1. The Statement of Principles of Good Practice Understanding Ethical College Admission Standards Presented by: Marisol M. Scheer and Joseph M. Miller Admission Practices Co-Chairs

2. NACAC’s Statement of Principles of Good Practice brings focus to principled conduct among colleges and universities, high school and independent counselors in the recruitment of students and their transition to postsecondary education. Philosophy of “Doing the Right Thing” Statement of Principles of Good Practice

3. Core Values Member Conventions Mandatory Statements Interpretations of Mandatory Statements Best Practices Education, Monitoring Procedures and Penalties SPGP Includes

4. It is a code of conduct created to ensure equity and fairness in the college admissions process It is a document that promotes responsibility and integrity on the part of individuals who are engaged in college counseling It is a document that strives to “level the playing field” among all types of educational institutions. It is a document that protects the best interests of students Why are these Important?

5. Educate admission and counseling professionals and their institutions regarding ethical college admission standards adopted and promoted by NACAC. Assist them in fully integrating policies and procedures into their practices. Review, formulate and recommend changes to the Statement of Principles of Good Practice and the Education, Monitoring Procedures and Penalties policies, annually. Monitor compliance with the SPGP. Promote the adoption of ethical admission standards by non- members within the profession and promote awareness of these practices among affected publics. Purpose of Admission Practices Committees

6. If anyone - counselor, student, parent, admission officer - has a concern that the SPGP has been violated, it is important that the individual file a complaint with their affiliate Admission Practices Committee. To help ensure that all allegations are properly tracked and followed-up, it is asked that the person filing the complaint complete a Confidential Complaint Form. These may be downloaded from the NACAC website and most affiliates’ websites. (www.nacacnet.org )www.nacacnet.org Handling Complaints

7. Procedures for Reporting an Allegation: Name of institution where alleged violation occurred Nature of the violation Deliver to Chair or Co-Chairs of your Affiliate or NACAC directly Include supporting documentation for your claim Remember that names and contact information remain confidential Notify party of alleged violation Education, Monitoring, and Penalties

8. What Happens Next? The affiliate AP Chair will acknowledge receipt and check the membership status of the institution or individual whom the allegation was filed against. If the allegation is against a member of that affiliate, the complaint is handled by the respective affiliate’s Admission Practices Committee. The affiliate AP chair may contact the Dean/Director of the accused institution, by phone or email, to begin an inquiry. Process for Filing Complaints

9. What Happens Next? If the allegation is against the member of another affiliate, the case will be forwarded to that affiliate’s Admission Practices Committee. If the allegation is against an institution or individual who is not a member of an affiliate but a member of NACAC, the case will be referred to the National Admissions Practices Committee for handling. If the allegation is made against a non-NACAC member, the Chief Executive Officer will handle the case. Process for Filing Complaints

10. How to Resolve a Case The vast majority of cases are resolved amicably with a simple telephone call between an Admission Practices Committee Chair and a senior member of the office against which the allegation was made. In many cases the office that was not in compliance remediates the issue as soon as it is brought to their attention. If a case cannot be resolved at the affiliate level, the case is referred to the National Committee for consideration. Upon the resolution of the case, the necessary paperwork is filed with NACAC Headquarters and the person who filed the allegation is notified of the resolution. Process for Filing Complaints

11. Outcomes: Best Case – After being notified, practices are amended to come into compliance – case closed. Worst Case – Violation sent to National Committee and recommendations for penalties are imposed by the Board of Directors. Penalties may include: Recommendation to the Board of Directors for: Issuance of a Statement of Noncompliance Exclusion from NACAC sponsored events Suspension of membership & membership privileges Termination of membership Education, Monitoring, and Penalties

12. Trends in complaints observed in recent years are the following: Earlier application deadlines (pre October 15) May 1 - National Candidates Reply Date (earlier deadlines, including housing, scholarships and special programs) Recruiting students enrolled at four-year institutions (transfer recruitment) Wait list issues Disparaging comparisons Profiles of Complaints Filed

13. Approved Changes to the Statement of Principles of Good Practice (SPGP) By the 2014 Assembly

14. I.A.4 All members I.A.4 Interpretations a, b, c, d, and e I.B.2 – added “institutionally affiliated” financial aid or scholarship awards I.B.8 Interpretation – regarding a “complete” transcript II.B.3 and II.B.5 – added “institutionally affiliated” financial aid or scholarship awards Interpretations added for: II.B.3.b, d II.B.5.a II.B.12.a Mandatory Practices & Related Interpretations

15. I. All Members—Mandatory Practices A. Promotion and Recruitment All members agree they will: 1. accurately represent and promote their schools, institutions, organizations, and services; 2. not use disparaging comparisons of secondary or postsecondary institutions; 3. not offer or accept any reward or remuneration from a secondary school, college, university, agency, or organization for placement or recruitment of students in the United States. 4. not employ agents who are compensated on a per capita basis when recruiting students outside the United States, unless ensuring they and their agents conduct themselves with accountability, transparency, and integrity; Approved SPGP Changes by the 2014 Assembly

16. Interpretation of Mandatory Practices I. All Members—Interpretations and Monitoring A. Promotion and Recruitment All members agree they will: 4. not employ agents who are compensated on a per capita basis when recruiting students outside the United States, unless ensuring they and their agents conduct themselves with accountability, transparency, and integrity; Members will: a. ensure institutional accountability by monitoring the actions of those commission-based agents acting on the institution’s behalf; b. ensure transparency with a conspicuous statement on their website that indicates their institution uses agents who are compensated on a per capita basis; c. ensure integrity by dealing ethically and impartially with applicants and other stakeholders, honoring commitments and acting in a manner that respects the trust and confidence placed in the institutions and the individuals representing them; d. adhere to US recruitment and remuneration laws (US Higher Education Act) for US citizens, where applicable; e. not contract with secondary school personnel for remunerations for referred students. Approved SPGP Changes by the 2014 Assembly

17. Interpretation of Mandatory Practices I. All Members—Interpretations and Monitoring A. Promotion and Recruitment All members agree they will: 4. not employ agents who are compensated on a per capita basis1 when recruiting students outside the United States, unless ensuring they and their agents conduct themselves with accountability, transparency, and integrity; Members will: d. adhere to US recruitment and remuneration laws (US Higher Education Act) for US citizens, where applicable; e. not contract with secondary school personnel for remunerations for referred students. Approved SPGP Changes by the 2014 Assembly

18. Interpretation of Mandatory Practices I. All Members—Interpretations and Monitoring B. Admission, Financial Aid and Testing Policies and Procedures All members agree they will: 2. not guarantee admission or specific college placement or make guarantees of any institutionally-affiliated financial aid or scholarship awards prior to an application being submitted, except when pre-existing criteria are stated in official publications; Approved SPGP Changes by the 2014 Assembly

19. Interpretation of Mandatory Practices I. All Members—Interpretations and Monitoring B. Admission, Financial Aid and Testing Policies and Procedures All members agree they will: 8. provide, in a timely manner, accurate, legible and complete transcripts for all students for admission or scholarships; a. A complete transcript includes all attempted courses. However, when school and/or district policy prohibits the inclusion of all coursework, the transcript or school profile must state the institutional policies on recording repeated courses and indicate whether grades from all courses attempted are included in the cumulative GPA calculation. Approved SPGP Changes by the 2014 Assembly

20. Interpretation of Mandatory Practices II. All Members—Interpretations and Monitoring B. Admission, Financial Aid and Testing Policies and Procedures All members agree they will: 3. permit first-year candidates for fall admission to choose among offers of admission and institutionally-affiliated financial aid and scholarships until May 1 and state this deadline explicitly in their offers of admission; b. offers of admission must clearly state whether deposits submitted by students prior to May 1 are refundable or non-refundable. Making a deposit refundable, however, still obligates an institution to abide by the May 1 Candidates Reply Date; d. the May 1 deadline also applies to any academic major or special program to which the candidate has been offered admission. Examples of special programs can include, but are not limited to, honors programs, dual-enrollment master’s, or professional-degree programs; Approved SPGP Changes by the 2014 Assembly

21. Interpretation of Mandatory Practices II. All Members—Interpretations and Monitoring B. Admission, Financial Aid and Testing Policies and Procedures All members agree they will: 5. work with their institutions’ senior administrative officers to ensure that institutionally-affiliated financial aid and scholarship offers and housing options are not used to manipulate commitments prior to May 1; a. While it is understood that institutions with limited housing may need to adopt a first-come, first-served policy for assigning on-campus housing, it is recommended that any enrollment or housing deposits they require to secure on- campus housing should be fully refundable if the student cancels admission by May 1. It is at the discretion of each institution whether to refund fees associated with applications/contracts, but deposits should be refunded. Approved SPGP Changes by the 2014 Assembly

22. Interpretation of Mandatory Practices II. All Members—Interpretations and Monitoring B. Admission, Financial Aid and Testing Policies and Procedures All members agree they will: 12. not establish any application deadlines for first-year candidates for fall admission prior to October 15 and will give equal consideration to all applications received by that date. a. Colleges and universities may welcome the initiation of applications from first- year students prior to the notification date and earliest application deadlines. Any incentives offered, including but not limited to application fee waivers, essay waivers, scholarships, housing, etc., must be honored at least through October 15; Approved SPGP Changes by the 2014 Assembly

23. Best Practices B. Admission, Financial Aid and Testing Policies and Procedures All postsecondary members should: 2. allow students a reasonable amount of time (at least 72 hours or May 1, whichever is later) to respond to an offer of admission from that institution’s wait list and gain admission to that institution’s incoming class. This offer of admission should be a written or electronic communication to the student. Postsecondary institutions should also strive to fully inform wait list students of their financial aid and housing opportunities, if different from their normal policies. Postsecondary institutions should not require a commitment from a student until the financial aid award and housing options, if any, have been provided; Approved SPGP Changes by the 2014 Assembly

24. Case Studies Let’s review some examples

25. Your senior year will be busy, so start early on your application to Eager Beaver State College! Submit an application by July 31, and we’ll waive your application fee of $50. Is this ethical? Case Study 1: Candidate’s Reply Date

26. SPGP Mandatory Principle II.B.12. – All post secondary members agree they will: not establish any application deadlines for first-year candidates for fall admission prior to October 15 and will give equal consideration to all applications received by that date. a. Colleges and universities may welcome the initiation of applications from first-year students prior to the notification date and earliest application deadlines. Any incentives offered, including but not limited to application fee waivers, essay waivers, scholarships, housing, etc., must be honored at least through October 15; Case Study 1

27. I hope this note finds you doing well and enjoying college. If things have not turned out as you expected, we encourage you to apply as a transfer student to Second Chance University. Is this ethical? Case Study 2: Future Admission

28. SPGP Mandatory Principle II.A.2. – All post secondary members agree they will: not knowingly recruit students who are enrolled or registered or have initiated deferred admission, declared their intent or submitted contractual deposits to other institutions, unless the students initiate inquiries themselves or unless cooperation is sought from institutions that provide transfer programs. Case Study 2

29. It is my pleasure to congratulate you on your admission to Awesome State University. To accept this offer of admission and begin the enrollment process, please respond to this offer within 30 days. Is this ethical? Case Study 3:

30. SPGP Principle II.B.3. - All post secondary members agree they will: permit first-year candidates for fall admission to choose among offers of admission and institutionally-affiliated financial aid and scholarships until May 1 and state this deadline explicitly in their offers of admission; II.B.3.C colleges will neither retract nor adversely alter their offers of admission and/or financial aid prior to May 1 for candidates who choose not to reply until that date, nor will they state or imply that candidates might incur such a penalty by waiting until May 1 (including time zone) to submit an enrollment deposit; Case Study 3

31. University of Western Southeastern State (UWSS) offers admission to a student, and tells the student that they have until May 1 st to accept their offer of admission by sending a deposit. The student then receives a letter from the Office of Financial Aid, offering a scholarship of $10,000. However, the student must let UWSS know if she will accept the scholarship by March 15, allowing another student to be offered the scholarship if she declines. Is this ethical? Case Study 4: Scholarship Reply Date

32. SPGP Mandatory Principle II.B.3. – All post secondary members agree they will: Permit accepted students to choose among offers of admission and institutionally affiliated financial aid and scholarships until May 1 and will state this deadline explicitly in their offers of admission. SPGP Principle II.B.5. - All post secondary members agree they will: Work with their institutions’ senior administrative officers to ensure institutionally affiliated financial aid and scholarship offers and housing options are not used to manipulate commitments prior to May 1. Case Study 4

33. A student at Ambitious College Prep comes to his college counselor in late September to get a signature for his Restrictive Early Action Agreement. The application is to his “dream” school, Prestigious College (PC), with a Nov. 1 deadline. The student will hear back in mid-December from PC. In late October, the student asks the counselor to sign an Early Decision agreement to his “top realistic” choice, Great College (GC). GC’s deadline is December 1 and the student will hear back by January 1. Is this allowed? Case Study 5:

34. SPGP Mandatory Principle III.B.3. – Counseling members agree they will: sign only one pending Early Decision or Restricted Early Action agreement, when applicable, for any student. Case Study 5

35. A student applies to Most Popular University (MPU), and is dying to get in. As a backup, this student applies to a Less Popular But Still Good College (LPBSGC). MPU offers admission, but not until the Spring semester, because they are full for the Fall. The student is admitted to LPBSGC. The student enrolls at LPBSGC for one semester, but then moves on to MPU. Is this ethical? Case Study 6: Future Admission

36. Concerns/potential issues: Double deposit?? Impact on retention and graduation rates Financial aid not available to non-degree seeking students Is this recruiting students from another university? Case Study 6

37. A student applies via Early Action to Mighty Midwestern University (MMU). In her letter of acceptance, MMU includes a survey that asks questions about her likes and dislikes. This includes a question about what other schools she has applied to and another asking her to rank order those schools. Is this ethical? Case Study 7: Indicating Preferences

38. SPGP Principle II.B.2. - All post secondary members agree they will: not require or ask candidates or the secondary schools to indicate the order of the candidates’ college or university preferences, except under Early Decision. Findings: The big question here was “What is a candidate?” MMU argued that admitted students are not candidates. After considerable discussion, the Committee disagreed. The idea of this principle is that students should not be pressured to rank schools, either before being admitted or before sending a commitment. Case Study 7

39. Puny Endowment College (PEC) offered a decent financial package, and the student deposited. When withdrawing his application from Humungous Endowment College (HEC), they proceeded to offer about $14,000 in extra aid. Student called PEC to see if they would match this, but they had no additional scholarship money available. Given this large difference in cost, the student decided to ultimately enroll at HEC. Did HEC commit a violation? Case Study 8:

40. SPGP Principle II.B.10. – All postsecondary members agree they will: not knowingly offer financial aid packages to students who are committed to attend other institutions, unless the students initiate such inquiries. Athletic scholarships, which adhere to nationally- established signing periods, are a recognized exception to this provision. Case Study 8

41. Following the May 1 deadline, Low Deposit University (LDU) found that their enrollment commitments were down about 30%. Facing budget cuts, LDU made calls to students who had been accepted but had decided to go elsewhere. In some cases, they even offered additional aid to influence a commitment. Did LDU commit a violation? Case Study 9:

42. SPGP Mandatory Principle II.A.2. - All postsecondary members agree they will: not knowingly recruit students who are enrolled, registered, have initiated deferred admission, or have declared their intent, or submitted contractual deposits to other institutions unless the students initiate inquiries themselves or unless cooperation is sought from institutions that provide transfer programs. SPGP Mandatory Principle II.B.10. – All postsecondary members agree they will: not knowingly offer financial aid packages to students who are committed to attend other institutions, unless the students initiate such inquiries. Athletic scholarships, which adhere to nationally-established signing periods, are a recognized exception to this provision. Case Study 9

43. Mid-year admission for first year students 30 day expected response rather than May 1 Proposed use of families’ prior year income (prior prior year) Growing pressure to use institutional incentives related to student athletes, diversity goals, donors, admits on the spot or admits promised by others outside of the admission operation Providing an honest and complete transcript representing all of a student’s work “Poaching” or recruiting students already enrolled, to transfer from another institution Trends to Monitor

44. Q & A What issues have you encountered? Any issues with high schools?

45. THANK YOU! Texas ACAC Admission Practices Co-Chairs Marisol M. Scheer, scheer@uiwtx.edu Joseph M. Miller, jmiller@cristoreyjesuit.orgscheer@uiwtx.edujmiller@cristoreyjesuit.org