Welcome to the new AACRAO website. While the site is live, development is ongoing, visitors can expect updates and new features in the weeks ahead.

Mobile Nav
Log in
Join
Get Involved

You must be logged in to view this content. Please login or learn more about joining AACRAO. If you have any questions or experience any issues logging in, please reach out to us atmembership@aacrao.org.

Log In Join

Topics

,

Article Type

Professional Proficiency

Article Abstract

Related Issue:

In this article, the author analyzed relevant literature focused on the evaluation and holistic admission practices of American graduate programs, including application materials, academic achievement, and non-cognitive variables. This article mainly focuses on the higher education graduate school admission system within the United States after World War I. The social conditions for holistic admissions, specifically those of graduate schools and programs, stem from elitist gatekeeping practices that minimize or reduce certain populations of prospective students. Holistic admissions practices contribute to the inequity of applicants admitted into U.S. graduate schools through their systemic and structural policies, furthering an elitist mindset. This topic is significant because it affects the decisions made by colleges and universities on submissions for admission, and can be impacted by levels of bias held by individual admissions officers or full departments.

Author(s)

orlando-a--mdAlyssa Orlando serves as the Associate Director of Graduate Admissions at Bentley University, where she oversees mid-cycle conversion efforts and strategic event planning. Originally from
Buffalo, N.Y., she has worked in graduate admissions and marketing since 2014. Orlando holds a B.A. in journalism from Ithaca College, an M.A. in higher education from Boston College, and is working on her Ph.D. in Educational Leadership from the
University of Massachusetts-Lowell. Her dissertation research focuses on the potential bias in holistic master’s program admissions.

References

Bastedo, M. N., N. A. Bowman, K. M. Glasener, and J. L. Kelly. 2018. What are we talking about when we talk about holistic review?: Selective college admissions and their effects on low-SES students. Journal of Higher Education. 89(5): 782–805.

Boske, C., and C. Elue. 2017. Are you qualified to be a member of this “elite group?”: A school preparation program examines the extent “diverse” candidates are admitted to graduate school. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership. 20(2): 145–162.

Boske, C., C. Elue, A. F. Osanloo, and W. S. Newcomb. 2018. Promoting inclusive holistic graduate admissions in educational leadership preparation programs. Conceptual Analysis. 2018(3): 1–13.

Carnevale, A. P., and S. J. Rose. 2004. Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and selective college admissions. In America’s untapped resource: Low-income students in higher education, edited by R. D. Kahlenberg. New York: Century Foundation Press.

Foley, L. S. 2010. From comparing plus factors to context review: The future of affirmative action in higher education. Journal of Law & Education. 39: 183.

Gibbs, P. 2002. From the invisible hand to the invisible handshake: Marketing higher education. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. 7(3): 325–338.

Hagedorn, L. S., and A. Nora. 1996. Rethinking admission criteria in graduate and professional programs. New Directions for Institutional Research. (92): 31–44.

Hedlund, J., J. M. Wilt, K. L. Nebel, S. J. Ashford, and R. J. Sternberg. 2006. Assessing practical intelligence in business school admissions: A supplement to the graduate management admissions test. Learning and Individual Differences. 16(2006): 101–127.

Hossler, D. 2015. Origins of strategic enrollment management. In Handbook of Strategic Enrollment Management, edited by D. Hossler and B. Bontrager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hossler, D., E. Chung, J. Kwon, J. Lucido, N. Bowman, and M. Bastedo. 2019. A study of the use of nonacademic factors in holistic undergraduate admissions reviews. The Journal of Higher Education. 90(6): 833–859.

Jeffreys, M.R. 2014. Student retention and success: Optimizing outcomes through holistic competence and proactive inclusive enrichment. Teaching and Learning in Nursing. 9(4): 164–170.

Karazsia, B. T., and C. M. McMurtry. 2011. Graduate admission in pediatric psychology: The importance of undergraduate training. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 37(2): 127–135.

Kent, J. D., and M. T. McCarthy. 2016. Holistic Review in Graduate Admissions: A Report from the Council of Graduate Schools. Washington, D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools.

Koerin, B., and J. Miller. 1995. Gatekeeping policies: Terminating students for nonacademic reasons. Journal of Social Work Education. 31(2): 247–260.

LePeau, L. A., S. S. Hurtado, and R. J. Davis. 2017. What institutional websites reveal about diversity-related partnerships between academic and student affairs. Innovation in Higher Education. 2018(43): 125–142.

Lumadue, C. A., and T. H. Duffey. 1999. The role of graduate programs as gatekeepers: A model for evaluating student counselor competence. Counselor Education & Supervision. 39(2): 101–110.

Megginson, L. 2009. Noncognitive constructs in graduate admissions: An integrative review of available instruments. Nurse Educator. 34(6): 254–261.

McCall, S. E. 2018. Thinking outside of the race boxes: A two-pronged approach to further diversity and decrease bias. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal. 2018: 23.

Morris, C. 2016. Holistic review for graduate school admissions under scrutiny. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. 33(3): 5–6.

Nohria, R., J. Adams, and G. E. Garrison. 2019. Inclusion of socioeconomic status as an additional criterion in holistic pharmacy school admission processes. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 83(7): 1584–1594.

Posselt, J. R. 2014. Toward inclusive excellence in graduate education: Constructing merit and diversity in PhD admissions. American Journal of Education. 120(4): 481–514.

Posselt, J. R. 2018. Trust networks: A new perspective on pedigree and the ambiguities of admissions. The Review of Higher Education. 41(4): 497–521.

Regents of University of California v. Bakke. 438 U.S. 265. Supreme Court of the United States. 1978.

Roberts, M. C., and A. Ostreko. 2018. GREs, public posting, and holistic admissions for diversity in professional psychology: Commentary on Callahan, et al. (2018). Training and Education in Professional Psychology. 12(4): 286–290.

Ruscio, J. 1998. Gatekeeping, compensation, and fallibility. American Psychologist. 53(5): 568–569.

Scherr, R. E., M. Plisch, K. E. Gray, G. Potvin, and T. Hodapp. 2017. Fixed and growth mindsets in physics graduate admissions. Physical Review Physics Education Research. 13: 1–12.

Sedlacek, W. E. 1996. Employing noncognitive variables in admitting students of color. New Directions for Student Services. 74: 79–91.

Sedlacek, W. E. 2004. Why we should use noncognitive variables with graduate and professional students. The Advisor: The Journal of the National Association of Advisors for the Health Professions. 24(2): 32–39.

Stratton, T. D., and C. L. Elam. 2014. A holistic review of the medical school admission process: Examining correlates of academic underperformance. Medical Education Online. 19(1): 1–7.

Swink, D. R. 2003. Back to Bakke: Affirmative action revisited in educational diversity. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal. 2003: 211.

Thornhill, T. 2019. We want Black students, just not you: How white admission counselors screen Black prospective students. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. 5(4): 456–470.

Warikoo, N. K. 2017. The Diversity Bargain: And Other Dilemmas of Race, Admissions, and Meritocracy at Elite Universities. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, M. A., M. A. Odem, T. Walters, A. L. DePass, and A. J. Bean. 2019. A model for holistic review that decouples the GRE from race, ethnicity, and gender. CBE—Life Sciences Education. (18): 1–12.

Zerwic, J. J., L. D. Scott, L. L. McCreary, and C. Corte. 2018. Programmatic evaluation of holistic admissions: The influence on students. Journal of Nursing Education. 57(7): 416–421.

Related Posts

See all Posts