Test 2

Lately, despite all of the coronavirus-related issues that are swirling about in the higher ed and admissions space, I am still seeing the regular complaints that I field this time of the year. Students and (more likely) parents call and write to us to tell the admission team just how upset they are that we didn't admit their student where they wanted. Or give them enough scholarship dollars. Or win that Fabergé egg at auction for a good price.

Wait. I think that last one was from a Roger Moore-infused James Bond movie.

Case in point: I had a mother send a monologue-worthy email to me the other day. The short version:

Dear Admissions Dude,

My daughter is awesome. How dare you not admit her to Penn State. I know that she just applied recently [in late March], but trust me - she's still super interested. She has been crying herself to sleep over your ignorance. She won't even eat her Pop Tarts for breakfast!

Do something about this grave injustice, and do it now.

Sincerely,
Student's Mom

Of course, I have grossly paraphrased here given that she wrote no less than 11 paragraphs.

But I have to say that this is not uncommon, and I do sympathize with students (and their parents). Over at the Georgia Tech admissions blog, Rick Clark has written about "it working out" for the better for students, and that being denied at their top choice (or choices) will not be the end of the world. Money:

Whether you are denied admission or you get in but ultimately don’t receive the financial aid package necessary for you to attend your top choice college, you will grow. My hope is you’ll be able to see these situations as opportunities rather than as disappointments. Use them as motivation. Anyone who is truly content, successful, and happy will not describe their life and journey as a predictable point-to-point path. Instead they’ll discuss bumps, turns, and moments of uncertainty along the way.

And that's a theme that I echoed in my response to the student (with a CC to the mother):

[Student], I am really sorry to hear that you've been taking your admission decision so hard. Admittedly, this is a stressful process and time of the year. Many high school seniors are going through the exact same feelings of stress and disappointment right now.

While it many not come as much consolation at this precise moment, I always tell students that are not admitted to the program or campus to which they had applied that "It works out". It may take a couple of months, or even a year, but eventually you'll find the right place for you (and, believe it or not, that might not be Penn State - and that's okay).

Years from now you'll look back on the successes that you've earned and realize that things worked out just fine.

In short, it will be okay. Really, it will.

Because - and here's the BIG SECRET folks - the reason that you were not admitted to that favorite college on your list was most likely not related to your academic prowess. Rather, it likely had everything to do with space availability on campus. At Penn State we enroll approximately 8,000 first-year students at the University Park campus each fall. We receive upwards of 90,000 applications for those 8,000 spaces. Even though it's a big (huge!) campus, we only have so many spaces to grant admission. We simply cannot admit every student that applies - we don't have room!

[okay, okay - if you're a straight 'D' student in high school your deny decision maaaay have had something to do with your academic record... but I digress]

But that doesn't mean that you're a terrible student, not at all. It just means that you will have to consider other options.

Most of us in the noble profession of college admissions are not trying to keep students out of our respective institutions. Instead, we want to be inclusive of as many students as we can, but are also trying to craft a class of students each fall that will persist for four years and graduate with a degree. Some institutions have more space on campus than others, and then the supply v. demand picture starts to come into focus.

All of this to simply say that Mick Jagger & The Rolling Stones got it right:

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you might find
You get what you need

Indeed.

I've worked in the Undergraduate Admissions Office at Penn State for more than ten years now. In that time, I have had the distinct honor and pleasure of presenting to students, families, and high school counselors about the college search process - and Penn State specifically. Giving presentations has long-been one of my favorite parts of the gig, but with the whole world working remotely these days, we have had to move our presentations into a virtual format. With all of the other things that have been swirling about, I have not had the opportunity to give any presentations in the last couple of weeks.

The Penn State admissions community hosted a webinar on Thursday last week and invited high school counselors from around the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - and beyond - for a question-and-answer session regarding the impacts of COVID-19.

Yours Truly got to host the event (yay!), and hopefully provide some clarity for our partners in the counseling community. Here's a screenshot of the beginning of the presentation:

That's me, in my living room, in the upper-right-hand corner of the screen

We covered a whole host of topics ranging from where people can find resources and information about how Penn State is responding to the coronavirus pandemic to how schools moving to a pass/fail grading system for spring semester will have impacts on this year's seniors (as well as juniors, sophomore, etc. for the coming years).

Look, the remainder of this admissions cycle is going to be tough for students, families, and high school counselors (not to mention those of us on the higher ed side of the desk). The overall message that I tried to convey to our counseling colleagues was that - regardless of circumstances - we want to work with students in being flexible. We know that things are strange right now, and likely will be for some time to come.

We ended on an open Q&A forum for the counselors so that folks could ask whatever they wanted. It is my hope (and the shared hope of my colleagues that participated with me) that the webinar was helpful, even if the answers to several of the questions was, "I don't know, but we're working on it".

Our team will be hosting another event this coming week and it is my hope that we'll have even more answers to the questions posed by our friends "across the desk".

Late yesterday big news broke about the University of California system, and how they will respond to the challenges brought on by the COVID-19 crisis:

The University of California announced Wednesday that it will greatly ease some admission requirements for fall 2020 and beyond by eliminating SAT test scores and minimum grades, saying that “grave disruption” to schools during the coronavirus crisis calls for maximum flexibility in evaluating students.

The move, authorized by UC Board of Regents leaders, will relax the admissions process for more than 200,000 prospective freshmen and transfer students who annually apply to the UC system’s nine undergraduate campuses but are now studying under dramatically different — and, for many, highly stressful — circumstances.

Those students may not meet UC admission requirements this year because their high schools or community colleges have shifted to online instruction with varying degrees of success, pass/fail grading systems or reduced course offerings.

In addition, standardized test scores may be difficult to obtain because testing dates are being canceled or postponed for many required tests, including the SAT and ACT, high school exit exams and, for international students, evaluations of English-language proficiency.

More:

The Academic Senate agreed to temporarily suspend several admission regulations at the request of Han Mi Yoon-Wu, director of undergraduate admissions at the UC Office of the President. “With such grave disruption in the education system, administrators are seeking flexibility where possible under these untenable conditions,” Yoon-Wu wrote in a March 20 letter to Comeaux.

The modifications to admission requirements include:

• Suspending the letter grade requirement for the 15 prescribed college-preparatory courses completed in winter/spring/summer 2020 for all students, including UC’s most recently admitted freshmen
• Suspending the standardized test requirement for students applying for fall 2021 freshman admission.
• No rescission of student admissions offers that result from students or schools missing official final transcript deadlines. Also, admission will be honored through the first day of class until official documents are received by campuses.
• For transfer students, temporarily suspending the cap on the number of transferable units with Pass/No Pass grading applied toward the minimum 60 semester/90 quarter units required for junior standing.

Yoon-Wu noted that efforts to contain the coronavirus pandemic had caused an “unprecedented and growing number of school closures” that have forced institutions to confront myriad challenges as they have switched abruptly to remote instruction.

The uncertainty is global, she said, noting that students studying overseas might be unable to earn the credentials typically required for UC admission, as prescribed testing has been or is likely to be disrupted in such countries as the United Kingdom, Pakistan, France, Germany and Italy.

“This period of uncertainty predicated by the COVID-19 situation greatly impacts our previously assured pipeline of students to UC, which includes California resident freshmen, California Community college transfers, domestic and international nonresidents,” she wrote. “The academic verification process ... and enrollments will be notably compromised.”

All very good reasons.

Many folks were watching to see how large publics like the UC system would respond to the coronavirus situation for their future enrollment pipelines. Now that a very large domino has fallen, it will be interesting to see how many other institutions will follow that lead.

Of late - with the LARGE exception of COVID-19 related information - the buzz in my Twitter timeline is almost wholly that from the pro-test-optional community. I count myself as one who supports that initiative.

Students applying to any Indiana University campus may soon have the option of whether to include their scores from standardized tests like the SAT or ACT with their application materials.

During its December meeting, the IU Board of Trustees approved a change in policy allowing each IU campus the option to adopt a test-optional admissions policy. Faculty leadership from each campus will now have its chance to set its own policy.

Academic success at the college level depends on a range of factors, with the greatest importance placed on academic preparation. Research shows that, for many students, high school GPA provides the best prediction of academic success in college.

Okay, so the headline says that IU is "one step closer" to test-optional, and "faculty leadership from each campus to set its own policy". But, if you look at IU Bloomington's admissions website (arguably the "flagship" campus), you get a BUNCH of info and FAQs about the test-optional policy:

Screenshot from admissions.iu.edu

And it's all effective for students applying for admission in 2021.

Conversely, it was recently revealed that the University of California system - despite mounting pressure to abolish the use of the ACT - would keep standardized exams as part of their admission requirements:

The Academic Senate of the University of California assembled a task force in 2018 to evaluate the system’s current use of standardized tests. On Monday that task force delivered a much-anticipated report listing several recommendations. Not among the recommendations? Tossing the tests.

While the authors considered what it might look like for the large public university system to go test optional and not require SAT or ACT scores in the admissions process, they ultimately declined to endorse that option.

For EM nerds, you can view/download the full STTF report here. It's a lot.

For me, the most interesting part of the story was to keep tests in play despite earlier signs that the UC system would decide to abolish the requirement. Eric Hoover at The Chronicle of Higher Education breaks it down nicely.

On Monday a panel appointed by the University of California’s Academic Senate delivered a long-awaited report examining the system’s standardized-testing requirements. The bottom-line recommendation: The university, at least for the near future, should continue requiring the ACT or SAT for admission.

Critics of college-entrance exams had hoped that the report would recommend that the system stop requiring them, especially after some of the university’s most prominent leaders publicly questioned their value last year. Instead, the panel pumped the brakes, recommending that the university conduct further research on the possible effects of dropping the requirement.

My emphasis. There were many that thought the system would stop using tests as an admission requirement to the University of California generally.

But, for my mind, the most striking part of the report is the assertion that high school grade point average is not as accurate a predictor of first-year collegiate GPA as standardized test scores are:

How well do UC’s current standardized testing practices assess entering high school students for UC readiness? How well do UC current standardized testing practices predict student success in the context of its comprehensive review process?

The STTF [Standardized Testing Task Force] found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation. For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study.

Again, my emphasis.

The reason that I find this information striking is because it flies in the face of years of research that contradicts the assertion; how a student performs over four years in high school is the strongest predictor of how that student will perform at a post-secondary institution.

Indeed there is a large body of evidence that shows a positive correlation between high school GPA and SAT scores. When used in conjunction with high school performance, standardized exam scores (such as the ACT or SAT) enhance the prognostic value to the method being used to predict academic success in college.

But many studies show that GPA alone is the best individual predictor of academic success (particularly in English and math coursework) of traditional-aged first-time college students. Here's a great example from 2017:

High school grade point average was consistently predictive of college performance among recent high school graduates regardless of whether they were from rural or urban parts of Alaska. Although the students attended different high schools, their high school grade point average was similarly predictive. High school grades may be more predictive than standardized exam scores and consistently predictive regardless of high school urbanicity because they are a measure of cumulative performance over time and thus quantify other skills or competencies—beyond reading and math proficiency—that are necessary to succeed in college.

The full study is here.

Given the academic evidence that mounts in favor of high school GPA/performance, I struggle to see how the UC system can assert that test scores out-perform secondary school performance in predicting collegiate success. That argument simply defies logic (and most academic literature on the topic that I have seen).

Throw in all of the recent activity related to the Novel Coronavirus, and you've got quite a slew of institutions adding to the growing list of colleges and universities that are going test-optional:

“These scores have always made up just a portion of our evaluation of prospective students, and we don't want our future applicants to feel hamstrung by circumstances far outside their control,” said Peter Shulman, associate professor of history and chair of Faculty Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education.

The change will be effective with those who apply to Case Western in the fall of 2021.

Also going test optional and citing the test cancellations were Concordia University Texas, Mansfield University of Pennsylvania and Westminster College, also of Pennsylvania.

Other colleges are shifting to test optional but not citing the current health crisis. Announcements in recent weeks include Chapman University, Hamline University, St. Bonaventure University and the University of Redlands.

...and we still have about six weeks to go until the end of the spring semester.

For me, no additional evidence is required to understand that how a given student performs over a four-year period in high school (i.e. a longer-term period) is going to be a very strong predictor of how they will perform over a four-year (or, if they are like me in college, a FIVE-year period) in higher education. The challenge for a large, research institution like Penn State is to develop a way to assess an applicant using a multitude of factors in lieu of standardized exam scores. The aforementioned IU model certainly has my interest piqued, and I will be continuing to watch very closely as things continue to unfold.

There has been a lot of activity in my timeline about colleges changing their business practices due to the coronavirus. Yesterday I listened to a highly relevant piece at NPR (shout-out to Elissa Nadworny) about how COVID-19 is impacting students looking to attend college. Listen here. Some good print-takeaway:

[High school senior Xander] Christou spent most of last fall like many high school seniors: researching and applying to schools. He planned to spend the spring visiting some of the campuses he was accepted to. "Online, the colleges are just names and logos and programs," he says, "nothing will compare to actually being on campus and speaking face-to-face with current students."

But with so many colleges shutting down, all of those visits have been cancelled — including one "candidate weekend" on NYU's Abu Dhabi campus that was all-expense paid. "I was very excited for that," he says, "all I had to do was pack and go to the airport." He would have gotten back home last week. The return flight, without him on it, got cancelled too.

Of course it's more than just the visits — he's waiting on his financial aid offers, too. Money, and how his family is going to pay for college, has become even more important.

Indeed. And that's why we are seeing more and more institutions pushing the May 1st acceptance date to June 1st (or later).

Like the rest of the nation world, this COVID thing is impacting everything, and college admissions is no exception. However, how colleges and universities react to the challenges that are presented are very different. The next few weeks are going to see a lot of changes in the way that institutions of higher education recruit and enroll their classes...

But instead of focusing on our business processes, we should be taking direction from the needs of the students that we are recruiting. We shouldn't be concerned with "what we have always done" or "what will enhance our yield". Rather, we should be bending over backwards to help students - even if said students decide to not attend our institution.

This is a time in history when humans should all be helping each other, and the college search process should be no different.

Is this an uneasy time? Yes. Does each day bring about even more uncertainty? Absolutely. But, as I've been saying to our team, "We need to start to be comfortable with the discomfort that these times are bringing." If we can do that, we can help students get through the process of figuring out what to do after high school graduation.

Amid all of the COVID-19 news, I missed this not-so-small headline: Admissions Counselors Move to Change Code of Ethics From Mandatory to Best Practices:

The National Association for College Admission Counseling’s Board of Directors approved at its March meeting last week a motion to change its Code of Ethics and Professional Practices from a mandatory code to a statement of best practices.

NACAC moved to make the change after a U.S. Department of Justice antitrust investigation, said its president, Jayne Caflin Fonash, in a note posted online Thursday and sent to members. The change still must be approved by NACAC's member delegates at its national conference in September before it takes effect.

My emphasis.

While not surprising, it is still striking to me that the change was approved. It almost feels like this move is the final proverbial nail in the coffin of ethics in college admissions, since the CEPP is no longer mandatory.

I just read that again after I wrote it and now I'm depressed.

😔

Here we are, neck-deep into the Season of Yield in the recruitment and admissions game, and many colleges and universities are showing their hand with regard to offering incentives for students to commit:

Albion College is giving away prizes, including free room and board for a semester, to encourage accepted applicants to commit within the next few weeks. To enter what the college has called the “Early Deposit Sweepstakes,” a student must commit by March 6 — nearly two months before the national deposit deadline.

Now, some colleges are experimenting with bolder marketing strategies, disrupting the admissions timeline, and toppling long-held norms. Rejoice, or mourn, accordingly.

Albion, a private liberal-arts college in Michigan, started promoting its early-deposit incentive at the beginning of February, sending emails and postcards to all accepted applicants. As of late last week, the college’s homepage featured a colorful banner advertising the coming drawing. “Our Early deposit sweepstakes ends soon,” the message said, “so make sure you are in the running.”

Now, that banner ad is gone. That’s because, Bucheli said, “we’re calling it an awards program, not a sweepstakes — it’s more indicative of what we’re trying to accomplish.” To give students considering the college some “value added” encouragement to go ahead and choose it.

According to a description of the “Early Deposit Awards Program” on Albion’s website, each student who meets the March 6 deadline will be entered into a drawing for one of 12 “awards.” One lucky student will win free room and board for a semester, and another will have the cost of a meal plan ($3,150) paid for a semester. Five contestants will each get $250 for textbooks, and five will have their vehicle-registration fees covered for one year.

But wait, there’s another incentive to commit sooner rather than later. The charge for students who pay an “early enrollment deposit” on or before April 1 is $250. After that, the fee increases to $350.

Look. I know that there are some legitimate reasons behind the Department of Justice's decision to go after NACAC (and by proxy, the institutions of higher education that are members of the association). There is certainly a strong argument that the changes to the CEPP will benefit students considering enrolling in higher education programs.

But this stuff makes my skin crawl.

Ever since NACAC voted last year to make changes to the Code of Ethics and Principles of Practice (aka, the "CEPP"), I have struggled with my own ethics on the matter.

For the record, I am - and always have been - of the mind that students need to make the choice that best fits them. Whether that is attending large, public institution; a small, private institution; a community college; a trade school; enlisting in the military; or starting into the workforce, students should understand what options are available to them. After researching said options, students should make an informed decision about post-high school plans. As I said in my last post about it:

Based on the data available to them (e.g. cost of the institution, the financial aid package that the institution offered the student, academic fit, social fit, etc.), the student was expected to make an informed decision about their plans for their own higher education.

But now, pretty much anything is fair game. And, while this might benefit students for finding a "good deal" on tuition deposits or housing, it can potentially create an environment akin to the stereotype of a used car sales lot.

EAB, an education consulting firm, is offering some first predictions at how widespread those practices may be. Its research suggests a substantial minority of enrollment officers are considering poaching students from other institutions.

Thirty-five percent of enrollment officers surveyed by EAB said they were considering offering transfer incentives to first-year students they had previously admitted but who are attending other colleges. Just under one-quarter surveyed said they were considering recruiting incoming freshmen who have committed to another college but have yet to enroll.

One hundred and fifty-nine enrollment officers responded to EAB’s online survey, which was conducted in mid-October, only a few weeks after NACAC officially changed its guidelines. Participants were given a long list of practices and asked to select those they were considering employing, said Pam Royall, head of research for EAB’s enrollment services.

The company is tentatively planning to follow up with another survey in April, Royall said.

Results did vary by the size of the institution. Respondents from very small institutions were the most likely, at 54 percent, to say they were considering recruiting rising freshmen who have committed elsewhere. Respondents from large institutions were the least likely to consider those practices.

And that's from the perspective of institutions - what about students?

Joyce Smith, CEO of NACAC, said that she and others are very concerned about what might be in store for college admissions this summer and fall. Uncertainty around whether students will show up come September, she said, means uncertainty around financial aid budgets and housing at colleges.

“When any and all of this is on shaky ground, it’s not just the admissions office that is concerned,” she said.

Students and families may also now go through the admissions process more aggressively, she said.

“I’m getting reports from counselors that families and students are playing the game, too,” she said, “that they are applying early decision but not withdrawing applications from other schools, because they want to get better financial aid or better housing or better schedules.”

“It stands to be chaotic.”

Indeed. I think that chaotic might be an understatement.

Back in the heady days of the year 2000 when I started my first job working in the admissions office at Juniata College (pronounced: "Joo-Nee-AH-Tah", not "Wah-NEE-Tah"), I attended the New York Association for College Admission Counseling Summer Institute. At this three-day workshop, I learned all about the professional association, but also the ethics behind the college admissions profession. Topics ranged from things as heavy as "removing bias in the application review process", to lighter fare like "what items should (and should NOT) be on an institution's table at a college fair".

You see, for the latter of those two topics, under the former NACAC rules you couldn't have anything but basic marketing materials on your table. No candy or food. Oh, and you were required to stand behind your table, not in front of it or in the aisle.

These things may sound a bit picayune to the layperson, but the idea was that you shouldn't use or do anything that would give your institution an advantage over others in attendance.

But with the new rules, all of that ethics stuff is tossed out of the proverbial window. The worst-case-scenario is a college fair where colleges and universities with exorbitant recruitment budgets will entice students to fill out an inquiry card to be entered to win a car (or a full tuition "scholarship"). No longer will these professional development activities include cautionary tales of maintaining strong ethics. Rather, they could include workshops on "the best strategies to woo students away from other schools". Yikes.

My fear is that the recruitment and admissions "game" will turn into the higher ed-version of Survivor, where only the most aggressive of institutions will be able to compete.

Will schools implement high-pressure tactics to sway students? Only time will tell.

A colleague shared this video with me on Facebook (via an article at CharlotteStories.com). At first I thought that it was purely entertaining and something of a novelty.

But then I listened more closely to the lyrics that he is spitting. It's essentially a resume presented in hip-hop form.

Mr. Kim, I think that this is an excellent representation of your creativity and stick-to-it-iveness. If Harvard doesn't admit you, hit me up. I know that Penn State isn't necessarily on-par with Harvard, but I'd love to chat with you about options here.

What the WHAT?

Thirty-six percent of admissions officers check applicants' social media profiles, up from 25 percent last year, according to a survey by Kaplan Test Prep.

The high-water mark of 40 percent saying that they check came in the 2015 survey by Kaplan.

Of admissions officers who have checked out an applicant’s social media footprint, about 19 percent say they do it “often,” significantly higher than the 11 percent who said they did so in 2015.

Of the admissions officers who say they check social media to learn more about their applicants, 38 percent say that what they found has had a positive impact on prospective students, and 32 percent say that what they found had a negative impact.

“In tracking the role of social media in the college admissions process over the past eleven years, what we’re seeing is that while admissions officers have become more ideologically comfortable with the idea of visiting applicants’ social media profiles as part of their decision-making process, in practice, the majority still don’t actually do it. They often tell us that while it shouldn't be off limits, they are much more focused on evaluating prospective students on the traditional admissions factors like an applicant’s GPA, SAT and ACT scores, letters of recommendation, admissions essay, and extracurriculars,” said a statement from Sam Pritchard, director of college prep programs at Kaplan Test Prep.

So, the article is a couple of weeks old, but I simply had to put my two coppers into this.

If we had time to check every applicant's social media footprint at Penn State, we would have to hire an ARMY of new staff. But, this is quickly becoming the era of the "holistic" or "comprehensive" application review. I'm not necessarily saying that it wouldn't be useful, but it would certainly need to have a process associated with it. Who on the staff is doing the checking? How does it factor into the rubric of the evaluation? Which social media sites would be checked (because my kids don't touch Facebook or Twitter - and that's where I spend all of my time!)?

Checking an applicant's social media profile(s) would certainly fall under the proverbial umbrella of holistic. But what a daunting notion.

Just before the winter break, Lehigh University sent out a bunch of incorrect admission decisions:

Lehigh University accidentally sent a congratulatory email to 137 applicants not selected for early admission.

But within hours, Lehigh officials realized someone had emailed the congratulations to all who applied for early admission instead of just those who were accepted.

Students who apply for early decision can be either admitted, denied or deferred to the regular admission round. Lehigh expects to have 1,425 freshman next fall.

Bruce Bunnick, director of admissions at Lehigh, sent a follow-up email this week to apologize.

“Receiving the erroneous email after the disappointment of our decision must have brought confusion, frustration and perhaps anger, for which I again apologize,” Bunnick said in the email. “You deserve better and we will work harder to eliminate the human error that led to this mistake.”

Lehigh spokeswoman Lori Friedman reiterated the apology Friday and said Lehigh “intends to increase the safeguards in place to prevent something like this from happening in the future.”

A parent emailed The Morning Call that his son was notified Wednesday that his son was rejected and then received an email on Thursday indicating he was accepted. That email included instructions about the next steps. A few hours later, he was sent the apology email that explained the mistake and that he was not selected for early admission.

In recent years, similar gaffes have afflicted institutions including Columbia University and Johns Hopkins University.

Seriously, this is an admissions officer's worst nightmare, and something that worry about often. See my previous post about the number of decisions that we released in December alone. Crazy.

I've talked about this before. Even though there are challenges with our systems, processes, and even staff, nothing keeps me up at night (or wakes me in the wee-hours of the morning) like the realization that something might be amiss and incorrect decisions could hit the streets.

While many processes are automated these days (in either the SIS or a CRM), there is always the potential for human error. I feel for the folks at Lehigh.

Rather, they are here!

If you're one of the two or three people that regularly reads my writing, you're probably wondering where The Dude has been for the past month? Well, let me break it down for you...

Last month at the 2019 National Conference of the National Association for College Admission Counseling (aka, "NACAC"), the body voted to amend its Code of Ethics and Principles of Practice (CEPP) in response to the Department of Justice's investigation (I previously teed'up the topic here).

So, what does it all mean?

Here's the background. The CEPP formerly stated:

• Colleges must not offer incentives exclusive to students applying or admitted under an early decision application plan. Examples of incentives include the promise of special housing, enhanced financial aid packages, and special scholarships for early decision admits. Colleges may, however, disclose how admission rates for early decision differ from those for other admission plans.
• College choices should be informed, well-considered, and free from coercion. Students require a reasonable amount of time to identify their college choices; complete applications for admission, financial aid, and scholarships; and decide which offer of admission to accept. Once students have committed themselves to a college, other colleges must respect that choice and cease recruiting them.
• Colleges will not knowingly recruit or offer enrollment incentives to students who are already enrolled, registered, have declared their intent, or submitted contractual deposits to other institutions. May 1 is the point at which commitments to enroll become final, and colleges must respect that. The recognized exceptions are when students are admitted from a wait list, students initiate inquiries themselves, or cooperation is sought by institutions that provide transfer programs.
• Colleges must not solicit transfer applications from a previous year’s applicant or prospect pool unless the students have themselves initiated a transfer inquiry or the college has verified prior to contacting the students that they are either enrolled at a college that allows transfer recruitment from other colleges or are not currently enrolled in a college.

My emphases.

So, all of that sounds reasonable, right? Well, not according to the United States Department of Justice. The DOJ went through the CEPP and picked it apart pretty good:

Colleges must not offer incentives exclusive to students applying or admitted under an early decision application plan.

The Department of Justice believes this prohibits colleges from offering incentives exclusive to students applying or admitted under an Early Decision application plan. Department of Justice staff claims that this prohibits competition among colleges for Early Decision applicants.

Once students have committed themselves to a college, other colleges must respect that choice and cease recruiting them.

The Department of Justice staff suggests that this prevents colleges from competing to continue to recruit students who may be able to lower their college costs if they remain subject to competition among colleges.

Colleges will not knowingly recruit or offer enrollment incentives to students who are already enrolled, registered, have declared their intent, or submitted contractual deposits to other institutions.

The Department of Justice staff believes that these provisions restrain competition among colleges for students and students may lower their college costs if schools remain free to solicit even students who have committed elsewhere.

Colleges must not solicit transfer applications from a previous year’s applicant or prospect pool.

According to the Department of Justice staff, this severely hampers the ability of colleges to compete for transfer students.

Okay, okay, DOJ. We get it. You want students to be able to get the best deal possible. And that certainly has the potential to be a good thing.

So why are institutions of higher education freaking out about these changes? Simple: the original language in the CEPP helped to level the proverbial playing field - from the institutional perspective.

Prior to the removal of the CEPP provisions, colleges and universities respected a student's decision to commit to another institution. Based on the data available to them (e.g. cost of the institution, the financial aid package that the institution offered the student, academic fit, social fit, etc.), the student was expected to make an informed decision about their plans for their own higher education.

Then, once College X became aware that Sally was going to attend College Y, College X would remove Sally from their mailing lists, email campaigns, and other recruitment activities. Sally had made an informed decision (again, based on the data available), and College X would back away. Students typically made their decision around May 1st each year (aka, "National Decision Day").

But in this New World without the aforementioned CEPP provisions, college and universities can continue to recruit - and incentivise - students beyond May 1st. That means that recruiting students could potentially continue right up until the start of the fall term in August or September, or beyond.

Now College X no longer has to respectfully bow-out when Sally has made and communicated her decision to attend College Y. Instead, College X is able to do a lot of, "Are you sure Sally?" and "Here's another five thousand dollars to sweeten the deal for you to attend College X Sally. What do you say to that?"

Yikes.

Recently, at an event where we invite high school counselors to come visit the University Park campus, I had a frank conversation with a counselor from eastern Pennsylvania. In it, the counselor questioned "How can this be a bad thing? These changes will only serve to benefit the student!" And that counselor is not wrong. Honestly, this is something that I do grapple with because in the end, many students can and will benefit from opportunities presented to them. But, the question that always reels me back in is (somewhat ironically), but at what cost? 

I worry that college and universities will be forced into operating like a used car dealership does. When a family says, "Well, Institution X is giving Little Johnny $5,000 more than you are - what can you do for Johnny?" the admissions representative will be forced to reply, "Well, let me go talk to my manager..."

Bottom line: I don't think that most institutions of higher education want to be likened to used car dealers.

And then there is the view from a different angle: those in the financial planning sector. This makes my skin crawl:

Now middle and upper-income investment clients who would usually pay full-price for college will think you’re a genius when you show them how to negotiate $5,000-$10,000 a year off their cost!

Or...

Every financial advisor can now capture new clients by merely showing families how to NEGOTIATE price reductions from colleges!

The bottom line is colleges can now “poach” good students from other colleges ANYTIME using “money incentives”. Financial advisors can clean house showing new investment clients how to get these money incentives from colleges.

This new change creates a free market for colleges to lure good students away from other colleges at any time by only offering more money. This will create tremendous price competition between colleges. In other words, college recruiting just got more competitive!

Or...

These new regulations create an opportunity of a lifetime for financial advisors!
Most state schools are priced at $35,000 and up. Private college prices range from $50,000 to almost $80,000. It’s not that high-income investment clients cannot afford to pay that full price, THEY JUST DON’T WANT TO!

As a Certified College Funding Specialists (CCFS®), you will be trained in appealing college financial award letters and showing families how to negotiate the price of college. The only difference is now high net-worth families are in the driver’s seat for these price incentives because they have the money to pay the balance of the tuition bill.

If you are not using “college” in your current investment practice, you should be. The result of this change by NACAC is an opportunity of a lifetime for financial advisors. I encourage you to learn more about becoming a Certified College Funding Specialist® and help these families take advantage of the changing landscape in college planning.

All quotes taken from the same industry blog post by a gent named Ron Them. And I think fear that this type of attitude will continue to invade the higher education landscape, much to the chagrin of almost everyone.

In the end, at least right now, it appears that NACAC is hoping that colleges and universities will take the proverbial high-road:

David Hawkins, executive director for educational content and policy at NACAC, said, "We are aware that colleges are taking advantage of the new space created by the elimination of the three ethical/professional practice standards at the heart of the Department of Justice investigation. We are also aware that there are institutions taking advantage of the moratorium on enforcement of our ethical principles. We encourage institutions to consider the best interests of students, and protect their ability to make informed enrollment decisions without being subjected to undue pressure. We also encourage colleges to consider the equity implications for their admission policies, given the significant gaps in college access for underserved populations."

We'll just have to wait and see. I think that we'll have a much clearer picture of how this plays out come May 2020...

Beginning with tests in September of next year, the ACT has committed to offering three new features:

1. Section re-testing:

ACT Section Retesting helps students focus study efforts on individual subjects that are part of the ACT test (English, math, reading, science, or writing) without having to study for the entire test again. ACT Section Retesting is available to all students who have taken the full ACT test. Students can retake one or more single-section subject tests at approved ACT test centers across the US, to improve their scores.

2. Online testing:

Online ACT Testing will allow ACT’s testing experience to better align with how today’s students often prefer to learn and the mode they prefer for testing. Starting in September 2020, students will be able to choose to take the ACT test online or with paper. Giving students a choice allows them to focus on what’s most important: doing their best on the test. Students who take the test online will get faster test results. In fact, students will receive their multiple-choice test scores and ACT Composite score as early as two business days after the test date. This allows students to make better, more informed, and timely decisions about the schools and scholarships to which they apply.

3. Reporting of super scores:

To support the growing trend of students taking the ACT test multiple times, score report options will now provide the option for students to send their best ACT test results to colleges and include a calculated ACT Superscore. Superscoring allows students to submit their highest scores for college admission and scholarship purposes. The Superscore is a recalculation which shows the highest possible composite score across multiple ACT tests and ACT Section Retests. It reflects the average of the four best subject scores from each of the student's ACT test attempts.

The impacts of this on the evaluation process for students' applications remains to be seen. However, the impact on the admissions process will be immediate.

At Penn State, we do not "superscore" an applicant's SAT or ACT exam scores (the College Board explains superscoring really well here). So if the student requests the superscored exam results to be sent to Penn State, then we aren't getting the data that we want in order to evaluate the application properly. This is just one example of a complication of these new "options" for students. I haven't dug too deeply into it yet, but I'm certain that there will be others.

But my follow-up question is this: now that the ACT will be doing this, how long before the College Board follows suit?

There's a lot that is being discussed at the 2019 NACAC National Conference. Of course at the top of mind for many in our profession is the continued fallout from the Varsity Blues admissions bribery scandal, as well as the impending court decision regarding affirmative action and Harvard University. But an issue that might have slipped past you is the antitrust lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against NACAC.

As many as 215 voting delegates from NACAC's 23 affiliates now have an important decision before them. Saturday they will vote on whether to remove several sections from the association's Code of Ethics and Professional Practices. Those sections restrict colleges from offering incentives for early-decision applicants, prevent them from recruiting first-year undergraduates who have committed to another college and limit how they recruit transfer students.

NACAC members who don't comply with the code can face penalties including loss of membership or being unable to participate in college fairs. NACAC currently has in place a moratorium on enforcing the code, however.

Removing the sections from the code of ethics is a step toward NACAC signing a consent decree in order to resolve a two-year Department of Justice antitrust investigation. Saturday's vote is generally expected to endorse the provisions' removal and make other changes so that NACAC leaders will be able to negotiate a consent decree, despite some members' reservations and plans to protest.

NACAC leaders have pushed to reach a consent decree rather than fight antitrust charges in court because of the high cost of litigation, the time it would take to fight charges, the possibility of affiliates or member institutions being ensnared in a continuing investigation and the possibility that an extended investigation would harm the association's reputation.

In short, the federal government is arguing that some of NACAC's rules that prohibit colleges from giving incentives to students at different times throughout the admissions process, and forbid colleges and universities from "poaching" students who have committed to attend other institutions hurt students by limiting their choices.

Is having choices bad? Not at all. Does the notion of having to recruit and yield students up to the first day of classes each fall sound terrifying to admissions professionals? You betcha.

I'm not attending NACAC this year (a couple of my current Penn State colleagues are), but I kind of wish that I was there to get the temperature of what is going on in the profession. This has been a strange/interesting/shocking year for those of us in the field. It'll be interesting to see where things go from here...

Ouch. That's rough. The above image is an actual screen grab from a real email that I received at work.

While I would love to honor this poor student's request and just straight-up deny them, unfortunately that's not how it works (as Rick Clark likes to say).

You see, when a student submits an application for admission to Penn State, we have to evaluate it. We are obligated to do our due diligence and determine if the applicant is qualified for admission to the campus and program to which they have applied. We take very seriously the idea that a student has been thoughtful about their application, and taken the time and effort to complete and submit their best application for admission to our undergraduate programs.

So, as you can imagine, we work with all kind of students and families. It's always great to have applicants that come from families that are all about Penn State. But, I would imagine that, for every student who wants to attend because someone in their family did, there are probably ten students who feel like the one pictured above.

I can practically hear the tension-laden argument while trying to force the student into the family car for a campus visit. "OMG DAD -  I DON'T WANT TO GO TO PENN STATE. What the hell is a Nittany Lion anyway?!"

I get it student, I do. But unfortunately I cannot deny admission to a student who may be qualified. That wouldn't be right. But maybe if I chat with your parents...

So, given that, this part is for the sibling/mom/dad/aunt/uncle/grandparent: lay off of your student. They have enough pressure to deal with during their senior year in high school. They don't need you adding even more by insisting/requiring them to apply to your favored institution of higher education. Be supportive in the choices that your student makes. If they want to visit a list of schools that are the antithesis of your favored school, let them. If they want to spend all of their application fees at schools that you don't approve of, fine. At the end of the day, your student needs to find a school that fits them. Not you.

Think of it this way: when your student is done with college, are you going to dictate the employers where they will apply for jobs?

(if you read that question and even considered a 'yes' answer, then we need to chat privately)

Part of the learning and maturation process in higher education is the opportunity that students have to make their own decisions. They decide when and what they eat. They decide with whom they will be friends. They decide what time they'll go to bed - and when they'll wake up. They decide on a program-of-study, and what classes to take. They decide on an eventual career path.

If you give your student the space to make these decisions on their own beginning in high school, they won't feed the need to email the admissions office asking for a denial letter. And that'll be a plus.

Marquette is joining the ranks of institutions not requiring ACT or SAT exam scores as part of the admissions process:

“Four years of strong performance in rigorous high school coursework has always been the most important measure in Marquette's holistic admission review,” Acting Provost Kimo Ah Yun said. “Requiring standardized tests was never intended to dissuade individuals from applying who felt they had the capacity to succeed here. We acknowledge, however, that requiring the SAT or ACT may have led to this unintended consequence and aim to address that now.”

Brian Troyer, dean of undergraduate admissions, said he and his team look forward to implementing this policy and continuing their work of carefully evaluating all applicants for admission to Marquette.

“We believe that the Jesuit concept of cura personalis [care for the entire person] extends to the admissions review process. We have always engaged in a student-centered approach to our work, and the decision to adopt a test-optional policy reinforces those values,” Troyer said. “Students can decide how to best represent their capacity for success at the college level. We believe students are who they are because of their life experiences, work ethic, and their engagement in and out of the classroom.”

Troyer added that the university’s holistic admission review will continue to consider academic achievement in conjunction with a student's unique talents, leadership and service activities, application essay(s), school profile, letters of recommendation, and any other information a student wishes to submit for consideration.

“Considering a variety of application materials within the context of a student's application file will ensure we continue to admit future Marquette University students who will succeed academically and graduate ready to be changemakers in their communities — individuals who are eager to answer our call to Be the Difference,” he said.

Per the new policy, for students who choose to submit an ACT and/or SAT score, the score will be evaluated as a component in the admission review process. All applicants, regardless of test score submission, will have the opportunity to qualify for Marquette’s array of scholarship awards.

My emphasis. I bolded that last sentence because I think that it's important to highlight. Some institutions require standardized exam results in the merit scholarship awarding process or for placement into first-year seminar or English courses. It's important that students investigate the full policy for test-optional (or "test-flexible") institutions.

A very interesting op-ed from back in March that I read at NACAC's* website the other day.

The school counselor can and should play such a pivotal role in any student’s college search and application activities. But due to over-sized caseloads and often inadequate professional training, even the best school counselors are unable to provide the support most kids need in identifying and applying to the colleges that are best suited to their interests and needs.

[...]

I have long felt that all high school students would benefit from some required curriculum around the college search and application process. Wouldn’t it be amazing if we taught 10th graders the basics about the college landscape, different courses of study, and the concept of thinking about college as a “match to be made; not a prize to be won”? (This is my favorite quote, by Frank Sachs, former NACAC president.)

Or, what if we showed every first-semester junior which online resources could help identify some of the 4000+ colleges in the US that might be a good fit for them? Too many students and parents rely on highly publicized college rankings to consider which schools they might attend.

How about if we gave instruction to all second-semester juniors on completing the Common Application or advice on developing an authentic essay topic? I recently worked pro-bono with a student whose brother has a severe mental illness. The parents would leave home for months at a time, leaving the student to care for her brother and the house, prepare meals, etc. Despite her good grades and part-time job, she felt ashamed that she had no honors or school activities to report on her applications. She had no idea that she could share her personal story on her application and that it would be so compelling.

My emphasis. Which I'll come back to in just a minute...

First, I have to say that the author - Jill Madenburg - is fundamentally correct; school counselors are overworked and underappreciated. In a typical public high school, a counselor's caseload is more than can be handled. And, as Madenburg points out, many counselors don't have the bandwidth in their day-to-day work to devote real time and resources to work with high school students in the college search process.

But - to the part that I emphasized - I take issue with the notion that all high school students would benefit from required college search classes.

Based on the National Center for Education Statistics data from 2018, just under 70 percent of high school seniors enrolled in college immediately following secondary school completion. While that is a large percentage for sure, if more than 30 percent of students aren't planning on going to college, then why waste their time on a compulsory educational program designed to help students navigate something that they will not be doing.

Instead, why don't we have all high school students take a required class that talks about the various options that they will have after high school?

When a student is in ninth or tenth grade they are still figuring out who they are and the things in which they are interested. That is the time to start the post-secondary education conversation. Will Suzy want to be an engineer? A lawyer? A member of the Armed Forces? A massage therapist? Manage a restaurant? There are so many options that require varying levels of education that forcing students to consider college is not the way to go. Taking a class that sets up realistic expectations of the benefits of continued education and juxtaposes them with the challenges would be a great opportunity for students early in their high school career.

Then, in a student's junior year of high school, as Madenburg suggests, you could offer a course designed to help with the college search process for those that are interested: college essay writing, advice for the Common/Coalition applications, college interview tips, etc.

All too often I think that people in the college counseling community forget that not every high school senior will go on to pursue higher education. At least, not immediately following graduation. It is worthy of mentioning that there is a distinct difference between college counseling and school counseling.

School counselors (formerly referred to as "guidance counselors") are the folks who do everything from help with post-high school plans, to bullying prevention programs, to Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs), to working with troubled youth, and so much more. College counselors are typically found at larger and/or wealthier high schools that have the resources to hire specialists for the college search.

Okay, so all of that said, I nearly forgot the point of the article: easing the burden on the school counseling community. That's where I'm lost. How would creating required high school curriculum for all students (or even some - 70%-ish students) ease the burden? School counselors would be the logical choice to teach these college-search-based courses, right? Since we know that most counselors are already over-worked and have caseloads that they can barely manage, what good would come of adding more work to their already full plates?



[*NOTE: for those who aren't aware, NACAC is the National Association for College Admission Counseling. This is a national organization that provides "knowledge, networking, and ethical standards for college admission professionals".]

University of New Hampshire and Indiana State University take the plunge into test-optional admission. Notably, UNH is doing it as a pilot program:

The University of New Hampshire announced that it will go test optional in admissions for the next three years to test the idea. More colleges in recent years have gone test optional, including institutions like New Hampshire that are large public universities. (Many of the early adopters were small liberal arts colleges.) The university cited numerous studies saying that the best way to predict student success in the first year of college is an examination of applicants' high school grades and the rigor of their high school curriculum.

The University of Denver is the latest institution to eliminate the requirement for standardized exams like the SAT in the admissions process:

The private university announced Tuesday that test scores will be optional for students applying for the fall 2020 term or later.

University officials said that by making SAT and ACT scores optional, admissions staff will focus on factors that better predict a student’s academic potential, such as high school grades and the difficulty of classes a student takes.

“Oftentimes an ACT or SAT score is more reflective of a student’s economic background and the resources of their school, rather than demonstrating the student’s academic abilities and college preparedness,” said Todd Rinehart, vice chancellor for enrollment. “We want to place our focus on curriculum and performance in school, and provide students the choice as to how their academic record is presented.”

More and more institutions are headed this way.

So I posted about this on Tuesday, and have been following the developments in the college admissions scandal that has made national headlines.

A wide-ranging bribery scheme is unsettling higher education, raising uncomfortable questions about the role of wealth and privilege in the admissions process.
As detailed in U.S. Department of Justice filings, the scheme involved a company, known as “the Key,” that illegally manipulated two main “side doors” to secure the admission of its clients’ children to elite universities. The Key, run by William Rick Singer, bribed officials at college-entrance examination companies to allow third parties to take the students’ tests for them. And it bribed college coaches to identify the students as recruited athletes — guaranteeing them preferential treatment by the admissions office — even though they were not so recruited.

FYI, The Chronicle has a great round-up of the news.

In sum:

There’s one main entity you need to know about: The Edge College & Career Network, LLC, known informally as “The Key.” Clients of the Key included parents who wanted to ensure that their children were admitted to elite colleges.

[...]

The Key used several “side doors.” One was through college-entrance examinations like the SAT and the ACT. Clients were told to have their children ask to extend the time in which they took the tests, sometimes by claiming to have learning disabilities. That tended to give the students an “individualized setting” in which to take the tests. The Key would then bribe officials overseeing those settings to let someone else take an exam in a student’s place. Clients would pay $15,000 to $75,000 per test for that service. The resulting fraudulent scores were submitted to colleges.

Another “side door” was through athletic designation. From 2011 to 2018, parents paid the Key about $25 million to bribe coaches and administrators to identify the parents’ children as recruited athletes, thereby giving them a leg up in the admissions process. Coaches are typically granted a certain number of “admissions slots” in which they alert the admissions office to their teams’ needs; coaches who accepted the Key’s bribes agreed to designate one “slot” to an applicant even though he or she was not a recruited athlete. (The Key created fake athletic “profiles” for those students, even going so far as to Photoshop their faces onto the bodies of real athletes.)

Okay, okay. So these folks clearly did a bad thing (or, more likely things). And I'm reading today that there will be some real consequences for Olivia Jade:

Sephora has officially ended its partnership with Olivia Jade Giannulli, the 19-year-old YouTuber and daughter of Lori Loughlin, who's at the center of the nationwide college admissions cheating scam.

In a statement to BuzzFeed News, the makeup giant said that "after careful review of recent developments, we have made the decision to end the Sephora Collection partnership with Olivia
Jade."

...and even bigger consequences for Lori Loughlin:

First it was Hallmark Channel cutting Lori Loughlin loose earlier today after her indicted involvement in the elite college admissions fraud scheme. Now it seems inevitable that Netflix will not be inviting the actor known around the world as Aunt Becky back for the fifth and final season of Fuller House.

But, my biggest concern coming out of all of this is not the tut-tutting surrounding the college admissions process and the idea that the rich can essentially get whatever they want - though it is certainly worthy of a few tut-tuts. Rather, it's the idea that standardized testing may have been an issue among the numerous other issues in the scandal:

The allegations also extend to cheating on the SAT and the ACT. According to the indictments, those involved in the conspiracy encouraged students they were being paid to help to file papers with ACT or the College Board saying that they had learning disabilities. When they received permission to take the test under special circumstances (typically with extra time), these applicants were told to use one of two testing centers that one of the defendants said he could "control." Those taking the tests were then told to come up with fake reasons, such as a family wedding, for needing to take the exam in one of these centers, which were far from their homes. Bribes were then allegedly given to have others take the tests.

[...]

In many of the cases discussed in the indictments, parents working with Singer appear to have engaged in all kinds of violations of the rules of standardized tests: lying to get certified as someone with learning disabilities, lying to justify taking tests at certain testing centers, and bribing proctors. Both the College Board and ACT said that the indictments showed that this type of alleged wrongdoing will be found out and punished. Both said that they were cooperating with the federal investigation.

A statement from the College Board said, "Today’s arrests resulting from an investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts send a clear message that those who facilitate cheating on the SAT -- regardless of their income or status -- will be held accountable. The College Board has a comprehensive, robust approach to combat cheating, and we work closely with law enforcement as part of those efforts. We will always take all necessary steps to ensure a level playing field for the overwhelming majority of test takers who are honest and play by the rules."

A statement from ACT said, "ACT contracts with thousands of people to locally administer the ACT around the country. These individuals certify to follow ACT's policies and procedures to administer the ACT test. In these cases, the two charged individuals allegedly did not follow ACT's rules. ACT is committed to ensuring that all students have an equal opportunity to demonstrate what they’ve learned in school through their hard work. No student should have an unfair advantage over any other. The integrity of the ACT scores that we send to colleges and scholarship agencies is of critical importance to students and their parents. ACT works hard to ensure that the ACT scores we report to colleges are fairly earned."

My emphasis.

So here's the big question that I have (among the rest of the questions that I have): what happens if it is determined that there was tampering with standardized test results? How far will the impact extend? Something like that could potentially invalidate scores for hundreds (or more?) of students.

Lots of folks are asking if this scandal will be the straw that finally breaks the proverbial horse's back, and that's a worthy question for the future. But what happens now if the results come in and we find that scores need to be invalidated?

Jon Boeckenstedt, the AVP of Enrollment Management at DePaul University - and a really smart guy, had this to say on Twitter the other day:

So what if: A) Singer has to turn over his entire client list over several years, B) College Board and ACT cross it against the compromised test centers, C) they cancel all those scores, and D) they notify every college where students are enrolled?

— Jon Boeckenstedt (@JonBoeckenstedt) March 13, 2019

Indeed.

I, like many in higher education, will continue to watch this story with great interest. My hope is that only the guilty in this story will be punished.