Making college admission count: the importance of admission criteria in the current undergraduate admission process

Rowan University Rowan University

Rowan Digital Works Rowan Digital Works

Theses and Dissertations

6-6-2018

Making college admission count: the importance of admission Making college admission count: the importance of admission

criteria in the current undergraduate admission process criteria in the current undergraduate admission process

Amanda Rachel Tessler

Rowan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://rdw.rowan.edu/etd

Part of the Higher Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Tessler, Amanda Rachel, "Making college admission count: the importance of admission criteria in the

current undergraduate admission process" (2018).

Theses and Dissertations

. 2574.

https://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/2574

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Rowan Digital Works. It has been accepted for inclusion

in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Rowan Digital Works. For more information, please

contact graduateresearch@rowan.edu.

MAKING COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNT: THE IMPORTANCE OF

ADMISSION CRITERIA IN THE CURRENT UNDERGRADUATE

ADMISSION PROCESS

Amanda Tessler

A Thesis

Submitted to the

Department of Educational Services and Leadership

College of Education

In partial fulfillment of the requirement

For the degree of

Master of Arts in Higher Education

Rowan University

May 1, 2018

Thesis Chair: Burton R. Sisco, Ed.D.

Dedication

I would like to dedicate this to my parents. Thank you both for always pushing me

to do better and supporting me, not only in graduate school, but my personal life as well.

Without you, I would have never found myself in graduate school with aspirations of

continuing my education and becoming the doctor in the family. Because of you, I am

always pushing myself harder, and wanting even more for myself. Thank you both.

Acknowledgments

First, I would like to thank my family for supporting me throughout grad school.

Thank you for letting me miss holidays and being so understanding when you could not

see me for months at a time.

I would also like to thank my friends and coworkers for encouraging me,

understanding how busy I have been over the past two years, letting me vent, and

listening to me complain and stress over the work I needed to do. Now that this is

finished, I can finally have a social life with you all again!

Thank you to my boyfriend who has only known me as a graduate student and has

stuck around this whole time. Thank you for supporting me, letting me cancel plans, and

staying in at night and on weekends with me when I was too tired to do anything. I

definitely could not have done it without you.

Lastly, thank you to Dr. Sisco for his guidance and knowledge throughout these

past two years. With your support, I gained a deeper knowledge and stronger passion for

research.

Abstract

Amanda Tessler

MAKING COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNT: THE IMPORTANCE OF ADMISSION

CRITERIA IN THE CURRENT UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSION PROCESS

2017-2018

Burton R. Sisco, Ed.D.

Master of Arts in Higher Education

During these changing times in higher education, admission criteria for being

accepted into a four-year institution for higher education continues to evolve. This study

discovered the attitudes that guidance counselors and admission officers, from public

schools throughout New Jersey, had about these criteria, and what they believed is most

important for current students applying to college. Two surveys were developed and

distributed via email to guidance counselors of public high schools throughout New

Jersey, as well as admission officers of public four-year institutions throughout New

Jersey. Results suggest that quantitative admission criteria, SAT and ACT scores and

HSGPA, are the most important, and also course load and transcript. Further research

should look to discover the reasoning behind why each of these are so important, as well

as looking to discover how important these admission criteria are to students currently

applying to college.

vi!

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................v

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................ix

Chapter I: Introduction .....................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................................1

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................1

Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................2

Assumptions and Limitations ....................................................................................2

Operational Definitions ..............................................................................................3

Important Acronyms ..................................................................................................4

Research Questions ....................................................................................................4

Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................5

Chapter II: Review of the Literature ................................................................................6

Current Admissions Process and Requirements ........................................................6

Quantitative Admission Criteria ................................................................................9

Standardized Testing ............................................................................................9

High School GPA ................................................................................................14

Class Rank ...........................................................................................................14

Qualitative Admission Criteria ..................................................................................15

Extracurricular Activities .....................................................................................16

Personal Essays ....................................................................................................17

Letters of Recommendation .................................................................................18

Interviews .............................................................................................................19

vii!

Table of Contents (Continued)

District Factor Grouping (DFG) ..........................................................................20

Course Load and Transcript .................................................................................20

The Role of High School Guidance Counselors ........................................................21

Job Description ....................................................................................................21

Role in the Application Process ...........................................................................21

Importance of Understanding College Admissions .............................................22

Summary of the Literature Review ............................................................................23

Chapter III: Methodology ................................................................................................25

Context of Study ........................................................................................................25

Population and Sampling ...........................................................................................33

Data Collection Instruments ......................................................................................34

Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................36

Data Analysis .............................................................................................................37

Chapter IV: Findings ........................................................................................................38

Profile of the Sample: Guidance Counselors and Admission Counselors .................38

Analysis of the Data ...................................................................................................41

Research Question 1 ............................................................................................41

Research Question 2 ............................................................................................45

Research Question 3 ............................................................................................46

Chapter V: Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations .......................48

Summary of the Study ...............................................................................................48

Discussion of the Findings .........................................................................................48

viii!

Table of Contents (Continued)

Research Question 1 ............................................................................................48

Research Question 2 ............................................................................................50

Research Question 3 ............................................................................................51

Conclusions ................................................................................................................52

Recommendations for Practice ..................................................................................53

Recommendations for Further Research ....................................................................53

References ........................................................................................................................55

Appendix A: Institutional Review Board Approval ........................................................58

Appendix B: Initial Email to Potential Subjects ..............................................................59

Appendix C: Reminder Email to Potential Subjects ........................................................60

Appendix D: Online Alternate Consent Form .................................................................61

Appendix E: Survey for Admission Officers ...................................................................63

Appendix F: Survey for Guidance Counselors ................................................................65

ix!

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 3.1. Institutions Used for Data Collection .............................................................25

Table 3.2. School Districts Used for Data Collection with A-C DFG Rating .................26

Table 3.3. School Districts Used for Data Collection with D-F DFG Rating .................29

Table 3.4. School Districts Used for Data Collection with G-I DFG Rating ..................31

Table 4.1. Demographics of Guidance Counselors (N=232) ...........................................39

Table 4.2. Demographics of Admission Officers (N=47) ...............................................40

Table 4.3. Guidance Counselors' Attitudes Towards Admission Criteria (N=232) ........42

Table 4.4. Admission Officers' Attitudes Towards Admission Criteria (N=47) .............44

Table 4.5. Importance of Admission Criteria Means for Guidance Counselors and

Admission Officers ..........................................................................................46

Table 4.6. Read Any Past/Current SAT Research (N=279) ............................................47

Table 4.7. Belief of Which Criterion Best Predicts Academic Success (N=279) ............47

Chapter I

Introduction

The college admission process continues to evolve, adapt, and grow as the world

continues to change. Many requirements have held over the years, including standardized

test scores, letters of recommendation, and high school grade point average. However,

there is no consistent understanding of the importance of each of these requirements.

Each institution is different, whether it is public or private, small or large. Admission

offices and institutions look for different criteria in potential students. In order for high

school seniors to successfully navigate the collegiate admission process, they look to

their guidance counselors for advice.

Statement of the Problem

Since the types of institutions vary, each one operating and expecting different

standards from potential students, there is a common question of, “What are the most

important qualifications for a student to be accepted into a four-year institution?”

Guidance counselors in high schools are supposed to guide their students through the

college application process. However, since every institution weighs admission criteria

differently, consistency and knowledge about what criteria are the most important when

applying to college has declined.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to discover and compare the attitudes of selected

high school guidance counselors and college admission officers regarding the admission

criteria used in selecting college applicants. The study sought to focus on what is most

important for being accepted into an undergraduate program at a four-year public college

in New Jersey, as well as discovering the similarities and differences between the

attitudes of the subjects. The admission criteria selected were general requirements that

have a research and knowledge base on their predictability of first-year academic success.

Therefore, the goal of this study was to make the admission process easier to understand

for high school students in New Jersey.

Significance of the Study

This study looks to provide insight into the college admission process from the

perspectives of high school guidance counselors and admission officers. By discovering

the importance of admission criteria between these two subject groups, gaps in the

knowledge base can be closed. This can lead to more success for guidance counselors in

helping their students be accepted into a college in New Jersey by understanding the

admission process from the perspective of admission officers of these colleges.

Assumptions and Limitations

First, this study assumes that all subjects answered the survey fully and honestly,

based off of what is used in practice. A number of correlations may be found, but they

should not be used to generalize the population of high schools and higher education

institutions’ roles in college admissions. New Jersey high schools and colleges only

represent a small percentage of postsecondary institutions in the United States with

possible different standards of schools. The public-school system varies from state-to-

state and cannot be generalized. There also may be researcher bias since I worked as a

graduate intern in the Rowan University Admission’s Department during the time of the

study. This could have affected my understanding of the importance of varied admission

criteria and the admission process, as well as develop my own biases towards specific

criteria.

Operational Definitions

1. Academic Success: Meeting the institution’s expectations for students,

including retention and GPA.

2. Admission Officer: An employee of an institution’s Admissions Department

whose job is to recruit and select students to attend the institution.

3. Admission Requirements: Required criteria used to determine acceptance into

the institutions located in the state of New Jersey who were studied for this

research. This study looked at standardized test scores (SAT and ACT), high

school GPA, class rank, extracurricular activities, personal essays, letters of

recommendation, interviews, District Factor Grouping, and course load and

transcripts.

4. Guidance Counselor: An employee of a public New Jersey high school who

works in the high school’s guidance office and assists students in the college

application process.

5. Institution: A four-year public college or university in New Jersey that utilizes

an admissions department and a set of admission requirements to select their

students.

6. Qualitative Criteria: Requirements to submit to four-year institutions that focus

on personal qualities and characteristics. The qualitative criteria used in this study

were extracurricular activities, personal essays, letters of recommendation,

interviews, District Factor Grouping, and course load and transcripts.

7. Quantitative Criteria: Requirements to submit to four-year institutions that are

measurable. The quantitative criteria used in this study were standardized test

scores (SAT and ACT), high school GPA, and class rank.

8. Standards: Minimum and maximum requirements to be accepted into an

institution.

9. Student: A high school senior applying to a four-year college or university with

potential to attend the next year. The students referred to in this study were

seniors during the 2017-2018 school year in the state of New Jersey.

Important Acronyms

1. DFG: District Factor Grouping

2. FYGPA: First Year (of college) Grade Point Average

3. HSGPA: High School Grade Point Average

4. SATC: SAT Combined Score

5. SATM: SAT Math Score

6. SATV: SAT Verbal Score

7. SATW: SAT Writing Score

Research Questions

This study sought to explore three questions:

1. What are the most important admission criteria according to selected admission

officers and guidance counselors in New Jersey?

2. What similarities or differences are found between these two groups and their

attitudes towards current college requirements?

3. Do the subjects’ attitudes towards the chosen admission criteria correlate to the

literature on the predictability of student academic success?

Overview of the Study

Chapter II reviews relevant literature on current admission processes and

requirements in four-year institutions. The review looks at both quantitative and

qualitative admission criteria, including standardized tests, high school GPA, class rank,

extracurricular activities personal essays, letters of recommendation, interviews, District

Factor Grouping, and course load and transcripts. This chapter discusses each of the

criteria used in this study, including discussions on predictability of first-year college

academic success and the general uses of each of the criteria in the admissions process.

Chapter III describes the procedures and methodologies used in this study. In this

chapter are explanations of the target population and sample, explanations of the high

schools and colleges selected, data collection methods, instruments, and data analysis

measures.

Chapter IV presents the findings and results of the study. This chapter looks at the

results found and compares the findings to the initial research questions. This chapter also

looks at the demographics of the subjects.

Chapter V discusses the significant findings, offers conclusions, and discusses

suggestions for practice and further research.

Chapter II

Review of the Literature

Current Admissions Process and Requirements

The current college admission process varies from institution to institution.

Procedures are general among them, but the specific requirements and standards vary due

to competitiveness of each institution. Applications typically include an application form,

high school transcript, standardized test scores, letters of recommendation, and personal

essay. Admission departments look at these and other criteria submitted by an applicant

to make their admission decision. The criteria can be broken down into two categories:

quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative criteria are measurable requirements,

including grades and test scores. The qualitative criteria focus on personal qualities and

characteristics. These criteria include letters of recommendation, personal essays, and

interviews.

The varied admission criteria and standards stem from the differences in

importance of each of the admission criteria used by admissions officers and the

institution. Some admission officers believe that the quantitative criteria are most

important due to the research on predictability of student success, while others believe

that qualitative criteria show personal characteristics of a student that academic

performance may hide.

The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC)

distributes their Admission Trends Survey (ATS) each year. The 2015 survey received 687

responses from institutions across the country, and collected data on application volume,

wait lists, Early Decision and Early Action, and most important factors in admission

decisions (National Association for College Admission Counseling [NACAC], 2016).

The criteria used most in admission decisions in Fall 2015, according to the institutions

surveyed, were high school grades and GPA, strength of curriculum, and standardized

test scores (NACAC, 2016).

Admissions departments often lean towards using either a formulaic or holistic

review process while making admissions decisions (Richmond, 2011; Tremblay, 2013).

A formulaic approach focuses on the quantitative admissions criteria of potential

students, which includes standardized test scores, high school GPA (HSGPA), and high

school class rank (McGinty, 2004). Often when using this approach, admissions officers

use a rubric or formula to make their admissions decision (Atkinson, 2001; McGinty,

2004). These rubrics and formulas have minimum and maximum scores that the applicant

must have to be accepted. Institutions pride themselves on raising their average scores

each year, by admitting more competitive students and raising their average test scores

and GPAs of incoming freshmen. Administrators in favor of this quantitative admissions

approach argue that research has shown that test scores, combined with grades, can

predict first-year academic success better than just grades alone (Zwick, 2007b).

A holistic approach to admissions decisions involves looking at more than simply

the candidate’s academic achievements, but takes into consideration both quantitative and

qualitative criteria of the applicant (Carlock, 2014; Gilroy, 2007; Hornberger, 2010;

Richmond, 2011). The criteria reviewed include extracurricular activities, including role

in the community and public service (Carlock, 2014). Institutions who use this approach

for admissions decisions look at these aspects of a student’s life as well as their academic

achievement and standardized test scores (Carlock, 2014). Looking at a potential

student’s application through a holistic perspective can “help all students, especially low-

income and minority students, determine their educational destinies” (Atkinson, 2001, p.

139). The holistic approach can help administrators understand an applicant’s character

and personal qualities as well as their academic potential.

Guidance counselors serve as a liaison between students and college admission. A

successful admission process relies on the assistance of high school guidance counselors.

One of the main responsibilities of a high school guidance counselor is assistance with

college applications (NACAC, 1990). Because of this, counselors need to know what

institutions, more specifically admission officers, are looking for in potential students.

Applicants need to be informed of what is most important to be accepted into an

institution, which is where guidance counselors come into play (Ishop, 2008). Multiple

studies have indicated that both admission officers and guidance counselors believe

academic factors were the most important in college admission criteria. However, they

did differ in their opinions on individual admission criteria (Gaitlin, 1997; Getler, 2007).

This study compares the importance of specific college admission criteria to

admission officers and high school guidance counselors. Quantitative and qualitative

admission criteria were included in this study. The quantitative criteria were standardized

testing, SAT and ACT scores, HSGPA, and class rank. The qualitative criteria were

extracurricular activities, personal essays, letters of recommendation, interviews, District

Factor Grouping (DFG), and course load and transcripts. This chapter discusses each of

the criteria used in the study, including discussions on predictability of first-year

academic success and the uses of each criterion in the admissions process.

Quantitative Admission Criteria

Standardized testing. Standardized testing for college admissions was first

established during the early twentieth century (Zwick, 2007b). During that time, there

were an abundance of entrance examinations that differed between institutions (Zwick,

2007b). In 1900, to try and standardize college admission testing, 12 leaders from the top

northeastern universities formed the College Entrance Examination Board (Zwick,

2007b). The SAT was first implemented in 1926 and, since then, has been praised for its

reliability and validity in predicting academic success in college freshmen (NACAC,

2016; Zwick, 2007b).

The SAT and ACT are the two most commonly used standardized tests.

According to the ATS survey, 78% of colleges who responded require either the SAT or

the ACT for admission with 3% requiring the SAT specifically (NACAC, 2016).

As of March 2016, the SAT was redesigned “to develop an assessment that better

reflects the work that students will do in college” (Shaw et al., 2016, p. 5). The

redesigned test includes three sections: reading and writing, math, and an optional essay

portion (Shaw et al., 2016). Both reading and writing and math sections are scored on a

200-800 scale with subscores on a 10-40 scale (Shaw et al., 2016). A validity study was

completed for the redesigned SAT in the fall of 2014 (Shaw et al., 2016). Because this

redesign is young, majority of research looked at in this review are prior to the 2016

redesign.

There were 1,681,134 students in the class of 2016 who took the SAT, either the

old or redesigned version, at least once through June 2016 (“Class of 2016 SAT Results,”

2016). While the SAT is used in more institutions for admission and seems to be more

common, 2,090,342 students of the class of 2016 took the ACT (ACT, Inc., 2016).

The ACT is broken up into four sections: English, Math, Reading, and Science

(“Help and FAQ’s,” 2017). Students who take this test receive a composite score of 1-36,

which is made up of their average from the four test scores (“Help and FAQ’s,” 2017).

Along with a composite score, test takers receive four more scores designed to represent

college readiness: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) score, English

Language Arts (ELA) score, Progress Toward Career Readiness Indicator, and Text

Complexity Progress Indicator (“Help and FAQ’s,” 2017). The ACT test was designed to

measure academic achievement in the four sections, while the SAT focuses on reasoning

and definitions (“Help and FAQ’s,” 2017).

Standardized test scores predictability of first-year success. A significant amount

of research has suggested that SAT scores are valid and reliable predictors of first-year

GPA (FYGPA) in college (NACAC, 2016; Zwick, 2007b). An average correlation of

0.38 has been found between combined verbal and math SAT scores and FYGPA through

multiple research studies (Betts, 2011; Carlock, 2014; Zwick, 2007a). Zwick (2013)

suggests that 12-13% of the variance of first year GPA is attributed to SAT scores, and

21-22% of the variance is attributed to HSGPA and SAT scores combined.

The College Board conducted a validity test of the SAT in 2012 revealing a

stronger relationship between SAT scores and FYGPA with a correlation of .54 (Beard &

Marini, 2015). However, a stronger correlation of .61 was found when HSGPA was

added in (Beard & Marini, 2015). It is important to note that there may be bias in this

study, since The College Board, the organization responsible for the development and

distribution of the SAT, sponsored the research. Variance may be due to the

demographics of the sample; regions of the country sampled as well as undergraduate

enrollment were not equal (Beard & Marini, 2015). Variance may also be due to average

HSGPA of the sample as well as SAT scores (Beard & Marini, 2015). The mean HSGPA

was 3.62 with a standard deviation of 0.496 (Beard & Marini, 2015). The means of SAT

critical reading, SAT math, and SAT writing were 550, 571, and 544, respectively, with

standard deviations of 97.4, 99.7, and 99.5 (Beard & Marini, 2015).

Qualitative research has also suggested that there is predictability between

standardized test scores and academic success, but not all the time. However, the research

suggests the opposite of the quantitative criteria. Both admission officers and advisors

from Rowan University, based on their experience, believe that SAT scores do predict

academic success, however, they are only valid sometimes (Betts, 2011). These

administrators have often seen students with high SAT scores struggle in college and vice

versa (Betts, 2011). They recommended that SAT scores be given minimal weight when

making acceptance decisions (Betts, 2011).

Criticisms of the SAT. One criticism of standardized testing is how they are not

reliable for some students, i.e. students that come from a low-income family or a family

of low social economic status (SES) (Gilroy, 2007). Research has shown that there is a

positive correlation between family income and SAT scores: as family income increases,

so do SAT scores (Gilroy, 2007). Therefore, it is possible that socioeconomic status could

influence SAT and other standardized test scores (Gilroy, 2007).

It has also been noted that students with learning disabilities struggle with

standardized test taking; they are unable to successfully compete with other applicants

when comparing test scores (Betts, 2011).

Another criticism involves scholarship eligibility issues (Cohn, Cohn, Balch, &

Bradley, 2004; Gilroy, 2007). Research has suggested that nonwhite students are less

likely than their white counterparts to be eligible for scholarships if SAT scores are

required (Cohn et al., 2004). As for maintaining scholarships, “nonwhites are less likely

than whites, and males are less likely than females, to achieve the 3.0 GPA in college

required to maintain their scholarships” (Cohn et al., 2004, p. 585). Low socioeconomic

status may limit access to higher education due to standardized test bias (Gilroy, 2007).

SAT scores are more commonly becoming optional to submit during application because

of the likely bias against socioeconomic status (Betts, 2011; Cohn et al., 2004; Gilroy,

2007).

Even though research has suggested that the SAT is biased towards low SES

families and race/ethnicity, the College Board denies the bias (Letukas, 2015). Letukas

(2015) states how it is a fact that the positive correlation between higher SES status and

higher test scores is due to the rigorous course load in high school and not wealth.

Another fact discussed is that the SAT is not biased against some minority groups with

the reasoning being the rigorous pretest phase which determines which questions will be

used on the SAT (Letukas, 2015). If a question is biased during this phase to minority

groups, it will likely not be used in the final SAT (Letukas, 2015).

Another rumor discussed in the article addresses the problem of low predictability

of student achievement from SAT scores (Letukas, 2015). The fact discussed about this is

that the SAT is a “good predictor of first-year performance in college, student retention,

as well as cumulative college GPA” (Letukas, 2015, p. 3). It is then discussed that

HSGPA combined with SAT scores have an average correlation of .46 with first-year

college GPA, so both HSGPA and SAT scores should be used when assessing a student’s

application (Letukas, 2015). Much of the research disagrees with Letukas’ (2015) facts

(Cohn et al., 2004; Gilroy, 2007).

Uses of standardized testing in college admission. Past studies have looked at

admissions officers’ perspectives on the importance of SAT and ACT scores as

admission criteria. Gaitlin’s (1997) research indicated that both SAT and ACT scores

were second most important to admission officers and guidance counselors with HSGPA

being the most important. Admission officers averaged 4.67 on a five-point Likert-scale

for SAT scores, and 4.65 for ACT scores (Gaitlin, 1997). Guidance counselors averaged

4.48 on a five-point Likert-scale for SAT scores, and 4.05 for ACT scores (Gaitlin,

1997). Both subject groups agreed that standardized test scores were very important for

college admission. Getler (2007) surveyed admissions officers from four public

undergraduate institutions across New Jersey. It was discovered that 100% of subjects

responded that their institution believed standardized test scores were “most important”

or “very important” for admission (Getler, 2007).

Contrary to the research of the importance on SAT scores for college admission, a

study conducted by Betts (2011) suggested, through qualitative analysis, that assistant

directors of admissions at Rowan University believed SAT scores should hold minimum

weight when reviewing a potential student’s application. While some employees and

administrators believe that standardized test scores should hold minimum weight in an

applicant’s admission decision, research has shown that both admissions officers and

guidance counselors believe that they are the most important admission criteria (Gaitlin,

1997; Getler, 2007). The vast differences in the research calls for further research into the

usage of SAT scores in college admission.

High school GPA.

Predictability of high school GPA and first-year success. Quantitative research

has discovered an average correlation of 0.52 between HSGPA and FYGPA (Betts, 2011;

Carlock, 2014). This research suggests a stronger correlation between HSGPA and

FYGPA, yet institutions lean on SAT scores of potential students to make acceptance

decisions and identify their predicted success.

Use of high school GPA in college admission. Generally, HSGPA reflects the

strongest positive correlation with academic success and FYGPA in college (Betts, 2011;

Carlock, 2014; NACAC, 2016). Admission officers also look at grades throughout the

four years of high school, which includes growth and progress as well as course load

(Betts, 2011; McGinty, 2004).

Gaitlin’s (1997) study indicated that HSGPA was the most important admission

criteria to both admission officers and guidance counselors. Admission officers and

guidance counselors averaged 4.72 and 4.58 on a five-point Likert-scale, respectively

(Gaitlin, 1997). It was also discovered that guidance counselors believed HSGPA and

course selection better predicted college success, with SAT and ACT scores near the

bottom of the list (Betts, 2011).

Class rank. High school class rank has been defined as a “percentile rating of

academic placement in the high school graduating class,” (Nack & Townsend, 2007, p.

69). The student with the highest HSGPA is listed first, and the student with the lowest

HSGPA listed last (Nack & Townsend, 2007).

Class rank can be used to compare students from different schools and different

grading curves (NACAC, 2016). Using class rank as an admission criterion has become

increasingly less important over the past few years (NACAC, 2016). However, it is still

commonly used as a requirement for admission (NACAC, 2016).

There are many problems when using class rank to make an admission decision.

First, each year, fewer high schools are publicly sharing class rank (NACAC, 2016).

Because of this, many students’ class ranks can only be estimated, making the criterion

difficult to compare between applicants (NACAC, 2016).

Second, it has been found that high school class rank adds nothing to the

predictability of college success (Nack & Townsend, 2007). This is possibly due to how

class rank is established in each school district; it is almost impossible to compare a

student who has ranked first in their graduating class with a HSGPA of 3.23 and a student

who has ranked first with a 4.0 HSGPA (Nack & Townsend, 2007). Rank does not

represent an individual student’s HSGPA, but a student’s HSGPA compared to students

they graduated with (Nack & Townsend, 2007).

Gaitlin’s (1997) study indicated a significant difference between admission

officers and guidance counselors’ attitudes towards class rank. Admission officers

averaged 1.8 on a five-point Likert-scale, while guidance counselors averaged 4.11

(Gaitlin, 1997). This discrepancy calls for further research on the topic to make sure all

counselors are on the same page.

Qualitative Admission Criteria

Even though there is a general emphasis on academics and quantitative criteria for

college admission, many other criteria are used for admission decisions and required in

an admission application, In the literature, qualitative admission criteria are described as

personal qualities used to assess personal qualities and the character of an applicant

(Ishop, 2008). These criteria are used to get to know an applicant by more than just

numbers. Some of these criteria include extracurricular activities, personal essays, letters

of recommendation, interviews, District Factor Grouping (DFG), and course load and

transcripts.

Extracurricular activities. Extracurriculars are activities where participation

from students is outside of the classroom. These activities can be personal, community, or

school related. Extracurricular activities have been shown to have many benefits for

students, including development of social, academic, and intellectual skills (Lawhorn,

2008). Research suggests that involvement in extracurricular activities boosts students’

academic performances (Lawhorn, 2008). This leads to self-motivation, leadership, and

time management skills, as well as responsibility; all of these leading to higher grades

and HSGPAs (Lawhorn, 2008). Admission officers look for these qualities when

reviewing applications to predict retention, commitment, and leadership. Having

extracurricular activities on an application can help students stand out from other

applicants.

Predictability. Some research has suggested that participation in extracurricular

activities while in high school leads to a greater likelihood in high education enrollment

compared to joining the workforce or enlisting in the military (Martin, 2015). Data have

also suggested that the students with the highest test scores actively engage in

extracurricular activities (Kronholz, 2012). Benefits from participating in extracurricular

activities, such as higher grades, time management skills, and self-motivation, increases

the odds for students being admitted to college (Lawhorn, 2008; Martin, 2015).

However, results from the ATS survey suggested that few colleges found either no

correlation or small positive correlations between the relationship of extracurricular

activities to college academic achievement (NACAC, 2016). Findings are often

inconclusive or inconsistent when researching extracurriculars; some researchers believe

that there is only a low correlation between extracurriculars and academic success, while

others insist that there is a strong relationship (Kronholz, 2012).

Use in admissions. Extracurricular activities were seen as an indicator of time

management skills according to assistant directors of admissions at Rowan University

(Betts, 2011). As stated earlier, students who engage in extracurricular activities are more

likely to develop social, intellectual, and academic skills, all important characteristics that

admission officers look for in an applicant (Lawhorn, 2008; Martin, 2015).

Extracurricular activities may also show admission officers perseverance and

commitment, which, as some admission officers noted, may bump them from being on a

wait-list to being accepted (Richmond, 2011).

Personal essays. Personal essays, also referred to as college essays or admission

essays, are essays written by students from a prompt or question given by the institution.

Many schools require these as part of the application, while others list them as optional.

The undergraduate admissions process uses essays to evaluate writing ability and

characteristics (Ishop, 2008); these essays are comparable to personal statements used for

graduate admissions. The undergraduate admissions essays are writing samples that often

lead with a prompt and are generally about the applicant’s interests, personal goals, and

academic goals (Ishop, 2008). Admission officers use these essays as evidence of

creativity, intellect, and to assess writing skills (Ishop, 2008).

Ishop (2008) considered what students wrote in their college admission essays.

The analysis found that these students wrote essays with a focus on academic

opportunities, careers and jobs, travel, religion, moving, activities, family, coping with

adversity, and coping with illness and death (Ishop, 2008). Applicants wrote about these

topics and how they related to characteristics about themselves (Ishop, 2008). The essays

displayed personal qualities potential students wanted to show admission officers that

they felt would help them be accepted into the institution (Ishop, 2008).

However, there is a very small correlation between personal essays and school

performance, especially if prior grades are available (Murphy, Klieger, Borneman, &

Kuncel, 2009). Essays are not useful in predicting academic success, but can be used for

other purposes, including matching a student to an advisor or determining if the student

needs remedial programs (Murphy, Klieger, Borneman, & Kuncel, 2009).

Letters of recommendation. Letters of recommendation, in admission

applications, are written letters from an individual who can speak about the student from

personal experience. These letters are used to assess a student’s performance in school, at

work, or other outside activities through the perspective of someone else rather than

grades.

Research has indicated that there is a significant difference between the attitudes

towards recommendations between admission officers and guidance counselors (Gaitlin,

1997). Guidance counselors believed recommendations are given a higher weight than

admission officers, who give little weight to recommendations in practice (Gaitlin, 1997;

Getler, 2007).

Interviews. Interviews are occasionally conducted for applicants to get to know

them and how they hold themselves. There are two types of admission interviews that

may be conducted: informational or evaluative (“Admission Interview Tips,” n.d.).

Informational interviews are used to inform the potential student about the institution,

while evaluative interviews are used to assess the student, which then becomes a part of

the student’s application file (“Admission Interview Tips,” n.d.). While interviews seem

important and necessary to the admission process, only a handful of colleges require them

for undergraduate admissions. Interviews are seen more in graduate and doctoral settings,

especially medical schools, as well as for special admissions programs (Betts, 2011).

In a study on undergraduate admission interviews, admission officers focused on

motivation and oral communication to assess a student in an interview (Shahani,

Dipboye, & Gehrlein, 1991). Persistence in extra-curricular activities, academic

challenge, reading interests, interest in external affairs, overcoming handicaps and

hardships, overall confidence and energy, and an overall motivation were all used to

assess motivation (Shahani, Dipboye, & Gehrlein, 1991). Use of proper grammatical

structure, range of vocabulary, organization and coherence of discourse, intensity and

enthusiasm of discourse, and an overall oral communication rating were used to assess

oral communication (Shahani, Dipboye, & Gehrlein, 1991). In this study, low

correlations were found between a student’s paper credentials and interview evaluations,

suggesting that the interview found different information that was already given on paper

credentials (Shahani, Dipboye, & Gehrlein, 1991).

It is important to note that interviews are subjective and not always valid; an

interviewer may bring bias to the interview and give the interviewee lower scores based

on outside factors.

District Factor Grouping (DFG). When admission officers look at the

quantitative criteria of a student they take into consideration the high school and district

he or she attended (McGinty, 2004). New Jersey gives each district a District Factor

Grouping (DFG) score. These scores are used to measure a community’s approximate

socioeconomic status (SES) (“District Factor Groups (DFG) for School Districts,” 2000).

Six variables are used to develop each town’s score: percent of adults with no high school

diploma, percent of adults with some college education, occupational status,

unemployment rate, percent of individuals in poverty, and the median family income

(“District Factor Groups (DFG) for School Districts,” 2000). Communities can be ranked

from A-J, lowest to highest, respectively (“District Factor Groups (DFG) for School

Districts,” 2000).

Course load and transcript. Transcripts show the grades of students and their

course load over four years of high school. It also shows four years of growth, progress,

and perseverance (Betts, 2011; McGinty, 2004). Honors and Advanced Placement class

grades can provide insight on these characteristics and college readiness, as well.

Admission officers will look at course load as a factor of academic success both

in high school and possibly in college (McGinty, 2004). McGinty (2004) gives examples

of this, explaining how a “grade of B in Advanced Placement English is more important

than an A in chorus,” and “an A in chemistry carries more weight than an A in civics,”

(p. 6).

When interviewed, Rowan University admission officers said that they believed

high school transcript, including grades, course, and four-year performance, are a better

predictor of college success compared to SAT scores (Betts, 2011).

The Role of High School Guidance Counselors

Job description. NACAC’s Statement on Precollege Guidance and Counseling

and the Role of the School Counselor (1990) defines precollege guidance counseling as

activities that help students pursue challenging curriculum that results in more higher

education options, identify requirements for college access for students, and assist in

financial aid, college decisions, and other processes of the college application and

admission process.

The Counseling Trends Survey (CTS), administered by the NACAC in 2014,

collected information from high school guidance counselors about their work priorities

and responsibilities relating to the college admission and transition process (Clinedinst,

Koranteng, & Nicola, 2015). A total of 1,360 responses were collected (Clinedinst et al.,

2015). Two statements that the counselors responded to relating to the college admission

process were, “Advice and education for students and families on standardized testing,”

and “Actively represent students to college admission officers” (Clinedinst et al., 2015, p.

28). For the first statement, 30% answered frequently, 43% occasionally, 26%

infrequently, and 2% never (Clinedinst et al., 2015). For the second statement, 41%

responded frequently, 33% occasionally, 21% infrequently, and 5% never (Clinedinst et

al., 2015).

Role in the application process. Guidance counselors serve as the liaison

between high school and college. It is necessary for these counselors to not only

understand the admission process, but also the criteria that are most important for being

accepted into a higher education institution (Gaitlin, 1997; Ishop, 2008). Guidance

counselors are required to understand current admission requirements as part of their job

to help students with college applications and college selection and the application

process (NACAC, 2000). They are to help their students through the selection process by

identifying where he or she has the best chance of being successful (Trembly, 2013).

Guidance counselors’ main role is to “guide” their students through the college

application process.

Importance of understanding college admissions. Because guidance counselors

play such a large role in the college application process, it is key that they understand the

current practices of admissions (Gaitlin, 1997). Research consistently shows that high

school counseling is an area of concern, and addresses the need for improvement for

students to successfully be admitted into college (Richmond, 2011). Research also

suggests that communication between admission officers and guidance counselors needs

improvement so guidance counselors give the most accurate and up-to-date information

about college admissions to their students (Gaitlin, 1997; Ishop, 2008). Studies have

suggested that the two groups do not agree on what is most important in college

admissions. Many admission professionals report having negative experiences with

guidance counselors (Gaitlin, 1997; Richmond, 2011). It is likely that guidance

counselors are putting an emphasis on criteria that admission officers do not put much

consideration into when reviewing applications (Gaitlin, 1997). Ultimately, admission

officers are experts on what institutions are looking for in a student and this information

needs to properly be funneled to applicants (Ishop, 2008).

Demographic data have suggested that college admission officers are younger,

with less experience and less education than guidance counselors (Gaitlin, 1997). It is fair

to question whether this influences the admission process. Do guidance counselors differ

from admission officers in their attitudes towards the importance of admission criteria

because they have been in their field for a longer amount of time? Are they set in their

ways or is there a communication issue? It would be interesting to see if any of these

factors are related.

Summary of the Literature Review

The literature reveals that quantitative criteria seem to be favored over qualitative

requirements when it comes to predicting college academic success. These quantitative

criteria have extensive research that shows the connections between the numbers and

prediction of college success, which seems to be why they are favored in the admission

process.

Much more research was found on quantitative criteria than qualitative measures.

Only a handful of studies were found on qualitative criteria enrollment and predictability

of academic success.

Research continues to be contradictory on what are the best predictors of college

success, as well as what admission criteria are the most important (Betts, 2011; Carlock,

2014; Getler, 2007; Zwick, 2007a). There are only a handful of studies that look into both

admission officers and guidance counselors. The ones that do look into both groups find

that quantitative criteria are favored among importance for admission criteria, but are not

favored as far as predictability on academic success in college.

In order for students to be successful in their college application process and

college career, high school guidance counselors need to understand the current admission

process and what admission officers are looking for in a potential student.

There is a paucity of research in New Jersey that looks at admission criteria from

the perspective of admission officers and guidance counselors. My research also looks at

demographics and region a student is from as a criterion for admission. My research can

be used to help guidance counselors in New Jersey understand the essential criteria

needed to be accepted into the state’s institutions based on the attitudes of employees

from these institutions. Ultimately, this will help future students in New Jersey apply for

college by knowing exactly what admission officers are looking at in their application.

Chapter III

Methodology

Context of Study

This study was conducted at various public high schools and public four-year

institutions in New Jersey. All of the high schools and institutions chosen for this study

were located in New Jersey. Four-year colleges were chosen based on similarity; each of

the institutions were four-year public schools located in New Jersey with similar missions

and backgrounds.

The institutions included in this study were New Jersey City University, Kean

University, Montclair University, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Ramapo College

of New Jersey, Rowan University, Stockton University, The College of New Jersey, and

William Patterson University. Table 3.1 describes each institution contacted for this study

including number of admission counselors for each institution.

Table 3.1

Institutions Used for Data Collection

Institution

Number of Admission Counselors*

New Jersey City University

Kean University

Montclair University

New Jersey Institute of Technology

Ramapo College of New Jersey

Rowan University

Stockton University

The College of New Jersey

William Patterson University

Note. *Counselors include those with the title of counselor and higher

High schools were chosen randomly by District Factor Grouping (DFG). As

described in Chapter II, DFG is a score used to measure approximate socioeconomic

status (SES) of a community (“District Factor Groups (DFG) for School Districts,”

2000). The scores range from A to J, lowest to highest, respectively (“District Factor

Groups (DFG) for School Districts,” 2000). Communities who are scored A rank as a low

SES community, while communities who are scored J rank as a high SES community.

Districts were sorted into three groups: A-C, D-F, and G-I. After being sorted, 25% of

each group was selected using a random number generator. Forty-five districts were

chosen for both the A-C and D-F group, and 52 districts were chosen for the G-I group. A

contact list of guidance counselors and admission officers was compiled through high

school and institutional websites. Emails addresses for data collection were found

through these websites.

Table 3.2 describes the districts with DFG scores from A-C. The table describes

each district including the DFG scores, the high school that students attend, and how

many guidance counselors the school has.

Table 3.2

School Districts Used for Data Collection with A-C DFG Rating

District

Attending High School

DFG*

Number of

Guidance

Counselors

City of Orange Twp

Orange High School

Elsinboro Twp

Salem High School

Fairview Boro

Cliffside High School

Millville City

Memorial High School &

Millville High School

Mine Hill Twp

Dover High School

Table 3.2 (continued)

District

Attending High School

DFG*

Number of

Guidance

Counselors

Penns Grove Carneys Point

Penn Grove High School

Quinton Twp

Salem High School

Trenton

Trenton High School Main

Campus & Trenton High School

West Campus

Vineland City

Vineland High School

Washington Township

(Burlington County)

Cedar Creek High School

West New York

Memorial High School

Wildwood City

Wildwood High School

Woodbine Boro

Middle Township High School

Bellmawr Boro

Trinton High School

Berkeley Twp

Central Regional High School

Beverly City

Palmyra High School

Carteret Boro

Carteret High School

Cumberland Regional

Cumberland Regional High

School

Deerfield Twp

Cumberland Regional High

School

Glassboro

Glassboro High School

Gloucester City

Gloucester City Junior-Senior

High School

Greenwich (Warren)

Phillipsburg High School

Island Heights

Central Regional High School

Passaic County Manchester

Manchester Regional High

School

Riverton

Palmyra High School

Waterford Twp

Hammonton High School

Weymouth Twp

Buena Regional High School

Barnegat Twp

Barnegat High School

Bayonne City

Bayonne High School

Carlstadt-East Rutherford

Henry P. Becton Regional High

School

Clayton Boro

Clayton High School

Table 3.2 (continued)

District

Attending High School

DFG*

Number of

Guidance

Counselors

Clifton City

Clifton High School

Elmwood Park

Elmwood Park Memorial High

School

Gateway Regional

Gateway Regional High School

Greater Egg Harbor

Absegami High School, Cedar

Creek High School, & Oakcrest

High School

Hackensack City

Hackensack High School

Keyport Boro

Keyport High School

Manville Boro

Manville High School

Merchantville

Pennsauken High School

Monroe Twp (Gloucester)

Williamstown High School

Pemberton Borough

Pemberton Township High

School

Pennsville

Pennsville High School

South Hackensack Twp

Hackensack High School

Union Beach

Keyport High School

Weehawken Twp

Weehawken High School

Wenonah Boro

Gateway Regional High School

Woodbury Heights

Gateway Regional High School

Note. *DFG rating is based off of 2000 Decennial Census

Table 3.3 describes the school districts with DFG scores from D-F. The table

describes each school district including the DFG scores, the high school that students

attend, and how many guidance counselors the school has.

Table 3.3

School Districts Used for Data Collection with D-F DFG Rating

District

Attending High School

DFG*

Number of

Guidance

Counselors

Allamuchy

Hackettstown High School

Belvidere Town

Belvidere High School

Butler Boro

Butler High School

Eastampton Twp

Rancocas Valley Regional High

School

Frankford Twp

High Point Regional High

School

Franklin Twp

Franklin High School

Gloucester Twp

Black Horse Pike Regional

High School

Hardyston Twp

Wallkill Valley HS

Harmony Twp

Belvidere High School

Lakehurst Boro

Jackson Liberty High School

Longport

Ocean City High School

Montague Twp

High Point Regional High

School

Mount Ephraim Boro

Audubon High School

North Arlington Boro

North Arlington High School

North Plainfield Boro

North Plainfield High School

Ocean City (Cape May)

Ocean City High School

Ridgefield Park Twp

Ridgefield Park Jr./Sr. High

School

Sayreville Boro

Sayreville War Memorial High

School

Sea Isle City

Ocean City High School

Sterling

Sterling High School

Toms River Regional

High School East, High School

North, & High School South

West Deptford Twp

West Deptford High School

Westampton

Rancocas Valley Regional High

School

Bergenfield

Bergenfield High School

Table 3.3 (continued)

District

Attending High School

DFG*

Number of

Guidance

Counselors

Bordentown Regional

Bordentown Regional High

School

Cinnaminson Twp

Cinnaminson High School

Hoboken City

Hoboken High School

Hopatcong

Hopatcong High School

Little Falls Twp

Passaic Valley Regional High

School

Mantoloking

Point Pleasant Beach High

School

Middlesex Boro

Middlesex High School

Ocean Twp (Monmouth)

Ocean Township High School

Ocean Twp (Ocean)

Southern Regional High School

Old Bridge Twp

Old Bridge High School

Pompton Lakes Boro

Pompton Lakes High School

Sea Bright Boro

Shore Regional High School

South Plainfield Boro

South Plainfield High School

Totowa Boro

Passaic Valley Regional High

School

Warren Hills

Warren Hills Regional High

School

Washington Twp

(Gloucester)

Washington Township High

School

West Amwell Twp

South Hunterdon Regional High

School

Woodstown-Pilesgrove

Regional

Woodstown High School

Note. *DFG rating is based off of 2000 Decennial Census

Table 3.4 describes the districts with DFG scores from G-I. The table describes

each district including the DFG scores, the high school that students attend, and how

many guidance counselors the school has.

Table 3.4

School Districts Used for Data Collection with G-I DFG Rating

District

Attending High School

DFG*

Number of

Guidance

Counselors

Barrington Boro

Haddon Heights High School

Delaware Valley Regional

Delaware Valley Regional High

School

Emerson Boro

Emerson Junior-Senior High

School

Freehold Twp

Freehold Township High

School

Frenchtown Boro

Delaware Valley Regional High

School

Hanover Park

Hanover Park High School

Hanover Twp

Whippany Park High School

Harrison Twp

Clearview Regional High

School District

Kingwood Twp

Delaware Valley Regional High

School

Lawrence Twp

Lawrence High School

Leonia Boro

Leonia High School

Manasquan Boro

Manasquan High School

Medford Twp

Shawnee High School

Milford Boro

Delaware Valley Regional High

School

Millstone

Allentown High School

Monmouth Regional

Monmouth Regional High

School District

Netcong

Lenape Valley Regional High

School

Piscataway Twp

Piscataway High School

Roosevelt Boro

East Windsor Regional High

School

Rutherford Boro

Rutherford High School

South Belmar

Manasquan High School

Spring Lake Heights Boro

Manasquan High School

Table 3.4 (continued)

District

Attending High School

DFG*

Number of

Guidance

Counselors

Voorhees Twp

Eastern Regional High School

Alpine Boro

Tenafly High School

Bedminster Twp

Bernards High School

East Amwell Twp

Hunterdon Central High School

Essex Fells Boro

West Essex Regional High

School

Franklin Lakes Boro

Ramapo High School & Indian

Hills High School

Glen Ridge Boro

Glen Ridge High School

Hampton Boro

Voorhees High School

Harding Township

Madison High School

Hillsborough Twp

Hillsborough High School

Hillsdale Boro

Pascack Valley High School

Lebanon Twp

North Hunterdon High School

Long Hill Twp

Watchung Hills Regional High

School

North Caldwell Boro

West Essex Regional High

School

Northern Valley Regional

Northern Valley Demarest &

Northern Valley Old Tappan

Oakland Boro

Ramapo High School & Indian

Hills High School

Pascack Valley Regional

Pascack Hills High School &

Pascack Valley High School

Readington Twp

Hunterdon Central High School

Roseland Boro

West Essex Regional High

School

South Brunswick Twp

South Brunswick High School

Summit City

Summit High School

Union Twp

North Hunterdon High School

Verona Boro

Verona High School

Washington Twp (Morris)

West Morris Central High

School

Table 3.4 (continued)

District

Attending High School

DFG*

Number of

Guidance

Counselors

West Essex Regional

West Essex Regional High

School

Bernards Twp

Ridge High School

Boonton Town

Mountain Lakes High School

Haddonfield Boro

Haddonfield Memorial High

School

Rumson Boro

Rumson-Fair Haven Regional

High School

Upper Saddle River Boro

Northern Highlands Regional

High School

Note. *DFG rating is based off of 2000 Decennial Census

Since the study focused on undergraduate admissions, community colleges were

not included for this study because they generally have an open enrollment admissions

practice. Medical schools were also not included since they award professional degrees.

Lastly, only public high schools and institutions were studied since they are funded by

the New Jersey government, and are similar in nature.

Population and Sampling

The target population of this study was all high school guidance counselors and

admission officers located in New Jersey. The sample for the study was a combination of

a convenience sample, purposive sample, and random sampling of the high school

guidance counselors from selected high schools in New Jersey, as well as admissions

officers working for selected four-year institutions.

There are approximately 1,200 members of the NJACAC, the New Jersey

Association for College Admission Counseling, which includes both guidance counselors

and admission professionals all from schools in New Jersey (“About NJACAC,” 2017).

A sample size calculator was used to get the sample size, with a confidence level of 95%

and 3% error rate. After reviewing public school websites and their guidance department

webpages, approximately 600 guidance counselors were employed in 142 school

districts, which only represents about 25% of public school districts in New Jersey. Thus,

the sample size was 698, including 600 guidance counselors and 98 admissions

counselors from the selected public four-year institutions. The desired sample size was

489 subjects, and would be made up of 420 guidance counselors, and 69 admission

counselors, 70% of the sample, respectively. The more realistic sample size would be

made up of 300 guidance counselors and 49 admissions counselors, 50% of the sample,

respectively. More guidance counselors were included in data collection and since more

public-school districts were included in the study compared to public four-year

institutions: this represents the New Jersey education system with more public-school

districts than public four-year institutions.

Both guidance counselors and admission officers were recruited through email.

Email addresses were compiled through high school and institutional websites available

publicly. The professionals were emailed an initial email on January 2

, 2018 (Appendix

B), followed by reminder emails (Appendix C) every week to those who have not

responded to the survey; this is a feature on Qualtrics and the principal investigator and

co-investigator did not know who had and had not answered.

Data Collection Instruments

Two separate surveys were developed; one to distribute to admission officers of

the selected institutions (Appendix E) and one to distribute to guidance counselors of the

selected institutions (Appendix F). The surveys were developed through knowledge of

the database, mainly looking at Getler’s (2007) instruments for guidance

recommendation. Drafts of the survey were distributed to guidance counselors and

admission officers to test validity and reliability, as well as higher education

professionals. The professionals looked at the drafts and gave feedback on content,

grammar, and comprehension to establish face validity. A Cronbach Alpha was

calculated through SPSS after data collection was complete to determine the reliability of

the Likert-scale portion of the survey. After running the Cronbach Alpha test for the

Likert-scale section, the Alpha coefficient was .0588. This is a low internal reliability,

making the survey only slightly reliable; however, this is likely due to a small sample size

and a low number of items on the survey.

Two different surveys were distributed, one with wording suited towards

admission officers (Appendix E), and the other with wording relevant towards guidance

counselors (Appendix F). The survey used consisted of three sections: demographics,

Likert-scale items, and open-ended questions. The first section asked about the subjects’

background, including educational and employment background. The second section

used a Likert-scale format designed to probe subjects to choose 1-5, not important to

most important, on their opinion of how important each of the selected admission criteria

are for a high school senior to be accepted into a four-year institution.

The last section was two open-ended questions, the first question asking subjects

to list their opinion on the two most important criteria. The second open-ended question

asked to see if there were any differences between the opinion on the most important

admission criteria and which one best predicts academic success based on contradictions

of previous research. Both open-ended questions had drop down menus on Qualtrics to

make data analysis easier. Guidance counselors and admission officers answered the

open-ended questions by choosing their answer from a given list.

Alternate consent was used for subjects. Since it was not possible to receive

signatures from each subject, the individuals who voluntarily complete the survey

consented to an alternative consent (Appendix D), located before the survey began.

Data Collection Procedures

Before any data were collected, the Institutional Review Board application was

completed and approved. Following approval on November 27

, 2017 from Rowan

University’s Institutional Review board (Appendix A), data collection began.

A convenience sample was used to select public high schools used in the study.

Since District Factor Grouping (DFG) was a variable in the study, all public-school

districts in New Jersey were sorted into three groups: A-C, D-F, and G-I. After being

sorted, 25% of each group was selected using a random number generator. Forty-five

districts were chosen for both the A-C and D-F group, and 52 districts were chosen for

the G-I group. Four-year colleges were chosen based on similarity; each of the

institutions are four-year public schools located in New Jersey with similar missions. A

contact list of guidance counselors and admission officers was compiled through high

school and institutional websites. Emails addresses for data collection was found through

these websites.

The survey items were formatted and designed using Qualtrics, an online survey

development program, which collects and organizes data and results. The surveys were

distributed via email to the selected admission officers and guidance counselors from the

participating schools. The emails included an explanation of the study, as well as a link to

complete the survey (Appendix B; Appendix C). The email addresses of the subjects

were found on both institutional websites and school district websites.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) software and Microsoft Excel. Data from incomplete surveys were not used; only

finished surveys were included in data analysis. Incomplete surveys were defined as

surveys that were less than 50% complete, meaning the subjects had to complete at least

nine questions. Seventeen surveys were removed from data analysis due to incompletion.

After data collection was complete, all data were exported from Qualtrics into SPSS for

analysis, and all identifying information were removed once exported. The data were then

analyzed using descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, and

standard deviations. Independent samples t-tests were also used to look for significant

similarities and differences between the means of the two subject groups. Since the open-

ended section of the survey had drop downs of specific choices for subjects to select, data

were analyzed by numbering each of the possible responses, and looking at frequencies

and percentages of each chosen response.

Chapter IV

Findings

Profile of the Samples: Guidance Counselors and Admission Officers

This quantitative study looked at two different groups: high school guidance

counselors and admission counselors. The guidance counselors were employed at public

high schools across the state of New Jersey. The admission officers were employed in

public four-year institutions with titles ranging from Admission Officer to Director of

Admissions.

Table 4.1 contains demographic information on the guidance counselors

surveyed, including gender, education level, and questions about their length of

employment. These demographics may suggest the varying knowledge level of college

admission based on their employment and education. Surveys were emailed to 648

guidance counselors who worked in approximately 142 public school districts throughout

New Jersey. After distributing the survey to the guidance counselors, 35 emails failed, 10

bounced back, and five emails were duplicate. Throughout the data collection process,

some subjects emailed to let me know they did not fit in to the sample profile; 12

guidance counselors were removed from the sample size. Incomplete surveys were

defined as surveys which had less than 50% of questions answered. There were 15

surveys also removed from the sample size and analysis due to being incomplete. A total

of 232 responses were collected for a response rate of 41%.

Table 4.1

Demographics of Guidance Counselors (N=232)

Subjects

Sex*

Male

25.9

Female

171

73.7

Other

Age

Under 30

8.6

30-39

40-49

31.5

50+

28.9

Education

High School/GED

Some college

Bachelor's Degree

Master's Degree

225

Doctoral Degree

Years Worked at Current School/District

Less than 5

24.1

5-10

23.3

11-15

22.4

Over 15

30.2

Years in Current Position

Less than one

5.2

1-3

16.4

4-5

8.2

Over 5

163

70.3

Note. *Missing=1

Table 4.2 contains demographic information on the admission officers surveyed,

including the same demographic information from the guidance counselor survey. These

demographics may suggest the varying knowledge levels of college admission subjects

based on their length of employment and years in their current position. A total of 98

admission officers email addresses were collected from nine institutions. All emails to

admission officers went through. All employees who received the email had the title of

Admission Officer or higher. Throughout the data collection process, some subjects

emailed to let me know they did not fit in to the sample profile; three admission officers

were removed from the sample size. Incomplete surveys were defined as surveys which

had less than 50% of questions answered. There were two surveys also removed from the

sample size and analysis due to being incomplete. A total of 47 responses were recorded

for a response rate of 51%.

Table 4.2

Demographics of Admission Officers (N=47)

Subjects

Sex

Male

42.6

Female

55.3

Other

2.1

Age

Under 30

38.3

30-39

29.8

40-49

50+

14.9

Education

High School/GED

Some college

2.1

Bachelor's Degree

Master's Degree

57.4

Doctoral Degree

6.4

Years Worked at Current School/District

Less than 5

55.3

5-10

6.4

11-15

19.1

Over 15

19.1

Table 4.2 (continued)

Subjects

Years in Current Position

Less than one

21.3

1-3

38.3

4-5

12.8

Over 5

27.7

Analysis of the Data

Research question 1. What are the most important admission criteria according

to selected admission officers and guidance counselors in New Jersey?

Table 4.3 depicts the guidance counselors’ attitudes towards the importance of the

admission criteria selected for this study. Items are arranged from most to least important

using mean scores. Results indicate that guidance counselors rated the most important

criteria (62.9%) was course load and transcript, while the least important criteria (35%)

was District Factor Grouping.

The three most important criteria to guidance counselors were course load and

transcript, HSGPA, and SAT and ACT scores with means of 4.57, 4.45, and 3.87,

respectively. For both course load and transcript and HSGPA, guidance counselors

mainly responded with “Very Important” and “Most Important” with more choosing

“Most Important.” Guidance counselors predominately answered with “Less Important”

or “Important” when responding to SAT and ACT scores with more indicating

“Important.”

The three least important criteria to guidance counselors were interviews, letters

of recommendation, and DFG. The means of these three criteria were 3.2, 3.09, and 2.57,

respectively. For both interviews and letters of recommendation, guidance counselors

mainly responded with “Important” or “Very Important” with more responding

“Important.” Guidance counselors predominately answered with “Less Important” and

“Important” when responding to DFG with more indicating “Important.” It is important

to note that 10 guidance counselors did not respond to the question asking about DFG.

This may be due to lack of knowledge behind what the DFG is. This also may have

influenced their attitude towards importance.

Table 4.3

Guidance Counselors' Attitudes Towards Admission Criteria (N=232)

(1=Not Important, 2=Less Important, 3= Important, 4=Very Important, 5=Most

Important)

Criteria

Not

Important

Less

Important

Not

Important

Very

Important

Most

Important

Course Load and

Transcript

0.4

3.9

31.9

146

62.9

M=4.57 SD=.634

Missing=1

High School GPA

0.9

5.2

41.8

121

52.2

M=4.45 SD=.636

SAT/ACT Scores

4.3

23.7

120

51.7

19.8

M=3.87 SD=.773

Missing=1

Personal Essay

1.3

6.5

36.6

100

43.1

12.5

M=3.59 SD=.838

Extra-curricular activities

7.8

37.5

109

7.3

M=3.54 SD=.744

Missing=1

High School Class Rank

6.5

20.3

41.4

12.5

M=3.35 SD=1.12

Missing=1

Table 4.3 (continued)

Criteria

Not

Important

Less

Important

Not

Important

Very

Important

Most

Important

Interview

4.3

33.6

28.4

10.8

M=3.2 SD=1.041

Missing=2

Letters of

Recommendation

3.9

21.1

42.7

26.7

5.6

M=3.09 SD=.924

District Factor Grouping

15.1

26.7

40.1

12.1

1.7

M=2.57 SD=.962

Missing=10

Table 4.4 depicts the admission officers’ attitudes towards the importance of the

admission criteria selected for this study. Items are arranged from most to least important

using mean scores. The results indicate HSGPA is the most important (68.1%) to

admission officers, while the least important (34%) was District Factor Grouping.

The three most important criteria to admission officers are HSGPA, Course load

and transcript, and SAT and ACT scores. HSGPA and course load and transcript had

means of 4.6 and 4.23, respectively, indicating that the admission professionals mainly

responded with “Very Important” or “Most Important,” with more answering “Most

Important.” SAT and ACT scores had a mean of 3.36, indicating that admission officers

mainly responded with “Important” or “Very Important” with more answering with

“Important.”

The three least important criteria to admission officers are letters of

recommendation, interviews, and DFG. The means of these three criteria were 2.89, 2.55,

and 2.02, respectively. For both letters of recommendation and interviews, admission

officers responded mainly with “Less Important” or “Important” with more responding

with “Important.” Admission officers predominately answered with “Not Important” or

“Less Important” when responding to DFG with an even number, sixteen, indicating each

of these responses.

Table 4.4

Admission Officers' Attitudes Towards Admission Criteria (N=47)

(1=Not Important, 2=Less Important, 3= Important, 4=Very Important, 5=Most

Important)

Criteria

Not

Important

Less

Important

Not

Important

Very

Important

Most

Important

High School GPA

2.1

27.7

68.1

M=4.6 SD=.742

Course Load and

Transcript

2.1

14.9

31.9

48.9

M=4.23 SD=.937

SAT/ACT Scores

8.5

4.3

40.4

36.2

10.6

M=3.36 SD=1.031

Extra-curricular activities

4.3

14.9

44.7

27.7

8.5

M=3.21 SD=.954

Personal Essay

4.3

27.7

42.6

19.1

6.4

M=2.96 SD=.955

High School Class Rank

12.8

25.5

27.7

19.1

12.8

M=2.93 SD=1.237

Missing=1

Letters of

Recommendation

2.1

36.2

40.4

12.8

8.5

M=2.89 SD=.961

Interview

25.5

23.4

27.7

6.4

M=2.55 SD=1.23

Table 4.4 (continued)

Criteria

Not

Important

Less

Important

Not

Important

Very

Important

Most

Important

District Factor Grouping

25.5

2.1

M=2.02 SD=.954

Missing=1

Research question 2. What similarities or differences are found between these

two groups and their attitudes towards current college requirements?

Table 4.5 depicts the means and standard deviations of the importance of

admission criteria between guidance counselors and admission officers. An independent-

samples t-test was used to compare the mean scores of importance of each of the

admission criteria between guidance counselors and admission officers. Significant

differences of means were found between the subject groups and their response towards

SAT and ACT scores, high school class rank, extra-curricular activities, personal essays,

interviews, DFG, and course load and transcript; no significance was found in the means

of HSGPA and letters of recommendation. The means of guidance counselors were

significantly higher than admission officers for all significant comparisons.

Table 4.5

Importance of Admission Criteria Means for Guidance Counselors and Admission

Officers

Position

Guidance

Counselors

Admission

Officers

SAT/ACT Scores

3.87

3.36

3.9**

276

(.773)

(1.03)

High School Class

Rank

3.35

2.93

2.24*

275

(1.12)

(1.24)

Extra-curricular

Activities

3.54

3.21

2.62**

276

(.744)

(.954)

Personal Essays

3.59

2.96

4.61**

277

(.838)

(.955)

Interviews

3.2

2.55

3.73**

275

(1.04)

(1.23)

DFG

2.57

2.02

3.51**

266

(.962)

(.954)

Course Load and

Transcript

4.57

4.23

3.04**

276

(.634)

(.937)

Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, Standard Deviations appear in parentheses below means.

Research question 3. Do the subjects’ attitudes towards the chosen admission

criteria correlate to the literature on the predictability of student academic success?

Table 4.6 shows the frequencies and percentages to the answer of the question

“Have you read any past or current research relating to SAT scores and predictability of

academic success?” Majority of the guidance counselors and admission officers have

read some literature relating to SAT scores and the predictability of student academic

success.

Table 4.6

Read Any Past/Current SAT Research (N=279)

Response

Position

Guidance Counselors

Admission Officers

Yes

193 (83.2%)

31 (66%)

29 (12.5%)

14 (29.8%)

Unsure

10 (4.3%)

2 (4.3%)

Table 4.7 shows the frequencies and percentages of both subject groups answer to

the question “Out of the criteria listed, which one criterion best predicts academic

success?” Guidance counselors indicated that course load and transcript best predict

academic success (54.3%), while admission officers indicated that HSGPA best predicts

academic success (44.7%).

Table 4.7

Belief of Which Criterion Predicts Academic Success (N=279)

Admission Criteria

Position

Guidance Counselors*

Admission Officers**

SAT/ACT Scores

10 (4.3%)

4 (8.5%)

High School GPA

76 (32.8%)

21 (44.7%)

High School Class Rank

4 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

Extra-curricular Activities

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

Personal Essay

3 (1.3%

1 (2.1%)

Letters of Recommendation

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

Interviews

0 (0%)

1 (2.1%)

District Factor Grouping

0 (0%)

Course load and Transcript

126 (54.3%)

17 (36.2%)

Note. *Missing= 11, **Missing=3

Chapter V

Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Summary of the Study

This thesis set out to investigate the attitudes of importance towards specific

admission criteria from admission officers and guidance counselors located throughout

New Jersey. The admission criteria used were defined as both quantitative and

qualitative: SAT and ACT scores, HSGPA, high school class rank, extra-curricular

activities, personal essays, letters of recommendation, interviews, DFG, and course load

and transcript. Guidance counselors from approximately 142 public school districts were

emailed surveys, as well as admission officers from nine public four-year institutions in

New Jersey. All subjects were surveyed during the spring 2018 semester.

Two separate surveys were developed; one to distribute to admission officers of

the selected institutions (Appendix E) and one to distribute to guidance counselors of the

selected institutions (Appendix F). The surveys were formatted and collected using the

Qualtrics software on demographics, importance of nine number of different admissions

criteria using a Likert-scale, the subjects’ opinions on the two most important criteria,

and the criterion they believe best predicts academic success. After data collection was

complete, SPSS was used to analyze the data for frequencies, percentages, and means. A

total of 232 guidance counselors and 47 admission officers responded to the survey,

yielding response rates of 41% and 51%, respectively.

Discussion of the Findings

Research question 1. What are the most important admission criteria according

to selected admission officers and guidance counselors in New Jersey?

Both guidance counselors and admission officers responded with SAT and ACT

scores, course load and transcript, and high school GPA as being the three most important

admission criteria for a high school senior to be accepted into a four-year institution.

While the two subject groups agreed generally on the three most important criteria,

guidance counselors reported that each of these criteria, individually, were more

important than what admission officers indicated. Because of this difference, it can be

concluded that there is a disconnect between guidance counselors and admission officers

on what are the most important admission criteria and how important these criteria are for

high school students in the application and admission process.

NACAC’S Admission Trends Survey from fall 2015, determined that the criteria

used most in admission decisions were HSGPA, standardized test score, and strength of

curriculum, all of which admissions officers and guidance counselors indicated are most

important (NACAC, 2016). Even though there is a disconnect on the level of importance

between the two subject groups, they both indicated the same most important criteria that

align with the Admission Trends Survey.

This disconnect between guidance counselors and admission officers can

negatively affect a student’s college application process. Research suggests that there

needs to be strong communication between admission officers and guidance counselors

so guidance counselors can give their students the most up-to-date information to their

students about college admissions (Gaitlin, 1997; Ishop, 2008). The results of this study

indicate that guidance counselors lack knowledge of the current practices of college

admissions, which is a key component of their job, and continues to be an area of concern

(Gaitlin, 1997; NACAC, 2000; Richmond, 2011).

Research question 2. What similarities or differences are found between these

two groups and their attitudes towards current college requirements?

When first looking at the data collected, it seemed as if both guidance counselors

and admission officers responded similarly when asked about the importance of each

admission criteria. However, after closer analysis, the two subject groups varied

significantly.

As previously discussed, guidance counselors and admission officers generally

responded with the same criteria for what criteria were most important. Conversely, the

three least important criteria to both subject groups were DFG, interviews, and letters of

recommendation. Similar to the most important criteria, guidance counselors responded

with higher importance to each of the least important criteria than admission officers.

Because of this difference again, it can be concluded that there is a disconnect between

guidance counselors and admission officers on what are the least important admission

criteria and how little importance these criteria have for high school students in the

application and admission process. What varied was how important these criteria were

for high school students. Guidance counselors generally responded higher on the Likert-

scale, meaning they believed the criteria were more important than admission officers.

DFG, interviews, and letters of recommendation were all defined as qualitative

criteria in this thesis. The literature discussed in Chapter II revealed that quantitative

criteria seemed to be favorited over qualitative requirements. The previous findings

suggested that quantitative criteria were most important to being accepted into college,

which is consistent with these subjects believing that qualitative criteria are not as

important (Getler, 2007; NACAC, 2016). Usually, qualitative criteria, like course load

and transcript, are not taken into consideration as strongly as quantitative criteria, like

SAT and ACT and HSGPA, when admissions offices review an application; they are

normally given more consideration when the application is reviewed holistically, taking

both quantitative and qualitative criteria from the applicant into consideration (Carlock,

2014; Gilroy, 2007; Hornberger, 2010; Richmond, 2011). However, both subject groups

indicated a strong importance for course load and transcript.

Research question 3. Do the subjects’ attitudes towards the chosen admission

criteria correlate to the literature on the predictability of student academic success?

As Chapter II discussed, there is an abundance of literature on the predictability of

admission criteria used in this study, mainly relating to SAT and ACT scores (Betts,

2011; Carlock, 2014; Zwick, 2007a). Chapter II also noted that the research continues to

differ on what are the best predictors of college success (Betts, 2011; Carlock, 2014;

Getler, 2007; Zwick, 2007a). Therefore, I made sure to ask subjects if they have read any

research, specifically on the SAT, since standardized test scores are so prominent in

admissions, but lack predictability of academic success once a student is in college.

The results found that 83.2% of guidance counselors and 66% of admission

officers have read past or current research relating to SAT scores and predictability of

academic success SAT research. When asked what criterion best predicts academic

success, guidance counselors chose course load and transcript (54.3%), and admission

officers chose HSGPA (44.7%). The literature reveals that the strength of curriculum may

be best at predicting academic success (Betts, 2011; NACAC, 2016). It is possible that

reading past or current research on the predictability of SAT scores could have possibly

influenced the subjects’ decisions on what criterion best predicts academic success.

When asked which criterion best predicts academic success, SAT and ACT scores

were not chosen as much as GPA and course load and transcript. These results are

consistent with findings on predictability of academic success; HSGPA and course load

and transcript are more likely to determine academic success through a student’s FYGPA

compared to standardized test scores, like the SAT and ACT (Betts, 2011; Carlock, 2014;

McGinty, 2004).

Conclusions

Data from this study suggest that the three most important criteria for students to

be accepted into a higher education institution are SAT and ACT scores, HSGPA, and

course load and transcript; analysis suggests that guidance counselors and admission

officers agree on these three being the most important, but what varies between the two

subject groups is the level of importance. Guidance counselors responded higher on the

Likert-scale than admission officers, concluding that the admission criteria were more

important to them than to admission officers.

It is interesting to note some of the characteristics of the sample. All guidance

counselors held a Master’s degree or higher, while admission officers held Bachelor’s or

higher. The guidance counselor and admission officer subject groups were made up of

74% and 55% females, respectively. Fifty-five percent of admission officers were at their

current institution for under five years, while guidance counselors responded almost

evenly to how long they have been working in their current school district. Lastly, 70%

of guidance counselors have held their current position for over five years, while majority

of admission officers (38%) have held their current position for one to three years.

This study provides considerable insight into the attitudes of admission criteria

from guidance counselors and admission officers in New Jersey. A clear disconnect was

discovered between the two subject groups on the importance of each of the admission

criteria. This disconnect could have an effect on high school students applying to college;

if guidance counselors believe that some of these criteria are extremely important, while

admission officers believe they are slightly important, guidance counselors may be

putting more emphasis on admission criteria that are not as important for a student to be

accepted into a four-year institution.

Recommendations for Practice

Based on my findings and conclusions of the study, the following are

recommendations for practice of the current admissions process in New Jersey:

1. Share results with guidance counselors and admissions officers across New

Jersey to inform them of the discrepancies found through the research.

2. Encourage more communication from admission officers to guidance

counselors about what criteria are most important to being accepted into their

institution.

3. Strengthen the relationships between local admissions officers and guidance

counselors to allow for students to have an easier application process.

Recommendations for Further Research

Based upon my findings and conclusions of the study, the following are

recommendation for further research into the current admissions process:

1. Future studies should involve a larger sample to generalize the results to both

populations to use the data across the country.

2. Vary the locations of the high schools and institutions studied to retrieve data

from a variety of demographics, school systems, institution types, and location in

the state.

3. Survey private institutions instead of only public to see if results vary between

institution types

4. Investigate the attitudes of the subject groups in a state other than New Jersey

5. Include students as a subject group to discover what attitudes students have

towards the admission criteria and to see if their perceptions line up with the

admissions officers and guidance counselors.

6. Utilize a qualitative research design to investigate why these admission criteria

are most important to these subject groups and see if their opinions vary from

their school or institution.

References

About NJACAC. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.njacac.org/about-njacac/

ACT, Inc. (2016). ACT profile report: National. Graduating class 2016. Retrieved from

https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/P_99_999999_N_S_

00_AT-GCPR_National.pdf

Admission Interview Tips. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://professionals.collegeboard.org/guidance/applications/college-interviews

Atkinson, R. (2001, February). Standardized tests and access to American universities.

Paper presented at the Eighty-third Annual Meeting of American Council on

Education, Washington, D.C.

Beard, J., & Marini, J. P. (2015). Validity of the SAT

for Predicting First-Year Grades:

2012 SAT Validity Sample (College Board Research Report No. 2015-2). New

York: The College Board.

Betts Jr., A. L. (2011). Looking to the future: An examination of the potential for SAT

optional admissions. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Rowan Digital

Works.

Carlock, M. A. (2014). The use of the SAT in college admissions decisions. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Class of 2016 SAT results. (2016). Retrieved from https://reports.collegeboard.org/sat

suiteprogram-results/class-of-2016-results

Clinedinst, M., Koranteng, A., & Nicola, T. (2015). 2015 State of college admission.

Retrieved from https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/publications

/research/2015soca.pdf

Cohn, E., Cohn, S., Balch, D. C., Bradley Jr., J. (2004). Determinants of undergraduate

GPAs: SAT scores, high-school GPA and high-school rank. Economics of

Education Review, 23(6), 577-586.

District Factor Groups (DFG) for School Districts. (2000). Retrieved from

http://www.state.nj.us/education/finance/rda/dfg.shtml

Gaitlin, L. P. (1997). Comparing secondary school counselors’ and college admission

officials’ perceptions of selected college admissions criteria. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Getler, L. A. (2007). Accepted or denial: What matters most in college admissions?

(Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from Rowan Digital Works.

Gilroy, M. (2007). Colleges making SAT optional as admissions requirement. Education

Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 73(4), 35-39.

Help and FAQ’s. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and

services/the-act/help.html#contactus

Hornberger, R. (2010). Predictors of academic success for conditionally admitted first

time freshmen at a four-year public university. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Ishop, K. B. (2008). The college application essay: just tell me what to write and I’ll

write it. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

Publishing.

Kronholz, J. (2012). Academic values of non-academics: The case for keeping

extracurriculars. Education Next, 12(Winter 2012), 9-14.

Lawhorn, B. (2008). Extracurricular activities: The afterschool connection. Occupational

Outlook Quarterly, 52(4), 16-21.

Letukas, L. (2015). Nine facts about the SAT that might surprise you. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562751.pdf

Martin, C. J. (2015). Student involvement in extracurricular activities and post-secondary

education placement. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations Publishing.

McGinty, S. M. (2004). The college application essay: Revised edition. New York:

College Board.

Murphy, S. C., Klieger, D. M., Borneman, M. J., & Kuncel, N. R. (2009). The predictive

power of personal statements in admissions: A meta-analysis and cautionary tale.

College and University, 84(4), 83-86.

Nack, D. L. & Townsend, M. M. (2007). Are high school GPA, rank in high school

graduating class or ACT scores adequate predictors of college freshmen success?

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2000). Statement on Counselor

Competencies. Retrieved from https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/

advocacy-and-ethics/statement-ofprinciples-of-good-

practice/counselorcompetencies.pdf

National Association for College Admission Counseling. (1990). Statement on precollege

guidance and counseling and the role of the school counselor. Retrieved from

https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/advocacy-and-ethics/statement

ofprinciples-of-good-practice/roleofschlcounsnew.pdf

National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2016). Use of predictive

validity studies to inform admission practices. Retrieved from

https://www.nacacnet.org/news--publications/Research/report-validity-studies/

Richmond, L. (2011). Students’ college preparation level based on quality factors of the

high school attended. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations Publishing.

Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Gehrlein, T. M. (1991). The incremental contribution of

an interview to college admissions. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

51(4), 1049-1061.

Shaw, E. J., Marini, J.P., Beard, J., Shmueli, D., Young, L., & Ng, H. (2016). The

redesigned SAT pilot predictive validity study: A first look (College Board

Research Report No. 2016-1). New York: The College Board.

Tremblay, C. W. (2013). Agents of change: Roles, barriers, and opportunities for college

admissions professionals and high school counselors. College and University,

88(3), 12-27.

Zwick, R. (2007a). College admissions in twenty-first-century America: The roles of

grades, tests, and games of chance. Harvard Educational Review. 77(4), 419-429.

Zwick, R. (2007b). College admission testing. National Association for College

Admission Counseling, 1-44.

Zwick, R. (2013). Disentangling the role of high school grades, SAT scores, and SES in

predicting college achievement. (Research Report No. RR-13-09). Princeton, NJ:

Educational Testing Service.

Appendix A

Institutional Review Board Approval

Appendix B

Initial Email to Potential Subjects

Good afternoon,

My name is Amanda Tessler and I am a graduate student at Rowan University. As part of

a requirement for my M.A. in Higher Education Administration, I am conducting a thesis

that explores the attitudes of college admission requirements between admission officers

and guidance counselors in New Jersey.

As higher education continues to change, the common question from potential students is,

“What are the most important qualifications for a student to be accepted into four-year

institutions?” This study hopes to discover what these criteria are to both guidance

counselors and admission officers in the local area.

Since you fit into one of these positions I am researching, I am asking you to help me

discover the differences and similarities in attitudes of college admission requirements by

taking a quick survey. The survey will take no more than ten minutes to complete with no

identifying information being asked and all responses being kept confidential. By taking

your time to complete this survey, you will be helping to clear up any misconceptions

about college admission requirements to current and future high school seniors.

Thank you in advanced for your participation. If you have any questions or concerns,

please contact me at [email protected] or my thesis chair, Dr. Burton Sisco,

at [email protected].

Follow this link to the Survey:

[Survey Link]

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:

[Survey Link]

Thank you again for your participation.

Sincerely,

Amanda Tessler

M.A. Higher Education Administration

Rowan University, 2018

Appendix C

Reminder Email to Potential Subjects

Good Morning,

My name is Amanda Tessler and I am a graduate student at Rowan University. Last

week, I emailed you a survey seeking information on your opinions of college admission

criteria for my graduate thesis requirement. I understand that this is a busy time for you,

but it’s very important for your opinions to be included in this study. The link for the

survey is in this email for your convenience.

The survey will take no more than ten minutes to complete with no identifying

information being asked and all responses being kept confidential. By taking your time to

complete this survey, you will be helping to clear up any misconceptions about college

admission requirements to current and future high school seniors.

Thank you in advanced for your participation. If you have any questions or concerns,

please contact me at [email protected] or my thesis chair, Dr. Burton Sisco,

at [email protected].

Follow this link to the Survey:

[Survey Link]

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:

[Survey Link]

Follow the link to opt out of future emails:

[Unsubscribe Link]

Thank you again for your participation.

Sincerely,

Amanda Tessler

M.A. Higher Education Administration

Rowan University, 2018

Appendix D

Online Alternate Consent

You are invited to participate in this online research survey entitled Making College

Admission Count: The Importance of Admission Criteria in the Current Undergraduate

Admission Process. You are included in this survey because you are either an admissions

professional at a New Jersey institution or a high school guidance counselor in New

Jersey. The number of subjects to be enrolled in the study will be approximately 300.

The survey may take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Your participation is

voluntary. If you do not wish to participate in this survey, do not respond to this online

survey. Completing this survey indicates that you are voluntarily giving consent to

participate in the survey. Data collection for this survey is expected to last approximately

two months.

The purpose of this research study is to discover and compare the attitudes of various

college admission criteria between high school guidance counselors and college

admission officers. The study seeks to focus on what is most important for being

accepted into an undergraduate program at a four-year institution in New Jersey, as well

as discovering the similarities and differences between attitudes of guidance counselors

and admission officers. Approximately 300 professionals from New Jersey will be

contacted for participation in this study.

There are no risks or discomforts associated with this survey. There may be no direct

benefit to you, however, by participating in this study, you may help to understand the

current college admission process, according to high school guidance counselors and

college admission officers, and help make the admission process easier to understand for

high school students in New Jersey.

Your response will be kept confidential. I will store the data in a secure computer file

and the file will be destroyed once the data has been analyzed, and the thesis is approved.

Any part of the research that is published as part of this study will not include your

individual information. If you have any questions about the survey, you can contact me

or my thesis chair at the email addresses provided below, but you do not have to give

your personal identification.

Please complete the checkbox below.

To participate in this survey, you must be 18 years or older and have access to this

survey. Place a check box here ☐

Completing this survey indicates that you are voluntarily giving consent to participate in

the survey ☐

Researcher Contact Information:

Amanda Tessler

[email protected]

Rowan University

Burton Sisco, Ed.D

[email protected]

Rowan University, Thesis Chair

Appendix E

Survey for Admission Officers

Section 1: Demographics

1. Sex

☐Male

☐Female

☐Other

2. Age

☐Under 30

☐30-39

☐40-49

☐50+

3. Education

☐High School/GED

☐Some college

☐Bachelor’s Degree

☐Master’s Degree

☐Doctoral Degree

4. How long have you been working for

your current institution?

☐Less than 5 years

☐5-10 years

☐11-15 years

☐Over 15 years

5. How long have you been in your

current position?

☐Less than one year

☐1-3 years

☐4-5 years

☐Over 5 years

6. Have you read any past or current

research relating to SAT scores and

predictability of academic success?

☐Yes

☐No

☐Unsure

Section 2: Admission Requirements

Please choose a number from 1-5 (not important to most important) for each of the

following statements to indicate how important the following criteria are for high school

seniors to being accepted into your institution.

1= Not important

2= Less important

3= Important

4= Very important

5= Most important

1. SAT/ACT scores: 1 2 3 4 5

2. High school GPA: 1 2 3 4 5

3. High school class rank: 1 2 3 4 5

4. Extra-curricular activities: 1 2 3 4 5

5. Personal Essay: 1 2 3 4 5

6. Letters of recommendation: 1 2 3 4 5

7. Interviews: 1 2 3 4 5

8. District Factor Grouping: 1 2 3 4 5

9. Course load and Transcript: 1 2 3 4 5

Section 3: Open-ended

1. Out of the criteria listed, which two are considered most important for a student to be

accepted into your institution?

2. Out of the criteria listed, which one criterion best predicts academic success?

Thank you for your participation in this survey.

If you have any questions or concerns, please email [email protected]

Appendix F

Survey for Guidance Counselors

Section 1: Demographics

1. Sex

☐Male

☐Female

☐Other

2. Age

☐Under 30

☐30-39

☐40-49

☐50+

3. Education

☐High School/GED

☐Some college

☐Bachelor’s Degree

☐Master’s Degree

☐Doctoral Degree

4. How long have you been working for

your current school/school district?

☐Less than 5 years

☐5-10 years

☐11-15 years

☐Over 15 years

5. How long have you been in your

current position?

☐Less than one year

☐1-3 years

☐4-5 years

☐Over 5 years

6. Have you read any past or current

research relating to SAT scores and

predictability of academic success?

☐Yes

☐No

☐Unsure

Section 2: Admission Requirements

Please choose a number from 1-5 (not important to most important) for each of the

following statements to indicate how important the following criteria are for high school

seniors to being accepted into a four-year institution.

1= Not important

2= Less important

3= Important

4= Very important

5= Most important

1. SAT/ACT scores: 1 2 3 4 5

2. High school GPA: 1 2 3 4 5

3. High school class rank: 1 2 3 4 5

4. Extra-curricular activities: 1 2 3 4 5

5. Personal Essay: 1 2 3 4 5

6. Letters of recommendation: 1 2 3 4 5

7. Interviews: 1 2 3 4 5

8. District Factor Grouping: 1 2 3 4 5

9. Course load and Transcript: 1 2 3 4 5

Section 3: Open-ended

1. Out of the criteria listed, which two are considered most important for a student to be

accepted into a four-year institution?

2. Out of the criteria listed, which one criterion best predicts academic success?

Thank you for your participation in this survey.

If you have any questions or concerns, please email [email protected].