reseņas educativas (Spanish)    
resenhas educativas (Portuguese)    

This review has been accessed times since July 18, 2006

Thacker, Lloyd. (Ed.). (2005). College unranked: Ending the college admissions frenzy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

204 pp
$16.95   ISBN 0-674-01977-6

Reviewed by Terrell L. Strayhorn
University of Tennessee

July 18, 2006

Gaining admission to the college of one’s choice has become much more of an art form than a clear, intentional process of gathering information about prospective institutions, juxtaposing one’s personal, academic, and social needs up against the programs and services offered by a particular institution, and choosing the college that “best fits” one’s needs and expectations. Nowadays, the process is fraught with challenges, the proliferation of corporate mentalities, and seemingly unfettered competition. In this book, Lloyd Thacker and his colleagues describe how commercialism has muddied the waters of college admissions and provide interesting perspectives on how various factors affect students’ college choice and college admissions in general.

This edited volume begins by invoking an all-too-familiar metaphor that compares the college admissions process to a high-stakes game or sport (Avery, Fairbanks, & Zeckhauser, 2004; Thomson Peterson's, 2006) that rewards the highest bidder, the most artful and most clever (Allen, 2001), “though not necessarily the most qualified” (p. 1). Thacker and his colleagues provide an easy-to-read critique of recent trends that have substantially altered the landscape of higher education. Among these include a philosophical shift away from “education as an end in itself” (Diver, 2005, p. 133) to education as a good, or commodity, which can be bought, sold, and traded. Thus, just as limited access to a limited good may lead to merciless competition and “undue pressure to win the prize” (Massa, 2006, p. 139), increased access to a limited resource such as higher education—not to mention the limited number of spots available in the entering class—leads to stiff competition for admission to college and a menagerie of tricks, tactics, and tips to out-smart, out-shine, and out-weigh all others. Still the imbalance between supply of and demand for “the best” students creates competition among institutions of higher education that results in what is often referred to as the (mis-)use of enrollment management strategies such as early decisions, wait lists, and merit scholarships.

There can be little question that internal and external forces drive the commercialization of higher education, specifically college admissions. In fact, an ideal method of discussing the impact of corporate mentality on college admissions is to deal with it as an integral part of the commercialization of higher education at-large. For example, several authors in this text highlight the effects of U.S. News & World Report rankings, media coverage, and market forces such as Moody’s Bond Ratings on the college choice process (Callaway, 2005; Speyer, 2005; Sumner, 2005). Consider the following:

Even the Wall Street Journal investigated and wrote about how “Colleges Spurn Best Applicants to Increase Yield and Appease U.S. News,” a summer 2002 article about how colleges have begun balancing a student’s desirability with the likelihood of winning that student among competing colleges. “Since a college’s rank is affected by yield, many colleges are denying the most qualified students in favor of the most likely to say yes to an offer of admission. (Thacker, 2005, p.57).

Still there are other currents that move the educational enterprise away from concerns about curriculum and teaching toward issues of enrollment management and customer satisfaction. For example, some authors talk about the increasing trend to select college presidents and some chief academic officers from amongst the corporate ranks. Several chapters highlight the way in which colleges operate under the pressure of prestige: vying for top students, encouraging application from students who have no chance of admission, and offering spots to those who are most likely to accept all in an effort to increase a college’s rank which is affected by number of applications, selectivity, and yield.

Lloyd Thacker concludes the book with an overall summary of its conclusions and implications for future practice. He notes, much like Ressor (2006), “how the current pressures of enrollment management in higher education may be impacting the diminishing attention to fit between students and institutions” (p. 240).

Lloyd Thacker

He challenges “all inhabitants of the college admissions community” (Thacker, 2005, p. 181) to resist corporate interference and return to the historic educational purposes of college. For students, this means accentuating the learning process of college admissions while eliminating the anxiety and stress of market driven tactics such as re-taking standardized tests or flooding college in-boxes with applications. Parents are reminded to see college for what its worth—that great students make great colleges, not vice versa, for example.

What is true is that Thacker and his colleagues are hopeful that we can work “to restore the integrity of the [college admissions] process” (p. 2) and to make college once again a place “to pursue learning for its own sake” (Fitzsimmons, McGrath Lewis, & Ducey, 2005, p. 28). The book certainly stimulates its audience towards the historical purpose of higher education.

In sum, College Unranked presents a discussion of these factors broken over 20 short chapters and five sections. Each section consists of four chapters and concludes with the editor’s stories that serve as an interlude to the forthcoming essays. This book makes clear that we cannot assume that gaining admission to college is a simple function of students’ achievement and desire to attend college. Nor can we with any degree of certainty say that college admissions decisions are based on rational choices that seek to maximize congruence between students and institutions. Instead, college admissions decisions are often framed, at least in part, by institutional policies and priorities, external pressures from state and federal governments to recover costs through tuition, and goals set by institutional leaders to achieve some “higher” destination in the competition among colleges and universities, to give a few examples.

Given that the limits of this essay will not allow for complete details concerning this book, I will use the balance of this article to briefly address a few shortcomings. As with any undertaking of this magnitude, Thacker’s edited volume is not without limitations. Strikingly absent from book are references to the literature that seem to form the basis upon which several conclusions are drawn. For example, Poch (2005) calls for transparency (not to mention honesty) in the thorny process of college admissions. He provides a set of fundamental questions for students and other probes used by college admissions counselors. His questions express the importance of the academic and social systems of college. Most of the higher education literature suggests that there is a relationship between the academic and social dimensions of college. Much of the theoretical work on this topic emanates from Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) interactionalist theory of college student departure which enjoys “near paradigmatic” status (Braxton, 2000). Yet, none of this work is cited in the book.

As another example, several authors describe college as a developmental process, a time for self-discovery, and a journey toward identify formation. One author wrote: “Young people do have hopes and expectations regarding college. They know it as an opportunity to begin a new book of life if they wish to make changes, to grow, to become more.” This and other excerpts throughout the book are closely connected to Baxter-Magolda’s (1990, 2001) notion of self-authorship. Again, there is no mention of this important theoretical work in the compendium.

Finally, and perhaps most noticeable, Thacker’s volume provides a cogent analysis of the influx of business practices in higher education and their indissoluble effect on choosing and “getting in” a college. However, none of the authors provide a framework for understanding the college choice process. The literature is replete with references to models of college choice and provides several conceptualizations of the decision-making process. Jackson (1978, 1982) defined college choice as a process of preference, exclusion, and evaluation. Chapman (1981, 1984) identified five stages of pre-search activities to enrollment. Hanson and Litten (1982) were similar to Chapman but emphasized the role of college aspirations. Still others set forth models of student choice.

Indeed, a large proportion of studies in the field of education center on the work of Hossler and Gallagher (1987). Hossler’s model of college choice consists of three stages: predisposition, search, and choice. Elements of these stages are reflected in comments from various chapters in Thacker’s book. Perhaps the way in which several authors describe how commercialism complicates the process of college choice is most useful. For example, one author underscored the influence on search activities:

[Increased competition] urges students, even if unintentionally, to focus on admissions not as a moment to explore a match between their interests and needs and the offerings of the institution, but, instead, to focus on the process that determines how one “gets in”…So many different definitions of perfect places collide, and so much clamor about “the best” keeps students from finding their own truth…Information gathering and the admissions process have become complicated by these multiple and frequently contradictory interpretations. (Poch, 2005, p. 36)

Search is the second phase of Hossler’s model and refers to the data collection period in which students gather information about various institutions to develop a "consideration set" (Hossler et al., 1999, p.146).

Despite these limitations, this volume contributes much to our understanding of (a) the college admissions process (b) the impact of commercialization on college admission practices and (c) what is needed to “restore the integrity of the [admissions] process” (p. 2). In fairness to the authors’ intentions, the absence of typical research language, data, and references may be more reflective of design than deficit or weakness.

Indeed, this work should prove useful to a number of constituents. The chapter authors suggest that this book would be useful in educating or training admissions staff members, deans, and other educators about college admissions today and the impact current practices may have on students’ choice. The chapters meet this objective well.

Others believe college-bound students stand much to gain from reading this text. In the way of critique, this lofty aspiration may be unlikely as the 204-page book offers few concrete (and non-intuitive) recommendations for making the most of the college admissions process. Students and parents are likely to consider some of the information in the book common knowledge. But, for less than twenty dollars, the book is a good read, insightful, and quite candid about the politics involved in college admissions.

References

Allen, A. (2001). College admissions trade secrets: A top private college counselor reveals the secrets, lies, and tricks of the college admissions process. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse Publishers.

Avery, C., Fairbanks, A., & Zeckhauser, R. (2004). The early admissions game: Joining the elite. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (1990). Gender differences in epistemological development. Journal of College Student Development, 31(6), 555-561.

Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the departure puzzle. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Callaway, S. (2005). The rank lyrics of the sirens' song. In L. Thacker (Ed.), College unranked: Ending the college admissions frenzy (pp. 78-85). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student choice. Journal of Higher Education, 52, 490-505.

Chapman, R. (1984). Toward a theory of college choice: A model of college search and choice behavior. Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta Press.

Fitzsimmons, W., McGrath Lewis, M., & Ducey, C. (2005). TIme out or burn out for the next generation. In L. Thacker (Ed.), College unranked: Ending the college admissions frenzy (pp. 22-34). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hanson, K., & Litten, L. (1982). Mapping the road to academia: A review of research on women, men, and the college selection process. In P. Perun (Ed.), The undergraduate woman: Issues in education.Lexington, MA: Lexington.

Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. (1987). Student college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62(3), 207-221.

Jackson, G. A. (1978). Financial aid and student enrollment. Journal of Higher Education, 49, 549-574.

Jackson, G. A. (1982). Public efficiency and private choice in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 237-247.

Massa, R. J. (2006). Status v. substance: Is there a chance? In L. Thacker (Ed.), College unranked: Ending the college admissions frenzy (pp. 138-145). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Poch, B. J. (2005). Sanity check. In L. Thacker (Ed.), College unranked: Ending the college admissions frenzy (pp. 35-54). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Ressor, L. (2006). [Review of the Promoting Reasonable Expectations: Aligning student and institutional views of the college experience]. Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 238-240.

Speyer, M. (2005). Our numbers are up! (Is that good?). In L. Thacker (Ed.), College unranked: Ending the college admissions frenzy (pp. 59-67). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sumner, J. M. (2005). Faked figures make fools of us. In L. Thacker (Ed.), College unranked: Ending the college admissions frenzy (pp. 68-72). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Terrell L. Strayhorn

Thomson Peterson's. (2006). Winningthe college admission game: Strategies for parents and students. Lawrenceville, NJ: Peterson's.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college (1st ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

About the Reviewer

Dr. Terrell L. Strayhorn is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education, at the University of Tennessee. His research interests focus on student outcomes in postsecondary and graduate education with a particular emphasis on the experiences of students of color. He is principal author of Framework for Assessing Learning and Development Outcomes (2006).

Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Editors: Gene V Glass, Kate Corby, Gustavo Fischman

~ ER home | Reseņas Educativas | Resenhas Educativas ~
~ overview | reviews | editors | submit | guidelines | announcements | search ~