Professional Program Admissions Policy in a Competitive Environment

 

Paul W. Holley

Assistant Professor

Auburn University

 

Tammie Cook

Academic Advisor I

Auburn University

The admissions process for university-level construction programs has historically been one of basic coordination and placement.  Today, enrollment caps, core class requirements, transfer course acceptance, industry draw, and the appeal of starting salaries all make for a markedly increased competitive admissions environment for many construction education departments.  This now requires administration and faculty at many universities to reconsider oversimplified policies to ensure that students being admitted into professional programs are not only academically adept, but also have the highest propensity to be successful after being graduated.  This paper proposes admissions policy updates via a case study of policy currently being updated in a reputable construction program, for which the initiative of the update was the authors’. 

Keywords:  admissions policy, enrollment cap, professional program, GPA

Introduction 

“Assigning meaning to differences in ability is likely to persist as long as human beings differ from one another.  The allocation of opportunity, especially educational opportunity, will, most likely, continue to present dilemmas of efficiency and fairness wherever mental ability is identified, educated, and utilized.” (Brown-Miller 1995) 

Admissions policy, or ‘allocation of opportunity’, has been under much scrutiny in the U.S. for some time.  The last twenty five years has seen much debate and legislation concerning college admissions with respect to many different criteria such as diversity and financial needs.  Diversity plans such as affirmative action and percent-acceptance are currently subjects of heavy debate by both educators and lawmakers.  “Beginning with the freshmen class that will enter in fall 2004, [The University of] Michigan will discard its much scrutinized system of awarding points to minority undergraduate applicants on the basis of race.”  (Cavanagh 2003)  Other states have implemented percent plans which accept some fixed designated top percentile from each college preparatory program in the state.  “The percent plans don’t help many students or institutions.  But, of course, they weren’t designed to.  They were designed to get around the court decisions, laws, and political pressures that oppose admitting students in order to achieve a predetermined racial and ethical mix.” (Blum, Clegg  2003) 

Broad scale issues such as diversity are often considerations for undergraduate or graduate applicants, but what about admissions into professional programs within an undergraduate curriculum?  Students vying for seats in these programs have already been admitted into post-secondary education institutions.  Many professional programs such as pharmacy, nursing, veterinary medicine, and construction now find themselves facing admissions issues that are more related to both academic and professional potential for success. 

Construction education programs across the United States have seen dramatic growth in their relatively short existence, since being promulgated from civil engineering and management programs at the university level.  As competition for admissions into these programs rises quickly at many institutions, allocation of opportunity must include much consideration for appropriateness and fairness.  Programs that once took in the masses aborting other curricula now find themselves having to select from a pool of applicants that is far bigger than class sizes or enrollment caps allow.  While many construction programs’ admissions policies do not include enrollment caps due to University mandates, revenue issues, or other factors specific to that institution, this paper focuses on the admissions process for a finite number of seats available.  The growth of the management role in the construction industry coupled with the appeal of lucrative salaries has substantially increased the number of applicants in many construction programs across the country. 

For some time, many construction programs have admitted students based on overall grade point average (GPA) alone.  The authors believe that this approach is flawed from an academic perspective in many ways, leaving administrators with inappropriate policy to be contested by both students and parents.  It provides no emphasis on construction coursework, and effectively promotes non-related coursework whose level of difficulty might easily improve a student GPA.  Whether or not the admissions GPA includes classes taken elsewhere can also precipitate gaming a policy, and also effectively penalizes those taking non-related but difficult courses at the admitting institution.   

Using solely an overall GPA also gives no recognition to less objective criteria such as relevant work experience, communication skills, work ethic, and other traits that many potential employers consider extremely desirable.  While the authors concur that these and similar criteria are worthwhile to be explored, this paper’s case study covers only the academic criteria, as consideration of the less objective criteria is a distinctly separate topic. 

Methodology and Findings 

The methodology is a product of a current effort by the authors to effectuate an update to the admissions policy for the professional construction program at “University X.”  The process undertaken is being presented as a case study for the remainder of this paper.  The current admissions policy in the construction program at University X accepts 30 students per semester for a total of 90 students per year. 

Current admissions problems were first defined, subsequently precipitating goals for updates to the policy.  The authors then researched current admissions policy for comparative purposes, as well as to promote positive suggestions for policy updates.  All information gathered was then used to propose policy iterations to study trends in admission results.  These results were then presented to the construction program faculty at University X as a whole, prompting the generation of a final policy proposal to be ratified. 

Definition of Perceived Current Admissions Policy Problems and Goals 

Current admissions are based solely on overall GPA achieved at University X.  This system has several perceived shortcomings, including:

-favors those taking coursework elsewhere, as grades for these courses do not count toward the admissions GPA.  These courses are typically math, science or other required core courses that often result in grades that, had they been included in the admissions GPA, would not be favorable.

-penalizes those taking other coursework at University X, whether or not it was required as part of the construction curriculum.  Students transferring from engineering, pre-med, and similar departments often find that grades from courses such as Chemistry, advanced Calculus, or others not required in the construction curriculum result in a negative impact on their admissions GPA.

-promotes students’ improvement of their admissions GPA by taking non-related coursework.  Students with marginal admissions GPAs frequently take multiple physical education or other less challenging courses to improve their admissions GPAs.

-inappropriateness prompts regular discontent from students and parents

Based on these flaws, goals for new admissions policy as developed by the authors are:

-admissions based on probable future success in the curriculum AND industry

-policy that cannot reasonably be considered based on unfair criteria (by students and parents)

-policy that is succinct and can be easily administered each semester

-policy that promotes admissions GPAs being raised by improving grades in relevant coursework in lieu of electives

Current Policy of Counterpart Programs 

Current admissions policy was reviewed from two types of sources, that of other professional programs at University X, and that of construction programs at other universities.  The construction programs reviewed as well as that at University X are considered to be in the top six programs in the U.S., but are listed in anonymity for purposes of blind review.  Current admissions policy for these programs is as follows: 

University X, School of Pharmacy

-students admitted once per year, notified the semester before beginning professional program

-there is an enrollment cap

-admission is based on standardized tests, overall GPA, Sciences GPA, and individual interviews by the department admissions committee

-admission is contingent on coursework being taken the term of application being completed satisfactorily

University X, School of Nursing

-students admitted once per year, notified the semester before beginning professional program

-there is an enrollment cap

-admission is based on a formula including overall GPA, sciences GPA, total hours taken at University X, and certain demographic factors

-students admitted are not given a ranking (alphabetic only)

University X, Veterinary Medicine

-students admitted once per year, notified the semester before beginning professional program

-there is an enrollment cap

-admission is based on a formula including overall GPA, sciences GPA, specific coursework GPA, trends in GPA over time, course load factor, interviews with admissions committee members, and written work evaluation

University A, Construction

-students admitted each semester, notified the semester before beginning professional program

-there is an enrollment cap

-students are admitted based on a review of GPA (minimum overall) and a resume by the Department Head and Admissions Counselor(s)

-courses being taken during the application term are not considered in admissions

University B, Construction

-students are admitted Fall and Spring semesters, notified the semester before beginning professional program coursework

-there is an enrollment cap

-students are admitted based on total academic record indicating the greatest likelihood of success; there is no published GPA requirement or formula

University C, Construction

-there is no formal admission process into the Department, any student admitted to the University can enroll in professional coursework based on prerequisites and as class size allows

University D, Construction

-students are admitted each semester, based only on a minimum overall GPA

-there is no enrollment cap, any student who applies and meets the GPA requirement is accepted

Academic Admissions Proposals for the Construction Program at University X 

Based on the authors’ own beliefs and the findings of counterpart institutions, new admissions GPA calculations were generated for consideration, the intent being to address each defined problem and subsequent goal as enumerated above.  Additionally, feedback from the University X Industry Advisory Council helped determine courses that were appropriate indicators of future success.  Primary objectives of the original proposals included consideration of grades in certain coursework regardless of where it was taken, the weighting of certain coursework such that course hours did not determine the importance of the material, and the inclusion of courses believed to be particularly successful indicators. 

Three iterations of new admissions GPA calculations were formulated to analyze students already admitted under the current University X overall GPA policy.  Grades of students applying during the last five semesters and their actual admissions rankings were compared with would-be rankings based on the three proposed GPA calculations; the last three semesters’ data is included in Appendixes A through C.  The top forty students applying each term are shown to consider if admissions rankings would be significantly altered. 

Proposal 1-   GPA comprised of 8 indicator courses including both construction and university core coursework.  The 8 indicators include Calculus I, Physics I, English II, Construction Materials I, History of Building, Drawings & Specifications, Accounting I, and Microeconomics.

Proposal 2-  GPA comprised of 9 indicator courses, including the original 8 indicators, plus Structures I (Statics and Strengths of Materials)  note- currently Structures I is taken by many students during the application term and subsequently not calculated in the admissions GPA.  This and the following proposal would require a change in the curriculum model so that Structures I could be taken one semester earlier.

Proposal 3-  GPA comprised of “Structures I” and “Drawings & Specifications” calculated at 30%, and the remaining 7 indicators calculated at 70%. 

The first column in each table in the appendixes is the ranking of student GPAs based on actual admission under the current policy.  The final five columns are the would-be rankings based on student number; e.g., see Appendix B, the student actually admitted at rank 6 would have been admitted at rank 29 had proposal 1 been implemented, and would have been at rank 35 had proposal 3 been implemented, and subsequently not admitted.  Note that in each appendix, students’ numbers in blue were not actually admitted but would have been under the proposed policy, and students in yellow were actually admitted but would not have been admitted under the proposed policy. 

Trend Analysis 

The results of the admissions analysis were consistent.  Invariably, twenty percent (5 or 6) of the students who were actually admitted would not have been admitted under any of the proposed GPA calculations.  Similarly, the students who replaced them were consistently far above the typical cut-off of thirty students admitted each term.  There are specific cases where students who were not admitted under the current policy would have been ranked in the top ten places had indicator courses been utilized (see students #36 and 37, Appendix B).  This suggests that indeed there are many students whose overall GPA is penalizing them because of non-indicator coursework taken at University X.  

Further, studies of the students who would have consistently not been admitted based on proposals 1 through 3 suggest that many of these students were admitted based on a GPA calculated with many courses taken elsewhere.  Had the indicator coursework taken elsewhere been included, their GPAs would have diminished substantially.  Referencing Appendix C, student #2’s ranking falls to position 22, 24, and 27 in the three proposed calculations.  While the student would have still been admitted in this case, this confirms that there are students whose admission GPAs are substantially inflated due to transfer grades.  The growing number of 4.0 admissions GPAs is perhaps the best indicator that this is indeed the case (See “University X GPA”, Appendix C.) 

These trends maintain this pattern every term over the last two and a half years, and strongly suggest that the efficacy of using an overall GPA from only University X is not appropriate.  The authors propose that the students as a whole are adapting to the current GPA policy to exploit the inherent weaknesses and limitations. 

Proposal to Faculty 

The comparison data from all five semesters analyzed was then presented to the faculty of the construction program at University X.  Several pertinent and thoughtful questions were raised: 

-Does using only indicator coursework imply that we do not value certain university core coursework as important?

-Does excluding coursework taken during the application term affect the process?

-Is weighting certain coursework appropriate? 

Based on faculty discussion, the authors developed for implementation Proposal 4, a formula based policy, to refine the original proposals used for analysis.  This proposal includes utilizing all required core coursework taken to date, but also weighting the construction coursework to more appropriately predict student success.  Additionally, it removes all non-required coursework from the calculation to level the admissions competition.  This measure not only removes from the calculation the taking of less challenging (and non-related) coursework, but also removes the penalizing of those having taken difficult unrelated coursework at University X.  The primary components and caveats of Proposal 4 are as follows: 

-GPA of all required pre-admission courses (including core courses) taken prior to the application term, regardless of at what institution they were taken -  40%

-GPA of all required construction courses taken prior to application -  40%

-GPA of “Structures I” and “Drawings and Specs”  -  20% 

-Certain construction courses must have been completed prior to application

-Those admitted will be notified the semester before beginning professional program coursework, but it is conditional- coursework taken during the term of application must result in a 2.5 or higher for that term or the “next” candidate will be admitted

-Students must have completed or be enrolled in all required coursework prior to application (including construction coursework and university core classes)

-Students who are not admitted that would like to be reconsidered can improve their formula GPA only by following University guidelines for retaking classes in compliance with the grade adjustment policy 

Results to Date and Conclusions 

Rankings for Proposal 4 were then reviewed over the last four admissions terms.  The results were consistent with the trends noted above (Appendixes A through C) and presented to faculty for ratification.  It was unanimously accepted by faculty and has been reviewed by the Dean’s office; it will be implemented in the Spring of 2005.  

The authors feel that proposal 4 best reaches all admissions goals identified in the methodology.  Inclusion of all required coursework including core courses verifies the commitment to the University as well as the ACCE, while the weighting of particular coursework demonstrates the faculty’s perspective of which courses will appropriately identify students who will succeed in both industry and academia.  The proposed policy is succinct and unambiguous, which was a primary goal in the policy update development for University X.  While the results from each of the proposals indicate a consistent change for 20% of the admitted class each term, the authors believe proposal 4 to be the best method which can be most easily implemented and defended. 

Note that a true measurement of admissions impact is difficult, primarily because those students not admitted based on any policy will likely pursue a different degree and/or profession.  While it would certainly be possible to monitor the performance in industry of those admitted and who were awarded a construction degree, it is almost impossible to measure the “would-be” success of those were never admitted, whether they pursued a career in construction or not.  There is a host of other factors which could also be considered, such as success measured for those who will not enter industry (e.g. academia), and subjective considerations such as hardships, the politics of legacies and benefactors, university policy, etc.  Those evaluating admissions policy must consider any and all factors appropriate and inherent to their Department. 

References 

Blum, Edward, Clegg, Roger  “Percent Plans: Admission of Failure” Chronicle of Higher

Education vol 49 Issue 28   (March 21, 2003) 

Browne-Miller, Angela  “Intelligence Policy, Its Impact on College Admissions and

Other Social Policies”  (1995) 

Cavanaugh, Sean  “Court Case Prompts New Admissions Policies” Education Week  vol

23 issue 2   (September 10, 2003)