Standards of Good Practice for Including Character Criteria in the Admission Process

1. Institutional Consensus

Work to achieve a consensus at all levels of the institution that attributes of character and ethical conduct are central to the mission and life of the institution. 

• vs. resistance to change
• Leadership must lead conversation, direct initiatives 
• Arguments:
  • Keep the faith with founding principles
  • Character attributes are stronger predictor of success
  • Foster healthy campus culture

2. Transparency

Communicate publicly that character attributes will be considered in evaluating candidates for admission, including information about (a) the general methodology for making admission decisions and (b) how character criteria will be included.

• Including “soft skills” has the potential to add additional obscurity 
• vs. cynicism about how admission works, what it takes to get in, and who gets financial aid. 
• Ones at greatest disadvantage are families who don’t have access to information about how the system works or the money to “work their system.”

3. Access and Equity

Implement practices that make it clear to campus stakeholders and external audiences that an aim of using character criteria in admission is to open doors to promising students who may otherwise be excluded. 

Important Assumptions Pertaining to Access

• Character is malleable
• Character strengths are not the domain of a particular social environment, social-economic status. or ethnicity. 
• Promising students may lack a preferred application profile because they live in family, neighborhood or school environments that deter sustained academic progress and a strong transcript. 
• These students may exhibit attributes of character, combined with academic “potential,” that predict success in school and beyond.
• Adding character to the decision equation opens doors of access.

4. Selecting Character Factors

Identify the character attributes that are most important to the school and for consideration in admission by reviewing (a) institutional documents, such as mission and vision statements, and (b) promising developments nationally for incorporating character criteria in admission.

• Keep the faith with institutional philosophy and beliefs
• Literature includes numerous lists/rubrics of non-cognitive, social-emotional, ethical, character-based attributes (e.g., Duckworth’s Grit Scale; Character Skills Snapshot)
• Search research that links specific character attributes to specific outcomes.

5. Valid Character Assessment

Identify and develop valid and reliable ways to assess selected attributes by drawing on research literature and experts in testing and evaluation.

• Who gets in is a “high stakes” decision (affects future of youth)
• Good assessment is a “science”
• Since “no measure of student competence is perfectly valid” (Duckworth et al), schools open themselves to criticism  
• Must study and define validity of alternative methods for assessing targeted character attributes:
• Instruments (e.g., Character Skills Snapshot; Grit Scale)
• Research-based rubrics
• Essays, interviews, recommendations, application

6. Decision Process

Rate character attributes and candidates in a logical, valid and consistent way and integrate the results of the assessment in the overall decision matrix in an explicit way.

• To outsiders, the “black box” is how decisions are made
• Refine scoring of questionnaire results, coding of responses, rating scales, narrative summary  
• Admissions office must
  • (a) carefully define character attributes
  • (b) develop a methodology for assessing character attributes that meets validity standards
  • (c) record and report results
  • (d) rate and compare candidates 
• Arrange regular professional development for the admission team

7. Evaluation of Outcomes

Implement ongoing institutional research that addresses the validity of the character assessments and their predictive power on outcomes of importance to the institution. 

• Connecting character assessment results to important institutional aims is “consequential validity”
• Employ a campus or outside expert in research design and implementation
• Report regularly to the board, administrative team and faculty on the successes, challenges, evolution and outcomes of incorporating character criteria in the admission process.
• As institutional leaders, assure school audiences that you are being fair to all applicants and demonstrating best practice in the way you assess students.