J Dent Educ. 70(4): 441-447 2006
© 2006 American Dental Education Association
Milieu in Dental School and Practice |
Principal Dental Admissions Officers: Who Are Dentistry’s Gatekeepers?
Michael L. Rowland, Ph.D.;
Paul S. Casamassimo, D.D.S., M.S.
Key words: dental admissions, admissions officer, recruitment, retention, underrepresented minority
Submitted for publication 04/12/05;
accepted 12/07/05
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Little is known about principal dental admissions officers (PDAO) in U.S. dental schools who may be viewed as the gatekeepers to our schools. To address this gap, this study examined the characteristics of PDAOs in U.S. dental schools. A web-based, fifty-five-question survey on the personal and professional characteristics, roles, areas of responsibilities, and areas considered of importance to PDAOs was sent to fifty-six principal dental admissions officers at U.S. dental schools, followed by telephone calls to encourage participation. Thirty-eight PDAOs responded. The typical PDAO was Caucasian, fifty-two years of age, and had been in the position about eight years, earning $80,000 annually. Most supervised one or more employees and spent time working for the school outside the admissions process. Student contact activity considered most important was counseling prospective students, while maintaining health and financial records was considered unimportant. Minority recruitment efforts were considered highly important by a majority of PDAOs. The PDAOs have varied educational backgrounds and positions, but perform functions primarily dedicated to admissions.
Numerous studies have been published on aspects of the dental admissions process, including academic and personal criteria for admission, the Dental Admission Test, the use of noncognitive variables in the admissions process, importance of feeder schools, recruitment and retention efforts, summer enrichment programs, and increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the dental profession.1–13 However, a search of dental education literature reveals no information regarding principal dental admissions officers at U.S. dental schools.
Many people are involved with the admissions process, but the principal dental admissions officer (PDAO) and other personnel in the admissions office are often the first contact that applicants and/or prospective students have with a dental school. The term "PDAO" is used in this article to refer to those individuals who have primary responsibility for management and supervision of the dental admissions office. The image and tone set forth by PDAOs, who are often perceived internally and externally as gatekeepers to our institutions and the profession, play a crucial role in helping to select the next generation of dentists.
Factors impacting admissions such as technical standards, background checks, disability and accommodations, and diversity, often begin and are propagated or applied by the admissions office. Court decisions on cases involving disability, race, and diversity, such as California v. Bakke,14 the Hopwood decision,15 Proposition 209,16 and the Michigan decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger,17 have impacted how institutions carry out the admissions standards and enrollment goals. Cases such as these, along with changing demographics and social and political pressure, will continue to create new complexities and pose new challenges for PDAOs. In an effort to better understand those who have significant responsibility in admissions, our study investigated 1) the personal and professional characteristics of those serving as PDAOs, 2) the frequency and importance PDAOs attach to certain tasks and areas of responsibility, and 3) their student-contact and noncontact admissions-related activities that can be used to better understand the significant roles that PDAOs play and their contribution to the overall goals and success of dental schools.
|
Methodology
|
|---|
A web-based survey was used to obtain information about the personal and professional characteristics, roles, areas of responsibilities, and frequency and importance of specific tasks to PDAOs. The study questionnaire was adopted from Notestine’s 199218 study of principal medical admissions officers in U.S. medical schools, which compared characteristics, roles, and responsibilities of admissions officers at allopathic medical schools and osteopathic medical schools.
After Institutional Review Board approval, the adapted survey was piloted with four dental admissions officers and changes made following their comments and suggestions. The final instrument was a web-based survey containing fifty-five questions. Those who volunteered to participate were required to answer certain questions, such as basic demographic information, while other questions were completely voluntary. The first section of the survey focused on demographic data including age, gender, race, educational background, professional background, faculty rank, number of years in the position, public or private dental schools, total predoctoral enrollment, average salary, title of supervisor, the number of staff under the supervision of the PDAO, and the number of hours spent working in admissions. The second section asked PDAOs about the frequency with which they performed certain admissions tasks. The third section asked respondents to rate the importance of recruitment and retention tasks.
In April 2004, a telephone call was made to each of the fifty-six U.S. dental schools to determine the identity of the PDAO. Next, an introductory email invitation was sent from the American Dental Education Association’s associate executive director for application services, Dr. Anne Wells, to the dental admissions officers’ listserv requesting their participation in an anonymous survey. Email reminders were sent every two to three weeks after the initial email invitation to improve the response rate. Finally, a telephone call was made by the principal investigator (MR) to the PDAOs to encourage them to respond.
|
Results
|
|---|
Of fifty-six PDAOs contacted initially, forty responded (71 percent), but two surveys were excluded from the overall findings since fewer than ten of the questions had been answered. The final response rate was thirty-eight (67 percent).
Demographics
Eighteen males and twenty females comprised the thirty-eight respondents, with a mean age of fifty-two years (range: twenty-seven to sixty-five) and mean time-in-position of 7.6 years. Most (thirty-three; 82 percent) had been a PDAO for a decade or less, and the respondents were predominantly in nontenured or administrative classifications (twenty-six; 68 percent) as opposed to tenured and senior level faculty positions at the rank of associate or full professor (twelve; 32 percent). The majority of respondents (twenty-eight; 74 percent) were Caucasian, seven (18 percent) were African-American, and two (5 percent) were Asian/Pacific Islander, but none of the respondents identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino or Native American.
Table 1
depicts the professional characteristics of PDAOs who completed the survey. Eighteen reported that they were assistant or associate deans (43 percent), while the remainder were directors or coordinators. Half (nineteen; 50 percent) had doctorates in dentistry or another field or both, but seven (18 percent) did not possess a college degree. Professional classification was split evenly between administrative and academic status, with PDAOs in academics tending to be at the mid or senior faculty rank (associate or full professor). Salaries ranged from $40,000 to over $80,000 annually with twenty-one (55 percent) earning $80,000 or more.
Table 2 depicts organizational characteristics of the institutions and administrative placement of the PDAOs within those institutions. The majority of schools (thirty; 79 percent) had total student enrollments in excess of 200, and six schools had more than 400 students across all four years of the curriculum. Staffing in the admissions offices at these schools followed a similar pattern: PDAOs at thirty-two schools (84 percent) reported that they supervised two or more staff, and at six schools the PDAOs reported six or more staff under their supervision. The majority of PDAOs (twenty-four; 63 percent) spent most of their time (twenty-one hours per week or more) in admissions-related activities, with nine (24 percent) devoting more than forty-one hours per week. Seventeen PDAOs (45 percent) reported directly to the dean of the school, while fifteen (39 percent) reported to an associate or assistant dean. Six respondents (16 percent) reported to someone other than the dean or an associate or assistant dean.
Perceptions of Importance of PDAO Activities
Table 3 provides the results of the second section of the survey, which asked respondents to rank the importance of thirteen items regarding PDAO roles and areas of responsibility using a Likert-type, 5-point scale anchored at one end by "not at all important to the successful completion of my job" and anchored at the other end of the scale by "essential to the successful completion of my job."
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 3. Perceptions of the importance of various tasks and activities of principal dental admissions officers (PDAOs) as percentage response
|
|
Of the thirteen tasks surveyed, eight were reported as being very important or essential by more than half the respondents (see Table 3
). Five tasks—hosting open houses or visitation days, developing student recruitment correspondence, attending regional conferences as the school’s representative, interpreting admissions policy, and directing minority recruitment programs—were considered very important or essential by more than two-thirds of PDAOs. With the exception of telephone marketing directly to students, all twelve other tasks were rated as important, very important, or essential by over half the PDAOs responding.
Frequency of Tasks Performed by PDAOs
Table 4 contains a frequency distribution of admissions-related tasks that are associated with admissions officers but do not involve direct contact with students. This survey section used a 5-point Likert-type scale anchored at one end by "never performs in this role or responsibility" and by "always performs in this role or responsibility" at the other end. Two tasks emerged as core responsibilities of the PDAO: directing management of student application materials and directing admissions office personnel. More than 90 percent of PDAOs indicated they frequently or always performed these two tasks. Of the seventeen tasks listed on this survey section, five failed to reach a threshold of 50 percent of PDAOs reporting them as frequently or always done. These were directing in-house admissions workshops (46 percent), determining the admissions budget (37 percent), supervising other support services (45 percent), supervising financial aid (19 percent), and maintaining student health records (31 percent). Notably, 66 percent and 53 percent of respondents, respectively, indicated they "never" did the last two tasks (financial and health records), which suggests these activities are not considered admissions-related at many dental schools.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 4. Non-contact student-related admissions activities of principal dental admissions officers (PDAOs) as percentage response
|
|
Table 5 used the same 5-point scale as reported in Table 3, but asked about admissions-related activities that involved direct contact with students. Student contact at the applicant level emerged as important to PDAOs, with 87 percent rating counseling prospective students very important or essential. In contrast, 50 percent felt that being a teaching faculty member was not important or only slightly important. The skew and bimodal distribution of some responses in this section suggest that PDAOs may not be uniform in their belief of the importance of contact with students after they are admitted to dental school, or this may reflect necessary conventions of PDAO function peculiar to each institution.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 5. Student-contact admissions-related activities of principal dental admissions officers (PDAOs) as percentage response
|
|
|
Discussion
|
|---|
The purpose of this study was to gather baseline data about characteristics, roles, and responsibilities of PDAOs at U.S. dental schools. After a careful search of the dental education literature, we found no data describing these key members of the dental education system. The size and needs of each dental school often dictate the roles and responsibilities of the PDAO; however, a great deal depends upon their professional background, individual knowledge, skills, and capabilities. Admissions policies also drive the selection of a PDAO and the pattern of his or her activities. In this baseline study, wide variations in roles and responsibilities of PDAOs were noted, but no attempt was made to determine relationships between individual PDAO or institutional characteristics and the perceptions of the PDAOs.
The typical PDAO is likely to be either a female or male, has a job title of director of admissions or assistant/associate dean of admissions, has been in the position seven to eight years, and holds an administrative and professional (A & P) position within the university. These findings suggest that dental institutions do not feel that PDAOs need to be close to the age of the applicant pool to understand and work with this population. Salaries appeared to be related to the longevity and rank of the PDAO, about half of whom were at dean level status. What our results do not show is whether institutions feel that the job responsibilities merit this senior status or whether admissions is seen as something a senior academic person inherits with longevity.
There was limited diversity in the racial/ethnic distribution of PDAOs; almost three-quarters were Caucasian, while half were women. Respondents reported a resounding commitment to minority recruitment, with over two-thirds reporting that the mission of recruiting minorities and underrepresented minorities was important or essential to their role (Table 3). In the best of situations, this response reflects both the individual PDAO’s commitment and that of his or her parent institution. In a time of working and building a more diverse dental workforce, PDAOs should have a critical role in the discussion of dental manpower issues and discussions about diversity in our dental schools. Is it necessary to have a PDAO who represents the majority culture of the institution or the minority population that the schools seek to attract? The diversity of the admissions office staff may make this point a non-issue; however, there are some recruitment activities that should be part of all PDAO job descriptions.
The large number of PDAOs with administrative and professional (A&P) classifications suggests that it is not necessary for the dental school admissions officer to be a dentist. Much of the work of admissions is managing and directing the process. However, the structure and dictates of an institution and the PDAO’s relationship with the administration could make a critical difference in a PDAO who is a manager of the admissions process and a PDAO who is a critical evaluator of applications and the admissions process. PDAOs should evaluate outcomes of admissions and the process.
Providing prospective students with information about admissions policies, what our institutions can offer prospective applicants, and the dental profession is also important. When a prospective student would like to speak with someone who has gone through the experience of dental school, the PDAO can always link them with a fourth-year dental student or a faculty member who is a dentist. Future research should determine whether the PDAO is better suited when he or she is a dental professional or simply someone well versed in the process and able to link applicants with resources.
|
Conclusion
|
|---|
One may conclude from this study that there is no one "ideal" principal dental admissions officer. The men and women who hold these positions multitask and take on a number of roles and responsibilities in order to be successful in their positions. However, dental schools can not afford to ignore the impact of the actions and influences of PDAOs on the dentists of tomorrow.
|
Acknowledgments
|
|---|
We would like to thank Dr. Zia Shey, Dr. Jeff Linfante, and Mrs. Shereen West for their invaluable assistance in the development of this project. Also, we would like to thank Dr. Anne Wells (ADEA) for her assistance in the distribution of the survey and the thirty-eight principal dental admissions officers who gave of their time and efforts to complete the survey.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
Dr. Rowland is Assistant Professor, Section of Primary Care and Director of Diversity; Dr. Casamassimo is Professor and Chair, Section of Pediatric Dentistry—both at The Ohio State University College of Dentistry. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Michael L. Rowland, Section of Primary Care, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, Room 3166 Postle Hall, 305 West 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210; 614-247-8621 phone; 614-292-0813 fax; rowland.3{at}osu.edu.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- Sandow P, Jones AC, Peek CW, Courts FJ, Watson RE. Correlation of admissions criteria with dental school performance and attrition. J Dent Educ 2002;66(3):385–92.[Abstract]
- Smithers S, Catano VM, Cunningham DP. What predicts performance in Canadian dental schools? J Dent Educ 2004;68(6):598–613.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Gafni N, Moshinsky A, Kapitulnik J. A standardized open-ended questionnaire as a substitute for a personal interview in dental admissions. J Dent Educ 2003;67(3): 348–53.[Abstract]
- Thibodeau EA, Mentasti LE. Characteristics of dental school feeder institutions. J Dent Educ 2004;68(9):947–53.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Brooks ES, Gravely TC, Hornback SA, Cunningham LP, McCann AL, Long JL. Bridge to dentistry: one dental school’s approach to improving its enrollment of underrepresented minorities. J Am Coll Dent 2002; 69(1):23–30.[Medline]
- Sinkford JC, Valachovic RW, Harrison SG. Under-represented minority dental school enrollment: continued vigilance required. J Dent Educ 2004;68(10):1112–8.[Free Full Text]
- Brown RS, Schwartz JL, Coleman-Bennett M, Sanders CF. The black and white of dental education in the United States. J Natl Med Assoc 2000;92(11):536–43.[Medline]
- Kramer GA. Value in dental aptitude testing for minority applicants. J Dent Educ 1999;63(10):759–65.[Abstract]
- Chalkley Y. A survey of minority student recruitment and retention efforts in dental schools. J Dent Educ 1995; 59(6):645–8.[Abstract]
- Sullivan LW. Minority student recruitment: the challenge and the obligation. J Dent Educ 1995;59(6):641–4.[Medline]
- Markiewicz MR. Enrollment, cost, and academic admissions criteria of U.S. dental schools by geographic region and institution type. J Dent Educ 2004;68(11):1133–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Brody HA, Alexander CA. The UCSF postbaccalaureate reapplication program: a preliminary report. J Dent Educ 2000;64(11):775–84.[Abstract]
- Bloxham D. The application process influences the applicant pool—we can send the applicants a message. J Dent Educ 1996;60(5):419–21.[Medline]
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). At: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=265. Accessed: December 7, 2005.
- Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996). At: web.lexisnexis.com/universe/document?_m=31bf8a011db94c1b4d352df0f7549456&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVlbzSkVA&_md5=b48b586532afb38b6dd5925eef3cd22f. Accessed: December 7, 2005.
- Cal. Const. art. I,
31 (added by Initiative in 1996, Proposition 209). Text of proposition is available at: vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209text.htm. Text of the Constitutional provision is available at: www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1. Accessed: December 7, 2005. - Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306 (2003). At: a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20030800/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-241.pdf. Accessed: December 7, 2005.
- Notestine MA. Characteristics, roles, and responsibilities of principal admissions officers at American allopathic (M.D.) and osteopathic (D.O.) medical colleges. Dissertation. Ohio University, 1992.
Top
Abstract
Methodology
