"I have been involved in recent months with a national task force on low-income students, and there is little doubt that early admission programs put low-income students at a significant disadvantage in the process. This runs counter to our goal of increasing the diversity of our student body." - the late John Blackburn, former Dean of Undergraduate Admissions.
It is well-understood that a vast disparity exists in college-preparation resources available to high school students, and that the difference in quality is often drawn along socioeconomic lines. If increasing equality of access to excellent prospective students is a goal for the University, we cannot approach the issue in a piecemeal fashion. To neglect the question of high school resources demonstrates a misunderstanding of the equity issue. AccessUVa is an essential part to leveling the playing field, but it is hardly the magic bullet solution; to treat it as such impedes the larger goal of improving access equality.
Greg Roberts, current dean of undergraduate admissions, announced Tuesday that his office was amending a commitment the University made to prospective students when it did away with the early decision program four years ago. Then-President John T. Casteen, III touted the removal of the early decision program in 2006 and referred to the opportunities it afforded as "the property of our most advantaged applicants rather than the common property of all applicants." This was only four years ago - has the playing field successfully leveled-out in that time? I argue that the answer is no, and that we are defaulting on a promise of fairness to prospective students - especially those coming from economically disadvantaged high schools with insufficient resources to support early application deadlines.
In interviews, Dean Roberts has cited strong applicant demand for early admissions programs as part of the University's reasoning. I am sure this is true and I trust that many eager and high-achieving students will seize this opportunity next fall. Responding to consumer demand is an excellent business strategy, but does this specific demand negatively affect certain schools and prospective students? Consumer demand was also high in 2006, but Casteen and Blackburn took a progressive position beyond business models and said that despite the demand, the University had higher goals and objectives.
Rightly so, Dean Roberts has pointed to the success of AccessUVa as a victory for socioeconomic diversity and a way to broaden opportunities for applicants. With regard to the program, however, Blackburn noted in 2006: "As we continue enhancing the AccessUVa program, our early decision program seems inconsistent with the goals of AccessUVa." Blackburn also said an early action plan was considered, but the admissions office still decided to firmly end all early admissions programs. Again, this was only four years ago. Has AccessUVa solved all of the equity issues with University admissions in this time, or was equity even a significant issue in the current decision to re-introduce early admissions?
Even if AccessUVa completely leveled the economic playing field for prospective students - and it has made large strides - these students still must be adequately supported to apply by the November deadline. Certainly, if a high school has a "director of student services," as Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Northern Virginia does, prospective students are likely to be aware of early admissions options and well-equipped to take advantage of these opportunities. Not all high schools - certainly not all public high schools - are that lucky.
My public high school guidance counselor was solely responsible for helping me through the admissions process - while also being responsible for the academic, emotional and behavioral needs of hundreds of other students. I know my situation was not atypical, and I am certain that there are far worse cases in more economically disadvantaged areas. There is nothing in the early admissions or financial aid processes - neither for early decision nor early action - that mitigate this socioeconomic bias.
Dean Roberts received "overwhelmingly positive" feedback while shopping around the idea of early action - again, this is the consumer demand - however, have we considered the schools and students who cannot afford to even be a part of the early admissions marketplace? Early action, though non-binding, disadvantages students coming from resource-poor high schools. President Casteen and Dean Blackburn made a bold statement in 2006 and a stride toward a dramatically more level playing field. How new University leadership and the Board of Visitors have so quickly forgotten, or mistakenly believe we have actually leveled the playing field, I struggle to understand.
Benjamin Chrisinger is a Graduate Student in the School of Architecture.
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | YesterdayPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | April 27, 2024The University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
