Book contents
- Higher Education Admissions Practices
- Educational and Psychological Testing in a Global Context
- Higher Education Admissions Practices
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor’s Foreword
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Global Challenges and Common Admissions Models
- Chapter 1 An Overview of Higher Education Admissions Processes
- Chapter 2 Comparing College Aspirations across PISA Countries: Are 17 Percent Oranges Less than 75 Percent Apples?
- Chapter 3 Merit-Based Admissions in Higher Education
- Chapter 4 The Open Admissions Model: An Example from the United States
- Chapter 5 Character-Based Admissions Criteria in the United States and in Europe: Rationale, Evidence, and Some Critical Remarks
- Chapter 6 Cross-Cultural and Global Competencies and Their Role in Admissions Policies and Practices
- Part II Country-Specific Admissions Practices
- Part III Assessments Used in Higher Education Admissions
- Part IV Rethinking Higher Education Admissions
- Index
- References
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
Book contents
- Higher Education Admissions Practices
- Educational and Psychological Testing in a Global Context
- Higher Education Admissions Practices
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editor’s Foreword
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Global Challenges and Common Admissions Models
- Chapter 1 An Overview of Higher Education Admissions Processes
- Chapter 2 Comparing College Aspirations across PISA Countries: Are 17 Percent Oranges Less than 75 Percent Apples?
- Chapter 3 Merit-Based Admissions in Higher Education
- Chapter 4 The Open Admissions Model: An Example from the United States
- Chapter 5 Character-Based Admissions Criteria in the United States and in Europe: Rationale, Evidence, and Some Critical Remarks
- Chapter 6 Cross-Cultural and Global Competencies and Their Role in Admissions Policies and Practices
- Part II Country-Specific Admissions Practices
- Part III Assessments Used in Higher Education Admissions
- Part IV Rethinking Higher Education Admissions
- Index
- References
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
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Higher Education Admissions PracticesAn International Perspective, pp. 34 - 50Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
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
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
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
- 1
- Cited by