One-Two Punch 

There is a wacky notion out there that students who don’t indicate on their applications that they are seeking financial aid have a better chance of being admitted than those who check the box thus saying they are seeking monetary assistance to attend. Now we’ve all heard stories that, if it comes down to two or three equally qualified students for one spot and one of the three doesn’t need aid whereas the others do, the slot will more than likely go to the one who can pay. I am here to tell you that well, under certain circumstances, that is indeed true. Not too many institutions these days have the luxury of being need-blind in the admissions process as it pertains to the entire class (they say they are need-aware instead). And yet, they probably are need-blind to a great extent as it pertains to the majority of the class they are admitting. Maybe for the last five percent or so of their acceptances they will have to consider an applicant’s ability to pay but that’s not entirely a bad thing, is it? How cruel to be admitted to the college of your choice and in no way being able to make it happen financially because the money just isn’t there from your, the government’s, the state’s or the college’s coffers. Don’t you see, they’re not doing you any favors under these circumstances to extend an offer you cannot afford to accept. So, do you leave the box blank thus giving the impression that money is not an issue? Do I really have to answer that question? NO!!! Listen to me. Get together as a family, do the math (EFC calculators are ubiquitous), complete and file the FAFSA, indicate which colleges you’re targeting on the FAFSA so they receive your EFC, let the chips fall, compare your aid packages and make college a reality. If you plan correctly, you’ll have multiple options, your plate will be full, you will qualify for grants, work study and loans and your dreams will come true. I said so.

In our ongoing quest to understand how admission works, especially at the nation’s most highly selective colleges and universities, we thought it helpful to identify some of the factors which have an unusually persuasive influence on the psyches of the decision-makers; that is, what qualities are likely to give someone an edge in process. There is no substitute of course for electing a challenging curriculum (the most advanced courses for which you qualify), maintaining excellent grades and owning superior standardized test scores, these are the coin of the realm. But, assuming that practically every candidate to the super-selectives possesses these credentials more or less equally, what in this rarefied company can move a candidate into the “must have” pool? When the academic piece is a non-issue and noteworthy feats are the norm, what sets some apart? The simple answer is, a skill or talent developed over time, refined and honed in the cauldron of competition to status in a hierarchy where action, performance mean everything and the unadulterated results speak for themselves (and for those who own them). It’s not simply about being good, it’s being good at something, over time, demonstrating commitment and stamina and reaching a proficiency that speaks volumes. After hours upon hours devoted to dull, grinding, grueling, repetitive exercises and practices usually before or after the academic day when lack of sleep or the ordinary pressures most youth experience aren’t even given a thought, you dig deeper and perform at the highest possible level, over and over again. Anyone who has had even a passing association with an activity or avocation that involves such demands will know what I mean. That’s what sets some kids apart. And the pursuit which most often embodies, which captures this essential every time is athletics. I know, I know and I agree, how about artists, dancers, singers and musicians who toil endlessly under similar conditions and of course, they too would receive the same attention and appreciation. But sport tends to be more universally practiced and, consequently, is more commonly encountered in admissions situations so that is why I will reflect upon its importance here more than the others. Yes, one can easily make the argument that the energy, training and discipline which a career in dance or music requires are indeed very similar to the regimen of an athlete. But why, you ask, would there be such a premium placed on a young person’s ability to run a mile under six minutes, throw a baseball ninety miles per hour, do a flawless floor exercise, catch a football in traffic, hit threes under pressure or row two thousand meters in 6 minutes? Of course, we know all of these talents are valued and sought-after by coaches everywhere. That’s a given and understandable when your job is to field winning teams and generate recognition for your institution with a successful sports program. For the admission people, however, the appeal of athletics is bit more subtle and it goes back to what I pointed out earlier. Let me tell you a little story. As a consultant in practice for close to forty years, I have represented my share of athletes to admission offices just about everywhere in the country. I have worked with young people who were proficient in many sports, among them: soccer, field hockey, ice hockey, baseball, softball, basketball, swimming, water polo, tennis, squash, track, cross-country, crew and lacrosse; Divisions I, II and III, young men and women of varying degrees of ability and accomplishment. Two of my own children were fortunate enough to be able to compete as Division I athletes at two very fine educational institutions. What really mattered most in all of this for all of these kids wasn’t necessarily what they had succeeded in doing in their respective sports, how high up the ladder they went, what level of proficiency they acquired. Obviously, the more accomplished they were, the more sought-after. More importantly, however, it was what they brought to the gym, the field, the water, the rink, the track, the pool, the court, even the locker room, every day, under every circumstance, in all kinds of weather, feeling great or lousy, up or down. It mattered not at all if they were rich, poor, tall, short, skinny, fat, tired, rested, happy or sad. Their commitment, effort, grit, discipline and loyalty were what mattered and what distinguished them; what they put into their work, how it tempered them. And therein lies the message: there’s not an admission committee anywhere that wouldn’t salivate to see these qualities in abundance in virtually every student they encountered among their applicants. What got me to thinking hard about this topic was an article in the sports section of my paper a week or so ago entitled College Commitments listing local athletes who had signed letters of intent to compete in Division I colleges. There were few surprises in Boys’ and Girls’ Basketball or Baseball/Softball with the kids acquitting themselves quite well receiving offers from great colleges and universities such as Syracuse, Penn State, Wake Forest and Arizona. What really blew me away though was where the Lacrosse players were going. That’s right, Lacrosse, that quirky sport invented by Indians in Canada, popular in Maryland and Long Island and played in more and more schools nowadays. These results were astounding. Just reading down the list: Michigan (6), Johns Hopkins, Yale, Harvard, Penn (4), Navy (7), Army (2), William and Mary (7), Dartmouth (2), Princeton, Stanford, Columbia, Duke, Georgetown, Cornell, Virginia, Boston College (2), Notre Dame, Villanova (3), Furman (3), Delaware (6), Lafayette (4), Lehigh (2), Holy Cross, Drexel (3), Maryland (2), George Washington, North Carolina, Vermont. Yowee! No, this isn’t the Cum Laude Society although I have to believe many of these students are probably members and no, this is not a recapitulation of a Top Colleges list although I suspect most of these institutions would appear therein; no, it’s where a group of local Lacrosse players will be attending college. Read it and understand. It is a given that these kids will contribute in many ways both on and off the field to the quality of life at their respective institutions and these schools will be the richer for it. The gatekeepers know this. Trust me, every admission person in the country knows this very well.

There is no more enlightening experience than to spend time discussing the state of admissions with someone who has the benefit of over thirty years in the trenches coupled with not only an uncanny ability to assess the history but also to see clearly what lies ahead. Too, it is no mystery that I admire an uncluttered, direct approach to the questions at hand and concise, succinct responses which cut right to the heart of the issue. Speaking with Ed Escalet then was just what I had hoped for. Ed is the Director of Minority Admissions at Penn State as well as the Chair of the Human Relations Committee of the Pennsylvania Association for College Admission Counseling. He is a man who can certainly “talk the talk” but, more importantly, who “walks the walk” every day in his role as the champion of minority interests at one of the largest and most prominent flagship universities in the world. His insights are well worth noting as we explore some current topics related to admissions and, specifically, to minority concerns therein. Lloyd: Tell us, Ed, how does one become an admissions professional? And, what is it about the work that drew you to it? Ed: There really is no actual degree or career track for admissions but, as the product of a liberal arts education and one who enjoys marketing, sales and people-related work, I was a good match for the field and ultimately saw myself as perhaps finding my life’s pursuit. I love the family feel of what I do and I knew I could make a difference in peoples’ lives because of or through it. I am a “wedge“, a gatekeeper, if you will, and I know that what I do has an institutional as well as a direct personal impact on those with whom I come in contact. Lloyd: In that vein, how does Penn State approach minority admissions? Ed: I am indeed very fortunate to be a part of an institution which has a strong, enduring commitment to equity and inclusion. We see ourselves as counselors first, enabling prospective students and their families to make informed decisions about their futures. We create five year plans (and have done so for years now) which we evaluate on many levels to establish coherent connections between the university’s educational philosophy and our admissions practices. We knew that fully-staffed outreach offices in Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh were vital in bringing Penn State to the community. Trust and support are key to any successful admissions strategy and especially when dealing with underrepresented and first generation families. It’s not all about the money! I emphasize graduation rates, for example. “Getting in” is certainly important but “Getting out”, even more so. We manage possibilities and fulfill dreams. Lloyd: Some might say that an institution with a global brand such as a Penn State wouldn’t have to work all that hard to attract and enroll their classes. What would you say to those who minimize the labor and underestimate the challenge? Ed: Building a vibrant minority community within this university has never been window dressing. We have always set standards as opposed to reacting---we sought to be the best at this work from the outset with the mindset that we would worry if and when others caught up to us. Our minority population demands and deserves what the majority has historically enjoyed. Keep in mind that we now have the distinct pleasure of welcoming the children and grandchildren of several generations of minority families to Penn State. In this regard, we are actively engaged in providing a majority experience for our entire student body. We are adamant that there should be a national commitment to higher education for all; this is not a privilege but a right, a fundamental right. Lloyd: So what then do you see then as priorities for our educational institutions and this wonderful country of ours? Ed : We must continue to be competitive in the global arena. Too many constituencies are reluctant to bite the bullet and do what is necessary to correct the educational deficiencies of our schools and bring those with little resources up to a higher standard. We must forge better partnerships and tap the brain power with which this country has been blessed. I don’t know about you, but I see us as desperately needing this next generation to be intelligent, productive and strong. We will be dependent on them to take care of us, right? One third of our population will be what we now term “minority” and that’s a significant percentage. It is incumbent upon us to do everything we can to see to it that these people are embraced, included and empowered. Our future and our children’s future depend on it. Here at Penn State, we live this commitment daily and I am proud to play a small role in promoting this ideal.

It’s that time of year when early application deadlines either loom or are already past, seniors, their parents and advisors check and recheck that they’ve done everything according to the directions and pundits muse, both among colleagues, in meetings and in print, as to who will receive the coveted thick envelopes. What is the magic formula this season, what esoteric talent, what highly-developed skill, what niche specialty will propel some into the ranks of the chosen while others, seemingly equally prepared and polished, will be relegated to the defer pool or, worse yet, flat out denied? It’s the kind of question that bedevils the experts, sends parents into paroxysms of angst and keeps many a senior up at night fretting about their chances. Well, I’m here to tell you that the bad news is, the short answer is, nobody knows! That’s right, no one, neither the Dean of Admission, the Provost, the Basketball Coach nor the Development Director can say for certain who will catch the brass ring. And that’s because of several factors. Especially at the most selective institutions (and of course one reason they are most selective is because they attract an inordinate amount of super-qualified applicants for a limited number of places in the entering class), most of the candidates who apply would be successful if admitted. Make no mistake, for every student who made it in there are sometimes five, six or even ten to fifteen who, if they were chosen, could do the work, contribute and graduate just fine. So who makes the cut, and why? One overwhelming factor which few from the outside want to understand is that colleges and universities have institutional priorities. Yes that’s right; they conduct admissions in a self-serving fashion because they have to. There are professors to keep happy with outstanding scholars and researchers, coaches to spoil with super-talented athletes, theater directors who need actors, singers and dancers and alumni whose generosity may balloon if their offspring are fortunate enough to keep the family skein intact. At a recent educational conference session featuring a panel of admission officers from the likes of Rochester, Vanderbilt and Davidson, I posed the question, “How would we, the student, parent or counselor ever know what a specific college’s priorities were, and in any given cycle, because they must change from year to year?” The answer one gentleman suggested was a bit of an eye-opener. He said, “Go to the web page and read the President’s address or message for that year. It’s all there.” Now before you go running to the sites of the colleges on your list to see if your baby possesses those qualities which the President has deemed crucial for institutional wellness this particular round, remember that these targets move. And that’s true across the board. That’s another reason why the whole idea of “fit” is such an amorphous one (but more on that topic in another posting). Remember it goes both ways. Regardless of how well-suited a candidate may be for such and such a college, there must be an equal need on the part of the college to make the match. Therein lies the problem, you will never know year in, year out exactly what’s on a school’s wish list. Why? Because neither will they. And that’s as it should be. Can you imagine the nightmare it would create if, say, the word got out that a certain skill or talent was in demand at ______ (fill in the blank)? I will never forget when, at another conference, Princeton’s Dean shared with us the story of just such a scenario. The Orchestra director had come to her and asked kindly that, if they were fortunate enough to see any double bassists among their many gifted applicants, could she please earmark one or two because his string section was losing theirs that year and the sound would surely suffer if they could not be replaced. The Dean told this anecdote with candor and good humor saying she dared not share this request with too many people, even in her office, because you can imagine the fallout. All these little boys and girls bent over under the weight of double basses as they dutifully went about their lessons knowing that, if they labored mightily and became proficient enough, the result would be a golden ticket to Princeton.So, what’s the moral to this story? It is simply that there is no single preparation or skill or talent which will guarantee an acceptance, anywhere. Admission deans, directors and their staffs build classes which are comprised of many different types. No one can predict what the pool will look like until it appears, it takes shape and no one can predict who or what type will be admitted until they are. So the best advice I can give those of you seeking the holy grail of admission anywhere but especially to those few most selective colleges and universities in the country: be as good as you can be at whatever it is you do (art, sports, dance, voice, theater, anything), do it with diligence and panache but above all, concentrate on academics. The courses you take, their level of challenge and how well you do in them should be your foremost concern. We tend to lose sight of the fact that higher education is in fact a continuation of school and the best predictor of success in school is: success in school---academic achievement is the number one priority of any admission office anywhere. Cast your net widely, apply to a range of institutions which you have chosen carefully based upon your credentials, what you are interested in, what they offer and be sure to concentrate on what works for you. Indeed, this last thought is perhaps the most important yet. All too often we choose our colleges based upon a range of factors which may have little to do with us: where our parents went, where our friends say they’re going, where the present boyfriend is or thinks he’ll be or whatever, and rarely do we consider the most important element of all--us. College selection starts with self-analysis and goes from there, not the other way around. Find out about you and the rest will fall into place. And then, the winner is...you!

So much anxiety, angst and general rutching over whether or not applying Early Decision (the binding alternative) is a wise thing, the wise thing, to do has made this strategy into a true stumbling block for potential college-goers when in fact, its consideration and subsequent deployment is nothing but common sense (if only sense were common). You apply early, in so doing you agree on pain of death to attend if admitted, you get in early and you buy the hoodie early--that’s all there is to it. Many institutions even, or should I say especially, the most selective will routinely admit upwards of 33% or more of their incoming classes from this pool. Why wouldn’t they? If I were looking for the best and the brightest and the most talented and the most athletically gifted and the wealthiest and the most celebrated and the most diverse class I could get; in brief, if I could lock in, despite what amounts to internecine competition among the elite and just plain death struggles for the rest, a significant percentage of said class, I’d have to be stone crazy not to! I would want these students under any circumstances so, God bless me, why not under these? Oh, and here comes the prattle: once admitted, I would underfund or somehow short-change them because they are already obligated to attend my school; I have them captive and I can play with their family finances, their life’s savings and get them on the cheap. Well, of course I would alienate them, treat them poorly and generally create a disaffected entering percentage of my class on the pretext that they were committed and, well, I just could. NOT. Here’s where the common sense comes in folks. If I know such and such is my first choice college and I know early in my senior year and I have all the necessary documentation in order and my testing complete and my teacher recommendations in and so forth and I am truly dying to be there, then I should take advantage of the odds and apply early. Period. Come on, every third-rate go-to-college web site has a cost calculator on it (and soon every college will have to provide one by law), you know what it’s going to cost going in. Confused? Ask before you apply then. You’re in and they’re going to stiff you? How absurd. If you qualify for need-based aid, you’ll get it. If you qualify for merit awards, you’ll get them. Don’t like the package, make an appointment with the financial aid officer and plead your case with solid reasons why. Worst case scenario, you find (and I mean honest-to-goodness) you really can’t afford it, they’ll let you out of the commitment (happens more than you think for all the right reasons). So enough already. This strategy is a no-brainer for the student who has done his homework and knows in his heart where he wants to be and why. For the rest, well, it’s not for you.