Blog Home

A young woman with glasses reading a book in a modern library. Bookshelves filled with colorful books in the background. Concept of studying, education, learning, knowledge, and academic lifestyle
A young woman with glasses reading a book in a modern library. Bookshelves filled with colorful books in the background. Concept of studying, education, learning, knowledge, and academic lifestyle
Policy and Advocacy Legislation Admissions Letter to Legislator
Policy and Advocacy Legislation Admissions Letter to Legislator

AccessLex Institute Submits Comments to Education Department on New IPEDS Data Collection

Matthew Soldner
National Center for Education Statistics
Institute of Education Sciences
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-1200

Re: Agency Information Collection Activities; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2024-25 Through 2026-27

Docket Number: ED-2025-SCC-0382

Dear Mr. Soldner:

I am writing on behalf of AccessLex Institute® in response to the August 15, 2025 Federal Register notice soliciting comments on the proposed information collection requesting the addition of a new “Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement” (ACTS) survey component to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). This letter offers comments regarding the graduate program aspects of the proposed collection that AccessLex Institute hopes the Education Department (ED) will consider as it weighs adding the new ACTS survey component.

AccessLex Institute, in partnership with its nearly 200 nonprofit and state-affiliated ABA approved member law schools, has been committed to improving access to legal education and to maximizing the affordability and value of a law degree since 1983. We advocate for policies that make legal education work better for students and society alike; conduct research on the most critical issues facing legal education today; seek to expand access to legal education for underrepresented students through research, grantmaking, data analysis, and the dissemination of information and resources; and aim to increase first-time bar exam passage nationwide.

On August 7, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum entitled “Ensuring Transparency in Higher Education Admissions,” instructing the Secretary of Education to expand the scope of required IPEDS reporting to provide adequate transparency into admissions to potentially determine whether colleges and universities are using racebased preferences in their admissions decisions. Although there are benefits to expanding the current IPEDS admission collection, as noted in the letter we signed in support of the IPEDS changes proposed in March 2024, this memorandum and the subsequent ACTS notice significantly expand upon the previously proposed addition to the IPEDS admission component and depart from its intent, raising concerns for our organization and the constituents we support.

Of primary relevance to our organization is the expansion of the admissions survey component into selective graduate programs. Although undergraduate programs may have similar admission approaches, this should not be assumed across and within selective institutions. For instance, it may be much more difficult for a nonresident applicant to be admitted to a public, flagship institution than a resident applicant. Nuances in admission policies and procedures become much more complex across and within graduate programs, particularly when disaggregated but grouped by CIP codes. Because the Federal Register notice does not specify the actual elements to be obtained for graduate programs, we assume that these nuances have not been fully considered at this time. Given the intent to implement the ACTS collection starting with the 2025-26 IPEDS survey, institutions would need more time to respond to and comply with the inaugural admission requirements for graduate programs, particularly since the collection also requires data from the last five years.

As ED weighs implementation of the proposed ACTS collection and its expansion to graduate programs, the following nuances should be considered:

  • Differences in degree level (i.e., master’s, doctoral). Currently, the notice does not indicate a difference in degree types within CIP. Admission requirements and student aid vary by degree level, and these nuances would need to be accounted for in the proposed collection.
  • Differences in graduate program application requirements. Within programs and CIP codes, application requirements vary. For instance, some programs are test optional, some programs require one specific type of admission test (e.g., LSAT only), and others accept multiple types of entrance exams. Among our nearly 200 law school members, some accept various types of admission tests, including the LSAT and GRE. The list can expand to the GMAT as well for dual degree applicants, or no exam for students admitted via 3+3 programs. This variety of approaches likely exists for other types of graduate degrees, both at the program and CIP levels.
  • Holistic elements of the application that ACTS does not consider. Most selective institutions employ a holistic admission review that accounts for many aspects of an applicant’s qualifications, including their family ties to the institution as well as special talents in music and athletics. The same is true for graduate programs, which often enroll students with specific work and other related lived experiences that cannot be captured in an IPEDS collection. Further, writing for the majority in the Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA v. Harvard) ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”1 Given the potential use of ACTS to assess Title VI compliance, any analysis of admission data that does not account for holistic elements of admission applications would be incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading.
  • Limited interpretation of academic data elements. The proposed ACTS collection omits important information relating to the review of an applicant’s academic background and qualifications. For instance, our research finds that improvement in undergraduate GPA from the first semester to graduation is predictive of an applicant’s academic performance in the first year of law school.2 Similarly, we find that improvement in law school GPA from the first semester to graduation is predictive of first-time bar exam passage.3 However, the proposed ACTS expansion limits data collection to final GPA, which does not account for improvement in academic performance over time. Analyzing and interpreting admission and academic outcomes without accounting for academic growth would also lead to incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading information.
  • Changes in admission requirements and the educational environment since academic year 2019-20. Finally, the ACTS collection would mandate collection of graduation rates since 2019-20 and admissions data from 2020-21. This period includes the highly disruptive onset and aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, which shifted education to emergency remote teaching and also impacted the entire education ecosystem, including temporary changes in how certain admission exams were administered.4 Changes unrelated to the pandemic also occurred during this time, such as the removal of the logic games section from the LSAT and the discontinuation of the Miller Analogies Test (MAT) which was accepted among certain graduate-level education programs.5 Given the unprecedented circumstances that impacted the time period of the collection and the changes that have occurred over the last five years, it would be imprudent to establish a baseline of comparison to assess Title VI compliance or extrapolate high-stakes conclusions about admission policies from the ACTS collection as currently proposed.

For these reasons, we urge ED to reconsider the timing, scope, and intent of the ACTS collection. We do not advise that the collection move forward as proposed without giving additional time and attention to the nuances described above. At minimum, we strongly recommend convening a Technical Review Panel comprising experts that represent the broad, diverse field of programs and degree levels impacted by the collection before requiring institutions to comply with the addition of ACTS components to the IPEDS survey. Further, we urge ED to refrain from using analysis of the ACTS components for Title VI compliance purposes. Without accounting for a full review of an institution’s admission process at the program level, Title VI investigation or enforcement determinations would be an improper and inaccurate use of the ACTS data collection.

Thank you for considering our comments. If you have any questions or would like additional information, you can reach me at [email protected]. You can also contact Nancy Conneely, our Vice President of Policy, at [email protected].

Sincerely, 
Christopher P. Chapman
President and Chief Executive Officer
AccessLex Institute®

 

1 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 143 U.S. 2141(2023).
2 Scott, Jason M. and Pals, Andrea, and Wilson, Paige, Measuring "Up": The Promise of Undergraduate GPA Growth in Law
School Admissions (April 9, 2024). AccessLex Institute Research Paper No. 24-03, Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4789416 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4789416.
3 Taylor, Aaron N., Scott, Jason M., and Jackson, Joshua, It's Not Where You Start, It's How You Finish: Predicting Law
School and Bar Success (April 15, 2021). AccessLex Institute Research Paper No. 21-03, Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827402 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3827402, 
4 Karen Sloan. “As in-person LSAT returns, most test-takers go remote.” Reuters, August 10, 2023.
https://www.reuters.com.
5 Pearson. “Miller Analogies Test (MAT) Retired.” Pearson Assessments, accessed October 9, 2025.
https://www.pearsonassessments.com.

 

Back to Results