Does the world need a new way to apply to college? The question echoed throughout the convention center on Thursday here at the National Association for College Admission Counseling’s annual conference.
Three days after a group of more than 80 selective colleges announced plans to build a shared application platform that would “streamline the experience of planning for and applying to college,” some admissions officials described the idea as a bold, welcome innovation. Others said it was a hollow gesture, a marketing gimmick meant to enhance the reputations of participating institutions, which have dubbed themselves the Coalition for Access, Affordability, and Success.
A key part of the coalition’s plan: allowing students to create online profiles as early as ninth grade, and encouraging them to populate a digital portfolio that might include essays, journal entries, and even video.
As The Chronicle reported in May, the group chose CollegeNet, a technology company in Portland, Ore., that builds application-processing systems, to create the new online platform. In an interview with The Chronicle here on Thursday afternoon, Jim H. Wolfston Jr., the company’s president, discussed his hopes for the new application — and responded to criticism the coalition has received so far. The following is an edited version of that conversation.
Q. For anyone who’s just catching up, what is the new application all about? How would you describe it?
A. It’s an opportunity to produce an application that is reflective of the individual institution’s goals, knowing a student. [Colleges have] gotten away from that by trying to make the application fungible so that the student can apply to X, Y, and Z school, and then push a button and apply to A, B, and C.
The problem with that is that we know success comes from engagement, specifically social and academic engagement, at a college. It doesn’t necessarily come from your scores. It comes from your grit, your willingness to engage. And so shouldn’t the admissions process, likewise, require that, or cull that? Or even encourage and educate toward that? Shouldn’t that process be about grit and engagement? We believe the answer is yes.
Q. So how would this platform accomplish that?
A. An application that’s differentiated from one school versus another creates a more clear choice that the student can discern, which also helps in educating a student about the differences between schools. It also encourages the student to engage. You don’t just press a button to apply to the next school and pay the fee. We want to make it so the school can collect more information about the extent to which a student can engage. That it’s not a sudden thing you do in your junior year to buff some kind of résumé. It is a reflection of a thoughtful willingness to write, to journal, and to create.
Q. How might a journal fit into this?
A. We hope that this new criterion for college admissions will reflect all those things. A willingness to write, a willingness to journal, or use video. Under this concept, students do have full control. So it’s up to them to decide what pieces go into the application. It gives the university’s application a chance to draw from things they never perhaps considered before, like a video. It’s going to give a wider array of data that a university could consider incorporating into its application.
Q. Are colleges really willing to consider more variables? Are participating colleges really interested incorporating, say, something like a student’s video response to questions?
A. Clearly. Schools are very interested in this stuff. The first impulse is, “Oh, my God, I can’t take more data. I can’t imagine looking at all these videos.” But once you start talking about creatively dealing with this, the technology involved, then people start to realize it might be worth considering. When people start to say they might even consider this, that’s the beginning of innovation in their own processes. Universities are willing to do that, they’re asserting themselves toward this engagement criteria.
Q. Let’s talk about membership requirements. There’s some exclusivity here. To join the coalition, a college must have at least a 70-percent six-year graduation rate, which excludes many institutions that admit large numbers of disadvantaged students. Why not allow other institutions that have experience serving those students into the mix?
A. This is a good source for skepticism and questioning. As for the 70 percent, I think it’s not as rigid as it might seem. People change, the schools can change the criteria. But you’ve got to choose a number. The reason you can’t say it’s open to everyone is that the third leg of this is success, which means, at least in part, graduation. It’s important for the student to complete education. So you have to start somewhere.
If I want to be part of the coalition, I’ve got to figure out a way to do that and sustain that. That drives the conversation down to the roots of this, and that’s engagement. We want to change this entire enterprise so it produces more engagement.
Q. One of the coalition’s stated goals is to increase access. But just because you get more low-income or first-generation students to apply doesn’t mean you will admit more of them or support them financially. To what extent are member colleges willing to give up to make that more possible?
A. I can’t speak for the coalition. I’m the technology provider. But I would hope as a citizen that any university is thinking about how it can ensure success for that population. Any reflective admissions official is going to have to be thinking about that question. If you take 1,000 students who are very bright from disadvantaged backgrounds, you’re going to have to do more work as an institution to educate that cohort. I hope that the schools are discussing that.
Q. Some members of the coalition don’t have a large percentage of students eligible for Pell Grants on their campuses, relative to other institutions. So some people are very skeptical of some of the member colleges’ commitment to access.
A. We’ve got to start looking at affirmative economic representation on our campuses. We need to develop the bottom half of our population. Speaking personally, it would be a great ambition if a school would provide spots equally from above the median income and below the median income.
Q. There’s been a lot of talk about how the platform would promote early engagement. What kind of communications will students be getting? What will those messages from member colleges look like?
A. It’s up to the institutions. I can’t predict what they’ll do. But wouldn’t it be cool if one of the schools said, “Hey, are you willing to share a page of your diary?”? That would be a cool thing to do because, guess what? Edison, Picasso, Beethoven, many great people have kept diaries in which they’ve written and reflected on their lives. That sets up a habit, a habit for success. By simply saying, We’re interested in a page of your diary, that’s cool. Now that starts to get them knowing that it matters.
Q. But who’s going to read that? And what are colleges going to do with it?
A. It almost doesn’t matter in that case. Other than to say, “Thank you very much. We appreciate you sharing.”
Q. Tell me more about how the member colleges might send messages that help students plan for college, to bolster the college counseling, things they need to know about the process.
A. I think there will be a lot of informational or instructional kinds of questions. But the new wave is to begin asking questions that inspire habits, inspire engagement. If I’m able to see what students are engaging with me, that tells me a lot more than whether the student has merely filled out an admissions application.
If I’ve got a track record with a student and see they’re attempting to engage, that gives me some information that this student’s particularly interested in my institution. I think the information is going to go in both ways, the instructional aspects, even the marketing. But I think now schools have the opportunity to probe for engagement and to inspire engagement. And that’s exciting. That’s revolutionary.
Q. I’ve talked to many folks who are highly skeptical of this idea, and some have expressed strong opinions to that effect this week. Is there a particular thread of criticism that you would like to respond to?
A. It’s really important that there be criticism. It’s a part of successful innovation. It’s an iterative process. It’s good that people are concerned. We’ve heard a lot of concern from guidance counselors about this being extra work. Any time you’re shifting, it’s going to be work. Our goal is to make that shift result in something that’s easier, more fun, more enjoyable, for students, counselors, and colleges. So we’re aware of that criticism. But remember, it’s easier to do work when you have a purpose.
Q. Will you send me a page of your diary?
A. [Laughs.] OK, good question. I’ll do it. It’s a deal. Will you admit me to your institution?
[For the record, Mr. Wolfston later sent some passages from his own journal.]
Eric Hoover writes about admissions trends, enrollment-management challenges, and the meaning of Animal House, among other issues. He’s on Twitter @erichoov, and his email address is eric.hoover@chronicle.com.
