Admissions Policies

This article presents an overview and discussion of college and university admissions policies in the United States. American higher education began as mainly catering to an elite class of aspiring gentlemen. Over time, admissions policies at institutions, sometimes provoked by actions of the federal government and court cases, have moved toward serving a goal of universal access to American higher education. The land grant and coeducation movements, Title IX, and affirmative action programs are among various factors that have pushed universal access further along. Institutions have also recently established need-blind and score-optional admissions policies to work toward making higher education more accessible. According to some scholars, admissions policies like early admissions and legacy admissions may curtail accessibility.

Keywords Affirmative Action; Coeducation; Early Admissions; Discrimination; Land Grant; Legacy Admissions; Need-blind Admissions; Score-optional Admissions; Title IX; Universal Access

Higher Education > Admissions Policies

Overview

Historical Overview of Admissions Policies

While minimal, the requirements for entrance to early American colleges were essentially out of the reach of the general population, who did not have access to the necessary preparatory training. Geiger (1999) noted that the colonial colleges "served, among others, a constituency of aspiring gentlemen" (pp. 42–43). Until 1745, the only subjects in which students had to fulfill entrance requirements in order to gain admission to a colonial college were the Latin and Greek languages and literatures (Rudolph, 1990). These were the basic course of study at the colonial colleges at that time (Rudolph, 1990). College preparatory training was mainly available by way of private tutoring, Latin grammar schools, or instruction with a local minister (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). The Latin and Greek tradition finally ended in 1745 when, as fervor over science grew, Yale also made arithmetic a requirement for admission (Rudolph, 1990).

As time has unfolded, there have been many efforts to make a college or university education more accessible than it was in the early system of American higher education. Some scholars point to the land grant movement in higher education as the start of such universal access efforts (Kerr, 2001). According to Rudolph (1990), "ingrained in the land-grant idea was the concept of collegiate education for everyone at public expense" (p. 260). The early land-grant colleges were established under the Morrill Act of 1862 to support agricultural and mechanical studies (Rudolph, 1990). Mainly an agricultural nation at the time, the land grant movement facilitated access to some form of higher education for the American citizenry at large, such as farming families (Kerr, 2001). According to Kerr (2001), in an increasingly democratic nation the land grant movement served "less the perpetuation of an elite class and more the creation of a relatively classless society, with the doors of opportunity open to all through education" (p. 36).

Another effort to make a college or university education accessible to everyone was the establishment of public high schools. State universities, which began to flourish after the Civil War, were the drivers behind the movement to form high schools that would prepare students for a college education (Rudolph, 1990). Public high schools were an institution of "the people at large" and thus helped to democratize collegiate education by making it a possibility for more students (Rudolph, 1990, p. 286). Colleges and universities began to accept for admission credit subjects other than Greek, Latin, and arithmetic (Rudolph, 1990). Specifically, college entrance requirements were expanded beyond Latin, Greek, and arithmetic by 1870 to include history, geography, and English (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Requirements in modern foreign languages and science were also added (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). By 1895 already 41 percent of students admitted to colleges and universities were public high school graduates (Rudolph, 1990).

As secondary education expanded, colleges were essentially able to extend their requirements for admission because subjects formerly taught at the collegiate level were dropped down into the secondary level of education (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). However, the ability to expand entrance requirements gave "scope for each college to emphasize its own idiosyncrasies" (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997, p. 241). For instance, as the science requirement for admissions Yale required botany while Columbia asked for physics and chemistry (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). The need for some degree of order became clear not just due to such idiosyncrasies but also due to a period of growth in American higher education that occurred during the last quarter of the nineteenth century (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Rudolph, 1990). As such, the College Entrance Examination Board was formed and the first College Board examinations were held by June 1901 (Rudolph, 1990). In addition to the benefit of uniformity of admissions requirements and examinations, colleges and universities that accepted the results of the College Examination Board were able to save time and money previously spent on administering their own examinations (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).

Geiger (1999) offers that the formal transition from elite to mass higher education occurred between World Wars I and II, when enrollments approximately doubled during the 1920s. However, according to Geiger (1999), American higher education has always been "somewhat hierarchical in terms of … admissions requirements" (p. 57). For example, in the transition to mass higher education, new forms of higher education (e.g., junior colleges, teachers colleges) emerged to serve the expanded student population, which included part-time and commuting students as well as those interested primarily in technical or semiprofessional fields (Geiger, 1999). Meanwhile, existing forms of higher education still served the mainly residential, full-time student population that had characterized elite access and was interested in liberal learning, character formation, and high-status professions (Geiger, 1999). At the same time, the transition to mass higher education was a major step on the way to universal access.

The most expansive phase of American higher education up until that time took place during the thirty-year period following World War II (Geiger, 1999). There was an excessive demand for college that originated in returning veterans who took advantage of the educational benefits provided by the GI Bill in unexpected numbers (Geiger, 1999). "In the decades following World War II, the primary and most persistent demand that government made on higher education was to increase capacity" (Levine, 2001, p. 39). According to Kerr (2001), during the time after World War II the passage of the GI Bill positioned the universal access movement further along by making higher education a possibility for many students who were the first in their families to attend college.

Coeducation & Admissions Policies

In the 1850s various women's institutions were chartered to offer college degrees to women (Geiger, 1999). Some institutions also began providing a college education to free African Americans during that time (Geiger, 1999). Yet, it was not until after the Civil War that the notion of a collegiate education for women was readily accepted (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). The general paths to college education for women differed, however. In the eastern states and in the older seats of learning women were provided a separate college education. Entirely new colleges for women, like Vassar and Wellesley, were created or coordinated colleges affiliated with existing colleges (e.g., Radcliffe at Harvard) were established (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). At the same time, in the western states and in the newer seats of learning, coeducation was readily accepted and women were generally admitted on the same terms as men (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). By 1900, the idea of coeducation had begun to take greater hold and 71.6 percent of American higher education institutions accepted women as well as men on similar terms (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). The number of coeducational colleges and universities increased as time passed but there was still enough of a debate to spur the federal government into action in 1972 with the passage of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on gender (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).

Further Insights

Traditionally, higher education institutions have had a great deal of freedom in formulating their admissions standards because of the notion that the development of admission policy is best left up to the expertise of educators (Kaplin & Lee, 1995). At the same time, certain court decisions have led to a degree of regulation over the admissions process (Kaplin & Lee, 1995). There are three basic constraints that administrators must adhere to when formulating admissions standards (Kaplin & Lee, 1995). First, the selection process for admissions must not be arbitrary or unpredictable. Related, published admissions standards should be adhered to by the institution and admissions decisions upheld. Finally, institutions cannot have admissions policies that unduly discriminate on the basis of race, sex, disability, age, or citizenship. A great deal of attention has historically been focused on discrimination on the first two bases and, as such, these will be covered in more detail in this section.

Discrimination on the Basis of Race

The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are two of the major legal bases that prevent institutions from discriminating on the basis of race in admissions (Kaplin & Lee, 1995). The civil rights statute Section 1981 is yet another major piece of legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race (Kaplin & Lee, 1995). Affirmative action programs also deal with the consideration of race in admissions. These programs go beyond prohibiting discrimination based on race and actually seek to increase the number of minorities admitted to educational programs (Kaplin & Lee, 1995). However, per the findings of the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Supreme Court case, it is not legally permissible for institutions to establish racial or ethnic quotas, which would be reverse discrimination and is prohibited (Kaplin & Lee, 1995).

Discrimination on the Basis of Sex

According to Kaplin and Lee (1995), Title IX is the "primary legal source governing sex discrimination in admissions policies" (p. 385). Some scholars have stated that the admission of women into higher education institutions in America was not fully secured until the passage of Title IX in 1972 (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Under Title IX, discrimination on the basis of gender was prohibited for any educational program or activity that received federal financial assistance (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). While Title IX applies to both public and private institutions that receive federal funds, there are certain exclusions. For instance, undergraduate public institutions that have historically been single-sex institutions are exempted (Kaplin & Lee, 1995).

Current Issues

Admissions Trends & Strategies

There has been increased attention on getting into prestigious institutions. Two of the most-often used benchmarks in admissions to weigh the prestige of a college or university are institutional selectivity and yield. Selectivity refers to the proportion of students who apply for admission that are ultimately accepted, while an institution's yield rates refer to the proportion of accepted students who actually enroll (Hawkins & Clinedinst, 2006). The more selective an institution, the fewer applicants it accepts for admission. More selective institutions also tend to have higher yield rates.

Early admissions plans are a fairly new development in American higher education. Bowen, Kurzweil, Tobin, and Pichler (2005) indicated that fervor over early admissions did not really take hold until about 1999-2000. They found early admissions to be troublesome because, among other reasons, they do little to further the cause of equity in American higher education, as they benefit those students who already tend to be advantaged (e.g., students at top-tier secondary schools).

The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) has outlined several definitions of the various types of early admission plans. Plans are classified as to whether they are restrictive or non-restrictive. Restrictive plans do not allow students to apply to early admission programs at other institutions, while non-restrictive plans do not carry such a limitation (Hawkins & Clinedinst, 2006). Restrictive plans include early decision and restrictive early action plans, while non-restrictive plans include regular decision, rolling admission, and early action (Hawkins & Clinedinst, 2006).

Developments in Early Admissions

In 2006, several elite higher education institutions, including Harvard and Princeton, decided to drop their early admissions policies (Venegas, 2006), although both Harvard and Princeton reinstated early admissions in 2011. Klein (2006) indicates that these developments helped to fuel a debate among higher education leaders on the merits of such programs. While Harvard moved to drop their program "to make its undergraduate admissions process more fair for disadvantaged students" (¶ 1), other colleges and universities, particularly those that are not as selective, did not follow suit, because they rely on early admissions programs to ensure that they have a sizeable freshman class that is also well-qualified (Klein, 2006). At the same time, Venegas (2006) argued that restrictive early admissions programs, like early decision and restrictive early action, are too high-risk for low-income students, because such programs restrict applicants from applying to other early admissions programs while also strongly encouraging them to make nonrefundable enrollment deposits well before the national final student decision deadline of May 1 and notification of financial aid eligibility. For this reason, among others, Venegas (2006) stressed that early admissions programs impinge upon the diversity of higher education institutions.

Need-Blind Admissions

Wickenden (2006) noted a decline in the recruitment of minority and low-income students at the nation's most prestigious higher education institutions, leading some such institutions to offer substantial subsidies to low-income freshmen. Venegas (2006) urged that other institutions take up the policy that has emerged at Harvard of providing "full financial aid, with minimum debt burden, for the most needy, academically eligible students" (¶ 8). In their study of private institutions, Bowen et al. (2005) noted that need-blind admissions policies were established "to reassure students from modest circumstances that their lack of money would not be held against them in the admissions competition" (p. 164). In other words, the policies were developed to help poor students. Yet even wealthy, prestigious institutions like Princeton have struggled in the past to secure the necessary resources to implement such policies (Bowen et al., 2005). Indeed, resource constraints have often led some institutions to be unable to enact such policies (Bowen et al., 2005). At the same time, need-blind admissions policies may not be enough. The research of Bowen et al. (2005) found that applicants from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds fared no better or worse regarding their chances for admission under such policies.

Admissions Preferences for Minorities

In discussing admission preferences for underrepresented minorities, Bowen et al. (2005) stressed that "a diverse student body provides educational benefits to all students" (p. 167). Essentially, for all applicants, it is important for America's higher education institutions to be accessible and not be bastions of privilege. Moreover, diversity has been found to be "a compelling state interest in education" (Eckes, 2004, p. 48). Two legal cases involving the University of Michigan received a great deal of attention for the implications they have had on the consideration of race in admissions. The Supreme Court's decisions in these cases, Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), have served to clarify some long-standing confusion regarding affirmative action and how to treat race in admissions. In the decisions, the admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School (the Grutter case) was deemed acceptable while the undergraduate admission policy of the University of Michigan (the Gratz case) was not. The law school's policy was essentially deemed acceptable because, as Eckes (2004) outlined, it encapsulated a "holistic approach to admissions" (Eckes, 2004, p. 54) in which race was just one of many different characteristics considered to achieve a diverse student body.

Meanwhile, there have been efforts to establish ballot initiatives to ban the consideration of race and gender in college and university admissions in various states, including Arizona and Nebraska (Fliegler, 2007). Ironically, such a ban already passed in the fall of 2006 in Michigan, the setting for the aforementioned Supreme Court decisions that upheld the consideration of race in admissions (Fliegler, 2007). Similar bans on the consideration of race or ethnicity in college and university admissions passed in California in 1996 (Proposition 209) and in Washington in 1998 (Initiative 200) (Gardner, 2007).

In 2013, in Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court again ruled on race in college admissions, overturning a lower court decision that upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The high court found that the lower court had failed to apply the standard of "strict scrutiny" established in Grutter for race-based admissions policies, and returned the case to the lower court for reconsideration.

Admissions Preferences for Legacies

Wickenden (2006) argues against the practice of legacy admissions in which the children or relatives of alumni and alumnae, who may be less well-qualified than other applicants, are admitted to a college or university. She stressed that "the most selective colleges are still overly generous to applicants from the kinds of family least in need of a leg up in life" (Wickenden, 2006, ¶ 4). Reportedly, the debate over legacy admissions grew out of the debate over affirmative action (Schmidt, 2004). In contrast to affirmative action programs, however, legacy admissions tend not to favor minorities because they are generally underrepresented in the pool of legacy students (Schmidt, 2004).

Legacy preferences in admissions tend to be more common at private institutions, but in January 2004, a high-profile public institution, Texas A&M, abandoned its legacy admissions policy under pressure from lawmakers and interest groups (Schmidt, 2004). For public institutions, preferences for legacies are generally found at selective research universities (Schmidt, 2004). It has been reported, however, that while some representatives of higher education organizations feel that legacy admissions at public institutions will increasingly be challenged due to an obligation to serve taxpayers, other representatives feel that pressure to abandon such policies will not be increased because of legacies' role in providing funds to institutions that cannot be replaced by states (Schmidt, 2004).

Bowen et al. (2005) acknowledge that legacy preferences may curtail socioeconomic diversity on campuses; yet, while also calling for "tight limits" on such preferences, they indicated that institutions are within their right to observe such preferences in order to foster alumni/ae ties and the resources they may mean for the pursuit of excellence at institutions. Bowen et al. (2005) also noted that admissions preferences may be given to recruited athletes and so-called "development cases," or applicants who come from wealthy families.

Score-Optional Admissions Policies

According to Banerji (2006), some experts believe that score-optional admissions policies lead to greater diversity (e.g., in terms of race and socioeconomic status) at the higher education institutions that implement them. For instance, applicants from wealthier families have the means to access the best test coaching resources, which provide them with an advantage when taking the SAT (Banerji, 2006). Hundreds of schools have implemented some form of score-optional admissions, including American University, Bennington College, Bowdoin College, George Mason University, Smith College, University of Arizona, and many others..

Terms & Concepts

Development Cases: Admissions policy in which preferences are given to children of parents or relatives who are thought to have potential as major donors.

Early Action: A type of non-restrictive early admission plan in which an applicant files an application with a preferred institution and receives a decision well in advance of the institution's typical decision date; applicants are not restricted from filing applications with other institutions under this type of plan and are also not required to accept any offer of admission or submit a non-refundable deposit before the national final student decision deadline of May 1.

Early Decision: A type of restrictive early admission plan in which an applicant files an application with an institution and commits to accept an offer of admission provided that the institution can meet any financial aid needs of the applicant; applicants may be restricted from filing applications with other institutions under this type of plan and may also be required to submit a non-refundable deposit before the national final student decision deadline of May 1.

Legacy Admissions: Admissions policy in which preferences are given to the children or relatives of alumni/ae.

Need-Blind Admissions: The ability of students and/or families to pay is not considered as a factor in the admissions process.

Regular Decision: A type of non-restrictive early admission plan in which an applicant files an application with an institution by a specified date and receives a decision within a stated amount of time; applicants are not restricted from filing applications with other institutions under this type of plan.

Restrictive Early Action: A type of restrictive early admission plan in which an applicant files an application with a preferred institution and receives a decision well in advance of the institution's typical decision date; applicants are restricted from filing applications with other institutions under this type of plan but are not required to accept any offer of admission or submit a non-refundable deposit before the national final student decision deadline of May 1.

Rolling Admission: A type of non-restrictive early admission plan in which an institution accepts applications from prospective students and relays decisions throughout the admission cycle; applicants are not restricted from filing applications with other institutions under this type of plan.

Score-Optional: Admission policy in which applicants can apply for admission without submitting standardized test scores, such as SAT or ACT scores.

Selectivity: The number of students accepted for admission versus the number that applied for admission.

Yield: The number of students who enroll versus the number of students accepted for admission.

Bibliography

Antonovics, K. (2014). The Effect of Banning Affirmative Action on College Admissions Policies and Student Quality. Journal of Human Resources, 49, 295–322. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=95734047&site=ehost-live

Banerji, S. (2006). George Mason's SAT-optional admissions policy could boost diversity. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 23, 12. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21336944&site=ehost-live

Beale, A. V. (2012). The evolution of college admission requirements. Journal of College Admission, , 20–22. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=73914824

Bowen, W. G., Kurzweil, M. A., Tobin, E. M., & Pichler, S. C. (2005). Equity and excellence in American higher education. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24274871&site=ehost-live

Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Chapman, G., & Dickert-Conlin, S. (2012). Applying early decision: Student and college incentives and outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 31, 749–763. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=79114318

Eckes, S. E. (2004). Race-conscious admissions programs: Where do universities go from Gratz and Grutter? Journal of Law and Education, 33, 21–62.

Fliegler, C. (2007). Dim days for affirmative action. University Business, 10, 13. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24035604&site=ehost-live

Gardner, S. (2007). Today's courts re-conceive race and ethnicity in college aid and admissions. Education Digest, 72, 58–64. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24052713&site=ehost-live

Geiger, R. (1999). The ten generations of American higher education. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 38–69). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hawkins, D. A., & Clinedinst, M. (2006). State of college admission 2006. Alexandria, VA: National Association for College Admission Counseling.

Hill, C. (2012). Become need-blind? For colleges, that's the wrong question. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59, A72. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84136479

Hoover, E., Mangan, K., & Schmidt, P. (2013). After 'Fisher,' colleges face new burdens of proof. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59, A18–A20. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88859452

Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (1995). The law of higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Klein, A. (2006). Harvard's drop of early admissions fuels national debate. Education Week, 26, 16. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22531241&site=ehost-live

Levine, A. (2001). Higher education as a mature industry. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), In defense of American higher education (pp. 38–58). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lilledahl Scherer, J., & Leigh Anson, M. (2014). Rethinking Open Access. Chronicle of Higher Education, 61, B38–B40. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=98380567&site=ehost-live

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college & university. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Schmidt, P. (2004). New pressure put on colleges to end legacies in admissions. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50 , A1–A19. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12150498&site=ehost-live

Venegas, K. (2006). Harvard, Princeton drop early admissions — should others follow? Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 23, 41. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23043906&site=ehost-live

Wickenden, D. (2006). Top of the class. New Yorker, 82, 35–36. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22493900&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Aka, P. (2006). The Supreme Court and affirmative action in public education, with special reference to the Michigan cases. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, , 1–95. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21647363&site=ehost-live

Angelo, J. (2006). SAT optional. University Business, 9 , 18. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22666889&site=ehost-live

Farrell, E. (2007). When legacies are a college's lifeblood. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, A33–A34. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23776078&site=ehost-live

Fliegler, C. (2006). For early admissions, an unclear fate. University Business, 9, 13. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23130953&site=ehost-live

Pastine, I., & Pastine, T. (2012). Student incentives and preferential treatment in college admissions. Economics of Education Review, 31, 123–30. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=70262114&site=ehost-live

Reed, K. (2013). Two arguments for race-conscious admissions policies. American Journal of Education, 119, 341–345. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87374023