Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:57:35.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 5 - Character-Based Admissions Criteria in the United States and in Europe: Rationale, Evidence, and Some Critical Remarks

from Part I - Global Challenges and Common Admissions Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2020

By
A. Susan M. Niessen  and
Rob R. Meijer
Edited by
María Elena Oliveri  and
Cathy Wendler
María Elena Oliveri
Affiliation:
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey
Cathy Wendler
Affiliation:
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we discuss the rationale, practice, evidence, and effects of character-based college admissions from both a US and a European perspective. With the increasing globalization, it is important to discuss and evaluate recent developments with respect to selective college admissions. This chapter discusses the rationale for implementing character-based admission criteria in admission testing, admission practices in several European countries, the empirical evidence of the validity and fairness of character-based admission tools, and how academic- and character-based admission criteria are combined.

Keywords

character-based modelsadmissions testingadverse impactself-report instrumentsevidence-based assessment
Type
Chapter
Information
Higher Education Admissions Practices
An International Perspective
 , pp. 76 - 95
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allman, M. (2009). Quintessential questions: Wake Forest’s director gives insight into the interview process. Retrieved from http://blog.rethinkingadmissions.wfu.edu/2009/08/quintessential-questions-wake-forest%E2%80%99s-admission-director-gives-insight-into-the-interview-process/.Google Scholar
Anderson, N., Herriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practitioner–researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology: Where we are now, and where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317901167451.Google Scholar
Anglim, J., Bozic, S., Little, J., & Lievens, F. (2018). Response distortion on personality tests in applicants: Comparing high-stakes to low-stakes medical settings. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 23, 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-017-9796-8.Google Scholar
Bartels, M., Rietveld, M. H., Van Baal, G. M., & Boomsma, D. I. (2002). Heritability of educational achievement in 12-year-olds and the overlap with cognitive ability. Twin Research, 5, 544–553. https://doi.org/10.1375/136905202762342017.Google Scholar
Berry, C. M. (2015). Differential validity and differential prediction of cognitive ability tests: Understanding test bias in the employment context. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 435–463. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-1112566.Google Scholar
Borghans, L., Golsteyn, B. H., Heckman, J., & Humphries, J. E. (2011). Identification problems in personality psychology. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 315–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.029.Google Scholar
Borghans, L., Golsteyn, B. H., Heckman, J., & Humphries, J. E. (2016). What grades and achievement tests measure. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 13354–13359. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601135113.Google Scholar
Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2013). How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires. Psychological Methods, 18, 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030641.Google Scholar
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1057–1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00253-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camara, W. J. (2009). College admission testing: Myths and realities in an age of admissions hype. In Phelps, R. P. (Ed.). Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing (pp. 147–180). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11861-004.Google Scholar
Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N., & Montgomery, G. E. (2005). Reconsidering forced-choice item formats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance, 18, 267–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1803_4.Google Scholar
Cliffordson, C. (2008). Differential prediction of study success across academic programs in the Swedish context: The validity of grades and tests as selection instruments for higher education. Educational Assessment, 13, 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190801968240.Google Scholar
Cortina, J. M., Goldstein, N. B., Payne, S. C., Davison, H. K., & Gilliland, S. W. (2000). The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores. Personnel Psychology, 53, 325–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00204.x.Google Scholar
Credé, M. & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 425–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00089.x.Google Scholar
Cremonini, L., Leisyte, L., Weyer, E., & Vossensteyn, J. J. (2011). Selection and matching in higher education: An international comparative study. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).Google Scholar
Crombag, H. F., Gaff, J. G., & Chang, T. M. (1975). Study behavior and academic performance. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 1, 3–14.Google Scholar
Dahlke, J. A., & Sackett, P. R. (2017). The relationship between cognitive-ability saturation and subgroup mean differences across predictors of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 1403–1420. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dana, J., Dawes, R., & Peterson, N. (2013). Belief in the unstructured interview: The persistence of an illusion. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 512–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision- making. American Psychologist, 34, 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.7.571.Google Scholar
de Leng, W. E., Stegers-Jager, K. M., Born, M. P., & Themmen, A. N. (2018). Integrity situational judgment test for medical school selection: Judging “what to do” versus “what not to do.” Medical Education, 52, 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13498.Google Scholar
de Visser, M., Fluit, C., Fransen, J., Latijnhouwers, M., Cohen-Schotanus, J., & Laan, R. (2017). The effect of curriculum sample selection for medical school. Advances in Health Science Education, 22, 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459–016-9681-x.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.001.Google Scholar
Drenth, P. J. D. (2008). Psychology: Is it applied enough? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 524–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00337.x.Google Scholar
Dumfart, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2016). Conscientiousness is the most powerful noncognitive predictor of school achievement in adolescents. Journal of Individual Differences, 37, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000182.Google Scholar
Eva, K. W., Reiter, H. I., Rosenfeld, J., & Norman, G. R. (2004). The ability of the multiple mini-interview to predict pre-clerkship performance in medical school. Academic Medicine, 79, 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200410001-00012.Google Scholar
Goho, J., & Blackman, A. (2006). The effectiveness of academic admission interviews: An exploratory meta-analysis. Medical Teacher, 28, 335–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590600603418.Google Scholar
Griffin, B. & Wilson, I. G. (2012). Faking good: Self‐enhancement in medical school applicants. Medical Education, 46, 485–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04208.x.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00058.x.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S., & Kostek, J. A. (2013). Holistic assessment for selection and placement. In Geisinger, K. F., Bracken, B. A., Carlson, J. F., Hansen, J. C., Kuncel, N. R., Reise, S. P., & Rodriguez, M. C. (Eds.). APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology (Vol. 1) Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 565–577). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14047-031.Google Scholar
Hoover, E. (2013). Noncognitive measures: The next frontier on college admissions. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from www.chronicle.com/article/Noncognitive-Measures-The/136621.Google Scholar
Horn, C. (2005). Standardized assessments and the flow of students into the college admission pool. Educational Policy, 19, 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904804274057.Google Scholar
Husbands, A., & Dowell, J. (2013). Predictive validity of the Dundee Multiple Mini-Interview. Medical Education, 47, 717–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12193.Google Scholar
Jones, B. M. (2011). Assessing admission interviews at residential STEM schools. NCSSSMST Journal, 16, 20–29.Google Scholar
Keiser, H. N., Sackett, P. R., Kuncel, N. R., & Brothen, T. (2016). Why women perform better in college than admission scores would predict: Exploring the roles of conscientiousness and course-taking patterns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 569–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000069.Google Scholar
Kelly, M. E., Patterson, F., O’Flynn, S., Mulligan, J., & Murphy, A. W. (2018). A systematic review of stakeholder views of selection methods for medical schools admission. BMC Medical Education, 18, 139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1235-x.Google Scholar
Kuncel, N. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (2010). Fact and fiction in cognitive ability testing for admissions and hiring decisions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410389459.Google Scholar
Kuncel, N. R., Klieger, D. M., Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2013). Mechanical versus clinical data combination in selection and admissions decisions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 1060–1072. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuncel, N. R., Kochevar, R. J., & Ones, D. S. (2014). A meta‐analysis of letters of recommendation in college and graduate admissions: Reasons for hope. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunina, O., Wilhelm, O., Formazin, M., Jonkmann, K., & Schroeders, U. (2007). Extended criteria and predictors in college admission: Exploring the structure of study success and investigating the validity of domain knowledge. Psychology Science, 49, 88–114.Google Scholar
Kyllonen, P. C., Lipnevich, A. A., Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Personality, motivation, and college readiness: A prospectus for assessment and development (ETS Research Report No. RR-14-06). https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12004.Google Scholar
Kyllonen, P. C., Walters, A. M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Noncognitive constructs and their assessment in graduate education: A review. Educational Assessment, 10, 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1003_2.Google Scholar
Lamb, S., Markussen, E., Teese, R., Polesel, J., & Sandberg, N. (2011) School dropout and completion. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9763-7.Google Scholar
Le, H., Casillas, A., Robbins, S. B., & Langley, R. (2005). Motivational and skills, social, and self-management predictors of college outcomes: Constructing the student readiness inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 482–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404272493.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Connelly, B. S., Goff, M., & Hazucha, J. F. (2017). Are assessment center behaviors’ meanings consistent across exercises? A measurement invariance approach. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25, 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12187.Google Scholar
Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Lievens, F. (2013). Adjusting medical school admission: Assessing interpersonal skills using situational judgment tests. Medical Education, 47, 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12089.Google Scholar
Lievens, F., & Coetsier, P. (2002). Situational tests in student selection: An examination of predictive validity, adverse impact, and construct validity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2012). The validity of interpersonal skills assessment via situational judgment tests for predicting academic success and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 460–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025741.Google Scholar
Lyren, P. (2008). Prediction of academic performance by means of the Swedish scholastic assessment test. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830802497158.Google Scholar
Markle, R., Olivera-Aguilar, M., Jackson, T., Noeth, R., & Robbins, S. (2013). Examining evidence of reliability, validity, and fairness for the SuccessNavigator™ assessment (ETS Research Report No. RR-13-12). Retrieved from www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-13-12.pdf.Google Scholar
Mattern, K., Sanchez, E., & Ndum, E. (2017). Why do achievement measures underpredict female academic performance? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 36(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12138.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science (2014, August 29). Informatie over de afschaffing van loting bij numerusfixusopleidingen [Information concerning the abolishing of lottery admission]. Kamerbrief [Government information]. Retrieved from www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2014/08/30/kamerbrief-met-informatie-over-de-afschaffing-van-loting-bij-numerusfixusopleidingen.html.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. C., Klieger, D. M., Borneman, M. J., & Kuncel, N. R. (2009). The predictive power of personal statements in admissions: A meta-analysis and cautionary tale. College and University, 84(4), 83–86.Google Scholar
National Association for College Admission Counseling (2017). State of College Admission. Retrieved from www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/publications/research/soca17final.pdf.Google Scholar
Niessen, A. S. M., & Meijer, R. R. (2016). Selection of medical students on the basis of non-academic skills: Is it worth the trouble? Clinical Medicine, 16, 339–342. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.16-4-339.Google Scholar
Niessen, A. S. M., & Meijer, R. R. (2017). On the use of broadened selection criteria in higher education. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 436–448. https://doi:10.1177/174569161668305.Google Scholar
Niessen, A. S. M., Meijer, R. R., & Tendeiro, J. N. (2017a). Applying organizational justice theory to admission into higher education: Admission from a student perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25, 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12161.Google Scholar
Niessen, A. S. M., Meijer, R. R., & Tendeiro, J. N. (2017b). Measuring non-cognitive predictors in high-stakes contexts: The effect of self-presentation on self-report instruments used in admission to higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.014.Google Scholar
Niessen, A. S. M., Meijer, R. R., & Tendeiro, J. N. (2018) Admission testing for higher education: A multi-cohort study on the validity of high-fidelity curriculum-sampling tests. PLoS ONE 13(6), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198746.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010). OECD reviews of migrant education: Closing the gap for immigrant students; policies, practice and performance. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
Orr, D., Usher, A., Haj, C, Atherton, G, & Geanta, I. (2017). Study on the impact of admission systems on higher education outcomes (Vol. 1): Comparative report. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9cfdd9c1-98f9-11e7-b92d-01aa75ed71a1.Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B. H., Ramsay, L. J., & Gillespie, M. A. (2004). Developing a biodata measure and situational judgment inventory as predictors of college student performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.187.Google Scholar
Patterson, F., Cousans, F., Edwards, H., Rosselli, A., Nicholson, S., & Wright, B. (2017). The predictive validity of a text-based situational judgment test in undergraduate medical and dental school admissions. Academic Medicine, 92, 1250–1253. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001630.Google Scholar
Patterson, F., Knight, A., Dowell, J., Nicholson, S., Cousans, F., & Cleland, J. (2016). How effective are selection methods in medical education? A systematic review. Medical Education, 50, 36–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12817.Google Scholar
Ramsay, L. J., Schmitt, N., Oswald, F. L., Kim, B. H., & Gillespie, M. A. (2006). The impact of situational context variables on responses to biodata and situational judgment inventory items. Psychology Science, 48, 268–287.Google Scholar
Resing, W. C. M., & Drenth, P. J. D. (2007). Intelligentie: Weten en meten [Intelligence: Measuring and knowing]. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds.Google Scholar
Richardson, M., Abrahams, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838.Google Scholar
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., & Ellingson, J. E. (1997). The effects of forming multi-predictor composites on group differences and adverse impact. Personnel Psychology, 50, 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00711.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salgado, J. F., & Táuriz, G. (2014). The five-factor model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.716198.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998) The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2012). Development of rationale and measures of noncognitive college student potential. Educational Psychologist, 47, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.610680.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Keeney, J., Oswald, F. L., Pleskac, T. J., Billington, A. Q., Sinha, R., & Zorzie, M. (2009). Prediction of 4-year college student performance using cognitive and noncognitive predictors and the impact on demographic status of admitted students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1479–1497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016810.Google Scholar
Schwager, I. T. L., Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W. B., Klieger, D. M., Bridgeman, B., & Wendler, C. (2014). Supervisor ratings of students’ academic potential as predictors of citizenship and counterproductive behavior. Learning and Individual Differences, 35, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.005.Google Scholar
Sedlacek, W. E. (2004) Beyond the big test: Noncognitive assessment in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Sedlacek, W. E. (2005). The case for noncognitive measures. In Camara, W. J., Kimmel, E. W., Camara, W. J., & Kimmel, E. W. (Eds.). Choosing students: Higher education admissions tools for the 21st century (pp. 177–193). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Shultz, M. M., & Zedeck, S. (2012). Admission to Law school: New measures. Educational Psychologist, 47, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.610679.Google Scholar
Sinha, R., Oswald, F., Imus, A., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Criterion-focused approach to reducing adverse impact in college admissions. Applied Measurement in Education, 24, 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2011.554605.Google Scholar
Steenman, S. C. (2018). Alignment of admission: An exploration and analysis of the links between learning objectives and selective admission to programmes in higher education (Doctoral dissertation). University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Stegers-Jager, K. M. (2018). Lessons learned from 15 years of non-grades-based selection for medical school. Medical Education, 52, 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13462.Google Scholar
Stemler, S. E. (2012). What should university admissions tests predict? Educational Psychologist, 47, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611444.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2016). What universities can be: A new model for preparing students for active concerned citizenship and ethical leadership. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Tagesschau, (2017). Medizin-Zulassung muss überarbeitet werden [Admission to medical school must be revised]. Retrieved from www.tagesschau.de/inland/medizinstudium-verfassungsgericht-101.html.Google Scholar
Thomas, L. L., Kuncel, N. R., & Credé, M. (2007). Noncognitive variables in college admissions: The case of the non-cognitive questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 635–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406292074.Google Scholar
Till, H., Myford, C., & Dowell, J. (2013). Improving student selection using multiple mini-interviews with multifaceted Rasch modeling. Academic Medicine, 88, 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31827c0c5d.Google Scholar
Valli, R., & Johnson, P. (2007). Entrance examinations as gatekeepers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51, 493–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830701576631.Google Scholar
Vasilopoulos, N. L., Cucina, J. M., Dyomina, N. V., Morewitz, C. L., & Reilly, R. R. (2006). Forced-choice personality tests: A measure of personality and cognitive ability? Human Performance, 19, 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1903_1.Google Scholar
von Stumm, S., & Ackerman, P. L. (2013). Investment and intellect: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 841–869. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030746.Google Scholar
Wagerman, S. A., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Acquaintance reports of personality and academic achievement: A case for conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.001.Google Scholar
Wammes, J. G., van den Akker-van Marle, M. E., Verkerk, E. W., van Dulmen, S. A., Westert, G. P., van Asselt, A. I., & Kool, R. B. (2016). Identifying and prioritizing lower value services from Dutch specialist guidelines and a comparison with the UK do-not-do list. BMC Medicine, 14, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916–016-0747-7.Google Scholar
Westrick, P. A., Le, H., Robbins, S. B., Radunzel, J. R., & Schmidt, F. L. (2015). College performance and retention: A meta-analysis of the predictive validities of ACT scores, high school grades, and SES. Educational Assessment, 20, 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2015.997614.Google Scholar
Witzburg, R. A., & Sondheimer, H. M. (2013). Holistic review: Shaping the medical profession one applicant at a time. New England Journal of Medicine, 368, 1565–1567. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1300411.Google Scholar
Wouters, A. (2017). Effects of medical school selection on the motivation of the student population and the applicant pool (Doctoral dissertation). VU University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Wouters, A., Croiset, G., Schripsema, N. R., Cohen-Schotanus, J., Spaai, G. G., Hulsman, R. L., & Kusurkar, R. A. (2017). A multi-site study on medical school selection, performance, motivation and engagement. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 22, 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9745-y.Google Scholar
Zwick, R. (2013). Disentangling the role of high school grades, SAT scores, and SES in predicting college achievement. (Research Report No. RR-13-09). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2013.tb02316.x.Google Scholar
Zwick, R. (2017a). The risk of focusing on character in admissions. Chronicle of Higher Education, 63(42). Retrieved from www.chronicle.com/article/The-Risks-of-Focusing-on/240787.Google Scholar
Zwick, R. (2017b). Who gets in? Strategies for fair and effective college admissions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674977648.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×