting need-based financial aid received by their students as honor or merit scholarships.
Like many professional associations, NACAC had a code of ethics, the Statement of Principles of Good Practice (SPGP). Unlike many other organizations where ethics codes were aspirational, NACAC enforced the SPGP through its national and affiliate AP committees.
That ultimately got NACAC into trouble. In 2017 I was part of a task force appointed by NACAC to develop a document to replace the SPGP to reflect the changing college admission landscape. The process to develop the new document was an example of NACAC at its best, with transparency and opportunities for member feedback throughout, and the membership ultimately passed the new document unanimously.
Shortly afterward NACAC received notice that it was being investigated by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ claimed that several provisions in the new code, including NACAC’s prohibition on poaching students who were committed to or enrolled at another institution, constituted restraint of trade on colleges. It is not clear whether the investigation was prompted by a college not wanting to play by the rules or a DOJ employee disgruntled over their child’s college admission experience. Ultimately the issue for the DOJ wasn’t the prohibition on poaching as much as the attempt to police the ethical code. Rather than put its existence in jeopardy by going to court, NACAC ultimately entered into a consent decree, and made its ethical principles best practices rather than mandatory..
That leads to this month’s Ethical Navigation case study. Val Heart from Cupid College (pun names are a regular feature), the chair of her regional organization’s Admission Practices Committee, is contacted by her friend Phil from Punxsutawney Prep. One of his students has received an email from a college promising first choice in campus housing if the student deposits by Presidents’ Day. Phil wants to file a complaint over the college’s practices.
As the discussion for the case study makes clear, the switch from mandatory to best practices has been accompanied by a switch in the role of Admission Practices from enforcement to education. There is no longer a mechanism for filing complaints.
I happen to think that’s unfortunate. Even if NACAC can no longer enforce its ethical code, that doesn’t mean that the NACAC Admission Practices Committee, as part of its educational mission, shouldn’t reach out to colleges whose practices are questionable. Even in the days of enforcement and formal complaints, most issues were resolved amiably. NACAC should stand up for its principles and reach out to educate colleges whose practices are ethically questionable even if it can’t enforce its code.
While the Ethical Navigation scenario is focused on the role that NACAC and its affiliates’ Admission Practices play, for the purposes of this post I am more interested in the ethical issues related to the case study itself. What are the issues in this case?
The fundamental ethical principle here is that students should have the right to make a college choice free from manipulation and coercion, and that requires that they not be asked to make an enrollment deposit until they have received decisions from all of their college options. That principle underlies the traditional May 1 National Candidates Reply Date, designed to place some structure in place to protect students. Thankfully most colleges and universities continue to respect May 1.
The case study does not specify whether the college is setting Presidents’ Day as an enrollment deadline or just providing first choice access to housing on campus as an incentive to deposit early. The advice given to counselor Phil from Punxsutawney Prep to encourage the student to ask for an extension suggests the former.
Does that make a difference? I would argue not. In the wake of the DOJ investigation colleges have not moved to earlier deadlines, but NACAC’s prohibition on enrollment incentives was one of the things cited by the DOJ as restraining colleges’ ability to recruit students. Some colleges have no problem with offering preferences in housing or parking or course registration, but those are unquestionably coercive, warning not so subtly, “If you don’t order now…” The college might be on slightly firmer ground if it makes deposits refundable until May 1.
Is the college acting ethically? If you accept as a definition of ethics I have attributed to Kant (and Google has attributed to me), “Ethics begins where self-interest ends,” then the answer is no. The offer is first and foremost based in institutional self-interest, not in the best interest of the student.
How should counselor Phil at Punxsutawney Prep react to this situation when there is no longer a formal complaint procedure? Ethical Navigation suggests that Phil give the student a copy of GEPCA and encourage them to contact the college to request an extension. I agree that encouraging the student to take the lead is desirable, good preparation for navigating the bureaucracy the student is likely to encounter once on campus.
Ethical Navigation also states that Phil might reach out to the college “if he felt it was prudent.” I would go a step further. As a counselor I would reach out to the college to support the student and call out the college for putting students in a difficult position with this offer. I have only had to do this a handful of times in my career, but righteous indignation can be an effective tool in pointing out practices that are unfair or manipulative.
There is one other issue here, and that involves what a deposit means in cases like this. As a counselor I have always advised students that an enrollment deposit should be taken seriously, and the conventional wisdom in college admission is that there is no greater sin than double depositing. But the actions of the college here call that into question.
The relationship between student and college in the admission process should be based on trust and truthfulness, and incentivizing or requiring a student to deposit earlier than they are ready damages that trust. In my opinion students are within their rights to deposit to hold their housing option and then deposit elsewhere. Unfortunately that disadvantages students who don’t have the wherewithal to lose a deposit, and that raises fairness concerns.
Let’s acknowledge that this case study is not purely hypothetical. There are universities that won’t allow a student to apply for on-campus housing until they submit an enrollment deposit, with housing filling up long before May 1.
A colleague once said that in any interaction with a student someone needs to be the adult in the room. The college admission process is confusing at best and mysterious at worst. Adults in the admission process should also be the adults in the room.