Should we put an end to legacy admissions?
In the past, many university and college admissions officers have favored, or given “preferential treatment,” to those descended from alumni. The origins of so-called legacy admissions policies can be traced back to the 1920, and present-day legacy preferences in admissions are still happening. Of the top 100 U.S. schools, around three quarters have policies in place that favor children of alumni. These policies have been heavily criticized for inhibiting social mobility as well as being “anti-meritocratic.” Research from a 2011 Harvard study found that within the nation’s top 30 most selective schools “all legacy applicants had a 23% higher probability of admission, while ‘primary legacy’ students (those with a parent who attended the school as an undergraduate, rather than, say, a grandparent or aunt) had a 45% higher probability compared with their peers, all other things being equal.” Some schools defend preferential legacy treatment with the argument that these alumni are more likely to donate and, in turn, fund financial aid programs or construction projects. College presidents argue “multigenerational enrollment helps improve the institutional ethos, tightening the bonds of community for those lucky enough to be admitted.” While this may be true, it is important to recognize “for every legacy admitted, another promising applicant is denied the career and economic opportunity that a top degree can provide.”
Source: The New York Times
U.S. News adjusts its ranking methodology
U.S. News & World Report has adjusted its college ranking formula, adding a social mobility factor. In the past the ranking system did not take into account “how many low-income students a college graduated; it considered how those low-income students were treated.” So if a college only admitted and educated a small number of low-income students, and if those students succeeded and the college treated them well, the college did well on the ranking. Another change in the ranking methodology, involving the Carnegie classification of colleges, includes the addition of a “‘professional practice’ category into doctoral universities.” Factoring this into the national university college ranking system, “the number of institutions increased by more than 25%, while the regional universities decreased by about 10%.”
Source: Inside Higher Ed
Looking inside OPM contracts with public universities
A recent report by The Century Foundation looked into the contracts between public universities and online program managers (OPMs), the third parties that run institutions’ online courses, certificates and degrees. The report found several “red flags” across contracts that public universities should be aware of, including how revenue sharing is structured and the lengths of the contracts, which usually cover terms of at least five years. Another concern relates to the difficulty of exiting the contract: “[A]round one-quarter of contracts reviewed include terms such as automatic renewals; require the university to notify the OPM a few years ahead of its plan to exit or forgo renewal; and bans on contracting with other companies for similar services after termination.”
Source: Education Dive
The federal rule likely impacting international and immigrant students
A new version of the U.S. public-charge rule has been set into motion, affecting immigrants and non-immigrant students and their families. This rule requires immigrants or non-immigrants seeking to enter the U.S. to show evidence that they “are self-sufficient and will not require public resources, including government benefits such as welfare, for support.”
Public-charge is defined “as someone who has received one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months within any three-year period.” Examples of these public benefits include, “Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), most forms of Medicaid and certain housing programs.” Many colleges have been trying to connect food-insecure students with public programs like SNAP, but this rule may cause immigrant students to think twice and avoid utilizing public programs altogether.
Source: Diverse Education