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-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:04:15.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 3 - Merit-Based Admissions in Higher Education

from Part I - Global Challenges and Common Admissions Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2020

By
Christina Wikström  and
Magnus Wikström
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

Different principles guide how students are selected when there is competition in college admissions. A merit based approach is most common: If there is competition, the candidate with the best qualifications, or merits, "wins." The way merit is defined and measured is a complicated matter that has to do with validity and views of fairness.Systems where desirable positions are promoted based on merit are sometimes called meritocratic, but this term can be interpreted in both positive and negative sense. This chapter describes and discusses principles for allocation of study places where individuals are promoted or selected on the basis of their merits; challenges of such models; and consequences for individuals, higher education institutions, and society at large.

Keywords

merit-based admissionsmeritocracyhigher education admissionsSwedish admissions systemconsequences
Type
Chapter
Information
Higher Education Admissions Practices
An International Perspective
 , pp. 34 - 50
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

Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group. (2004). Fair admissions to higher education: Recommendations for good practice. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5284/1/finalreport.pdf.Google Scholar
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Arneson, R. (2015). Equality of opportunity. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy: Summer 2015 edition. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/equal-opportunity.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R. C., & Geiser, S. (2009). Reflections on a century of college admissions tests. (Center for Studies in Higher Education Research & Occasional Paper Series, CSHE.4.09). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09351981.Google Scholar
Camilli, G. (2006). Test fairness. In Brennan, R. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.) (pp. 221–256). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Dorans, N., & Cook, L. (2016). Fairness in educational assessment and measurement. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315774527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Guinier, L. (2015). The tyranny of the meritocracy: Democratizing higher education in America. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, L. A. (2003). Pursuing equal opportunities: The theory and practice of egalitarian justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, M. (2010). Validity and fairness. Language Testing, 27, 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209349467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Lemann, N. (2004). The history of admissions testing. In Zwick, R. (Ed.), Rethinking the SAT: The future of standardized testing in university admissions. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
Linn, R. L. (2009). Considerations for college admissions testing. Educational Researcher, 38, 677–679. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09351982.Google Scholar
Lyrén, P.‐E. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Improving schools in Sweden: An OECD perspective. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/edu/school/Improving-Schools-in-Sweden.pdf.Google Scholar
Proposition 2017/18: 204. (2018).Fler vägar till kunskap – en högskola för livslångt lärande. [More routes to knowledge – higher education for lifelong learning]. Retrieved from www.regeringen.se/rattsdokument/proposition/2018/03/201718204/.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. E. (1998). Equality of opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, P. (2001). Standardized minds: The high price of America’s testing culture and what we can do to change it. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70, 898–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedlacek, W. E. (2004). Beyond the big test: Noncognitive assessment in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1979). Utilitarianism and welfarism. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 463–489. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025934.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (2000). Merit and justice. In Arrow, K. J., Bowles, S., & Durlauf, S. N. (Eds.), Meritocracy and economic inequality (pp. 5–16). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stobart, G. (2009). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Tveit, S. (2018). (Trans)national trends and cultures of educational assessment: Reception and resistance of national testing in Norway and Sweden during the twentieth century. In Alarcon, C. & Lawn, M. (Eds.), Assessment cultures: Historical perspectives. Berlin: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-06867-2Google Scholar
Whaples, R. M. (2017). The economics of Pope Francis: An introduction. The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy, 21, 325–345.Google Scholar
Wikström, C., & Lind Pantzare, A. (2018). Standard setting. In Baird, J.-A., Isaacs, T., & Opposs, D. (Eds.), Examination standards: How measures and meanings differ around the world. London: UCL Institute of Education Press.Google Scholar
Wolming, S. (1999). Ett rättvist urval? [A fair selection?]. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, 4(3), 245–258.Google Scholar
Wolming, S., & Wikström, C. (2010). The concept of validity in theory and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17, 117–132.Google Scholar
York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic success. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 20(5).Google Scholar
Young, M. (1958). The rise of the meritocracy, 1870–2033. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Zwick, R. (2002). Fair game? The use of standardized admissions tests in higher education. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
Zwick, R. (2004). Rethinking the SAT: The future of standardized testing in university admissions. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
Zwick, R. (2017). Who gets in? Strategies for fair and effective college admissions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×