In Search of an Identity - Reflections on the 2022 NACAC Conference
“The pandemic upended the college admission process, maybe forever. Test-optional policies, the ever-rising volume of applications at selective campuses (and flat and falling numbers elsewhere), and the loss of so much school time for this generation of applicants has made the admission process for both applicants and institutions fraught with even more ambiguity…”
Maybe one of these years, I will write an individual post about every session I attended at the NACAC conference. It didn’t happen last year. And it’s not happening here. I have to confess that I was reluctant to even attend this year’s conference. There is never a convenient time of year for this event, but this year seemed even more hectic and uncertain than usual. I only went because…well, it’s NACAC.
The theme of this year’s conference was “Resilience,” which I thought was fairly appropriate and timely. However, I felt a different theme was resonating throughout the week: identity. Or more specifically, in search of an identity. The theme manifested itself from all sides of the process.
Students are looking for an identity.
I cannot blame students for struggling to “be themselves” on a college application when the college process feels like a series of boxes to check, from academic courses to extracurriculars to mentioning buzzwords like “community” and “interdisciplinary studies.” It’s hard enough to be a teenager, but when colleges then ask students to share their story to a committee responsible for their admissions fate, no wonder so many of them struggle. They don’t always know who they are yet.
I thought about this during a session about the post-Covid admissions landscape, whose session description is partly quoted above. College fit is supposed to be this universal ideal that drives the college research process, but that’s hard to do when the landscape makes it unclear what a “target school” is or what a “good test score” is. For lower-income students, fit may not even be a factor to begin with because of affordability. This was addressed during my favorite session of the conference, unofficially titled, “Grit, Fit, and Other Bulls***.” Or maybe that was the official title and they went with the PG version on the official program. In any case, it’s become harder for students of all backgrounds to find any clarity.
I did leave a few sessions with some degree of hope. A few of the sessions addressed the need to emphasize a student’s character in the selection process. And despite my own skepticism that this will come into practice, at least someone brought it up. It was also encouraging to hear that more students are addressing mental health somewhere in their application and if presented appropriately, it can leave a powerful impression.
Colleges are looking for an identity
One major topic of conversation was the future of test-optional policies in admissions. There were two separate sessions addressing it and neither provided any definitive information about what would happen in the 2023-2024 application year. I mean how could they? There were a few interesting tidbits that did emerge:
A University of California rep used the term “holistic” for the first time that I can recall. Maybe they misspoke. Or maybe it’s a result of a test blind policy now entering its second year.
The University of Vermont moved to an Early Decision policy this year, perhaps a sign of things to come for other Public Ivies (your move, Michigan)?
At least one college is collaborating with Collegeboard to see if they will continue their test-optional policy next year, which seems strange when the other party has a clear incentive to encourage more testing.
It seems like some colleges are experiencing their own identity crisis, largely due to the test optional issue. Dropping testing increased applications which lowered admit rates. Do colleges really want to add testing back in and risk application numbers decreasing, especially as demographic shifts will decrease applications anyway in a few years?
This also introduces a broader problem with the admission process: everyone embellishes. Many colleges shape statistics and aggregate data (resulting in unclear statistics) with a few going as far as to misrepresent information. At the same time, college applicants are padding résumés and looking for every edge possible. I don’t like it, but I understand it. How can we expect applicants to be transparent when colleges aren’t?
I’m looking for an identity.
The transition to independent status is everything I ever wanted in my professional life. Although I’m not on as many mailing lists and I don’t run in the same circles anymore, the work itself has been rewarding. I do have some professional goals that I may share in a future post, but for now, I’m trying to embrace my new identity and iron out some lingering unresolved issues.
There was one shocking development that occurred at the conference. I actually networked. I met with a high school counselor and past president of NACAC who also maintains the website thoughtfulcollegesearch.com. At one point, I asked if we were being too idealistic and he said yes, but there needed to be some people like that in our field. I felt a profound sense of relief hearing that from someone I just met. There is also a growing group of independent consultants who were former counselors at private schools. I joined their last Zoom meeting, but a small contingent of us had a chance to connect at the conference.
My professional identity feels clearer now, so much that I’ll be attending the IECA conference (Independent Educational Consultants Association) in a few months. It helps that it’s taking place in San Diego, but more importantly, it’s a sign that I’ve fully embraced my new role and how I represent my work.
Last year was a transition year full of excitement, but also questions and challenges. This is a year of resilience.