Absenteeism Implied by Article Refuted by Facts

To the editors:

I am writing in response to the article “Princeton, Brown in Clash Over Admissions Rules.” (News, Sept. 24) In particular, I take issue with the repeated reference to the policy deliberations of the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) in 2001 as reflecting an “absentee conference.” At the time of the conference that was held in San Antonio, Texas the week following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I served as president of the New England Association for College Admission Counseling, which is one of 24 state and regional affiliates of the national association.

Although the overall attendance at the conference was less than anticipated, the annual Assembly sessions in 2001 were some of the more active and intense in my six years as a New England Assembly Delegate. It is in this body that policies, such as those that seek to define early decision and early action, get debated, amended and approved.

In the 2001 Assembly in San Antonio, a total of 199 delegates were eligible to vote. Of this number, 133—or two-thirds of the original slate of delegates—were in the assembly room. Another 53 alternates offered their services and in most cases, were seasoned veterans who were well-versed on these issues. Only 13 seats in the Assembly went under represented. Furthermore, New England had all 19 of its delegate seats filled for both sessions.

The article gave the unfortunate impression that these resolutions were passed hastily, when in fact, NACAC was given a directive to study its early admission policies as far back as the 2000 National Conference in Washington, D.C. during its general membership meeting. The Admission Practices committee previewed its potential modifications to NACAC’s early admission policies to state and regional leaders in March and July of 2001 and sent a comprehensive preview to all 199 national delegates in August of 2001, a full month prior to the conference.

Probably the most overlooked and possibly critical issue pertains to what was actually voted on during the 2001 Assembly. NACAC’s prior policies on early admission plans that are detailed in the Definitions of Admission Decision Options, have been in existence since 1991. The Assembly of 2001 examined the document, which at that time was named the “Guidelines for Admissions Decision Options,” for the purpose of clarifying and strengthening the policies contained in the document as well as renaming it.

There were several amendments agreed to by the Assembly before the new document was passed unanimously during the second session. As someone who was part of the entire process, I can say without hesitation that the approach taken by NACAC was both responsible and in the best interest of our membership.

The Assembly delegates represent admission and guidance professionals from across the country and stand for election by their state or regional membership organization. Because of the thorough and meticulous attention to detail by NACAC, and in particular its Admission Practices Committee, the Assembly that gathered with heavy hearts in San Antonio was very well prepared to make amendments to the policies that were presented.

Peter E. Caruso

Boston

Oct. 3, 2002

The writer, past president and chief assembly delegate of the New England Association for College Admission Counseling, is Associate Director of Undergraduate Admission at Boston College.