I‘ME DEVELQPMENT 0F STANBARQS HER EVALUATING
AN AIDMSSISIGNS PRGGRAM AND A #RGf’CSEE
ENSTRUMENT KER THE EVALUA‘HON GP THE
fistMiSSWNS WW AT EA”. HATE

TEACHERS CGiLEéEE

Thai: {as film Demo. 61' Ed. D.
hMfiMiGAN “ATE UN’WEMWY”
Richmfl EL RGW‘HSY
E9662

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Development of Standards for Evaluating
an Admissions Program and a Proposed Instrument
for the Evaluation of the Admissions Program

at Ball State Teachers College

presented by

Richard Duane Rowray

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Doctor degree in Education

Major pgiessor

Date May 2, 1962

 

0-169

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

. f3!”

 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING AN
ADMISSIONS PROGRAM AND A PROPOSED INSTRUMENT
FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE ADMISSiONS PROGRAM AT
BALL STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE

BY
<7

VI
Richard D? Rowray

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

College of Education

1962

ABSTRACT
THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING.AN
ADMISSIONS PROGRAM AND A PROPOSED INSTRUMENT
FOR THE.EVALUATION OF THE.ADMISSIONS PROGRAM AT
BALL STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE

by Richard D. Rowray

Problem

The problem of this study was to develop standards
deemed essential for evaluating an admissions program
and on the basis of these to construct a comprehensive
instrument designed to evaluate the admissions program
in an institution of higher education."

Procedures

 

Evaluative standards were constructed for seven
areas found to be essential in evaluating an admissions
program. These seven areas were: Institutional Philosophy
and Objectives, Admissions Policy and Requirements,
Administrative Basis for the Admissions Program, Admissions
Personnel, Physical Resources, Basic Admissions Functions,
and Functions Complementary to the Admissions Program.

Twenty-four administrators in selected state supported
institutions of higher education reviewed and rated the
standards as to the degree of significance they place on
the contribution of each to an instrument designed to

evaluate an admissions program, Rank difference correlation

Richard D. Rowray
coefficients were computed to determine the degree of
agreement between the three groups of respondents ~-
academic, student personnel and admissions administrators.
Comments of the respondents that met the criteria were
considered in revising the standards. The refinement
and revision of the proposed standards into their final
form constituted the basis for the construction of an
instrument to evaluate the admissions program at Ball
State Teachers College,

The instrument, Guides and Criteria for Evaluating
the Admissions Program 3: Ball State Teachers College,
was developed on the assumption that evaluation in
admissions should (a) be based on recognized standards;
(b) be based on institutional philosophy and objectives;
(c) be comprehensive; (d) be a continuous activity
involving many people; (e) be based on intimate and
comprehensive knowledge of the institution; (f) identify
strengths and deficiencies; and (g) culminate in self-
improvement,

Conclusion

 

The major conclusions based upon the study are:

1. Selected groups of administrators in higher
education and at Ball State Teachers College are able
to discriminate between proposed evaluation standards and
have definite feelings and/or opinions as to the con-

tribution of these standards to an instrument designed

Richard D. Rowray
to evaluate an admissions program in a selected institution,

2. Standards on Basic Admissions Functions, Institu-
tional Philosophy and Objectives, and Admissions Policy
and Requirements should be included and given the greatest
emphasis in an instrument designed to evaluate an admissions
program in a selected institution,

3, The evaluative instrument developed in this study
provides for the administration at Ball State Teachers
College a basis for improvement of the present admissions
program by comparing existing procedures, practices, and
conditions with recommended standards.

4, The director of admissions at Ball State Teachers
College is the key person on whom the proper function of
self-evaluation in admissions depends. He must therefore
understand his own role in the admissions program and
see the far-reaching implication inherent in a self-evaluation,

5, If a faculty admissions committee is to be a
vital force in the self-evaluation, they must be sincerely
interested, have had some preparation in evaluation, and
enjoy sane free time for this function.

6, The completion of a thorough self-evaluation in
admissions cannot be the responsibility of one person,

It should represent the opinion of those affecting and

affected by the admissions program,

THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING AN
ADMISSIONS PROGRAM AND A PROPOSED INSTRUMENT
FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM AT

BALL STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE

By$9

,
Richard Di Rowray

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

College of Education

1962

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Grateful acknowledgment is made to Dr. Walter F,
Johnson, my major professor, for his counsel and
professional criticism throughout the course of the
study, Also, the writer extends thanks to other members
of his doctoral committee, Dr. John X. Jamrich, Dr, David
G. Moore, and Dr. John W, Truitt for their help and
advice.

Genuine appreciation is also extended to the many
administrators in higher education for their cooperation
and assistance in the collection of data, The writer
is especially indebted to the personnel at Ball State
Teachers College for their conscientious evaluation and
encouragement,

Deepest gratitude and appreciation is extended to
my wife, Carolyn, for the many hours spent in typing the
manuscript and without whose encouragement, faith, and
understanding this study could not have been completed;
and to my daughters, Julia and Sarah, who sacrificed

much,

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ..............................
Statement of the Problem ,,,,,,,.......

Purposes of the Study .................

Need for the Study ....................

Limitations and Scope of the Study ...,

Definition of Terms ...................

Reporting the Study ...................

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................

A Perspective of Admissions in Higher
Education 00.0.0.00000000000000COOOO

Admissions Policies and Requirements ..
Evaluation of the Admissions Program ,,
Smary 000......OOOOOCOOOOCOOOOIOOOOO.

III, CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDATION OF THE
. PRELIMINARY EVALUATIVE STANDARDS ......

General Structure and Coverage ,.....,.

Selection of the Content for the
Evaluative Standards .,,..,.,,,.,.,,

The Study Instrument ..................
COIIECtiOH 0f the Data gooooooooooOOOOO

summary o...o.coco...00.000000000000000

IV, ANALYZING THE DATA AND REVISING THE
PRELIMINARY EVALUATIVE STANDARDS ......

Organisation and Analysis of the Data .

Determining Acceptance and Content
Revision of the Proposed Standards .

iii

Page

ll
13
17
19

19
27
33
43

46

47

50
57
60
69

71
71

CHAPTER

Utilizing the Standards................

sumary 0.000.000.7000.000.00.00.0000000

V, THE CONSTRUCTION AND UTILIZATION OF AN
INSTRUMENT, BASED ON VALIDATED
STANDARDS, FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE
ADMISSIONS PROGRAM AT BALL STATE
TEACHERS COLLEGE ...............'.......

Reasons for Constructing an Evaluative

Instrument for the Admissions Program

at Ball State Teachers College ,.,,,
Developing an Instrument for Evaluating
the Admissions Program at Ball State
Teachers College ...................

Format and General Outline of the
Evaluative Instrument ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Utilizing the Instrument at Ball State
Teachers College ...................

Proposals and Problems Resulting from
Utilization of the Instrument ,,,,,,

Continuing Development of the
Instrument .........................

Apparent General Outcomes of Self-

Evaluation in the Admissions Program
at Ball State Teachers College ,,,,,

Summary 0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

Summary go...coo...00000000000000.0000.

Conclusions ...........................

Recommendations for Use of the
Instrument o.00000000000000.00000000

Recommendations for Further Research ,,

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......oooooooooooodoc...000.00.00.00.

iv

Page
102
105

110

111

113

116

121

125

132

133

137

140

140
144

147
149

151

. n y .- v . w o a ,, ' l ,
‘ 1 > > F ‘- O Q ' 3 0 1
g u a . o ~ ~ . q n ,

 

D I O O ' U l t. a ‘ C ‘ ‘ " ‘ O O
u o I v n O o O I I '1 3 ' ‘ ‘ O 3 0
2 r \ 1 9 a " '1 a v 3 I v v u o J
in ll 9 O I 7 0 o u v A ‘ 3 ,~ . -

Table

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

LIST OF TABLES

Autumn Quarter Enrollment Projection--

The

The

The

The

Ball State Teachers College
1962-1978 00....0.00.0.0000000000000.

Number of Years the Respondents Have
Been Employed in: (l) Institutions of
Higher Education; (2) Present
Institutions of Higher Education;

(3) Present Position ................

Per Cent of Emphasis and Rank Order
of the Seven Admissions Standards

as Expressed by Eight Academic
Administrators, Eight Student Per-
sonnel Administrators, and Eight
Admissions Administrators ..,........

Per Cent of Emphasis and Rank Order
of the Seven Admissions Standards

as Expressed by the Three Respondents
at Ball State Teachers College ,,,,,,

Per Cent of Emphasis and Rank Order
of the Seven Admissions Standards as
Expressed by All Respondents ..,,....

A Comparison of Rank Differences Between

Seven Admissions Standards as
Indicated by Eight Academic Adminise
trators and Eight Student Personnel
Administrators ......................

A Comparison of Rank Differences Between

Seven.Admissions Standards as
Indicated by Eight Academic Adminis—
trators and Eight Admissions Adminis-

trators 00......00.00.00.000000000000

A Comparison of Rank Differences Between

Seven Admissions Standards as
Indicated by Eight Student Personnel
Administrators and Bight Admissions
AdminiStrators 0000......00000000...0

Page

65

74

78

79

83

85

86

Table

IX

XI

XII

Page

A Comparison of Rank Differences Between
Seven Admissions Standards as
Indicated by Seven Academic Adminis-
trators and Three Selected Adminis-
trators at Ball State Teachers

COllege 00.0.0.0...00.000000000000000 87

A Comparison of Rank Differences Between
Seven Student Personnel Adminis-
trators and Three Selected Adminis-
trators at Ball State Teachers
COllege OOOOOOOOOOOC...0.0.0.00000000 88

A Comparison of Rank Differences Between
Seven Admissions Administrators and
Three Selected Administrators at
Ball State Teachers College ,,,,,,,,, 90

A Comparison of Rank Differences Between
Seven.Academic Administrators, Seven
Student Personnel Administrators,
Seven.Admissions.Administrators and
Three Selected Administrators at
Ball State Teachers College ,,,,,..., 91

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX

A

The Preliminary Instrument for the
Development of Standards for
Evaluating the Admissions Service
in an Institution of Higher

Learning 000.......00....000000000000

Sources of Evaluation in Areas of Higher
Education and Professional Fields

Of Study 0.00.00.00.00.00000000000000

List of Colleges Visited ................

The Name, Title, Degree, and the Title
of the Supervising Administrator of
the 24 Respondents Participating
in the Study ........................

Appointment Letter and Stated Purpose
of Institutional Visits .......,.....

Guides and Criteria for Evaluating the
Admissions Program at Ball State
Teachers College - a Comprehensive
Instrument Designed to Aid in the
Evaluation of the Admissions
Program at Ball State Teachers

COllege 0.0....000.00.000.00000000000

A Sample of Research Reports and Other
Data Available for those Conducting
a SelfeEvaluation of the Admissions
Program at Ball State Teachers

COllege 00....00.00000000000000000.00

vii

Page

162

197
199

201

203

205

283

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The prospects for growth in size and complexity
which most colleges and universities must expect in the
next decade make appropriate the evaluation of the
admissions program in these institutions.

Revolutionary changes are occurring in
American education of which even yet we are
only dimly aware, The Nation has been propelled
into a challenging new educational era since
World War II by the convergence of powerful
forces - an explosion of knowledge and popula-
tion, a burst of technological and economic
advance, the outbreak of ideological conflict .
and the uprooting of old political and cultural
patterns on a world-wide scale, and an unparalleled
demand by Americans for more and better education
(84:1).

During the fifty year period from 1900 to 1950,
while the total population of the United States almost
doubled, student enrollment in higher education increased
more than ten-fold (104), The number of persons enrolled
in institutions of higher education has increased from
237,592 in 1900 to 2,659,021 in 1950 (104), The number
of students enrolled in higher education institutions of
the United States in the fall of 1959 was reported by the
Office of Education as 3,402,297. Apparently, college and

university enrollments will continue this rapid increase

in the foreseeable future, Not only is the total number of

2
high school graduates larger each year, but the proportion
of these graduates desiring further education is also
rising, Estimates suggest that by 1965 the enrollment
in continental United States will approach 5,000,000
and by 1970 it may be close to 6,500,000 (55),

The increasing college enrollments, diversified
programs and curricula, plus a national demand for a
higher quality of college graduate seems to have initiated
a conflict of extreme importance to admissions, The con-
flict between college opportunity for all and opportunity
for some, the problem of quantity or quality in higher
education, the problem of the open vs, the closing door,

The Committee does not agree with those
who argue that, in order to preserve quality,
colleges must sharply restrict enrollments to
something like their present level by steadily
boosting admissions standards, This would mean
giving narrower opportunities to tomorrow’s
youth than those enjoyed by today’s. The Com-
mittee believes that the present admission standards
of some institutions might well be raised in the
interest of better quality, But no matter where
institutions set their admissions standards, the
number of qualifying applicants by 1970 will be
at twice the present level (84:9-10),

Impending increases in enrollment have encouraged
re-examination of the nature and aims of higher education,
‘Many states are now surveying the status and needs of
their colleges and universities, The Indiana Conference
initiated an extensive enrollment study for Indiana
COJJeges and universities in 1955, This study reports:

Indiana‘s total population and births from
1918 to 1953 reflect trends similar to those of

the United States. In each case Indiana annually
represents approximately 2.6% of the national

,C

3

figures. The number of births in Indiana has
increased from 53,000 in 1933 to 110,000 in
1954.

There will be a continual increase in enroll-
ment in elementary and secondary schools at least
until 1972. The increase in enrollment in secondary
schools will result not only from the increased
births but also from the increased per cent of 14
to 18 year olds continuing through the 12th grade.

There is a direct relation between the number
of children born and the undergraduate college~
age population 18 to 21 years later. The estimated
college-age population in 1954 is 206,000 and in
1972 will reach 396,000 which represents an
estimated increase of 190,000. The percentage
of college-age young people enrolled as under-
graduates in Indiana has increased from 7.6% in
1933 to 25% in 1954.

Undergraduate enrollment in Indiana colleges
and universities will increase from 51,575 in
1954 to an estimated 150,000 in 1972. It would
seem reasonable to expect Indiana’s total graduate

enrollment to increase from 8,600 in 1954 to between
20,000 and 30,000 by 1972 (79:1).

These figures are a cause of great public concern.
The institutions of higher education in Indiana, including
Ball State Teachers College, are making determined efforts
to project their enrollments and growth so that plans may
be made for increased facilities, staffs and programs.
Some of the institutions are being forced by circumstances
beyond their control to consider a change in their admissions
POlicy. The admissions policy of any college or university,
especially one that is a part of a state system of higher
6Education, is an important part of the states total plan
of highe r edu cati on .

An admissions policy . . . should be clearly
related to the fundamental issues of what a state

wants to do about higher education -- what educa-
tion beyond the high school is to be made available

4
at public expense -- what facilities the state is
going to provide - and what caliber of education
is expected. Any admissions policy - whether
the present policy or a more restricted policy ~~
is justifiable only to the extent that it is
related to the educational responsibilities accepted
by the state and to the specific role of the individual
institution (106:18).

For the growth, direction, and progress toward the
solution of the complex problems facing admissions in
higher education in the United States, in Indiana, and
at Ball State Teachers College, it is essential that
Objective data be gathered to guide administrative decision
making. Thus the primary concern of this study is the
development of standards depicting the principles of a
sound and reasonable admissions service and developing in
light of these standards an instrument designed to evaluate
objectively the admissions program at Ball State Teachers
College. Evaluations based on carefully determined
standards may be employed to indicate strengths and weak-
nesses in the admissions program and to aid and encourage
progressive betterment and improvement of its various
programs.

Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study was to develop standards
deemed essential for evaluating an admissions program and
Cu: the basis of these standards to construct a comprehen-
ASiye instrument designed to evaluate the admissions program

iJI an institution of higher education. There were five

811'D--prob1ems to be investigated in order that the solution

5
of this problem might be obtained. The five sub—problems
were as follows:

1. The selection and organization of pertinent
literature pertaining to higher education and admissions
to be utilized in constructing evaluative standards.

2. The selection of administrators (academic,
admissions, and student personnel) currently employed in
institutions of higher education to obtain their opinions
relative to the standards to be used in an instrument
designed to evaluate an admissions program.

3. The determination, organization, critical review,
and validation by selected administrators in higher educa-
tion of essential standards that should govern the evalua-
tion of an admissions program, and therefore serve as a
basis for constructing a comprehensive evahuative instrument.

4. The analysis of the data received from the
respondents of their critical review of the essential
standards.

5. The construction and suggested use of an instru-
ment designed to evaluate the admissions program at Ball
State Teachers College.

Purposes of the Study

The purpose of this study was to (a) satisfy the need
fPIT generally accepted standards for evaluating admissions
in at particular type of institution that could be used by
persons who wish to do research in the area and (b) provide

a. functional evaluation instrument for administrators at

6
Ball State Teachers College, with responsibilities for
admissions, that may assist in locating particular areas
of the admissions program where improvement is needed.

The evaluative instrument is designed to direct
attention to the characteristics Of a good admissions
program for Ball State Teachers College and similar
institutions and to provide a somewhat objective basis
by which to compare their services with recommended
admissions standards and principles. The purpose is to
provide the basis for improving the admissions program
rather than to rate the programs. This study does not
attempt to propose any radical changes in admissions,
but rather to survey existing thinking regarding standards
that may be used as a basis for constructing an evaluative
instrument useful to the admissions office at Ball State
Teachers College and similar institutions.

Need for the Study

Many aspects of the admissions program should be
studied at Ball State Teachers College with a view to
Planning needed changes. However, the plans for the
improvement of any aspect of the admissions program at
that institution should be based upon the results of
c"il'et’ul study. Any examination of its admissions policy
”“1 requirements, personnel, physical resources, functions,
and (other areas needs to be guided and sustained by
reSearch procedures and factual findings. It was the

thirnging of the investigator that a determination of

7

evaluative standards for admissions would therefore be
essential before conducting such a study. As a conse—
quence the attempt has been made in the following study
to analyze all aspects of an admissions program, construct
essential standards, and to determine criteria which sub-
sequently may be used in an instrument for the evaluation
of the admissions program at Ball State Teachers College.

The results of a careful self-examination would
enable the administrator of the admissions office to:
(a) marshal and administer its present resources with
greater efficiency and effectiveness, (b) define, evaluate,
and project policy, functions and needs in terms of future
growth and (c) recommend certain proposals and suggestions
for the improvement of its service as an integral part of
‘the total educational process. The following quotation
expands this idea.

A statement of the functions, purposes,
organizations, and methods of the program is
fundamental to successful operation and con~
structive planning. This makes possible an
effective analysis of the program in terms of
student needs, and should be available to
students, the faculty, and staff members. It
sets forth shorts and long-range goals and
presents an orderly outline of plans to achieve
them. Describing the current program not only
clarifies the function and purpose of each unit
and each staff member, but also recognizes
existing imperfections in both structure and
operation and suggests corrective measures for

them.

The statement may be used by unit supervisors
and the administrative head of all services for
several purposes:

1. To plan daily operations toward the

achievement of stated objectives.

8
2. To provide a base and an order for
immediate and long-range plans -~ in
budget, personnel, or function.
3. To provide a stimulus and a means for
continuous evaluation (28:41).
Projected stuient enrollments for the late 1960's

and early 1970‘s usually show the need for a critical and
comprehensive Self-survey of the entire institutional
program and each service. On the basis of the anticipated
enrollment for Ball State Teachers College in this decade
(Table I), the admissions office has need of the immediate
and long-range plans to parallel institutional curricular
and physical development. Evaluation and long-range
planning in admissions must have a definite pattern, tailored
to the individual institution and its objectives, and must
lead to effective action in the desired direction. Few
studies have been made that will assist in evaluating and
.Projecting the admissions program in institutions of higher
education. The few that have been attempted are too limited
.in scope to present a comprehensive and representative
Imicture of admissions in such institutions. Insofar as the
‘Mriter can determine, this is one of the very few under-
'takdngs designed to construct an instrument to evaluate
tflle admissions program primarily, rather than as an incidental
Part of an institution's total work. It is becoming increas—
itlgly essential that admissions personnel resemphasize the
e“flucational significance and meaning of the admissions

pregram and determine more effective ways of integrating it

With the total academic program of the institution.

Henwaraa
pooommoum may mo oommmo SD ooboumm<

ONNSH

 

owmdm bmmom stoma sdmmfi wNOMH mmoma wwho Nomw HmFOH
whom NOON mmvm NHNN Nooy Nora NomH vaH NSNH wmymsomnw
bmam mmbm comm Nomm Nmom MBOH NONH dwNH Hmo unadumm
comm HmHm Howm mwmm wOHN moon «mud GMMH meH uncannh
wmmfi wmfle Hoom 00mm omom dbom comm oooH Hood mmuosonaom
one mew cow com mmm 0mm ovm com 00H Hmfiommm
mmbb hmMS finch ammo 505m o¢w¢ moos thm doom omanmmum
whoa oSOH ESOH Whoa Oboa wooa OOOH «OOH NOOH
l NOOH

 

 

1Lumwa

omozoo muonoaoy endow dam .. eoEom cum «noeHHouem Stand 2833‘ .H mqmfi

10

. . . Functions must be coordinated with
each other and with the entire college. Con-
fusion of functions and duplication of effort
must be avoided. But, as yet, principles or
standards for organizing individual services
and relating them with each other and with the
whole institutional organization are still
developing. An analysis of the duties of each
service, standards for evaluating the effective
operation of each service, and a pattern for
integrating the services within the program of
the institution is needed (28:2).

Many, if not all, of the services in an institution
of higher education need careful coordination with the
major tasks of the institution and with the teaching
process. The admissions program can adequately serve
students and the institution only if it is integrated
with administrative and teaching functions. Properly
interpreted, organized and administered, the admissions
.program becomes an inseparable part of the daily adminis-
tration of an institution of higher education. Institutions
of higher education must examine, honestly and carefully,
tvays in which the admissions program may avoid duplication
thit yet coordinate with other services. The primary con-
Sideration is, therefore, to evaluate and determine the
lMays in which the detailed operations and functions of an
athnissions program are related to institutional purposes
aJld tasks and to good administrative principles and objectives.
An effective evaluation must determine if there exists

if! the admissions program:

1. A clear defhiition of functions to be
performed and responsibilities to be delegated.

2. .A well-coordinated plan of operations.

3. Executive leadership for a carefully selected
staff of competent and skilled persons to carry
out plans and functions.

11
Provision for periodic appraisal of results
achieved in relation to basic philosophy
and objectives (28:29).
The need and importance of evaluating the admissions
program is obvious if this program is to be built on sound
principles of administration. Yet there seems to be little
research Which has defined specific standards which the
admissions office must meet if it is to operate effectively
and contribute fully to the total institutional program.
After visiting and discussing the need for evaluation in
admissions with professional colleagues at meetings of the
Indiana Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers, the Indiana High School - College Cooperation
Committee and the Association of College Admissions
Counselors and with the writer’s associates at Ball State
Teachers College, it was decided that a study such as that
proposed might possess merit and value in light of future
improvement and expansion of the admissions program at
Ball State Teachers College and other colleges and univer-
sities of a similar nature.
Limitations and Scope of the Study

The study is confined to the development of standards
to be used as the basis of an instrument designed to
evaluate the admissions program in an institution of higher
education, viz., Ball State Teachers College. The deter-I
Inination of standards and criteria for evaluating the

admissions program at Ball State Teachers College may prove

u~sef'u.1 in designing and executing additional research and

 

12
action projects for the improvement of admissions programs
in other institutions of higher education in the United
States. However, generalizations and application of the
standards and criteria to institutions with different
tasks and purposes should be made only with due care.
Institutions over the country are especially marked by a
diversity of admissions policies and practices making it
necessary, therefore, for the refinement of emphasis,
precise limitation, and consideration of locale before
application of the standards or instrument presented in
this study is undertaken. It is felt, however, that the
sampling of administrators used in determining the
essential evaluative standards allows for some generaliza-
tions and conclusions to be adopted by other institutions.
No one pattern for evaluating an admissions program can
be prescribed for all colleges and universities; but there
appears to be basic standards common to many.

The administrators sampled were employed in state—
supported, co—educational, multi-purpose institutions
located in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio offering
several curricula leading to a bachelor’s degree, and
granting an advanced degree in education. The writer
iissumes that the group of administrators selected for the
study provides an adequate sampling for the development
<>f standards on which to base an evaluative instrument for
t11e admissions program at Ball State Teachers College. It

155 assumed that the respondents who have cooperated with

13
this study are competent administrators, familiar with
admissions, and that they have been conscientious in
making their evaluation of the standards presented to
them.

In collecting the data from the selected administrators,
the writer utilized a rating scale technique. There are
recognized limitations of this method. Statements may be
interpreted in different ways; reactions are determined
part by the way statements are presented; the respondent
may not have the necessary information to respond; or he
may tend to give a professionally acceptable reply rather
than an accurate one. Careful pre-readings, definite
instructions, and good rapport with the respondent can
overcome these objections to a certain extent. In addition
to the rating scale method, the writer assumes that one
may secure valid principles and facts bearing upon admissions
through personal experience and by wide and careful reading
of the literature in the field.

Definition of Terms

It has been observed that disagreement often arises
‘between groups of persons because different interpretations
are placed upon the meaning of terms rather than because
Of difference in basic philosophies. For the purpose of
Clarifying these terms and in the interest of common under-
standing, it is advisable to define briefly some terms
Commonly used throughout this study:

Admissions. The counseling, evaluation, and acceptance

 

14
of an applicant for enrollment in an institution of higher

education.

Admissions committee. A committee of faculty members

 

whose responsibility is to assist the director of admissions
in formulating policies and making administrative decisions.
A committee to which policy-making functions rather than
executive functions are assigned.

Admissions functions. Admissions functions, properly
directed and coordinated, contribute to the fulfillment of
the admissions policy. They represent the kind of action,
activities, and procedures necessary to admit students to
the institution in accordance with established requirements.
A well-designed system of functions is imperative to a good

admissions program.

Admissions poligy. A concept or generalization that

 

serves as a guide to the director of admissions in directing
the admissions program toward the attainment of institutional
.philosophy and objectives. The established institutional
admissions policy usually outlines the principles to be
‘followed in admitting students, takes into consideration
'the nature of the institutional program, the philosophy and
(objectives of the college, and available resources and
facilities.

Admissions requirements. Specifications of the educa-
‘tional, personal, health, place of residence, and other
‘lualifications established as requisites of new students

fOradmission to an institution of higher education.

15
Requirements reflect the admissions policy and implement
it.

Admissions program. A series of related functions

 

performed by the admissions office constitutes the
admissions program. Properly constituted, organized, and
administered, the admissions program is the established
means through which the admissions policy is carried out.
It is that part of the total institutional program that
includes pre-college admissions counseling, the admission
of students, and the supervision of the admissions protess;
it serves as a resource agency for admissions and should

be integrated and coordinated with other institutional
programs and services.

Admissions staff. All professional staff members,

 

including the director of admissions, whose primary respon-
sibility is admissions. Does not include clerical personnel
assigned to the admissions office.

Iéggg. One of the component parts of the admissions
service for which a standard has been developed, such as
Axhninistrative Basis for the Admissions Program.

Board of control. An officially constituted group of

 

Persons charged with the over—all responsibility for the
(Lirection of the educational affairs Of the institution;
l1Smelly delegates executive functions to the president and
deals primarily with matters of policy.

Chief academic administrator. In the study, the chief

acarremic administrator refers to the administrator directly

16
in charge of the instructional program for freshmen in a
college or university and usually responsible immediately
to the president.

Chief student personnel administrator. The adminise
trator who directs and coordinates the nonacademic student
personnel program in a college or university and usually
responsible immediately to the president.

Director of admissions. The administrator who is
charged with the responsibility of admitting students and
‘has the primary duty of carrying out the admissions policy
of the institution; usually consulted in the formulation
of such policies. Other titles assigned to this adminis-
trator are Admissions Officer, Examiner, Registrar and
Director of Admissions, and Dean of Admissions and Records.

' Evaluative criteria. The factors, expressed in the
form of individual statements, considered in analyzing and
studying the strengths, weaknesses, and effectiveness of an
admissions program. Developed and based on known standards.

Institution of higher education. Any institution
abowe the level of secondary school, empowered to confer
degrees, and whose program is given appropriate recognition
tU' a state or regional accrediting agency. Referred to as
institution, college or university, and sometimes college
as being representative of all institutions of higher educa-
tion.

Instrument. The device used for evaluating an admissions

 

program; contains essential standards, evaluative criteria

 

 

l7
and other means of conducting an evaluation.

Standards. The standards are stated in terms of

 

principles that should govern and guide the evaluation of
the various areas of an admissions program. They are
expressed philosophically as an ideal of excellence and
serve as the basis for the development of evaluative
criteria.

Subarea. One of the component parts within an area
of the admissions program, such as in the area of Adminis-
trative Basis for the Admissions Program, there are sub-
areas on Authority, Organization and Administration, and
Financial Basis.

Reporting the Study

The materials and data for this study are presented
in the following order:

Chapter II provides a review of the literature in the
field as it relates to evaluation in admissions, with
special emphasis on recent studies evaluating student per-
sonnel services in higher education.

Chapter III reports the construction and administration
<If the essential standards, including the general structure,
<ererage, and content of the standards, and procedures used
in gathering the data.

Chapter IV describes the series of processes directed
toWard the refinement of the essential standards which can
be ILsed in evaluating admissions in a selected college and

the <:onstructi0n of the resulting evaluative instrument.

18
Chapter V presents the data concerning the development,
utilization and outcomes of an instrument based on essential
standards, designed to evaluate the admissions program at
Ball State Teachers College.
Chapter VI contains a general summary of the study

together with conclusions and recommendations.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In recent years educators have begun to examine more
intensively the role and effectiveness of admissions in
higher education. The purpose of this chapter is to draw
upon recent studies, books, articles, and other published
material to illustrate this development. In general, the
literature appropriate for review can be considered under
three categories - a perspective of admissions in higher
education, admissions policies and requirements, and
evaluation of admissions programs. These categories do
not provide the only possible structure but they do suggest
a logical organization of the literature considered and a
general conceptual scheme for this study.

A Perspective of Admissions in Higher Education

One way to understand and project admissions beyond
tile immediate present is through a study of the current
Jaiterature in higher education that (1) reviews the trends
311d events which affected admissions during the past decade;
(33) gives consideration to the present state of admissions;
anti (3) examines problems and probable developments occurring
in the foreseeable future. Institutional self-surveys,
ac(:reditation studies, national and state-wide surveys, and

19

20
similar activities provide excellent sources for this
purpose. Sources such.as.é_Restudy.gf the Needs 2f
California 12 Higher Education (54) and Higher Education

 

 

12.Michigan: The Final Report gf the Survey 2: Higher
Education 33 Michigan (90) provide the administrator with

 

 

data for use in gathering new directions in admissions
planning and making decisions on operational problems and
policies. The stress here is on developments taking place
which give admission administrators an opportunity for a
fresh and meaningful look at higher education. By gathering
and analyzing data about a specific institution or comparable
institutions, by reviewing surveys of higher education, a
sound basis is provided for obtaining intelligent, effective,
and imaginative ways of improving institutional effective-
ness.

In another dimension many of the pertinent contributions
devoted to understanding admissions in higher education
include those made by commissions and committees of private
and government agencies. The Commission on Financing '
Higher Education (52), the Educational Policies Commission
(of the National Education Association (71), the President’s
(30mmittee on Education Beyond the High School (84), the ‘
Ifiroblems and Policies Committee of the American Council on

Ikiucation (3), the western Interstate Commission for Higher
Education (105) are some of the excellent sources. Books

bY'IHenderson (51), Brubacher and Rudy (12), and Havighurst (47)

21
are a few that present information on the earlier courses
of action taken and give data on planning for higher educa-
tion.

As educators, administrators and students address theme
selves to the various problems of admissions and related
areas in higher education, they will accumulate not only an
increasing body of knowledge but some fundamental principles
for generalization will lead to a sharper definition of
problems as well as to improve understanding and direction
of admissions programs. The literature in related areas
such as institutional organization and administrative
functions illustrates this point.

Williams reported that admissions has been considered
a phase of student personnel work by some institutions,
while other institutions have come to consider student
admissions as an administrative activity (108). A study to
show the authority for establishing entrance requirements,
to compare the organizational plans for determining admis-
sion standards, and to determine the best practice with
(reference to this problem was conducted by Prator in thirty
small institutions. He concludes:

A proper organizational plan for determining 9‘
the standards and requirements for admission would
be to vest the responsibility for determining the
basic requirements in the body which has the best
interests of the Whole institution in mind. This a»
would normally be the faculty. However, it may be a“
desirable in many institutions to have committees \‘
charged with this responsibility. The basic
requirements for entrance should be satisfactory

to all the colleges of the university. The important
consideration is to have some agency which is familiar

22

with the general objectives of the institution
determine the admissions requirements. It is

also desirable in most institutions to maintain

some degree of uniformity in standards throughout

the several divisions or departments Of the

institution (82:56).

Doctoral studies by Furst (33), Hanson (44), Long (63),
Smith (95), and Wilson (110) have analyzed organizational
structure in selected areas of colleges and universities
administration. Organizational structure is usually
referred to as the formally established roles and relation-
ships of administrative and faculty personnel. Studies
such as these become more important because as institutions
become larger and their tasks more diverse, the structure
becomes more complex. It has become not only increasingly
clear but increasingly imperative that administrators
responsible for admissions have a clear understanding of
the organizational structure of their institution. Additional
investigations need to be conducted in the area of the
relationship of functions to organizational structure, and
particularly to the basic functions of admissions and their
relationship to creative teaching and scholarship. A
recent study indicates that:

Administrative problems were relatively

simple in the pioneering era, because the

volume of work was small and the number of staff

workers was equally small. Therefore organizational

processes and structures were simple. Today, the
numbers of workers have markedly increased in

response to student needs, and also in response

to the growing technological foundations of these

services resulting from research. The need of

more sophisticated and complex administrative

structuring and functioning are evident in most

institutions. Such need will be even more press-
ing and evident in'the immediate future (28:3).

23

The effectiveness of an administrator often depends
upon his realistic understanding of both organizational
structure and administrative functions. ‘Within the
diversity that seems to characterize organizational
structure there appears to be considerable uniformity in
administrative functions, especially admissions functions.
This is probably the outcome of a common heritage. Reeves
and Russell describe admissions function as having two
purposes. First, a sound procedure of admissions protects
the institution. Acceptance of new students without low
standards of preparation can crowd institutions with
matriculants, thus increasing the percentage of inferior
students. This leads to attenuation of course work. Second,
it protects the student. To refuse admission to an unpromis-
ing student prevents uneconomic use of his finances, loss
of his time and effort, and the disappointment attendant
upon scholastic failure (87).

According to Thomason the office of admissions and
records developed in the early 1900’s and has been fairly
stabilized since 1935 except for an increase in the demands
Trade on it and the use of machines to carry out its work.
lfle states, “All in all the registrar has certainly reached
his maturity, and he occupies a position comparable to that
<Df the academic deans and other major administrative
(afficers" (101). In a study of 28 selected colleges and
llniversities, Gerritz and Thomas found that admissions

Vmork had come to be centered in one office coordinate with

24
that of the registrar (37). The great increase in college
enrollments and the detail required to determine who
should be admitted to college were two factors responsible
for creating the admissions office. They found that aside
from being concerned with admissions proper, the admissions
office might also be charged with responsibility for recruit~
ment, interviewing, testhig, counseling, evaluation and
placement, orientation, and scholarships.

Fine indicates that admissions as a function of
institutions of higher education refer to the standards
(requirements and criteria) and the procedures by means of
which the institution selects the applicants for admission
(29). The function of the admissions offices is to deter-
mine the eligibility of applicants who have just completed
high school and also the amount of advanced credit allowed
1 a student who transfers from another institution (55).

In the preceding paragraphs a few of the more imagina-
tive studies on admissions functions have been noted. We
have not considered the numerous investigations and pub-
lications that made reference to the functions of the
registrar (20), (40), (66), (67), (77), (89). Such
information has been excluded because this review is more
concerned with points of view on admissions. Both colleges
and universities, more than ever before, are up against
l?roblems in certain areas of admissions that require
(letailed study and new solutions. One of these areas

involves inter-institutional coordination and articulation

25
of programs -- secondary school -- college -— institutional
relations.

The responsibilities of admissions in higher education i‘
assume even greater significance when the broader problem
of the relationship between the admissions programs and
the work of the secondary school is considered. As more
and more high school graduates go to college, high school-
college relations are again being extensively reviewed, and
institutions at both levels are taking steps to improve
this transition. There is perhaps far too little under-
standing on articulation on the part of both secondary
schools and institutions of higher learning. A broad and
well-organized research program in the field of admissions
could go a long way toward improving the situation.

The American.Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Ildmissions Officers, in 1951, appointed a Committee on
Iiigh School-College Relations to make a special study of
‘this growing problem and responsibility. Following are

some of the major purposes of the publication Secondary

 

ghool-College Co-operation, in Obligation £3 Youth

 

Produced by the Committee:

7T0 give an overview and analysis of the problems,
trends and practices in secondary school-college
.relations.

TIO furnish a tool for the development of more
(effective coeoperation between secondary schools
and colleges.

Tro stimulate individual and group activities
(designed to better co-ordinate secondary school
and college education (2:vi).

26

Nickerson in a study of the history of the high school-

college relations committee in Oregon states that

Specifically, the committee has exerted

control over visits of high school students to
college campuses, the administration of the state
fee scholarship program, and the publications used
by the state system and its institutions in dise
seminating information to high school students and
the general public. It has also influenced admis-
sions policy and other such periodic problems as
have created need for a discussion forum between
secondary and higher education (75).

The theme of the recent NCA annual meeting at Chicago
was "Improving School—College Articulation" (76). The
May, 1960, issue of School Life contained an article
"Perspectives in.Articu1ation" that sought to identify
and briefly describe the major problems in which secondary
schools and colleges have common interest and concerns (81).
LExamples of the kinds of studies in the area of inter-
institutional cooperation are limited. Two doctoral
(dissertations have dealt with phases of the problem. In
:1956 Hanson completed a study which concluded that the
nuijority of college and university admissions officers in
the state of Michigan believed there was a need for more
COOperation between themselves and the secondary school
guidance personnel. The main suggestion made by the
admissions officials for improving secondary school-college
relartions is to develop a larger group of informed and
intetrested guidance forces (45). In 1957 Perkins (80)
Comps1£ted a study on “A Proposed Pre-College Counseling

Program for Larger Colleges and Universities in the United

27

States". He examined the "precollege practices and
materials" of 104 large institutions. He concluded that
"the proper relationship of pre-college counseling to
admission procedures, orientation practice and later
counseling should be more clearly defined in order to
provide more unity to counseling services." His study
helped to define the problem but his findings, however,
were inconclusive, except to recommend further study.

It is hopeful that studies and conferences such as
those just mentioned will bring to the attention of secondary
school and college personnel the need for closer co-operation,
a better understanding of articulation problems and stimu-
late research in specific fields of secondary school-
college relations. At this time, however, we do not have
evidence that some systematic study of this area is under
way.

Admissions Policies and Requirements

The professional literature in education and psychologi-
Ca1.journals includes hundreds of prediction studies. The l;
earliest of these studies dates from the turn of this
Century, the peak occurring just after World War I.
Reperts of such studies are still plentiful. It would be
a tedious task, and one of questionable merit, to attempt
to Ifeview all the studies that have been reported for the
purEwose of developing policy and requirements. In general,

the Se studies have used indices of ability, achievement, or

28
previous school marks as the predictor variables; a few
have employed measures of personality and attitudes. The
most common criteria have been freshman grade-point
average, two year grade-point average, cumulative college
grade-point average in different subject areas.

Before 1875, each institution admitted ”1
students on the basis of its own entrance
examinations. In the year 1871 the policy of
admitting students on the basis of transcripts
of high school marks began to gain headway.

The College Entrance Examination Board rose

rapidly in favor after 1900. A few years later

a great deal of work was being done on the
predictive value of tests of general intelligence.
For a time intelligence tests competed with high
school marks for first place in value to college
admission officers. Because the correlation
between college marks and each of these two

factors was far from perfect, efforts were made

to isolate other influences which had a significant
relationship with college achievement. The relation-
ship between ratings and personality tests and
scholarship was studied. Evidences of scholastic
preparation, intellectual ability, and the amassed
cumulative achievement of the candidate have, in
general, been given more attention than data con-
cerning special interests, moral and social promise,
health and financial status (97:63).

In overview, the history of the study of prediction of
college success included several phases or special emphases.
First was the search for a single measure or evidence of
intellectual capacity that would predict academic accom-
plishment. During this period previous academic records
and high school rank were matters of chief concern. The
attention was turned to objective measures of intelligence
or college aptitude. Later objective measures Of achieve-
ment entered for their share of attention. When apparently

all single measures had proven inadequate, attention was

29
focused on the predictability of various combinations of
items and, while combinations were found that were more
predictive than single items, the predictive efficiency
remained unsatisfactory. Differential prediction then
became the concern of many -- the desire to forecast an
individualis relative promise for specified fields of
study. Since general forecasting proved inadequate is it
possible to predict with greater accuracy in the academic
or arts type fields or those of a scientific or technical
nature?

Arbuckle summarizes:

The ideal predictive instrument will be con-
cerned with the total personality of the individual
rather than his intellectual capacity alone. Such
an instrument does not yet exist, but every personnel
officer should be concerned with research which will
attempt to develop instruments so that he will be
more capable of helping young people to make a valid
decision, rather than a guess, as to their college
future (4:60).

In some colleges and universities there appears to be
two levels of admission: (1) admission to the institution
and (2) admission to a special curriculum or usually the
junior and senior year of study. The second level of
admission is often referred to as selective retention
standards. Stout, in one of the most extensive studies of
admissions policies in teacher education, found that selective
programs for teacher education are both desirable and
practical (96). Factors reported by Stout which should be

considered in selective admissions and selective retention

programs included: consideration of evidence in addition

30
to grades and rank in class, better guidance and counseling
for high school students, extended recruitment and orienta-
tion programs, and use of more objective measures of per-
sonality. She recommended that a series of studies less
broadly comprehensive and more specific than the study she
conducted, be initiated (96).

With the awareness of the complexity and great number
of factors involved also came awareness of the limitations
of the various predictive indices or the combinations of
them. F. D. Millett expressed concern over and indicated
problems of restrictive admissions in 1956. He believed
that securing a proper admission policy for state-supported
colleges was not a simple problem and that the particular
circumstances which help fix the educational objectives of
the institution must be considered. He also believed that
in order for any consideration of admission policies to be
realistic we must appreciate the fact that the instruments
for determining college ability are by no means perfect (68).

Smith expressed a similar viewpoint on the basis of the
experience of one institution:

. . . the solution for the rush of future enroll-

ments is not selection prior to registration in

the state system, college, or university, if such

institutions can in any way possible expand their

facilities to accept the group wishing to be educated.
It would seem that every other device for handling
large enrollments should be tried before screening

entrants by examination in the state systems (93:27).

Johnson also underscored the obligation of higher

education and admissions when he wrote:

31
The question then, of who should go to
college, seems not so pertinent as that Of who
are coming to college and What we are going

to do with them. This is a tide that no one

can stem. I think that no one should want to

stem it.

. . education's answer to the question
of who should go to college should be: Let
them come -- let all those come who need train-
ing beyond the high school years. ‘We shall try
to find for each, within the limits of sound
educational practice, the answer that will be
adequate for his needs. . . (56:236).

Typically, prediction research has been conducted at V,
a given institution for the primary purpose of obtaining a
description of available data to predict success in that
one institution. Little concern for the possibility of
general application of the obtained results has been
evidenced. Similarly, there has been a notable lack of
concern for the relevance of the criteria employed in these
studies. Hardaway found that 46.11 per cent of the institu-
tions in his study had selective admissions and that these
colleges used a variety of factors in screening candidates
for admission. Admissions were reported flexible and were
based on consideration of the individual student (46).

"Who Should Go To College?" distributed by the Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education constitutes the
kind of analysis that is valuable to the study of admissions
in higher education. The report contained in this publica—
tion reflects the sUbstantial consensus of a dozen dis-

tinguished western educators and lay leaders on college

admission and retention policies. They offer a check list

32

for a good selection program.

1.

It is part of a comprehensive plan for public
education beyond the high school, with a
diversity of facilities and opportunities
available for those with different abilities.
Some educational opportunity is open to every
high school graduate.

Admission requirements for each institution
are related to the goals and purposes of that
institution. Admission requirements of the
state university are different from those of
the junior college.

The admission standards used are related to
later college achievement. Provision is made
for a regular follow-up of students to deter—
mine adequacy of the selection methods in
predicting student success in college.

NO single test or criterion is used alone; a
combination is applied so that a broader base
is given for making the judgment. Both high
school records and achievement or aptitude

tests are taken into account. Consideration
is given to individuals of unusual ability

that may not be measurable on existing tests.

There is a comprehensive guidance and counseling
system operating at high school and college

levels, so that students are made fully aware

of the opportunities suited to their unique talents
and abilities.

The system is flexible, personalized and
reasonable. It provides for the correction of
errors in prediction. It is possible for a
student to change institutions and programs

as errors become evident (106:19).

This brief discussion of the literature on admissions

policy and requirements serves only to identify the scope

of the investigations and thinking that has gone into this

area of admissions. Whether the element of prediction of

academic success in higher education will reach a degree

of effectiveness where it can guide admissions decisions

remains a question for many institutions. It is clear that

33
considerable historical and empirical research is being
conducted to help define appropriate admissions policy and
requirements for higher education. Samples of this research
include (9), (23), (31), (36), (53), (60), (99), (114).
However, in reviewing the literature that has appeared since

1956, Heist, in the Review 2: Education Research, analyzes

 

the data contributed in this way:
Little research has brought a theoretical

approach to the problems of selection, retention,

and achievement. Institutions which are pressed

for decisions regarding new policies and procedures

on enrollment will as yet find little evidence to

serve as a basis for making such decisions. The

findings from surveys and studies. . . indicate

that decisions concerning size of student body,

character and quality Of students to be admitted,

and plans for expansion will be forced upon many

administrators and staff before the data are

available on which policies concerning admission

and appropriate selection of students can be

objectively determined . . . (49:375).

Evaluation of the Admission Program

As institutions of higher education have multiplied
and their functions have widened, the need for comparative
studies, establishment of standards, and appraisals of
practices in relation to objectives has become increasingly
apparent to college administrators and staffs. Most of
the research that has been done in the field of student
personnel in general is obviously relevant for admissions.
For example, when one researcher finds that "student per-
sonnel services are apparently considered as favorable by
students and faculty with need evidenced, however, for

further investigation concerning the program of recruitment

34
and admissions," (25) these findings and the investigational
techniques are of concern to admissions personnel.

Research on student personnel administration itself
has been pursued with diligence only in recent years.

These researchers fall into two broad categories: (1) there
have been the "land mark" studies of associations, and

(2) there have been the researches of individuals leading

to journal articles, sections in books and occasional dis-
sertations. .Altogether these are small in number. Kamm
queried forty selected student personnel administrators in
an attempt to determine the extent to which evaluation was
being carried on, and found that little was being done in
systematic evaluation and research (58).

Blaesser (7), in reviewing the historical development
of evaluation in student personnel work in higher education,
reported that L. B. Hopkins conducted the first national
survey in 1925 for the American Council on Education. Each
of twenty student personnel services at fourteen selected
institutions were vidted and then rated by Hopkins on the
basis of his own standards. Studies on a national basis
since that time have been limited to questionnaire and
check list studies.

Brumbaugh and Smith’s point scale for evaluating
college personnel work was developed for the North Central
Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools during the
early 1930's. (14) Ten major divisions of personnel work

were considered in the study: educational counseling;

35
systematized admission and orientation; personnel problems;
records, data and research; personal organization; health
and recreation; vocational counseling; diagnosis and
remedial treatment; student employment and placement; and
extra-curricular activities. Each of these divisions was
divided into its component parts so that each division had
from three to seven subndivisions. The rating scale was
then submitted to some fifty experts in student personnel
work who were instructed to assign a weighting to the
major divisions and sub-divisions. From these weightings
standard values were assigned to the ten major divisions
and to the forty-six sub-divishans. Suggestions contributed
by the experts were incorporated in the point scale and
then the instrument was re-submitted to the specialists
for evaluating the student personnel program on their own
campus.

Gardner‘s 1935 study of fifty-seven colleges and uni-
versities belonging to the North Central Association of
Colleges and Secondary Schools investigated the extent to
which provisions for student personnel activities are
associated with educational excellence (35). This study
was one of a series concerned with the evaluation of higher
institutions conducted for the Committee on Revision of
Standards of the Commission on Higher Institutions of the
North Central Association. This investigation divided the
student personnel program into eleven different areas:

admission; orientation;records; educational and vocational

 

36
counseling; counseling about intimate personal affairs;
extra-curricular activities; loans; scholarships, and
grants of aid; health service; housing and boarding;
placement service; and student discipline. The specific
services performed in each of the eleven areas were
presented on a series of score cards. In consultation
with experts in the field each of the items in each of the
areas was weighted. From this means one could evaluate
the student personnel program of an institution and obtain
a composite or general institutional score. The general
conclusion of Gardner's study was that a positive relation-
ship existed between provision of student personnel services
and institutional excellence.

An intensive review of 230 papers presented at con-
ventions from 1924 through 1940 revealed that evaluations
of over—all student personnel programs were not conducted
during this period (24). A review of the literature for
the period 1950 to 1953 identified only a few studies
dealing with evaluation (8).

In 1946 the Committee on Studies and Standards of the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
authorized a study of student personnel services in member
institutions (1). The minimum standards and evaluative
criteria for student personnel services were intended to
serve a dual function. They should be of value to the
Association through its Committee on Accrediting in analyzing
the student personnel services in member institutions and

also in institutions applying for membership.

37

The statement of minimum standards for student per-
sonnel services were distributed in terms of services
which (1) promote the student‘s progress toward the educa—
tional goal of his choice; (2) contribute to the student’s
personal and social well-being and development, and -
(3) administrative organization of student personnel
services. Specifically, standards were presented for
recruitment, admission, freshman week, personalized
registration, orientation course or program, educational
guidance and counseling, progressive selection and retention,
placement and follow-up, student health, housing and food
facilities, financial aids, social competence, religious
life, student government, special services, citizenship
and discipline, basic principles, administrative organiza-
tion, student personnel records and forms and office
arrangement.

The rating scale is not intended as an
objective measuring instrument but rather as a
means of evaluating the personnel services in a
given institution on a relative basis or in
comparing institutions in terms of the services
offered. The meanings of the various ratings,
agreed upon by those using the scale for a
specific comparison or study, may differ with-
out invalidating the usefulness Of the scale.

It is not intended that ratings should be inter-
preted in terms of standards or norms but rather
used for pointing out specific services which

are outstanding or which need improvement. The
general excellence of any program is determined

to a great extent by the quality of its components;
and the determination of the quality of personnel
services is dependent upon many factors including
the philosophy of the school, the size and quality
of the student body, the physical plant, and the
like (1:131).

38

In 1948 C. Gilbert Wrenn and Robert B. Kamm designed
an evaluation form for use by trained personnel workers
(112). They suggest that "the evaluation of student per-
sonnel services often is neglected because it is not clear
what specific services are involved in a personnel program"
(112). They state:

Evaluation may suffer also because of a lack
of adequate criteria against which the effective—
ness of a service may be judged. This is approached
in its simplest form by an analysis of the specific
activities or functions essential to an effective
service. Once these are isolated and their ade-
quacy or completeness is appraised, a judgment can
be made with regard to the adequacy of the service
as a whole (112:267).

Report forms were constructed on fourteen student per-
sonnel services, these services being ascertained by an
analysis of work previously done in the student personnel
field. The services as listed are these: the interpreta-
tion of institutional objectives to prospective snidents
and to workers in secondary education, admission, orientae
tion, diagnostic and counseling services, physical and
mental health services, housing, food services, student
activities, application of a knowledge of student needs to
the curriculum and to the instructional functions of the
' institution, financial aid and part-time employment, place-
ment and follow-up, records, use of analytical and remedial
procedures in discipline of students, and systematic evalua-
tion. Arbitrary weights were assigned by the writers to

each ofthese services "in terms of their assumed relative

significance in the total program" (112). They add that

39

. . . if there is uniqueness in this plan
of evaluation, it rests upon the mechanics pro-
vided for combining judgment regarding "philosophy"
and that regarding the "evidence" of the specific
services. The rating can be done only after both
qualitative and quantitative considerations have
been weighed . . .(112:268).

In an attempt to gain student reaction to student
personnel services, Kamm designed an instrument intended to
be used in connection with the earlier form constructed
by Wrenn and Kamm (57). It was an evaluative form con~
sisting of five questions for each of twelve student per-
sonnel services and assumes that strengths and weakness
can be identified by the degree of favorable or unfavorable
. responses students give to the question. The form was
based upon the principle that if several pertinent questions
about a particular student personnel service are asked of
a sufficiently large random sample of the local college
population, a valid indication of the worth of the service
to those students will be available.

A study designed to determine criteria for the evalua-
tion of student personnel services activities in institutions
of higher learning was developed by Rackham in 1950 (85).

As a result of this investigation he constructed a Student
Personnel Services Inventory for fifteen student personnel
activities, namely, admissions, counseling, discipline,
extra-curricular activities, financial aid, health service,
housing and board, organization and administration (general),

orientation, placement, pre~college counseling, records,

religion, research, and testing. A rating scale of 225 items

40
was constructed by means of a review of the literature, a
"pilot" study, and the reaction of appropriate officials
from over one hundred institutions of higher education.
The scale was then submitted to a group of specialists who
weighted each item on a four point scale ranging from
Undesirable to Essential. From the weights given to each
item was evolved a list of "indices of value" and a
theoretical "ideal" profile with which an institution may
compare its.own ratings. Rackham believes that little can
be done to evaluate the outcomes of student personnel
services until the objectives of such services have been
clearly defined. The criteria resulting from this study,
he states, should aid in defining objectives and in evalua~
ting outcomes (86). Hage later reduced the original Rackham
Inventory from 848 items to 328 items and simplified the
scoring system. The resultant form from this study cor-
related 0.96 with the original (42).

A study to determine if there were functions, equip-
ment, and personal qualities that contributed to efficiency
and effectiveness in a private junior college registrar‘s
office was designed by Lewis (59). A 423 item question;
naire testing the functions of the registrar was arranged
under the ten areas of admissions, registration, records
and reports, guidance and counseling, statistics, publicae
tions, personnel, organization, equipment, and facilities.
Every function was assigned a value by respondents from

107 private junior colleges. The writer then prepared a

41

ranking of the duties into three groups: (1) those duties
considered necessary or nearly so if the registrar's office
is to be most sufficient; (2) the duties that would make
a contribution in some office or which might be assigned
to the registrar for over-all economy in a particular
institution; and (3) the functions which would detract
from the registrar's office in most situations if assigned
to him.

The Commission on Program and Practices of the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators in 1953
attempted to develop a systematic approach to evaluation

(70). They prepared a two-part brochure, Evaluation.Aids,

 

consisting of a manual emphasizing the need for systematic
evaluation and explaining the use of the materials, and
procedures relating to twenty areas to be evaluated. For
each of the twenty areas, a statement pertaining to the
area to be evaluated, a statement of objectives for the
area, a listing of useful criteria, suggestions of sources
to utilize, and techniques to be employed in evaluating
the area are given.

Reports of over-all institutional studies regarding
student personnel services are more scarce. Some colleges
and universities have endeavored to appraise their own
programs such as Ohio State University in 1931 and the
University of Minnesota in 1940.

‘W. H. Cowley directed the study at Ohio State Univer-

sity and made an analysis of the structure and function Of

42
personnel services and agencies on that campus (22). At
the University of Minnesota, Williamson and Sarbin made
a study of the student personnel services (109). It
presents a historical and descriptive analysis of the
services on the Minnesota campus and makes certain recom-
mendations for the improvement of these services.

Pershing utilized the evaluative instruments designed
by Wrenn and Kamm in evaluating the Georgia Institute of
Technology student personnel program (79). Student per-
sonnel programs at four colleges in Minnesota were evaluated
by Mahler (64). He secured reactions by faculty and students
to services by means of an inventory which he developed, and
by use of the Rackham Inventory. Faculty and student opin-
ion on both inventories were in general agreement. He
concluded that it is possible to secure and utilize student
and faculty opinion to ascertain campus readiness for the
development or redirection of a personnel program. Bailey
administered a slightly modified adoption of Kamm’s student
evaluative form at six urban universities and found a
significantly higher favorable student reaction to central-
ized student personnel administration than to a decentral-
ized organization (11). The study did not deal with
factors relating to the question of the superiority of a
given type of organization.

The purpose of the study by Nereson was to evaluate
the student personnel programs in six California state

colleges utilizing two methods. These methods involved

43
rating the importance and effectiveness of the student
personnel practices by faculty and by a committee of
student personnel specialists. He found marked differ~
ences between ratings and reached the conclusion that
there is a need to improve the effectiveness of most of
the services (74). A recent study attempting to deter-
mine the perception held by instructional staff members
at Michigan State University was reported by Fitzgerald
in 1960. Responses were obtained according to the follow~
ing functions: admissions, registration and records;
counseling service; student activities; financial aid;
placement; disciplinary; and special. Although admissions,
registration, and records were perceived as having some
importance in higher education, it was concluded in this
study that insufficient information regarding these
functions is available to the faculty (30).
Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to review significant
and representative literature that develops new insights
into the theory, the process, and the operations of
admissions in higher education. It does not survey all
recent literature, nor does it report in detail the
particular outcomes of studies reviewed. Other sources
(27), (98), (50), (69) are available for this purpose.
The point we wish to raise in connection with this chapter

is that selected current literature, after careful analysis,

44

can call attention to the newer ideas in admission in
higher education and provide further impetus to the
development of this field. It can contribute to a broader
understanding of admissions problems and help prevent
duplication of effort in researching these problems.

Admission programs in the United States are operating
in institutions characterized by a considerable diversity
of patterns of organization and administration. These
patterns have their basis in chance and tradition and
have gradually developed expediently to meet immediate
needs within differing institutions. Despite the attention
devoted to prediction in admissions, many phases of the
program are unaided by significant research. If the vari-
ous patterns of admissions programs are to become more
than those determined by chance and tradition, penetrating
research needs to be done in the following areas:
(1) analysis of theoretically new foundations for develop-
ing admissions programs for higher education; (2) practical
standards and principles for inaugurating, operating and
modifying admission programs; and (3) systematic evaluative
studies to gain additional empirical evidence concerning
the effectiveness Of admissions programs in terms of
institutional Objectives and programs. In general, the
research in this area appears to be predominantly descriptive
and deals primarily with the functions and responsibilities
of the admission officials or the scope of particular

inStitutional student personnel programs.

45

The pressing need in admissions is for research
that deals with principles in operation rather than sur-
veys of current practices. Too frequently it is planned
to discover "what is" rather than "what ought to be".
Burns pointed out that the controlled experiment is seldom
feasible in research on administrative problems and that
quantitative study too frequently reveals what ig rather
than what should 23. He also adds that much of the study
in higher education deals with the structure of the
administrative organization but does not get at the
process (15).

Perhaps the major shortcoming of the research and
thinking in admissions has been the lack of adequate under-
lying theory Of admissions. The need for systematic study
of admissions theory becomes increasingly urgent as the
limitations of physical facilities and qualified teaching
personnel show up in the face of demands made on our in-
stitutions of higher education. The pervading intangibility
of many aspects of admissions and the absence of adequate
standards and methods of appraisal tend to destroy the
clarity of issues and adequate decision making. A major
need appears to be development of standards for evaluation
and of norms of performance for the interpretation of
findings.

It is hoped that needed research in admissions can be
pursued increasingly in these coming years and in a manner

fitting to its challenging potentialities.

CHAPTER III
CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDATION OF THE
PRELIMINARY EVALUATIVE STANDARDS

The fact that there is a wide diversity in programs
and procedures for admissions, as well as in sizes and
types of institutions, is generally recognized. The
location of an institution, its financial condition,
its philosophy, and the admissions point of view held by
the institution's board of control and president all con-
tribute to formulation of an admissions program. A study
purporting to develop adequate evaluative standards for
an ideal admissions program at a selected college in
terms of quality and quantity should therefore possess
characteristics both of breadth and specificity.

As indicated in Chapter II, procedures for the con-
struction of instruments to evaluate college and university
admissions programs have generally been omitted in the
reporting of the studies in this area. This chapter
presents a detailed discussion of the procedures used in
the construction and validation of the preliminary evalua-
tive standards which could be used in constructing an
instrument for evaluating the admissions program at a
selected college.

46

47

The validity of a research study depends upon the
procedure used to collect the data and the accuracy of
its interpretation. It would be most desirable to use a
combination of methods, for then the consistency of the
data could be better ascertained. Of course, the available
time, funds, and assistance are among the factors, as well
as the nature of the problem, that determine the method
which will be employed in an investigation. With such
facts in mind, the standards and evaluative instrument
which appear as an end product of this study were evolved
according to a definite procedure and necessitated a series
of systematic subproblems.

General Structure and Coverage

The initial procedure in constructing the evaluative
standards was to determine the general areas of an ideal
college or university admissions program that should be
reviewed. In order to determine the areas to be included,
an investigation was made of the available written materials
related in any way to the evaluation, organization and
administration of admissions programs. The written materials
included books, journals, research studies, and admissions
conference proceedings. Information distributed by the
Association of College Admissions Counselors and the
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and.Admis-
sions Officers were of particular significance in selecting
content to be included in the preliminary standards. The

membership of these two associations consists predominantly

,0

48
of experienced college and university admissions personnel
from institutions in all sections of the country. The
other material also represented highly expert and profes—
sional thought and study in the area of college and uni-
versity admissions.

As a result of reading and studying the written
materials, several different lists of college and univer~
sity admissions areas were compiled for possible development
into standards. The lists represented different outlines
of areas used in the literature regarding evaluation of
higher education, student personnel administration, and
admissions. All of the lists compiled were studied and
carefully analyzed in light of established selection
criteria. These criteria were used to determine the
selection of specific areas to be included: (a) a definite,
general division of an admissions program; (b) broad enough
to be adequately partitioned into subareas; (c) significant
enough to constitute a unique, independent division of the
total admissions program; and (d) its title definite enough
to be clearly understood.

The original list of areas compiledibr the construction
Of preliminary standards consisted of ten areas. The ten
original areas were:

1. Institutional Philosophy and Objectives

11. Admissions Policy and Requirements

III. Criteria for Determining.Admissability

IV. Admissions Personnel

49
V. Organization and Administration of Admissions
VI. Admissions Procedures and Functions
VII. Recruitment and Pre-College Guidance
VIII. Records and Publications

IX. Records and Statistics

X. Physical Resources

These ten areas were compiled as a result of logical
analysis, selection, and arrangement. The rationale of
not using a panel of respondents to select the areas was
predicated on the fact that the materials from which the
areas were drawn represented expert judgment in college
and university admissions and far exceeds the number of
experts generally considered acceptable for this purpose.
Also, standards which would be developed for each area
would be analyzed and rated subsequently by selected
administrators in higher education. Nevertheless, adminis-
trative personnel working closely with admissions at Ball
State Teachers College and other institutions did check
the original ten areas prior to the construction of pre-
liminary standards. For this purpose James Albertson,
Administrative Assistant to the President, Ball State
Teachers College; George Budd, President, St. Cloud State
College; Robert Koenker, Director of Graduate Studies, Ball
State Teachers College; Harlan White, Director of Admissions,
Purdue University, were consulted. Several adjustments
were suggested; most of the weaknesses were related to

criterion c for the selection of areas (page 48). The

50
revised list contained the following seven areas:
1. Institutional Philosophy and Objectives
II. Admissions Policy and Requirements
III. Administrative Basis for the Admissions Program
'IV. Admissions Personnel
V. Physical Resources
VI. Basic Admissions Functions
VII. Functions Complementary to the Admissions Program
Four areas from the original list of ten areas were
retained in their originally stated form in the revised
list of seven areas. These were Institutional Philosophy
and Objectives, Admissions Policy and Requirements,
Admissions Personnel, and Physical Resources. The area,
Organization and Administration, was too limited and was
joined with subareas on.Authority and Financial Basis to
form the area,.Administrative Basis for the Admissions
Program. Areas III, VI, VII, VIII, and IX of the original
areas were combined to form area VI, Basic.Admissions
Functions. Area VII, Functions Complementary to the
Admissions Program, was added in response to the importance
given to inter-service and office coordination. This
revised list of areas provided the outline for the develop-
ment of preliminary standards.
Selection of the Content for the Evaluative Standards
The next step in this investigation was to establish
the content validity of the data to be utilized in con-

structing the evaluative standards. Lindquist makes the

1‘

51
following statement regarding validity:

The validity of a test may be defined as
the accuracy with which it measures that which
it is intended to measure, or as the degree to
which it approaches infallibility in measuring
what it purports to measure (61:124).

Statistical validity may be established through vari-
ous techniques with a resulting mathematical coefficient.
This type of validity is sometimes establiShed in the
development of standardized tests. .Another type of
validity, content validity, may be used and established
without obtaining a mathematical coefficient. Remmers
and Gage refer to content validity as logical relevance
and make the following statement on estimating logical
relevance:

Criteria against which logical relevance of
a test may be determined may take the following
forms: analysis of courses of study and jobs,
statements of instructional objectives, analyses
of textbooks, analyses of teacherfs final examina-
tion questions, pooled judgments of competent
persons. . . (88:213).

Content validity of the evaluative standards used in
this study was obtained primarily through an analysis of
the literature and pooled judgments of competent persons.
The following procedures were used in establishing content
validity:

1. As the director of admissions at Ball State
Teachers College, the author had the opportunity to keep a
daily listing of the functions and duties performed in the
admissions of that institution during the two fiscal years,

July 1, 1959, through June 30, 1960, and July 1, 1960,

52
through June 30, 1961. This procedure, plus previous
experience in admissions counseling at another institution
of higher education, helped to develop a comprehensive
listing. During the early stages of the study it was
possible to visit other colleges and universities and
study the more promising functions of their admission
programs. Some of the institutions visited include Butler
University, Evansville College, Indiana State College,
Purdue University, Marquette University, State University
of Iowa, University of Chicago, and the University of
Michigan. Also, during the period of construction of the
standards, the writer attended state and national meetings
where registrars and admissions officers were approached
at random and asked to react to wording of statements, as
well as the study as a whole. This procedure helped reveal
omissions, points of possible confusion in terminology,
and additional emphasis needed.

2. In developing the standards presented and evaluated
in this study, it was necessary to read widely in the
literature of higher education. Studies, books, magazines,
bulletins, and reports were examined for the possibility
of finding any suggestions as to the role, functions, and
activities of admissions offices in other colleges and
universities. As these ideas were culled from the reading,
they were stated in usable form for this study, recorded
on cards, with a notation of the source, and then filed

under related headings. After the search had arrived at a

53
point where further recording of ideas meant merely
duplication of statements already in the card file, the
seven hundred or more statements were carefully studied
and appropriate groupings made. The functions and
activities thus compiled should represent a multiplicity
of views as expressed by the current literature. .An
earnest attempt was made to cover all possible components
of each standard needed to evaluate an admissions office.
This extensiveness was considered essential in order to
make a reliable instrument for the analysis of the
admissions program at Ball State Teachers College.

3. The statements listed as a result of the foregoing
procedures were analyzed and organized into the seven differ-
ent areas. All of the cards were distributed to the seven
areas as identified by the notation on each. Once this
was completed all of the statements on the cards for each
area were analyzed primarily for their unique contribution
and relation to that particular area. A complete analysis
of each area resulted in a redistribution of several state-
ments to other areas. After a complete redistribution of
several statements to appropriate areas, each statement
in each area was again analyzed for duplication with one or
more statements in the same area. The duplications which
were found were duplications with (a) other identically
stated statements; (b) some other statement stated differ-
ently but meaning the same thing; (c) some other specifically

stated statement with additions; and (d) some other state-

54
ment, stated differently, meaning the same thing with
additions. All duplications were grouped under the area
to which they were assigned. The duplications were studied,
analyzed, and rephrased to include all related aspects of
each into a single statement. Parts of the duplicated
statements were reassigned to other more appropriate areas.
The execution of this step eliminated statements of the
original number of the seven hundred and four, leaving a
total of four hundred and eightynone statements.

As the statements in each area were further analyzed,
it was found that all areas could logically be partitioned
into subareas. This further partitioning of the areas
into subareas aided in the identification of standards,
the construction of a final evaluative instrument, and
provided for a finer degree of discrimination of program
excellence. Twenty~seven subareas were established and
statements distributed accordingly.1

4. All of the statements, after being sorted by areas
and then sUbareas, were then typed into an outline form. The
typed outline form provided for a complete overview of the
content. The four hundred and eighty-one statements in
outline form were then presented for review to Norman Burns,

Executive Secretary, North Centra1.Association of Colleges

and Secondary Schools, and Joe Jefferson, Executive Secretary,

 

1
See the Instrument Outline in Appendix A, p.162.

55

Association of College Admissions Counselors. (Although

this listing of statements does not appear in this study,
many of the statements appear in the final instrument
- Appendix F.) At this joint meeting with the author it
was definitely decided to convert the outline into prose in
the form of standards that could be analyzed and rated by
selected respondents. The adoption of prose standards is
in keeping with the procedure followed by the National
Study of Secondary School.Eva1uation (72); the Accrediting
Commission of Business Schools (100); the.American Council
on Industrial Arts Teacher Education (32); the Commission
on Colleges and Universities, North Central Association
of Colleges and Secondary Schools (19); and other regional
accrediting agencies. Travers indicates that there appears
to be "a trend away from the use of quantitative data and
a return to qualitative standards" (102). According to
Travers evaluative standards
. . .that represent a recent stage of thinking

in this area do not represent a series of measuring

devices to be used in a standard way; rather they

are guides to the thinking of the person who is

understanding the evaluation. They represent a

series of topics that ma be given consideration

in the total assessmen procedure, and it is recog-

nized that some of these may be irrelevant in some

situations and that some relevant ones may have

been excluded from the list. Some guide to thought

is better than for each assessor to be entirely his
own guide (102:265).

The prose standards developed from this study are designed
to insure high requirements but not to limit the scope of

purpose or to encourage uniformity in admissions. Different

56
institutions and admissions programs have to be assessed
along different dimensions. In applying any evaluative
standards due consideration should be given to differences
in institutions of higher education.

Therefore, the primary reasons for converting the
outline of statements into prose standards were (a) to
state in terms of guiding principles that which should
govern the identification of evaluative criteria and the
construction of an instrument designed to evaluate the
admissions program at Ball State Teachers College; (b) to
describe, as briefly as possible, the essential standards
that appear to be important in evaluating all areas of an
admissions program; and (c) to present a method that allows
for reasonable flexibility in evaluating the quality of an
admissions program.

5. It should be noted that some of the standards or
guiding principles used to evaluate educational institutions‘
professional programs and specific services might be appli- ,
cable to the evaluation of an admissions program. It was,
therefore, decided to review standards and evaluation
pnacedures in many areas of higher education and professional
fields of study and to determine their applicability to the
development of an instrument to evaluate a selected admis-
sions program.2 .After this procedure it seemed pertinent to:

A. develop from collected statements and general
literature in the field essential standards

 

Z
See Appendix B, p. 197, for a listing of these sources.

57

that could serve as a guide in the evalua-
tion of admissions and the construction

of an instrument designed to evaluate the
admissions program in a selected institution.

B. involve administrators in selected institu-
tions in a comprehensive critical review of
suggested standards and to encourage their
comments, suggestions, and criticisms.

C. determine the usefulness and clarity of the
reviewed standards and to include pertinent
suggestions for deletion and additions to
the standards.

The Study Instrument

Within the framework of research in admissions,
student personnel services and administration in higher
education a technique of gathering data appropriate to
the problem set forth in this study could not be located.
The writer discovered that if he wished to evaluate an
admissions program based on validated standards these
standards would have to be constructed skillfully and
reviewed critically. To accomplish this end the writer
had to develop an appraisal instrument. The underlying
assumptions in the use of appraisal instruments is sum-
marized by Good, Barr, and Scates in this way:

. . . After all, appraisal schedules are
normative instruments; they reflect general
tendencies, tempered by the superior and the
inferior, but they represent in the main the
things we are most used to. Differences in
objectives or practices which involve questions
or changing philosophies and points of views
must be evaluated by other means -a principally
by human beings giving their best attention
directly to the consideration of requirements
and consequences. The problems of human values
may be studied scientifically, but they can

never be supplanted by science without having
surrendered our prerogatives as human beings (38:439).

58

The next step, therefore, was to validate the proposed
standards by submitting them in the form of an appraisal
instrument to selected administrators in higher education.
The highest degree of diversified responses would be
assured by the combined judgment of a group of adminis- g
trators with different responsibilities in higher education,
herewith referred to as the "Respondents." (A statement
as to the method of selecting these respondents is presented
later in this chapter.) .Any investigation of so important
a phase of higher education as evaluating and developing
standards should take advantage of the opinion of those
under whose broad, general purview, the functions of
admissions are being scrutinized. As indicated earlier,
this measure was employed to further validate the standards
on which to base an instrument designed to evaluate the
admissions program in a selected institution of higher
education. .

A knowledge by which a research instrument is formu~
lated should give some indication of its validity. "The
validity of a rating scale is increased in accordance
with the amount of care, patience, and effort exercised
in its construction" (5). Therefore, as previously
explained, the standards used in this study were developed
according to a set procedure. In addition the method
selected for obtaining the opinion of the respondents must
adequately quantify what the writer wishes to measure and
the data obtained adequate in kind and form so that it

may be analyzed with reference to the problem.

59

The scale for this study was prepared so that the
respondent could indicate the degree of significance and
acceptance he placed on the standard on a 9-point equal
appearing interval scale. A scale utilizing 9 points on
a continuum relieved the respondents from making a difficult
decision, such as on a three or five-point scale. The
scale ranged from zero to nine with zero meaning not
acceptable and nine meaning very essential. Descriptive
words were assigned to the soale to give it further mean-

ing. The scale used appears as follows:

 

LOW HIGH
Not Ac- Barely.Ac7 .Accept- Desir- Bssen— Very Bs-
ceptable ceptable able able tial sential
O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Directions for respondents to follow in their review
and rating of the standards were prepared. It was essential
to be most definite in preparing the directions. The
investigator attempted, in preparing directions, to give
the respondents everything necessary for an accurate
expression of their opinions.3

Before preparing the final edition of the standards,
it was felt necessary to have some trained and experienced
journalist review them. Miss Connie Polasky, Director of
Publications, Ball State Teachers College, made this final
review. No deletions nor additions were recommended. How-

ever, suggestions relative to the phrasing of several

 

3
For a complete review of the directions refer to

Appendix-A. P. 162.

60 \

statements were made. The suggestions were primarily con-
cerned with the elimination of ambiquity.

A final analysis of the content of the standards was
made by Robert Koenker, Director of Graduate Studies at
Ball State Teachers College, and the Investigator. After
this was completed, the standards were typed and presented
in the form of a preliminary instrument.4 Three different
sections were established for each standard. The first
section included the content; the second section included
the quantitative points of the equal appearing interval
scale, and the third section included space for the com-
ments of the respondents.

Collection of the Data

A crucial problem in validating an instrument for a
study of this nature is that of determining the number of
individuals to serve as respondents. Guilford (41) indicates
that it is not necessary to have a large number of judges
in order to obtain valid and reliable outcomes in group
judgments with as few as three persons, although the
validity and reliability of ratings increase as the number
of judges increases. Who replies is far more significant
than how they reply; quality is of more importance than
quantity (41). Barr, Davis, and Johnson express a similar
point of view. "It is generally desirable to use a large

number of raters if feasible and compute an average of the

 

4
Appendix A, p. 162.

61
ratings obtained. However, a large number of raters is
not necessary in case each rater is especially well
qualified. . ." (5). The more the respondents are
familiar with the content to be rated, the fewer the
respondents required.

Obviously in such a study as this one, then, the
results achieved can be no better than the raters. One
must choose persons who have knowledge of accepted concepts
in admissions, persons who can blend this knowledge with a
careful evaluation of past experience and persons whose
judgments and contributions have had and continue to have
a significant effect upon admissions functions and practices.
Barr, Davis, and Johnson believe that a good rater is one
who possesses the following characteristics:

1) he should have frequent opportunity to
observe and experience the thing being
rated,

2) he should be an expert in some area,

3) he must be prepared by preliminary instruction
for the rating, he must be able to know what

it is that is being rated, and

4) he must usually have some frame of reference
in connection with his rating (5:109).

In light of such considerations the following criteria
were used in selecting respondents for the investigation.
1. The individuals must be actively engaged at the
present time as an academic administrator, a
student personnel administrator, a registrar
or director of admissions.
2. The individuals must be willing to participate in

the study.

62
3. They must have a minimum of three years
administrative experience in higher education.
. They must be employed in an institution of
higher education that is located in a state
adjacent to the state of Indiana and be
accredited by the North Central Association
of Colleges and Secondary Schools. In addition,
the institutions must meet the following criteria:
a. total enrollment of 5,000 - 15,000 (Fall, 1958)
b. public controlbd and coeducational.
c. classified as an institution offering at
least the liberal arts and general, teacher
preparatory, terminal-occupational, and
three or more pre-professional or professional
programs.
d. has as the highest level of training offered
'7 Master's and/or second professional degree.
e. have foreign students presently enrolled.
f. located in communities of under 100,000
population.
g. similarity of statements of institutional
purpose in the current college bulletin.
It was concluded that generalists (student personnel
and academic administrative heads) as well as the specialist
(registrar or director of admissions) should react and rate

the proposed standard. The criteria for selecting the

63
participating colleges were determined so that the
institutions qualifying would have more in common with
Ball State Teachers College now and in the future than
were one to impose different selection standards. A
total of seven universities other than Ball State Teachers
College qualified for the study.5 The Eighth Edition of
the American Council on Education‘s publication, Colleges

and Universities (55) and the official bulletin of each

 

institution being considered was used to compile the list

of institutions being selected. Although the investigator
visited Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan,
and met with the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the
Vice President for Student Services and Public Relations,
the Dean of Students, and the Registrar and Director of
Admissions, it was decided not to include this institution
in the sample because its present purpose and anticipated
future development does not appear to be the same as the
other institutions visited. Two of the academic adminis-
trators in the sample did not carry the title of Academic
Vice President or Dean of the College. However, their
responsibilities qualified them for this study. One carried
the title, Dean of the University College and the other
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences. The name, title, degree,

and the title of the supervising administrator of the twenty-

 

5
See Appendix C, p. 199, for a list of these institutions.

.64
four respondents who participated in the study are listed
in.Appendix D.6

Table II shows the number of years the respondents
have been employed in institutions of higher education,
the number of years they have been employed in the present
institution and the years of employment in their present
position.

Table II indicates the wide range, 4-40 in the number
of years that the respondents have been employed in colleges
and universities. A mean of 18 years and a median of
20.2 years seems to indicate that the respondents are
well qualified to react to standards that regard admissions
in higher education. Also, it reveals a wide range, 2—40,
in the number of years the respondents have been employed
in their present institution. Although the directions
called for the respondent to "please make ALL of your
evaluations in terms of the IDEAL admissions. . ." many
of the respondents acted in terms of what their institution
is presently doing or should be doing. A mean of 14.9 years
and a median of 12.7 years indicates that the respondents
may be very familiar with the admissions activities of their
own institution at the present time but, may not have
awareness for admissions in other institutions and other
states. They may not have had enough experience with

other institutions to know what is an ideal program. On

 

6
See Appendix D, p. 201.

65

 

 

muso> n.o mueo> o.¢H mason wH new:
when; o.m muse» b.NH mumm» N.om :mHooz
mumo> oHIH manor oelm wueoa Cele owned
em em ow HmHOH
o H H on I cm
0 H m mm I Hm
o H N on I cm
0 m N mm I Hm
H n 0 ON I OH
e o h nH I HH
w v m OH I 0
HH e H n I H
:OHpsooom
QOHpHmom =0Hpmosom Hoanm mo Hoanm mo
powwonm Amv :OHpsHHuon poomoum Amv m20H95qumoH nHv ooSOHmem manor

 

 

 

:onHmom Hnmmwmm Amy
eofleoeem one??? 3032325 snowman HS
:OHHeoowm Hoamwm{mo mnomps+mpmnH an ..
"oH oonHmem comm when mpooonomwom on» ammo» mo Honesz onH .HH m4m<H

66

the other hand, detailed involvement over a long period of
time at one institution may better qualify them to under-
stand what is ideal for an admissions program in an instie
tution similar to the one in which they have been employed.

Table II shows a range of 1-16 in the number of years
the respondents have spent performing their present respon-
sibilities. As academic administrators, student personnel
administrators and admissions administrators the respondents
have been fulfilling responsibilities that are generally
or specifically related to the admissions program. A
mean of 6.5 years and a median of 5.9 years seems to
indicate that the respondents have had adequate time in
which to participate in or observe the admissions program
and its activities. This is extremely important in
validating standards to be used as a basis for evaluating
an admissions program.

A telephone call designed to (1) present the nature
of the study, (2) request assistance with the investiga-
tion and (3) describe the extent of participation was
made to the registrar or director of admissflans at each
of the seven institutions. In those three institutions
where the director of admissions reports to the registrar,
arrangements were made with the registrar. The registrar
or director of admissions also asked the chief academic
administrator and the chief student personnel administrator
to indicate their willingness to assist. All personnel

contacted indicated a willingness to cooperate in the study.

67

Plans were then made to visit each campus for the purpose
of interviewing each respondent and administering the
appraisal instrument.

The usual procedure employed was to contact the
office of the registrar or director of admissions upon
arrival to the campus. Appointments of one and one half
hour had been previously scheduled by the registrar or
director of admissions with the chief academic adminis-
trator and chief student personnel administrators. In
all institutions the registrar or director of admissions
set aside their entire work day for the investigator‘s
visit. Not too much difficulty was encountered in making
the visits. A return visit had to be made to one institu—
tion in order to meet with the chief academic administrator,
who, on the day of the original visit, was called into an
emergency meeting with the president of the university.
After an introduction by the investigator, the respondent
was told the nature and purpose of the study. The respond—
ent was then asked to read the directions of the preliminary
:hstrument carefully and to direct to the investigator any
questions regarding the purpose, content and markings to
be made. In addition to the written instructions the
investigator emphasized the importance of individual
sentences within a standard and that each sentence repre-

sented a potential criterion. He encouraged the respondents

 

7
See Appendix E, p. 203, for a copy of the letter con-
firming the appointment and stated purpose of the visit.

68
to respond verbally to individual sentences and concepts
as thoughts and ideas arose. This latter suggestion
almost eliminated the necessity of the respondent writing
suggestions in the space following each standard. The
instrument outline was then brought to the attention of
the respondent so he could get an overview of the various
areas for which standards had been developed. If the
respondent had questions as to the definition of key
terms, he was referred to the glossary. Areas were then
handed to the respondent one at a time for their review
and rating. Since the instructions read "DO NOT ALTER
THE STANDARD BEFORE MAKING YOUR EVALUATION," this required
the respondents to react verbally to individual sentences
and parts of sentences. Although not specifically asked
for, many respondents gave an explanation for their rating;
making revisions, additions, and deletions. The investigator
carefully made a written record of all comments made by
the respondents.

The visits with the respondents were extremely inter-
esting and professionally encouraging. The majority of
the respondents responded favorably to the purpose of the
investigation and indicated a keen interest in admissions
and the evaluation of this program. They seemed very
happy to have the opportunity to express their opinions
on what should be included in an instrument designed to

evaluate an admissions program.

69
Summary

It has been the purpose of this chapter to give the
reader a complete, detailed account of the procedures for
the construction and administration of proposed standards
that could be used as a basis for establishing an evalua-
tive instrument for admissions.

The four hundred and eightyeone statements compiled
to serve as the content for an evaluative instrument
were selected after a complete analysis and refinement of
the seven hundred and four statements found in the literag
ture. The statements were distributed to seven areas
which had been refined from several possible lists of
essential admissions areas found in the literature and
reviewed by experts in admissions and higher education.
The concepts found in the literature were transferred into
meaningful statements and then into prose standards.

Content validity was established empirically from
studying proceedings of national meetings on admissions
and higher education, published reports of professional
organizations, materials distributed by regional and
national accreditation associations, and other literature
contributing to admissions and evaluation in higher educa—
tion. To further establish validity twentygfour adminis-
trators in higher education were selected to review and
rate the proposed standards for each area of admissions.

The respondents included eight academic administrators,

70
eight student personnel administrators and eight admissions
administrators in selected stateesupported coeducational
institutions of higher education. It was felt that by
contacting individuals with different administrative
responsibilities a truer description of standards for

an ideal admissions program could be obtained.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYZING THE DATA AND REVISING THE
PRELIMINARY EVALUATIVE STANDARDS

The purpose of this chapter is to present the results
of the pooled ratings, intercomparisons, and comments of
the various groups of respondents involved in the study.
This will help to determine the extent to which these
groups either agree or disagree on what standards should
be retained and used as a basis for constructing an
instrument for evaluating an admissions program.

Organization and Analysis of the Data

Certain procedures were followed in the analysis of
the data received from the respondents who reviewed and
rated the contents of the proposed evaluative standards.-
‘While interpreting the data, it should be remembered that
the respondents were asked not to alter the proposed
standard before making their evaluation.

Determining percentage of emphasis. In an attempt

 

to provide additional information, other than rank order,
regarding the opinion of the respondents, a percentage of
emphasis was established for each standard. The percentage
of emphasis and the mean score are both measures of central

tendency and could be used to show the average weight given

71

72

to the standards. However, the units are different in
that the percentage of emphasis reports the average score
of the respondents based on a percentage and the mean
reports the average score of the respondents based on
a scale. It was decided to use the percentage of emphasis
since it may be a more descriptive statistic when represent-
ing feelings of acceptance while the mean score best repre-
sents a value assigned to an item. It was arbitrarily
determined that if a standard received an emphasis at or
above 75 per cent by all respondents, it would be accepted
basically as proposed. Any standard having a per cent
of emphasis less than that set for acceptability would be
eliminated or revised. Also it was decided that changes
. would be made in the proposed standards if five of the
respondents indicated during the interview that they
desired to revise, add, or delete some portion of the
content.

The following example illustrates the way in which the
percentage of emphasis was obtained for each standard, using
the nine-point equal appearing interval scale.

Area Sianfiara EvaTuaiion ScaTe Per Ceni of

01734567 89 Emphasis

 

I Institutional
Philosophy and
Objectives 0 O O O O 0 2 1 14 7 89.81

 

In this example each of the responses was totaled under its

73
respective value. These responses were then multiplied
by their respective value. The results were added together.
If all of the 24 respondents in this example circled number
9 on the scale, the resulting multiplication would give a
maximum total of 216 points, or the highest possible
emphasis. By dividing the highest possible emphasis into
the added responses, a percentage of emphasis for each
standard was obtained.

The percentage of emphasis was determined for each
of the seven standards and given a rank order for the
following groups: academic administrators, student per-
sonnel administrators, admissions administrators, the
respondents at Ball State Teachers College, and all
respondents.

.3325.2£§S£.2£ expressed opinions. The preliminary
instrument consisted of seven proposed standards for
evaluating an admissions program. The respondents were
asked to indicate the degree of significance and acceptance
they place on the contribution made by the standard to an
instrument designed to evaluate an admissions program.

The data in Table III reveal the rank order of the
seven standards and the percentage of emphasis as expressed
by the 24 administrators who were selected as respondents.

According to Table III, the standard given the highest
emphasis by academic administrators was Institutional

Philosophy and Objectives with 94.44 per cent. The standard

74

 

o.e eo.mo e AH.os a ee.oe summons
nnoHnnHeee.nEp on

 

>HspooEonsou mGOHuoosm HH>
o.H oo.o0H H Helms m mm.mw nnoHuunnm neoHnnHee<.oHnem H>
o.» mm.oo s ow.me e mm.ms nmousonnm Heofinaem >
o.m mm.mo m om.es m om.es Hnenonunm nnoHnnHee<_ >H
o.m Hm.so e mm.me e en.om anemone nnoHnnHEe<.nen
now anem m>HeeneanHEe< HHH
n.n se.Ho m HH.ew m om.sw neemEnHHsemm
one >uHHom moOHanso< HH
n.m se.Ho m mm.mm H ee.eo neeroano nee
senonoHHem HeeoeequuneH H
noouo mHmmnmsm Hoouo mHmmnmEm noouo mHmmnmEm
.xssm mo Homo mom . Edam: mo Homo mom. Manx mo Homo mom
wuz uz .nHee< muz
.oHEo<.m:0HmmHSo< Hosoonuom powwowm .nHBo< oHEooso< ousonwvm dou<

 

 

 

 

 

mnemmu m : somwmoommmmswmwwnmmmrooe mno eupmmcmem< .II
Homeowuom,wooospm wmmwm_.mHOMMMmmHomsz oHEomsumnwmwmm.lm.wommoumxm we

mousonspm wQOHmeEo<.:o>om on» mo “mono xosm one mHumn EM mo Homo uom onH .HHH mHm<H

75
given the least emphasis was Functions Complementary to
the Admissions Program with 69.44 per cent. Therefore,
the range between the highest and lowest is 25.00 per cent.
The range of 25.00 per cent indicates that academic adminis-
trators were able to discriminate between the standards
and had definite feelings and/or opinions on what standards
they feel are important to an instrument designed to
evaluate an admissions program.

In addition to Institutional Philosophy and Objectives
the academic administrators also expressed a high or fairly
common opinion to include a standard on Admissions Policy
and Requirements and Basic Admissions Functions. They
expressed a lesser need to include standards on.Adminis-
trative Basis for the Admissions Program, Admissions
Personnel, Physical Resources and Functions Complementary
to the Admissions Program. This seems to indicate that
academic administrators, in general, feel the need to
base the evaluation of an admissions program primarily on
institutional philosophy and objectives and within this
framework, evaluate the basic functions of the program and
the policy and requirements used to admit students.

The standard receiving the highest emphasis from
student personnel administrators was Basic Admissions
Functions with 98.61 per cent. The area given the least
emphasis was Physical Resources with 63.89 per cent. There-
fore, the range between the highest and lowest was 34.72
per cent. The range of 34.72 per cent indicates that

student personnel administrators were able to discriminate

76
between the areas and do have definite feelings and/or
opinions on what standards should govern the evaluation
of an admissions program.

The standard on Admissions Policy and Requirements
was ranked second by the student personnel services, but
12.50 per cent below the standard of Basic Admissions
Functions. The other standard receiving a fairly common
emphasis was Institutional Philosophy and Objectives.

They expressed a lesser need for standards on Functions
Complementary to the Admissions Program, Admissions Per~
sonnel, Administrative Basis for the.Admissions Program,
and Physical Resources to be included in an instrument
designed to evaluate an admissions program. This seems

to indicate that student personnel administrators feel that
the greatest need in evaluating the admissions program is
to understand its functions and activities and the policy
and requirements that guide the admission of students.

The standard given the highest emphasis by admissions
administrators was Basic Admissions Functions with 100 per
cent. The standard given the least emphasis was Physical
Resources with 90.28 per cent. Therefore, the range
between the highest and lowest standard was only 9.72 per
cent. The range of 9.72 per cent seems to indicate that
registrars and directors of admissions were able to dise
criminate, but only to a very limited degree, between the
standards proposed for use in an evaluative instrument

for admissions.

77

The standard of Administrative Basis for the Admissions
Program was ranked second by admissions administrators,
only 2.79 per cent below the top ranked standard. The
remaining standards seemed to be desired in slightly lesser
degrees. This seems to indicate that admissions adminis-
trators placed a high degree of significance and acceptance
on all of the proposed evaluative standards.

The data in Table IV reveal the rank order of the
seven standards and the percentage of emphasis as expressed
by just the respondents at Ball State Teachers College.

The three respondents from Ball State Teachers College were
individuals directly responsible for the academic affairs,
the student personnel services and the admissions program
of the College. They carried the titles of Dean of the
College, Dean of Student Affairs, and Registrar.

According to Table IV, the standard given the highest
emphasis was Basic Admissions Functions with 100 per cent.
The standard given the least emphasis was Physical Resources
with 62.99 per cent. Therefore, the range between the
highest and lowest is 37.01 per cent. The range of 37.01
per cent indicates that the respondents at Ball State
Teachers College were able to discriminate between the
standards and had definite feelings and/or opinions on
what standards they feel are important to an instrument

designed to evaluate an admissions program.

78

TABLE IV. The Per Cent of Emphasis and Rank Order of
the Seven Admissions Standards as Expressed
‘21 the Three Respondents at BalI’State
eacfiers College

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area Standard Per Cent of Rank
Emphasis Order
VI Basic Admissions Functions 100.00 1.0
I Institutional Philosophy
and Objectives 96.29 2.0
VII Functions Complementary to
the Admissions Program 88.80 3.0
IV Admissions Personnel 85.08 4.0
II Admissions Policy and
._ Requirements 81.47 5.5
III Administrative Basis for
the Admissions Program 81.47 5.5
V Physical Resources 62.99 7.0

 

In addition to Basic Admissions Functions the respond-
ents at Ball State Teachers College also expressed a high
or fairly common opinion to include a standard on Institu—
tional Philosophy and Objectives and Functions Complementary
to the Admissions Program. They expressed a slightly lesser
need to include standards on Admissions Personnel, Admis-
sions Policy and Requirements and Administrative Basis for
the Admissions Program. This seems to indicate that the
respondents at Ball State Teachers College, in general,
feel the need to base the evaluation of an admissions

program primarily on basic and canplementary admissions

79
functions within the framework of institutional philosophy
and objectives.

Table V reveals the percentage of emphasis and rank
order of the seven proposed standards as expressed by all
respondents.

TABLE V. The Per Cent of Emphasis and Rank Order of

the Seven.Admissions Standards ag ExpresEEd
py.All Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

"W

 

 

Area Standard Per Cent of Rank
Emphasis Order
VI Basic Admissions Functions 93.98 1
I Institutional Philosophy
and Objectives 89.81 2
II Admissions Policy ani
Requirements 88.42 3
III Administrative Basis for
the.Admissions Program 83.33 4
IV Admissions Personnel 82.40 5
VII Functions Complementary to
the Admissions Program 80.50 6
V Physical Resources 75.46 7

 

According to Table V, the standard given the highest
emphasis by all respondents was Basic Admissions Functions
with 93.98 per cent. The standard given the least emphasis
was Physical Resources with 75.46 per cent. Therefore,
the range between the highest and lowest standards was

18.52 per cent. The range of 18.52 per cent indicates that

80
the selected respondents were able to discriminate between
the standards and indicate that they do have definite
feelings and/or opinions on what standards should be
included in an instrument designed to evaluate an admis-
sions program.

The standard on Institutional Philosophy and Objectives
was ranked second by all respondents, 4.17 per cent below
the top ranked area. The only standard receiving an
emphasis below 80 per cent was Physical Resources. It was
not necessary to reject a standard from further considera-
tion because all received an emphasis above the minimum
75 per cent.

Intercomparisons 2: standards. The preceding section

 

 

dealt with an analysis of the proposed standards as expressed
by academic administrators, student personnel administrators,
admissions administrators, respondents at Ball State Teachers
College, and all respondents. The data for each of these
groups were analyzed separately and no attempt was made
to make any kind of comparison. This section deals with
certain intercomparisons of the various groups involved in
the study.

A close and thorough observation and examination of
the rank orders of standards would give the reader some
basic idea of what these groups feel Should be included in
an instrument designed to evaluate an admissions program.

In an attempt to give statistical evidence as to the

81
degree of agreement among the various groups, correlations
were computed for these various groups.

In regards to the purpose and use of correlations,
Nelson and Denny state that "the coefficient of correla—
tion may be defined as the index of relationship or of
*going-together-ness’ of two series of data" (73). Con-
cerning the Spearman rank method of correlation which can
be applied to the rank orders found in this study, they
state "the amount and kind of correlation is dependent
upon the degree of agreement between two rankings".
Senders (91) also fully describes the rank—order correlation.

The rank difference correlation coefficient used to
measure the strength and direction of relationships of
ranks between the groups of respondents and not of vari-
ables underlying those ranks may be computed through the

use of the following formula (73):

P=l - 6ZD2
NCBF-l)

 

Where D = The difference in ranks of the two
variables
N = The number of standards
This formula was utilized to determine the degree of
agreement and/or relationship between the various groups
of respondents involved in this study. In regard to the
correlation coefficients obtained in this study, there are

no set standards available for comparisons. The inter-

comparisons were made in terms of how the correlation

82

coefficients compared with each other.

Rank difference correlation coefficients were computed

to determine the degree of agreement between the following

groups:

1.

7.

Eight academic administrators and eight
student personnel administrators

Eight academic administrators and eight
admissions administrators

Eight student personnel administrators and
eight admissions administrators

Seven academic administrators and three Ball
State Teachers College respondents

Seven student personnel administrators and
three Ball State Teachers College respondents
Seven admissions administrators and three
Ball State Teachers College respondents
Twenty-one respondents and three Ball State

Teachers College respondents.

Table VI represents the rank differences of the seven

proposed admissions standards as expressed by eight academic

administrators and eight student personnel administrators.

Table VI shows that there is some relationship between

the opinions expressed by academic administrators and

student personnel administrators with a correlation coef—

ficient of .61. The largest difference occurred with the

standard on Functions Complementary to the Admissions

83

TABLE VI. A Comparison 2f Rank Differences Between Seven
AdmiESiOns Standards fig Indicated Ex Ei Ht
Academic Administrators and Eight Student
Personnel’Administrators

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Academic Student Rank
Area Standard Admin. Personnel Differ-
Admin. ence
I Institutional Philosophy
and Objectives 1 3 2
II Admissions Policy and
Requirements 2 2 0
III Administrative Basis for
the Admissions Program 4 6 2
IV Admissions Personnel 5 5 0
V Physical Resources 6 7 1
VI Basic Admissions Functions 3 l 2
VII Functions Complementary
to the Admissions
Program 7 4 3
P: .61

 

Program. Student personnel administrators were somewhat
interested in Functions Complementary to the Admissions
Program, but academic administrators expressed limited
significance to the contribution made by this standard.
Other standards showing differences were Institutional
Philosophy and Objectives, Administrative Basis for the
Admissions Program, and Basic Admissions Functions. They

appeared to beequally interested in the contribution made

84
by the standards on.Admissions Policy and Requirements,
Admissions Personnel and Physical Resources. Student
personnel administrators expressed a need to understand
functions, those both basic and complementary to the
admissions program, while academic administrators were
more interested in Institutional Philosophy and Objectives
and the Administrative Basis for the Admissions Program.
Although there was agreement on some of the standards, this
disagreement indicates that the opinions of the contributions
made by certain proposed standards are different.

Table VII represents the rank difference of the
standards as expressed by eight academic administrators
and eight admissions administrators.

Table VII reveals an exceptionally low relationship
between academic administrators and admissions administrators
on their feelings toward the contribution made by the
proposed standards with a correlation of .03. There was
relatively strong disagreement in three of the seven
standards. The academic administrators gave a much greater
emphasis to the standards on Institutional Philosophy and
Objectives and Admissions Policy and Requirements. The
admissions administrators gave a greater emphasis to Com-
plementary Admissions Functions. These marked differences
and the other not so marked differences contribute to
enough disagreement to indicate that academic administra-

tors and admissions administrators have markedly different

85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE VII. A_Comparison pf Rank Differences Between
Seven Admissions Standards ag Indicated
§1_E1ght Academic AdminiStrators andEight
AdmiSsions AdministrafOrs
Academic Admissions Rank
Area Standard Admin. Admin. Differ-
ence
I Institutional Philosophy
and Objectives 1 5.5 4.5
II Admissions Policy and
Requirements 2 5.5 3.5
III Administrative Basis for
the Admissions Program 4 2.0 2.0
IV Admissions Personnel 5 3.0 2.0
V Physical Resources 6 7.0 1.0
VI Basic Admissions Functions 3 1.0 2.0
VII Functions Complementary to
the Admissions Program 7 4.0 3.0
P = .03

 

opinions as to the contribution made by the proposed standards.

Table VIII shows the rank difference of the seven
standards as-expressed by eight student personnel adminis-
trators and eight admissions administrators.

According to Table VIII, a low relationship exists
between student personnel administrators and admissions
administrators with a correlation coefficient of .32. There
was disagreement on four of the seven standards. Student
personnel administrators indicated a higher interest in

Institutional Philosophy and Objectives and Admissions Policy

86

TABLE VIII. A Comparison of Rank Differences Between
Seven Admissions Standards as Indicafed
EX Ei ht Student Personnel Administrators
and Eight Admissibns AdminiSErators

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student' Admissibns Rank
Area Standard Personnel Admin. Differ-
Admin. ence

 

I Institutional Philosophy

and Objectives 3 5.5 2.5
II Admissions Policy and
Requirements 2 5.5 3.5

III Administrative Basis for

the Admissions Program 6 2.0 4.0
IV Admissions Personnel 5 3.0 2.0
7V Physical Resources 7 7.0 0
VI Basic.Admissions Functions 1 1.0 0
VII Functions Complementary to
the Admissions Program 4 4.0 0
P = .32

 

and Objectives. On the other hand, admissions administrators
revealed a higher interest in the Administrative Basis for
the Admissions Program and the Admissions Personnel.
Although there was agreement on some of the standards, this
strong disagreement in vital areas of the admissions program
indicates that the opinions of student personnel and aca-
demic administrators are different in regards to what should
be included in an instrument designed to evaluate an admis—

sions program.

87
Table IX presents the rank differences of the seven
admissions standards as expressed by seven academic
administrators and three selected administrators at Ball
State Teachers College.
TABLE IX. A Comparison 2f Rank Differences Between
Seven.Admissions Standafds as Indicafed
EX Seven Academic AdmihiStrdTors and Three

Selected'AdminiStrators at BaIl State
dTeaChers College

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Academic B.S.T.C. Rank
Area Standard Admin. Admin. Differ-
ence
I Institutional Philosophy
and Objectives 1.0 2.0 1.0
II Admissions Policy and
. Requirements 2.0 5.5 3.5
III Administrative Basis for
the Admissions Program 4.0 5.5 1.5
IV Admissions Personnel 5.5 4.0 1.5
V Physical Resources 5.5 7.0 1.5
VI Basic Admissions Functions 3.0 1.0 2.0
VII Functions Complementary to
the Admissions Program 7.0 3.0 4.0
P = .29

 

According to Table IX there was a low relationship
between academic administrators and respondents at Ball State
Teachers College on their opinions of the contribution made
by the proposed standards with a correlation coefficient of

.29. There was disagreement in all of the seven areas. The

88

academic administrators expressed a higher interest in the
standard on Admissions Policy and Requirements while the
Ball State Teachers College administrators indicated a
greater interest in the standards on functions that are
basic and complementary to the admissions program. Disagree-
ment in varying degrees in all the standards indicates that
the opinions of the academic administrators from seven
universities and administrators at Ball State Teachers
College are different.

Table X shows a fairly high relationship between student
personnel administrators and administrators at Ball State

TABLE X. A_Comparison of Rank Differences Between

Seven Student Personnel.AdministratOrs and

Three SElected Administrators at Bail Stafe
Teachers ColIege

 

 

Student B.S.T.C. Rank
Area Standard Personnel Admin. Differ-
Admin. ence

 

I Institutional Philosophy

and Objectives 3.0 2.0 1.0
II Admissions Policy and
Requirements 2.0 5.5 3.5
III Administrative Basis for
the Admissions Program 6.0 5.5 .5
IV Admissions Personnel 4.5 4.0 .5
1V Physical Resources 7.0 7.0 0
VI Basic Admissions Functions 1.0 1.0 0
VII Functions Complementary to
the Admissions Program 4.5 3.0 1.5

 

89
Teachers College on the contribution of the proposed
standards to an evaluation instrument with a correlation
coefficient of .72. There was high agreement in five of
the seven areas with perfect agreement in two areas. The
largest difference came in the standard on Admissions
Policy and Requirements, where the student personnel adminis-
trators expressed a higher opinion for a standard such as
that proposed to be in an instrument designed to evaluate
an admissions program. They expressed a slightly lower
opinion for the standards on Institutional Philosophy and
Objectives and Functions Complementary to the Admissions
Program. In general, academic administrators in seven
universities and selected administrators at Ball State
Teachers College were in agreement on what standards con-
tribute to an evaluative instrument for admissions.

Table XI shows the rank differences of the seven
proposed admissions standards as expressed by admissions
administrators at seven universities and three selected
administrators at Ball State Teachers College.

Table XI reveals some relationship between the opinions
as expressed by admissions administrators and administrators
at Ball State Teachers College. There was strong agreement
in three of the seven areas. The largest differences
occurred in the standards on Institutional Philosophy and
Objectives and Administrative Basis for the Admissions

Program. The admissions administrators expressed a higher

90

TABLE XI. Comparison pf Rank Differences Between
even.Admissions.Admifiistrators anlehree
Selected Administrators at Bali Staie

Teachers Collegd

 

 

A
s

 

 

 

W

Admissions B.S.T.C. Rank

 

Area . Standard Admin. Admin. Differ-
ence
I Institutional Philosophy
and Objectives 5.5 2.0 3.5
II Admissions Policy and
Requirements 4.0 5.5 1.5
III Administrative Basis for
the Admissions Program 2.0 5.5 3.5
IV Admissions Personnel 3.0 4.0 1.0
V Physical Resources 7.0 7.0 0
VI Basic Admissions Functions 1.0 1.0 0
VII Functions Complementary to
the.Admissions Program 5.5 3.0 2.5
P = .60

 

opinion for the standards on Admissions Policy and require—
ments and Admissions Personnel, while the administrators

at Ball State Teachers College expressed a higher opinion

of the standard on Functions Complementary to the Admissions
Program. In general, there were some marked differences
between admissions administrators and selected administrators
at Ball State Teachers College on what standards should be

included in an evaluative instrument for admissions.

91
Presented in Table XII are the rank differences of
the seven admission standards as expressed by 21 adminis—
trators in seven universities and selected administrators

at Ball State Teachers College.

TABLE XII. A_Comparison of Rank Differences Between
Seven.Academic.Admifiistrators, Seven
Student Personnel Administrators, Seven
Admissions Administrators and Three
Séiected’AdminisfrafOrs at Bdil Sfaie
Teacdiers Colidge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 B.S.T.C. Rank
Area Standard Adminis- Admin. Differ-
trators ence
I Institutional Philosophy
and Objectives 3 2.0 1.0
II Admissions Policy and
Requirements 2 5.5 3.5
III Administrative Basis for
the Admissions Program 4 5.5 1.5
IV Admissions Personnel 5 4.0 1.0
V Physical Resources 7 7.0 0
VI Basic Admissions Functions 1 1.0 0
VII Functions Complementary to
the Admissions Program 6 3.0 3.0
P = .55

 

According to Table XII, there is a low relationship
between the opinions of 21 administrators in seven univer-
sities and selected administrators at Ball State Teachers
College with a correlation coefficient of .55. There was

'disagreement in five of the seven standards. The largest

92
differences occurred in the standards on.Admissions Policy
and Requirements, where the 21 administrators indicated
a higher opinion, and Functions Complementary to the
Admissions Program, where the administrators at Ball State
Teachers College expressed more of an acceptance of this
standard. In addition, the administrators at Ball State
Teachers College indicated a higher opinion for the
standard on Institutional Philosophy and Objectives and
Admissions Personnel. These differences resulted in a
relatively low relationship.

Determining Acceptance and Content Revision
of the Proposed Standards

Upon the completion of the tabulation of the ratings,
establishing a percentage of emphasis for each standard,
determining the rank order of each standard by groups, and
computing rank order correlations for various groups, the
next two steps were to determine which standards should be
accepted and to analyze the recommended revisions, additions,
and deletions in order to revise the proposed standards.
Several of the suggested revisions, additions, and deletions
will be discussed later in this section. The investigator
felt that it was necessary to establish specific criteria
by which these suggestions would be judged for possible
inclusion in the final evaluation instrument for the admis—
sions program at Ball State Teachers College. The following
criteria were established as basis upon which to qualify
revisions of and additions to and deletions fnom the proposed

standards.

93

Suggested revisions

1.

The suggested revision was definitely a logically
suggested revision relative to a particular
standard.

The suggested revision was one which had not been
covered in some other standard.

The suggested revision was one of rephrasing which
could be resolved by the investigator without
changing the basic content of1he particular

standard.

Suggested additions

1.

The suggested addition had to be one suggested
by five or more of the participating respondents.
The suggested addition had to be one which had
not been covered in some other standard.

The suggested addition had to be explicitly

stated by the respondent.

Suggested deletions

 

1.

2.

The suggested deletion had to be one suggested
by five or more of the participating respondents.
The suggested deletion had to deal with a
specific concept within a standard.

The suggested deletion had to be accompanied by
an explanation from the respondent as to why

the deletion should be made.

94

Changes made in the content by the participating
respondents may be observed by comparing the proposed
standards which were reviewed (Appendian), and those
appearing in the final evaluative instrument for Ball
State Teachers College (Appendix F). Discussion of only
the major suggested revisions, additions and deletions
is desirable or practical. The reader may notice by
comparing the content of the two different sets of standards
that only a few minor changes occurred.

The standard for Area I, Institutional Philosophy and
Objectives, received a rank order of two and an emphasis
of 89.91 per cent from all respondents. This was 14.81 per
cent above the minimum percentage required. Four academic
administrators and one student personnel administrator
suggested the revision of the sentence, "The philosophy
becomes a body of knowledge and beliefs that supplies a
broad basis for determining (revise to read 'guiding’)
every institutional policy and function, . .1." Three
academic administrators, four student personnel adminis-
trators, and three admissions administrators recommended
that the following statements be deleted. "All other
standards are subservient to this standard. All other
standards outlined are valid only to the extent that they
promote the achievement of this first standard." The
concept of state-wide and regional coordination of higher

education was expressed by six academic administrators

95

while reviewing this standard. The investigator added
this statement to the first paragraph: "The tasks of
the institution as set forth in the philosophy are a part
of a comprehensive plan for public education beyond the
secondary school and allows the institution to serve in
a coordinated educational program for the State as a whole."
Although not receiving enough attention from the respond-
ents for possible inclusion, these comments were made
regarding the standard on Institutional Philosophy and
Objectives: "They are a body of beliefs." "The budget
and financial resources will determine the philosophy of
the institution." "They must be functional to be under-
stood." "The climate or image of the institution carries
greater significance than does the philosophy and objectives."
"A multi~purpose institution cannot be straight-jacketed
by one philosophy." "Growth determines the philosophy
and it must change as the institution changes." "In
evaluating admissions we should be more concerned with the
institutional philosophy for first—year students." "We
should evaluate not only in terms of institutional philosophy
and objectives but, also, in terms of the ethical standards
of admissions and the educational profession."

The standard for Area II, Admissions Policy and Require-
ments, received a rank order of three and an emphasis of
88.42 per cent from all respondents. This was 13.42 per

cent above the 75 per cent required for acceptance. Seven

96
respondents, four academic administrators and three student
personnel administrators suggested the revision of the
sentence: "No single index of an institution’s caliber
is more significant than the appropriateness of its
admissions policy as evidenced in requirements, functions,
and procedures." The investigator rewrote the sentence to
read: "One of the most significant indexes of an institu-
tion’s caliber is that of the appropriateness of its
admission policy as evidenced in requirements, functions,
and procedures." Three academic administrators, one student
personnel administrator, and one admissions administrator
devoted comments to the concept of reviewing admissions
requirements carefully before putting them into action.
The following statement was added to the third paragraph:
"Proposals for new or considerably expanded admissions
requirements should be submitted to critical review in
advance of their inauguration by appropriate committees of
the (a) college faculty and (b) the board of control."
There were no deletions made in this standard. Some of
the other comments regarding this standard were: "The
State requirements for the admission of high school gradu~
ates determines the admissions policy." "State laws
that require an openedoor admissions policy makes the
function of the admissions office not that of who should be
admitted but to devise admissions classifications. Not so

much yes and no in admissions but to classify and direct.

97
"This standard is idealistic -- a state institution would
fall short." "What is meant by flexible -- no exceptions
should be made from the announced policy. Consistency
is necessary." "The selective retention policy for first-
year students is the key to any admissions policy." "The
admissions policy is determined by the institution's pool
of college-age students and not its philosophy." 'Factors
sudh as curriculum and financial resources of the institu-
tion will determine the admissions policy more than
philosophy and objectives."

The standard for Area III, Administrative Basis for
the Admissions Program, received a rank order ofibur and
an emphasis of 83.33 per cent from all respondents. This
was 8.33 per cent above the minimum acceptance value of
75 per cent. Eight academic administrators, seven student
personnel administrators and five admissions administrators
made comments regarding the authority of the faculty in
admissions. The word "faculty" was deleted and the word
"institutional" inserted in the term faculty admissions
committee. On the basis of the critical comments made by
nine respondents, the sentence, "The president in turn
delegates the primary responsibility for the admissions
program to a faculty admissions committee and a director
of admissions," was deleted and the following statement
added to the standard.

"There should be an established all-institutional

98
admissions committee to give leadership to the problems of
unifying and developing admissions policy. Its membership
should include the heads of several related academic and
personnel offices as well as elected faculty members and
the director of admissions. The effectiveness with which
the institutional admissions committee performs its functions
will be determined by such factors as: (a) the extent to
which it confines its work to policy formation and to
appraisal of operating effectiveness and resists the
temptation to engage in direct administrative activities;
(b) the extent to which the director of admissions has
been delegated the authority to make the necessary decisions
in carrying out the committee's general policies; and
(c) the extent to which the director of admissions, with
the assistance of his staff, keeps the committee fully
informed concerning the institution long~range admissions
problems, the development of operating standards, and the
effectiveness with which general admissions policies are
carried out on a day to day basis." The majority of the
comments made by the respondents were in reference to the
place of admissions in the organizational structure, the
effects of the organizational structure and the budget.
Many of the comments expressed were in conflict with each
other. For example: "The organizational structure must
be recognized in administration of the admissions program."
"Examine the decision making procedures and process -- not

‘the organizational structure." "Having a budget for a

99
specific area such as admissions is not crucial." "Each
administrative area should have its own budget because
it helps to develop pride and responsibility." "Admissions
is a student personnel function that must be academically
orientated." "Admissions performs a dual function ~—
academic and student personnel." "Admissions is an
administrative function with opportunity for faculty com~
ment and approval. It should be under the jurisdiction
of an administrative officer, such as an administrative
dean, who has the responsibility for the internal direction
and administration of the institution’s educational policy.
It is neither student personnel or academic but a part of
both."

The standard for Area IV, Admissions Personnel,
received a rank order of five and an emphasis of 82.40 per
cent from all respondents. This was 7.40 per cent above
the minimum acceptance value of 75 per cent. The state~
ment, "In all cases, the admissions staff shall meet the
minimum standards suggested by the American Personnel and
Guidance Association for secondary school guidance per-
sonnel," was deleted due to ambiguity. This statement led
three academic administrators, eight student personnel
administrators, and eight admissions administrators, to
comment on the desired preparation and qualifications of
the director of admissions. However, there was no common

agreement on this concept. The comments included:

100

"Technical training in guidance and psychology is not
necessary, the director of admissions can learn on the
job." "Sensitivity to people and efficiency is more
important than training." "Training in guidance and
counseling is not essential, this is only one small aspect
of the individual." "The director of admissions is not a
counselor, his job is to tell a story, to give a picture
of the institution." "The director of admissions should
have as much professional training as his associates and
should meet the standards for appointment to the faculty
in the discipline of his training. He needs to be eligible
for faculty rank." "He should be qualified to meet the
requirements of regular faculty in an academic field."

The standard for Area V, Physical Resources, received
a rank order of seven and an emphasis of 75.46 per cent.
This was only .46 of a per cent above the minimum acceptance
value. Very few comments were made in reference to this
standard and therefore, there were no revisions, additions,
or deletions. The comments that were made were usually in
support of the rating made by the respondent. Some of
these comments were: "It’s people that count, not facili-
ties." "You can be effective and get the job done without
physical facilities." "You cannot measure space and
determine quality of the program." "Physical facilities
should be evaluated because atmosphere affects people."

"Physical facilities are important to admissions because

101
the admissions office is the front door of the univer-
sity."

The standard for Area VI, Basic Admissions Functions,
received a rank order of one and an emphasis of 93.98 per
cent. This was 18.98 per cent above the minimum acceptance
value of 75 per cent. One academic administrator, five
student personnel administrators, and one admissions
administrator commented on the use of the word "counseling"
in the term "counseling college bound youth." This was
revised to read "advising college bound youth." Most of
the respondents commented that this standard was very
complete and any comment would be superfluous to the con-
tent already presented. These comments included: "The
secondary schools need to know what kind of applicant
the institution desires." "The evaluator needs to know
how the admissions office deals with the exceptions."
"Involve others in selected cases before making final
admissions decision." "Parents should be more involved than
they are in the admissions process." "The admissions office
should be sure to disseminate information to the important
individuals on the campus." "Articulation could be used
in the place of cooperation." "Orientation should be a
part of the admissions program."

The standard for Area VII, Functions Complementary to
the Admissions Program, received a rank order of six and
an emphasis of 80.50 per cent. This was 5.50 per cent

‘ above the minimum acceptance value of 75 per cent. Five

102
student personnel administrators and four admissions
administrators indicated a need to add student housing
as a function complementary to the admissions program.
The following statement was added to this standard:
"Student housing - in view of the involvement of housing
with the opportunity of attending college and with the
student's educational experience, the cooperative plan—
ning of admissions and housing is essential." There were
no revisions or deletions. Most of the additional com-
ments made by the respondents involved selective retention:
"Selective retention and admissions are together or you
have chaos." "In a multi-purpose institution, the
selective retention standards for each college do not
involve admissions." "Selective retention standards are
the single most influencing force on the admissions policy."
"If the faculty is involved in admissions policy, then the
admissions director must be involved in selective retention."
One student personnel administrator believed orientation
and financial aids should be a basic function of the
admissions program. One admissions administrator believed
that the registration process could be considered a com-
plimentary function.
Utilizing the Standards

It seemed desirable to ask academic administrators,

student personnel administrators, and admissions adminis-

trators in selected institutions of higher education to

103

review, rate, and comment on proposed evaluative standards
for admissions. They were asked to assign the degree of
significance they place on the proposed standards relative
to their importance in an instrument designed to evaluate
an admissions program for a selected institution. The
proposed evaluative standards were revised in light of
the ratings and reactions received. The completion of
this step provided the most nearly valid standards that
might serve as a basis for an instrument to be used in
evaluating, stimulating and improving the admissions program
at Ball State Teachers College.

The director of admissions and the admissions staff
at Ball State Teachers College and other institutions of
higher education should through study, research and reading
keep well informed concerning standards and acceptable
practices in admissions in higher education. An informed
admissions staff gains the respect of representatives from
other administrative areas and aids in the effective func-
tioning of the over-all institutional program. Regardless
of how evident evaluative standards for any area seem,
institutions and professional administrators should study
them and suggest needed changes for revision and improve~
ment. The standards developed from this study, for example,
should stimulate further experimentation and refinement
and should never be classified as apparent. If evaluative

standards for admissions are kept up to date and periodically

104
reviewed and improved, they can serve to guide admissions
administrators and lead to more effective appraisals of
the admissions program. Administrators in each profes-
sional division of higher education should constantly seek
to stimulate and advance the quality of materials used in
evaluation rather than being content with materials already
developed.

In arriving at essential evaluative standards, the
reader should recognize that they are evolutionary in
character and that revisions, clarifications, and defini-
tions will be needed to keep them current. It is the
hope of the writer that individual colleges and univer-
sities will assume responsibility for making suggestions
for further revision as they use the standards presented
in this study. It should be further recognized that the
content of these standards may be changed and that some
standards now included may be deleted or extensively
modified, while new ones may be added to meet the needs
of admissions in higher education.

The preparation of evaluation standards for admis~
sions is the responsibility of individual institutions in
terms of circumstances and conditions within each institu-
'tion; however, such standards should be based on commonly
agreed upon minimum essentials. This study may be useful
as a general guide for other administrators in developing

their own minimum standards for evaluating an admissions

105
program. The standards are not intended for verbatim
adoption, either in part or in total, but rather to
give a sense of direction to administrators in establishing
their individual standards for admissions and other institu-
tional services. It is expected that as progress and
changes occur in higher education, periodic revisions of
the standards developed in this study will be needed.
Summary

There were eight academic administrators, eight
student personnel administrators, and eight admissions
administrators expressing their opinions on the contribu-
tion made by the proposed evaluative standards to an
instrument designed to evaluate an admissions program.
This chapter dealt with the methods and procedures used
in analyzing data collected. The initial step involved
calculating the percentage of emphasis for the proposed
standards in order to determine their acceptability. The
next step was to place the proposed standards, according
to the percentage of emphasis, in rank order. Rank differ-
ence correlation coefficients were then computed to deter-
mine the degree of agreement between the various groups of
respondents.

The academic administrators gave the highest emphasis
to the standard on Institutional Philosophy and Objectives
and the lowest to Functions Complementary to the Admissions

Program. The concepts they felt should be included in the

106
evaluation of an admissions program involved understanding
the institutions philosophy and objectives, its admissions
policy and requirements, and the basic functions performed
by the admissions office. The concepts given the least
emphasis were in the areas involving the physical resources
afforded admissions and the functions complementary to the
admissions program such as the selective retention of
students, student financial aids, and academic advising
and counseling.

The student personnel administrators gave the highest
emphasis to the standard on Basic Admissions Functions
and the least emphasis to Physical Resources. In regard
to concepts, the areas on functions performed by the
admissions office, the policy and requirements that give
direction to the admissions of students, and the philosophy
and objectives of the institution served by the admissions
office was given the highest emphasis. Those concepts
receiving little emphasis dealt with the authority,
organization, administration, the financial basis, and
physical resources of the admissions program.

’A close examination reveals that the admissions
administrators did not discriminate between the proposed
standards, attaching to them all a high degree of signifi-
cance. Although the admissions administrators gave the
most emphasis to Basic Admissions Functions, all standards
were given an emphasis above 90 per cent. The standard

'given the least emphasis was Physical Resources with

107

90.28 per cent. However, the strongest emphasis seemed
to be in the concepts dealing with basic admissions
functions, the administrative basis for the admissions
program and the numerical adequacy, responsibilities,
preparation, qualifications, leadership and professional
growth of the admissions personnel.

The standards on Basic Admissions Functions, Institu-
tional Philosophy and Objectives and Admissions Policy
and Requirements were given the greatest emphasis by the
combined three groups of respondents. They gave the
least emphasis to Physical Resources. Functions Com-
plementary to the Admissions Program was given little
emphasis by the academic administrators, but the student
personnel administrators and admissions administrators
ranked it fourth out of the seven areas. Although the
academic administrators and student personnel administrators
did not give much emphasis to the standard on Admissions
Personnel, the admissions administrators ranked it third.

In general, all respondents expressed a need to
include the standards as basically proposed in an evalua-
tive instrument for admissions. They indicated the highest
interest in the standard which deals with the functions
basic to an admissions program. Although they accepted all
of the proposed standards with varying degrees of emphasis,
a closer examination of the revised standards reveals that

the respondents did agree on some revisions, additions,

108
and deletions of the content. This is especially true
for the first three standards.

A portion of this chapter dealt with intercomparisons
of the opinions as expressed by academic administrators,
student personnel administrators and admissions adminis-
trators. Rank difference correlations were computed to
determine the degree of agreement between the various
groups of respondents involved in the study. A close
examination of these rank difference correlations reveals
that there is little agreement as to the intensity of
opinion given the standards. There was some relationship
between academic administrators and student personnel
administrators but relatively low relationship between
academic administrators and admissions administrators
and between student personnel administrators and admissions
administrators.

There was a higher agreement, although not of any
great significance, between the groups of respondents and
the respondents at Ball State Teachers College. It was
interesting to note that the Ball State Teachers College
respondents and the other respondents gave the most
emphasis to and had the highest agreement in the standard
on Basic Admissions Functions. Also, that they gave the
lowest emphasis to the standard devoted to Physical Resources.

The comments of the respondents that met the criteria

for revision of, addition to, or deletion from the content

109

were considered in revising the evaluation standards.
The concepts identified and stated as being unacceptable
or undesirable by five or more respondents were revised
or eliminated. Concepts were added on the same basis.

The refinement and revising of the proposed evalua-
tive standards into their final form, as explained in
this chapter, constituted the last step prior to constructing
an evaluation instrument for the admissions program at Ball

State Teachers College.

CHAPTER V
THE CONSTRUCTION AND UTILIZATION OF AN INSTRUMENT,
BASED ON VALIDATED STANDARDS, FOR THE EVALUATION
OF THE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM AT
BALL STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE

A stated purpose of this study was to construct a
comprehensive instrument for evaluating the admissions
program at Ball State Teachers College. Prior to developing
such an instrument, the writer felt that it was first neces-
sary to develop essential evaluative standards on which
such an instrument could be based and at the same time
establish an outline or framework by which one could
evaluate an admissions program. This was done in Chapters III
and IV. Chapter III involved a discussion of how tentative
statements were evolved by a series of processes all directed
toward increased validity, into proposed standards which
could be used as a basis for evaluating an admissions
service. Qualified administrators in higher education
reviewed tentative areas and statements which had first
been prepared by the investigator. In the preceding
chapter academic, admissions, and student personnel adminis-
trators in selected colleges and universities reviewed,

rated and commented on the proposed evaluative standards.

110

111
These respondents reviewed each standard for accuracy of
statement and comprehensiveness, rating its contribution
to an evaluative instrument in terms of the ideal admissions
service for a selected type of institution of higher educa-
tion. During this process they made comments on the
revision; addi.ions, and deletions they considered desirable.
Changes were made in the content if the comments met the
predetermined criteria.

If the standards which have been developed for
evaluating an admissions program are to be readily acceptable
for use, however, a final step must be taken. A comprehen—
sive evaluative instrument, based on these standards, must
be constructed. This chapter, then, is concerned with the
construction and suggested use of an instrument designed
to evaluate the admissions program at Ball State Teachers
College. Although some general proposals and apparent
outcomes resulting from the use of the evaluative instrument
are included in the chapter, specific weaknesses and strengths
of the Ball State Teachers College admissions program are
not reported.

Reasons for Constructing an Evaluative Instrument for
the Admissions Program at Ball State Teadhers College

The primary purpose for developing the instrument,
Guides and Criteria for Evaluating the Admissions Service

1
.53 Ball State Teachers College, was to encourage Ball

 

l
Hereafter referred to as the Instrument.

112

State Teachers College to employ continuous, thoughtful
self-analysis and self-improvement in the area of admissions.
It was meant to provide the method and the procedures by
which facts concerning performance and progress in the
admissions office are collected, analyzed, integrated,
and presented in terms of the philosophy and objectives
of the institution.

Furthermore, the director of admissions at Ball State
Teachers College is required to evaluate the performance
of the admissions program, and report its status, progress
and problems with proposed solutions to his supervising
administrator and president. The supervising administrator
and the president must be assured that (a) all participants
in the admissions effort are working successfully towards
common institutional objectives; (b) all parallel programs
and services are proceeding so as to dovetail, when
required, with the admissions program; and (c) staff respon-
sibilities are integrated and coordinated so as to support
the types of timely decisions that must be made at various
stages in the admissions process. Formal and systematic
evaluation methods covering all phases of the admissions
program are necessary for decision-making, accountability,
and documentation purposes.

In developing an instrument for Ball State Teachers
(Zollege from the already established evaluative standards,

the writer recognized that admissions is and can be

113
effectively carried on in different types of colleges and
universities and in a variety of patterns. Differences
in size, environment, legal requirements, financial
support, institutional philosophy and objectives, abilities
of students, and many other factors make a standardized
instrument undesirable. In applying the standards and
constructing an evaluative instrument, due consideration
was given to differences in the nature of Ball State
Teachers College and other institutions of higher educa-
tion. The Instrument that was developed through this
investigation is presented in Appendix F.

Developing an Instrument for Evaluating the Admissions
Program at Ball State Teachers College

Prior to constructing the contents that were to be
included in an instrument designed to evaluate an admissions
program, it was necessary to define the role of evaluation
in admissions at Ball State Teachers College. At that
institution it was dependent upon the investigator's per-
ception of the overuall attitude of the president and
other administrative heads as to the need and value of
program evaluation. Once this was determined, it was neces—
sary to give some thought to the reasons for constructing
the Instrument as presented, determine in what ways it
could be utilized and designating who should be involved
in the evaluation. The completion of this step, giving
some unification to the processes of evaluation in admissions

at Ball State Teachers College, led to identifying and

114
developing evaluative guides, evaluative criteria, and
evaluative statements.

It was understood from the beginning by the writer
that self-evaluation has the following characteristics:
(a) self-evaluation is an inclusive process and involves
all available means of gathering pertinent data; (b) each
situation in which self~evaluation occurs is unique in
some way; (c) self-evaluation is a continuous process and
there is no "final" goal; (d) self-evaluation is concerned
with total situations, related qualities and concerns and
are studied together; (e) self-evaluation is a group
endeavor; (f) self-evaluation is not neutral and is biased,
in some degree, by the evaluator’s values; and (g) self-
evaluation is a contributing factor in the rational solu-
tion of persistent admissions problems. The foregoing
characteristics aided in the determination of content,
general outline, and extensiveness of the Instrument.

The list of evaluative criteria and evaluation state-
ments developed in this study for Ball State Teachers
College by the investigator is not exhaustive. There are
many specific activities involved in the effective operae
tion of an admissions office. Some of the evaluative
criteria appear in more than one section because they are
relevant to more than one phase of the admissions program.
‘However, obtaining evaluations on this sample serves both

to indicate the extent to which the program meets the

 

115
standards and to identify aspects of the program which
need study and improvement. By stating the specific
evaluative guides and criteria for each area of the
admissions program, the Instrument becomes a device for:
(a) gathering data on the admissions program and presenting
it in concise, understandable terms; (b) developing a
suitable procedure for evaluating the admissions program;
and (c) initiating a program of action designed to develop
a better admissions program that will parallel the growth
of the institution.

The Instrument, to be an effective part of the self-
evaluation process, consists of modifying the evaluative
criteria when needed. Modification should make them con-
sistent with the objectives of the instituti>n. This
involves the basic principle that the admissions office
at Ball State Teachers College should be evaluated in
terms of what Ball State Teachers College is striving to
accomplish. The guides, criteria statements, and evalua-
tion statements which appear Should be rewritten or changed
if they prove to be unacceptable or inappropriate. The
complete evaluation.of the Ball State Teachers College
admissions program and the application of the entire
Instrument is a long-term project requiring more than
one calendar year and therefore, the Instrument in Appendix F
zappears as originally written. In addition, the admissions

:service at Ball State Teachers College has undergone rapid

116
change in the past few years and will continue to do so in
the coming period of growth. This necessitates an aware-
ness for altering the Instrument as it is used. In the
actual application of selected portions of the Instrument
some of the guides, criteria, and evaluative statements
first developed by the writer were slightly altered.

Format and General Outline of
the Evaluative Instrument

Published studies that assisted in identifying the
proper format and general outline for an evaluative instru-
ment to be used in admissions are scanty, but some worth-
while sources are available. These include Evaluative
Criteria (72), Colorado Criteria for Evaluation Study pf
Programs pf Guidance Services (1?), Criteria for Evaluating

Guidance Programs i3 Secondary Schools (6), Guidance

 

Counseling and Testing Program Evaluation (105), and

Evaluation Aids (70). These sources also contained criteria

 

items pertaining to admissions and others of a more general
nature which were adapted to the evaluation of certain
aspects of the admissions program at Ball State Teachers
College.

In addition to the Standards, the Instrument, as
originally written, contained four sections referred to as
Evaluative Guides, Evaluative Criteria, Evaluations, and

Comments. The purpose and use of each section was as follows:

117

Evaluative Guides. The questions and searching

 

statements in this section are intended to suggest special
characteristics of the admissions area being evaluated.

It will be noted that they are given in general terms and
the actual answer may take some research and time to
obtain and will usually need to be developed cooperatively
by the evaluating committee, the director of admissions
and his staff, and other administrators of the institution.
The most comprehensive answers will be an outgrowth of

the thought and discussion of all concerned. They will
help supply the details and resource data for marking the
evaluative criteria.

Evaluative Criteria. The evaluative criteria as

 

presented here consists of provisions, conditions, or
characteristics suggested by the Standards that are found
in an ideal admissions program. Based on validated
Standards they are a means whereby the evaluator can
describe clearly and accurately what he observes. The
evaluative criteria are intended to provide a factual
basis for the qualitative evaluation of observable practices.
The more carefully and in detail this section can be com-
pleted, the more accurate will be the evaluation. Evalua-
tive criteria must be developed that permit an accurate
and comprehensive description of the admissions program

being studied.

118

The evaluative criteria are to be marked by means of

2

the four symbols defined below:

E-é

EXTENSIVELY

If extensive provision is made for a given
characteristic, condition, or provision,

mark the guide in the parentheses preceding

it with an "E".

SOME EXTENT

If the characteristic, condition, or provision

is made to some extent, mark the guide with

 

an 3' S" .
NOT PRESENT OR SATISFACTORY
If the characteristic, condition, or provision

‘ig not pgesent 2E lg not satisfactory, mark

 

the guide with the symbol "0".
NOT APPLICABLE OR DESIRABLE
If any characteristic, condition, or provision

is not applicable 2£.i§ not desirable, mark

 

 

such guide with the symbol "N". This mark

should be justified.

The evaluative criteria should be studied, discussed,

and rated

using one of the symbols defined in the above

instructions. The purpose of the rating on the guides is

to give a

2

description of the admissions service and there-

This rating scale is adapted from that used in the
.1960 Edition of Evaluative Criteria issued by the Coopera-
‘tive Study of Secondary Standards, p. 9.

 

119
fore, the symbol which best does this should be used.

Evaluations. When evaluations are made, they should

 

represent the best judgment of those making the evaluations,
these evaluations behig based on the thinking that results
from obtaining information from the descriptive guides
and rating the evaluative criteria. These evaluations
are designed to give the evaluating committee, the
admissions staff and others involved in the study an
opportunity to indicate the quality of the area being
evaluated. The evaluations may be considered as degrees
of accomplishment and a summary of the area where the
quality of work is related to what should be done in order
to satisfy the philosophy and objectives of the institution.
Evaluations were made by means of the symbols as
defined below:3
5. v~ VERY SUPERIOR
The provisions, conditions, or characteristics
are very extensive and are functioning
excellently.
4. -- SUPERIOR4
The provisions, conditions, or characteristics

are moderately extensive (a) and are functioning

3

Ibid.

4.

If, in making the self-evaluation, members of the
zidmissions staff wish to indicate which of the alternatives
'they prefer for evaluations "4" or "2" they may indicate
‘their choice by using "4a" or "4b" and "2a" or "2b".

M. -~

120
excellently (b) but are functioning poorly.
AVERAGE
The provisions, conditions, or characteristics
are present to the extent expected in an average
admissions service and are functioning well.
INFERIOR5
The provisions, conditions, or characteristics
are limited in extent (a) but are functioning
excellently (b) and are functioning poorly.
VERY INFERIOR
The provisions, conditions, or characteristics
are very limited in extent and are functioning
poorly.
MISSING
The provisions, conditions, or characteristics
are missing and needed; if present, they would
make a contribution to the admissions program.
DOES NOT APPLY
The provisions, conditions, or characteristics
are missing but do not apply or are not desirable
for the admissions program. (Reasons for the
use of this symbol should be explained in each

case under Comments.)

 

’5

See explanation in Footnote 4, page 119.

121
Comments. Notations of compensating features,
explanations of responses, descriptions of important
elements, or other pertinent matters may be recorded under
the section on Comments. Information needed to give a
complete report of the admissions program are noted in
this section.

Utilizing the Instrument at Ball State
Teachers College

The Instrument -- Guides and Criteria for Evaluating

the Admissions Program a: Ball State Teachers College -g

 

was designed to be used as an instrument for appraising

and improving the admissions program at Ball State Teachers
College. The heart of the process of evaluation and
improvement in an admissions program is a thorough analysis
and criticism of the program by its staff, leading to a
just appreciation of its strength, a recognition of its
deficiencies, and practical plans to raise the level of

its whole operation. However, as indicated in Chapter IV,
the significance given to individual standards by different
groups of administrators indicated the need to have vari-
ous staff members of the institution involved in the
evaluation of selected areas. The investigator's own
experience and the characteristics of self-evaluation
stated earlier in this chapter provided additional reasons
why personnel other than the admissions staff were involved
in the evaluation of the admissions program at Ball State

TFeachers College. After developing the evaluative instrument

122
and projecting its use the conclusion was reached that
self-evaluation in admissions must be a cooperative
project if the effectiveness of the admissions program
is to be improved.

It is not within the purpose of this investigation
to report specifically the procedures involved in utilizing
the instrument in a self-evaluation nor to report the find-
ings and conclusions. But some general suggestions based
on the experience of the self-evaluation at Ball State
Teachers College may be of value to other institutions
developing an evaluative instrument and undergoing a
formal evaluation for the first time.

The following steps were used in conducting the self-
evaluation:

1. The faculty committee on admissions and credits,
consisting of eight faculty members and one administrative
staff member, was established as the evaluating committee.
This proved satisfactory since these individuals were
partially familiar with the admissions policy, requirements
and processes. The faculty members serve rotating terms
of two years or longer on this committee while the adminis-
trative staff member (Registrar) is a permanent member
and serves as Executive Secretary. The individuals who
participated in this study represented the areas of busi~
ness education, curricular advising, education (guidance
and counseling), English, physical education, science, and

social science.

123

People appear to work more arduously on their own
problems which they recognize and feel are important.
Therefore, in introducing the Instrument to the faculty
evaluating committee, the members were given the opportunity
of identifying those problems of greatest concern. Bring-
ing the evaluating committee into the thinking, planning,
and discussion of the self-evaluation and the procedures
to be used is an indispensable requirement.

2. Due to the complexity and extensiveness of a
thorough self-evaluation, it proved more satisfactory to
evaluate the admissions program, a concern at a time,
rather than undertake the whole task at once or even by
areas, and risk a superficial appraisal. In identifying
areas of concern it was found necessary to collect and
centralize research reports, self-studies and other
pertinent data already available regarding the programs
at Ball State Teachers College. Special assistance and
background data was received from the Office of Institutional
Research, the Executive Assistant to the President, and
the Dean of the College.6 It was soon discovered that no
one person or group can properly answer for the institution
the kinds of questions appearing in the Instrument.

3 To the extent possible a definite time table was

established. It was difficult in estimating time allowances

not knowing what a major undertaking a self-evaluation in

 

6See Appendix G for a listing of some of the reports
and studies that were furnished by these sources.

124

admissions is and how many people need to be involved.
The more original data that needs to be collected and
the extent to which a faculty committee is involved will
determine the amount of time needed. Faculty members
having full—time teaching responsibilities are not too
willing to adopt and bind themselves to a rigorous time
table.

4. The investigator, as director of admissions at
Ball State Teachers College, was designated to keep the
self-evaluation moving, holding it in balance, and
suggest new approaches. This responsibility, in its
demand on time, energy, and tact is a major responsibility.
It is also an extremely rewarding one. The director of
admission's role is to keep maximum emphasis on the
project, to stimulate without dictating, and to coordinate
and see that the results of the evaluation are translated
into both immediate and longerange action.

5 The evaluating committee reviewed the results of

'the study periodically with the director of admissions

21nd proposed a development program that served as a basis
:Eor planned improvement. It was attempted to see that

teach finding and proposal was channeled in the proper
(lirection and followed up. The evaluating committee remained
helpful at this post-evaluation stage, but the main respon-

aibility was with the director of admissions. However,

the individual giving direction to the self-evaluation

125
must make sure that ultimately the total committee under-
stands and takes responsibility for the follow-up reports
and proposals.

Proposals and Problems Resulting From
Utilization of the Instrument

There is an implicit guide that to be effective a
self-evaluation must be continuous until the evaluation
has fulfilled a local need or purpose or until a change
in the nature of the self-evaluation is indicated. Once
a self-evaluation is started, follow-up is necessary if
satisfactory outcomes are desired. Follow-up should
actually be taken into account in the preplanning
activities and problem identification; otherwise, those
participating in the evaluation may have difficulty in
understanding what is expected of them and at what points
their efforts may be most helpful. Therefore, as the
Instrument was being used in the self—evaluation of the
admissions program at Ball State Teachers College, proposals
based on the findings were being determined upon completing
the evaluation of a single concern instead of waiting until
a self-evaluation had been made of the entire program. The
initial concerns expressed by the committee centered around
(defining the function of the admissions committee and the
responsibilities of the director of admissions. The
following proposals are illustrative of the results of

'the initial stages of the self-evaluation.

1.

126

In order to meet more fully its responsibility

in the area of admissions, the faculty committee on

admissions and credits should:

a.

Serve primarily as a policy-making unit.
Although the committee should make sure

that its policies are up-to~date and are

being properly administered, the actual
implementation of the admissions policy is

the responsibility of the director of admissions.
Develop a handbook of policies and requirements
for which the committee is responsible. This
handbook should be developed with the coopera-
tion of the admissions staff and made available
to major administrative offices and department
heads.

Approve and support a consistent and aggressive
program of public relations regarding admissions
at Ball State Teachers College. In order to keep
the people served by the College informed and
aware of current policy and requirements, the
committee should aid the director of admissions
in organizing and implementing a suitable public
relations program.

See that existing written policies are periodically
revised by cooperative action reflecting the

efforts and points of view of the president, the

2.
position

a.

127

institutional administration, the admissions
staff, the faculty and the administrators of

the secondary schools affected by them. The
success of this effort depends upon a careful
delineation of the role of each participating
group, upon sound planning and wise leadership.
In order to deal with the responsibility of the
effectively, the director of admissions should:
Develop a handbook of job descriptions for all
secretarial and professional staff members in

the admissions office. The preparation of this
handbook should be done in cooperation with the
present staff and the supervising administrator.
Since one of the proposals of this self-evaluation
includes the addition of both professional and
secretarial staff the preparation of this hand—
book should be a matter of topmost priority.
Develop a comprehensive public relations program.
Special efforts should be directed in the area of
Ball State Teachers College - high school relations.
This program is particularly important since the
admissions policy and requirements for all under-
graduate students has recently been revised and
is under constant study and is subject to further

revision.

128

c. Initiate, prepare, and guide the committee on
admissions and credits in making necessary
changes and improvements in the admissions
program. These efforts include a continuing
in-service training program for faculty
appointed as new members of the committee.

d. Assist the chairman of the committee in prepar-
ing an agenda in advance of each meeting. This
agenda should include immediate and long-range
concerns and issues that need committee review
and action.

These and other proposals resulted from the early
stages of the evaluation. Their results and effectiveness
on the admissions program may not be noticed for some time.
Likewise, many results occurred during the self-evaluation
that were not the outcome of a specific proposal; such
as the creation of a new professional staff position in
the admissions office -- assistant director of admissions
and the employment of a fifth full-time secretary. The
Instrument as used can be effective in collecting and
organizing information on identifiable concerns and
problems but its effectiveness diminishes when its use
goes beyond a device for collecting information and becomes
a lever for gaining compliance with predetermined con~
clusions. There were some problems that arose during the

initial stages of the evaluation. Some of these problems

129

were administrative in nature, others in lack of time

and tight schedules, and others are inherent in the complex

nature of administration in higher education. A few of

the unsatisfactory aspects of the self-evaluation centering

around the Instrument appear to be:

1.

Too much.time was required of the faculty.

Insufficient time frequently caused the members
of the committee to briefly pass over a concern
and to either rapidly complete the numerical
ratings called for or not to complete them at
all. The request of a single item often

required hours of additional work on the part

of an already overloaded faculty.

The immense amount of clerical work involved.
Some of the individuals involved in the self-
evaluation felt that many of the criteria
statements were repetitious and unimportmlt

and that the Instrument as a whole was too
cumbersome and could be shortened.

The ambiquity of the standards and the criteria
statements. The terminology employed in the
Instrument was not always interpreted uniformly.
Considerable time was lost in meetings trying to
understand what was meant by key statements.

That some of the committee members felt that they
were not qualified or too inexperienced to partici-

pate in certain portions of the self-evaluation.

130
The artificial atmosphere and the difficulty
of judging one's own program without bias.
Completing the Instrument may be an end in
itself rather than as a means to improving

and developing a better admissions program.

In addition to the above problems, the writer per-

sonally found that if a director of admissions is to do

an adequate job in applying the Instrument and organizing

a self-evaluation of a complex admissions service he

must have:

1.

2.

The realization that the evaluation of the
admissions service is the primary respon-
sibility of the director of admissions and
that those involved in the evaluation will
depend on him for leadership.

A thorough knowledge of research already
completed by the Office of Institutional
Research and other offices, both past and
present, to avoid repetition in the collection
of data.

A reasonable knowledge of statistical data
and the tools and techniques used in self-
evaluation.

Information on admissions in higher education,
not only in his own state but in the entire

nation, and basic information on related areas.

131

5. A cooperative spirit from fellow administrators.
When the Instrument is properly used, it will
sensitize the director of admissions to the
subtleties and the importance of office inter-
action.

6. An awareness of admissions in the total
institutional situation. The same kind of
awareness must be present in the steering
committee and others involved.

7. Sufficient time granted by his supervising
administrator. Enough time to devote to the
self-evaluation and an adequate clerical staff
are essential.

8. A sincere interest in the self-evaluation of
the admissions service —- the process is long,
tiring and at times very frustrating.

9. That evaluation is a long-term project and must
be a part of the admissions program rather than
as a crash program and make these efforts known
to the supervising administrators and the Presi-
dent so that they know that it is definitely a
part of the office activities.

The writer also found that a comprehensive knowledge

<>f research conducted and completed in other institutions
(If higher education is of great value when evaluating an

admissions program. Such concerns as underachievement or

132
academic failure, selective admissions and retention
policies, and of student decisions regarding academic
major and career trends in other colleges and universities
have implications for Ball State Teachers College.
Finally, it had to be remembered that self-evaluation
and the correct use of the Instrument does not make the
decisions on courses of action. It only affords a basis
on which sound decisions can be made. It does not
supplement the need for sound administrative judgment,
but only makes the judgment better informed and more
intelligent.
Continuing Development of the Instrument
Admissions is a dynamic and evolving influence in
contemporary higher education. As higher education in
Indiana and at Ball State Teachers College develop and
changes, new problems and new needs which impinge on the
every day activities of the admissions office arise. Thus,
the director of admissions is constantly confronted by new
problems and new foci of concern as he is compelled to
confirm or to align the admissions services with these
118W forces. {All that can be expected at any time is an
Gavaluative instrument that is best for that period. To
lDe most effective for the rapidly changing times, the
eValuative instrument developed for Ball State Teachers
COllege must be regarded as evolving. The Instrument

<3€aveloped in this study suffices for the present to guide

133

the director of admissions’ efforts in evaluation, but
it is strictly a tentative guide. It is viewed with the
understanding that it does not represent something that
is absolute and ultimate but that it will be reshaped and
enlarged to encompass new developments and needs in
admissions at Ball State Teachers College.

In this framework the Instrument should be subject
to constant revision and evaluation as it is used. To be
completely useful, it must be a functional and developing
evaluative tool, always subject to critical scrutiny and
revision. It should never be permitted to become fixed
or static, for when this happens, its effectiveness for
evaluating the admissions service at Ball State Teachers
College is largely lost. This concept requires the
development of revised admissions standards and evaluative
criteria at intervals consistent with the changes and
demands which emerge in higher education.

Apparent General Outcomes of Selanvaluation
in the Admissions Program at Ball State
Teachers College

Although a complete formal self—evaluation of the
admissions program at Ball State Teachers College has not
yet been completed, the writer believes that by utilizing
an evaluative instrument such as the one developed in this
study, a self-evaluation can be helpful in the following
ways to Ball State Teachers College and similar insfitutions

of higher education.

134

Appraisal 2f the Admissions Program. Admissions per-
sonnel at Ball State Teachers College should continuously
study the quality of the admissions program. Such studies
are often not conducted at all or are rather loosely done
with little guidance or criteria for implementing improve-
ments. Through pre-planned and conscientious appraisal,
lasting efforts are possible. Consequently, the Instrument
encourages self-study and provides a device for recording
an estimate of the admissions program.

Improvement pf the Admissions Program. The improve-

 

 

ment of the admissions program is a logical corollary of
the appraisal of the admissions program. This service

can be effective only if it results in progress towards
the stated objectives of the institution. No admissions
program, regardless of how effective it may seem, can be
considered successful unless all or almost all of its
activities make significant progress toward the avowed
institutional objectives. One of the great values of
program evaluation is that it requires careful considera—
tion of objectives and appraisal of their validity, scope,
and relevance. Thus, evaluation provides the director of
admissions with a means of diagnosing his own administrative
competence and of identifying and correcting deficiencies
in activities and procedural methods of the admissions

program.

135

Maintenance 9f Standards. Standards are an essential

 

 

characteristic of worthwhile evaluation. They usually
define the minimum degree of performance acceptable to
administrators in higher education. Standards in admis-
sions are properly considered as attainment goals. For
the most part they have not been objectively determined.
This study presents one method of attempting to establish
standards logically through agreements on values and
contribution to an evaluative instrument. It seems
reasonable to establish standards for admissions by
identifying different areas of concern.

The maintenance of standards is a legitimate function
of evaluation in admissions, but care must be exercised
in the application of standards. When employed without
regard for institutional differences, they may actually
hinder admissions development. {Admissions in higher
education requires flexible standards adaptable to
different goals and varying degrees of institutional
emphasis on that service.

Role Definition. One of the best sources of role

 

definition is interest engendered by the director of
admissions awareness and acceptance of the objectives of
the institution. No matter how directly an admissions
director may identify himself with an institution, he
cannot be highly motivated unless he is constantly aware

of progressive status and he is steadily encouraged to

136
progress the office towards meeting these objectives. Thus
constant evaluation by the director of admissions himself
is essential.

Educational Guidance and Student Selection. Educational
guidance requires knowledge of the capacities, strengths,
and weaknesses of individual students admitted to the
institution. This knowledge can be gained only by con-
tinuous and comprehensive evaluation. Evaluation enables
the director of admissions to assist individual applicants
in such guidance problems as the choice of college, the
selection of a career, entrance date, and changes of
probable success. Selective procedures used by the
admissions program determine which students should be
officially admitted. Selection of the student body is
essential if the educational tasks of the institution are
to be discovered and nurtured. A selfuevaluation should
determine if the selection and encouragement of students
with academic potential represents a prime responsibility
of the admissions program.

Research. Every director of admissions should develop
his competence to carry on research pertinent to his own
specialization ~- admissions administration. The concept
of action research (21) may be especially pertinent to
research efforts of directors of admissions. Action
research enables the individuals most affected by the
evaluation to participate in the identification of the

problems and weaknesses of the service and to better

137
understand the need for improvement and change. The
choice of method is important because the validity of the
conclusions reached will depend upon the reliability of
the evaluative procedures used.
Summary

A thoroughgoing evaluation of an admissions program
such as that found at Ball State Teachers College is a
complex and difficult task. Standards on which to base
an evaluation are difficult to objectify, the evaluative
criteria are numerous, and collection of adequate data
and supporting evidence is challenging and laborious.
The difficulty of appraising an admissions program,
however, does not eliminate the necessity of doing so
and continued effort must be made for developing materials
and procedures for making such an evaluation worth while.
With this thought the construction and utilization of an
evaluative instrument for the admissions program at Ball
State Teachers College was presented in this chapter.

The Instrument, Guides and Criteria for Evaluating

the Admissions Program 33 Ball State Teadhers College, is

 

based on the assumption that evaluation, to be sound and

of greatest worth, should deal with the admissions program
in its entirety. It should measure the over—all effective-
ness of the admissions program. Sound evaluation in
admissions must have depth as well as breadth, and should
be a continuing process. The purpose being to disclose

weaknesses of the going program with the view of improving

138
rather than rate or compare the admissions program with
that of another institution.

The Instrument proved to be of value in three
significant ways at Ball State Teachers College:

1. It described the characteristics of a good
admissions office and provided a basis for
making a selfgevaluation.

2. It prorided detailed criteria and evaluative
statements that were used to identify the
points of strength and the areas needing
improvement.

3. It helped to clarify the major purposes of
the admissions office.

After applying only selected portions of the Instrue
ment, it was concluded that due to a rapidly growing
enrollment, limited facilities and other factors, Ball
State Teachers College cannot immediately achieve the
suggested standards. A few unsatisfactory aspects of
the Instrument in a self-evaluation were identified, but
it was found that the Instrument will serve as a basis
for future planning. The importance of the total score
aspect was minimized, while identifying factors which are
adversely affecting the admissions program were emphasized.

The proper use of the Instrument is to develop an
organized plan for improving the admissions program over

a period of time, in line with the findings of the self—

139
evaluation. The process through which the admissions
staff uses the Instrument should help to build a greater
community of purpose among the admissions staff, and
other allied administrators, as well as to give a broader
and more critical view of the achievement and needs of

the admissions program at Ball State Teachers College.

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The problem of this study was to develop standards
deemed essential for evaluating an admissions program and
on the basis of these standards to construct a compre-
hensive instrument designed to evaluate the admissions
pnagram in an institution of higher education. The
primary purpose of this study was to satisfy the need
for generally accepted standards for evaluating admissions
in a particular type of institution and provide a func-
tional instrument for evaluating and stimulating improve-
ment in the admissions program at Ball State Teachers
College.

In this study the following sub-problems were consid-
ered in developing evaluative standards and an instrument
for evaluating the admissions program in a selected institu-
tion of higher education: (1) the selection and organiza-
tion of pertinent literature pertaining to higher education
and admissions to be utilized in constructing evaluative
standards; (2) the selection of administrators currently
employed in institutions of higher education for the
purpose of obtaining their opinion relative to the standards

140

I“?

141
to be used in an instrument designed to evaluate an
admissions program; (3) the determination, organization,
critical review and validation by selected administrators
in higher education of essential standards that should
govern the evaluation of an admissions program, and
therefore serve as a basis for constructing a comprehen-
sive evaluative instrument; (4) the analysis of the data
received from the respondents of their critical review
of the essential standards; and (5) the construction and
suggested use of an instrument designed to evaluate the
admissions program at Ball State Teachers College.

The first portion of the study, giving a perspective
of the literature that traces the development, theory and
evaluation in admissions, involved historical procedures.
The writer had access to a few primary sources. The
related literature revealed a number of studies involving
evaluation in student personnel services, but none could
be located that was devoted primarily to admissions. The
review of the method and content employed in these studies
was extremely beneficial in the consummation of this
investigation. Perhaps the major need in admissions is
for penetrating research in the following areas: (1) analysis
of theoretically new foundations for developing admissions
programs for higher education; (2) practical standards
for inaugurating, operating and modifying admissions programs;

and (3) systematic evaluative studies to gain additional

142
empirical evidence concerning the effectiveness of
admissions programs in terms of institutional objectives
and tasks.

After a review of the literature, it was necessary
to select and organize admissions statements from content
of accepted importance, that could be utilized in develop~
ing proposed evaluative standards. The statements were
distributed to seven areas found to be essential in evalu-
ating an admissions program. The statements were then
converted into prose in the form of evaluative standards
that could be analyzed and rated by respondents. These
seven standards were: Institutional Philosophy and
Objectives; Admissions Policy and Requirements; Adminis—
trative Basis for the Admissions Program; Admissions Per-
sonnel; Physical Resources; Basic Admissions Functions;
and Functions Complementary to the Admissions Program.
Content validity of the seven standards was established
empirically through an analysis of the literature and
pooled judgments of competent respondents.

A preliminary instrument was constructed so fiiat
respondents could indicate on a nine point equal appearing
interval scale the degree of significance they placed on
the contribution of each of the proposed standards to an
instrument designed to evaluate an admissions program. The
scale ranged from zero to nine with zero meaning not

acceptable and nine meaning very essential. Definite

143

directions for respondents to follow in their review and
rating of the standards were constructed to accompaly
the study instrument. The respondents interviewed
included eight academic administrators, eight student
personnel administrators, and eight admissions adminis-
trators in selected state-supported, coeducation institu-
tions of higher education.

The initial step in analyzing the data collected
from the respondents involved calculating the percentage
of emphasis for the proposed standards in order to deter-
mine their acceptability. Rank order was then determined
for the proposed standards according to the percentage
of emphasis. Rank difference correlation coefficients
were computed to determine the degree of agreement between
the various groups of respondents. Comments of the
respondents that met the criteria for revision of, addition
to, or deletion from the content were considered in revis—
ing the evaluation standards. The refinement and revision
of the proposed evaluative standards into their final
form constituted the basis for the construction of an
instrument to evaluate the admissions program at Ball State
Teachers College.

The evaluative instrument, Guides and Criteria for

 

Evaluating the Admissions Program 33 Ball State Teachers

 

College, was developed on the assumption that evaluation,

to be sound and of greatest worth, should deal with the

144

admissions program in its entirety. Sound evaluation in
admissions at Ball State Teachers College must have
depth as well as breadth and should become a continuing
process. This usually necessitates a comprehensive
self-evaluation involving administrators other than those
in admissions and could include faculty and visiting con~
sultants. A forward-looking evaluation program should be
a stimulating force resulting in a program of constant
improvement.

Conclusions

On the basis of a review of the literature and the
findings of this study, the following conclusions appear
to be justified:

1. Since the admissions program is one of the
strongest links between institutions of higher education,
the students served by the institution, and the secondary
schools, every effort should be made to strengthen the
effectiveness of this program.

2. There is widespread interest in the process of
institutional and program evaluation in higher education.
Similarly, there is general recognition of the importance
of evaluation in admissions because a systematic analysis
of this program may reveal shortcomings in achieving the
pre-established goals of the institution.

3. There has been little or no conclusive analysis

of the relative effectiveness of the self-evaluation process

145
in reference to progress that has been made toward ful-
filling the philosophy and objectives of the institution.

4. No generally applicable technique for the
appraisal or evaluation of admissions programs have been
developed, although some attempts have been made in related
areas.

5. Selected groups of administrators in higher educa-
tion are able to discriminate between proposed evaluative
standards and have definite feelings and/or opinions as to
the contribution of these standards to an instrument
designed to evaluate an admissions program in a selected
institution.

6. Selected respondents at Ball State Teachers College
are able to discriminate between proposed evaluation stand-
ards and have definite feelings and/or opinions as to the
contribution of these standards to an instrument designed
to evaluate the admissions program at Ball State Teachers
VCollege.

7. Standards on Basic Admissions Functions, Institu-
tional Philosophy and Objectives, and Admissions Policy
and Requirements should be included and given the greatest
emphasis in an instrument designed to evaluate an admissions
program in a selected institution.

8. The standard on Physical Resources should be included
but given little emphasis in an instrument designed to

evaluate an admissions program in a selected institution.

146

9. The seven standards validated through this study
can be of value to admissions administrators in higher
education. They can be used effectively as guideposts
in determining evaluative criteria, in constructing an
evaluative instrument, and in evaluating an admissions
program.

10. Even though there are basic similarities in the
evaluation of all admissions programs, the unique factors
associated with any one program must be given extensive
consideration.

11. The evaluative instrument developed in this
study provides for the administration at Ball State Teachers
College a basis for improvement of the present admissions
program by comparing existing procedures, practices, and
conditions with recommended standards.

12. The proper application of the evaluation instru-
ment with a sincere intent for improvement of the admissions
program at Ball State Teachers College directs attention
to responsible individuals the weaknesses and strengths
of the program.

13. The evaluative instrument provides a method by
which periodic evaluation can be made in order to continu—
ously improve the admissions program at Ball State Teachers
College.

14. The director of admissions at Ball State Teachers

College is the key person on whom the proper function of

147
self-evaluation in admissions depends. He must, there-
fore, understand his own role in the admissions program
and see the far-reaching implication inherent in a self-
evaluation.

15. If a faculty admissions committee is to be a
vital force in the self-evaluation, they must be sincerely
interested, have had some preparation in evaluation, and
enjoy some free time for this function.

16. The completion of a thorough self-evaluation
in admissions cannot be the responsibility of one person.
It should represent the opinion of those affecting and
affected by the admissions program.

Recommendations for Use of the Instrument

It is evident that some of the recommendations of this
study are contained in the seven evaluative standards that
have been developed. In addition, the following recom—
mendations were formulated fran the results of this study.

1. The results of this investigation be used as the
basis for evaluating the admissions program at Ball State
Teachers College.

2. The evaluative instrument developed for the
admissions program at Ball State Teachers College should
be printed and made available as a guide to other institu—
tions of higher education.

3 The individuals evaluating the admissions program

at Ball State Teachers College be encouraged to emphasize

148
those areas and specific concepts found to be of greatest
importance.

4 It is realized that due to facilities, enrollment

and other factors, Ball State Teachers College cannot
immediately achieve the recommended policies, procedures
and practices set forth in the evaluative standards. It
is recommended that improvement of the admissions program
be thought of as a long-term accomplishment.

5. The evaluative instrument be used by the adminis-
trators at Ball State Teachers College to help obtain
administrative unification.

6. The evaluative instrument should be used primarily
by administrators at Ball State Teachers College to evalu-
ate their admissions program for the purpose of disclosing
weaknesses or strengths rather than to rate or compare
with another college or university.

7. The director of admissions at Ball State Teachers
College should conduct in-service training in evaluation
and the use of the instrument for faculty members assigned
to the committee on admissions.

8. Each institution of higher education should study
its own philosophy and objectives and in light of its
conclusions evaluate the admissions service.

9. This study should become a part of the action-
research activities of admissions administrators. The

recommendation here is that admissions administrators

149
deliberately attempt to improve evaluation in admissions
in the essential areas that have been discussed; that
they do this by critically examining concepts in these
areas to determine what changes are occurring.

10. Possibilities of interuniversity cooperation
should be explored in such areas as (a) the systematic
interchange of studies, ideas, and developments pertaining
to admissions; (b) sharing self-evaluation experiences;
(c) the possible exchange of staff members to act as con-
sultants; and (d) more active participation in professional
organizations devoted to the coordination and improvement
of admissions activities.

11. The evaluative standards and criteria developed
from this study should be continuously reviewed and
revised if necessary.

Recommendations for Further Research

As a result of this study, the following problems are
suggested for further research:

1. A similar study should be made involving a larger
sample of respondents in more types of institutions of
higher education.

2. A similar type of study should be conducted in
other institutional services and programs, especially those
complementary to the admissions program.

3. Additional study should be conducted to identify

competencies needed by directors of admissions to adequately

150
conduct a thorough self—evaluation and the nature of the
education and experiences which will most effectively
develop such competencies.

4 A study should be made to determine the causes

and reasons as to why directors of admissions do not
conduct formal self—evaluations of the admissions program.

5. A study should be made of the extent of under-
standing and professional growth experienced by the
admissions staff, members of the faculty admissions com-
mittee and others during their participation in a self-
evaluation experience.

6. There is an apparent need for research on methods
and techniques for the in-service education of all partici-
pants in order that they may function more efficiently in
the selfeevaluation of the admissions program.

7. Further study should be made of the place and
effective use of a self-evaluation in the admissions program
and the outcomes attained.

8. There needs to be continuous study and refinement
of the methods used in conducting a self-evaluation in
admissions programs in various types of institutions of
higher education.

9. There is a need to codify and synthesize the in-
formation already published regarding self—evaluation in
higher education; especially the material relating to the

outcomes and changes resulting from self-evaluations.

1O

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,
"Standards for Student Personnel Services and Evalua-
tive Criteria," in Third Yearbook, The Association,
1950, PP. 125-147.

 

American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers, Secondary School-College
Cooperation, .An Obligation to YOuth, EdWards
Brothers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MicE1gan, p. vi.

 

 

 

American Council on Education, Problems and Policies
Committee, The Price of Excellence, Washington, D. C.:
The Council, “I960, 6 pp.

 

 

Arbuckle,Duga1d 5., Student Personnel Services in
Hi her Education. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co.
3, 352 pp.

 

 

Barr, A. S., and R. .A. Davis, P. 0. Johnson, Educational
Research and Appraisai, J. P. Lippincott Co. I953,
362 pp.

 

Benson, Arthur L., (ed. ), Criteria for Evaluating
Guidance Programs in Secondar SchooIs, Form B, A
Committee Report to t e E g National Conference of
State Supervisors of Guidance Services and Counselor
Trainers, Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Office of Education, Guidance, and Student Personnel
Section, Washington 25, D. C. (mimeo. )

 

 

Blaesser, Willard-W., "The College Administrator
Evaluates Student Personnel WOrk," Educational Psycho-
logical Measurement, 9:384-389, 1949.

 

Blaesser, Willard W., "Organization and Administration
of Student Personnel Programs in College," Review of
Educational Research, 24: 113-120, 1954.

 

Bowles, Frank H., "The Past, Present, and Future of
Admission Requirements," College and University, 31:309-
327, Spring 1956.

Bragdon, Helen D., et al., Educational Counseling of
College.Students. .American Council on Education Studies,
Series VI, No. 1,Washington: American Council on
Education, 1939, 61 pp.

 

151

1‘.

Q
.
to
~ Q
i.
t‘
q:
’1
.n
,.
K

,4

,fi

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

152

Brailey, Lester G., The Effectiveness pf Student Per—
sonnel Services in Certain Urban Universities, Doctoral
Dissertation, UniVers1ty of Pittsburgh, 1953.

 

 

 

 

Brubacher, John S., and Willis Rudy, Hi her Education
in Transition: An American Histor , l - 956, New
'Ydrk:‘_Harper and Brothers, I938, 498 pp.

 

Brumbaugh,.A. J., "Student Personnel Work in Univer-
sities," North Central Association Quarterly, 13:518-
528, Aprii I939.

 

Brumbaugh, A. J., and Lester C. Smith, "A Point Scale
for Evaluating Personnel Work in Institutions of
Higher Learning," Religious Education. 27:230-235,
March 1932.

Burns, Norman (ed.) Administration of Higher Institu-
tions Under Changing Conditions, UniVersity of Chicago,
1947.

 

 

 

Cannom, Charles Wesley, "Philosophical Principles,"

in Paul J. Brouwer, Student Personnel Services in
General Education, Washington, D. G., AmeriCan Cduncil
on Education;31949, 317 pp.

Colorado Criteria for Evaluation Study of Pro rams of
Guidance ServiCes,_OffiEe of Director of_Guidance '__
Services, CoIOrado State Department of Education and
Curriculum in Guidance and Personnel Services, College
of Education, University of Colorado.

 

Commission on Colleges and Universities, "Statement

of Policy Relative to the Accrediting of Institutions

of Higher Education," North Central Association Quarterly,
24:8-44, July 1949.

 

Commission on Colleges and Universities, North Central
Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Guide

for the Evaluation pf Institutions of Hi her Education,
'T9EOTTThe.Association, Chicago, IIliHo1s, I960, 77 pp.

 

Connelly, Thomas R., The Registrar, Newark, N. J.:
‘Washington Irving PubliShing Company, 1951, 83 pp.

Corey, Stephan M., Action Research to Im rove School
Practice, New York: Bureau of Publidations, Teachers

College, Columbia University, 1953, 161 pp.

 

Cowley, W. H., "A Technique for Making a Student Per-
sonnel Survey," Personnel Journal, 10:1726, June 1931.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

153

Cross, G. Lynn, "Selective Admissions as a Solution
of the Problem of Increasing Enrollment in State
Universities," National Association of State Univer-
sities, Proceedings, 1955, p. 56-57.

 

Darley, John G., "The Work of the Committee on Research
and Publications," Report pf the 18th Annual Meeting
'pf the American Col ege Personnel Association, The
Association, I941, p. 65.

 

 

Daughtrey, John P., Ap;Anal sis pf Student and Faculty

Reaction 32 Student Personnei Services 3: thd University
of Fiorida, Doctoral Dissertation, University of FIOrida,
i956,.Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, vol. 17, no. 5,
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1956, p. 786.

 

 

 

Dyer, Henry S., Colle e Board Scores, Their Use and

Interpretation, r1nce on, N. J.: College Entrance
Exam1nat1on Board, Educational Testing Service, 1957,

70 PP.

Eells, walter Crosby, and Ernest V. Hollis, Administra-
tion pf Higher Education -.An Annotated BibliOgraphy,
U.S. Department of Health, EducatiOn and Welfare,
Office of Education, Bulletin 1960, No. 7, Washington,
D. C.: Superintendent of Documents, Government Print-
Office, 1960, 410 pp.

 

Peder, D. D., et al., The Administration of Student

Personnel Programs in American CoIleges ahd Universities,
AmeriCan CounciI onTEducatiOn Studies, Series VI, No. 19,
Washington: American Council on Education, 1958, 46 pp.

 

 

Fine, Benjamin, Admission £p_American Colleges, Harper,
1946.

 

Fitzgerald, Laurine E., A Study pf Facultprerceptions
pfi Student Personnel Services, East Lansing: MiChigan
State Unihersity, 1959, Abstract in Dissertation
Abstracts, Vol. 18, no. 1, University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor,1Wichigan, 1958, p. 119.

 

 

Fricke, Benno G., "How Colleges Should Pick Their
Students," College Board Review, No. 34:17-22, Winter
1958.

Fryklund, Verne C., and H. L. Helton, Tpg.Accreditation
of Industrial Arts Teacher Education, Seventh Year-
hdok - 1958, American CounciI on Industrial Arts
Teacher Education, McKnight and McKnight, Bloomington,
Illinois, 1958, 111 pp.

33,

34.

35

36.

37.

38.

39.

4O

41.

42.

43

154

Furst, Harold, An Inquiry Into University Organization
and Administrat1on, Stanford, California: Stanfbrd
University, 1954, Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts,
Vol. 14, no. 10, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 1954, p. 1597-1598.

 

Gardner, Donfred H., "Student Personnel Werk - XIII.
Student Organizations," p. 1345-1347, in Monroe, .
Walter S. (ed. ), Encyclopedia of Educational Research,
1950, New York: The Macmillan_ Company, 1520 pp.

 

 

Gardner, Donfred H., The Evaluation of Higher Institutions,
Vol. V, University ofC hicago Survey, _1 , pp. 235.

Gardner, John W., "A Time for Decision in Higher Educa-
tion," in Carnegie Corporation of New York, Annual
Repogp, 1954, p. 9-18.

Gerritz, Ellsworth M. and Alfred Thomas, Jr., "Admissions
Office in Twenty-Eight Selected Colleges and Universities,"
College and University, 29:65-68, 1953.

 

Good, C. V. A. S. Barr, and D. E. Scates, The Method-
ology of Educational Research, D. Appleton-Century,
New Yoik, 1936, 882 pp.

Grier, Daniel J., Chapter 4, "The New Student Arrives
at College," in Esther Lloyd—Jones and Margaret R.
Smith (ed. ) Student Personnel Work as Deeper Teaching,
1954, New York?’ Harper and Brothers, pp.

Guenther, Louis Charles, Functions Performed By
Registrars in De ree ~ Granting Institutions Accredited
.py the North “Centrai Association, Pittsburgh, Pa.:
University of Pittsburgh, 1958, Abstract in Disserta-
tion.Abstracts, Vol. 19, no. 6, University M1crof1Ims,
Ann Arhbr, Michigan, 1958, p. 1271.

 

 

Guilford, J. P“, Psychometric Methods, New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.;’l936, 597 pp.

Hage, Robert Silvers, A Revision of the Rackham Student
Personnel Services Inventory, Iowa _City: State Un1ver—
sity of Iowa, 1957, Abstract in Dissertation.Abstracts,
Vol. 18, No. 1, University MicrofiIms, Ann Arbor;
Michigan, 1958, p. 119.

Haggerty, W’. J., and A. J. Brumbaugh, "The Student in
College and University," North Central Association
Quarterly, 13:559-630.

 

44

45

46

47

48

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

155

Hanson, Ernest Edward, A Study of the Structural
Organization of Student PersonnET ServiCes in Certain
State Colleges and Universities, EastLansifiE, Michi-
gan: Michigan State Colbge, 1952, Abstract in Dis-
sertation.Abstracts, Vol. 12, no. 5, University—.—
MiCrofilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1952, p. 723-724.

 

 

 

Hanson, Robert J., A_Study of College Admission
Counseling in Michi an, Detroit: Michigan: Wayne State
University,—l936, 204 p. Abstract in Dissertation
Abstracts, Vol. 16, no. 9, University Microfilms,

Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1956, p. 1641.

 

 

 

Hardaway, Charles W., The Status of Entrance Reguire-
ments and Admissions Policies 2: State-Supported
Teachers Colleges and Proposed Guides fOr Admissions
for Indiana State Teachers College, Doctoral Disserta-
tion, Indiana University, 1 , Abstract in Disserta-
tion Abstracts, Vol. 19, no. 12, University Microf1lms,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1958, pp. 3231.

 

 

 

 

 

Havighurst, Robert J., American Hi her Education.ig
the 1960's, Columbus: Oh1O State University Press,
1960, 92_pp.

Hawkes, Mrs. Herbert, Chapter 10, "Student Counseling,"
in Ralph W, McDonald (ed.), Current Problems in Hi her
Education, Department of Higher Education.Association,
National'Education Association, washington, 1947, 227 pp.

 

Heist, Paul, "The Entering College Student — Background
and Characteristics," Review of Educational Research,
30:371-384, October 1950.

Henderson, Algo D. and M. M. Chambers, "Government,
Administration, Co-ordination, and Financing of

Higher Education," Review gmeducational Research,
30:3719384, October I965.

Henderson, Algo D., Policies and Practices in Hi her
Education, New York:—Harper and Brothers, 1960, §23 pp.

 

Hofstadter, Richard and C. DeWitt Hardy, The Develop-
ment and Sco e of Higher Education in the Unitéd States,
New Yor : CoEumEia Un1vers1ty Press, 1932, V11, 524 pp.
published for the Commission on Financing Higher Educa-
tion. .

Hollingshead Bryan S. Who Should Go To Colle e?
New York: Columbia University Press, l95§:7YV%TI,

190 pp.

54

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63

64.

156

Holy, Thomas C., Hubert H. Semans, and T. R. McConnell,
A Restudy of the Needs of California in Hi her Educa-
tion, Sacramento: State—Department?of_Education, I955,
111 p. (a Digest).

 

 

Irwin, Mary (ed.) American Universities and Colleges,
American Council on Education, WashingTOn: Eighth
Edition, 1960, pp. 1212.

 

Johnson, Robert L., "Should Everyone Go To College?"
Progressive Education, 23:236, April 1946.

 

Kamm, Robert B., "An Inventory of Student Reaction to
Student Personnel Services," Educational and Psychological
Measurements, 10:537-544, 1950.

 

 

Kamm, Robert B., "How Effective.Are Our Student Pere
sonnel Programs?" Personnel Guidance Journal, 33:318-
324, 1955. .

 

 

Lewis, Roland H., A_Stud to Develop Criteria for
Organizin 2r Evaluating £35 Private ‘uniOr College
RegiStrar 5 Office, Doctoral Dissertation, University
ofFlorida, I936, Cited in Abstracts of Doctoral Studies
in Education, University of Florida, I956, p. ll4—123.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lincoln, Winfred“John, Admission Practices and the
Success 2£_§pecia11y -.Admitted§tudents at the Univer-
s1t .2: NemeexiEo and Selected State Colle es in New
Mex1co, I935-I933, Los.Angeles, CaIifornia, I959:'_-_
abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 20, no. 1,
University Microfilms,.Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1959, p. 196.

 

 

 

 

 

Lindquist, Everet Franklin, A_First Course in Statistics,
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1942, 242 pp.

 

Lloyd-Jones, Esther M., and M. R. Smith, A Student Per-
sonnel Pro ram for Hi her Education, New York: McGraw—
‘HiII—Book' ompany, I9§B,-322 pp.

 

 

Long, Samuel Murray, The Coordination of Instructional,
Administrative and StEHEnt Personnel ServiCes in Penn-
sylvania‘s State Teachers Colle es, University—Park:
Pennsylvania StateUniversity, I958, abstract in Dis—
sertation Abstracts, Vol. 19, no.11, University Micio-
films, AnnArbor, Michigan, 1959, p. 2830-2831.

 

Mahler, Clarence A., "Evaluation of College Personnel
Programs," Personnel—O—Gram, 7:11-12, May 1953.

 

1‘

,4

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

7o.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

157

.Mahler, Clarence A., "A Study of Student and Faculty
Reactions to Student Personnel Work," Doctoral Dis-
sertation, University of Minnesota, 1955, abstract

in Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 15, No. 12, University
Microfilms, Ann.Arbor, Michigan, 1955, p. 2571.

Mender, Albert E., Jr., "What the Administrator Has a
Right to Expect of Registrars and Admissions Officers,"
College and University, 26:411-419, April 1951.

Menkin, Vera P., and Nancy D. Stevens, "The Registrar:
Is He Statistician or Personnel Assistant?" Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 32:221-222, December 1953.

Millett, F. D., "Restrictive Admissions in State
Supported Higher Education," lournal of Higher Educa-
tion, 27:175-176, April 1956.

 

Monroe, walter S., (ed.) et al., Encyclopedia of
Educational Research, 1960, New York: The Macmillan
Company, l564 pp.

 

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators,
Commission of Program and Practice Evaluation, "Report
of the Commission of Program and Practice Evaluation,"
in Proceedings of Thirt ~Fifth.Anniversary Conference,
The.AssociationT—l933, P. 1394173:

 

National Education Association and American Association
of School Administrators, Educational Policies Com-
mission, Higher Education in a Decade of Decision,
Washington; D. C.: The Commissiafi;.l957, 152 pp.

 

National Study of Secondary School Evaluation, Manual
for Evaluative Criteria - 1960 Edition, The National
Study; washington, D. C., l960,i376pp.

 

 

Nelson, M. J. and E. C. Denny, Statistics for Teachers,
Dryden Press, Inc., New York, 1940, 199 pp.

 

 

 

Nereson, Oberlin B., The Evaluation of College Student
Personnel Programs by Faculty_and Specia s s, Los
Angeles, University of Southern California; I956,
abstract in the University of Southern California,
Abstracts of Dissertations, 1956, p. 390-391.

 

 

 

Nickerson, Francis B., "A History of the High School—
College Relations Committee in Oregon," Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Oregon, 1959, abstract in
Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 20, no. 5, University
MiErofilms,.Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1959, p. 1666.

 

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84

85.

86.

158

North Central Association, Today, Maquune, 1960,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 14, Minnesota.

O'Rear, Floyd B., The Duties of the Registrar,
Springfield, Missouri: I923, VIII, 173 pp.

 

Parkhurst, N. M., and Betty Suddarth, Potential Enroll-
ment for Indiana Colleges and Universities, 1955 to
I972, Purdue University: prepared for the EnrdlIEEnt
Study Committee of the Indiana Conference of Higher
Education, 1955.

 

Pershing, John J., An Evaluation of the Student Per—
sonnel Program of the Georgia Institute of TechnoIogy,
2.

Ddctoral Dissertation, Indiana University:

 

Perkins, Harold W., "A Proposed Pre—College Counseling
Program for Larger Colleges and Universities in the
United States," Doctoral Dissertation, Penn State Uni-
versity, 1957, abstract in Dissertation Abstracts,
Vol. 17, no. 6, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 1957, p. 1011—1012.

Poppendieck, Robert, "Perspectives in Articulation,"
School LifeI 42:4-7, May, 1960.

Prator, Ralph, "Policy-determining Agencies for College
Entrance Requirements," Educational Research Bulletin,
29:56, February 15, 1951.

 

President’s Commission on Higher Education, Higher
Education-for American Democracy, Establishing Goals,
Volume I, Washington: U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1947, 103 pp.

President's Committee on Education Beyond the High
School, Second Report to the President, July 1957,
Washington, D. C.: Superintendent of Documents,

United States Government Printing Office, 1957, 114 pp.

 

 

Rackham, Eric N., The Determination of Criteria for
the Evaluation of Student Personnel Services in
Institutions of Higher Learning, Doctoral Dissertation,

 

 

 

 

University ofjiichigan, 1950.

Rackham, Eric N., "The Need for Adequate Criteria
When Evaluating College Student Personnel Programs,"
Educational and Psychological Measurements, 1:691-
699, 195l.

 

 

. Q . ’
. .
Pr
t .
a , n o
fl V\
V O. 0.1
O,
l\ a
n.
'1
.
7.
c A
O
n n 6 a
~\ A
O .. v
r
.h
I I
O
Q.
.
C
r
\
PM
0‘
v.
i

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96

97.

98.

159

Reeves, Floyd W. and John Dale Russell, Admission and
Retention of University Students, Vol. V, University
of ChiCago Survey, 1933,‘360 pp.

 

 

 

Remmers, Hermann Henry, and N. L. Gage, Educational
Measurement and Evaluation, Harper Brothers, New York,

1933. 930 PP.

 

 

Rhoads, John M., "Our Profession," College and Univer-
sity, 31:149-158, Winter 1958.

 

 

Russell, John Dale, Higher Education in Michi an: The
Final Report of the Suryey of Higher Education in '_—_
Michi an, Langing: Study Committee on Higier Edtca-
t1on, I958, 185 pp.

 

 

Senders, Virginia L., Measurement and Statistics,
Oxford University Press, Inc., 1958, 594 pp.

 

Shoben, Edward Joseph, Jr., "A Rationale for Modern
Student Personnel WOrk," Personnel-O—Gram, Volume 12,
Number 3, March 1958, p. ll.

 

Smith, George B., Who Would Be Eliminated? A Study of

Selective Admission.to College, University ot'Kansas,
I959. 27 PP.

 

 

 

 

Smith, Huston, The Purposes of Hi her Education, New
York: Harper and Brothers, I955, 2I3 pp.

Smith, Robert Franklin, A Study of the Organization and
Objectives of a Selected—Grou ofIPenneylvania Colleges
andiUniversitiES, University Patk: Pennsylvania State
University, 1956, abstract in Dissertation Abstracts,
Vol. 16, no. 8, University Microfilms,.Ann Arbor,

Michigan, 1956, p. 1377~1378.

 

 

Stout, R..A., A_Stud of Admissions and Retention
Practices in College .33 University Programs of Teacher
Educatidn, Doctor 5 Dissertation, Minneapdlis, Univer-
‘Eity of Minnesota, 1957, cited in gourna1.o£'Teacher
Education, 8:299—317, September 19 7.

 

 

Strang, Ruth, Personal Development and Guidance in
Colleges and Secondary School, New York: ’Harper and
Brothers, 1934, 341 pp.

 

Stuit, Dewey B., "Evaluations of Institutions and
Programs," Review of Educational Research, 30:371-384,
October 1960.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110 .

160

Sturgis, Horace W., "Trends and Problems in College
Admissions," College and University, 28:5-16, October
1952.

The.Accrediting Commission for Business Schools,
Directory of Accredited Institutions and Operating
Criteria, I960-61,The CommiSSiOn, washington, D.C

 

 

.3

Thomason, R. Frederick, "Origin, Background and
Philosophy of the Office of Admissions and Records,"
College and University, 29:100-109, 1953.

 

Travers, Robert M. W}, én_1ntroduction to Educational
Research, The Macmillan Co., New York, I958, 466 pp.

 

 

 

Traxler, Arthur E., "Student Personnel Work II. Per-
sonnel Records," p. 1299-1301, in Monroe, Walter S.
(ed.) Encyclopedia ot Educational Research, 1950, New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1520 pp.

 

 

U. S. Office of Education, "Statistics of Higher
Education: Faculty, Students and Degrees, 1948-1950,"
Biennial Surve of Education in the United States,
I949-50, washington, D. C.: Governmenthrinting
Otfice, Chapter 4, Sec. I.

 

 

Wellman, Frank E., and Don D. Twiford, Guidance Counsel-
in and Testing Progtam Evaluation, U. S. Department

0 ealth, Education andtWelfare, Office of Education,
washington, D. C., 1961, 37 pp.

 

 

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,
Facing_the Critical Decade: Source Book, Boulder:
UniVersity of Colorado, 1957, 97 pp.

 

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,
‘Who Should Go To Colle e? Fleming Law Building,
Boulder, CoIBtido,.ApriI 1959.

 

'Williams, R. L., "Present Practices in Admitting Students
by Transfer in 437 American Colleges and Universities,"
College and University, 14:727-774, 1939.

Williamson, E. G., et al., The Student Personnel Point
of View, American Council on Education Studies, Series
VT, No. 13, WashingtOn: AmeriCan CbunciI on Education,
1949, 20 pp.

 

 

Williamson, E. G., and T. R. Sarbin, Student Personnel
Work in the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minnesota: BurgessPubiishing Company, 1940, 115 pp.

 

 

 

’1

 

 

 

 

 

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

161

‘Wilson, Robert H., A Study_ of Administrative Organiza-
tion and.Administrative Practices in Washington Public
gunior Colleges, Pullman: State C3I1ege df’Washington,
19 , 198 p., abstract in Dissertation Abstracts,

Vol. 19, no. 3, University MiCrofilmSI'Ann.Arbor,
Michigan, 1958, p. 476-477.

 

 

 

 

Wrenn, C. Gilbert and Robert B. Kamm, "A Procedure
for Evaluating a Student-Personnel Program," School
and Society, 67:2664269, March 1948.

Wrenn, C. Gilbert, "Student Personnel WOrk - V. General
Counseling Procedures," p. 1312-1319, in Monroe, Walter
S., (ed. ), Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 1950,
New York: The Macmillan_ Company, l520 pp.

 

 

Wrenn, C. Gilbert, Student Personnel Work in Colle e,
New York: The RonaId Press Company, I95I, _589 pp.

 

Young, Kenneth B., Who Can and Should Go To What Kind
of College? Stanford, California: Stanford University,

5 2 ., abstract in Dissertation.Abstracts, Vol. 13,
no. 5, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Miéfiigan, 1953,
p. 735-736.

 

 

 

APPENDIX.A

THE PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING THE.ADMISSIONS SERVICE
IN AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING

162

163

THE DEVELOPMENT of STANDARDS for EVALUATING the ADMISSIONS

SERVICE in an INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING

Purpose

The purpose of this preliminary instrument is to obtain your
opinion relative to standards to be used in an instrument
designed to evaluate the admissions service in an institution
of higher education. The following standards are stated in
terms of principles that should govern the evaluation of an
admissions service. They were selected and delimited after
an extensive review of the authoritative professional litera-

ture and numerous interviews with college personnel.

Contents
An important procedure in developing standards for evaluating
an admissions service is to make sure the major tasks and
purposes of the service have been identified. Vague and
obscure standards do not provide adequate guides to action.
Please assign the degree of significance you place on the
standards relative to their importance in an instrument
designed to evaluate an IDEAL admissions service for a
selected institution of higher education.
Please make ALL of your evaluations in terms
of the IDEAL admissions service for a multi-
purpose, state-supported, co-educational
institution of higher education with a full-

time enrollment of over 5,000 students. This

164

IS NOT an appraisal of your admissions service.

Think in terms of an IDEAL admissions service

for the type of institution just described in

order that valid standards may be developed.
A series of standards which partially describe areas to be
considered when evaluating an admissions service appear on
the following pages. Would you please read carefully each
standard, deciding for each whether or not it should be
included in an instrument to evaluate an admissions service
in a selected institution of higher education. A suggested
instrument outline and a glossary of key terms accompanies

this preliminary instrument.

Markings

Mark your reaction to the standards as they are presented on
the scale following the statement. DO NOT ALTER THE STANDARD
BEFORE MAKING YOUR EVALUATION. The scale was prepared so
that you can indicate the degree of significance and acceptance
you place on the standard on a 9-point equal appearing inter-
val scale. The scale ranges from one to nine, with one
meaning barely acceptable to nine meaning very essential.
If the standard is not acceptable please circle zero.
Descriptive words are also assigned to the scale to give it
further meaning:

Please encircle the number which, in your

opinion, best describes your feelings toward

the contribution made by the standard to

an instrument designed to evaluate an

165
admissions service in a selected institution

of higher education.

Examples

If your opinion is high for the standard, circle one of the

numbers near the top of the scale.

 

LOW ~\_ HIGH
/’
Not Ac~ Barely.Ac~ Accept~ Desir- Essen- Very Es—
ceptable ceptable able able tial sential
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

If your opinion is low for the standard, circle one of the

numbers near the bottom of the scale.

 

LOW \\ HIGH
Not Ac- Barely Ac- Accept- Desir- ‘Essen~ VeryEs-
ceptable ceptable able able tial sential
0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Suggestions

 

After your evaluation you may desire to comment on the standard.
Space is provided following each standard for your suggestions

and additions.

166
The DEVELOPMENT of STANDARDS for EVALUATING the ADMISSIONS
SERVICE in an INSTITUTION of HIGHER LEARNING

The Instrument Outline
Part I -- The Essential Framework
Area I Institutional Philosophy and Objectives
Sub-area A The Philosophy
Sub-area B The Objectives

Part II ‘7 The Foundations for the Admissions Service

Area II Admissions Policy and Requirements

Sub-area C Admissions Policy
Sub-area D Admissions Requirements

Area III Administrative Basis for the Admissions Service
Sub-area E Authority
Sub-area F Organization and Administration
Sub—area G Financial Basis

Area IV Admissions Personnel-

Sub-area H Numerical Adequacy and Respon-
sibilities. ‘
Sub-area I Preparation and Qualifications
Sub—area J Professional Growth and Leadership
Area V Physical Resources
Sub~area K Office Space
Subuarea L Equipment, Supplies, and Profes-

sional Library

Part III ~- Basic and Complementary Functions of the
‘ Admissions Service

Area VI Basic Admissions Functions
Sub-area M - Secondary School-College-
Institutional Relations

Sub—area N Counseling College Bound Youth

Sub-area O Providing General Information

Sub-area P Providing Specific Information

Sub-area Q Gathering Pertinent Data on
Applicants

Sub-area R Admitting Students and the
Admissions Decision

Sub-area S Maintaining Records

Sub-area T Issuing Reports

Sub—area U Coordination

Sub—area V Research and Evaluation

167

Area VII Functions Complementary to the Admissions Service

Sub—area W’ Program Orientation

Sub—area X Institutional Testing

Sub-area Y Academic Advising and Counseling
Sub~area Z Selective Retention

Sub-area AA Student Financial Aids

Glossary of Major Terms

168

AREA I

INSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY and OBJECTIVES

Standard

It is essential that each institution of higher education
have a carefully formulated, comprehensive statement of
philosophy and objectives. The philosophy of any educa-
tional unit is a framework of basic principles which take
into account such essential points as the geographical
community which the institution serves, the characteristics
and needs of the students who are enrolled or for whom the
institution is responsible, the aims and nature of the
educative process, and the purposes and outcomes of higher
education. The philosophy becomes a body of knowledge and
beliefs that supplies a broad basis for determining every
institutional policy and function, influences the standards
of selection and retention, controls the way in which the
admissions service and other institutional services are
developed, and gives direction to the objectives of the

institution.

The objectives of the institution are the philosophical
principles reduced to specific aims that describe how the
institution is trying to achieve its stated philosophy.
Objectives refer to the goals and purposes of the institution

that are realistic in terms of the possibility of achievement;

169

they are being attained or are attainable. Institutional
objectives prescribe a definite scope and boundary for all
phases of the admissions service; they suggest definite
directions and efforts of the admissions staff, and indicate
a course of action so that the admissions service is designed
and integrated with the total institutional philosophy. A
sound statement of institutional objectives contributes
measurably to a sound admissions service. It is essential
that the objectives are understood by all instructional
faculty, administrative officers, admissions staff personnel,

and all other affected personnel.

The cardinal rule for evaluating an admissions service is to
fully understand the stated philosophy and objectives of the
institution. The policy governing the requirements for
admission and the functions of the admissions office must

be clearly related to the philosophy and the objectives of
the institution it seeks to serve. Each admissions service
must be evaluated in its own setting and in terms of what
the institution is striving to accomplish (its philosophy
and objectives) rather than by comparison with general
patterns or norms. The admissions service and its functions
are developed from a particular philosophy and objectives
and they should therefore be constantly evaluated in light
of the announced philosophy and objectives. During the

evaluation of the admissions service, the admissions policy,

170
every requirement, every function, procedure and attitude is
measured against the formal philosophy and objectives of

the institution.

All other standards are subservient to this standard. All
other standards outlined are valid only to the extent they

promote the achievement of this first standard.

Evaluation: My opinion of the contribution made by this

 

standard to an instrument designed to evaluate an admissions

service is (please circle one number)

 

LOW ‘3. HIGH
/
Not Ac— Barely Ac- Accept— Desir- Essen- Very Es-
ceptable ceptable able able tial sential
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Suggestions: Please indicate below or on the above copy any

 

changes or suggestions you would make to strengthen the

standard just presented.

171
AREA II

ADMISSIONS POLICY and REQUIREMENTS

Standard

One of the most important criterion for evaluating the quality
of an institution’s educational program is to understand its
admissions policy and entrance requirements. No single

index of an institution’s caliber is more significant than
the appropriateness of its admission policy as evidenced

in requirements, functions, and procedures. Institutions

of higher education vary greatly and therefore, it is
essential that the admissions policy and entrance require-
ments be designed to suit the particular institution to which
they are to be applied. The policy and these requirements
should be dependent upon such factors as the philosophy and
objectives of the institution, its program of instruction,
the nature of its student body, the emerging characteristics
of secondary schools, and the legal regulations or the
restrictions placed on the institution by the board of con¢
trol. For their full potential to be realized, the existing
admissions policy and requirements need to be known, under—
stood and accepted by the board of control, the president,
faculty and administrative staff of the institution, high

school personnel, alumni and others affected by them.

The admissions policy outlines the principles to be followed

172
in admitting students, serves as a guide for making consistent
decisions in recurring admissions situations, and aims directly
at the fulfillment of desired institutional objectives. It
is based on adequate facts regarding the type of student
best served by the institution; special consideration is
given to such matters as the selective retention policy,
drop-out rate, and requirements for graduation. Facts
obtained through research and evaluation contributes
significantly to the admissions service and to the establish-
ment of the admissions policy and requirements. As a guide
to action, the admissions policy complements other institu-
tional policies, aids in establishing adequate admissions
requirements and sets boundaries within which admissions
functions may operate. Admissions policy leads to admissions
requirements and functions, and the admissions functions

and requirements interpret the admissions policy.

An orderly sequence of admissions requirements should be
utilized by the admissions staff when admitting students.
These entrance requirements based on current research,
provide a sound basis for making an admissions decision.

The decision to admit or direct the applicants admission to

a specified curriculum is based on known criteria that have
been systematically verified and validated. Admissions
requirements provide the admissions service with a plan
which offers admission to those students whose qualifications

permit them to pursue an academic program consistent with

 

173

the stated objectives of the institution. This plan is
flexible, personalized and reasonable enough to cope with
special demands and to provide individual consideration.

The institution should faithfully adhere to its announced
admissions requirements and should be able to justify any
deviation from them. Requirements should be both stable and
flexible and should remain in effect without change, unless
fundamental conditions change or institutional objectives

change.

An institution of higher education is expected to assume

full responsibility for the quantity and the competence of
students admitted and the standards of academic work accepted
as satisfactory. The evaluation of the admissions service
should determine whether the institution has a clearly defined
admissions policy which offers reasonable assurance that only
students of academic and personal promise are admitted to

the institution. The selective retention standards for the
completion of each curricula should be defined with equal
clarity and should be administered in such a way that only
students of academic and personal competence are permitted

to complete them. Certainly the standards for admission

to and completion of the curricula will be guided by the

philosophy and objectives of the institution.

174
Evaluation: My opinion of the contribution made by this
standard to an instrument designed to evaluate an admissions

service is (please circle one number)

 

LOW HIGH
Not Ac- Barely.Ac- Accept- Desir- Essen- Very Es-
ceptable ceptable able able tial sential
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Suggestions: Please indicate below or on the above copy
any changes or suggestions you would make to strengthen the

standard just presented.

175

AREA III

ADMINISTRATIVE BASIS for the ADMISSIONS SERVICE

Standard

The over-all control and authority for developing basic
policies and plans of the institution, for advancing its
program and attaining its objectives, is the responsibility
of the institution's board of control. The board of control
is not only responsible for the approval and publication of
the philosophy and objectives of the institution, but also
for the institution’s general administrative plan and
structure and the provision of the support necessary for

its facilities and personnel. The extent to which the board
of control is aware of and accepts its responsibilities, and
its effectiveness in performing its mission, are of funda-
mental importance to the institution and the admissions
service. .A sound admissions service can operate effectively
only if supported by the chief administrative officer —- the

president and an interested and effective board of control.

The board of control delegates to the president of the institu-
tion the responsibility for the implementation, coordination,
staffing and direction of its programs and services. The
president in turn delegates the primary responsibility for

the admissions service to a faculty admissions committee and

a director of admissions. The effectiveness of the faculty

admissions committee and the director of admissions depends

 

176
to some extent on a carefully developed organizational plan,
defining clearly the responsibilities of the board of
control, the president as the chief administrative officer,
the director of admissions and other officers, the faculty
and the standing committees of the faculty. The various
institutional services, including the admissions service,
should be so defined and staffed in the administrative
organizational plan that they make their individual contrie
bution smoothly and efficiently. The delegation of adminis-
trative functions and responsibilities can be established
best by reducing them to define statements and distributing
these statements to all concerned persons. By requiring
that the organizational plan be written, it forces clear
and concise thought on the delegation of responsibilities

and leads to more definite decisions.

Because institutions of higher education differ in over-all
organizational structures, no pattern of organization for
admissions applicable to all types of institutions is
prescribed. Each institution should have a plan of organiza-
tion and administration which is effective to its own situa-
tion. However, the position of admissions in the organizae
tional structure should be such as to (1) assure consistent
admissions decisions and practices; (2) facilitate the con~
tinuous development and improvement of the admissions
service; (3) clearly fix responsibility for the administra-

tion of the adopted admissions policy and requirements; and

177
(4) allow for coordination with other closely related
administrative services and departments. The place of
tn: admissions service in the organizational structure
will determine to some extent its coordination and integra-
tion with other institutional functions and its growth
and development. Its position in the organization structure
cannot be completely dissociated from its status and

importance in the institution.

The administrative control vested in the director of admis-
Sions, whether by the president or the faculty admissions
committee, should allow freedom for the accomplishment of

the purposes of the admissions service. This means organiza-
tion of admissions resources -— both material and personnel,
delegation of duties and authority, supervision of delegated
tasks and of all individuals to whom responsibility for
admissions has been assigned. The director of admissions

has the authority and responsibility for executing the policy
underlying the admissions service, for setting the atmosphere
in which admissions staff members work and for the vision,
leadership and effectiveness of the admissions process. The
administrative responsibility for the admissions policy is

so allocated that there is no confusion among the different
units and offices of the institution as to where the respon-

sibility lies.

Ability to meet recognized standards of a good admissions

178
service is dependent upon sound financing. Resources should
be adequate to accomplish the announced policy of the service.
Financial support and stability are essential to the continuae
tion and development of the admissions service. In reviewing
the financial provision for the admissions service, considera-
tion should be given to the funds appropriated and relative
amounts and types of expenditures. A budget should be pre~
pared in accordance with sound educational and financial
practices and the financial budget should give a clear
picture of the status of the admissions office. The budget
is in effect an implementation of the type and quality of
the admissions service and reflects the philosophy of the

institution responsible for the service.

In evaluating the administrative basis for the admissions
service the following factors will be considered: the
responsibility of the faculty in determining the admissions
policy and requirements; the place of the admissions service
in the organizational structure; the delegation of authority
and responsibilities to the director of admissions; and the
financial support allocated to accomplish these responsibili-

ties.

ZBvaluation: My opinion of the contribution made by this

 

standard to an instrument designed to evaluate an admissions

179

service is (please circle one number)

 

LOW \ HIGH
/ ,
Not Ac- Barely Ac- Accept— Desir- Essen— Very Es—
ceptable ceptable able able tial sential
O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Suggestions: Please indicate below or on the above copy any

 

changes or suggestions you would make to strengthen the

standard just presented.

180

AREA IV

ADMI SSION S PERSONNEL

Standard

A competent, professional admissions staff is one of the
indispensable elements of a sound admissions service. The
admissions staff is the executive agency for fulfilling the
admissions policy and requirements of the institution. To
be successful it must be well organized; the individuals
composing it must be competent in their particular phase of
administration; it must be adequate in number to carry out
its responsibility; it must, under the leadership of the
director of admissions, be so coordinated as to work
effectively as a unit. The admissions staff is a cooperating
group of individuals motivated by a desire to develop and
carry out the formulated philosophy and objectives of the

institution.

Responsibility for the satisfactory functioning of the
admissions office rests with the director of admissions.

‘he competence of the director of admissions is measured

)7 his ability to organize, direct and accomplish the duties
F'ficially assigned to him. This will entail not only an
titude for and an interest in admissions but also related

aiming and experience. It will involve, further, a

 

e Standard and the Criteria for this section applies only
selected conditions that relate to admissions personnel.
era]. conditions such as sabbatical leave, salary, retire-
t, personnel benefits will not be considered.

181
personality capable of working smoothly with colleagues

and of dealing harmoniously with persons outside the

institution.

In evaluating the staff of an admissions office in an institu-
tion of higher education, factors to be considered include

the adequacy of the size of the staff in relation to the
program; the competence of individual staff members to do

the work assigned to them; the competence and qualifications
of the staff as a group, and the number of clerical staff

members available to handle effectively the work load of the

professional staff. In evaluating the admissions service

it should be especially noted whether or not the basic
responsibilities in admissions are delegated primarily to
full time staff personnel who have the specific preparation

and experience background for the responsibilities they are
asked to assume. As admissions functions are widened in

scope or special advising and counseling responsibilities

are introduced, the depth and preparation of the admissions

staff members will become more specialized. In all cases,

the admissions staff shall meet the minimum standards sug—

gested by the American Personnel and Guidance Association

for secondary school guidance personnel.

Evaluation: My opinion of the contribution made by this

standard to an instrument designed to evaluate an admissions

182

service is (please circle one number).

 

LOW _ \ HIGH
/
Not Ac- Barely Ac- Accept- Desir- Essen- Very Es-
ceptable cept able able able tial sential
O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Suggestions: Please indicate below or on the above copy any

 

changes or suggestions you would make to strengthen the

standard just presented.

183
AREA V

PHYSICAL RESOURCES

Standard

The physical resources, consisting of office space, equip-
ment, supplies and professional library, provided the

admissions office have a direct relationship to the attain-

malt of the admissions policy and functions. They provide

the environment and the tools which assist or limit the
admissions staff in achieving the responsibilities delegated

to them. The nature and extent of the space, furnishings,

equipment and supplies provided the admissions office

should be related to the scope of the admissions service

and the number of students to be served. Over a period of

years the physical resources are indicative of the strength

and status of the admissions service without the institution.

Evaluation in this area should be based on what the admissions

office should have by way of physical resources to support

a strong admissions program. The evaluation should try to

determine the adequacy of the resources in relation to the
needs of the clerical and professional admissions staff in

completing effectively the necessary admissions functions.

Evaluation: My opinion of the contribution made by this

standard to an instrument designed to evaluate an admissions

service is (please circle one number)

184

 

LOW \ HIGH
/
Not Accept- Barely Ac- Accept- Desir- Essen- Very Es-
able ceptable able able tial sential
O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Suggestions: Please indicate below or on the above copy any

 

changes or suggestions you would make to strengthen the

standard just presented.

185
AREA VI
BASIC ADMISSIONS FUNCTIONS

Standard

Admissions includes a variety of functions designed to assist

in adapting the admissions service to the institutional

philosophy and objectives. The number of type of admissions

functions will depend upon the scope of the admissions

service offered. These functions, which require the coor-

dinated efforts of clerical and professional admissions

staff personnel and others, are evaluated in terms of:

(l) the manner in which they fulfill the stated objectives

of the institution; (2) the manner in which they are organized
and administered to facilitate an economical and effective
admissions service; and (3) the provisions made for adequate

personnel and other resources required to implement the

functions. It is generally recognized that admissions

functions are evolving and therefore no attempt is made to
indicate how and when the various functions should be incor-

.porated. Rather, it is intended to promote individuality of
programs by permitting each admissions office to use functions
which will help the applicant become admitted in the way

and at the time deemed most appropriate and consistent with

the philosophy and objectives of the institution.

It is suggested that attempts be made to describe the admis-
sions functions needed, the functions most pertinent, and

functions to be used since these must be realistic in terms

186

of the sources available. They will depend on the type of

student admitted, the academic preparation and experience

of umzadmissions staff, the physical resources and

facilities, and other characteristics of the institution.

The:finm¢ions identified are the main entifies around which

the director of admissions builds an effective admissions

service. Common admissions functions include:

Secondary school, college and institutional cooperation--
providing channels of information, understanding and
participation between secondary schools and institutions
of higher education served by the individual institution.

Counseling college bound youth-noonducting a well-balanced
professional program of pre-admissions counseling.

Providing general information-aformulating and sending com-
munications in the form of catalogs, bulletins, and
letters that contain authoritative, accurate, up-to~
date information.

Providing specific information-~keeping well-informed con-
cerning specific details regarding admissions such as
foreign student admissions, armed service experience
evaluation, early admission, advanced placement, etc.

Gathering information on applicants-«obtaining comprehensive
information about applicants and systematically organiz-
ing it for effective use.

Admitting students and theadmissions decisions-«establishing
requirements, determining procedures and delegating

responsibility for making final admissions decisions

187
on each applicant.

Inaintaining records--systematically recording comprehensive
information; preparing and organizing records for use.

Issuing reports-upreparing and issuing periodic reports
giving information and facts regarding the activities
of the admissions office.

Coordination—~cooperative participation in admissions by
faculty, alumni, high school personnel and others;
coordinating the admissions service so as to make it
an integral part of the institutional program.

Research and evaluation functions-~systematic, valid and
scientific investigation of many aspects of the

admissions service motivated by a desire for facts

and improvement.

Evaluation of the basic admissions functions will be made in
terms of how they are carried out so as to increase the under-
standing of the admissions process, develop more favorable
attitudes toward admissions, and to produce a more desirable
admissions service. The program of admissions functions

have great potential value for education and should filerefore
be conducted so that this potential is realized. Since the
admission of an applicant is a result of thought and con-
sideration of individuals within the home, within the secondary
school, and within other institutional offices, the planning
of certain admission functions should involve parents,

secondary school guidance and administrative personnel, and

188
representatives of other administrative officers serving

the applicant .

Evaluation: My opinion of the contribution made by this

 

standard to an instrument designed to evaluate an admissions

service is (please circle one number)

 

LOW HIGH
Not Ac- Barely Ac- Accepto- Desir- Essen- Very Es-
ceptable ceptable able able tial sential
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Suggestions: Please indicate below or on the above copy any

 

changes or suggestions you would make to strengthen the

standard just presented.

189

AREA VII

FUNCTIONS COMPLEMENTARY to the ADMISSIONS SERVICE

Standard

In some institutions, certain policies, programs, and services

related to the admissions service are delegated to offices

and personnel created for the purpose of providing technical

and professional leadership.

These may include orientation,
testing,

academic advising and counseling, selective retention

and student financial aids. These functions may be said to

complement the admissions service and its basic functions.

The nature of the admissions service is such that certain

aspects of its activities may involve the interrelationship
of a number of individuals and offices in varying ways.
Interrelation of functions, resources and effort makes

coordination and integration necessary.

Since the admissions service must operate within the frame-
work of an organizational structure, it is impossible to

separate the admissions service from the procedural structure

and interrelationships of the institution. The interrelation-

ship, coordination, and integration of institutional policies,
programs, and services, applies directly to the growth,

development, and success of the admissions service. The

integration and coordination of related functions should be
carefully planned and provide for unity, balance, logical

and psychological progression and should be influenced by

190
institutional philosophy and objectives. The basic prin-
ciple involved in coordinating and integrating institutional
policies, programs, and services is embodied in the descrip-
tion of the admissions process as a "series of selected

student experiences ."

Functions complementary to the admissions service usually
include:

Program orientation-"the first function following
admissions, designed as part of the total
educational program, so as to aid the student
in making a harmonious adjustment to academic
life in higher education

Institutional testing-~integrated with the admissions
service since properly selected tests can provide
helpful information and research regarding
applicants.

Academic advising and counseling service—passists the
student to clarify his educational objectives
and to plan his program wisely; identified
those needing remedial services.

Sflective retention—~refers to the practice of retain-
ing students who are able to meet minimum academic
and personal standards set by the institution;

a desirable balance must be maintained between
the selective retention policy and the admissions

policy.

 

191

Student financial aids-«the function designed to help

needy, worthy students continue their education;

usually based on information obtained during the

process of admissions.

Evaluation of the functions complementary to the admissions
service should determine if these functions are delegated

to the correct institutional unit and office. Especially
in admissions, where the element of time is important,

functions which must be performed in sequence shall be

located as closely together as possible, both organizationally
and physically.

The greater the amount of required coordina-
tion, communication and paper work, the slower the service,

the greater the possibilities for mistakes and the more
expensive the operation.

Complementary functions organiza-
tionally close together enables better performance.

Evaluation: My opinion of the contribution made by this

standard to an instrument designed to evaluate an admissions

service is (please circle one number)

 

LOW HIGH
Not Ac- Barely Ac- Accept-g Desir— Essen- Very Es-
ceptable ceptable able able tial sential
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Suggestions:

 

Please indicate below or on the above copy any

changes or suggestions you would make to strengthen the
standard just presented.

192
GLOSSARY OF MAJOR TERMS AS USED IN THIS INSTRUMENT
For the purpose of this preliminary instrument, the follow-
ing abbreviated definitions will be used.

Admissions - the counseling, evaluation and acceptance of

 

an applicant for enrollment. The primary respon-
sibility of the director of admissions.

Admissions committee - a faculty committee whose primary

 

responsibility is formulating admissions policy.

Admissions policy - the basic guide within whose boundaries

 

admissions functions must be performed in orderly
sequences.

Admissions requirements - specifications established as
requisites for admission. Requirements reflect
the admissions policy and implement it.

.Admissions service - properly constituted, staffed, organized

 

and administered, the admissions service is the
established means through which the admissions
policy is carried out. Also referred to as the

admissions program.

.Admissions staff - all professional staff members, including

 

the director of admissions, whose primary respon-
sibility is admissions. Does not include clerical
personnel assigned to the admissions office.
lBoardlot control - an officially constituted group of per-
sons charged with the overaall responsibility

for the direction of the educational affairs of

193
the institution; usually delegates executive
functions to the president and deals primarily

with matters of policy.

Director otAdmissions - the college official charged with

 

the primary responsibilities of carrying out
the admissions policy of the institution.

Instihflfion'ot higher education - any institution above

 

the level of secondary school, empowered to

confer degrees, and whose program is given

appropriate recognition by a state or regional

accrediting agency. Referred to as institution.
Institutional philosophy - the term expresses in general

terms the ideals the institution attempts to

realize ~~ the particular task to which it commits

its resources, the frame of reference for guidance

in all decisions.
Institutional objectives - the aims, the goals, the purposes

of the institution and the manner in which the

institution is attempting to achieve its stated

philosophy.

President - the chief administrative official charged with

the direction of the institution and directly

:responsible to the board of control.

Standards - the standards are stated in terms of principles
'that should govern the evaluation of an area.
iflhe standards serve as a basis against which an

cflojective, service, policy or function may be

194
checked. Specific, quantitative standards
are kept to an absolute minimum in order to

allow for reasonable flexibility.

 

195
PERSONNEL and INSTITUTIONAL DATA

Personnel

1. Mmtis your full name?

2. Mmtis your organizational title?

 

Nmmzand title of individual to whom you are

responsible?

 

4. Whmldid you take your present position?

 

5. H6wnmny years of experience have you had in

 

secondary education?

in higher education?

 

at this institution?

 

 

6. What is your highest degree?

Does the Director of Admissions, Registrar or the
institution hold membership in the American

Association of Colhge Admissions Counselors?

 

American Association of Collegiate Registrars

and Admission 5 Office rs?

 

Institutional

8. What was the on—campus enrollment for the fall

(Juarter or semester of the academic year 1960—61?

IJndergraduate

 

Graduate

 

Total

 

196

9. How many degrees were conferred by the institution
in June, 1960?

Baccalaureate

 

Masters

_ ‘*

 

Doctors

 

APPENDIX B

SOURCES OF EVALUATION IN AREAS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
AND PROFESSIONAL FIELDS OF STUDY

197

198

American Home Economics Association, Home Economics in
Higher Education, Criteria for Evaluating Under-

raduate Pro rams by Committee on Criteria for
Evaluating CoIIege Programs in Higher Education,
Washington, D. C., 1949, 181 pp.

 

 

Fryklund, Verne C., Helton, H. L., American Council on
Industrial Arts Teacher Education, The Accreditation
of Industrial Arts Teacher Education, Seventh Year-
book 1958, McKnight and McKnight, Bloomington,
Illinois, pp. 111.

 

Joint Committee on Accreditation, Manual of Accrediting
Procedures, Prepared by the J01nt Committee on
Accreditation of the Western College Association
and the California Council on Teacher Education,

1953, California Teachers Association, San Francisco,
California, 4 pp.

 

 

Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools, 15 Park Row, New York 38, N. Y.

National League for Nursing, Criteria for the Evaluation

pt Education Programs in Nursin Leading t2 3 Diploma
New York, I958 (mimeo.)? T—Ez pp. ’

 

 

National League of Nursing Education, Manual of Accrediting

 

Educational Programs in Nursin , 5y Committee of the
Six National Nursing Organ1za 1ons on Unification of
Accrediting Activities, New York, 1949, 114 pp.

 

New England Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools,
Lawrence Hall, Harvard University, Cambridge 38,
Massachusetts.

North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools,
5835 Kimbark Avenue, Chicago 37, Illinois.

Northwest Association of Secondary and Higher Schools,
.122 School of Education, University of Oregon,
Eugene, Oregon.

Schwartz, John Charles, Evaluative Criteria for 32. Audio-
Visual Instrument Program, Wm. C. Brown Co.,
Dubuque, Iowa, l950, 39 pp.

Southwestern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools,
795 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta 8, Georgia.

APPENDIX C

LIST OF COLLEGES VISITED

199

200

Data on Institution

 

Institution Number of Students Number of
(Fall 1958) Faculty
Ball State Teachers College 5,708 282
Bowling Green State University 5,675 231
Central Michigan University 4,454 220
Eastern Michigan University 4,882 255
Kent State University 7,778 338
Miami University 6,078 402
Northern Illinois University 5,657 300

Ohio University 10,004 405

 

APPENDIX D

THE NAME, TITLE, DEGREE, AND THE TITLE OF THE
SUPERVISING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 24 RESPONDENTS
PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY

201

 

ucoofimoum on“ o» .pmw< m< nonfimem Sufimuo>fica
one maofimmaeo< mo HoaoouMQ meadaafiz .m xumao
pcoowmoum Q om mufimmm< ofiSmomo< . .
Hoe peoenmoum 66n> .uw .mpfiez .H pumpom
.mo>m.wuom.ospm mo .mmum oofi> E< m:oammweo< mo novooHMQ Horas: .Q odomsm
mufiemm<_ucoonpm mo :moQ om 2 mooammfieo< -
mo HonooHaQ .umupmfimom HoEHOZ cm> .H cacao
pnooamoum Q om mucoozpm mo :moQ spasm .H cooam
pcoofimoum Q om moofi>uom .wuom unoospm .cmoQ mHHoHuom .h Hofich
«nonhuman Q cm mumemm< uooonpm mo cmoQ mmom puooom .w
pooowmoum Q 2Q omoaaoo >pdmuo>fiub .cmoQ oomasem .Q ommmo
«cooamoum Q on cowuozupmaH How ucoowmoum ooa> :owHoz .M oosum
pooofimonm Q on wvooospm mo caoQ couwwz .H coaw
pcoowmoum Q am muwmmm<
ofiEoomo< mom paoofimoum oow> ouooz .m Honda:
pcoowmoum Q am mufiemm<
m ofieooeo<.uom poooamoum oofi> Haemoz..m apoccou
2 pmo>oum Q am moouomom
one muu< mo omoHHoo I :moQ quEoQ .m Humm
ucooawoum Q on mufimmm< pcoospm
mom uncommonm oow> monouzwq .0 sewaflwz
mufimmm< .onvm moamoQ Q om umupmfiwom cmeposmm .2 noQ
pampdmoum a 6m .mo>m .muom .oapm
Mom pnoofimoum oofi> comomm .m pmooum
pcoofimoum Q Em pcoofimoum oofi> oesooeo< wocmem .m .h
mufimmm< .osum mom .moum ooM> z< mofipfi>wvo< uncoopm
one woOHmmfiEo< mo nemQ condom .m nmamm
aooofimoum 2< m:o«mmweo< mo H0pooufiQ nomauow .2 Shawn
pcooamonm Q om manoonpm mo :moQ omofiuoapm .m puooom
pcoofimoum Q Um no: mo aeoQ uoflpsm Snead“:
pampamonm a 6m ompaaoo may we sang penanxusm .3.6H8noam
.mo>m .muom .ospm .ceoQ cm 2 mcofiwmfi8o< mo HOHooudQ cecenosm .h dflpms<
pcoofimoum Q rm umnumwmom cowawxp<..m moauwno
HOpmemfiafiao< .
MGflWfl>HMQ3W m0 MHPHH mmHmwQ 0H9MH 0362

mwcoooommom no mweQ

 

APPENDIX E

APPOINTMENT LETTER AND STATED PURPOSE
OF INSTITUTIONAL VISITS

203

204

May 8, 1961

Mrs. Eugiene Walker

Director of Admissions
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, Illinois

Dear Mrs. Walker:

Thank you for making the arrangements for my visit to your
campus on May 16. You may expect me to arrive at your
office before 9:00 A.M. As I explained to you during our
telephone conversation, my visit is multi-purpose with
emphasis on admissions. Specifically, I would like an
appointment with you, Dr. Hainds and Dr. Hanson in order
to obtain information regarding

your reaction to seven standards that have been
established for evaluating an admissions service.

your views on such matters as selective retention
standards, academic advising, deferred admissions

to a designated period of study, directed admissions
to a particular curriculum.

the integration of the admissions service with other
services and functions on your campus.

trends in higher education in your state and locale
and their implications for admissions.

In addition to visiting your University, arrangements have
been made for me to visit Eastern Michigan University,
Western Michigan University, Central Michigan University,
Bowling Green State University, Kent State University, Ohio
University, and Miami (Ohio) University. I have previously
found that institutional visits are very pleasant and
informative and certainly look forward to spending Tuesday,
May 16, on your campus.

Sincerely yours,

BALL STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE

Richard D. Rowray
Director of Admissions

. RDR/ec
CC: Dr. J. Robert Hainds
Academic Vice President
Dr. Ernest Hanson
Vice President for Student Personnel Services

APPENDIX F
Guides and Criteria for Evaluating the Admissions

Program at Ball State Teachers College

A COMPREHENSIVE INSTRUMENT DESIGNED TO.AID IN THE

EVALUATION OF THE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM
AT BALL STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE

205

 

 

206
INTRODUCTION

The Instrument 2 Guides and Criteria for Evaluating
the AdmisSiOns Program i2 an Institution otTHigher Education,
designed to aid in the evalfiation of an adfiissiOns program
includes seven areas relating to: Institutional Philosophy
and Objectives; Admissions Policy and Requirements; Adminis-
trative Basis for the Admissions Program; Admissions Per-
sonnel; Physical Resources; Basic Admissions Functions;
and Functions Complementary to the Admissions Program.
For the purpose of securing a sound appraisal each area
includes five sections:

 

 

 

Standard: The standard is stated in terms of
princ1pIes that should govern and guide the evaluae
tion of the area. They are expressed philosophically
as an ideal of excellence and serve as the basis for
the development of evaluative criteria.

Evaluative Guides: The questions and searching
statements in this section are intended to suggest
special characteristics of the admissions area
being evaluated. Comprehensive answers to the
questions will help supply the details and resource
data for marking the evaluative criteria.

Evaluative Criteria: The evaluative criteria consist
of proviSions, conditions or characteristics suggested
by the STANDARDS that are found in an ideal admissions
program. They are intended to provide a factual basis
for the qualitative evaluation of observable practices.
The more carefully and in detail this section can be
completed, the more accurate will be the evaluation.
Evaluative criteria must be developed that permit an
accurate and comprehensive description of the admis-
sions program being studied. They are to be marked
by means of the four symbols defined below:
E -- EXTENSIVELY
' If extensive provision is made for a given
characteristic, condition, or provision,
mark the guide in the parentheses preceding
it with an "E".
S --'SOME EXTENT
‘ If the characteristic, condition, or provision
is made to some extent, mark the guide with
an n S" .
0 ~- NOT PRESENT OR SATISFACTORY
If the characteristic, condition, or provision
is not present or is not satisfactoty, mark
'the guide with'tfie_§ym531_“O"}

 

 

 

207

N -- NOT APPLICABLE OR DESIRABLE
If any characteristic, condition, or provision
is not applicable or is not desirable, mark
such guide with the symb5I_"N‘. Th1s mark
should be justified.

Evaluations: When evaluations are made, they should
represent‘the best judgment of those making the evalua-
tions, these evaluations being based on the thinking
that results from obtaining information from the
evaluative guides and rating the evaluative criteria.
They are designed to indicate the quality of the area
being evaluated and may be considered as degrees of
accomplishment and a summary of the quality of work
being done. Evaluations should be made by means of

the symbols as defined below:

5 -- VERY SUPERIOR
The provisions, conditions, or characteristics
are very extensive and are functioning excellently.
4 -- SUPERIOR*
The provisions, conditions, or characteristics
are moderately extensive (a) and are function-
ing excellently (b) but are functioning poorly.
3 -.AVERAGE
The provisions, conditions, or characteristics
are present to the extent expected in an average
admissions service and are functioning well.
2 -~ INFERIOR*
The provisions, conditions, or characteristics
are limited in extent (a) but are functioning
excellently (b) and are functioning poorly.
1 -- VERY INFERIOR
The providons, conditions, or characteristics
are very limited in extent and are functioning
poorly.

Comments: Notations of compensating features, explana-

t1ons of responses, descriptions of important elements
or other pertinent matters may be recorded in this
section. Information needed to give a complete report
of the admissions program are noted here.

The statements which appear in the various sections of
the Instrument should be rewritten or modified if they are

*If, in making the self-evaluation, members of the admissions
staff wish to indicate which of the alternatives they prefer
for evaluations "4" or "2" they may indicate their choice by
using "43." or "4b" and "2a" or "2b".

208

not consistent with the stated philosophy and objectives

0 the institution. The contents of the Instrument should
represent the institution accurately and it should not be
thought of in relation to a fixed scale or pattern. Care-
ful, discriminating judgment is essential in modifying

the Instrument and it is necessary to mark the criteria
and evaluations objectively and accurately.

209

AREA I
INSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY and OBJECTIVES

STANDARD

It is essential that each institution of higher education
have a carefully formulated, comprehensive statement of
philosophy and objectives. The philosophy of any educa-
tional unit is a framework of basic principles which takes
into account such essential points as the geographical
community which the institution serves, the characteristics
and needs of the students who are enrolled or for whom the
institution is responsible, the aims and nature of the
educative process, and the purposes and outcomes of higher
education. The tasks of the institution as set forth in

the philosophy is a part of a conprehensive plan for public
education beyond the secondary school and allows the institu-
tion to serve in a coordinated educational program for the '
State as a whole. The philosophy becomes a body of knowledge
and beliefs that supplies a broad basis for guiding every
institutional policy and function, influences the standards
of selection and retention, controls the way in which the
admissions program and other institutional services are
developed, and gives direction to the objectives of the
institution.

The objectives of the institution are the philosophical
principles reduced to specific aims that describe how the
institution is trying to achieve its stated philosophy.
Objectives refer to the goals and purposes of the institu-
tion that are realistic in terms of the possibility of
achievement; they are being attained or are attainable.
Institutional objectives prescribe a definite scope and
boundary for all phases of the admissions program; they
suggest definite directions and efforts of the admissions
staff, and indicate a course of action so that the ad-
missions service is designed and integrated with the total
institutional philosophy. A sound statement of institutional
objectives contributes measureably to a sound admissions
program. It is essential that the objectives are under-
stood by all instructional faculty, administrative officers,
admissions staff personnel, and all other affected personnel.

The cardinal rule for evaluating an admissions program is

to fully understand the stated philosophy and objectives

of the institution. The policy governing the requirements
for admission and the functions of the admissions office
must be clearly related to the philosophy and the objectives

210

of the institution it seeks to serve. Each admissions
program must be evaluated in its own setting and in terms
of what the institution is striving to accomplish (its
philosophy and objectives) rather than by comparison

with general patterns or norms. The admissions program
and its functions are developed from a particular philosophy
and objectives and they should therefore be constantly
evaluated in light of the announced philosophy and
objectives. During the evaluation of the admissions
program, the admissions policy, every requirement, every
function, procedure and attitude is measured against the
formal philosophy and objectives of the institution.

Evaluative Guides:

 

1. Submit the institutional statement of philosophy and
objectives.

2. Explain who participated in the formulation of the
present statement of philosophy and objectives and
the process used. Also give the date they were last
reviewed.

3. If the objectives, beliefs and assumptions for any
specialized curriculum differ markedly from those
which underlie the rest of the program, explain the
differences.

4 Explain any unusual aspect of the program which the
faculty believes is making a special contribution
to the state or to the nation.

5. Are the offerings and facilities appropriate for the
type of ability, interest, and background which
characterize the students?

6. What is the relationship of the institution to other
institutions of higher education in providing educa-
tional opportunities? Does the institution have both
primary and shared responsibilities?

7. What evidence of meeting institutional objectives has
been obtained from follow-up studies of graduates and
former students?

. What is the type or types of students attending the
institution?

9. What level of achievement has been attained by students
who have graduated from the institution? Do these
former students measure up to the philosophy and
objectives which directs the institution?

10.

11.

211

Explain what the institution is doing by way of
research and experimentation to improve education and
to understand its philosophy and objectives.

How is the institution regarded by other groups of
people -- by other educators, by the parents of
students, by citizens in the local community, by
former students?

Subarea A

Institutional Philosophy

The philosophy of thezhstitution should be carefully formu-
lated and accepted by the faculty and administration. It
expresses in general terms the ideals the institution attemps
to realize, something to reach for, something to strive for.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

 

( ) a. The institution has a written statement of philosophy.

( ) b. The statement of philosophy is found in the official
catalog and other publications available for distribue
tion.

( ) c. The institution has considered and formulated its
statement of philosophy in harmony with the aims
of higher education in the state and in the nation.

( ) d. The institution’s statement of philosophy takes
into account the needs of society.

( ) e. The statement of philosophy takes into account
data regarding the needs and interests of the
students served by the institution.

( ) f. Plans for the institution's future development
are in accord with its philosophy.

( ) g. The philosophy of the institution is understood and
accepted by the faculty and the chief administrative
officers.

( ) h. The director of admissions understands and accepts
the philosophy of the institution.

()1,

()3.

.Evaluations:

( ) 1. How well is the philosophy of the institution clearly
formulated and stated?

( ) 2. To what degree is the stated philosophy understood
and accepted by the faculty and the administration?

( ) 3. To what extent does the stated philosophy serve as

a guide in the development of institutional services?

212

Comments:

 

Subarea B
The Objectives of the Institution

The institution has formulated an adequate statement of
its objectives which are consistent with and related to
its philosophy. The objectives describe how the institu-
tion is trying to achieve its stated philosophy. They
provide clear direction for the development and improve-
ment of institutional services and programs.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

( ) a. The institution has a written statement of the
objectives.

( ) b. The statement of the objectives is found in
sources such as catalogs, bulletins and announce-
ments designed for distribution.

( ) c. The relation of the objectives of the institution
to the philosophy of the institution has been
carefully thought through.

( ) d. The objectives of the institution are consistent
among themselves.

The statement of the objectives is realistic in terms of
the resources available, such as

potential students
prepared instructional personnel
physical facilities
economic resources
legal restrictions
The institution recognizes that, since the needs
of students and society may change, it accepts the
systematic review of the statements of the objectives.
( ) k. The statement of the objectives specifically
identifies the competencies of the graduate of
the institution.
( ) l. The statement of the objectives receive the formal
approval of the faculty and the major administrative
officers.

VVVVVV
L.» H' {3‘00 F15 (D
I

AAA/\AA

213

 

( ) m. The statement of the objectives is clearly
formulated and generally understood and accepted
by the faculty and the major administrative officers
including the director of admissions.

()n.

()0.

Evaluation:

( ) 1. How well has the statement of the objectives been
formulated in harmony with the philosophy of the
institution?

( ) 2. To what degree have the objectives of the institu-
tion been defined, agreed upon, and accepted by
the faculty and the administration?

( ) 3. To what extent does the statement of the objectives
serve as a basis for developing and directing specific
institutional services; i.e., the admissions program?

Comments:

 

General Evaluation of the Institutional
Philosophy and Objectives

Special Characteristics:

1.

In what respects is the institutional statement of
philosophy and objectives most satisfactory and
commendable?

a.

C.

Discuss any plans for improving on the adequacy of the
institutional statement of philosophy and objectives.
Attention should be called to any aspect in which the
institution's philosophy and objectives do not seem
appropriate in relation to the needs and interests of
the students and the geographical area served by the
institution.

a.

214

 

To what extent has the institution formulated
an adequate statement of its philosophy and
objectives as they relate to higher education in

How adequate are the philosophy and objectives

of the institution when objectives of the institu-
tion when judged in terms of meeting the needs of
the students who are enrolled or for whom the
institution is responsible?

To What extent does the faculty and the adminis—
tration recognize that provision must be made

for a systematic review of the statements of
philosophy and objectives and accept this review
as an outgoing responsibility?

How well are the philosophy and objectives stated
so that they can be used by the faculty and adminis-
tration in planning the total educational program
of the institution?

b.

c.
General Evaluation:
()1.

general?

()2.
()3.
()4.
(

) 5. To what extent can specific programs and services

be evaluated in terms of the stated philosophy
and objectives?

215
AREA II
ADMISSIONS POLICY and REQUIREMENTS

STANDARD

One of the most important criterion for evaluating the
quality of an institution's educational program is to
understand its admissions policy and entrance require—
ments. One of the most significant indexes of an
institution’s caliber is that of the appropriateness of
its admission policy as evidenced in requirements, functions
and procedures. Institutions of higher education vary
greatly and therefore, it is essential that the admissions
policy and entrance requirements be designed to suit the
institution, its program of instruction, the nature of its
student body, the emerging characteristics of secondary
schools, and the lebal regulations or the restrictions
placed on the institution by the board of control. For
their full potential to be realized, the existing admis-
sions policy and requirements need to be known, under-
stood and accepted by the board of control, the president,
faculty and administrative staff of the institution, high
school personnel, alumni and others affected by them.

The admissions policy outlines the principles to be followed
in admitting students, serves as a guide for making con—
sistent decisions in recurring admissions situations, and
aims directly at the fulfillment of desired institutional
objectives. It is based on adequate facts regarding the
type of student best served by the institution; special
consideration is given to such matters as the selective
retention policy, dropgout rate, and requirements for
graduation. Facts obtained through research and evalua-
tion contribute significantly to the admissions service

and to the establishment of the admiséons policy and
requirements. As a guide to action, the admissions policy
complements other institutional policies, aids in establish—
ing adequate admissions requirements and sets boundaries
within which admissions functions may operate. Admissions
policy leads to admissions requirements and functions, and
the admissions functions and requirements interpret the
admissions policy.

An orderly sequence of admissions requirements should be
utilized by the admissions staff when admitting students.
These entrance requirements, based on current research,
provide a sound basis for making an admissions decision.
The decision to admit or direct the applicant's admission
to a specified curriculum is based on known criteria that

216

have been systematically verified and valided. Admissions
requirements provide the admissions service with a plan
which offers admission to those students whose qualifica-
tions permit them to pursue an academic program consistent
with the stated objectives of the institution. This plan
is flexible, personalized and reasonable enough to cope
with special demands and to provide individual considera-
tion. The institution should faithfully adhere to its ‘
announced admissions requirements and should be able to
justify any deviation from them. Requirements should be
both stable and flexible and should remain in effect
without change, unless fundamental conditions change or
institutional objectives change. Proposals for new or
considerably expanded admissions requirements should be
submitted to critical review in advance of their inaugura-
tion by appropriate committees of the (a) college faculty
and (b) the board of control.

An institution of higher education is expected to assume
full responsibility for the quantity and the competence

of students admitted and the standards of academic work
accepted as satisfactory. The evaluation of the admissions
program should determine whether the institution has a
clearly defined admissions policy which offers reasonable
assurance that only students of academic and personal
promise are admitted to the institution. The selective
retention standards for the completion of each curricula
should be defined with equal clarity and should be adminis-
tered in such a way that only students of academic and
personal competence are permitted to complete them. Cer-
tainly the standards for admission to and completion of

the curriculum will be guided by the philosophy and
objectives of the institution.

Evaluative Guides:

The procedure followed in arriving at a formulation of
admission policy may be of as much significance as the
statement of policy which was developed. In this section

the evaluation should indicate the procedures used by the
institution in developing its admission policy. Any
significant activities in the development of the admission
poliCy not covered by the following questions should be noted.

1. Who formulated the admission policy of the institution?

2. How did the admissions staff participate in discussion
of development of the admission policy?

Over what period of time was the present policy discussed
and developed?

4

217

What sources or materials were helpful and used in
developing the admission policy?

Much of the information called for in the following questions
is not easily available in some institutions; however, there

is an important obligation for institutions to present in

the best available form (statistical or descriptive or both),
data and information equivalent to what is called for in

this section.

5

10.

11.

12.

What are the minimum requirements that each under—
graduate applicant must normally meet in order to be
admitted to the institution? If requirements are
not the same for admission to all curricula, report
the differences with explanations.

What quantitative measures, such as tests, rank in
high school class, or grade point averages are used?
Report cut-off points required. ~

‘What student characteristics and experiences are
regularly evaluated in connection with admissions
to the institution?

Describe other kinds of data that are collected on a
prospective student. Describe the system of recording
this data, noting: (a) the major items of information
included, (b) where they are kept and to whom they

are readily available?

What additional admissions requirements are used in
admitting students transferring from other institutions?
In admitting students to a non-degree (special student)
program? In admitting non-high school graduates or
graduates from a non-accredited high school?

What publicity, if any, is given to requirements govern-
ing admission to the institution?

Of the total number of students who sought admission
to the institution, what per cent, if any, were not
admitted?

What per cent of those students admitted to the
institution graduate from the institution?

218

SUBAREA C
The Admissions Policy

The admissions policy is evaluated in relation to the
philosophy and objectives of the institution as a whole.
An institution should have admission requirements based
on valid criteria which offers reasonable assurance that
only applicants of promise are recommended for admission.
The requirements may be met by initial screening and

in some situations by selective screening at various
points in the education program.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

( ) a. The statement of admissions policy is in harmony
with the philosophy and objectives of the institution.
( ) b. The statement of admissions policy is clearly
formulated, realistic and is possible of attainment.
( ) C. The admissions policy allows admission to only
those students whose educational interests,
abilities, personality characteristics, and previ-
ous preparation qualify them to pursue studies
offered by the institution.

The development of the admission policy is cooperative
effort involving

C ) d. board of control

( ) e. faculty

C ) f. the president and other Chief administrators of
the institution

( ) g. director of admissions

The admissions policy is understood by

h. prospective students

1. secondary school administrators and guidance personnel
j. alumni

k. faculty members

the president and other chief administrative officials
of the institution

m. the director of admissions and the admissions staff

n. The statement of admissions policy provides a helpful
basis for the guidance of prospective students.

0. The statement of admissions policy complements

other institutional policies.

AA A AA AAA/\A
VV V VV VVVVV
1..
O

219

Evaluations:

 

( ) 1. To what extent does the statement of admissions
policy take into account evidence regarding the
needs and interests of the population served by
the institution?

( ) 2. How adequate is the statement of admissions policy
in providing a basis for admitting students?

( ) 3. To what degree is the published statement of admis-
sions policy and requirements observed when
admitting students?

( ) 4. How satisfactory is the statement of admissions
policy understood by those advising and counseling
prospective students?

Comments:

SUBAREA D
Admission Requirements

Requirements reflect the admission policy of the institu-
tion and implement it. The formulation and control of
requirements in relation to admissions is one of the
responsibilities of the faculty with the director of
admissions administering and interpreting the require-
ments for admission.

Evaluative Criteria:

( ) a. Requirements considered in selecting students
are directly relevant to the admissions policy
of the institution.

( ) b. An adequate description of admission requirements
appear in institutional publications given general
distribution.

(a ) c. Clerical as well as professional admissions staff
have an understanding of admission requirements.

( ) d. Chief administrative officers and faculty members
generally are interested in establishing adequate
admission requirements.

( ) e. The admission requirements allows for the admission
of students that possess the qualities required to
make educational progress in the institution.

( ) f. The admission requirements are the result of
systematic research.

220

The general admissions requirements call for data on

g.
h.
i.
J.
k.
1.

AAA/\AA
vvvvvv

academic aptitude

academic achievement

personal qualities

health - physical and emotional
legal residence

past experience

The admissions office used the following sources in
acquiring data on candidates for admission

 

( ) m. previous academic records

( ) n. results of standardized tests

( ) 0. health reports

( ) p. personal interview

C ) 9. recommendations

( ) r. work record

C ) s. The requirements and data used in selecting
applicants for admission include all information
necessary for making a wise decision.

C ) t.

()u.

Evaluation:

( ) 1. To what degree are adequate bases used in determin—
ing the admission requirements?

( ) 2. To what degree is the description of admission
requirements clearly formulated, comprehensive,
accurate and easily understood?

( ) 3. How satisfactory is the attitude of the institution
in establishing sound admission requirements?

( ) 4. How extensively is a definite procedure, based

on the admission policy and requirements, followed
in admitting students to the institution?

Comments:

 

221

General Evaluation of the Admissions Policy and Requirements

§pecial Characteristics

 

1. ‘What are the best elements or characteristics of the

admissions policy and requirements?

a.
b.
C.
d.

2. In what respects is there greatest need for improving
the admissions policy and requirements?

a

b.
C.
d.
In what respects has attention been directed toward

improvement of the admissions policy and requirements
within the last two years?

General Evaluation?

 

( ) 1. To what extent is the admissions policy and require-
ments consistent with the philosophy and objectives
of the institution?

( ) 2. To what extent does the admissions policy and
requirements meet the needs of the population
served by the institution?

222

( ) 3. To what extent is the admissions office identifying
problems in policy and requirements and seeking
their solution?

223

AREA III
‘ADMINISTRATIVE BASIS for the ADMISSIONS PROGRAM
STANDARD

The over—all control and authority for developing and
approving the basic policies and plans of the institution,
for advancing its programs and attaining its objectives,
is the responsibility of the institution’s board of control.
The board of control is not only responsible for the
approval and publication of the philosophy and objectives
of the institution, but also for the institution’s general
administrative plan and structure and the provision of

the support necessary for its facilities and personnel.
The extent to which the board of control is aware of and
accepts its responsibilities, and its effectiveness in
performing its mission, are of fundamental importance to
the institution and the admissions program. A sound
admissions program can operate effectively only if sup-
ported by the administration —— the president and an
interested and effective board of control. The board of
control delegates to the president of the institution

the responsibility for the implementation, coordination,
staffing and direction of its programs and services.

There should be an established all-institutional admissions
committee to give leadership to the problems of unifying
and developing admissions policy. Its membership should
include the heads of several related academic and student
personnel offices as well as faculty members and the
director of admissions. The effectiveness with which the
institutional admissions committee performs its functions
will be determined by such factors as (1) the extent to
which it confines its work to policy formation and to
appraisal of operating effectiveness, and resists the
temptation to engage in direct administrative activities;
(2) the extent to which the director of admissions has

been delegated the authority to make the necessary decisions
in carrying out the committees general policies; (3) the
extent to which the director of admissions, with the
assistance of his staff, keeps the admissions committee
fully informed concerning the institution’s long-range
admissions problems, the development of operating standards,
and the effectiveness with which general admissions policy
is carried out on a day-to-day basis.

 

 

224

The effectiveness of the institutional admissions com-
mittee and the director of admissions depends to some

extent on a carefully developed organizational plan,
defining clearly the responsibilities of the board of
control, the president as the chief administrative officer,
the director of admissions and other administrative
officers, the faculty and the standing committees of the
faculty. The various institutional services, including

the admissions service, should be so defined and staffed

in the administrative organizational plan that they

make their individual contribution smoothly and efficiently.
The delegation of administrative functions and responsibili-
ties can be established best by reducing them to definite
statements and distributing these statements to all con-
cerned persons. By requiring that the organizational

plan be written, it forces clear and concise thought on

the delegation of responsibilities and leads to more
definite decisions.

Because institutions of higher education differ in over—
all organizational structures, no pattern of organization
for admissions applicable to all types of institutions

is prescribed. Each institution Should have a plan of
organization and administration which is effective to its
own situation.

However, the position of admissions in the organizational
structure should be such as to (1) assure consistent
admissions decisions and practices; (2) facilitate the
continuous development and improvement of the admissions
service; (3) clearly fix responsibilities for the adminis-
tration of the adopted admissions policy and requirements;
and (4) allow for coordination with other closely related
administrative services and departments. The place of the
admissions program in the organizational structure will
determine, to some extent, its coordination and integration
with other institutional functions and its growth and
development. Its position in the organization structure
can be related to its status and importance in the institution.

The administrative control vested in the director of admis-
sions by the president and other supervising administrators
should allow freedom for the accomplishment of the purposes
of the admissions service. This means organization of
admissions resources -~ both material and personnel,
delegation of duties and authority, supervision of
delegated tasks and of all individuals to whom respon—
sibility for admissions has been assigned. The director

of admissions has the authority and responsibility for
executing the policy underlying the admissions program,

for setting the atmosphere in which admissions staff

 

Ill III-'5‘, iii“

225

members work and for the vision, leadership and effecfive—
ness of the admissions process. The administrative
responsibility for the admissions policy is so allocated
that there is no confusion among the different units and
offices of the institution as to where the responsibility
lies.

Ability to meet recognized standards of a good admissions
program is dependent upon sound financing. Resources
should be adequate to accomplish the announced policy of
the program. Financial support and stability are essential
to the continuation and development of the admissions
program. In reviewing the financial provision for the
admissions program, consideration should be given to the
funds appropriated and relative amounts and types of
expenditures. A budget should be prepared in accordance
with sound educational and financial practices and the
financial budget should give a clear picture of the status
of the admissions office. The budget is in effect an
implementation of the type and quality of the admissions
program and reflects the philosophy of the institution
responsible for the program.

In evaluating the administrative basis for the admissions
program, the following factors will be considered: the
responsibility of the faculty in determining the admissions
policy and requirements; the place of the admissions program
in the organizational structure; the delegation of authority
and responsibilities to the director of admissions; and

the financial support allocated to accomplish these respon-
sibilities.

Evaluative Guides:

 

1. Supply an organizational chart (or charts) showing
the component parts of the institution and the
responsible administrative officers. On a separate
page indicate administrative responsibilities of the
director of admissions and the interrelationships of
the admissions program with other administrative
services, departments and divisions.

2. Describe institutional procedure as to the use of a
faculty advisory committee on admissions, if any,
with respect to: frequency of meetings; purposes;
kinds of decisions made -- operational and policy-
making.

Describe what procedures are used to maintain com?
munication and cooperation between programs, serv1ces
and units of the administrative organization.

226

. Explain how the responsibility for each of the follow-
ing functions is allocated as between the board of
control, president, institutional admissions com-
mittee, the director of admissions, and other members
of the admissions staff:

a. Construction and determination of admissions
policy and requirements.

. Evaluation and revision of the admissions policy
and requirements.

c. Establishing required procedures for becoming

admitted to the institution.

d. Deciding on what applicants Should be admitted.

e. Approving new functions of the admissions program.

b

5. Supply a copy of the budget for the admissions program
for the current fiscal year.

6. Describe the responsibilities of the director of
admissions in relation to the budget for the admissions
program.

Subarea E
Authority

Responsibility for the administration of the admissions
program is regarded as satisfactorily fixed when (1) some
one person is held responsible for the administration of
each major aspect of the program, and (2) some one person
is in a position to speak authoritatively for the total
admissions program.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

( ) a. The board of control of the institution is the
legal authority and determines general admission
policy.

C ) b. Authorization for the admissions policy is granted
by charter or written into minutes of the board
of control.

( ) c. The president of the institution has the respon-
sibility of granting to the director of admissions
the executive function and authority for the
administration of the admissions program.

( ) d. An institutional admissions committee, including
representatives of both faculty and administration
and the director of admissions assist in planning
and developing the admissions policy and require-
ments.

( ) e. The institutional admissions committee functions
chiefly as a policy-making body.

227

( ) f. The administrative responsibility for admissions
is centered in the director of admissions.

( ) g. There is a clearly defined relationship between
the institutional committee on admissions and the
director of admissions.

( ) h. The director of admissions makes regular reports
to aid the admissions committee, prepares the
agenda for committee meetings, and prepares
policies for consideration.

( ) i. The admissions committee holds regularly scheduled
meetings and keeps an official record.

()5.
()k.
Evaluations:

 

( ) 1. To what extent is the institutional admissions
committee responsible for the formulation and
the implementation of the admissions policy and
requirements?

( ) 2. To what degree is the relationship clearly defined
between the director of admissions and the institu-
tional admissions committee?

( ) 3. To what degree has the director of admissions
been given sufficient authority to develop and
administer the admissions program?

( ) 4. To what extent is the director of admissions
responsible for assisting in the development and
maintenance of a realistic admissions policy
and requirements?

Comments:

Subarea F
Organization and Administration

An institution of higher education should have an effective
organization to supplement its philosophy and objectives.
A chart showing the organization of the institution and

the place of the admissions service within it should be
available. In order to avoid diffusion of responsibility

228

and provide for a unified admissions program, the nature

of the service, its implementation and its administration
should be the responsibility of the director of admissions
with comparable status to other administrators of similar
programs and services. The admissions program should be

so organized and administered that the director of admissions
will have effective relationships with other offices, depart—
ments and divisions of the institution.

Evaluative Criteria:

( ) a. There is an organizational plan showing lines of
authority, lines of responsibility, and the
relationship of the admissions program to the
entire institution.

( ) b. Lines of authority and responsibility to and from
the controlling body of the institution, the
president, the admissions committee, and the
director of admissions are clearly defined.

( ) c. The admissions office has been accorded a place
and a degree of independence in the institutional
structure that is consistent with other services
of similar size and importance.

( ) d. The place of the admissions program in the educa-
tional program is clearly understood throughout
the institution.

( ) e. The organization structure of the institution
supports the functions and activities of the
admissions program.

( ) f. The admissions office is autonomous to the extent
that it plans and executes its own program.

( ) g. Provision is made for administrative officials
and the institution to work together to achieve
coordination among functions.

( ) h. Cooperative relationships exist between the
admissions office and various related services and
offices within the institution.

)0
()J.
Admissions functions are integrated with the functions of

k. testing

1. orientation

m academic advising

n selective retention

0. student financial aids

p student housing

q The admissions office provides basic admissions
data to other administrative offices, departments
and units.

A AAAAAA
vvvvvvv

229

( ) r. The director of admissions is given recognition
on major institutional committees concerned with
policy-making regarding admissions and related
areas.

C ) s. Assignments of duties and responsibilities within
the admissions office is clear-cut and clearly
understood by professional and staff members.

( ) t. The director of admissions meets with the entire
admissions staff to consider the effectiveness
of the admissions program.

( ) u. An analysis has been made of the administrative
functions and responsibilities within the admissions
office.

( ) v. The institutional admissions committee has a
definite, written procedure providing for hearings
on appeals for admission and readmission by applicants.

( ) w. There is evidence of careful long-range planning
and preparation in the admissions office.

C ) X.
C )v.
Evaluation:

 

( ) 1. To what degree is there a feeling of mutual respect
and cooperation existing between the various adminis-
trative offices, services, and the admissions office?

( ) 2. How adequate is the position of the admissions -
office in the organization plan?

( ) 3. How satisfactory is the schematic diagram indicating

, the lines of authority and cooperative relationships
between the admissions office and other institutional
services?

( ) 4. To what degree has the administrative control of
the admissions service and the execution of all
approved policies been centered and entrusted
to the director of admissions?

C ) 5. How well has the admissions office planned for
future development of the admissions program?

Comments:

 

230

Subarea G
Financial Basis

A budget for the admissions program shouh be developed
within the total budget of the institution. Financial
resources should be adequate to accomplish the announced
policy of the admissions program. The director of admis-
sions has primary responsibility for preparing and adminis-
tering the budget of the admissions office.

Evaluative Criteria:

( ) a. A sum of money is budgeted for the admissions
program.

( ) b. The admissions program has sufficient financial
support to develop along the lines set up for it.

( ) c. The director of admissions, after consultation
with members of the admissions staff and appropriate
authorities, constructs a detailed budget.

( ) d. The director of admissions consults and interprets
budget requirements with the appropriate authorities.

The director of admissions has the following responsibilities:

( ) e. determining the needs of the next fiscal year in
terms of personnel and physical facilities.

( ) f. estimating the cost of these needs.

( ) g. drafting the budget including explanatory state-
ments and recommending it to the president or
appropriate administrator.

( ) h. controlling the budget through an appropriate
system of records of expenditure and requisition
system.

C ) i. reviewing financial reports routinely, anticipating
needed revisions in the budget and requesting such
action as is needed.

The director of admissions is accorded the following con—
siderations by the business officer or appropriate adminis-
trator in connection with financial plans and budget control
which pertain to the admissions program:

( ) j. access to financial data authorized for the
admissions program.

( ) k. consultation on budget revision.

( ) 1. review of current monthly reports of budget status.

( ) m, opportunity to participate in the discussions of

particular cost items allocated to the admissions
program.

( ) n. opportunity to present and interpret the budget
to the appropriate administrator or group.

231

()0.
()1).
Evaluation:

 

( ) 1. To what extent does the director of admissions
have access to all information which is pertinent
to the preparation and implementation of the
budget.

( ) 2. To what extent are adequate funds provided in the
institutional budget to support all elements of
the admissions program?

( ) 3. How adequately is the budget expressed in terms
of estimated allocations and expenditures.

Comments:

 

General Evaluation of the Administrative Basis
for the Admissions Program

Special Characteristics:

1. In what respects is the administrative basis most
satisfactory and commendable?

d

2. In what respects is there greatest need for improving
the administrative basis?

232
3. In what respects has attention been directed toward

improvement of the administrative basis within the
last two years?

4. What improvements are now being made or are definitely
planned for the immediate future?

General Evaluation:

 

( ) 1. To what extent is the administrative basis for
admissions consistent with the philosophy and
objectives of the institution?

( ) 2. To what extent does the administrative basis meet
the needs of the admissions policy and require-
ments of the institution?

( ) 3. To what extent is the admissions office identifying
problems in the area of administrative basis and
seeking their solution.

233

AREA IV

ADMISSIONS PERSONNEL1

STANDARD

A competent, professional admissions staff is one of the
indispensable elements of a sound admissions program. The
admissions staff is the executive agency for fulfilling the
admissions policy and requirements of the institution. To
be successful it must be well organized; the individuals
composing it must be competent in their particular phase
of administration; it must be adequate in number to carry
out its responsibility; it must, under the leadership of
the director of admissions, be so coordinated as to work
effectively as a unit. The admissions staff is a coopera-
ting group of individuals motivated by a desire to develop
and carry out the formulated philosophy and objectives of
the institution.

Responsibility for the satisfactory functioning of the
admissions office rests with the director of admissions.
The competence of the director of admissions is measured
by his ability to organize, direct, and accomplish the
duties officially assigned to him. This will entail not
only an aptitude for and an interest in admissions but
also related training and experience. It will involve,
further, a personality capable of working smoothly with
colleagues and of dealing harmoniously with persons out-
side the institution.

In evaluating the staff of an admissions office in an
institution of higher education, factors to be considered
include the adequacy of the size of the staff in relation
to the program; the competence of individual staff members
to do the work assigned to them; the competence and
qualifications of the staff as a group, and the number of
clerical staff members available to handle effectively
the work load of the professional staff. In evaluating
the admissions program it should be especially noted
whether or not the basic responsibilities in admissions
are delegated primarily to full-time staff personnel who
have the specific preparation and experience background
for the responsibilities they are asked to assume. As

 

1The Standard and the Criteria for this section applies

only to selected conditions that relate to admissions per-
sonnel. General conditions such as sabbatical leave, salary,
retirement, personnel benefits will not be considered.

234

admissions functions are widened in scope or special
advising and counseling responsibilities are introduced,
the depth and preparation of the admissions staff members
will become more specialized.

Evaluative Guides:

1.

List the staff of the admissions office:
a. full-time equivalence of all professional staff

members.

b. full-time equivalence of adult clerical staff
members.

c. full-time equivalence of student clerical staff
members.

Include a chart of the staff organization for the
admissions office with the names of persons staffing
each position and data relevant to their assignment.

Submit a list of the professional members of the

admissions staff including for each:

a. the major field of each degree.

b. number of years on the staff.

c. number of years experience in college and
secondary school teaching and administration.

d. non-school experience (including military
experience).

Describe the academic status of the director of admissions
and his staff in terms of their rights, privileges, and
responsibilities relative to other faculty and adminis-
trative personnel of equivalent education, experience

and responsibility. (Comparative salaries, vacations,
tenure, sick leave, retirement, assignments to faculty
committees, etc.)

Indicate the name of national, state, and professional
organizations in which membership is held (e.g., Associa—
tion of College Admissions Counselors, Committee on
High-School-College Relations, National Education
Association). Discuss appearances on pnograms of
professional educational organizations indicating
organization, topic, and date of appearance.

List the professional educational books whiCh have
been read within the last six months and professional
periodicals which are read regularly.

Describe participation either individually or through
committees in the study of educational and admissions
problems. Indicate nature of study, plans involved,
and outcomes which were achieved.

 

,‘

 

235

7. Describe additional experiences such as visits to
other colleges and universities, writing and research
activities, participation in state or national com-
mittee work which contributed to professional improve-
ments.

Subarea H

Numerical Adequacy and Responsibilities

In admissions, as in other administrative areas, full-time
professional staff members form the core of the staff
which is complemented by clerical staff members. Each
member of the admissions staff, professional and clerical,
should be qualified and adequate in number to develop and
implement an admissions program in relation to the stated
philosophy and objectives of the institution. The respon-
sibilities, written and developed cooperatively by the
admissions staff, may include administrative, counseling,
research, committee and professional responsibilities.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

( ) a. The size of the staff in admissions is adequate
to the responsibilities assigned to the admissions
office by the institution.

( ) b. Adequate adult clerical assistance is provided.

( ) c. The responsibilities of the admissions staff are
clearly defined and understood.

( ) d. A staff member with the necessary qualifications

is charged with the responsibility of the admissions
program.

The director of admissions:
(Although the following activities are commonly made
the special responsibility of the director of admissions,
their performance may be delegated to others. Check
and evaluate on the basis of performance of the respon-
sibilities by the proper person, regardless of title.)

( ) e. keeps the institutional admissions committee and
his administrative superior informed, through
periodic reports, regarding the office’s achieve-
ments, needs, and plans for the future.

( ) f. plans and presents annually the budget for con~
sideration by the proper authority.

( ) g. conducts research concerning admissions problems
of the institution.

( ) h. uses the results of research in planning the
admissions program.

A

AAAA

A

C
C
C
C

V

vvvv

V

)
)
)
)

236

provides for administrative procedures such as
reports, staff meetings, and staff interviews.

has a job description prepared for each professional
and clerical staff member that is used as a basis
for performing their responsibilities.

has part in the selection of professional and
clerical staff personnel.

supervises office practices and routines and keeps
informed of current practices in office management.
participates in the meetings of committees dealing
with admissions.

discusses admissions functions and sponsors
activities which helps his colleagues to a better
understanding of the admissions program.

is aware of problems in other institutional services
and works for the improvement of the whole institu-
tional program.

assists in the coordination of secondary school-
institution cooperation.

maintains contact with outside agencies interested
in education, such as civic groups and professional
organizations.

meets with groups of prospective applicants and
their parents at secondary school sponsored events.
interviews some of the prospective applicants on
the campus.

Evaluation:

 

C

C

C

C

C

)

)

)

)

)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

To what extent is the admissions staff, both
professional and clerical, numerically adequate
in relation to the needs of the institution?

How well does the director of admissions make
sure that all clerical and professional staff
members understand their responsibilities?

How effectively does the admissions staff as a
group perform their responsibility?

To what extent does the director of admissions
provide for staff members, both professional and
clerical, to participate in the administration of
the admissions program?

To what extent does the director of admissions
organize, direct, and accomplish the responsibilities
officially assigned to him?

Comments:

237

Subarea I

Preparation and Qualifications

The director of admissions must accurately administer and
interpret the admissions policy and requirements to
applicants, their parents, and to officials of the secondary
schools. He must have the preparation, qualifications and
status necessary to guide the president and the faculty as
to the appropriate admissions policx requirements, and the
functions necessary to provide a sound admissions program.
As a qualified and capable staff member he must adequately
direct and coordinate the mechanics of obtaining, compiling ;
and filing pertinent data about applicants applying for ‘
admission.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

 

Professional staff members having responsibility for the
admissions program have:

( ) a. the preparation essential for the responsibilities
they are asked to fulfill.

( ) b. advanced degrees in proportion to other similar
administrative services of the institution.

( ) c. professional preparation leading to knowledge of
such fields as research, guidance and counseling
theory, mass communication, and office management.

The director of admissions shows evidence of:

( ) d. knowledge of basic principles of guidance and
. counseling.
( ) e. knowledge of group and individual tests, their
use, limitations, and interpretations of results.
( ) f. collecting, organizing, and using occupational
and educational information essential to college
planning by youth.
g. being well acquainted with the educational program
of the institution.
h. keeping abreast of current philosophy and practices
in higher education.
i. having knowledge of post secondary school educational
opportunities and requirements.
ethical professional attitudes expected of an
admissions administrator.
having personal qualifications for the development
of working relationships with people.

ova rs r\ to f» /S
xx»: \J \2 \J \1 \J
SH pr c...

O

238

Evaluations:

 

C ) 1. How adequate is the preparation of the professional
admissions staff as a group?
) 2. How adequate are the qualifications of the profes-
sional admissions staff as a group?

( ) 3. How adequate is the preparation of the director
of admissions?
( ) 4. How adequate are the qualifications of the director

of admissions?

Comments:

 

Subarea J
Professional Growth and Leadership

Progress in professional growth and preparation is
evidenced by membership in admissions and educational
organizations; active participation in institutional and
secondary school meetings; and willingness to share ideas
and experiences in the functions and activities of
admission; and through professional writing. The director
of admissions has the major responsibility for professional
leadership in the area of admissions.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

The director of admissions is:

( ) a. familiar with significant experimentation and
developments in admissions.

( ) b. interested in professional growth belonging to
at least one national professional organization
and to a regional or state professional organiza-
tion.

( ) c. acquainted with some of the leaders in admissions
and attends meetings of special importance to
admissions administrators.

( ) d. seeking up-to-dateness and breadth of information
in fields of higher education and admissions.

( ) e. continuing formal study regardless of degree held,
supplementing study with appropriate professional
experiences. '

C
C
C
E

VV V V V
L;
o

239

familiar with several admissions programs of high
rank in institutions similar to his own.

encouraged by his administrative superiors to
participate in activities that promote professional
growth.

working with the institutional admissions committee
to improve the services of the admissions office.
involved in initiating and directing admissions
studies.

subscribes to and reads regularly professional and
educational journals.

,1

Evaluation:

 

C
C

)1.
)2.

)3.

) 4.
) 5.

To what extent do the staff members show continued
interest in professional growth?

To what extent does the admissions staff give
evidence of keeping abreast of contemporary
research and writings?

To what extent does the admissions staff share
admissions information with fellow administrators
and faculty?

How effective is the professional leadership of
the admissions staff?

To what extent does the admissions staff display
leadership and actively participates in institu-
tional planning?

1W-..

Comments:

General Evaluation of the
Admissions Personnel

Special Characteristics:

1.

What are the best elements or characteristics of the
admissions staff?

240

2. In what respects is the admissions staff least adequate
or in greatest need of improvement?
a .

b.

C.

3. Discuss any plans for improving the admissions staff.

General Evaluations:

 

( ) 1. To what extent is the admissions staff able to
fulfill the responsibilities placed upon it?

( ) 2. To what extent is the admissions staff identifying
problems in the admissions area and seeking their
solution?

( ) 3. How satisfactory is the length of service of
staff personnel in the institution?

241

AREA V
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
STANDARD

The physical resources, consisting of office space, equip-
ment, supplies and professional library, have provided

the admissions office a direct relationship to the attain-
ment of the admissions policy and functions. They provide
the environment and the tools which assist or limit the
admissions staff in achieving the responsibilities dele-
gated to them. The nature and extent of the space,
furnishings, equipment and supplies provided the admissions
office should be related to the scope of the admissions
program and the number of students to be served. Over a
period of years the physical resources are indicative of
the strength and status of the admissions program within
the institution.

Evaluation in this area should be based on what the
admissions office should have by way of physical resources
to support a strong admissions program. The evaluation
should try to determine the adequacy of the resources in
relation to the needs of the clerical and professional
admissions staff in completing effectively the necessary
admissions functions.

Evaluative Guides:

 

1. Describe the office space available for the professional
and clerical staff personnel in admissions.

2. Report the amount spent last year and budgeted this year
for
a. equipment
b. supplies
c. professional library books and periodicals.

Are the plans for future purchases of equipment and
supplies suitable and achievable?
Subarea K
Office Space
The institution should provide physical facilities designed
to serve effectively the accomplishment of the defined pur-

gposes of the admissions program. Offices should be so
located and so designed that they will not be merely adequate,

242

but will contribute Clearly and positively to the admissions
process.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

C ) a. The admissions office is readily accessible to the
public it serves.

C ) b. The admissions office is located in the same
building with other related administrative services.

C ) c. The admissions office is planned and arranged for
effective use by the clerical staff with a minimum
of interference by the public.

C ) d. Automatic typewriters and other business machines
are in rooms located or treated accoustically as
not to interfere with office functions.

C ) e. The director of admissions has a private office
which is adequate in size and equipped to permit
effective functioning.

C ) f. The professional assistants to the director of
admissions have private offices which are adequate
in size and equipped to permit effective function-
ing.

C ) g. The private offices of the professional admissions
staff members are located so they are accessible
to the general clerical area and provide opportunity
for uninterrupted work and conferences.

C ) h. Office space allows privacy for conferences with a
group of at least four people.

C ) i. A reception room or public waiting room is readily
accessible to the general office or the director
of admissions office.

C ) . Storerooms for office materials and supplies are
conveniently located.

C ) k. Adequate and suitable storage is available for
wraps, records, reports, extra furnishings and
equipment. .

C ) 1. Lighting, heating, and ventilation are suited to
the purposes for which the office space is used.

C)m.

C)n.

Evaluations:

C ) 1. How satisfactory is the location of the admissions
office?

C ) 2. How adequate is the size of the admissions area
in terms of the admissions program and institutional
demands?

C ) 3. To what extent does the planning and layout of the

office (including equipment and furnishings) create
desirable surroundings?

243

How satisfactory is the condition and over-all
appearance of the admissions office?

How adequate is the illumination, temperature,
and ventilation?

How adequate is storage space?

How adequate are the private offices for the
professional staff?

\10‘ U'l b
o 0

AA A A
VV V V

Comments:

 

Subarea L

Equipment, Supplies, and Professional Library

The nature and quality of the equipment and supplies should
be consistent and commensurate with the demands which are
being made upon the admissions office. Appropriate equip-
ment and supplies, together with adequate office space,
help make possible the accomplishment of the defined pur-
poses of the admissions program.

A professional library is essential to a sound admissions
program to the extent that it provides current information
and encourages study, research and professional growth.

Evaluative'Criteria:

C ) a. Equipment and furnishings are attractive, functional
and of good quality and construction.

C ) b. Equipment and furnishings are well cared for and
in good condition.

C ) c. Flexibility in use has been considered in purchasing
equipment and furnishings.

C ) d. The equipment and furnishings are efficiently
arranged.

C ) e. The budget for equipment, supplies, and professional
library is adequate and used to the full extent.

The following are available and are adequate in relation
to the needs of the admissions office:

C ) f. phoneCs)

C ) g. typewriterCs)

C ) h. dictating machineCs)
C ) i. filing equipment

244

The following are available and adequate in the professional

library

A AAA/\A

V VVVVV

:3 S I-‘PTL...

P

in relation to the needs of the admissions office:

reference books

catalogs of institutions of higher education
periodicals and pamphlets

profiles of secondary schools

The professional library is large enough to take
care of the needs of the admissions office.

The referencexnaterials reflect contemporary
professional views of admissions and higher
education.

Readily accessible shelf space is provided for
storage of books, magazines, and other reference
materials.

q. A display area is provided for exhibit materials.
I3.

8

Evaluations:

AAAAAAAA

vvvvvvv
mqouhu

1. How adequate is the amount of office equipment and

2

furnishings?

How adequate is the guality of office equipment
and furnishings?

How well is the equipment maintained in satisfactory
working condition?

How adequate is the storage space for supplies
and materials?

How adequate are the funds for equipment purchase
and repair?

How adequate is the professional library for the
admissions office?

How adequately are periodicals, pamphlets, or
similar materials organized for effective use?
How adequate are the funds for the purchase of
printed materials?

Comments:

 

245

General Evaluation of the
Physical Resources

Special Characteristics:

1.

‘What are the best elements or characteristics of the
physical resources designated for admissions?

a.

b

C.

In what respects are the physical resources least
adequate or in greatest need of improvement?

In what respects have the physical resources been
improved within the last two years?

What improvements in physical resources are now being
made or are definitely planned for the immediate
future?

General Evaluation:

 

C
C

) 1. To what extent are the physical resources adequate

to meet the responsibilities of the admissions office?

) 2. To what extent is the admissions office identifying

problems in the area of physical resources and seek-
ing their solution?

To what extent are provisions made for keeping the
professional library up to date?

3

246

AREA VI
BASIC ADMISSIONS FUNCTIONS
STANDARD

Admissions includes a variety of functions designed to
assist in adapting the admissions program to the institu-
tional philosophy and objectives. The number and type of
admissions functions will depend upon the scope of the
admissions program offered. These functions, which
require the coordinated efforts of clerical and professional
admissions staff personnel and others, are evaluated in
terms of: C1) the manner in which they fulfill the state
objectives of the institution; (2) the manner in which
they are organized and administered to facilitate an
economical and effective admissions seIVice; and C3) the
provisions made for adequate personnel and other resources
required to implement the functions. It is generally
recognized that admissions functions are evolving and
therefore no attempt is made to indicate how and when

the various functions should be incorporated. Rather,

it is intended to promote individuality of programs by
permitting each admissions office to use functions which
will help the applicant become admitted in the way and at
the time deemed most appropriate and consistent with the
philosophy and objectives of the institution.

It is suggested that attempts be made to describe the
admissions functions needed, the functions most pertinent,
and functions to be used since these must be realistic in
terms of the sources available. They will depend upon the
type of student admitted, the academic preparation and
experience of the admissions staff, the academic prepara-
tion and experience of the admissions staff, the physical
resources and facilities, and other characteristics of the
institution. The functions identified are the main entities
around which the director of admissions builds an effective
admissions program. Common admissions functions include:

Secondary school, college and institutional cooperation --
providing channels of information, understanding and
participation between secondary schools and institu-
tions of higher education served by the individual
institution.

Advising college bound youth--conducting a well-balanced
professional program of pre-admissions advising.
Providing general information -- formulating and sending
communications in the form Of catalogs, bulletins,
and letters that contain authoritative, accurate,

up-to-date information.

247

Providing specific information -- keeping well-informed
concerning specific details regarding admissions
such as foreign student admissions, armed service
experience evaluation, early admission, advanced
placement, etc.

Gathering information on applicants —- obtaining compre-
hensive information about applicants and systematically
organizing it for effective use.

Admitting students and the admissions decisions -- establish-
ing requirements, determining procedures and delegating
responsibility for making final admissions decisions
on each applicant.

Maintaining records -- systematically recording comprehen-
sive information; preparing and organizing records
for use.

Issuing reports -- preparing and issuing periodic reports
giving information and facts regarding the activities
of the admissions office.

Coordination -- cooperative participation in admissions
by faculty, alumni, high school personnel and others;
coordinating the admissions program so as to make it
an integral part of the institutional program.

Research and evaluation functions ~~ systematic, valid and
scientific investigation of many aspects of the
admissions program motivated by a desire for facts
and improvement.

Evaluation of the basic admissions functions will be made

in terms of how they are carried out so as to increase

the understanding of the admissions process, develop more
favorable attitudes toward admissions, and to produce a

more desirable admissions program. The program of admissions
functions has great potential value for education and should
therefore be conducted so that this potential is realized.
Since the admission of an applicant is a result of thought
and consideration of individuals within the home, within

the secondary school, and within other institutional offices,
the planning of certain admission functions should involve
parents, secondary school guidance and administrative
personnel, and representatives of other administrative
officers serving the applicant.

Evaluative Guides:

 

1. Obtain and review three successive issues of all pub-
lications distributed by the admissions office.

2. Obtain and review copies of all admissions forms used
to collect and record admissions data.

3. Obtain and review copies of all reports distributed
by the admissions office during the past three years
to other administrative offices of the institution.

,5

 

248

4. Obtain and review copies of all forms used in reporting
student academic achievement to parents and secondary
schools.

5. Obtain and review copies of all form and guide letters
used by the admissions office.

6. Gather information on the number of secondary schools
and colleges visited by members of the admissions
staff; by other administrative officials through
arrangements made by the admissions staff.

7. Describe the procedure followed by the admissions
office when prospective students and their parents
visit the campus.

Subarea M

Secondary School~College and
Institutional Relations

Channels of information, understanding, and participation
are of necessity a two—way proposition between secondary
schools, colleges and universities and the individual
institution. Creating good channels is the objective of
a sound secondary school, college and institutional
cooperation program.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

The institution furnishes the secondary schools and other
institutions of higher education from which they receive
students information concerning:

C the philosophy and objectives of the institution.
the program of studies.

the admissions office and its services.

the admissions staff - its personnel and organiza-
tion.

the admissions pre-college guidance program.

other administrative offices of the institution
serving the prospective student and the secondary
school. .
professional organizations concerned with aspects
of secondary school-college relations.

policy and requirements regarding admission to

the institution.

rules and regulations regarding selective retention
standards.

achievement of individual students and student
groups.

institutional events of interest to prospective
students and the secondary school.

0.00.9)
0000

AA AAA
VV VVVV

Hfim
o

A A A A A
V V V V v
C

C
C
C

)

1.

)m.

)

n.

249

career and college opportunities open to graduates

of the institution.

procedures for arranging student and parent con-
ferences on the campus.

established codes of ethics for admissions counseling.

The admissions office participates in an active program of
Secondary School, College and Institutional relations and
uses practices such as the following:

C

C
C

) o. invites secondary school and college personnel to

)
)

the campus for such events as freshman and transfer
student conferences, curricular meetings; guidance
conferences, and observations of college classes.
the sending of faculty members to secondary schools
and colleges to visit classes, to talk with teachers
and administrators, and to acquire a better under-
standing of what is happening in secondary education.
attempts to seek the reactions and advice of secondary
school and college personnel when contemplating
changes affecting prospective students and their
schools.

conducts joint meetings of the admissions staff and
secondary school and college personnel.

encourages secondary schools, in general, to do
preliminary pre-college, pre-career guidance and
counseling at elementary and high school levels.
provides qualified personnel to represent the
institution at college day conferences and career
days.

distributes from the admissions office a periodical
news organ containing pertinent information on
current events in admissions, testing, campus
events, etc.

Evaluations:

C
C

) 1. How adequately are the secondary schools informed

about the institution?

) 2. How adequate is the amount of time spent by the

)

)

3

4

admissions office in acquainting secondary school
administrative and guidance personnel with the
programs and services of the institution?

How extensively are pertinent college publications
provided secondary school administrative and guidance
personnel and explained whenever explanations are
needed?

To what degree does the admissions staff meet with
secondary school personnel for the purpose of
improving secondary school - institutional relations?

250

C ) 5. To what extent does the institution provide the
secondary school with an accurate reporting of
their graduates’ progress?

C ) 6. To what degree do members of the admissions staff
have an understanding of the secondary school from
which they receive students?

C ) 7. To what extent do members of the admissions staff
participate in a variety of conferences both on
and off the campus involving secondary school per-
sonnel?

C ) 8. To what extent are secondary school personnel
given the opportunity to see the institution’s
educational program in action and have a chance
to make their own evaluation of it?

Comments:

 

Subarea N

Advising College Bound Youth

Every institution conducting an admissions program should
conduct a well-balanced, professional program of pre-
admissions advising. One of the aims of the pre-admissions
advising function is to have available to the individual,
or easily accessible, pertinent information which he may
use in making wise college and career plans. The success
of the program for advising college bound students is the
reflection of the value placed on it by the admissions
staff and the institution.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

The program for advising college bound youth

C ) a. is planned as an integral part of the admissions
program.

) b. is coordinated with other institutional programs.

) c. includes the appraisal of the academic status and
potential of students.

) d. includes the interpretation of academic status and
potential of students to themselves, their parents,

C
C
C

C )e.
()f.
()8.

251

and to others who should be concerned.

offers assistance in the identification of academic
deficiencies and their correction through individual
conference;

is coordinated with secondary school guidance
services so as to provide continuous aid to the
college and career planning of students.

The admissions staff through advising helps
parents and students to accept the need for

further examination of their college and career
plans and explores with them available resources.

The admissions staff

C)h.

H W9.

AAA/\AA
vvvvvv
5
C

C
C
C
C

VV V V
'+
a

prepares for each admissions interview by studying
all data pertinent to the applicant‘s educational
and career future. -

cooperates with appropriate persons and offices

in making referrals and keeping each other informed
about plans and activities affecting the applicant.
conducts all interviews in private.

keeps a written record of the interview (though
not necessarily made during the interview.

is careful to be professional in handling con-
fidential information.

makes provision for follow—up and assistance

when desirable for each student counseled.

assists the student and his parents to arrive at
decisions for which they assume full responsibility.
makes an effort prior to admission to the institu-
tion to have each applicant understand the relation
of his own aptitudes, interests, and emotions to
the choices and opportunities that are before him
at the institution.

assist the students in determining whether they

can do successful academic work, whether the
institution can give them a suitable education at

a budget they can meet and whether the institution
is, indeed, the best college for the applicant.
encourages only those prospective students Whose
present and prospective plans and needs may be
adequately met by the institution.

clearly inform those wishing to enroll as to the
nature and extent of the institution’s program.
provides for both group and individual guidance
activities in admissions.

Evaluations:

()1.

How extensive are the provisions for advising college
bound youth?

252

How effective is the advising?

3. How adequate is the admissions staff's concept of
the purposes of the program for advising college
bound youth?

C ) 4. To what extent is the program for advising college
bound youth coordinated with secondary school
guidance activities?

C ) 5. To what extent is careful preparation made for
the admissions interview?

C ) 6. How effective is the cooperation with other
persons involved through referrals?

C ) 7. To what extent are the pre~college advising

functions planned to help prospective students

make sound educational choices and plans?

AA
vv
N

0

Comments:

Subarea 0

Providing General Information

A large function of an admissions office consists of
receiving, distributing, and filing communications, and of
formulating and sending communications. Bulletins, catalogs,
letters, and printed matter of many sorts are vital in the
carrying out of admissions activities. Written communica-
tions used and distributed by the admissions office should
be judged on the authoritative, accurate, up-to-date
information they contain relative to purposes, policies,

and programs of the institution.

Evaluative Critenig:

The institutional catalog (bulletin or announcement)
describes clearly:

) . the philosophy and objectives of the institution.

a
b the nature and extent of the educational offerings.
c entrance and graduation requirements.

d the nature and extent of the regulations governing
the conduct and procedures of the student.

e. selective retention standards.

C
C
C
C
C

V VVV

253

( ) f. scholarships, loans, and other financial assistance
for students.

C ) g. the costs to the student, showing what is included
in the general or usual cost and also what are the
costs of extra items.

( ) h. the teaching staff and the preparation of each

member.

. accreditation status.

. describe accurately the residence halls and dining
facilities which are a definite part of the
student’s life and program.

C ) k. The style of the catalog shows that consideration
has beeI given to the audience, for example,
prospective students and their parents.

1. Publications suitable for student use are available
in each area of study offered by the institution.
Publications are attractively prepared and contain
up-to—date and accurate information.

n. Publications are used to supply answers to questions

which are asked frequently.

0. The admissions staff is given the opportunity to

participate in preparing printed materials used
and distributed by the admissions office.

C ) p. The publications director and the admissions

staff cooperate in developing or obtaining printed
materials useful in the admissions program.

q. Adequate funds are provided for the purchase of

printed materials.

r. All incoming mail is put through a defined channel

to insure careful checking and handling.

5. All documents received are dated with at least the_day,

if not the hour and minute, of receipt in the office.

t. Money received is adequately recorded and protected.

u. Letters are read with enough perception to provide

accurate delivery to proper staff member.

v. The essential purpose of most letters forwarded

by admissions is to supply information which has
been requested, with speed, clarity, and authority.

C ) w..A copy of any letter which contains an institutional
commitment to a student is retained permanently.

AA
VV

AAAA
vvvv
a
C

A AA A A A
V VV V V V

The admissions office avoids multiple applications and student
concern by

C ) x. promptly acknowledging the receipt of admissions
materials.

C ) y. keeping the applicant infonned as to his admission
status.

C ) z. planned mailings to the student, secondary school,
and alumni indicate institutional interest.

254
E ; aa. careful and discriminating processing of applications.
bb.
()CC.

Evaluations:

 

C ) 1. How adequate is the variet of institutional
publications used to describe offerings and
requirements of the institution?

C ) 2. How adequate is the ualit of institutional
publications used to describe offerings and
requirements of the institution?

C ) 3. How adequate is the frequency of issuance of
institutional pualications?

C ) 4. How effective are the letters sent in answer
to request for information?

Comments:

Subarea P

Providing Specific Information

The admissions staff should through study, research and
reading, keep well—informed concerning specific information
and details in the area of admissions and its related areas.
The informed staff gains the respect of those served by

the admissions office. If the admissions staff can
describe what is being done in admissions in other states,
if they can point out national trends and practices that
affect the local program they are exercising leadership.
Significant facts and information with respect to transfer
of credit, armed service experience evaluation, standardized
testing data, foreign student admission and the like must

be readily available to the admissions staff.

Evaluative Criteria:

The admissions staff

C ) a. maintains a current list of secondary schools and
institutions of higher education that have been

accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting
agency.

255

 

C ) b. is familiar with the requirements and procedure
for admission to the local graduate school.

C ) c. has current information and research on the
program of early admission.

C ) d. knows and is able to explain the institutional
regulations established on advanced standing
credit.

C ) e. maintains acquaintance with current developments
granting credit for military service.

C ) f. is familiar with the details of the legal residence
(domicile) requirements for their state.

C ) g. has vital information on the national standardized
testing concerns such as College Entrance Examina-
tion Boards, American College Testing Program,
etc.

C ) h. maintains acquaintance with current developments
in programs such as USAFI and GED.

C ) i. is familiar with and able to refer interested
individuals to the numerous financial aids programs.

C ) j. knows the roles of the junior colleges, vocational
and trade schools, and extension centers in the
state.

C ) k. is somewhat informed of the admission standards of
other institutions of higher education in the state.

C ) 1. can explain the basis for the fees and other expenses
charged new students.

C ) m. is familiar with the College Admissions Center,
the Catholic Admissions Center, and the College
Admissions Assistance Center.

C ) n. is familiar with foreign student admission.

C ) o. is acquainted with the theory and purposes of
Honors programs.

C ) p. knows and is able to explain such programs as
the National Merit program and the NCA Superior
and Talented Student Project.

C ) q. is familiar with accrediting agencies and the basic
purposes of accreditation in higher education.

()r. A

()5.

Evaluation:

C ) 1. How adequate is the knowledge of the admissions
staff regarding the details and specific informa-
tion in the area of admissions and its related areas?

C ) 2. To what extent is the admissions staff attempting
to keep informed of the details and specific
information in the area of admissions and related
areas?

C ) 3. How adequate is the availability of the specific

information when it is needed?

256

Comments:

 

Subarea Q

Gathering Pertinent Data on Applicants

Comprehensive information about applicants, systematically
organized for use, is essential for an effective admissions
service. It is desirable that significant information be
obtained at or before the time of admission and that
additional information be added to each applicant's record
as he progresses through the institution.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

Provisions are made for obtaining information about students
through such means as the following:

C ) a. records from previous educational institutions
attended.

b. appropriate tests given near the time of admission.

c. personal data blanks.

d. individual interviews.

e. physical examinations.

f. ratings and observations by previous teachers or
administrators.

g. conferences with parents, other family members,
and interested friends of the applicant.

h. autobiographies.

AAA A “AAA/K
VVV V VVVVV

Accurate information is secured and recorded or filed about
the following items for all applicants:

name, sex, place and date of birth.

photograph.

full name of each parent Cor guardian).

parents or guardiants address and telephone number.
occupation of each parent.

race, nationality, and birthplace of parents.
citizenship and residence status of parents,

AAA/\AAA
VVVVVVV
0‘) H50 0.0 Up
0 o o o o o o

“AAA/NA“ AA

VVVVVVV VV
k3c>DE3razwm

par

257

educational status of parents.

marital status of parents: living together,

divorced, separated, remarried.

ages of brothers and sisters.

marked talents or accomplishments of family.

health status of family.

economic status of family.

attitude of the home toward higher education.

Prior to admission to the institution accurate information
is secured and recorded or filed about the following items
regarding the applicants' physical and mental status:

AAAAAAAAAA

VVVVVVVVVV
Lab-“.700 Ham 0.0 0‘93

height and weight.

vision and hearing.

mental health and personal adjustment.
speech defects.

physical abnormalities and deformities.
immunizations.

serious illnesses or injuries.

medical limitations on physical activities.

Accurate information is available about the following
items regarding the applicant's scholastic progress and
test information: _

C

AAA/N

) a. name and location of all educational institutions

VVVV

attended; including secondary schools, colleges

and universities, trade or vocational schools,

etc.

summary of academic records, including courses,

year taken, marks and credits received.

reasons and explanations for any academic failure

or difficulty.

scholastic distinctions received.

results of standardized tests (check)

Scholastic aptitude (intelligence)
Interest inventories

Achievement tests

Personality tests

Prognostic tests

Aptitude tests (other than scholastic)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accurate information is available about the following items
for all applicants regarding personal and social development:

C

) a. special talents and interests -- musical, artistic,

athletic, inventive, literary, dramatic, scientific.

AA AAA/\AAA A AA AA A

VV VVVVVVV V VV VV v

:3 a HWLul-“U or:

0.
P.

258

special achievements (other than academic) in
school and out of school.

educational intentions and vocational preferences.
evidences of vocational aptitudes -- interests and
skill in performance.

membership in out—of—school clubs or organizations.
employment during out-of—school hours and during
vacations.

use of leisure —- reading, hobbies, movies, radio,
television.

conduct or citizenship record.

nature of social activities.

periodic ratings by teachers on personality traits.
religious interests and activities.

results from interest inventories.

interpretations of aptitude tests.

interpretations of personality and attitude
inventories or scales.

Evaluation:

 

AAA

VVV

1.

How adequate are the provisions for gathering
information about applicants?

How extensive is the information concerning the
home and family background of each applicant?
How extensive is the information concerning the
physical and medical status of each applicant?
How extensive is the information concerning the
scholastic progress and test information of each
applicant?

How extensive is the information concerning the
personal and social development?

Comments:

 

259

Subarea R

Admitting Students and the
Admissions Decision

Established admissions requirements, based on an adequate
admissions policy, should be followed when admitting
students. The process and routine of admitting students
should be flexible enough to allow for improvements, to
incorporate new developments, and to provide for changing
needs of applicants when conditions change. It should be
emphasized that the procedures used in admitting students
are not of valuefbr their own sake, but only as they are
used to promote the welfare of the applicant.

Evaluative Criteria:

C
C

AAA/\AA

) a.

) b.

) C.

The procedures used in admitting students recognize
the needs of the students.

The procedures for admitting students are selected
according to their contribution to fulfilling the
admissions policy and requirements.

General plans for the development and adaptation
of the procedures for admitting students are
carefully formulated.

The procedures for admitting students are con-
ducted with due consideration for the admissions
policy and requirements.

The procedures for admitting students are planned
to be an integral part of the admissions service.
The procedures for admitting students provide for
effective admissions advising and counseling.

The procedures for admitting students identify
applicants of unusual promise in the various fields
of study available at the institution.

The procedures for admitting students are in
written form.

There are written procedures outlining deviations
from the routine procedures for admitting students.
The admissions staff has selected and utilized
effective procedures for admitting students.
Provision is made for the periodic evaluation of
the procedures used in admitting students.

 

260

Evaluation:

 

C ) 1. To what degree are the procedures used in admitting
students based on the admissions policy and require-
ments?

C ) 2. How adequate is the admissions staff's concept of
the procedure for admitting students?

C ) 3. To what extent do alumni, faculty and administrative
personnel indicate interest in and understanding
for the procedures used in admitting students?

C ) 4. How adequate is the concept held by secondary
school personnel of the procedures used in admitting
students?

C ) 5. To what extent are the procedures used in admitting
students adapted to changes in institutional needs
and trends?

C ) 6. How well does the procedure of admitting students
provide for sequential steps that can easily be
followed by applicants when applying for admission?

Comments:

 

Subarea S

Maintaining Records

Comprehensive information about students, systematically
organized for use, is essential for an effective admissions
program. Records provide original source material for the
admissions office and the number, form, and method of
maintaining admissions records are dependent upon the
general system in use and the attitude of the admissions
staff toward records. While this function may be routine
to a great extent it is one of the most vital of the
admissions office. Evaluation of the records system should
be made in terms of the completeness of the record system,
the care with which records are prepared and filed, and

the use of records for advising purposes.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

C ) a. There is an integrated system of records in which
- each record serves a specific purpose.

261

C ) b. Forms include only that information which serves
a purpose for the student, the institution, and
the admissions office.

. Forms provide for easy and accurate recording of
data and sources of information.

d. Codes and marking systems are explained on each

form to which they apply.

e. Items on records are grouped for ease in use.

. Instruction is provided for the interpretation
and use of records.

g. Modern business methods of assembling and filing

data are in use.

h. Records are filed in such a manner that the danger

or damage or loss is minimized.

i. There is an adequate clerical staff to assure all
essential data being kept up to date and in good
form.

C ) j. Provision is made for convenient duplication of

parts of admissions records.

C ) k. Records containing admissions information are

readily accessible to all who are authorized to
use them.

A A A AA A A
V V V VV V V
H:

There are complete admissions records for each student
enrolled which are available for consultation by adminise
trative and advisory faculty members. These include the
following forms:

1. transcript of previous academic records.

m. results of standardized pre-entrance tests.

n. health report (medical, dental, immunizations).
0. work, military, and experience record.
recommendations.

q. summary of personal interviews.

AAA/\AAAA
vvvvvvvv
'U
0

Evaluation:

 

) 1. How well are admissions records organized, filed,
and protected?

How adequate are the forms used in admitting students?
To what extent is the information on the records
kept up-to-date?

To what extent do the admissions records identify
students of unusual promise?

How extensively are admissions records used for
decision making?

To what extent is the admissions records system
simplified and sufficiently standardized so that
routine recording can be done by clerical personnel?

C
C
C
C
C
C

VVVVV

2
3
4
5
6

262

C ) 7. To what degree have provisions been made for a
periodic review of all records to make sure that
the records in use are adequate to meeting the
needs of the admissions service?

Comments:

Subarea T

Issuing Reports

Reports are prepared to give information and facts -
historical, current, and forecast. Many individuals such
as the controlling board, the president and other chief
administrators, the faculty, secondary school personnel,
and others are vitally interested in the admissions
program and the reports furnished by the admissions staff
often provides the basis for major decisions. Therefore,
they should be evaluated as to accuracy, simplicity, and
logical organization of the data presented.

Evaluative Criteria:
The admissions staff prepares and distributes:

C ) a. periodic reports which provide a record of
accomplishments and activities of the admissions
program for the period and a comparison with similar
periods in the past.

C ) b. progress reports which cover the progress made by
the admissions office in a project not yet completed.

C ) c. examination or statistical reports which cover facts
discovered through investigation and study.

C ) d. recommendation reports which reach a decision,
advocate a policy or action, and presents facts
supporting the position stated.

C ) e. review of the literature reports which integrate,
summarize, and perhaps interpret the published
information on admissions.

C ) f. special reports which report the special activities
of the admissions staff.

263

Reports prepared and distributed by the admissions staff
the following characteristics:

have

C

C
C
C

C
C

)

)
)
)

V

)
)

u.
V.

information and statistics presented in the reports
is accurate.

the arrangement, format, layout and makeup of the
reports presents a dignified appearance.

the reports are brief as possible and contain only
essential data.

the most economical methods of preparing the
reports are practiced and yet maintaining satis-
factory quality.

the reports are so prepared that they are intelligible
and capable of being understood by the reader.

the reports are thoroughly reliable and do not
create erroneous impressions either by content or
arrangement.

the reports are presented as simply as the
materials permit.

the reports are distributed to recipients on a
well-maintained schedule.

Minutes of meetings and committees involving the
admissions program are readily available for use
in reviewing progress, planning future developments
and preparing annual and other reports.

Minutes covering decisions made concerning the
admissions program are forwarded to the admissions
office.

The admissions office receives reports from other
administrative offices.

Reports prepared and distributed by the admissions
office are made accessible to and are utilized in
making decisions and evaluations.

Secondary schools receive periodic reports from
the admissions office concerning the students
admission status.

Secondary schools and parents receive periodic
reports from the institution regarding the
student's academic achievement during his

freshman year.

Evaluation:

 

C
C

C

) 1. How satisfactory is the system of reporting the

admissions status of applicants to secondary schools?

) 2. How adequate are the reports distributed by the

admissions office to other administrative offices
of the institution?

) 3. How adequately does the admissions staff keep

faculty members and administrators informed of
the activities of the admissions service?

264

C ) 4. To what extent are minutes of all meetings involv-
ing admissions kept in neat,legib1e form and
properly filed?

C ) 5. How extensively are minutes conveyed in written
form to participants in the meeting and other
interested personnel?

C ) 6. To what extent is the admissions office provided
with reports and copies of proceedings from
meetings of the board of control, faculty com-
mittee meetings, and other decision making grOups?

Comments:

 

Subarea U

Coordination

A major purpose of the admissions staff is to assist the
administrative staff, the faculty and alumni to better
understand the admissions program. Maximum results of

the admissions program can be achieved only through coopera-
tive participation in the program by these groups. The
director of admissions will therefore need to coordinate

the activities of the admissions program by drawing upon

the entire admissions staff, institutional resources,
secondary school personnel and alumni, and national

testing agencies.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

Members of the admissions staff

C ) a. share with alumni, faculty and the administrative
staff published and up-to-date information on the
admissions program. '

C ) b. systematically inform alumni,fhculty and adminis~
trative staff of new materials and information
being distributed to prospective students and
the public schools.

C ) c. inform academic departments systematically of
prospect student interest in their department.

“AAA

AAA/\A

A

AA

V

VVVV

VVVVV

V

VV

d.

265

cooperate with faculty members in acquainting pros-
pective students with selected areas of study.

keep alumni, faculty and administrative staff
informed of the needs and services relating to

the admissions office.

receives active support and encouragement from
alumni, faculty, and the administrative staff.
encourage alumni, faculty and administrative staff
to participate in the functflans of the admissions
program.

participate in alumni and faculty activities and,
meetings.

discuss with faculty the educational and occupational
implications of their subject-matter fields.
participate with alumni and faculty in group confer-
ences with prospective students. ‘

k. There is evidence of alumni, faculty and adminis-

trative staff interest and cooperation with the
admissions office in sudh matters as pre-college
advising, attending career days, and secondary
school—college relations.

1. As the results of effective coordination the

m.

n.

admissions staff has developed and implemented an
orderly arrangement of admissions functions.

The activities of each admissions function as well
as the total program is in orderly progression.
There is evidence of careful planning and prepara-
tion of the admissions program and its functions.

0. Chief administrators work cooperatively in coordinating

P.

q.

r.

the admissions service and its functions.

The admissions staff, faculty, and staff regard

the admissions program as a cooperative undertaking.
The admissions program is planned and coordinated

as an integral part of the institutional educational
program.

The admissions program is coordinated with other
institutional services serving the new student.

3. Admissions, instructional and administrative per-

sonnel regard admissions functions as a cooperative
undertaking in which each has well-defined respon-
sibilities.

Institutional services, including the admissions
program, are coordinated so as to help students
develop both immediate and long-range educational
plans. ~

266
Evaluation:

C ) 1. How adequately do members of the admissions staff
involve alumni, faculty, and administrative staff
in the admissions program?

( ) 2. How adequately do members of the admissions staff
keep alumni, faculty, and administrative staff
informed of the needs and services of the admissions
office?

( ) 3. How adequate is the concept of the admissions staff
held by the alumni, faculty, and administrative
staff of the institution?

( ) 4. To what extent are provisions made to use the
assistance of alumni, faculty, and administrative
staff in the admissions program?

( ) 5. To what extent do alumni, faculty, and adminis-
trative staff indicate interest in and understanding
of the functions of the admissions program?

( ) 6. How well do alumni, faculty and administrative
staff cooperate with the admissions staff in
appropriate phases of the admissions program?

( ) 7. How effectively do alumni, admissions, instructional
and administrative personnel cooperate in appropri-
ate phases of the admissions program?

( ) 8. How well is the admissions program coordinated
to meet the needs of the applicant?

Comments:

 

Subarea V
Research and Evaluatflbn

An effective program of admissions requires systematic,

valid and continuous research and evaluation. Every admissions
office may not be able to prepare to undertake extensive
scientific studies although each one should be able to make
intelligent investigations of many aspects of its service

and functions. The outcomes of research and evaluation

should be a more realistic approach to problems, a more
critical attitude, greater curiosity, a better understanding,
and a more active desire to improve the admissions program.

267

Evaluative Criteria:

 

(
C

)a.

)b.

)C.

Self—evaluation of individual programs and
services is promoted on an all-institutional basis.
There is an awareness of the importance of the

use of evaluation methods in the improvement of
admissions.

There is evidence to indicate that research and
evaluation functions are an integral part of the
admissions program.

The admissions staff recognized its responsibility
and provides for the periodic and systematic
evaluation of all aspects of the total admissions
program.

There is in operation a systematic evaluation

and research plan that includes the use of
appropriate types of measuring instruments.

The program of evaluation and research has been
evolved with consideration for both the over-all
philosophy of the institution and the specific
purposes of the admissions program.

Investigations are made which clearly seek to
clarify admissions problems, provide new knowledge
pertinent to the program, improve old practices,
or institute a new one.

Members of the admissions staff meet periodically
with other administrative staff personnel for the
purpose of sharing ideas and plans for self-evaluation.
Studies are conducted by the regular staff members
who are competent to carry on, to evaluate, and to
interpret the results critically in terms of institu-
tional policies and practices.

Provision has been made in the evaluation and
research plan for the sharing of the results with
appropriate faculty and administrative staff members.
Methods used in the investigation of admissions
problems are appropriate to the study undertaken.
Provision is made for finding out how high school
administrative and guidance personnel feel about
the admissions program and its various functions.
Provision is made for finding out how students

and parents served by the admissions office feel
about its various functions and service.

Provision is made for finding out how faculty
members feel about the admissions program and its
functions.

Follow-up and withdrawal studies are used as a
means of evaluating the effectiveness of the
admissions program.

Professional consultants have been used in the
evaluation of the admissions program.

268

There is financial support provided to carry on
investigations in an adequate manner. Such support
is in the form of office supplies, Clerical
assistance, release of administrator's time, and
specific budget appropriation.

Interpretation of the results obtained from research
and evaluation is used in admissions planning.
Evaluation and research results indicate that a
student selection procedure is in operation which
is based on the institution’s philosophy and
objectives.

The data and information collected from the
research and evaluation of the service are used

to bring about improvement in the admissions
program and in such specific areas as admissions
policies, requirements and functions.

There is evidence that findings of studies are

used effectively in improving the admissions
program.

Evaluations:

 

AAA

VVV

VV

How adequate are the evaluation and research
activities of the admissions office?

How adequate are provisions for research and
evaluation?

To what extent is the institution identifying
problems in admissions and seeking their solution?
To what extent does the admissions staff use
results of evaluation and research in analyzing
the effectiveness of the admissions program?

To what extent are resources such as materials and
consultants available for use in admissions
evaluation?

To what extent are resources such as materials

and consultants used in admissions evaluation?
How appropriate are the evaluation procedures?
How comprehensive are the evaluation procedures?

 

Comments:

269

General Evaluation of the Basic
Admissions Functions

Special Characteristics:

1.

What are the best or strongest subareas of the basic
admissions functions?
a.

b

C.

What subareas of the basic admissions funcfions are
least adequate or in greatest need of improvement?

What subareas of the basic admissions functions have
been improved within the last two years?
a.

b

C.

What improvements are now being made or are definitely
planned for the immediate future?

General Evaluations:

(
(

C

) 3

) 1. To what extent has the admissions staff identified

its basic functions?

) 2. To what extent is the admissions staff identifying

problems in the area of basic functions and seeking
their solution?

To what extent are the basic admissions functions
serving the needs of the institution?

270

AREA VII

FUNCTIONS COMPLEMENTARY to the
ADMISSIONS PROGRAM

STANDARD

In some institutions, certain policies, programs, and
services related to the admissions program are delegated
to offices and personnel created for the purpose of pro-
viding technical and professional leadership. There

may include orientation, testing, academic advising and
counseling, selective retention and student financial
aids. These functions may be said to complement the
admissions program and its basic functions. The nature

of the admissions program is such that certain aspects of
its activities may involve the interrelationship of a
number of individuals and offices in varying ways. Inter-
relation of functions, resources and effort makes coordina—
tion and integration necessary.

Since the admissions program must operate within the
framework of an organizational structure, it is impossible
to separate the admissions program from the procedural
structure and interrelationships of the institution. The
interrelationship, coordination, and integration of
institutional policies, programs, and services applies
directly to the growth, development and success of the
admissions program. The integration and coordination of
related functions should be carefully planned and provide
for unity, balance, logical and psychological progression
and should be influenced by institutional philosophy and
objectives. The basic principle involved in coordinating
and integrating institutional policies, programs, and
services is embodied in the description of the admissions
process as a "series of selected student experiences. "

Functions complementary to the admissions program usually
include:

Program orientation -— the first function following
admissions, designed as part of the total educa-
tional program, so as to aid the student in making
a harmonious adjustment to academic life in higher
education.

Institutional testing -- integrated with the admissions
program since properly selected tests can provide
helpful information and research regarding applicants.

271

Academic advising and counseling service -- assists
the student to clarify his educational objectives
and to plan his program wisely; identifies those
needing remedial services.

Selective retention -- refers to the practice of
retaining students who are able to meet minimum
academic and personal standards set by the
institution; a desirable balance must be maintained
between the selective retention policy and the
admissions policy.

Student financial aids -- the function designed to
help needy, worthy students continue their educa-
tion; usually based on information obtained during
the process of admissions.

Student housing -- in view of the involvement of
housing with the opportunity of attending college
and with the student’s educational experience the
cooperative planning of admissions and housing is
essential.

Evaluation of the functions complementary to the admissions
program should determine if these functions are delegated

to the correct institutional unit and office. Especially

in admissions, where the element of time is important,
functions which must be performed in sequence shall be
located as closely together as possible, both organizationally
and physically. The greater the amount of required coordina-
tion, communication and paperwork, the slower the service,
the greater the possibilities for mistakes and the more
expensive the operation. Complementary functions organiza-
tionally close together enables better performance.

Evaluative Guides:

1. ‘Who directs the following activities of the institution?
program orientation
institutional testing
academic advising and counseling
selective retention
student financial aids
student housing

2. Attach a concise description of these areas including
a chart showing organization.

272

Subarea W

Program Orientation

An orientation program consists of continuing activities
designed to induct the student into his new life and
environment as a member of the college or university
family. A well-designed orientation program should be
part of the total educational program so as to aid the
student in making a harmonious adjustment to the academic
life of the institution. As the first function usually
following admissions it is a period during which place-
ment tests are usually administered so that a student
may be properly placed in the academic program of the
institution.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

The orientation program is:

C ) a. required of all new students.

C ) b. regarded as an integral part of the instructional
program.

C ) c. coordinated and integrated with the admissions
program.

C ) d. designed to acquaint the new student with the

educational program of the institution.

C ) e. designed to expedite and personalize the regis-

tration procedure.

C ) f. designed to acquaint the new student with the

faculty, administration, and student leadas.

C ) g. designed to provide experiences so each student

can gain an understanding of his own academic
potential.

C ) h. designed to acquaint new students with reliable
sources of information and with campus developments
which affect their lives.

i. the administrative responsibility of one individual.

' The relationship between the orientation program

and the admissions program is conducive to effective

operation.

C ) k. The unity of effort between the orientation program

and the admissions program is orderly and efficient.

C ) 1. The responsibility for coordinating the orientation

program and the admissions program has been delegated
to one individual.

C ) m. The individuals directing the orientation program

and the admissions program understand the goals
toward which they are working.

AA
VV
(.1

O

273

C ) n. The individuals responsible for the orientation
program and the admissions program check, observe,
and appraise the nature and extent of their
coordination and integration.

C ) o. The specialized efforts of the orientation program
and the admissions program are coordinated into
an integrated whole.

C )p.
C )q.
Evaluation:

 

C ) 1. How effective is the orientation program?

C ) 2. How adequate is the quality of orientation
activities?

C ) 3. How satisfactory is the planning for the orienta-
tion program?

C ) 4. How adequate is the provision for coordination
of the orientation program with the admissions
program?

C ) 5. To what extent is the orientation program and the
admissions program coordinated and integrated
into an effective total performance?

C ) 6. To what extent does the admissions staff demonstrate
ability to discuss and use the orientation program?

Comments:

Subarea X

Institutional Testing

A well-conceived and administered testing service cannot
fail to be helpful to an admissions program. The extent

of the testing program depends on the educational philosophy
of the institution. For most purposes in admissions, a
group of standard tests, combined in what is usually
described as a test battery, is more feasible than a few
special tests. A combination of several tests permits at
least a broad appraisal and takes advantage of the research
and evaluation already accumulated with respect to these
instruments. Provisions must be made for the integration

274

of the admissions program with the testing service since
the information tests can provide both systematically
and objectively about applicants can be extremely helpful.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

The testing service is

A A A AA AA

C
C

V v V VV VV

)
)

a.
b.

an
no

P.
Q.

regarded as a necessary institutional service.
coordinated and integrated with the admissions
program.

the administrative responsibility of one individual.
Tests are used to identify students who need remedial
instruction.

Tests are used to reveal strengths and to suggest
areas for further study.

Students of unusual achievement and ability are
identified through the testing service.
Interpretation of test results is used in con-
junction with academic advising and counseling
activities.

The position of the testing service and the
admissions program in the over-all organization
structure provides maximum performance in the
manner and time desired.

The placement of the testing service in the
organizational structure is the best possible.

The relationship between the testing service and

the admissions office is conducive to effective
operation.

The unity of effort between the testing service

and the admissions program is orderly and efficient.
The responsibility for coordinating the testing
service and the admissions program has been delegated
to one individual.

The individuals directing the testing service and
the admissions program understand the goals toward
which they are working.

The individuals directing the testing service and
the admissions program check, observe, and appraise
the nature of their coordination and integration.
The specialized efforts of the testing service

and the admissions program are coordinated into

an integrated whole.

Evaluation:

C
C

) 1. How effective is the testing service?
) 2. How adequate is the variety of tests offered by the

testing service?

275

) 3. How adequate is the quality of the tests used by
the testing service?

) 4. How satisfactory is the planning for the testing
program?

) 5. How adequate is the provision for coordinating
the testing service with the admissions program?

) 6. To what extent is the testing service and the
admissions program coordinated and integrated
into an effective total performance?

AAA/N

Comments:

Subarea Y
Academic Advising and Counseling

The purpose of the academic advising and counseling service
is to assist the student to clarify his educational objec—
tives and to plan his program wisely. This service should
be conducted by carefully selected, specially trained
faculty members and counseling specialists. The academic
advising and counseling service is a cohesive function
drawing together all the institution's resources in
assisting the student to achieve the objectives of higher
education. Special attention may be given to the remedial
services in the areas of speech and reading, recognizing
that defects in these areas may impede the educational
progress of many students.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

The academic advising and counseling service is

a available to all students who desire it.

b. regarded as an integral part of the instruction
program.

c. coordinated and integrated with the admissions
program.

d. the administrative responsibility of one individual.

e provided by staff members who are acquainted with

the institution and its curricula and services.

f. Data obtained from testing and other diagnostic

services are used to help students know what they

have done well and what needs to be improved.

C )
C )
C )
C )
C )
C )

AAA/\A

AAA

VVVVV

VVV

276

Remedial and developmental reading activities

are available.

Remedial or clinical speech activities are available.
Advanced placement and honors courses are organized
for the rapid learners.

Courses are organized to provide for sequential
development.

Individuals are grouped or identified on the basis
of previous academic record and tests for course
placement.

The position of the academic advising and counseling
service and the admissions program in the over-all
organization structure provides maximum performance
in the manner and time desired.

The placement of the academic advising and counseling
service in the organizational structure is the best
possible.

The relationship between the academic advising and
counseling service and the admissions office is
conducive to effective operation.

The unity of effort between the academic advising
and counseling service and the admissions program
is orderly and efficient.

The responsibility for coordinating the academic
advising and counseling service and the admissions
program has been delegated to one individual.

The individuals directing the academic advising

and counseling service and the admissions program
understand the goals toward which they are working.
The individuals directing the academic advising

and counseling service and the admissions program
check, observe, and appraise the nature of their
coordination and integration.

The specialized efforts of the academic advising
and counseling service and the admissions program
are coordinated into an integrated whole.

How effective is the academic advising and counsel-
ing service?

How adequate is the quality of the academic and
counseling service?

How satisfactory is the planning for the academic
and counseling service?

How adequate is the provision for coordination of
the academic advising and counseling service and
the admissions program?

To what extent is the academic advising and counsel-
ing service coordinated and integrated into an
effective total performance?

 

277

C ) 6. To what extent does the admissions staff demonstrate
ability to discuss the academic and advising program?

Comments:

Subarea Z .MMA

Selective Retention

'N‘ .' J

Selective retention refers to the practice of retaining
only the most promising students and placing on probation
or dropping those who are unable to meet the minimum
academic and personal standards set by the institution.
These are usually minimum standards that include academic '““
ability and achievement, health and physical fitness, per-

sonal and social qualities. Failure to meet the minimum

retention standards may result in the student being dis~

missed, suspended, or he may be required to change his

curriculum. There is usually some procedure for review-

ing the cases of those students dropped from the institution.

 

It is essential that consideration be given to the selective
retention standards when determining the policy and require-
ments for admission. As changes occur in one function,
adjustments must be made in the other. A desirable balance
must be maintained between the selective retention policy
and the admissions policy.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

The selective retention policy is based on

follow-up studies of students who have been dis—
missed for academic reasons.

analysis of reasons for student failure.
institutional philosophy and objectives.

standards which allow only students of professional
and personal promise to graduate.

The selective retention policy is effective in
regards to institutional needs.

f. The selective retention standards provide individual
differences in rates of learning, capacities,
problems, needs, and interests within the framework
of the philosophy and objectives of the institution.

ocuo‘ w
0 O O C

CD
0

C
C
C
C
C
C

V \J VVV v

278

C ) g. The reinstatement of students is based on objective
evidence.

C ) h. There is a desirable balance maintained between
the selective retention policy and the admissions
policy.

C ) i. The institution retains an appropriate student
body in light of its philosophy and objectives.

C ) j. The retention within departments and curricula
reflect their basic purposes.

C )k.

C )1.

Evaluation:

 

C ) 1. How effective is the selective retention policy?

C ) 2. How adequately does the selective retention
policy provide for individual differences among
students?

C ) 3. How adequately is selective retention policy
correlated with admissions policy?

C ) 4. To what extent do members of the admissions staff
assist in determining the selective retention
policy?

Comments:

Subarea.AA
Student Financial Aids

The student financial aid function is designed to help
needy, worthy students continue their education. In
general, financial assistance may come from: .

1 Scholarship awards primarily granted to a su1dent
in recognition of superior scholastic ability and
achievement, with financial need a secondary factor.
2. Loans or grants in aid given primarily to a needy
student who is deserving of assistance.
Student employment for which a student is paid for
his services at a specified rate of pay.

 

279

Evaluative Criteria:

The student financial aids program is

 

 

C ) a. regarded as an integral part of the educational
process of the student.
C ) b. coordinated and integrated with the admissions
program.
C ) c. the administrative responsibility of one person.
C ) d. Student applications for financial aid are ade-
quately screened in terms of relative need.
C ) e. There is a clear-cut policy for awarding the
financial aid which considers the needs of the
student as well as the objectives of the institution. '?“m
C ) f. All types of financial aid including scholarship, 1
loans, and student employment are properly coordinated. E
C ) g. In gathering information on applicants the financial é
aids office utilizes the records and information 3
in the admissions office. E
C ) h. The position of the student aids program and the ;
admissions program in the over-all organization 1
structure provides maximum performance in the L“,
manner and time desired.
C ) i. The placement of the student aids program in the
organizational structure is the best possible.
C ) j. The relationship between the student aids program
and the admissions office is conducive to effective
operation.
C ) k. The unity of effort between the student aids program
and the admissions program is orderly and efficient.
C ) l. The responsibility for coordinating the student aids
program and the admissions program has been delegated
to one individual.
C ) m. The individuals directing the student aids program
and the admissions program understand the goals
toward which they are working.
C ) n. The individuals directing the student aids program
and the admissions program check, observe, and
appraise the nature of their coordination and
integration.
C ) o. The specialized efforts of the student aids program
and the admissions program are coordinated into an
integrated whole.
()p.
C)q.
Evaluation:
C ) 1. How effective is the student financial aids
program?
C ) 2. How adequate is the ualit of student financial aids?
C ) 3. How satisfactory is the pIanning for student finaancial

aids?

280

C ) 4. How adequate is the provision for coordination
of the student financial aids program with the
admissions program?

C ) 5. To what extent is the student aids program and
the admissions program coordinated and integrated
into an effective total performance?

C ) 6. To what extent does the admissions staff demon-
strate ability to discuss and use the student
financial aids function?

Comments:

Subarea BB

Student Housing

Since the admissions staff is the primary spokesman for

the institution in all matters of concern to prospective
students and their parents, they must be thoroughly

familiar with the housing of students on their campus.
Potential problems of living in residence halls, fraternity

and sorority houses and off-campus housing which may inter—
fere with the student’s academic achievement must be identified
and recognized by the admissions office. The availability

of housing for applicants must be known to those responsible
for admitting students.

Evaluative Criteria:

 

The student housing program is

a. regarded as a supplementary educational experience.
b. coordinated and integrated with the admissions
program.

the administrative responsibility of one person.

d. supervised by qualified personnel who communicate
with administrative and faculty personnel.

e. The unity of effort between the housing service

and the admissions program is orderly and efficient.
f. The responsibility for coordinating the housing
service and the admissions program has been delegated
to one individual.

C
C
C
C
C
C

vvvvvv
O
O

C
C

Evaluations:

281

) g. The individuals directing the housing service and

admissions program understand the goals toward
which they are working.

) h. The individuals responsible for the housing service

)

and the admissions program check, observe, and
appraise the nature and extent of their coordination
and integration.

i. The placement of the housing service in the
organizational structure is the best possible.

) j. The relationship between the housing service and

)
)

the admissions program is conducive to effective
operation.
k.

1 . 1 Wang.

 

C
C
C
C
C

V V VVV

1. How effective is the housing service?

2. How adequate is the ualit of the housing service?

3. How adequate is the pIann1ng for the housing
service?

4. How adequate is the provision for coordinating

5

 

the housing service with the admissions program?
. To what extent is the housing service and the
admissions program coordinated and integrated
into an effective total performance?
6. To what extent does the admissions staff demon-
strate knowledge of the housing service?

Comments:

General Evaluation of the Functions Complementary
to the Admissions Program

Special Characteristics:

1.

In what respects is the relationship between the basic
functions of the admissions office and the functions
of those offices identified as being complementary

to the admissions program?

a

282

In what respects is there greatest need for improving
the relationship between basic and complementary
functions of the admissions office?

a

In what respects has attention been directed toward
improvement of the relationship between basic and
complementary functions of the admissions office within
the last two years?

a

b

C

d.

‘What improvements are now being made or are definitely
planned for the immediate future?
a.

b

C.

d.

General Evaluation:

C

C

C

) 1. To what extent has the admissions staff identified

functions that are complementary to the admissions
program?

) 2. To what extent are the functions identified as

being complementary in serving the needs of the
institution?

) 3. To what extent is the admissions staff identifying

problems in the area of complementary functions
and seeking their solution?

 

APPENDIX G

A SAMPLE OF RESEARCH REPORTS AND OTHER DATA
AVAILABLE FOR THOSE CONDUCTING A SELF-
EVALUATION OF THE.ADMISSIONS PROGRAM AT
BALL STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE

283

 

284

Grade Summary - Fall 1961. (The percentage distribution of

 

 

grades for the fall quarter are tabulated by
ability groups as determined by SCAT Verbal scores
and percentile rank in High School graduating class.)

Grade Summaries - Over 2 Seven Year Period. (Examines the

 

 

question, "Do Ball State students have as great an
opportunity today of surviving college as in previous
years?")

Counseling and Testing Center Research. (Started in 1958
and is still being conducted. The objectives
of this research are C1) to provide an adequate,
comprehensive and continuing description of the
Ball State Teachers College student population,
in total and/or by selected sub-groups at any
given time; (2) to provide adequate data about
each individual student for use in assessing his
potential for college and post-college success;
diagnosing his educational and psychological
needs, strengths and weaknesses; and evaluating
his educational development. As oanpril l, 1962,
thirty-one sub-studies have been conducted. A
sample of a study of extreme interest to the com-
mittee evaluating admissions in Sub-study No. 6,
July 25, 1958, "A Comparison of Entrance Test
Results of the 1957 Entering Student Groups at
Ball State Teachers College with National College

Freshman Norms."

 

k1

Ivan-um .

285

Statement of Request 12_Commission 22_Colleges and Univer-

 

sities of the North Central Association of Colleges and
Secondary Schools. (A report requesting preliminary
accreditation of proposed doctorate programs in elementary
education and social science education. This report was
written by the Director of Graduate Studies, with the
advice and assistance of the following: The Graduate
Councils of 1959-60 and 1960-61; the seven sub-committees
which conducted an institutional self-survey; the President

of the College; the Dean; and others.)

 

RDUM USE flNL’V