Desegregation· Separate but Equal” (Plessy, 1896)· 1st (whi.docx
Graduate research day
1. The Evolution of Admissions Standards at
Salem State University: 1930-1965
Presented by Brianne M. McDonough
May 2, 2013
Salem State University
Graduate Research Day
2. Normal Schools Prior to 1930
•Experienced a flood of students post World War I
•Resulted in overcrowding of Normal Schools
•Unable to place restrictions on admissions
•Impact on student faculty ratio and existing facilities
Eager Rush of Students Swamps Colleges, New York Times 1926
3. Admissions Criteria through 1930
• Salem Normal School could not deny admission to those residing in
the Commonwealth
• Private universities criticized for excluding racial groups and
students of lower socioeconomic status
▫ Elites relied on College Board (CEEB) as part of admissions criteria
• Normal Schools struggled to maintain balance between
overcrowding and honoring their mission of open access
▫ Students not meeting scholarship or credit requirements sat for exams
given by the Normal Schools
▫ Significant impact on secondary education within the Commonwealth
5. Rating of Personal Characteristics
Application for Admission Salem Normal School, 1930
6. The 1930’s
• 1932: Salem Normal School changed to Salem
Teachers’ College
• 1937: Commissioner of Education designates
each teachers college as having a specialty
▫ Salem’s focus was business administration
▫ First college with certification of its kind
• 1939: World War II
7. The 1940’s
• 1940: Enrollment impacted by military draft
• 1941: Temporary modified entrance requirements
▫ “EMERGENCY REGULATION: Entrance requirements have been
temporarily modified so that any high school graduate may be admitted
to the Massachusetts State Teachers Colleges after an oral interview with
the president and successful completion of a scholastic aptitude test.”
(Salem State Teachers College Catalogue, 1941-1942)
• 1944: The G. I. Bill
• 1949: Salem State at Capacity
▫ 53% of students admitted, waiting lists popular
• 1949: AACRO established formalizing the field of
admissions and registration in higher education
8. The G. I. Bill of 1944
• Government required schools to be accredited to
be eligible for funds
▫ Salem State accredited in 1950
NEASC and accreditation boards earned federal
recognition
• Rush of student veterans applying for admission
▫ Required a more swift process for evaluating
admissions criteria
Lack of traditional transcripts
Increased reliance on SATs
9. The 1950’s
• 1951: Salem State required SAT scores
• 1952: Established Division of Elementary and
Secondary Education in the Commonwealth
• 1956: Baby Boomer hit higher education
▫ Tightened in-state enrollment quotas
▫ Out-of-state students land on waiting lists
• 1957: President Meier urges Legislature for
increased funding
• 1958: Criticism over SAT
10. The 1960’s
• 1960: Massachusetts Legislature approves
multipurpose state colleges
▫ New courses in arts and sciences and business
administration
• 1963: Fiscal autonomy to state colleges
• 1965: Willis-Harrington Act
▫ Board of Higher Education
▫ Board of Trustees at Salem State
▫ Increased funding for degree programs
11. The 1960’s (cont’d)
• 1965: Meier wins fight for new facilities
▫ Dormitories (600 beds; 300 for men, 300 for
women)
▫ Student Union
▫ New library and academic buildings (1967)
▫ New physical fitness building (1968)
• 1968: School of Public Health and Nursing
• 1969: Graduate School
12. Implications
• National policy and pursuits have a profound
impact on higher education
▫ Access for underrepresented populations
▫ Financial support for institutions and individuals
• As employees and students at institutions of
higher education it is our obligation to be
civically engaged in the decisions being made on
the state and federal level
13. Things to consider:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Institutional performance
State support for public higher education
Tuition prices and policy
State student grant aid programs
College readiness
Immigration
Competency-based and online education
Gun control policy
Economic and workforce development
Consumer protection for for-profit colleges
Top 10 Higher Education State Policy Issues for 2013
http://www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-matters/topten2013.pdf
Why I chose this topic: Interest in enrollment management and public higher education policy
Normal schools were not prepared to handle an influx of students
Name change was more appropriate for the type of institution Designation of specialties gave each college a unique focus on educationMarketing and recruitment strategies- nearly non-existent You could mail in for a catalogue or pick one up
Accreditation files from 1950’s indicated this time period as the only point in Salem’s history in which they were struggling to recruit students.Marketing and recruitment strategies were more developed Speakers sent to local arenas, high schools, parents meeting etc. Faculty gave lectures to local community 1948- colleges begin to consider high school involvement in college admissionsAACRO American Association of Collegiate Registrars
-DURING WW2 Those skilled in language and science proved to be helpful during war Federal government saw value in increasing funding to colleges and universities (especially government could influence curriculum) Seen as interest in asserting world power during the industrial era The GI BILL-Early supporters of the GI Bill predicted only 8-10% of servicemen would take advantage of the program By 1950, fourteen million or 16% of veterans had decided to use their benefits-Required schools to be accreditted This in order to avoid colleges taking advantage of vets Large undertaking, government relied on accreditation boards
Criticism of the SAT Study by ETS questioned its ability to predict graduation rates ACT emerged on scene as a competitor1953- CEEB’s AP Courses increased competition among high school students They could not earn college credit for their high school coursework
