Choose a problem relevant to your intended field of practice. As an educational leader, discuss what kind of information you might need in order to address this problem and why such information is necessary and relevant to the problem you have identified.
Admissions managers, undergraduate and graduate alike, need to re-imagine and re-design the admission process. As they currently stand, many schools’ admission processes combine grade point averages (GPAs), test scores, letters of recommendation, and personal statements to determine a given student’s readiness for study. With 71% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2008-2009 (U.S. Dept. of Education) going to White males it begs the question: how can an admissions process serve all students’ needs equally? This short paper examines the limitations of the current process and argues for admissions process reform that leverages new theoretical insights on standardized testing and psychological assessment.
The standard architecture of many schools’ admissions processes includes many similar features: GPAs, test scores, letters of recommendation, personal statements, resumes/ CVs, etc. The primary assumption of gathering this melange of information is that it helps admissions teams determine whether a student is likely to complete a degree program within a given metric of time. Admissions teams have, in many cases, limited resources to use this information to make a yes-no decision. The desired outcome of the annual admission cycle is that all admitted students will enroll and within a given amount of time complete a degree program. Data shows that 36.4% of students starting college in 2002 completed their degree in four years; students were less likely to complete in four years if they enrolled at a public institution versus a private school (U.S. Dept. of Education). It is wholly unwarranted to claim that the structure of the basic admissions process is to blame for, but it is reasonable to claim that, moving forward, the admissions process needs to reckon these figures with espoused goals.
The standardized testing requirement is a great place to start improving the admissions process. Lehmann’s (1999) history of standardized tests in the United States makes it clear that these tests were intended to serve a limited cross-section of the American citizenry. Sedlacek (2004) states bluntly that standardized tests are doing the job for which they were designed: “Predict first-year grades for White upper-middle-class and upper-class males” (p. 60). Scheuneman and Oakland (1998) also claim that standardized educational tests “unapologetically favored” White upper-class males (p. 79). All three of these claims bear a certain degree of rhetorical cachet, but the data on degree completion undermines the claim the White males are the sole beneficiaries. According to NCES, 43.9% of White females completed a bachelor’s in four years compared to 33.8% of White males. So, a more precise claim is that standardized postsecondary admission tests predict first-year grades for high-socioeconomic status (SES) students.
According to Campbell (1976), “The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor” (p. 54). Standardized test scores comprise a significant element of many postsecondary admissions processes. Families with the wherewithal are able to purchase standardized test-coaches for the purposes of increasing scores and obtaining admission. This is evidence that the metric of test scores does not adequately function as a lever of social change. Rather, the testing requirement functions to primarily as a SES-filter. Standardized tests, as a structural element of the admissions process, must be placed in the appropriate context and used much more sparingly. Re-designing an admission process, or any process for that matter, must account for the intended effects. If we seek to produce innovative workers and responsible citizens, schools need to look for the markers of creativity and civic responsibility.
There are two alternatives to standardized testing that appear fruitful. Sternberg (2010) suggests probing students for markers of successful intelligence, which he defines as, “The ability to succeed in life” (p. 77). There are three capabilities that comprise successful intelligence: analytic, creative, and practical. The primary assumption of Sternberg’s theory of successful intelligence is that it is less-likely to be tethered to SES than standardized test scores. Results from the implementation of Sternberg’s theory at Tufts University are promising, but a larger sample of data is needed. Sedlacek’s (2004) theory of non-cognitive variables (NCVs) is held as an alternative to the cognitive measures of verbal and quantitative abilities captured by standardized admissions tests. According to Sedlacek there are eight NCVs: positive self-concept; realistic self-appraisal; successfully handling the system; preference for long-term goals; availability of strong support person; leadership experience; community involvement; and knowledge acquired in a field (p. 7). Assessing the presence and strength of NCVs involves using the non-cognitive questionnaire (NCQ). Scores from multiple administrations of the NCQ show test-retest reliability estimates ranging between .74 and .94 (p. 49). Moreover, results of administrations of the NCQ from several different institutional types have yielded data showing moderate to strong correlations between NCVs and grades, persistence, and success (pp. 67-74). Sternberg and Sedlacek have shown that there are fruitful alternatives to current standardized postsecondary admission test policies.
Re-designing any postsecondary admission process has to reckon many divergent interests. However, the institutional mission ought to be primary point of departure for any re-design process. An institution ought to consider what it seeks to cultivate in its students and align intake processes to give students the highest odds of success. Postsecondary institutions invariably have to contend with prevailing demographic realities. As such, it behooves policymakers to design processes with these realities in mind and implement structures to support students’ success. We know that standardized tests are poor yardsticks by which to measure students’ readiness for academic. What remains uncertain is whether the alternatives to standardized tests can produce gains in underrepresented student enrollments and underrepresented student degree completions. The widespread use of NCVs and/or Sternberg’s successful intelligence theory primarily hinges upon two competing priorities. Both alternatives must be as easy to administer and use and both must cost as much or less as current standardized admissions tests. My goal as a prospective Rossier Ed.D student is to pursue avenues for testing Sternberg and Sedlacek’s theories as alternatives to current paradigm.
References
Campbell, D.T. (1976). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Occasional Paper Series, 8, 1-74. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED303512.pdf
Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York,
NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Scheuneman, J.D., & Oakland, T. (1998). High-stakes testing in education. In J. Sandoval, C. L. Frisby, K. F. Geisinger, J.D. Scheuneman, & J. R. Grenier (Eds.), Test interpretation and diversity: Achieving equity in assessment (pp. 77-103). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Sedlacek, W. E. (2004). Beyond the big test: Noncognitive assessment in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sternberg, R.J. (2010). College admissions for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2001-02 to 2008-09 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Fall 2001, and Spring 2002 through Spring 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment