Joseph Rogan: College admissions scandal hurts students with disabilities
The national college admissions scandal creates many problems, but it especially harms students with real disabilities.
That parents paid a corrupt private counselor tens of thousands of dollars to fudge their children’s college applications raises concerns about their ethics, but also about the admission standards and processes of the institutions that accepted the corrupted students.
Over the years, I have worked with admissions officers at many colleges and universities. In making their decisions, each of them took the time to consider many variables — not just SAT scores. Maybe I am naive, but I never met one who might be conned by a faked application.
I am mostly concerned, though, about the latest revelation that over the last few years the number of students diagnosed with disabilities in order to make them eligible for extra time on standardized tests increased dramatically. If the players in the scandal can fake diagnoses, students with real disabilities are the victims.
Thirty years ago, Misericordia University in eastern Pennsylvania launched its Alternative Learners Program (ALP), the state’s first collegiate program for students with primarily learning disabilities. Our first order of business was to create an admissions process that fairly selected students with legitimate disabilities who were otherwise qualified to succeed in college.
We did our best to verify that applicants were otherwise qualified, that they had the ability to succeed despite their disabilities. When we received calls from counselors or parents about the SAT, we were honest. We told them that the SATs do not really predict anything. We explained that the tests were not normed on students with disabilities so the scores of students with disabilities were simply not valid and thus were useless in making decisions.
We found other information to be far more useful. Scores on IQ tests were sometimes informative, but we mostly valued letters of recommendation from teachers of college-prep courses who said things like “this student struggled, worked hard, never gave up — and succeeded.” Maybe their grades were not always great, but those who took real courses were far better prepared for college.
Misericordia’s program became the state’s model. We helped many colleges and universities implement our simple recipe. We tell applicants, their families and whatever support personnel are in the mix that, if accepted, students will take nothing but real college-level, program-required courses. We never promise alternative courses and never promise that our professors will adjust their standards or requirements in any way. Moreover, we never would ask them to do so.
Then we promise two other things: First, we will provide students with the reasonable accommodations they need, not necessarily those they got in high school. The federal law that requires “specially designed instruction” in basic education does not pertain to higher education.
In addition, we promise to try to teach our students how to meet the demands of their courses.
The combination of rigorous regular education, reasonable accommodations and learning strategies is usually sufficient. We did not and could not guarantee success, but over three decades students served by ALP posted GPAs about the same as other students in their majors and they graduated at about the same rate. Hundreds of students with disabilities who did not otherwise have a chance went on to careers as teachers, social workers, business professionals, therapists and nurses. Our recipe worked; however, it would not work for students with faked disabilities. Nothing does.
When corrupt families pull strings for fake diagnostics, programs like ALP and students with actual disabilities suffer. Sadly, the college admissions scandal jeopardizes programs that help students with disabilities succeed. That is terribly unfair.