Choosing Students

Higher Education Admissions Tools for the 21st Century

Wayne Camara, Ernest W. Kimmel

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135619091
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This volume brings a variety of perspectives to bear on the issue of how higher education institutions can - or should - choose students during the early part of the 21st century. Many of the contributors report on research to develop and validate potential tools to assist those responsible for admission decisions. Other contributors, however, pose broader questions about the nature of selective admissions, about institutional responses to the changing demography of those seeking to enter higher education, or about the appropriate criteria of 'success' in higher education. The volume is particularly timely because the question of how changes in admission tools and processes will affect campus diversity following the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the University of Michigan. Diversity is an important concern of all of the contributors and the chapter by Lee Bollinger--President at Michigan at the time the court cases were filed--is particularly relevant. This book brings together the research that underlies a variety of proposed approaches to improving the selection of students. Providing support for the integrity of the admissions process and the validity of new tools to help a higher education institution to select a diverse student body, this book explores the implications of the assessment component of K-12 school reform for higher education admissions practices. The diverse contributions to this volume reflect the current ferment in educational research and educational practice as institutions of higher education seek to develop a new admissions paradigm for coming decades following the University of Michigan decisions. This book is intended for those leaders and professionals who set admission policies and practices in American colleges, and graduate and professional schools, as well as for those scholars and scientists who research, develop, and validate tools for use in the process of choosing students in ways that are congruent with an institution's mission, values, and goals.

I
Diversity in Higher Education

1
Competition in Higher Education and Admissions Testing

Lee C.Bellinger

Columbia University

Higher education in the United States seems always to generate public controversy, and today is no exception. Just in the past 10 years, for example, we have seen enormous public attention and debate about the rising costs for students attending colleges and universities (e.g., Troutt, 1998), about the proper scope of freedom of speech and debate on our campuses, that is, the debate over “political correctness” (e.g., American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 1996), and about the proper role of the government in funding basic science at our research universities (e.g., Atkinson, 2000). Although none of these controversies has vanished entirely, all have become more subdued, even if only momentarily. Other issues, however, have emerged to take their place on the national center stage. For example, there are new debates over the role of universities in stem cell research and cloning (e.g., Association of American Universities [AAU], 2002)—and about tracking foreign students after September 11th (e.g., Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2002).

The most important contemporary debate by far—and, in all likelihood, the most important of the past several decades—is the constitutional and policy controversy over what we misleadingly have come to call “affirmative action”: the effort to achieve racial and ethnic diversity on our campuses by considering race and ethnicity as factors in the admissions process (e.g., AAU, 2002; American Council on Education [ACE], 1995; D’Souza, 1991; Hankins & David, 1996).

Interestingly, other controversies, albeit of somewhat lesser moment, also involve admissions policies. One notable controversy is the current debate over the utility and social effects of the SAT®.¹ More recently, the policy of early admission has been added to the list of current contested topics. Indeed, all one has to do is stand back just a little from our system of colleges and universities, and instantly one gets a sense of how every facet of higher education can quickly become a matter for public scrutiny. It is important to recognize, however, that most of these discrete controversies arise out of much more fundamental issues for higher education. Many of the specific disputes related to admissions are actually symptomatic of a much more profound issue facing colleges and universities, one that deserves clarification and attention, and that is the increasingly pernicious competition in higher education generally.

Much of the current debate regarding higher education admissions relates to the merits of SAT I®. The President of the University of California, Richard Atkinson, brought this issue to the forefront of national attention by proposing that the SAT I no longer be required for admission to the University of California (UC) system (Atkinson, 2001a, 2001b). He has proposed that it be replaced with some group of SAT II^® or other achievement-oriented tests—that is, with tests that evaluate how well students have mastered specific subjects taught in high school. He has done this, Atkinson says, because the SAT I pursues a futile and harmful goal of measuring an individual’s “aptitude,” or some general mental capacity. In his words:

Aptitude tests such as the SAT I have a historical tie to the concept of innate mental abilities and the belief that such abilities can be defined and meaningfully measured. Neither notion has been supported by modern research. Few scientists who have considered these matters seriously would argue that aptitude tests such as the SAT I provide a true measure of intellectual abilities. Nonetheless, the SAT I is widely regarded as a test of basic mental ability that can give us a picture of students’ academic promise. (Atkinson, 2002, p. 32)

President Atkinson cites recent analyses of the predictive validity of the SAT I showing that it adds little to that already provided by achievement tests and grades (Geiser & Studley, 2001). But his principal criticism is that this particular standardized test has unfortunate and distorting consequences in our educational system, both at the high school and at the college levels. He argues that this general testing of “aptitude” diminishes the significance of regular high school courses and leads high schools and students to waste valuable educational time in fruitless “prepping” for this kind of test (Atkinson, 2002). Perhaps the most grievous injury of the SAT I, in President Atkinson s eyes, is that it undermines the ability of America’s colleges and universities to fulfill their responsibility in a democratic society to judge students “on the basis of their actual achievements, not on ill-defined notions of aptitude” (2002, p. 32). We should instead, he insists, employ tests in our admissions processes that “have a demonstrable relationship to the specific subjects taught in high school” (p. 34) so that students can use the tests to assess their mastery of those subjects. Above all, Atkinson (2002) argues, we should “employ admissions processes that look at individual applicants in their full complexity and take special pains to ensure that standardized tests are used properly in admissions decisions” (p. 34). Atkinson (2002) concludes:

It is not enough to make sure that test scores are simply one of several criteria considered; we must also make sure that the tests we require reflect UC’s mission and purpose, which is to educate the state’s most talented students and make educational opportunity available to young people from every background, (p. 35)

This is a helpful debate to have, and there is much to be said on all sides of this debate about the merits of the SAT I. Is this really a test that purports to measure innate intellectual capacity? Or is it a test of some important intellectual capacities (just as important as, say, U.S. history) that can be learned and improved upon over time, perhaps even by mastering what we regard as regular subjects and courses? Unfortunately, The College Board seems not to have had a consistent message on these matters. In an introductory letter to an SAT brochure, the President of The College Board, Gas ton Caperton, writes: “[E]ven though we’ve published literally millions and millions of copies of sample SATs, the rumor persists that the SAT measures something mysterious. Nothing could be farther from the truth” (College Board, 2001, p. 3). What it measures may not be mysterious, but it is not simple, either. Nor has it been static. At one time, the College Board defined the SAT as an aptitude test, and it was asserted that the test was not subject to coaching. Then it was no longer called an aptitude test, but a test of reasoning skills (College Board, 2000, 2001); it was no longer the Scholastic Aptitude Test, but simply the SAT, which did not stand for anything (Atkinson, 2001b)—at least the A was not to stand for anything.

The College Board acknowledges that the test is coachable, but not nearly as coachable as some of the commercial “coaches” claim that it is (Powers & Camara, 1999). But it is, the College Board asserts, eminently teachable—indeed, they emphatically argue that it is not too coachable, but highly teachable. On this point they are probably right; the best way to do one’s best on the SAT is to be a good student—not to try to cram, but to be a good student over the long term. Be an adept, careful, subtle, insightful reader. Develop quantitative skills to solve real-world problems. Read as much as you can, write a lot, learn to use language effectively, take hard courses, and solve problems in and out of school. Think critically! That’s the best way to maximize one’s performance on the SAT.

And, yet, one would be hard pressed to make the case that that is how the world sees and responds to the SAT One hears, anecdotally to be sure, that many, many schools “teach to the test,” which means they focus on improving vocabulary alone and practicing on sample tests. This is so despite all the attention that is focused on the SAT, despite the high stakes that the students and their parents invest in the test results, and despite the efforts of the Educational Testing Service and the College Board. Schools, educators, teachers, and students seem not to have a sense of the pedagogical rationale for the test and the verbal and mathematical skills that the test seeks to measure.

It would help a great deal, therefore, if students more clearly understood that the skills that the SAT I seeks to test (the intellectual capacities themselves, not merely vocabulary) can be learned over an extended period of time. That might serve to mitigate the sense of h...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• I: Diversity in Higher Education
• II: Improving Current Practice
• III: New Constructs and New Measures
• IV: Admission in the Context of K–16 Reform Efforts