One point that was made a few times over the past few weeks in response to the various posts and conversations on metrics is the central case of seeing matriculation lists as reflective of the “quality” of a college counseling office. This is a common pitfall, it seems, made by people from all quarters: students, parents, admin, and even counselors.

The matriculation list -- the listing of where your graduates are headed to university -- was articulated as being a “seminal case” by one colleague because, as they framed it, a given school’s matriculation list for a certain year is a complicated constellation of factors, most of which are completely outside the control of college counselors, even though the counseling office faces scrutiny for the list. Furthermore, several pointed out that the matriculation list is the perfect case in point to put forth the value of the dashboard, a series of metrics that might more accurately reflect the work of a counseling office. Still, others will point out that the matriculation list, even when reflected as a series of metrics and data points, largely avoids the value add of the college counseling office. At best, this perspective holds, a dashboard might reveal more context about why the students were able to be admitted to and perhaps chose to enroll at certain universities. 

One perspective of the matriculation list is that it really is a reflection primarily of GPA and standardized testing (particularly SAT and ACT), in line with the annual NACAC report. However, the college counselor has no actual control over these elements. Additionally, others would point out, the matriculation list reflects subtleties of parental income and legacy status, not to mention other hooks or talents (e.g. sports, arts, etc). In this way, in order to more fully understand a matriculation list, seeing things like a GPA distribution as well as average SAT/ACT scores, correlation of financial aid applications, and denotation of other hooks would provide more context. Putting them on a dashboard where all of these elements might be seen at the same time could arguably aid in understanding a high school’s list, but, again, these elements are not ones that counselors can exert influence over. 

Instead, the matriculation ends up being touted as a reflection of the value-add of a school when so much of the matriculation list has little to do with the function of the school, let alone the counselors. Nevertheless, counselors are often called upon to defend their work and programming in light of the outcomes. This is a similar concept in regards to evaluating rankings. For example, some schools will examine how many students/graduates were admitted to or are enrolled at “top 50” schools, according to one ranking or another. At one point in my career, I was compelled to evaluate the “ideal” matriculation list for my school, which was a request to produce a matriculation list comprised of the highest ranked school that each student was admitted to, whether or not they chose to enroll there. For example, if a student was admitted to the #15-ranked school according to a particular ranking but chose to attend the #22-ranked school, this list included the #15 (even though, for example, the student chose the lower-ranked school because their program of interest did not exist at the higher-ranked place). 

A recent New York Times article by Ron Lieber has stirred up some controversy around this topic. It is certainly worth the read. In light of this, the matriculation list, as Mr. Lieber’s article explores, is often seen as a reflection of the work of the college counseling office or of the quality of the education when it, as Emmi Harward is quoted as saying by Lieber, really reflects “multiple, untellable stories that communities are co-opting into their own achievements.” As one colleague wrote, “I’m not sure who needs to hear this, but, as a counselor, I have as much control over the matriculation list as I do the weather.” 

So, while it might be true that a more diverse set of factors on a dashboard could provide greater context for the matriculation list, it is nevertheless a reflection of a number of factors difficult if not impossible to represent. Certainly, though, the matriculation list has very little to do with the efforts and work of the college counselor, which is ultimately the purpose of this piece. 

More soon on some other metrics and some thoughts shared by colleagues. If you have any ideas to share, please post below or write to me privately!