Tag: admissions

Why Did College Board End Best Admissions Product? (opinion)

Earlier this month, College Board announced its decision to kill Landscape, a race-neutral tool that allowed admissions readers to better understand a student’s context for opportunity. After an awkward 2019 rollout as the “Adversity Score,” Landscape gradually gained traction in many selective admissions offices. Among other items, the dashboard provided information on the applicant’s high school, including the economic makeup of their high school class, participation trends for Advanced Placement courses and the school’s percentile SAT scores, as well as information about the local community.

Landscape was one of the more extensively studied interventions in the world of college admissions, reflecting how providing more information about an applicant’s circumstances can boost the likelihood of a low-income student being admitted. Admissions officers lack high-quality, detailed information on the high school environment for an estimated 25 percent of applicants, a trend that disproportionately disadvantages low-income students. Landscape helped fill that critical gap.

While not every admissions office used it, Landscape was fairly popular within pockets of the admissions community, as it provided a more standardized, consistent way for admissions readers to understand an applicant’s environment. So why did College Board decide to ax it? In its statement on the decision, College Board noted that “federal and state policy continues to evolve around how institutions use demographic and geographic information in admissions.” The statement seems to be referring to the Trump administration’s nonbinding guidance that institutions should not use geographic targeting as a proxy for race in admissions.

If College Board was worried that somehow people were using the tool as a proxy for race (and they weren’t), well, it wasn’t a very good one. In the most comprehensive study of Landscape being used on the ground, researchers found that it didn’t do anything to increase racial/ethnic diversity in admissions. Things are different when it comes to economic diversity. Use of Landscape is linked with a boost in the likelihood of admission for low-income students. As such, it was a helpful tool given the continued underrepresentation of low-income students at selective institutions.

Still, no study to date found that Landscape had any effect on racial/ethnic diversity. The findings are unsurprising. After all, Landscape was, to quote College Board, “intentionally developed without the use or consideration of data on race or ethnicity.” If you look at the laundry list of items included in Landscape, absent are items like the racial/ethnic demographics of the high school, neighborhood or community.

While race and class are correlated, they certainly aren’t interchangeable. Admissions officers weren’t using Landscape as a proxy for race; they were using it to compare a student’s SAT score or AP course load to those of their high school classmates. Ivy League institutions that have gone back to requiring SAT/ACT scores have stressed the importance of evaluating test scores in the student’s high school context. Eliminating Landscape makes it harder to do so.

An important consideration: Even if using Landscape were linked with increased racial/ethnic diversity, its usage would not violate the law. The Supreme Court recently declined to hear the case Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board. In declining to hear the case, the court has likely issued a tacit blessing on race-neutral methods to advance diversity in admissions. The decision leaves the Fourth Circuit opinion, which affirmed the race-neutral admissions policy used to boost diversity at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, intact.

The court also recognized the validity of race-neutral methods to pursue diversity in the 1989 case J.A. Croson v. City of Richmond. In a concurring opinion filed in Students for Fair Admission (SFFA) v. Harvard, Justice Brett Kavanaugh quoted Justice Antonin Scalia’s words from Croson: “And governments and universities still ‘can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.’”

College Board’s decision to ditch Landscape sends an incredibly problematic message: that tools to pursue diversity, even economic diversity, aren’t worth defending due to the fear of litigation. If a giant like College Board won’t stand behind its own perfectly legal effort to support diversity, what kind of message does that send? Regardless, colleges and universities need to remember their commitments to diversity, both racial and economic. Yes, post-SFFA, race-conscious admissions has been considerably restricted. Still, despite the bluster of the Trump administration, most tools commonly used to expand access remain legal.

The decision to kill Landscape is incredibly disappointing, both pragmatically and symbolically. It’s a loss for efforts to broaden economic diversity at elite institutions, yet another casualty in the Trump administration’s assault on diversity. Even if the College Board has decided to abandon Landscape, institutions must not forget their obligations to make higher education more accessible to low-income students of all races and ethnicities.

Source link

September 22, 2025
Angel Pérez Book Outlines Advice for Admissions Leaders

It’s a trying time to be an admissions dean.

More than two years after the Supreme Court ruled that colleges and universities could no longer consider race in admissions decisions, the Trump administration has launched a crusade to ensure institutions are abiding by that decision. Government officials have demanded colleges submit detailed data on the racial makeup of their admitted students, cast suspicion on so-called proxies for race in the admissions process and required some universities to reform their admissions practices—without specifying what, exactly, needed changing. (The administration has also used the decision as justification to call for the cancellation of other diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, from scholarships to student lounges.)

Then again, according to Angel Pérez, a longtime admissions dean and the CEO of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, it’s never not a trying time to be an admissions dean.

Hence the title of his forthcoming book, The Hottest Seat on Campus (Harvard Education Press), which he admits freely to have borrowed, albeit subconsciously, from a 2014 Chronicle of Higher Education feature. Admissions deans are incredibly visible, he said in a recent interview with Inside Higher Ed; their failures and successes are known to all—and have consequences well beyond their own offices.

Now, as these leaders grapple with the new challenges the Trump administration has brought—and as the first day of NACAC’s annual conference kicks off in Columbus, Ohio—Pérez hopes his book, which is built upon interviews with dozens of admissions leaders from across the country, will prove an important resource for others struggling to navigate the hot seat. Inside Higher Ed spoke with him over the phone about his advice for admissions deans and the changing landscape of higher education.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: I wanted to start off by asking about your personal story. What made you interested in holding an admissions role yourself?

A: I think my story is actually very typical of most people who go into the admissions profession. I still call myself an accidental admissions dean—this is not what I was supposed to be doing for a living.

So many people go into the admissions profession by actually being involved on their college campus, as was I. I was involved in student activities, I was a residence hall director,  I dabbled in tour guiding.  The dean of students at Skidmore [College], Dean Joe Tolliver, who has now retired but is still very active in student affairs, said to me, “You’d be really great in higher education. You should consider a job in higher education.” And to be honest, I didn’t think that those were real jobs, on a college campus. So, I didn’t take it very seriously until someone in the admissions office, Roslyn Estrada, said to me, “Angel, there’s going to be an opening in the admissions office. You should apply. You’d be really good.”

And eventually I said yes to applying because I thought I would go and do that for one year until I found a real job. And many, many years later, here I am, and [I am] delighted that I took that calling.

So, it was really the taps on the shoulders. But I will say—it’s one of the reasons I’ve written the book—that I think we need to change that paradigm and I think we need to change that pathway. I want to create much more intentional pathways into the profession and I want to create much more intentional pathways into leadership.

Q: What would that look like? Do you guys have any initiatives currently underway that are trying to create more intentional pathways?

A: [NACAC has] launched a program called NEXT, where we work with admissions counselors who are one to three years in to basically help them understand what growth in the profession can look like, what a pathway can look like. 

The second thing is that, thanks to the support of Strada Education Foundation, we are actually going to be launching a brand new dean’s fellowship, starting in 2026. This is in order to support brand-new deans who are moving into these chairs and cultivate them into leadership. In the book, in the spirit of me being the accidental dean, I write about the fact that one day I was the director of admissions, and the next day, my boss retired and said to me, “The president would like to speak to you.” And then, all of a sudden, I was the vice president for enrollment, and my job was so fundamentally different. That happens to so many people—it’s kind of like sink or swim. What we want to do at NACAC in the future is create much more intentional leadership growth for deans.

One thing that I aspire to do—we’re not there yet; I’m still looking for the funding—is actually to create a program where those tour guides on college campuses and student interviewers, I would like to actually create a NACAC fellowship for them to learn about what it’s like to go into the profession, to give them a mentor as they’re applying for their first job out of college, into the admissions profession, and then make them a part of the NACAC community.

Q: I enjoyed the section of the book where you were talking about admissions deans as storytellers. Could you describe how that storyteller role differs from others on campus and also how effective storytelling translates to outcomes for the admissions office?

A: I always have believed that that admissions deans are chief storytellers of an institution. The reason I say that is because they have such a large constituency. They’re not just telling stories on their campus; they’re also telling the story of the institution outside of campus, right? They’re talking to high school counselors. They’re talking to students. They’re talking to people like you, for example, in the media who are trying to understand the complex admissions world that we have built.

What I have seen in my experience is that so many admissions deans fail in the role because they did not embrace the role of storytelling. A big part of their job is to actually educate the community about the challenges of enrollment, to educate the community about the fact that enrollment is all about trade-offs; in the environment that we’re living in, everybody’s not going to get what they want on campus.

Q: You describe navigating admissions during COVID-19 and the bungled FAFSA rollout of 2024. What takeaways from those two events have stuck with you going forward?

A: These are really the messages that I took away from the teams that I interviewed. One is, during both of those crises—but I would argue any crisis—the importance of communication. I mean, we were just talking about storytelling, right? The importance of bringing your staff along, your constituents, making sure that people are feeling informed, even during incredible uncertainty.  We’re living that again right now, so the book is very timely.

I think the other thing that stands out for me—something that, again, was highlighted through these amazing deans I interviewed in the book—is the importance of building teams and making sure that you rely on those team members and not carry the weight of leading in crisis by yourself. I think the leaders who crashed and burned during COVID, during the FAFSA debacle and during all of the different crises that we face, these are individuals who try to do it all by themselves. The reality of the matter is none of us can do it by ourselves. If you can put together a really diverse team who thinks differently, who complements each other in different diverse ways, you’re going to be set up for a lot more success. And obviously empowering them is going to be a big part of that as well.

Q: On a similar note, this book was written before the series of crises that we’re going through with the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education. Is there any piece of advice you would add to the book if you could about navigating this current moment?

A: I think so much of the advice [in the book] actually is very much translatable to what’s happening today. The difference is, the level of change is coming so much faster than ever before, even faster than COVID, even faster than FAFSA, because every day the Trump administration could say something that fundamentally upends how we do our work. I think that’s what’s different.

So if I could have a whole other chapter in the book, I would actually focus on how to lead in an era of uncertainty, and the skill sets that you need, personal and professional, to actually navigate change that’s coming faster than ever.

One of the quotes [that] I use in every presentation I do right now is from Justin Trudeau, and this quote just blows me away. He said it at the World Economic Forum: “The pace of change has never been this fast and it will never be this slow again.” To me, that is our new reality. And so I think I would focus a lot on, how do you keep organizations stable when the news cycle is changing every single day?

The other thing that I would focus on is actually how to be unresponsive. What I mean by that is oftentimes we’re so wired to jump at the crisis of the day. One of the things the dean said to me really recently last week was “You know what? Every time news comes out now, I just sit and I wait, because it might be different tomorrow.” And so there’s also this skill set that I think people need to build of not overreacting when the news cycle is breaking every single day. It’s tough. We’re living in tough times.

Q: If you could go back in time to when you were first starting in admissions, what is one piece of advice that you would give yourself, either from the book or just off the dome?

A: I think I would say to myself, “Enjoy this moment.” And the reason I would say that is because so many young admissions counselors are so eager to rise in the ranks very quickly. As you saw in the book, I talk about it: The faster you rise up the ranks, it becomes a lot messier and murkier and sometimes painful. As a dean, there were many more days that I longed for the simplicity of being on the road, recruiting students, spending my days in high schools and then going back home and reading applications from kids all over the world. It was such a beautiful job with not a ton of pressure.

But then, obviously, I was an eager beaver, and I climbed the ranks actually very quickly;  I became a dean in my early 30s. I now wish that I had said to myself, “Slow down, enjoy this moment, and don’t be too quick to rise, because those pressures are going to be very, very different.”

Source link

September 18, 2025
Kamehameha Schools’ Admission Policies May Face Legal Challenge – The 74

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

A conservative mainland group whose lawsuit against Harvard University ended affirmative action in college admissions is now building support in Hawaiʻi to take on Kamehameha Schools’ policies that give preference to Native Hawaiian students.

Students for Fair Admissions, based in Virginia, recently launched the website KamehamehaNotFair.org. It says that the admission preference “is so strong that it is essentially impossible for a non-Native Hawaiian student to be admitted to Kamehameha.”

“We believe that focus on ancestry, rather than merit or need, is neither fair nor legal, and we are committed to ending Kamehameha’s unlawful admissions policies in court,” the website says.

Kamehameha’s Board of Trustees and CEO Jack Wong said in a written statement that the school expected the policy would be challenged. The institution — a private school established through the estate of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop to educate Hawaiians — successfully defended its admission policy in a series of lawsuits in the early 2000s. The trustees and Wong promised to do so again.

“We are confident that our policy aligns with established law, and we will prevail,” the statement said.

The campaign also drew criticism from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, established in the late 1970s for the betterment of Native Hawaiians. OHA’s Board of Trustees called it an “attack on the right of Native Hawaiians to care for our own, on our own terms.”

“These attacks are not new — but they are escalating,” the trustees said in a written statement. “They aim to dismantle the hard-won protections that enable our people to heal, rise, and chart our future.”

Several groups have tried and failed in the past to overturn Kamehameha’s admissions policy. Federal courts, siding with Kamehameha, have ruled that giving preference to Native Hawaiians helps alleviate historical injustices they faced after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893.

In the 2006 decision upholding Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policy, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel pointed to longstanding challenges Native Hawaiian students have faced in schools.

“It is clear that a manifest imbalance exists in the K-12 educational arena in the state of Hawaiʻi, with Native Hawaiians falling at the bottom of the spectrum in almost all areas of educational progress and success,” Judge Susan Graber wrote in the majority opinion.

These disparities persist. Just over a third of Native Hawaiian students in public schools were proficient in reading in 2024, compared to 52% of students statewide. Less than a quarter of Native Hawaiian students were proficient in math.

The state education department has also fallen short of providing families with adequate access to Hawaiian language immersion programs, according to two lawsuits filed against the department this summer. The Hawaiian immersion programs are open to all students, not just those of Hawaiian ancestry.

Moses Haia III, a lawyer and former director of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp., said that improving outcomes for Hawaiian students is Kamehameha’s primary reason for existing. He said this new challenge appears to be based on ignorance of Hawaiʻi’s history.

“Ultimately, what I see is these people being uneducated,” Haia said of the mainland group. “Not knowing the history of Hawaiʻi, not knowing the reasons for Kamehameha’s existence, and just once again trying to push Hawaiians into this box… and wanting to be on top.”

Past Challenges

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that private schools can’t discriminate based on race in a case called Runyon v. McCrary, which involved Black school students trying to gain admission to private schools that had yet to integrate non-white students.

An anonymous student sued Kamehameha in 2003, invoking the 1976 ruling and alleging that the school’s policy of giving preference to Hawaiian children was discriminatory. The case eventually landed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A majority of the appeals court judges sided with Kamehameha. They used a part of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination in the workplace as a legal framework for looking at the admissions policy.

Judge Graber wrote that a preference for Native Hawaiian students “serves a legitimate remedial purpose by addressing the socioeconomic and educational disadvantages facing Native Hawaiians, producing Native Hawaiian leadership for community involvement, and revitalizing Native Hawaiian culture, thereby remedying current manifest imbalances resulting from the influx of western civilization.”

But it was a narrow victory for Kamehameha, an 8-to-7 vote. Dissenting judges wrote that admitting mostly Hawaiian students didn’t create a diverse student body; others said that the policy was clearly discriminatory.

The anonymous student appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But Kamehameha entered a $7 million settlement with the student and their mother before the court decided whether to take up the case.

While the settlement safeguarded the admission policy from a ruling by the nation’s highest court it also meant lawyers punted the issue.

Another group of anonymous students challenged the admissions policy a few years later and again took that case to the Supreme Court. But the court declined to take up that case in 2011.

Students for Fair Admissions previously brought two landmark cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, arguing that the two schools’ race-conscious admissions policies discriminated against Asian American and white applicants. The Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that colleges cannot use race as a factor in their admissions, although the decision didn’t specify what this could mean for K-12 schools.

Last fall, the number of Black students enrolled at both universities fell, although some researchers cautioned that colleges might not see the full impact of the Supreme Court ruling until a few admissions cycles have passed.

The challenge to Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policies comes amid national pushback on efforts to promote diversity in schools. In February, the U.S. Department of Education said any colleges and K-12 schools using race-based practices in hiring and admissions could lose federal funding, although a court subsequently prevented the department from enforcing those requirements.

Kamehameha receives no funding from the federal government, according to its tax filings. The school, which is the state’s largest private landowner, has assets valued at about $15 billion.

This story was originally published on Honolulu Civil Beat.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Source link

September 6, 2025
Free College Admissions Counseling for Cancer Survivors

Anthony Gallonio has spent most of his career working in higher education admissions and financial aid, watching young people select, apply to and enroll in colleges. But when his daughter Grace received a cancer diagnosis 14 years ago, when she was a year old, he realized there was an underserved group of teens who needed support in college exploration: cancer patients.

“I remember looking at these kids coming in [to the hospital] thinking, ‘How are they doing it?’” Gallonio said. “Their lives are still going on, high school is taking place, college is still in the future. We know one missed application or one missed form or one missed deadline could mean the difference between getting into a school or not or getting tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships or not.”

In 2011, Gallonio established the National GRACE Foundation, a nonprofit that offers free information and advice on higher education for families of young people who survived childhood cancer. The group is supported by volunteers across the country who work in higher ed, illuminating the hidden curriculum to encourage student success.

The background: GRACE, named after Gallonio’s daughter and short for Growing, Recovering and Achieving a College Education, is designed to break down barriers to enrollment for childhood cancer survivors and support parents and caregivers navigating college applications and beyond.

“The whole goal has been to take the stress out of the college admissions and financial aid process for families who have a lot of stress going on and try to help them avoid the mistakes that I have seen over the years,” Gallonio said.

A 2019 study of 16,700 childhood cancer survivors found that about half graduated from college; those reporting chronic conditions were even less likely to complete a degree by age 25.

Many pediatric cancer survivors Gallonio works with aspire to careers in helping roles, including in health care, social services or research, he said. Getting into and through college is just the first step in that journey.

How it works: GRACE provides a range of services, including offering advice on financial aid, tracking upcoming deadlines, explaining confusing terminology or jargon, and highlighting various colleges and programs that might be a good fit for the student. A majority of the students and parents come from low- or middle-income families, and they often find the foundation through word of mouth or through partnerships with hospitals.

“I think about our services in the way that a family might hire college consultants, but we do it all for free,” Gallonio said. “That’s the group that we’re seeing—those folks who need help but also don’t have necessarily the resources to pay for [a consultant].”

GRACE volunteers also provide in-person and webinar events for parents and caregivers on topics like college costs and scholarships.

Once students are enrolled, GRACE supports their persistence by working as a liaison between institutions and families. They might appeal for more financial aid, for instance, or advocate for student supports through disability services offices. “We know what [families] are going through, we know what these school are going through, we kind of speak their language,” Gallonio said.

The organization has up to 30 volunteers at any point in the academic year, but “we are always looking for volunteers in the higher ed landscape—anywhere in the country, at any type of institution,” to provide counseling to pediatric cancer survivors, Gallonio said.

Building better: Since launching in 2011, GRACE has assisted over 300 young people in their pursuit of a college degree, and Grace, the foundation’s namesake, is “a happy and healthy 15-year-old,” Gallonio said. Families have also secured over $3 million in scholarships through the foundation’s advocacy work.

Olivia Falzone, a rising first-year student at the College of Charleston and cancer survivor, receives the Isabel Helen Farnum Scholarship from the National Grace Foundation.

Anthony Gallonio/National GRACE Foundation

Over the years, GRACE has expanded services beyond the Northeastern U.S., where Gallonio is located, to support prospective students from coast to coast. As the foundation’s reach has grown, so has its perspective on postsecondary education.

Initially, the focus was to help cancer patients have a good shot at a competitive institution. It has since expanded to highlight the value of higher education in any capacity and offer vocational or alternative pathway support as well.

“A lot of it has to do with breaking down that [college] can be done, that it can be affordable,” Gallonio said. “The stories that we hear about debt, about the $90,000 colleges—that’s not every college, and there are colleges in every state that a family can afford to go to.”

Gallonio is considering changing GRACE’s acronym to “Growing, Recovering and Continuing Education,” to reflect the wider range of pathways available to young people.

This fall, GRACE will launch a mobile application and webpage so prospective students and parents can explore colleges and universities’ disability services, careers and trades, financial aid information, and selectivity rates. The app also includes a personalized scholarship search service, allowing individuals to put in their information and receive tailored suggestions for scholarships to apply for.

“We try to make it a one stop,” Gallonio said. “We’re not charging them for usage or anything like that. Hopefully it saves our volunteers and us time.”

We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

Source link

August 27, 2025
More UChicago Ph.D. Programs Will Pause Admissions

More UChicago programs are pausing new Ph.D. admissions for the 2026-27 academic year.

Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu/Getty Images

The University of Chicago’s Arts and Humanities Division is now pausing new Ph.D. student admissions for the 2026–27 academic year across all departments except philosophy and one program within the music department. The move expands on last week’s announcement from the dean that about half of all departments would pause admissions, while the rest would reduce the number of admissions.

The departments that won’t be accepting Ph.D. students now include art history, cinema and media studies, classics, comparative literature, East Asian languages and civilizations, English language and literature, Germanic studies, linguistics, Middle Eastern studies, Romance languages and literatures, Slavic languages and literatures, and South Asian languages and civilizations, plus the music department’s ethnomusicology and history and theory of music programs.

The Social Sciences Division has also announced it will not admit Ph.D. students into four programs in 2026-27: anthropology, political economy, social thought, and conceptual and historical studies of science. The UChicago Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy and Practice had earlier announced it was pausing Ph.D. admissions and the Harris School of Public Policy said it was pausing admissions for the Harris Ph.D. (in public policy studies), the political economy Ph.D. and the master of arts in public policy with certificate in research methods.

The announcements reflect how the deeply indebted university is responding to budget issues. But UChicago is just one of multiple highly selective universities—including Boston University and the University of Pennsylvania—that have announced over the past year that they were freezing or scaling back Ph.D. admissions and programs amid financial pressures and other factors.

UChicago had formed committees of faculty and staff to plan over the summer for changes within the Arts and Humanities Division. But on Aug. 12, division dean Deborah Nelson announced the initial pause, stressing that “this decision is not the recommendation of any committee.”

Then on Wednesday, Nelson wrote a new email, obtained by Inside Higher Ed, announcing a revised plan “based on the strong recommendation of the PhD committee and department chairs.”

“After the announcement last week, I met with all department chairs and consulted with the faculty-led committee on PhD programs,” Nelson wrote. “Nearly all faculty leadership agreed that instead of admitting students to only a select number of departments, they preferred a broader pause for the division so we can spend time this coming year to collectively assess and better navigate the challenges we face.”

A department chair who asked not to be named confirmed to Inside Higher Ed that chairs met with the dean last Friday to discuss the pause, and most department chairs agreed it should be applied throughout the division to allow for more collaborative work during the academic year on the future of Ph.D. education at UChicago.

Nelson also wrote in her Wednesday email that she “heard from many faculty that the initial decision caught them off guard. The timing of my initial announcement about PhD cohorts was partly driven by deadlines to submit information to software platforms that would have made semi-public our decisions to open or close applications to programs. And I wanted to make sure our community knew about these decisions first.”

In an email, a university spokesperson simply said, “As Dean Nelson noted in her email, the decision to revise the plan for PhD admissions in the Arts & Humanities Division for academic year 2026-27 was based on the strong recommendation of the PhD committee and department chairs. Crown, Harris and SSD have also made announcements regarding pauses in PhD admissions for the 2026-2027 academic year.”

Clifford Ando, the Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor of Classics, History and the College, told Inside Higher Ed Thursday that “we easily have the resources to support the humanities without inflicting cuts disproportionate to the humanities’ role in creating the financial crisis.”

“We are in the unique position of being a well-resourced university that has been so reckless with our resources that we now have to make decisions as if we were a poor one,” Ando said.

Source link

August 21, 2025
New Data Highlights Demographic Shifts in College Admissions Prior to Enrollment

Title: College Enrollment Patterns Are Changing. New Data Show Applicant and Admit Pools Are Too.

Authors: Jason Cohn, Bryan J. Cook, Victoria Nelson

Source: Urban Institute

Since 2020 the world of higher education has changed drastically. Higher education has seen the effects of COVID-19, the end of race-conscious admissions, significant delays in student awards from the new FAFSA, and changing federal and state policy towards DEI.

The Urban Institute, in collaboration with the Association of Undergraduate Education at Research Universities, University of Southern California’s Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice, and in partnership with 18 institutions of higher education aimed to fill data gaps seen in potential shifts in racial demographic profiles of students who applied for, were admitted to, and enrolled in four-year IHEs between 2018-2024.

The data analysis found that trends in applicant, admit, and enrollee profiles varied greatly by race and ethnicity. Despite differences in data trends, all IHEs found an increase in the number of students who chose not to disclose their race or ethnicity in 2024.

The analysis found substantial changes to Black applicant, admit, and enrollee data. Among Black students at selective institutions (defined by an acceptance rate of below 50 percent) there were differences between 2023 and 2024 of the share of applicants (8.3 percent to 8.7 percent) and admits (6.6 percent to 5.9 percent). This is contrasted further due to the differences between the share of Black applicants and admits between 2021 to 2023, which stayed relatively consistent.

The analysis took note of a change in trends for White students as well. White students represented the only student group that consistently made up a larger share of admits than applicants (six to nine percentage points larger); despite the fact that White students demonstrated a consistent decrease in applicant, admit, and enrollee groups since 2018.

The analysis concludes that ultimately more data is needed at every point in the college admissions process. Enrollment data gives limited insight into the very end of the process and if more data is gathered throughout a student’s journey to college, then we can better grasp how all different types of students are interacting with higher education.

Read the full report here.

—Harper Davis

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

Source link

August 18, 2025
Experts knock new Trump plan to collect college admissions data

President Donald Trump wants to collect more admissions data from colleges and universities to make sure they’re complying with a 2023 Supreme Court decision that ended race-conscious affirmative action. And he wants that data now.

But data experts and higher education scholars warn that any new admissions data is likely to be inaccurate, impossible to interpret and ultimately misused by policymakers. That’s because Trump’s own policies have left the statistics agency inside the Education Department with a skeleton staff and not enough money, expertise or time to create this new dataset.

The department already collects data on enrollment from every institution of higher education that participates in the federal student loan program. The results are reported through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). But in an Aug. 7 memorandum, Trump directed the Education Department, which he sought to close in March, to expand that task and provide “transparency” into how some 1,700 colleges that do not admit everyone are making their admissions decisions. And he gave Education Secretary Linda McMahon just 120 days to get it done.

Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

Expanding data collection on applicants is not a new idea. The Biden administration had already ordered colleges to start reporting race and ethnicity data to the department this fall in order to track changes in diversity in postsecondary education. But in a separate memorandum to the head of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), McMahon asked for even more information, including high school grades and college entrance exam scores, all broken down by race and gender.

Bryan Cook, director of higher education policy at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C., called the 120-day timeline “preposterous” because of the enormous technical challenges. For example, IPEDS has never collected high school GPAs. Some schools use a weighted 5.0 scale, giving extra points for advanced classes, and others use an unweighted 4.0 scale, which makes comparisons messy. Other issues are equally thorny. Many schools no longer require applicants to report standardized test scores and some no longer ask them about race so the data that Trump wants doesn’t exist for those colleges.

“You’ve got this effort to add these elements without a mechanism with which to vet the new variables, as well as a system for ensuring their proper implementation,” said Cook. “You would almost think that whoever implemented this didn’t know what they were doing.”

Cook has helped advise the Education Department on the IPEDS data collection for 20 years and served on technical review panels, which are normally convened first to recommend changes to the data collection. Those panels were disbanded earlier this year, and there isn’t one set up to vet Trump’s new admissions data proposal.

Cook and other data experts can’t figure out how a decimated education statistics agency could take on this task. All six NCES employees who were involved in IPEDS data collection were fired in March, and there are only three employees left out of 100 at NCES, which is run by an acting commissioner who also has several other jobs.

An Education Department official, who did not want to be named, denied that no one left inside the Education Department has IPEDS experience. The official said that staff inside the office of the chief data officer, which is separate from the statistics agency, have a “deep familiarity with IPEDS data, its collection and use.” Former Education Department employees told me that some of these employees have experience in analyzing the data, but not in collecting it.

In the past, there were as many as a dozen employees who worked closely with RTI International, a scientific research institute, which handles most of the IPEDS data collection work.

Technical review eliminated

Of particular concern is that RTI’s $10 million annual contract to conduct the data collection had been slashed approximately in half by the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE, according to two former employees, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. Those severe budget cuts eliminated the technical review panels that vet proposed changes to IPEDS, and ended training for colleges and universities to submit data properly, which helped with data quality. RTI did not respond to my request to confirm the cuts or answer questions about the challenges it will face in expanding its work on a reduced budget and staffing.

The Education Department did not deny that the IPEDS budget had been cut in half. “The RTI contract is focused on the most mission-critical IPEDS activities,” the Education Department official said. “The contract continues to include at least one task under which a technical review panel can be convened.”

Additional elements of the IPEDS data collection have also been reduced, including a contract to check data quality.

Last week, the scope of the new task became more apparent. On Aug. 13, the administration released more details about the new admissions data it wants, describing how the Education Department is attempting to add a whole new survey to IPEDS, called the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS), which will disaggregate all admissions data and most student outcome and financial aid data by race and gender. College will have to report on both undergraduate and graduate school admissions. The public has 60 days to comment, and the administration wants colleges to start reporting this data this fall.

Complex collection

Christine Keller, executive director of the Association for Institutional Research, a trade group of higher education officials who collect and analyze data, called the new survey “one of the most complex IPEDS collections ever attempted.”

Traditionally, it has taken years to make much smaller changes to IPEDS, and universities are given a year to start collecting the new data before they are required to submit it. (Roughly 6,000 colleges, universities and vocational schools are required to submit data to IPEDS as a condition for their students to take out federal student loans or receive federal Pell Grants. Failure to comply results in fines and the threat of losing access to federal student aid.)

Normally, the Education Department would reveal screenshots of data fields, showing what colleges would need to enter into the IPEDS computer system. But the department has not done that, and several of the data descriptions are ambiguous. For example, colleges will have to report test scores and GPA by quintile, broken down by race and ethnicity and gender. One interpretation is that a college would have to say how many Black male applicants, for example, scored above the 80th percentile on the SAT or the ACT. Another interpretation is that colleges would need to report the average SAT or ACT score of the top 20 percent of Black male applicants.

The Association for Institutional Research used to train college administrators on how to collect and submit data correctly and sort through confusing details — until DOGE eliminated that training. “The absence of comprehensive, federally funded training will only increase institutional burden and risk to data quality,” Keller said. Keller’s organization is now dipping into its own budget to offer a small amount of free IPEDS training to universities.

The Education Department is also requiring colleges to report five years of historical admissions data, broken down into numerous subcategories. Institutions have never been asked to keep data on applicants who didn’t enroll.

“It’s incredible they’re asking for five years of prior data,” said Jordan Matsudaira, an economist at American University who worked on education policy in the Biden and Obama administrations. “That will be square in the pandemic years when no one was reporting test scores.”

‘Misleading results’

Matsudaira explained that IPEDS had considered asking colleges for more academic data by race and ethnicity in the past and the Education Department ultimately rejected the proposal. One concern is that slicing and dicing the data into smaller and smaller buckets would mean that there would be too few students and the data would have to be suppressed to protect student privacy. For example, if there were two Native American men in the top 20 percent of SAT scores at one college, many people might be able to guess who they were. And a large amount of suppressed data would make the whole collection less useful.

Also, small numbers can lead to wacky results. For example, a small college could have only two Hispanic male applicants with very high SAT scores. If both were accepted, that’s a 100 percent admittance rate. If only 200 white women out of 400 with the same test scores were accepted, that would be only a 50 percent admittance rate. On the surface, that can look like both racial and gender discrimination. But it could have been a fluke. Perhaps both of those Hispanic men were athletes and musicians. The following year, the school might reject two different Hispanic male applicants with high test scores but without such impressive extracurriculars. The admissions rate for Hispanic males with high test scores would drop to zero. “You end up with misleading results,” said Matsudaira.

Reporting average test scores by race is another big worry. “It feels like a trap to me,” said Matsudaira. “That is mechanically going to give the administration the pretense of claiming that there’s lower standards of admission for Black students relative to white students when you know that’s not at all a correct inference.”

The statistical issue is that there are more Asian and white students at the very high end of the SAT score distribution, and all those perfect 1600s will pull the average up for these racial groups. (Just like a very tall person will skew the average height of a group.) Even if a college has a high test score threshold that it applies to all racial groups and no one below a 1400 is admitted, the average SAT score for Black students will still be lower than that of white students. (See graphic below.) The only way to avoid this is to purely admit by test score and take only the students with the highest scores. At some highly selective universities, there are enough applicants with a 1600 SAT to fill the entire class. But no institution fills its student body by test scores alone. That could mean overlooking applicants with the potential to be concert pianists, star soccer players or great writers.

The Average Score Trap

This graphic by Kirabo Jackson, an economist at Northwestern University, depicts the problem of measuring racial discrimination though average test scores. Even for a university that admits all students above a certain cut score, the average score of one racial group (red) will be higher than the average score of the other group (blue). Source: graphic posted on Bluesky Social by Josh Goodman

Admissions data is a highly charged political issue. The Biden administration originally spearheaded the collection of college admissions data by race and ethnicity. Democrats wanted to collect this data to show how the nation’s colleges and universities were becoming less diverse with the end of affirmative action. This data is slated to start this fall, following a full technical and procedural review.

Now the Trump administration is demanding what was already in the works, and adding a host of new data requirements — without following normal processes. And instead of tracking the declining diversity in higher education, Trump wants to use admissions data to threaten colleges and universities. If the new directive produces bad data that is easy to misinterpret, he may get his wish.

Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

This story about college admissions data was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Source link

August 18, 2025
Week in review: Details emerge on plans to collect new admissions data
Most clicked story of the week:

Nearly three dozen selective colleges are facing an antitrust lawsuit alleging they used the early decision admissions process to reduce competition and inflate prices. Also named as defendants are application platforms Common App and Scoir, as well as the Consortium on Financing Higher Education, an information-sharing coalition of selective liberal arts colleges.

By the numbers

740,000

That’s the estimated number of work hours the higher education sector can expect to add as a result of the U.S. Department of Education’s plan to cull new data from colleges on their applicants’ race and sex. Behind the push is the Trump administration’s hostility toward diversity initiatives and its aggressive approach to enforcing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ban on race-based admissions.

Anti-DEI push in courts, board rooms and classrooms:
- A federal judge declined to block Alabama’s governor from enforcing a new law that eliminates diversity, equity and inclusion offices and forbids colleges from requiring students to adopt a long list of “divisive concepts.” The professors and students who sued over the law expressed concerns that it is overly vague and restricts their free speech rights.
- The Iowa Board of Regents adopted a new policy requiring public university faculty to present controversial subjects “in a way that reflects the range of scholarly views and ongoing debate in the field.” Before last week’s vote, the board stripped the proposal’s original language around DEI and critical race theory after public pushback. But one regent noted the policy does not define “controversial” and raised questions about who would.
- Students for Fair Admissions dropped its lawsuits against the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the U.S. Air Force Academy over race-conscious admissions. Both academies dropped their diversity efforts in admissions earlier this year under a directive from the Trump administration.
Quote of the week:

“Our actions clearly demonstrate our commitment to addressing antisemitic actions and promoting an inclusive campus environment by upholding a safe, respectful, and accountable environment.”

George Washington University

The private institution became one of the latest targets of the Trump administration, which claimed the university was indifferent to harassment of Jewish and Israeli students on its Washington, D.C., campus. As with its accusations against a handful of other colleges, the administration cited a pro-Palestinian protest encampment at GWU in spring 2024. The university asked the local police to clear the encampment shortly after it was formed.
Source link
August 18, 2025
UChicago Freezing Ph.D. Admissions for Multiple Programs
The University of Chicago’s Arts and Humanities Division is reducing how many new Ph.D. students it admits for the 2026–27 academic year across about half of its departments and completely halting Ph.D. admissions elsewhere. Multiple language programs are among those affected.

In a Tuesday email that Inside Higher Ed obtained, Arts and Humanities dean Deborah Nelson told faculty, staff and Ph.D. students, “We will accept a smaller overall Ph.D. cohort across seven departments: Art History, Cinema and Media Studies, East Asian Languages and Civilizations, English Language and Literature, Linguistics, Music (composition), and Philosophy.” The university didn’t tell Inside Higher Ed how many fewer Ph.D. students would be accepted across those departments.

“Other departments will pause admissions,” Nelson wrote.

Andrew Ollett, an associate professor of South Asian languages and civilizations, said that means no new Ph.D. students for these departments: classics, comparative literature, Germanic studies, Middle Eastern studies, Romance languages and literatures, Slavic languages and literatures, and South Asian languages and civilizations, plus the ethnomusicology and history and theory of music programs in the music department.

While the university didn’t provide an interview or respond to multiple written questions, a spokesperson did point out that the UChicago Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy and Practice is also pausing Ph.D. admissions, while the Harris School of Public Policy is pausing admissions for the Harris Ph.D., the political economy Ph.D. and the master of arts in public policy with certificate in research methods.

“A small number of PhD and master’s programs at the University of Chicago will pause admissions for the 2026–2027 academic year while divisions and schools undertake comprehensive reviews of the programs’ missions and structures,” UChicago said in a statement. It said the aim is “ensuring the highest-quality training for the next generation of scholars” and the pauses “will not affect currently enrolled students.”

UChicago, which faces debt issues, has become yet another example of well-known universities freezing or scaling back Ph.D. admissions and programs amid financial pressures and other factors. In November, before Trump retook the presidency, Boston University said it was pausing accepting new Ph.D. students in a dozen humanities and social sciences programs, including philosophy, English and history. In February, the Universities of Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh announced pauses, following other institutions.

But UChicago’s reductions for language programs also reflect a broader trend of universities scaling back foreign language education offerings. In 2023, West Virginia University became infamous in academe for its leaders’ decision to eliminate all foreign language degrees.

“It’s sad and pathetic,” Ollett said of the pause at UChicago, “because it represents the domination of one set of values, which is money, over the values that we say that we are pursuing in our lives as faculty members, as educators and as researchers.”

He argued that the university can’t say it’s committed to the humanities as a field for producing knowledge while turning away from Ph.D. programs.

Nelson’s email said, “This one-time decision applies only to the 2026–2027 academic year.” But Clifford Ando, the Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor of Classics, History and the College, questioned whether this is just a pause.

“I see no reason to think that we would resume doctoral education if we are simultaneously dismantling the curricula that sustain undergraduate training in these fields,” Ando wrote in an email sent to a classical studies Listserv. “Why would one have a doctoral program in a discipline that undergraduates can’t even study?”

Ollett also said this comes as Nelson has pushed to consolidate smaller departments. He said a big question for the coming academic year was “Do we do Ph.D. admissions if we’re not sure that our department is going to exist?”

Not Rule by Committee

Ando provided Inside Higher Ed the “charge” UChicago gave to the Arts and Humanities Languages Working Group on June 17.

“UChicago is known as a global leader in the instruction of ancient and modern languages,” the charge begins. “Language instruction and expertise is not simply a valuable object in its own right; it is an important foundation for the larger UChicago College education, for graduate education, and for the research and scholarship of our faculty.”

But it then says, “language instruction at this extraordinary scope is also expensive.” It listed several questions for the committee to explore, including:
- “Should there be a universal or suggested minimum number of students?
- “Do we need to teach every class every year?
- “Are there languages we no longer need to teach?
- “Are there opportunities for partnerships with peer institutions (with similar standards and schedules) to share language instruction?
- “How can we use technology more effectively to support and enhance language instruction?”
Ollett said, “We teach more than 50 languages in the division, which seems to be too much because the committee was asked to find ways of getting that number down.”

Tyler Williams, another associate professor in the South Asian languages and civilizations department and a member of the committee, said the committee members “unanimously declined to endorse any of the suggestions about cutting languages or outsourcing language teaching.” He said Nelson “did not wait for the committee to submit its report,” nor did she “consult with that committee before she made this decision.”

Ando also provided the charge for a separate Ph.D. Working Group, which outlined a number of “existential challenges” for Ph.D. programs. Those include significantly reduced demand for entry-level faculty, increasing costs for the university and long times to degree, which can deter students.

Additionally, the document notes that the programs are facing “heightened public skepticism about the value of what is taught in Arts & Humanities PhD programs, and how it is taught. Yet Ph.D. programs remain a critical part of the research university model, necessary to teaching, research, scholarship, and creativity.”

Among other questions, that committee was asked to explore whether there should be a minimum size for Ph.D. cohorts in order to offer a program.

Williams said that this committee indicated it wasn’t going to endorse an admissions pause, but said it should be divisionwide if it occurred.

Nelson’s email announcing the changes stressed that “this decision is not the recommendation of any committee.”

Williams said the Ph.D. admissions cuts are part of “a crisis manufactured by the university administration itself.” Ollett said he worries for the future of their field.

“We are quite unique in that there’s not a lot of South Asia area studies departments in the United States, and especially ones that train the next generation of scholars,” he said. He said he’s “already turned away prospective Ph.D. students because of this, and that’s just going to keep happening.”

He said he worries that “if we’re not doing it, no one will do it, and the field will wither and die.”
Source link
August 14, 2025
Military Academies Agree to End Race-Based Admissions in Landmark Settlement

United States Military Academy at West Point Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) announced this week that it has reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that will permanently end the consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions at the United States Military Academy at West Point and the United States Air Force Academy.

The agreement, approved at the highest levels of the Department of Defense, establishes four key requirements for both academies: applying no consideration of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions, maintaining no race-based goals or quotas, shielding race and ethnicity information from admissions personnel, and training staff to adhere to merit-only standards.

The policies will take effect immediately and apply to all future admissions cycles, according to the settlement terms.

The settlement represents a significant policy reversal from the Biden administration’s previous position defending race-conscious admissions at military service academies. Earlier this year, under President Trump’s Executive Order 14185, the Department of Defense determined that race-based admissions at military academies are not justified by military necessity and do not advance national security, cohesion, or readiness.

The Department formally abandoned its earlier position that a “compelling national security interest in a diverse officer corps” justified race-based policies, marking a sharp departure from decades of military diversity initiatives.

The agreement follows SFFA’s earlier litigation against the U.S. Naval Academy, where the organization successfully challenged similar race-conscious admissions practices.

Under the settlement terms, litigation against West Point and the Air Force Academy will be dismissed with prejudice, with each side bearing its own legal costs. The agreement preserves SFFA’s right to challenge any future changes to these policies.

“This is an historic day for the principle of equal treatment under the law at our nation’s military academies,” said Edward Blum, president of SFFA. “Together with the Naval Academy case earlier this year, this agreement ensures that America’s critically important military service academies will admit future officers based solely on merit, not skin color or ancestry.”

The settlement comes amid ongoing national debates over affirmative action policies following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which effectively ended race-conscious admissions at civilian colleges and universities.

Military service academies had previously been considered potentially exempt from that ruling due to national security considerations and the unique mission of training military officers. However, the Trump administration’s policy shift has eliminated that distinction.

The agreement affects two of the nation’s most prestigious military institutions. West Point, founded in 1802, and the Air Force Academy, established in 1954, collectively graduate approximately 2,000 new military officers annually.

Source link

August 14, 2025