A nine year old boy is dying of a rare form of brain cancer. His story has touched my life in powerful ways. Though he will not be around to see how the world changes, we can honor his brave fight for life by remembering to help always, avoid harming others, and spend every moment finding the best in life.
Please go to: http://fightonjackson.com/
We are in this together!
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Why I chose the Ed.D and did not apply to a PhD program
Back in early February of 2012 I was accepted to the USC Rossier School of Education Ed.D program. I am very happy and honored to be selected to this outstanding program. However, I have been reflecting on why I chose the Ed.D route and why I did not submit applications to Ph.D programs. Some of my reasons are purely practical: 1) I cannot afford to stop working full time and lose my income and medical benefits; 2) my family keeps me tethered to the southern California region; and 3) I am, at my core, a higher education administration practitioner. However, one reason above all others kept me from bothering to apply: the Graduate Records Examination (GRE) requirement.
The GRE, like any standardized admission test, is a speeded, multiple choice, triple construct examination that, according to its maker ETS, provides, "Graduate and business schools around the world with an objective and common measure for evaluating and comparing the qualifications of applicants with differing educational and cultural backgrounds" (my italics). I italicized "objective" because this is an assertion that is as much a confusion of the meaning of the word as it is useless. Of course this all has to have something to do with my decision to not apply to any Ph.D programs and I'm getting to that later. The point here is to identify ETS' definition of the function of the GRE. Accordingly, the GRE measures verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, and analytical writing. When I say that the test is speeded I mean test takers have a finite amount of time to complete each section. The verbal reasoning and analytical writing sections take 30 minutes each and the quantitative reasoning section takes 35 minutes. Lastly, the GRE is multiple choice, meaning that test takers identify the correct response from a list of potential responses. Remember that the GRE is supposed to be an objective assessment of an applicant's readiness for graduate studies.
The problem with the GRE and standardized tests is that they are not objective at all, at least not the inferences drawn from GRE scores. That the test measures three separate constructs is the primary limit of the GRE's so-called "objectivity." Inferences drawn from test scores, however, are subjective valuations that have implications for test takers, score users, and the public at large. The rewards of admission and graduate fellowships await those who score high, while low-scoring individuals are punished by diminished access or minimal financial support. Scholarship on standardized admissions testing shows weak correlations between test scores and graduate school performance (Lucido, 2010; Sacks, 1999; Sternberg, 2010). The question, therefore, remains: Considering the limitations of the GRE, why do faculty admission committees use it at all?
Thus, the core reason I did not elect to apply to a PhD program is that I did not want to play the GRE game. I could not in good conscience pay for a test-preparation course knowing full well that such courses fly in the face of the test construction and norming process. That is, the GRE was designed around a sample of test-takers who had no advance knowledge of the test items and were not coached on standardized test-taking strategies. The GRE is, for me and many others, a barrier to overcome. It does not "democratize" or provide the proverbial "level playing field." On the contrary, it turns graduate school admissions into a game where those with resources (time and financial) are assured of above average scores. The PhD is a noble goal and one worthy of serious consideration, but I acknowledged my GRE limitations and opted out of the game. I knew the easier route would be the Ed.D, but it does not mean that I will not work hard. The GRE game favors a particular brand of person and schools play the game to garner larger sections of the rankings pie. Yet, the Ed.D offers folks like me a chance to make significant contributions to our profession without suffering through the headache of an over-hyped triad of partially useful subjective constructs. As such, I chose the path of access and strike out upon it with as much ambition as any other newly admitted doctoral student.
I look forward to commencing my Ed.D studies this fall. Subsequent postings will reflect upon key themes and lessons learned during my three-year course of studies.
Lucido, H. (2010). Educational genocide: A plague on our children. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized minds: The high price of America's testing culture and what we can do to change it. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Sternberg, R. J. (2010). College admissions for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
The GRE, like any standardized admission test, is a speeded, multiple choice, triple construct examination that, according to its maker ETS, provides, "Graduate and business schools around the world with an objective and common measure for evaluating and comparing the qualifications of applicants with differing educational and cultural backgrounds" (my italics). I italicized "objective" because this is an assertion that is as much a confusion of the meaning of the word as it is useless. Of course this all has to have something to do with my decision to not apply to any Ph.D programs and I'm getting to that later. The point here is to identify ETS' definition of the function of the GRE. Accordingly, the GRE measures verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, and analytical writing. When I say that the test is speeded I mean test takers have a finite amount of time to complete each section. The verbal reasoning and analytical writing sections take 30 minutes each and the quantitative reasoning section takes 35 minutes. Lastly, the GRE is multiple choice, meaning that test takers identify the correct response from a list of potential responses. Remember that the GRE is supposed to be an objective assessment of an applicant's readiness for graduate studies.
The problem with the GRE and standardized tests is that they are not objective at all, at least not the inferences drawn from GRE scores. That the test measures three separate constructs is the primary limit of the GRE's so-called "objectivity." Inferences drawn from test scores, however, are subjective valuations that have implications for test takers, score users, and the public at large. The rewards of admission and graduate fellowships await those who score high, while low-scoring individuals are punished by diminished access or minimal financial support. Scholarship on standardized admissions testing shows weak correlations between test scores and graduate school performance (Lucido, 2010; Sacks, 1999; Sternberg, 2010). The question, therefore, remains: Considering the limitations of the GRE, why do faculty admission committees use it at all?
Thus, the core reason I did not elect to apply to a PhD program is that I did not want to play the GRE game. I could not in good conscience pay for a test-preparation course knowing full well that such courses fly in the face of the test construction and norming process. That is, the GRE was designed around a sample of test-takers who had no advance knowledge of the test items and were not coached on standardized test-taking strategies. The GRE is, for me and many others, a barrier to overcome. It does not "democratize" or provide the proverbial "level playing field." On the contrary, it turns graduate school admissions into a game where those with resources (time and financial) are assured of above average scores. The PhD is a noble goal and one worthy of serious consideration, but I acknowledged my GRE limitations and opted out of the game. I knew the easier route would be the Ed.D, but it does not mean that I will not work hard. The GRE game favors a particular brand of person and schools play the game to garner larger sections of the rankings pie. Yet, the Ed.D offers folks like me a chance to make significant contributions to our profession without suffering through the headache of an over-hyped triad of partially useful subjective constructs. As such, I chose the path of access and strike out upon it with as much ambition as any other newly admitted doctoral student.
I look forward to commencing my Ed.D studies this fall. Subsequent postings will reflect upon key themes and lessons learned during my three-year course of studies.
Lucido, H. (2010). Educational genocide: A plague on our children. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized minds: The high price of America's testing culture and what we can do to change it. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Sternberg, R. J. (2010). College admissions for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)