How do admission committees select? Do applicants know how they select? Selection criteria and transparency at a Dutch University

Author:

Kurysheva AnastasiaORCID,van Rijen Harold V. M.,Dilaver Gönül

Abstract

Abstract In this study, we investigated the currently applied selective admission criteria and tools of the two-year research master’s programs of both the Graduate Schools of Life Sciences and Natural Sciences of Utrecht University (the Netherlands). In addition, we evaluated their transparency to applicants. Both admissions staff members and applicants participated. To determine admission criteria that are important for admission decisions, we ranked 51 admission criteria and, on their basis, combined into six domains: academic background, grades, cognitive ability, research background, personality and personal competencies, motivation factors. To evaluate transparency, we contrasted the perceptions of applicants with the actual importance of admission criteria, as reported by admission staff members. We found that admissions criteria related to personality and personal competencies are less important in admission decisions than criteria related to grades, academic background and motivation. The applicants find the admissions decisions transparent to a moderate degree. This study also revealed that selectors use criteria and tools both with and without predictive value for later graduate performance. Moreover, some of the currently applied admission instruments might be prone to admission biases. We advocate selectors to use admission criteria and tools that are evidence-based, resistant to admission biases, and transparent to the applicants.

Funder

Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Education

Reference44 articles.

1. Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group. (2004). Fair admissions to higher education: Recommendations for good practice. London: Schwartz S. https://www.spa.ac.uk/resources/schwartz-report . Accessed 28 March 2019.

2. Adnett, N., McCaig, C., Slack, K., & Bowers-Brown, T. (2011). Achieving “transparency, consistency and fairness” in English HE admissions: Progress since Schwartz? Higher Education Quarterly, 65, 12–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2010.00468.x .

3. Bagshaw, E. (2016, September 19). Sydney university reveals real ATAR admissions scores. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/education/sydney-university-reveals-atar-admissions-scores-20160919-grjjie.html . Accessed 3 September 2019.

4. Cleland, J. A., Dowell, J., McLachlan, J., Nicholson, S., and Patterson, F. (2012). Identifying best practice in the selection of medical students: Literature review and interview survey (Research Report). https://www.gmc-uk.org/about/what-we-do-and-why/data-and-research/research-and-insight-archive/identifying-best-practice-in-the-selection-of-medical-students . Accessed 27 March 2019.

5. Conlon, P., Hecker, K., & Sabatini, S. (2012). What should we be selecting for? A systematic approach for determining which personal characteristics to assess for during admissions. BMC Medical Education, 12, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-105 .

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3