A wish list: if you're wishing you could make that next admissions cycle better, you can. Here's how.

As the last college admissions cycle wound down, we found ourselves listening to the sighs and reflections of parents and students, counselors and admission officers. In a climate of rising costs and debt burdens, increasing uncertainty in applicant pools, burgeoning numbers of students in the admissions process, affirmative action under threat, and more competition at selective institutions, we offer the following wish list of five admissions program changes we would truly like to see.

1--RETHINK WAITING LISTS

They have been the growing bane of the admissions process for many students applying to selective IHEs. The underlying causes of colleges' heightened use of waiting lists are clear: more applicants (some two million each year now) in the college bound pool, applicants applying to more colleges simultaneously, applicants reaching out farther geographically, more non-traditional applicants, and greater financial uncertainty.

The insidious results of the waiting list trend are less obvious to many in institutional environments: parents, students, and high school counselors mystified by incongruous admission decisions; talented students put on waiting lists because they seem "overqualified"; students penalized because they did not have the time or wherewithal to visit or interview at a college (taken as a sure sign of disinterest); students worried about using the Common Application or an online application because it might send a similar sign; families establishing very negative opinions of colleges they once found highly desirable, because of a waiting list decision (often they would rather be rejected and be done with the uncertainty); and, finally, reputations of colleges and universities being hurt by the sharing of information among applicants within the same school or community.

In one case this past year, a wait-listed student tow us that he had received a letter from a selective university informing him that because of significant space limitations and a strong yield, the university would not be admitting students from the 2003 fall term waiting list. The same day, we had a call from another student letting us know that he had been admitted from that same college's waiting list. We would like to see IHEs be more honest about their waiting lists. We would like to see them provide more information to families and counselors about the number of students on the waiting list, and the historical trend in waiting list acceptances. We would like to see colleges abide by the guidelines of the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), and not a) demand via telephone that students tell them within 24 hours whether they will accept an offer from the waiting list, or b) as in the case of one university, write letters offering students a place on the regular waiting list for free, and a place on the "priority" waiting list for a non-refundable $500 deposit (should the student decide not to accept a waiting list admission offer). We would like to see institutions develop alternatives to waiting list offers, for qualified and interesting applicants. Perhaps, in addition to a waiting list spot for the fall, colleges could offer those students outright a midyear entrance, or a place in the following year's class, or entrance upon the completion of an associate's degree or a year of approved coursework.

2--IMPROVE AID FOR INTERNATIONALS

Let's provide more aid for international students who need it. Only a handful of highly selective institutions provide for internationals (non-U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens) the same need-blind/full-need packages (or close) that they do for U.S. citizens. Some colleges and universities limit their aid awards to a few international students each year, while others spread a small amount of insufficient aid around. Most colleges seem to prefer to reject outright financially needy but academically qualified and attractive international applicants, rather than admit them without financial support.

The cause of this dilemma, of course, is the exclusion of internationals from most federal and state financial aid programs, which provide the bulk of the aid available to students in the U.S. The solution must come from the coffers of individual colleges and universities and their supporters. To support an international student at $10,000 to $30,000 per year requires a significant investment of capital which may not provide an obvious return to the sponsoring institution. Yet there is a benefit to fostering international diversity on college campuses, and to diversifying the international student body in socioeconomic terms. There are a half-million or so foreign students studying in the U.S.--a number that would surely increase if more international students did not need to rely on wealthy families, foreign governments, or foundation benefactors for education support. We would love to see more institutions make a more significant commitment to sponsoring international applicants from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America, and Eastern Europe. We know firsthand of the many talented students eager to study in the U.S., if only they could afford the tuition. On a side note, American institutions will need to focus on improving their foreign recruitment, enrollment, retention, and support services as the U.S. government develops programs and changes in visa and tracking systems. Otherwise, they risk losing the gains they have made in enrolling international students; those who can--and cannot--pay.

3--BOOST TWO-YEAR-TO-FOUR-YEAR EDUCATION

Let's be more proactive about encouraging students to consider pursuing two-year degrees at community and junior colleges, followed by transfer to four-year institutions. All of the following may find significant benefits in such a plan: a) students with average or poor grades in high school, b) students hoping to save money by living at home and paying lower tuition and Fees, c) students from minority ethnic and racial backgrounds and non-traditional households finding a foothold in higher education, d) young adults re-entering the educational system, and e) high school late bloomers. If more four-year colleges promoted the prospects of transfer admissions, credit transfers, priority admission for in-state or other two-year degree recipients, and the value of a broad liberal arts foundation for later university study (and promoted early in the starting-to-learn-about-college process), more of these students might persevere, complete their two-year degree, and go on to additional college coursework. Many state university systems have established preferential admissions and credit transfer programs. While these systems could continue to improve and promote these programs, many four-year private colleges and universities could also benefit from developing and highlighting them.

4--BRING BACK THE INTERVIEW

We have continued to push for the re-personalization of the admissions process, and we would like to see more colleges re-institute or expand their interviewing programs. Even if they are largely informational, interviews offer an excellent opportunity for colleges to meet students personally, potentially moving beyond test scores and transcript in their evaluation of the candidate. Interviews also provide students with an additional chance to evaluate the college through an up-dose meeting with qualified personnel. Interviews were discontinued by many IHEs because of budgetary and staffing concerns, but also because of worries over giving preference to smooth-talking, low-performing students; students who can afford to travel to campus to meet with an admissions office; students who might be from cultural or family backgrounds that would bias the admissions decision; or students who attend a private or public school that attracts admissions recruiters.

We think there are ways to overcome such problems. Furthermore, admissions office budgets would be better served by limiting some travel and increasing opportunities for students to speak one-on-one with admissions staff or highly trained (we repeat, highly trained) student interviewers on campus. Developing regional alumni interviewing committees is another way institutions have managed to meet more students face-to-face. What's more, there are many other biases in the admissions process aside from those we have listed above, and interviews are actually one of the best ways to counteract those, as well. As long as they are conducted sensitively, interviews can be an important part of a holistic admissions process. Additionally, financial assistance may be made available to help students visit campus or meet with a regional representative.

5--IMPROVE CONTROL OVER ATHLETIC RECRUITING

We would like to see the athletic recruiting process reigned in under the aegis of the Admissions office. Too often, students feel like they are following a separate admissions path, and this is true for all sports divisions. Students may be promised the moon by coaches seeking to improve their roster, only to receive a summary rejection by the Admissions office. And students are being pressured even more (if that is possible) to commit to a binding early decision application in order to make it onto a coach's recruitment list--often when these students are simply not ready to choose the most suitable college for themselves.

Athletics play an important role in college life, and talented athletes make up an important contingent of the student body at most residential colleges. Yet, in the admissions process, when the scales are tipped too heavily in favor of recruited athletes, resentment at an athlete's high school is often acute among academically stronger students who were passed over. We are constantly telling families that the Admissions office makes admissions decisions, but we would like to see colleges emphasize this more strongly, and implement a recruiting program that is centered in the Admissions office and coordinated by one or more admissions officers. This means going beyond the present structure at many colleges with an athletic liaison officer. This would give coaches and recruited athletes a central place to go to clarify information, communication, procedures, and promises.

ENDNOTE 

What are your suggestions, for our next wish? How are programs at your institution addressing these topics? We'd like to know.

Howard Greene and Matthew Greene are independent education consultants, and the authors of the Greenes' Guides to Educational Planning. Contact them at [e-mail], or visit www.greenesguides.com.