Campaign to Defend Need-Blind Admissions at Macalester
from the Macalester Public Knowledge Base
The Need-Blind Admissions campaign was a year-long struggle during 2004 at Macalester where students struggled against the administration and the Board of Directors to maintain its financial aid and admissions policy known as Need-Blind Admissions. Administration had ongoing internal conversations to reduce Need-Blind from 2003, but the issue was only announced semi-formally in November of 2003 (in an LB presentation) and made public in August 2004 (in Rosenberg's Mac Today article.
Those individuals prominently covered by the media (mostly the Mac Weekly and The Hegemon, and later the local press) during this time, were students Natalia Espejo, Jesse Mortenson, Josh Jorgensen, David Boehnke, Michael Eastwood, Seth Schlotterbeck, (acting through an email network, later known as DNBAM), professors Danny Kaplan (chair of the RPC), Peter Rachleff, Martin Gunderson alumn William Sentell and staff members Brian Rosenberg, David Wheaton.
Students operating as DNBAM produced a number of articles, organized student actions, and produced a comprehensive report (PDF) which analyzed in detail the financial and political situation surrounding the issue. The DNBAM report convinced an overwhelming majority of students at an official student assembly to support continuing the status quo need-blind admissions policy.
Upon the Board of Trustees vote in January of 2005 to uphold RPC recommendations and cut Need-Blind Admissions to 90% of white non-athlete domestic students, the campaign failed in its primary objectives, and students involved in the issue directed their efforts in reforming the decision making process at Macalester.
A group of students, primarily led by David Boehnke, Eric Forman, Molly Bowen, Miriam Larson and Josh Jorgensen, is initiating Think Outside the Tank, a student-run initiative that exists to support student activism attempting to build community at Macalester.
Contents |
[edit] Campaign Objectives
The Campaign aimed to maintain Macalester College's Need-Blind Admissions policy to all applicants, and refute the recommendation of the Resources and Planning Committee (a campus committee) to eliminate Need-Blind to the bottom 10% of the applicant pool, a recommendation supported by the Board of Trustees, the ultimate decision-makers of Macalester's long term policies.
[edit] What is Need-Blind?
More at Need-Blind Admissions
During the 60's (confirm this time period?), a large number of colleges across the US implemented an admissions/financial aid policy concept called Need-Blind, meaning that the admissions office would make blind decisions in regard to the ability of the applicant to pay.
This concept targeted class inequalities of the times, and tried to prevent poverty from being transmitted from one generation to the next one. The ideas was that since education is a primary tool that helps the proletariat make a better living, such tool should not be denied to the poor. Otherwise, only the rich would afford to educate its chidlren, effectively perpetuating class differences.
In practice, this evolved to colleges establishing two parallel channels to interface with applicants: the financial aid office to address issues of ability of paying and financial need, and the admissions office for everything else. Colleges promised the applicants that the admissions office, which makes the decision of whether or not the applicant will be accepted, will not have access to his file at the financial aid office, and vice versa.
On the other hand, financial aid offices measured the applicant's family income against the college's yearly attendance costs, calculated the difference, and "discounted" it so that the applicant may be able to afford it in the case of being accpeted. This "discount" is called financial aid. The practice of offering a financial aid that corresponds 100% to the calculated difference, during the course of the Need-Blind debate at Macalester, came to be called full need, and was defended by the side intending to disminish Need-Blind (RPC and co)
[edit] Background
[edit] Financial Boom of the '90s
In 1991, the Readers Digest/Wallace Fund, a charitable organization established by DeWitt and Lila Wallace, alumns of Macalester and founders of Readers Digest magazine, contributed an exceptionally large sum of capital to Macalester' endowment in the form of Readers Digest (RD) stocks. By 1999, this amount was still valued at $303.7 million dollars (NYSDL, 2001:p9)
This amount, in times when the U.S. economy was still recovering from the 1980's manufacturing industry shock, meant a huge boost in Macalester's financial ability. Furthermore, RDA stock values started increasing at a steep pace immediately afterward. Between one US News and World Report's liberal arts college rankings and the next ranking, Macalester jumped from a regional college to one nationally ranked in the top 20s, by the simple computing of increased endowment into the ranking formula.
Macalester's Board of Directors crafted a new Mission Statement for the college, aiming to compete with top liberal arts colleges of the nation, and the college moved towards an aggressive investment and expansion programme backed by its endowment.
The expansion however saw a halt in 1998 as RD stock values plummeted, and again in 2002. Given that the initial contract did not allow Macalester to diversity its portfolio by selling part of RD stocks and reinvesting in other assets, the shock was felt strongly by the college.
One aspect in which Macalester tried to soften the impact was through the tightening of staffing budget (not the professor-to-student ratio, but the administrative and managerial staff to student ratio)
[edit] McPherson and Six Strategic Directions Task Forces
halted growth, rising academic inflation
During 1999 and 2000, President McPherson commissioned the creation of six Task Forces for "Strategic Directions" on different areas of the college to produce long term directions for the college to pursue. The six different issue areas were:
- Admissions and Financial Aid
- Institutional Identity
- Academic Program Quality and Structure
- Student Learning Experience
- Resource Use: Budgeting, Staffing and Organization
- Facilities [1]
The Task Forces were an expression for the recognition that there was a need for planned spending, given the college could not afford unchecked expansion anymore. [2]
Each Task Force generated individual reports, plus short faculty/staff "opinion report"s when positions differed, all available at http://www.macalester.edu/taskforce/ during 2000-2002 and now unavailable. Among major issues that were identified during this phase and that took more concrete shape in later years, were that Macalester needed to
- present a "specialized" image in order to brand itself in the market of higher education while competing for students, and
- reduce costs and increase revenue.
In particular, the Task Force on Academic Program discussed ideas that later were discussed in detph by the RPC.
According to the letter [Challenging Choices Ahead (PDF)] , faculty salaries at Macalester were in 1997 at the median or higher compared to the 40 colleges to which Mac compares itself. Recently they have dropped to the fourth quartile. “It does … seem imperative that we stop the downward trend in faculty salaries before we plummet below all of our comparison colleges,” the letter states.
Options considered in the letter include increasing gifts, increasing tuition, becoming need-aware for a small number of students, decreasing the number of students allowed to study abroad, and increasing the student-faculty ratio from 10:1 to 11:1. Many of these options, especially the possibility of becoming need-aware, are controversial, and the letter cites many concerns that accompany each of these options. [3]
[edit] RPC Report
In early 2002, President McPherson commissioned the Resources and Planning Committee to make a comprehensive study on Macalester's revenue and report back to the administration. The eventual result was commonly referred to as the RPC Report.
Danny Kaplan, chair of RPC, produced preliminary reports to various college governing bodies, including the LB, in November of 2003.
After this was reported to a group of 40 students in April 7th of 2004 [6], by Gretchen Solomon and Isabelle Chan, students decided actions were needed to let the administration know their disagreement.
- (important point here is that at this point the RPC report was strictly prohibited from being shown to students. Therefore, the 40 students present only had a chance to see a 5-page powerpoint summary printout that Gretchen Solomon had brought to the meeting, and were not allowed to keep/copy the summary. In the initial conversations with the administration, students were accused of being ignorant of the issues and this point was exploited repeatedly throughout discussions with the administration (in particular Danny Kaplan) including the LB discussion in October of 2004, in which the PB Chair forbade students from discussing the issue under the excuse that LB members had not read the RPC report.
[edit] Ideologies at play
intro to ideologies
[edit] Class and Education
[edit] "Academic Excellence"
rosenberg's approach and counterarguments
[edit] Technocracy
the argument that if it makes financial or logistical sense, then it should be pursued
[edit] Multiculturalism and Environmentalism
kaplan menacing various minority initiatives (recruitment for students of color, dean of race and ethnicity, director of environmentalism, etc) to be cut if "urgent measures" are not taken regarding financial aid
[edit] Student Strategies
The overarching student campaign strategy to stop cuts to need-blind focused on defeating the logic employed by the administration for the need of eliminating need-blind, namely, "budget crisis" and "tuition will produce revenue". This reflected the partial assessment on part of students that many in the Macalester community were being led to agree to cut need-blind out of sheer force of numbers and financial logic, which could be refuted on equal grounds. On the other hand, this approach also reflected the preferences and training that some student activists had.
This strategy had the advantage of leting the opposition front stand on equal grounds against the administration - the administration was pressured not only to publicize the formal proceedings of the need-blind cut (announcing votes and meetings in advance), but also to make its inner logic public (publishing the entire RPC report, considered by many to be overtly revealing, and initially well hidden, to the front page of Macalester's website with intranet restrictions). On the other hand, the movement lost part of its mass following when the debate turned into a battle of technicisms.
Because the strategy was discoursive in its core, students relied on the written word. This was how the first act was a public debate followed by a Mac Weekly coverage, with a lively debate through hundreds of editorials, opinion pieces and letters to the editor, pushing for a presence in the Pioneer PRess and the Star Tribune, and the final Report on Defending Need Blind.
overview of strategies. use of the media
[edit] Student Signatures and Board of Trustees
The first organized action in the Fall of 2004 was a student petition drive. A statement (view petition text) was drafted over the email, and 10-20 students made turns in the basement of the Campus Center getting student signatures. In the sign-up sheet, students' signatures were accompanied by their email and phone numbers. It was a mistake to have forgotten to put a column for the names, but the phone numbers and email proved handy later on.
The table was held during 4 days, and immediately taken to the Board of Trustees meeting in October (date?). At that point, the signatures numbered over 400 students, alumns and faculty/staff members. The sheet was turned in to a Trustee.
At the meeting, Brian Rosenberg gave student Natalia Espejo his presentation time so that she could deliver a speech she prepared beforehand, which took about 3 minutes. During her speech, she emphasized the need for the Trustees to consider the economic diversity of the student body as an asset for the college, which outweighted the costs therein involved. About 15 students, about 80% of whom were against cutting need-blind, were present in the meeting holding pickets with slogans.
early 400 signature drive (View the petition here), conversation with board of trustees/ board of alumni
[edit] Student Assembly
mcsg debate on the need for a student assembly, student assemmbly with 240 students, structure, decisions taken
[edit] Propaganda
phone calls, press releases
[edit] Defend Need Blind Admissions Report
the challenge from admin to produce an "alternative", workgroup on the report, summary of conclusions. [The full report is downloadable from Mac Union (PDF)]
[edit] Administration's Strategies
[edit] Student Survey
[edit] Alumni Persuasion
the today, internal discussion, alumni board vote
[edit] Faculty Vote
faculty voting procedures, encounter with students
[edit] Need-Blind Debate
design of debate, points addressed, impact upon the student opinion.
debate featured:
Danny Kaplan, Marjorie Merryman, Martin Gunderson, and Natalia Espejo, William Sentell, Peter Rachleff
[edit] Final Board of Trustees Decision
The motion passed in January by the Board has three parts:
- 1. Financial aid policies shall be maintained to meet the full financial need of all admitted students.
- 2. The College shall establish a specific budget for financial aid. This budget shall be used to maintain an economically diverse student body while supporting Macalester's mission of academic excellence, with special emphasis on multiculturalism, internationalism, and service to society.
- 3. Periodic reports shall be made by the College administration to the Board of Trustees to ensure that the College is meeting the aforementioned goals.
[edit] Student Mobilization
[edit] Initiatives in 2005
various initiatives to reform decision making process, study group on structural change, student assembly on college democracy,
[edit] Think Outside the Tank
[edit] Radical Theory Collective
[edit] Student reactions to Board of Trustees decision
[edit] See also
[edit] Other schools with recent or ongoing Need-Blind issues
[edit] Links
- Defend Need Blind Admissions mailing list
- Resources and Planning Committee Macalester College
- Need-Blind Macalester Blog
- Tuition Revenue at Macalester (PDF file) Resource Planning Committee. April 2004.
- Quality and Access Macalester propaganda defending President Rosenberg's statement on balancing quality (reducing financial aid) and access (providing financial aid)
- Pro Need-Blind Ad put in the Mac Weekly in September of 2004
- MCSG LB Need-Blind Committee
- LB Minutes, October 26 2004 Danny Kaplan explaining again on the RPC recommendations
- Draft RPC Resolution for November 2004 Faculty Meeting
- Defend Need-Blind Admissions at Macalester Counter-Proposal: A case for need blind admissions (PDF file) December 2004
- December 7 2004 Student Assembly Vote results
- Macalester ends need-blind admission January 2005
[edit] Background
- President's Planning Report
- Task Force on Academic Quality
- Memorandum from Taskforce on Academic Quality & Structure and Faculty Advisory Council, April 2002 April 5, 2002 (PDF file)
- Macalester has been committed to need-blind admissions. A move toward need-aware admissions would represent a major change. It is unlikely that the College would agree to eliminate need-blind admission. There may be ways, however, to adjust from 100% need-blind.
- Resource & Planning Committee attended to give an update on their committee's activities. Reported that it is "crunch" time for budget discussion and this is the focus of most of their meetings. Projected budget shortfall will lead to cuts. Possible courses of action could be increasing enrollment, cutting number of international students admitted, increasing the number of no-need students (i.e. students who can pay full tuition), working to increase alumni and annual fund giving, and reducing the number of students who study away. Need blind admission is not on the table at this time because it keeps us in an elite group of colleges and helps to attract high quality students. The role of RPC is to provide a strategic framework for these decisions with the TFOB and College administration putting it in terms of real dollars and the Trustees making the final decision. Trustees to make final budget decision at their January meeting. Standfus from HR reportedly has been strong advocate for staff in these discussions pointing out that while the staff is "lean", not necessarily "well-compensated". Macalester ranks 41st out of 41 comparable colleges. Original staff salary pool of 3% will probably be cut to 2.5% as a result of shortfall.
- St. Olaf Senate Minutes. April 10, 2003
- As I understand it, Macalester is the other college that is need-blind. -the task force has just been formed to do that same exercise.
- Notably absent from the list are Princeton and Harvard Universities, two of the wealthiest, which have already increased their financial-aid packages far beyond those of most of their competitors.
- Ford Policy Forum: chaired by Michael McPherson and Morton O. Schapiro (PDF file)
- In the past, writing as economists, we criticized the prevailing institutional response to the recessions of the early 1980s and early 1990s, namely, to defer maintenance and cut library expenditures. Across the board—public and private institutions, liberal arts colleges, comprehensive universities, and research universities—the components of the operating budget that bore the brunt of those recessions were operations and maintenance and the library. ... sticker price generally is keyed to the income levels of the top 5 percent of the population, beginning at about $155,000, above which students usually do not qualify for need-based aid. ... Where they are still practiced, needblind admissions and full funding of need are cherished values. The commitment to these values among alumni, faculty, students, and staff often runs deep; as a result, it can be quite painful when financial exigencies force the consideration of alternative approaches to admissions and financial aid. ... Finally, we believe that minimal budget cuts year after year are demoralizing and bad for the institution. If possible, target a reduction in the base budget that you believe will be adequate to allow you to return to a growth pattern. In that way, the institution absorbs the financial blow early on and can begin to move forward in a positive way as soon as is realistically possible. Without question, these steps are easier said than done, but they should help your institution successfully weather the new depression in higher education.
[edit] Media Coverage
[edit] The Hegemon
[edit] Mac Weekly
- November 9, 2001
- McPherson: Macalester must face financial realities: Administrators are unsure how the school can recruit more wealthy students William Sentell and Curtis Gilbert
- President Michael McPherson said that Macalester will be forced to make “compromises on educational quality” over the next 10 years unless it can attract a wealthier student body. ... According to the Strategic Directions report: “We are currently losing many low and no-need gifted students (majority and minority students) to other colleges who are offering them merit scholarships. For example, if we could attract a gifted no-need student by offering the student a $5,000 merit scholarship, the College not only brings in a gifted student, it may save money.” .... For his part, McPherson has said the best way to attract more wealthy students is to improve Macalester's national reputation. He said that part of the college's inability to attract low-need students stems from its location in the Midwest. Many affluent families across the nation send their children to schools on the East Coast.
- November 12, 2004
- Intricate Budgeting Structure Complicates Need-Blind Debate Jon Lentz
- Considering All Stakeholders in the Need-Blind Debate Nick Ball
- Faculty Votes 55-5 in Support of RPC Recommendations Sara Nelson
- Broader Discussion, Student Voices Imperative in Need-Blind Debate DNBAM
- DNBAM to Draft Need-Blind Proposal Colin Gustafson
