In this episode, members of NACAC’s Admission Practices Committee share how NACAC’s Guide to Ethical Practice in College Admission supports college admission professionals in making sound decisions with integrity, equity, and transparency. We discuss ethical dilemmas and consider how the profession can respond to emerging challenges in ever-involving higher education landscape.
Inside the Guide: Exploring Ethical Practice in College Admission
In this episode, members of NACAC’s Admission Practices Committee share how NACAC’s Guide to Ethical Practice in College Admission supports college admission professionals in making sound decisions with integrity, equity, and transparency. We discuss ethical dilemmas and consider how the profession can respond to emerging challenges in ever-involving higher education landscape.
Guests:
Ruby Bhattacharya, Director of Admissions at Barnard College
Jonah O’ Hara, Director of College Counseling at Rocky Hill Country Day School
Host: Eddie Pickett, Assistant Vice President and Director of Admission at Pomona College
____________________________________________________________________
Eddie Pickett: Hello, and welcome to the College Admissions Decoded Podcast, an occasional series from the National Association for College Admission Counseling, or NACAC. NACAC is an association of more than 28,000 professionals at high schools, colleges, universities, and non-profit organizations, as well as independent counselors who support and advise students and families through the college admission process.
I'm your host, Eddie Pickett, and my pronouns are he, him, his. I'm A long-time NACAC member and former member of the NACAC Board of Directors. I'm the Assistant Vice President and Director of Admission at Pomona College in Claremont, California. In this episode, I'll be joined by members of NACAC's Admissions Practices Committee to explore the work of the committee and how NACAC's Guide to Ethical Practice equips college admission professionals to meet today's biggest challenges while upholding integrity, equity, and transparency. We will also discuss ethical dilemmas NACAC members may face today due to ever-involving higher education landscape.
Today, we're happy to welcome Ruby Bhattacharya, Director of Admissions at Barnard College. Welcome, Ruby.
Ruby Bhattacharya: Thanks so much for having me, Eddie.
Eddie Pickett: Next, I would like to welcome Jonah O’Hara, Director of College Counseling at Rocky Hill Country Day School. Welcome, Jonah.
Jonah O’Hara: Thanks, Eddie. So good to be here.
Eddie Pickett: Thank you both so much for joining us today. We'll just jump in with this. Integrity is such an important aspect for NACAC since its founding in 1937. Ethical and admission practices have been at the heart of the profession. Why do you think this commitment has endured as a defining value for NACAC?
Jonah O’Hara: Eddie, for me, I think so much of it is rooted in the fact that the higher education landscape in the U.S. is so diverse and different. Every institution is so distinct from one another, and they have their own processes that people are looking for signposts. They're looking for kind of guardrails. And I think that's where the ethical guide, lowercase G, as it's evolved over time, has been so important, as people are looking for what are the best practices. And that's where we are now.
And to me, personally, as a professional, the work has been so important because the guide serves as a tool to help strive to provide a level playing field, which specifically supports the most vulnerable and least resources, families, schools, and counselors. So in that way, so that everyone can feel as if they know what is what, the conversation around ethics and the way that NACAC has supported it is really rooted in that goal for equity.
Eddie Pickett: Just to follow up on that a little more, Jonah, what's the role of the Admissions Practices Committee and why is this work so important to the profession?
Ruby Bhattacharya: So Jonah currently serves as the chair of the National Admissions Practices Committee, so the NACAC Admissions Practices Committee, and I'll be stepping into that role this coming October. Both of us have been involved as well at the affiliate levels with admissions practices.
But what is admissions practices? What are we talking about when we use that phrase? So the Admissions Practices Committee, specifically at the NACAC level, is charged with managing the process for updating the Guide to Ethical Practice in College Admission. That is our recommended guidelines that NACAC puts out. And within this committee, we are also tasked with creating materials that promote the ethical practices outlined in the document. Everything that we do is very much rooted in the Guide to Ethical Practice in College Admission. And yes, we do say the full name. There's no official acronym.
We focus on three key areas when we're talking about the guide, specifically education, communication, and advocacy. Essentially, we want to make sure that as many college counseling and admissions professionals worldwide are aware of the guide and its recommended guidelines, which encourage all of us to be student-centered in our work.
Eddie Pickett: Can you repeat those? The education, communication, and.
Ruby Bhattacharya: Education, communication, and advocacy. Those are the three sort of tenets of the admissions practices committee's work.
Eddie Pickett: I like that. And under the guide of ethics as well is an important piece with that. So how does a committee decide which issues or real-world scenarios should be addressed in updates to the guide?
Jonah O’Hara: The way the process works, Eddie, is that we have a form. There's an intake form that lives on NACAC's website, and it is a general call to anyone, not just NACAC members or affiliate members, anyone who either has questions about the guide or wants to see something else represented within it. And so they submit a recommendation or suggestion through the form. That gets funneled to the National Admission Practices Committee.
We then discuss the issues in terms of are these suggestions already represented within the guide, or is this something beyond the domain of what should exist within the guide? And then if we think that it really does belong there, then we will work as a committee to craft the language and then work it through the system so that the recommended language goes to the NACAC compliance officer and then to the board for confirmation. And that usually happens in the spring. And then we see the new language roll out in late summer, early fall.
Ruby Bhattacharya: We've actually just had new changes launched in the guide just last week. There are two updates to the guide that just came out, and all of that was thanks to feedback we received through the intake form that Jonah was just describing. The two changes that just launched last week are pertaining to two specific areas, both very much related to increased transparency in our work.
One is pertaining to language around early decision, specifically calling on institutions to be more transparent about their early decision practices. So we aim to ensure applicants, parents, guardians, counselors, everyone involved in the process fully understand the full implications of signing an early decision agreement, particularly if an institution is admitting students to a major that might not have been their first choice major or perhaps to a campus that might not have been their first choice, basically in calling for institutions to be really specific about what the different scenarios could be and to have as much clarification available to families as possible on their website.
Additionally, an update was made specifically pertaining to artificial intelligence. And so this is really the first time that guide is speaking directly about artificial intelligence and really encouraging members to consider how they're using AI within their work, particularly in an ethical way. The statement acknowledges the increasing role of AI in multiple areas of admissions and counseling, but is really asking members to be really thoughtful and considerate about how they might be using it in the process, particularly around transparency, about if you're using it, being transparent about that.
Eddie Pickett: So you used the word transparency multiple times in there. So I'm going to follow up on that in a couple of different areas. I think, you know, you talked about early decision there. We're going to jump in, I guess, just to the waitlist practices and financial aid, because both of those can cause stress and uncertainty for families. So how does a guide encourage transparency and fairness in these areas?
Jonah O’Hara: So the guide has a dedicated section just about waitlist practices. And again, just to be clear, this guide is solely focused on best practices. It does not and cannot dictate what anyone can or cannot do. It's simply trying to, as Ruby said earlier, so much of what the guide is intended to do is really to make sure that all admission practices are student-centered. And I think we get lost in that sometimes, where individual institutions are doing things that make sense to them in the microcosm of their own institutional bubble.
And part of where we see well-intended policies roll out that an institution thinks makes sense, but they're unaware of how these policies are affecting families. So part of what the guide is doing is saying these are best practices that really are trying to not so much protect, but really ensure that everyone is, as I said earlier, kind of operating from a level playing field. Like for wait lists, like the guide talks pretty specifically and has four or five different sections within it saying, if you are to operate a waiting list, here's some things that you should do. You should make sure to allow for at least 48 hours for a wait list offer to be considered if it's made after 5/1. Similarly, if you're making a wait list offer, then please do not do so until you're prepared to offer a financial aid award and information about housing. So details like that.
So again, trying to say as a best practice, this is a standardized practice. It really does allow everyone to be kind of comparing apples to apples. Those are, that's language that does exist already in the guide. Financial aid is a little bit more complicated. There are pieces that do show up in the guide that are financial aid related. But for example, it was suggested that the guide address the fact that admission or financial aid awards are not consistent. Someone recently did a study and found 48 different formats that eight awards were going out from different institutions. And that's really hard for families.
So back to the notion of policies being student-centered, having one format, one method of sharing a need and merit-based award would make more sense. However, that really is not the domain of the guide and of admission practices within NACAC. And what we have encouraged is for the folks that are asking for us to do that is to reach out to the national organizations for financial aid officers so that they are actually looking, should they have a best practices document of their own, so that can be a guide, because those are changes that really would make a real difference for students and families.
Eddie Pickett: I like how the ethics are rooted in student-centered processes as well. As a former counselor and back now in the admissions process, on our staff, we have five former counselors of the 14 of us. I mean, that voice is always needed in admissions, and it's not something you always hear in admissions offices.
And so I love what you're talking about there. It's also bringing me back to my board days, and it's like, hey, our job is to do best practices. I can't tell you what to do. You know, like Ruby and I both have director titles. She's a little higher than I am, to be frank. But in our office, we can actually tell people what to do. In this space, you can't actually tell them what to do. And I think that's one of the misunderstandings of what this ethical practices guide is for as well, or is happening with right now, is that the misunderstanding of what it's actually for. So we're going to continue this transparency piece as well.
The admissions process is often misunderstood. I'm sure this has happened to Ruby. It's happened to every admissions officer where you're in an airport and say I work in admissions, and you start seeing heads turning like, I want to come talk to you. And you start creeping towards us. And it's like, sometimes people feel like it's all behind closed doors, which isn't actually true. Like the transparency thing is a big piece. So how can institutions communicate transparency about what factors are considered in the admissions practice?
Ruby Bhattacharya: Eddie, that's such an important point, being able to talk about transparency. And I want to also touch on something that you just said that I think is so important. The guide to ethical practice in college admission is all about us, everybody on all sides of the desk being student centered in our practices. That's really the driving force behind the entire guide. And even at a time when this committee's work looked very different, when we did have mandatory practices, what we found is that when people were not adhering to them, it wasn't out of malicious intent. It was more a lack of understanding.
And so when we pivoted our work to the work that we do now in terms of advocacy and communication and education, it really became about how do we make sure that people, first of all, know that this guide exists, and really helping everybody to be as aware as possible about what NACAC considers to be student-centered practices. And at the heart of that is very much transparency. And transparency can look a lot of different ways.
It certainly, as you were just describing Eddie, starts out with being transparent about how your institution reviews applications. And that can look a lot of different ways. I want to highlight again what Jonah said earlier, that the US higher ed landscape is incredibly different than you find anywhere else in the world where institutions have that autonomy to set their own practices. And so of the 4,000 or 5,000 institutions that exist, you're going to hear 4,000 or 5,000 different kinds of admissions processes. And that's the reality of the American higher education landscape, which I think for our members outside of the US, still find that incredibly mind boggling.
But for us, transparency can look as simple as just even making sure that when they're traveling, making sure that my staff has the most up-to-date information about the college. Making sure that the information that they're sharing isn't outdated. Making sure that on the school side when you are providing school profiles, that it's this year's school profile and not a school profile from a few years back. So transparency looks a lot of different ways at a lot of different levels throughout this process.
But at the heart of the guide to ethical practice, transparency is repeated over and over and over again because we want to make sure that we are being as forthcoming as we can be about this process to really ensure that families have the right information to make the choices that are going to allow students to find their best fit in this process.
Eddie Pickett: We talk about admissions a lot there. Jonah, I want to kick it over to you since you're on the high school side. Can you talk about what transparency looks like on the high school side in the counseling world?
Jonah O’Hara: I mean, so much of it for me is really educating students and families about the questions that they actually can ask. So I think sometimes they feel absolutely at the whim of colleges because they are the holders. They've got the keys to the kingdom. So I think part of what I do on my end is really making sure that families know, no, you can actually ask.
They want to know does demonstrated interest matter? No, it's not guesswork. You can actually ask and colleges should be talking about it explicitly if that is a factor in an admission decision. If they say that they're need-aware, like, okay, well, what does that actually mean at that institution? I worked at three different universities. One was need-blind, the other two were need-aware. They all operated differently. And so I'm able to share my own experience just from my own life on the admission side, but I think that part of it is making sure that families know that they're entitled to ask questions so they can be educated consumers. So they actually, when they're making a final decision, they know kind of what's the truth for them as best as they can.
Eddie Pickett: And I'll add to that as well. We get the question “how do I get in?” all the time. And it's not a bad question, but there's a more detailed way of asking that question. Well, what are your factors? What are you considering? What are your criteria? You know, what makes a student stand out? Like those are better questions than just how do I get in? And so like on the high school side, it was for me. I was always trying to help students understand the question they're asking, what responses could come back. And so let's shape the question to get the answer that you're looking for.
Ruby Bhattacharya: And Eddie, by having the guide not be a prescriptive set of these are the things you can or cannot do, it allows all of us to have that flexibility as you're describing, to meet students where they are and to really help them find their best fit, to be able to help them help themselves ask the questions that they need to be able to figure out all of the complexities of this process. We know that this is complex for all of us helping students to navigate this process. And so I think having the flexibility of a document that allows for recommended practices gives us all the autonomy, wherever we may sit in this process, to be able to help students.
Eddie Pickett: And just a personal question before we get to my next thought, in your journeys to get to this space, who's the person that really helped you understand the admissions practice and the admissions world or the counseling world?
Jonah O’Hara: I mean, I know that for me, I always sing the praises of the admission office at Boston University, which was my first job. And so between Pat McNally and Kelly Walter, and they took it so seriously in terms of having us understand this is how you do the work and this is how we don't do business. And this was over 25 years ago.
And it really, it's been lasting for me in terms of that guidance initially, in terms of laying that foundation for me and the work. But I know that for me, just as a first-gen kid, like it was very much about trying to figure out ways to help students and families avoid some of the mistakes I made going to a large urban public high school and being a low-income kid from a single-parent home. Like all of those things, I made all of the mistakes of first-gen kids. I mean, it just, it was so much a part of my experience. So I think that for me, that has always been the personal driver. I've had so many fabulous mentors over the years, but for me, it's always been how do I help families make clearer, more educated choices in ways that I didn't?
Eddie Pickett: I would absolutely agree with that, my personal experience as well. And I'll kick that over to Ruby too.
Ruby Bhattacharya: I echo that completely too, that for me, it also, I think back to my high school self and being first Gen. American. I was the first in my family to be born here in the US. My brother and I were the first to attend college within this generation and in the US. My parents had attended college abroad, but it was literally a foreign process to my parents. And I think, for us, we had a lot of questions as a family, and we were learning everything from scratch and very much on the fly.
And I think I also credit my first admissions job in my time at Swarthmore College, which is where I attended Swarthmore. And I learned so much about that process, having been a student worker, having been a tour guide, having been a student interviewer and learning about the process and what context-based admissions review really looks like and really understanding that in admissions, we want to get to know you as an individual. We want to understand more about your story. And I think for me, that really allowed me to then really see.
I wish I had known about all of this when I was a high school student. I wish I had learned how to be able to tell my own story better. And so that has always informed the work that I do and why I continue to find this work so exciting. But I have so many mentors who've been with me all along the way who've helped me to continue to be excited about this work. And I think getting involved with admissions practices is something that very much is rooted in wanting to see this work being done in a way that is ethical, in a way that really helps families to be student-centered, to not have to think about, you know, am I being tricked or is there wrong information? What's right? What's not right?
I think being able to have everything rooted in ethics is so important and making sure as well that there are a lot of different perspectives represented in these conversations around ethics, recognizing that we at NACAC have members from all over the world. And how do we ensure that we are thinking about students from all over the world, lots of different backgrounds, because everyone is coming into this process with a very different experiences. And we want to make sure that that's as represented as possible.
Eddie Pickett: I love that both of you turned a what and how question into a why. Your why is very strong, and so I respect that from both of you. So thank you for sharing that. We talked also more about ethics in there as well. In today's world in 2025, what are some of the ethical concerns that you hear college admissions professionals talk about most?
Jonah O’Hara: And I think that, and Ruby talked about this earlier, that AI is probably the single biggest question that we have coming up the most. And I think because people feel powerless. They don't know like what role does this play. And as Ruby said, like the way the admission practices committee has tried to really steer that is about transparency.
We're like, we're not in a position to tell an institution or an individual that they can or cannot use AI. But an institution can be really clear about how they use it and making sure that students and families understand, yeah, we're going to use AI in our first wave of admission reading. If that's what they're doing, then families should know that. And similarly, if a college doesn't want students using AI, then they should state that they don't want them to use that in their personal statement or essays. Does that change anything? Maybe not, but at least they're making a clear statement. And that transparency piece is really important.
The other topics that come up, because AI is easily the biggest one, and then there's a whole bunch that are kind of simmering under the surface there. And really the real question that I see the most, both online and in conversations with colleagues, is about what do we do? And when I think people see something that doesn't really feel right to them, they just don't know what to do. And part of what we really are supporting and encouraging, both at the national and at the affiliate level, is for college admission professionals to know that they can actually say something. I mean, we invert it all the time. If you see something, say something. And as Ruby said, so many of the issues that we see that come up, people are doing unconsciously. It makes sense to them, they just do it. They have zero context for how it may be affecting others in most cases.
And that's where when I was doing this work before, like still when we were under SPGP and doing monitoring, investigation and enforcement, there'd be a complaint that was filed. And again, this seems like forever ago. And I would contact the institution and I would say, do you know that this is going on? They're like, really? They had no idea. They're like, oh, I'll get right on that. Thanks so much for letting me know. And I think that is the kind of collegiality that people forget in this work. And people, if they actually have done something that is not serving students or families, they want to know. Or even in my own case, it wasn't until I was doing an audit of our own practices that I realized that our school profile wasn't following the best practices in the guide, as clearly stated in the guide. So I was like, oh, whoops, I guess I need to fix that. So I did and added a grade distribution, which was missing. So those are the ways in which if someone had brought it to my attention, I would be like, oh, wow, you're totally right. I need to do that.
So I think that piece of one of the elements, coming back to your question, Eddie, about mentors that I've loved so much about this profession for so long, is people really want to help each other. And I just want to make sure that people don't forget that.
Ruby Bhattacharya: I think additionally, Jonah, something else that is a really important aspect of the guide is that it is what we consider a living document, meaning that it is constantly changing. We are always trying to essentially meet the moment and really understand what the ever-changing needs of our field really are.
So adding in artificial intelligence very much is indicative of what the kinds of conversations we're having right now within our community, which are very different than what we were talking about two, three years ago, if not farther back. And so it will be interesting to see two, three years from now what conversations we're having and what iteration of the guide will exist at that point. But That is why we are constantly collecting that feedback, because we want to make sure that we have it on our radar as a NACAC admissions practices committee. What are people talking about? What are the things that we need to be thinking about? Does this need to be incorporated into the guide at this time? Is it something that maybe we should consider for later down the road? But this guide is always going to be a living document. It's never considered finished. We're always working on it and always improving it to make sure that we're meeting the needs of the moment. Particularly the needs of students right now and not students from last year or the year prior. So that's another really, really important aspect of this work.
Jonah O’Hara: And it's woefully underutilized. I mean, I think so many professionals don't even know it exists. So one of the elements of admission practices work, again, at the national and affiliate level is to just be evangelical about the document and about the work is to make sure that people know that it's there, that they can use it as a tool that every college counseling office, every admission office can be reviewing it during all of those August, like pre-travel, pre-first day of school meetings so that people know that it's there.
They can do an internal audit, as I alluded to earlier, of saying, oh, are we following NACEC's best practices? So no one needs to let them know. They're actually asking themselves because they want to be the best version of themselves in that way. I know it's kind of a trite statement, but it still is the tool is there and we really want people to know that it's there. And as Ruby said, it changes every year in order to be better and also to be as current as it can be.
Eddie Pickett: And just picking up on your AI answer there, Ruby talked about the three pillars in education, communication, and advocacy at the very beginning. And so the education part is we have to tell, you know, actually figure out what's going on with AI. The communication part being like we have to communicate what's going on, and the advocacy is for good practice and good policy around it for each school. And so you can see how those 3 pillars are coming up in all these different areas, including this newest area as well.
So I got two last questions, a little bit of a personal and a little bit of a professional. And so for both of you, and I think we'll start with Ruby here. So why don't you get involved with the Admissions Practices Committee? And then how do NACAC members get involved on the national level and what should they do?
Ruby Bhattacharya: For me, my admissions practices journey started with getting involved at my affiliate level. And so my home affiliate is International ACAC. And so started working as the chair of the admissions practices committee at that level. And the year that I started is the year actually that everything changed. And so the consent decree happened, everything about admissions practices changed. And so for me, it was incredibly challenging, but also just incredible professional development to be able to be involved in the work as we were reimagining admissions practices and being able to pivot from a committee that was so centered on enforcement and investigation to pivoting completely to our work that's now so heavily rooted in communication and education and advocacy.
And so for me, it was really wonderful professional experience. It also meant I got to partner with affiliate chairs across the field who were also doing this work for their regions. And so I got to meet people who I don't know if our paths would have crossed otherwise. And so I'm really always so appreciative that this work really thrust me into a space where I got to work with some fabulous professionals from all sides of the desk as we were all critically thinking together and brainstorming how do we continue centering ourselves in these student-centered practices and ensuring that ethics is at the heart of what we do. So it was great, great experience doing so at the regional level.
And then got involved at the national level at the urging of some folks who were on the board at the time. So I'm always so thankful. for those who always leaned over and tapped and encouraged. And so I always try to do the same for others. But getting involved with the National Committee has also just been such a great experience, being able to be a part of these conversations and really seeing change affected. I think that's really been a part of it. I know these discussions happen quietly in different forums or at college fairs, or in other spaces, but being able to be in spaces where we're seeing change set into the guide has been really, really fruitful for me. So for me, this has been an incredibly fulfilling experience and is what has kept me involved in admissions practices work for so long.
So if people want to get involved, I think there are so many different ways someone can get involved with thinking about ethical practice and thinking about admissions practices. So many ways, both informally and formally. So informally, as Jonah referenced this earlier, ethical practice really starts with how you do the work yourself and how you show that you are remaining student-centered in your practice. And so I always encourage for people to do self-audits. Read the guide to ethical practice in college admission and really understand what the different parts are and what it's recommending.
I also encourage those of you in leadership to train your staff, whether you are a college counselor or an admissions professional or in functioning in some other way related to this field. Read the guide and tell everyone around you about it is what we really encourage folks to do. I also encourage when you are at affiliate conferences, so when you're at your regional ACAC conference, attend the admissions practices session. There is always an admissions practices session at every conference. So whether that's spring or summer for you, we encourage you to seek that session out. It's always there. It's a great way to connect with the admissions practices leaders in your region. So I encourage you to attend those sessions and be a part of those discussions.
If you're looking to get involved more formally, certainly at the affiliate level, there are committees that very much exist and are looking for help. And so seek out your affiliate leadership. Ask how do I get involved with admissions practices? You may have committees that are specifically called admissions practices. Some have been renamed, so it might be called something slightly different within your community. So definitely reach out. There are also formal programs, training programs. So for example, through Pennsylvania ACAC, through PACCAC, they have their ethical leadership program that's been incredibly successful, that really is heavily rooted in the guide. International ACAC does ethics training throughout its pre-conference institute every summer. So there are ways at the affiliate level to get involved.
We are also always looking for support at the national level. And so if you are interested in joining the NACAC Admissions Practices Committee, look out for those applications on the website. There's information about how to get involved. We are always looking for representation throughout the membership, throughout our community. And so we do encourage you to be involved in these conversations at any level, whether it's regional or national.
Eddie Pickett: And Jonah, similar question to you. What was your path to this getting involved in the admissions practice committee? And any other words you want to say about getting involved on the regional or on the national level?
Jonah O’Hara: As I said earlier, I think just coming from a first-gen kind of low-income background, I really did approach my first admission job through an equity lens. Like, are there ways in which I can be a public servant. And even if I identify or I'm able to work with families or schools that may not be a great fit for my institution, are there other ways I can be of service? And I think through that, I then found the statement of principles of good practice, SPGP, back in the late 90s and read it and I was like, oh my God, this is so cool. Are there ways to like really help serve this goal, this mission?
And at the time, in that era, everything was so focused on confidentiality, and it was kind of fearful that there were very, very few opportunities. So I applied for AP committee service for 10 years and was never able to get involved in any way. And so when I eventually did apply to be the chair for the TACAC AP committee, one of my missions was to cast the net wider and to help create committees that weren't limited in number that would allow anyone who was interested in the work to get involved.
And so as Ruby said, there are affiliates that have these committees that exist that are focused on education and helping people better understand what's out there and using the tools that exist. The ethics page of NACAC's website has an incredible collection of dilemmas that are these ethical dilemmas that are very real, that have been renamed, and sometimes they're a little silly, but they're very, very meaningful. And I want to give a shout out to SACAC for creating the format that we have adopted and used for all of the others as we continue to build new dilemmas. But that's really where it all began.
So I think for some people, they're like, I don't know how to really get started in this work. It's like, well, you can start with the dilemmas and then just present one at the next staff meeting. Like the work is already there. The labor's been done. You don't need to create anything and you don't need to be an expert in it either. You can just say, I came across this on the NACAC website. It was really interesting. Maybe we should talk about it. And that's it.
And so I think that in terms of ways that people can get involved, then certainly at the affiliate level, those committees are great. The one other thing that I'm really a very strong advocate for are counselor advisory boards. And I think that for a lot of colleges and universities, some of them have had them and then some of them stopped doing them because they were cost prohibitive. But then some other institutions really move toward doing everything virtual. So there's zero cost. There's just a few hours of planning and a few hours of meetings per year. But it's one of the best feedback loops for institutions to be hearing from counselors about, is this a student-centered practice or not? Because so many of the issues that are brought to AP committees, if any of these concerns had been asked across the aisle, they would have been like, oh yeah, no, that really makes it harder for people to do their job instead of easier. You probably shouldn't do that. And I served on one that they said, we were thinking about joining the Common App. What do you think? And I heard responses that I never would have expected before because they had collected an incredibly diverse group of counselors from all sorts of different kinds of schools and demographics.
So I think that those are ways in which universities can start them. And then for people that want to get involved in them, you can reach out to the universities where the, if you're a school counselor, that a majority of your students are applying and say, do you have a counselor advisory board? If not, I would love to be involved and I can give you the name of 10 other counselors who would also like to be involved and make sure that it happens. Because again, like the education, transparency, collegiality, advocacy, all of those elements that are so important to NACAC, they all can exist in these conversations if we create the space for them to take place.
Eddie Pickett: I'm afraid that's all the time we have today. I hope that this conversation has given our listeners the information they need to understand what the Admissions Practices Committee does, and also how the Guide to Ethical Practices can help offices uphold integrity, equity, and transparency. I really love those 3 pillars of education, communication, and advocacy, so I'm going to finish with those. But I really want to say thank you to Ruby and Jonah for joining us for this conversation.
And thank you to you and our audience, my friends, for joining us for another great episode. College Admissions Decoded is a podcast from NACAC, the National Association for College Admission Counseling. It is produced by Resonate Recordings. If you'd like to learn more about NACAC's mission and the college admission process, visit our website at www.nacacnet.org. That is N-A-C-A-C-N-E-T dot O-R-G. If you enjoyed this episode, please leave a review and rate us on your favorite podcast app. And don't forget to subscribe. See you next time on College Admissions Decoded.