Admission Standards Say More Than You Think

Applying for college is stressful for pretty much everyone. Aspiring students are immediately confronted with a barrage of different requirements: personal statements, teacher recommendations, and, gosh darn it, what is my social security number?! Schools aren’t ignorant of this fact—in fact, to lessen the anxiety baked into this process, many simplify their application requirements to the bare essentials. This results in generic questions and requirements, which could easily be used by any hundreds of institutions. This trend is best exemplified in the mission of the Common App, which partners with institutions to use a common set of questions and prompts to allow students to complete application requirements for several schools simultaneously.

I’m not here to bash the Common App. In fact, I think it serves a clear purpose and can be a benefit to many institutions. But there’s certainly an argument to be made for admission standards and processes that are unique to a college.

While process simplicity is paramount in designing an application process (i.e., don’t make students answer one of your application sections in hieroglyphs unless your program is in advanced Ancient Egyptian studies), generic requirements will yield generic results. Put another way: be intentional. Don’t cast such a wide net that you end up with more fish than you can handle or accidentally catch a bunch of dolphins that won’t fit in your boat. A school’s admissions standards should align with the institution’s mission and target market—this will yield a higher percentage of students that are a better fit and, ultimately, more successful in their chosen school.

Let’s consider the aspects of most Higher Ed admission applications and how they can more closely align with an institution’s goal student body:

Academic Prerequisites (prior education completion and cumulative GPA): Many institutions default to the minimum standards that their states/accreditors require. For some, this open enrollment strategy aligns perfectly with an institution’s mission to make college accessible to as wide a group as possible. This can be good. If your mission is to catch as many sea creatures as possible, pull out the biggest net you can find. Plus, from an admissions funnel perspective, logic would dictate that any additional requirements will reduce the potential applicant pool. But think long and hard about whether your institution’s programs and services are prepared/designed to support every fish in the sea.

Example: A school offering an accelerated path to career advancement through a specialized AS degree may not have the breadth of services (e.g., remedial courses, writing center, math tutoring) to support those who have gaps in their secondary education. In that case, an open enrollment strategy may yield a higher admit rate but will likely mean a lower first-year retention rate. Instead, perhaps this institution would be better served by requiring a 2.5 high school cumulative grade point average (instead of 2.0).

Essays: Many private institutions avoid writing requirements in their admission process because it discourages application completion. But this can get tricky. It begs the inevitable question—if a student is unwilling to provide a well thought out response to an admission prompt, can we reasonably expect that they will successfully navigate the writing requirements of higher education? This is especially true for online institutions where writing stick-to-itiveness is critical. Undergraduate colleges can and do argue that students shouldn’t be judged for their writing skills before they have had a chance to learn them, which is certainly valid. In that case, an essay prompt could be followed by a disclaimer with explicit directions for how it will be measured and what will not be measured (ahem, a rubric). This initial attempt at organizing thoughts according to a specific requirement helps to demonstrate the wherewithal necessary to participate in a college education. If coding bootcamps use admission diagnostic tests to access a student’s inclination toward learning coding languages, why would a degree institution shy away from an opportunity to gauge a student’s predisposition toward writing?

Resume: A resume (similar to the essay) demonstrates that an individual is bringing a basic level of seriousness to the application process, which reflects the effort an institution can expect from a student. It also provides a wealth of information from which objective admission decisions can be made if an institution is lucky enough to have more applicants than seats for a given cohort. Not to mention that it provides the institution with a starting point for discussion during an interview. And since you mentioned it…

 Interview: An interview is one of the most often avoided application requirements, but it can be the most powerful for confirming best fit. As a fact-finding opportunity, an interview (paired with a resume) is the most efficient means to confirm an applicant’s interest and preparedness. Much heartache can be avoided if an institution’s interview process includes discussion of a program’s career outcomes to confirm if they match student goals. Yes, interviews require a standardized process (specific prompts and response rubrics facilitate direct comparison between applicants), which takes effort in development and staff training. But a well-crafted interview process is not only an efficient screening tool, it can also serve as a springboard for student excitement. Talking to a real person alleviates anxiety and helps students begin to feel like they belong.

Will implementing more requirements result in less total applicants? Yep! So, you may well respond to these ideas with, “yeah this is nice to think about, but I have a mandate to fill seats.” We get it. But consider that filling a pipeline with students who may not fit with your school’s mission isn’t really a good goal. Focus on identifying the right students for your institution, the ones who have the highest likelihood of success; they make their lives better and make your institution better.

Accepting every student you can strains both the institution’s resources (putting pressure on your institution to provide support services it might not have) and students (allowing them to spend their time and money in a program they’re not equipped to succeed in). Over time, this forces the institution into a posture of perpetual retention crisis management as it tries to keep an appropriate percentage of students moving toward graduation. This results in a glut of half-baked support processes and initiatives all competing for resources–which forces leaders to drift from the mission to support the student body they’ve taken on. Everybody loses; avoid this.

An institution’s application requirements should reveal what the school is about and what kind of person belongs there. While it is understandable and even admirable to cast a wide net for all who inquire, schools that create application requirements with intention and focus often make the most impact on the students they do admit. Because the students they admit are the right students for them.