John asked how the data for Bluffton should be understood when I state that
we like to see ACT scores of 27 or higher, yet our 50% ACT range in science
is 19-23. He asked if that means science is more demanding than other
majors.
First of all, I don't fully understand the numbers at ucan-network. Our
admission criteria are: at least 19 composite on the ACT, at least top 50%
of graduating class, at least 2.3 HS GPA as recalculated by our method.
It's possible that a student with a 17 ACT in reading could still have a 19
composite on the ACT by having high enough scores on the other portions to
bring the composite score up, but seeing English, Math, and reading all
start at below our limit, and Science start right at our limit, makes it
difficult to understand the data on that website.
Also, those data are single year data, so those data come from the 2007-2008
freshman class. That year was a disaster for us. Remember that on March 2,
2007 our baseball team had a bus crash in Atlanta that killed 5 baseball
players, both bus drivers, and injured the rest of the team members, some
critically. For the remainder of that year, our administration, including
the admissions people, just about came to a standstill. We were involved in
lawsuits, planning memorial services, making lots of trips to the hospital
in Atlanta, planning a memorial on campus, etc, We did not do any
recruiting from March 2 to roughly June. That was a critical recruiting
time. Our freshman enrollment dropped by about 30%. At a tuition-driven
school that is a disaster. We have a budget deficit this year and probably
next. Prior to that we had been well in the black for at least 20 years.
It is interesting that officials from colleges all over the country who had
suffered some sort of disaster called our president to warn him that our
enrollment would drop considerably because of the event, and it would take 2
or 3 years to recover. I initially doubted this, but I was wrong and they
were right. To make matters worse, we had a high dropout rate giving us the
worst retention we had seen in a long time.
I don't know what the 50% ACT range was prior to the bus accident, but I
know the average ACT score for the last 10 years years has hovered between
23 and 24, which is a couple points above the national average that hovers
between 21 and 22. So our average student is a little above a
national-average student taking the ACT.
Nonetheless, it is true that the science programs at Bluffton are the most
demanding. Grades in science are the lowest of the whole university. Even
though we know we have suffered some grade inflation in science, it is well
documented that the average grade given in science courses is way below the
rest of the university. We are talking about comparing an average of C+ in
science to an average of B+/A- university wide. You will also see at
ucan-network that most students major in business, followed by education
(mostly elementary education), followed by recreation management. Those
majors, totaling roughly 75% of our graduates, have average grades of A-.
So science grades are more than one full grade below the other departments.
Grade inflation is out of control in most departments. Sadly, I just turned
in the worst grades for 2nd-semester first-year physics I have ever turned
in. 1A, 1B+, 1B, 3B-, 1C+, 3C, 2C-, 2D, 2E. That's an average of C, and it
is usually C+ and occasionally B-. These are all students intending to
major in science.
If our average ACT score is 23.5, and if students aren't real successful in
science until the ACT is up near 27, then it is clear that a major in some
field of science is only accessible to a small percentage of our incoming
class. We are very concerned about this. We are aware of one big reason
that we are not attracting higher-quality students. Traditionally, the
church-related liberal-arts college have based their financial-aid package
on need. Although there are certainly high-achieving highly intelligent
students who have considerable financial need, the typical student with high
rank and high ACT score typically comes from a family that does not show
much financial need on the FAFSA (free application for federal student aid).
It has been considered proper to put all our institutional financial aid
into those students who show the most need. Perhaps 10 years ago many small
colleges began to break away from this pattern. It became clear that good
science/math students had been choosing liberal-arts colleges and paying for
it because they felt the liberal-arts component was worth the extra cost.
Now it is pretty clear that good science/math students and their families do
not feel a liberal-arts education is worth the extra cost, OR they now find
that it is not necessary to pay the extra cost if you go to a liberal-arts
college that has abandoned the need-based approach and is offering financial
assistance beyond need to top-notch students. Bluffton is making this
transition too late and too slowly in the opinion of our science
department. At present, our scholarship competition awards just two
full-tuition scholarships per year. Other scholarships are still need
based. I meet highly qualified prospective students who say they like
Bluffton and would like to come here, but such-and-such other liberal-arts
institution has offered them $2000 or $3000 or even $5000 more than the
federally calculated need, and we only offered them need. $2000 is a lot of
money, especially each year for four years. $5000 a year? How do we
compete with that?
Plus, the games played, and the perceptions these cause, are incredible.
Suppose a nearby college has tuition that is $4000 more than ours. Suppose
they offer the student $5000 more than need, and we offer need. That means
the actual bottom line difference between us and the other school is only
$1000. We will lose that student. Even if we can find a way to cover that
$1000, we still most likely lose the student because the student gets to
attend a higher cost college (which must be better if the cost is higher)
for the same price or a little less than they can attend Bluffton.
Sorry to digress so much, but the bottom line is that we are having
tremendous difficulty attracting top students, especially in science. This
has hit us particularly hard since we have traditionally had one of the
stronger science programs in the state. Indeed, a past chairman of Ohio
State University's Department of Chemistry told me that in the 1950s, 1960s,
and 1970s Bluffton annually sent more students into the chemistry PhD
program at OSU than any other college or university in Ohio. All five of
the chemistry majors in 1972 (my class) went on to get PhDs. That is far
from true today... not because our program is not as good... it's better...
but we are not getting science students to come to Bluffton.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
1 University Drive
Bluffton, OH 45817
419.358.3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu