ADMISSIONS CRITERIA AND PRACTICES FOR UNDERGRADUATE NONTRADITIONAL STUDENTS: A STUDY OF DIFFERENCES

The purpose of this study was to investigate admissions criteria and practices for nontraditional applicants to undergraduate degree programs. A nontraditional applicant was defined as one who had not been enrolled in a post-secondary degree program for three or more years. A traditional applicant was defined as one who entered the institution directly from secondary school and attended the institution full-time. Four null hypotheses provided the structure and framework for this research. A survey instrument was developed and directed to Deans of Admissions in the 332 baccalaureate degree granting institutions in the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. The instrument was divided into three sections: Institutional Data, Admissions Data, and Admissions Policy. The Institutional Data section requested information about the type and size of the institution, and numbers of applicants and admittances of nontraditional applicants. Admissions data were gathered on academic waivers, substitutions and additions of assessment techniques other than academic, and decision-making responsibilities for waivers and assessments. The policy information focused on whether or not policies existed for nontraditional applicants, approaches to the admissions of these applicants, and possibilities for future uses of assessments in admitting this population. The instrument was evaluated for face validity by a panel of experts from The American University and for reliability by a field test to seven institutions outside the Middle States area. The findings demonstrated that there was a pattern of differences between types of institutions. By more than 10 percent the public institutions are more likely to waive academic admissions criteria for nontraditional applicants. They are also more likely to substitute assessment techniques for the waived criteria. However, the private institutions are more likely to add assessment techniques to the established academic admissions criteria. The pattern continues with the policy information. Fifty percent more of the private institutions review nontraditional applicants differently from traditional applicants, and fifty percent more of the private institutions have written guidelines for the admission of nontraditional applicants. This investigation has established a data base from which further research can be developed. It is clear that admissions personnel are aware that the nontraditional applicant cannot always be evaluated in the same manner as the traditional applicant. It is this "different manner" of evaluation which must be critically analyzed in order to ensure that institutional admissions criteria and practices provide equity of access for all applicants.