Abstract
This case outlines a dilemma encountered by faculty in a K-12 educational administration graduate program on the east coast. The case offers a detailed illustration of tensions arising when faculty discuss their graduate admissions process, their role as gatekeepers, understandings of merit, and the need for student diversity. Disrupting institutional systems of domination and faculty reliance on admissions criteria undermine programmatic diversity goals, including the meanings faculty associate with common admissions criteria. Implications include an authentic, holistic, and intentional examination of graduate admissions criteria.
Case Narrative
Lillian (Associate Professor and Committee Chair): Let’s review the doctoral candidate’s qualifications again. Although we supported her candidacy last year, she received a denial letter from administration. In response to her denial letter, the candidate met with administration in the college and university leaders. She shared documentation regarding a short period of time in which her GPA was in question due to a chronic illness. Administrators supported the candidate taking six doctoral courses to demonstrate her capacity to meet the demands of this doctoral program. After completing six courses, including five courses within this department and a research course, the candidate earned five As and one B. She took the GRE exam again, and her scores improved. She reapplied to this department. Let’s discuss her application. The candidate has an extensive background working with Children of Color, specifically young Black males in a youth leadership group; started her own nonprofit organization to empower students from marginalized populations; and was invited to present at regional conferences regarding her work to address injustices in schools and within their communities. She proposed and implemented a student-led school organization for over 15 years; continues to provide mentorship to Students of Color, specifically young Black females and males; and utilizes her position to promote culturally responsive curriculum in her school community.
Margaret (Assistant Professor): But is that actually enough to call her a leader? [long pause] I mean, she isn’t a principal and her GRE scores are still low. I think we have to be more selective in our criteria. I mean, all students have a chance to retake the GRE and do better. We want to maintain the integrity of our program.
Lillian (Committee Chair): We accepted this candidate a year ago. She completed six doctoral courses. The candidate did very well in the courses and improved her GRE scores. I am not sure I understand why we are changing requirements for this candidate at this time. How do you understand what it means to be a leader?
Margaret (Assistant Professor): She is not a principal. [a deep breath and long exasperated sigh] She should keep doing the work she is already doing, which is teaching. Why does she think our program would be a good fit for her? Why does she need a doctorate? What’s she going to do with a doctorate anyway? We need to question her intentions to determine if she will really be a good fit for our program.
Robert (Assistant Professor): What does she say she wants to accomplish with this degree? I am not sure it’s necessary for her to earn a doctorate. I think she can do just fine with a master’s degree.
Shameka (Assistant Professor): This candidate has extensive experience in the field of education, especially working with marginalized populations, and in this case, specifically young men and Women of Color. If we are looking at this candidate holistically, as noted in our policy, how is one area, meaning the GRE score, going to prohibit this student from entering our program?
Margaret (Assistant Professor): I need to be convinced she has what it takes to be successful here. I keep going back to her GRE scores—I just don’t think she has what it takes to do well here. How will she make it through our program? Did you look at her writing scores and her experiences?
Lillian (Committee Chair): I am not sure what that means. She applied for two scholarships, one of which we offer, and we all agreed she qualified for the scholarship due to her outstanding work in the field. This candidate’s letters of recommendation for this scholarship suggested they believed in her work and commitment to addressing injustices in school. The second scholarship was offered to her, because she identifies as a Person of Color and a mentor in her community. She will have earned two merit scholarships if she is accepted into this program. This candidate’s experiences seem aligned with our vision, mission, and commitment to diversity. She had a phenomenal interview, presented a portfolio including writing samples as well as documents supporting her efforts to disrupt injustices often faced by children who live on the margins in U.S. schools, and earned a 3.8/4.0 for her GPA with our four courses.
Shameka (Assistant Professor): I think we should support this candidate. If we are looking at this candidate holistically and following our admissions policy, we know from earlier discussions regarding research on the correlation between GRE scores and how Students of Color perform in graduate school is not significant. This candidate brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table. I think we need to accept her.
The Racial Composition of Full-Time Faculty and Students at Wrighting University.
Robert (Assistant Professor): I am not sure what to think right now. I will need to think about this one. Experience in urban schools is important and maybe we should think about what this candidate can bring to the program, but I am concerned if she has what it takes to be here.
Margaret (Assistant Professor): I just don’t think I can support her. Again, I think we are compromising the integrity of our program. We need to maintain our standards of excellence. I just don’t think she will be a good fit here. I have over 30 years of experience in the field and I know what it takes to be successful. I just don’t think she has what it takes.
This dialogue illustrates the extent professors play the role of gatekeepers throughout the graduate student evaluative processes. These processes are often unknown to outsiders and, sometimes, taken for granted by professors within the graduate admissions process. This dialogue demonstrates the lack of transparency within Wrighting University as faculty in an educational administration graduate program consider the possible doctoral candidacy of a Black female who grew up in an impoverished neighborhood, identified as a first-generation college student, and shared over 20 years of K-12 school experience; furthermore, the conversation illustrates how faculty make meaning from a holistic candidate graduate admissions review policy and process, and how their sense making informed their decision making.
Wrighting University is located in an eastern state in the United States. The university serves predominantly White, upper/middle class, Christian, English speaking, heterosexual, U.S. citizens, who do not receive services/resources afforded by the American Disabilities Act. More than 40,000 students attend Wrighting University with over 80% of students receiving some form of financial aid. The racial composition of the student body and all full-time faculty is illustrated below in Table 1.
Wrighting University has a long history of tensions regarding diversity. Tensions ranged from student activism in opposition to U.S. wars to opposing prominent civil rights issues to dismissing racial tension and growing disparities among Students of Color and their White counterparts to ignoring hate crimes and discriminatory practices against lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/queer (LGBTQ) populations. In recent years, Wrighting University experienced a number of public protests due to discriminatory acts against Black students, including hate speech and hate crimes, as well as acts against students who identify as LGBTQ. Recently, the university narrowly defined “diversity” as either students identifying as “Black or Latino/a.” Faculty and students raised concerns regarding how diversity was narrowly defined by the institution. And despite the university’s strategic plan to increase the number of “diverse” students, for those involved in recruiting “diverse” candidates, faculty in this educational administration program continue to encounter a disconnect among the university’s strategic plan, college’s plan to increase the number of diverse candidates, a “holistic” graduate admissions policy, and the number of “diverse” candidates admitted into their educational administration program.
The educational leadership faculty consisted of Lillian Johnson, a White female associate professor with over 25 years of experience in K-12 urban schools and chair of the educational leadership department at Wrighting University; Shameka Jones, a Black female assistant professor with 5 years in K-12 rural schools and research regarding the lived experiences of Students of Color in impoverished rural communities; Robert Smith, a White male assistant professor with 35 years of experience in suburban K-12 schools; and Margaret Wallace, a White female assistant professor with 30 years of K-12 experience in suburban districts. Within this graduate program, 98% of students accepted identified as White; lived in predominantly White, English speaking, middle class neighborhoods; and worked in predominantly White suburban middle/upper class school districts. Within one semester, although faculty supported the admission of two doctoral candidates who identified as Black, the administration denied both candidates’ admission to the educational administration program due to low GRE scores. However, faculty were aware of White students admitted into the program whose GRE scores did not meet the university’s minimum GRE requirements.
Lillian attempted to further discuss the university’s graduate admissions requirements during the next educational administration program meeting focusing on the latest applicant who was denied admission:
Lillian: According to our doctoral degree admission requirements, candidates need a 3.5 or higher in addition to transcripts, letters of reference, resume, a goal statement, GRE scores, and an interview with us. As a program, we inform applicants we “holistically evaluate” them and consider their GPA, GRE scores, work experience, prior leadership, professionalism and ethics, interpersonal skills, and performance during the interview. We also tell applicants they may submit materials in addition to those required if they feel these materials will more accurately reflect their potential to succeed within the program (e.g., Master’s theses, publications). This candidate meets our program’s requirements.
Shameka: I agree. She has done everything asked of her. We already accepted her as a department and our admission officers denied her access to our program even after we as a program agreed to support the student while they matriculate through the program. There appears to be some incongruence between how we choose to admit a student into our program based on them being a holistically qualified candidate and our college leaders choosing to override our decision because of the GRE score. If she has done everything asked of her, why are we denying her access now? Over a GRE score?
Robert (Assistant Professor): I am interested in knowing what we have done in the past if someone had low GRE scores. Do we accept candidates if they excel in one area, but not in another? What does the policy tell us?
Lillian (Chair): As a team, we discussed research regarding the GRE and its validity in predicting the success of our candidates. Over the last 10 years, we afforded students with opportunities to be a part of this program despite their GRE scores not meeting minimum requirements noted on the website. We followed the “holistic” admissions policy by focusing on the whole student and provided our candidates with a supportive learning environment.
Margaret (Assistant Professor): I think the GRE score is valid. We need to expect more from our candidates. The score is a critical indicator on whether or not he will be successful here. We can’t ignore it.
Robert (Assistant Professor): I am not sure the score is critical as much as following the policy. It sounds like there is a lot of wiggle room and we have to think about what a holistic admissions policy means.
Shameka (Assistant Professor): Our admissions policy emphasizes the word “holistic,” which suggests we align our admissions to what we marketed on our website.
Lillian (Chair): There are studies regarding concerns for weighing the GRE as a single indicator for student success. Findings suggest GRE scores may play a small role in identifying a student’s ability to be successful in graduate school. The Fair Test organization just released an article in April 2015 identifying universities and colleges choosing not to use the SAT/ACT for undergraduate programs for this reason. There was also a GRE report from 2002 in which the GRE Board Research Report noted the following: “For many interviewees, successful graduate students are those who graduate. High grades, graduating in a reasonable amount of time, and finding a job in the field of study after graduation are all measures of the successful graduate student. Students who are motivated, driven, do creative research, and have ‘heart’ are also considered successful. Many interviewees from master’s institutions noted they are pleased if students work in their chosen fields after graduation . . . and contributions to the knowledge base of the field.”
Shameka: Why would we place so much weight on one indicator if our policy suggests we look at candidates holistically? What else do we know about the GRE?
Lillian: There are also studies examining GRE scores by discipline to get an even more fine-grained analysis. Among regularly admitted students, there was not a significant difference in GRE scores between those who succeeded and those who did not. In many of the disciplines studied such as Applied Sciences, Education, and the Humanities, Life sciences, and Social Sciences . . . and those who scored better in the GRE were more likely to fail than those who scored worse. This was supported by Nelson and Nelson in 1995.
Margaret: I took the GRE and I did great. Some people just weren’t meant for graduate school. I worked hard for my doctorate. I think this candidate needs to work harder and bring up her GRE score.
Lillian: As faculty, especially in considering the influence of larger oppressive systems influencing which schoolchildren can attend, what education they will receive, and access to educational opportunities, I hope we can engage in the same conversations we have with graduate students throughout their course work to deepen our understanding of the power of gatekeepers and apartheid education.
Shameka: I agree. We have a vision, mission, and diversity policy for our program we created together. We tell candidates we are committed to promoting social justice and equity, and yet, we aren’t going to consider the implications of these practices when reviewing candidate files?
Lillian: Maybe we should discuss issues of equity and the GRE. There seem to be disparities between groups of students. Although Students of Color may earn higher grades as graduate students, Black, Latino/a, and American Indian students often score lower than White and Asian students and females tend to score lower than male students. If test scores play a major role in deciding whether or not a student will be successful, it is important to consider gaps between Students of Color and members of the cultural majority (i.e., Whites) as well as males and females. The Journal of Negro Education revealed Black graduate students with lower GRE scores in comparison with their White counterparts with higher test scores attained higher GPAs throughout their graduate studies (Scott & Shaw, 1985). Researchers compared Black and White students with low GRE scores at the University of Florida. They discovered that Black students with low GRE scores actually earned higher GPAs than their White counterparts. They concluded the GRE was insensitive to translating Black students’ talents, knowledge, and skills into performance.
Margaret: I don’t believe it. That is just one institution. We can’t go on just one institution’s findings. These candidates just need to work harder. I did. Not everyone can be a member of this elite group and get their doctorate.
Robert: I agree. Not everyone is cut out for doctoral work.
Lillian: I feel we are perpetuating deficit-laden beliefs and attitudes when we come from positions of power and privilege suggesting “some people just need to work harder.” It is important for us to know disparities in GRE scores also seem to suggest differences regarding socio-economic status. There seems to be a strong relationship between family background and GRE scores. This seems to align with the student’s childhood family educational attainment.
Shameka: And if a candidate had the courage to share these experiences with us, why would we possibly dismiss them?
Lillian: There are well-documented concerns with the GRE. [She shared links with the team.] We can look at a list of supported literature focusing on the GRE and its predicative validity for graduate student success (UC Berkeley Graduate Diversity Program, 2014), ranging from “if it is to be used at all in graduate school admission decisions” to “it should only be used as part of all things considered.” The Educational Testing Service advises against using the scores as a focus for admissions to graduate school. Instead, they note, “Regardless of the decision to be made, multiple sources of information should be used to ensure fairness and balance the limitations of any single measure of knowledge, skills, or abilities. These sources may include undergraduate grade point average, letters of recommendation, personal statement, samples of academic work, and professional experience related to proposed graduate study.” They also encourage departments to conduct their own validity studies on the use of the GRE in light of the variation observed in results.
Shameka: These studies suggest the GRE should not be considered a significant measure of likely graduate school success. A growing number of universities do not require the test for admission. Some studies suggest undergraduate GPA is a better predictor of graduate achievement than GRE scores. Given the wide disagreement in studies of GRE predictive validity, the best advice emerging from the literature is that if the GRE is used, it should only be used as one measure among many. Remember we know from the Educational Testing Service (2016) Guide that studies often compare students’ GRE scores and their success in graduate programs, but because the exam is often used to make admissions decisions as a primary criteria, lack of information about applicants who are not admitted in these studies means we cannot tell if the GRE is used to deny candidates admission and if they would have been successful. So, because of this weakness, the Education Testing Service, the entity providing the GRE, clearly states that a GRE cutoff score should never be used for denial of admission (see http://www.ets.org/gre/institutions/scores/guidelines/).
Margaret: I am entitled to believe what I believe. I am not supporting this candidate. I don’t believe she has what it takes to make it here. I vote no.
Lillian: I am concerned with the statements made. We are supporting claims made with research as well as aligning our claims with our “holistic” admissions policy. Please help us understand what supports your claims being made?
Margaret: I just did. I told the three of you I worked hard for my PhD and not everyone can have one.
During future educational administration program meetings, Lillian and Shameka shared multiple deficit-laden comments made by some administrators (e.g., deans, directors, coordinators, and chairs) and faculty throughout the university. Insights from administration regarding enrolling more “diverse” candidates ranged from stressing the need to recruit international students, because they “can pay the full out-of-state tuition” and “although they usually have low GRE scores, it doesn’t matter, because we just expect that from them,” to apprehensive comments regarding in-state candidates from culturally diverse communities. Such comments suggested we could not recruit “these” students to our program, because “we don’t even know how we can find ‘those’ kind of students” to suggesting “those” students “are not the kind that want to go here.” And yet other comments from administrators emphasized the need to uphold the current admissions criteria, because “we are not lowering our standards to get ‘those’ students here.” One administrator added during a meeting, “We can’t just go around accepting everybody for this program.” And others encouraged our program to,
Talk with candidates interested in the program and prepare them to take special courses to prepare them to be successful for the GRE if they want to get into this program . . . just tell them to take it over and over again until they get it right.
In regard to faculty comments and GRE requirements, some faculty suggested they were “growing tired” and frustrated with “constantly discussing” issues of diversity. Others expressed their concern of “lowering their admission standards” due to the university’s goal to “increase student enrollment and student success,” especially for “diverse students.” When faculty engaged in conversation about the university and department’s efforts to recruit “diverse candidates” to the campus, several faculty wondered where they may find “these diverse candidates.” Faculty insights ranged from finding “these” candidates within urban areas to wondering if “these” candidates “have what it takes to be here?” to “it’s really quite simple to understand, because these students either have what it takes or they don’t.”
When Lillian and Shameka shared these insights with other upper level administrators and faculty outside the college of education, they heard validating remarks, including “This has been an issue facing this university for years and needs to be addressed,” “we have heard this for so many years, but most people sweep this under the rug,” and “we have not been successful in helping departments reconsider their admission practices.” However, college-level administrator responses did not align with upper management. Some of their responses ranged from “I don’t know what you want me to tell you” to “You better not be opening up a can of worms” to “Maybe you should talk about something less controversial” to “What does this have to do with preparing school leaders?” In response to the feedback Shameka received from college-level administrators, she requested a venue for faculty to engage in critical dialogue regarding the holistic admissions process. College-level administrators informed Shameka they were not aware of an admissions committee or recent forum in which graduate admissions was discussed. In response to Shameka’s request, upper level administrators scheduled a meeting for faculty to discuss GRE requirements and their understanding of its role throughout the admissions process. Shameka and Robert attended the meeting. Shameka shared the same research discussed at her department level regarding GRE scores, holistic admission processes across the country, research supporting the elimination of the GRE as a single criteria for graduate admissions, as well as the college’s graduate enrollment data. Shameka stressed,
In the last 15 years, 99% of our candidates accepted identified as White. And in 15 years, two Students of Color were accepted and with one of the two dropping out within the first year of course work and the second completing coursework, but not comprehensive exams.
Upper level administrators interrupted Shameka’s presentation and publicly informed her she was “misinformed.” They discredited data she presented by stating she “had the facts all wrong.” Lillian and Robert, as well as other faculty members, who could not attend the holistic admissions criteria meeting, provided faculty with additional resources to consider in deepening their understanding of what a holistic admissions process may entail. Several faculty noted the need for the college, as well as the university, to reconsider utilizing low GRE scores as a single criteria for not admitting candidates into graduate programs. Over the next year, upper level administrators did not respond further to requests made by faculty to continue the dialogue nor did they respond to faculty members’ emails providing hyperlinks to articles and websites suggesting the need for further dialogue.
These responses highlight an extremely problematic exchange that took place as faculty members attempted to engage in critical discussions to address discriminatory and exclusionary admission practices embedded restricting access to graduate school for certain groups of students. Upper level administrators privately informed Shameka “their hands were tied” and how often “these kind of sensitive issues were swept under the rug.” These discriminatory practices perpetuated issues of inequity and exclusion, and did not afford faculty with spaces to critically think about the graduate admissions process, or the potential impact such practices may have on graduate admissions for years to come.
This case reflects an undeniable culture and role of professors and administrators as gatekeepers. The lack of transparency regarding prior graduate admission decisions within the educational administration program does not address the influence of structural racism. These discriminatory practices were not aligned with Wrighting University’s “holistic” graduate admissions policy. For many upper level administrators and faculty, the graduate admissions forum did not seem to acknowledge the extent current practices discriminated against Students of Color. Nor did they acknowledge the absence of conscious, overt, or interpersonal acts of racial discrimination. For many faculty and administrators, there seemed to be a lack of awareness and understanding regarding the extent racism may be embedded within the organizational structure and routine operations and, in this case, the college’s graduate admission policy.
Teaching Notes
This case encourages those involved in graduate admission to reflect on possible occurrences of racial discrimination on their campuses. For those involved in graduate admissions, faculty and administrators may consider engaging in courageous conversations as well as promoting culturally responsive curriculum modules throughout courses. This important work urges faculty and administrators to consider a higher level of coordination and care regarding steps to fully support equal opportunity, especially for candidates from marginalized populations, and in this case, Students of Color. To address possible inequities aligned with graduate admissions, faculty may need to be involved in taking steps to end racial inequities that have the potential to influence a myriad of student outcomes (i.e., acceptance, attrition, and graduation rates). By inviting faculty to the table to discuss institutional efforts to move toward increasing cultural diversity and inclusiveness, steps may be taken to significantly contribute to righting past wrongs. However, for institutional efforts to take hold, there is for faculty and administrators to shift from a cultural diversity focus in admissions to an equity focus (see Orfield, Bachmeier, James, & Eitle, 1997; Wells, 2014).
This case suggests racism is a contributing factor to perpetuating unequal educational participation for Graduate Students of Color; and unfortunately, as in this case, avoided conversations within a school leadership graduate program. Because racism was so embedded within Wrighting University’s day-to-day interactions, policies, and practices, deficit-laden assumptions became ingrained within their political, legal, and educational structures, and for many faculty and administrators, they were, at times, unrecognizable (Taylor, 2009). Their contemporary admission policies and practices often reflected significant differentials regarding opportunities, educational access, and other outcomes that existed between Students of Color and their White counterparts (Chesler & Crowfoot, 1989). There was a need to conduct intentional, honest, unapologetic conversations about racial disparities, especially within their departments and throughout Wrighting University.
For those interested in addressing racism as a means of addressing unequal educational access, faculty and administrators may consider engaging critical and courageous conversations. These conversations include four agreements (Singleton & Linton, 2006):
Stay engaged by “remaining morally, emotionally, intellectually, and socially involved in the dialogue” (p. 59).
Those engaged in this process must understand there is a strong chance they will experience discomfort. And when discussing issues of race, discomfort is critical, because discomfort, especially when discussing difficult issues, is inevitable. However, those engaged in the dialogue must make a commitment to bringing these issues to the forefront. A dialogue about race does not create divisiveness, because divisiveness already exists within the educational system, community, and society. However, it is through this critical dialogue, even when people are uncomfortable, healing and change may begin.
Being open and honest throughout the dialogue is critical to the process. Individuals should share their thoughts, not what they think their peers or administrators may want to hear.
When engaging in critical and courageous conversations, those who share their thoughts and feelings should expect and accept nonclosure. There will be a level of uncertainty, because “quick solutions” to racial understanding encourages an ongoing dialogue (pp. 58-65).
Facilitators of courageous conversations may emphasize what organizational members know about issues of race, the impact of these issues on students, and the extent their work with students may eliminate unequal educational participation. Below are examples of possible questions to pose to those interested in this work:
What should we know about the racial achievement gap?
What should we be able to do with our understanding of the racial achievement gap?
When do we know our efforts are successful when addressing ways to narrow or eliminate the racial achievement gap?
If along the way, faculty discover they do not know how to eliminate the racial achievement gap, what should they do?
Faculty and administrators may not acknowledge the extent educational practices and policies promote discrimination, because they may not realize the extent racism is embedded within larger social organizational structures, such as universities (Haney-Lopez, 2010). This case calls for those involved in graduate admissions to pay closer attention to the ways in which departments operate to pass on and reinforce historic patterns of privilege and disadvantage by deciding who will and who will not gain access to higher education (see Chesler & Crowfoot, 1989).
Using Curriculum Modules
For those interested in dismantling inequitable admissions practices and encouraging more equitable approaches to graduate admissions, another means of addressing these concerns suggests the need to assess faculty’s and administrators’ racial awareness. With the support of the U.S. Department of Education FIPSE grant, the University Council for Educational Administration collaborated with faculty nationwide to create modules intended to prepare school leaders to support diverse groups of learners (Reedy, 2016). The curriculum modules offer critical content knowledge and learning experiences, and encourage courageous conversations regarding ways to support students. One of the modules salient to this case focuses on building a community of trust through racial awareness.
Module 5 recognizes discussions of race as playing a significant role in preparing educators and leaders to engage in this important work. The lessons offer a pre-assessment of one’s understanding of their racial awareness, powerful learning experiences with detailed activities, and a post assessment of one’s understanding and knowledge after the completion of the exercise. The module is designed to lead participants toward an expansive understanding of race, expand upon the need for building partnerships, advocate for others, and promote inclusiveness and culturally responsive practices leading to equitable practices. The full activity and the modules can be accessed at: http://ucealee.squarespace.com/building-a-community-of-trust/. Although this module is catered toward preparing school leaders, the activities are transferable for faculty and administrators to engage in critical dialogue regarding their racial awareness and the extent their awareness may influence decisions admissions policy decisions. These modules afford participants with opportunities to fully understand the influence of cultural bias and the extent this bias may play providing educational access for Students of Color.
The Use of the Equity Scorecard
Another means of deepening awareness among faculty and administrators regarding their practices and graduate admissions is rooted in addressing both culture and history, including the perpetuation of racial inequities (see Bartolomé, 2008; Harper, 2012; Harper & Hurtado, 2011). Despite progress to improve access for racial groups, gaps between Students of Color and their White counterparts still exist (Perna & Finney, 2014). This case addresses equity for Students of Color as a lack of power, limited educational/economic/political assets versus the numerical underrepresentations in society or educational institutions (see Gillborn, 2005).
Although some postsecondary faculty and administrators may practice professional accountability with an explicit recognition of racism as a root cause of inequalities in U.S. schooling, this case emphasizes the need for language to communicate the extent their knowledge is often dismissed, disallowed, or considered too politically volatile. There is a need to provide spaces for faculty and administrators to engage in an open dialogue about race and racism, especially when considering the significance of educational access.
The use of the Equity Scorecard may be a critical resource in address educational access. This tool may be utilized to hold institutional leaders accountable and engage in open dialogue regarding issues of equity. The Equity Scorecard is “a tool and an established process to develop evidence-based awareness of race-based inequities among practitioners and to instill a sense of responsibility for addressing these gaps” (Harris & Bensimon, 2007, p. 79). The outcomes from using the scorecard can hold administrators, faculty, and campus leaders responsible for institutional outcomes concerning racial equity. Faculty and administrators can begin constructing their own Equity Scorecard by creating a team to review pertinent data, uncovering potential areas of inequity, formulating questions about the data, and reviewing subsequent data (Harris & Bensimon, 2007). Together they can collectively work together to agree on indicators that should be included in the creation of their Equity Scorecard and implement these indicators in their future admissions practices.
Facilitating Critical Dialogue on Race
A final means of addressing issues of race, equity, and access to higher education involves identifying faculty and administrators as gatekeepers. This identification provides these decision makers with opportunities to consider the importance of critical dialogues on race to promote equitable admissions policies and practices, especially for Students of Color. In addressing admission policies and practices, those involved in this dialogue have the capacity to introduce a theory of change as a tool to facilitate and evolve their understanding of the influence of structural racism on Students of Color and access to education (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). This premise suggests faculty and administrators engage in “practitioner power inquiry” as a means of critical action research protocols as a driver for organizational change (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015, p. 23). An important component of this inquiry process suggests faculty and administrators be mindful of connections among personal beliefs, behaviors, and organizational routines that influence students’ educational trajectories.
In effort to engage in practitioner power inquiry, the following questions may be used during faculty and administrative retreats, department/college meetings, or small groups across disciplines to engage in dialogue regarding ways to support more equitable admissions practices, especially for Students of Color.
Discussion Questions for Faculty and Administrators in Graduate Programs
How do we understand what is meant by equity?
To what extent do we negotiate throughout our decision making what is meant by justice and equity?
To what extent do faculty and administrators understand the graduate admissions process? To what extent do faculty and administrators address racial equity issues throughout the admissions process? Why or why not?
To what extent do standards of justice guide the graduate admissions process? Why or why not?
How does your school leadership program define cultural diversity?
To what extent do admissions practices align with the university’s strategic plan?
To what extent do administrators engage in questioning, deconstructing, and reconstructing practices and policies aligned with admissions to address racialized equity issues within their own educational practices?
When analyzing graduate candidate demographics, to what extent are marginalized groups admitted into the program based on race? Ethnicity? Social class? First generation college students? Geographic location? Immigration status? Native language? Geographic location? Experience in urban, suburban, and rural communities? Learning differences? Sexual orientation? Religion/beliefs/faith?
To what extent might faculty and administrators consider ways to align admissions policies and practices to support candidates from historical marginalized groups?
To what extent do faculty and administrators discuss principles of basic liberties and an individual’s fundamental right to self-respect, fairness, and educational access?
To what extent are graduate admissions data collected, analyzed, and discussed among faculty, advisory boards, and administrators? Why or why not? To what extent do these findings influence graduate admissions processes? Why or why not?
Sense Making and Decision Making
Below is a list of recommended articles and creative ways to enhance class discussions regarding the role GRE scores play in perpetuating structural racism and its influence on educational access in promoting holistic admissions policies, especially for Students of Color.
Suggested Reading List
Bornheimer, D. G. (1984). Predicting success in graduate school using GRE and PAEG aptitude test scores. College and University, 60(1), 54-62.
Educational Testing Service. (1998). GRE guide to the use of scores, 1998-1999. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Enright, M. K. & Gitorner, D. (1989). Toward a description of successful graduate students. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Hartnett, R. & Payton, B. F. (1977). Minority admissions and performance in graduate study: Preliminary study of fellowship programs of the Ford and Danforth foundations. New York, NY: Ford Foundation.
Milner, M., McNeil, J. & King, S. W. (1984). The GRE: A question of validity in predicting performance in professional schools of social work. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 945-950.
Morrison, T. & Morrison, M. (1995). A meta-analytic assessment of the predictive validity of the quantitative and verbal components of the Graduate Record Examination with graduate grade point averages representing the criterion of graduate success. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 309-316.
Oltman, P. K. & Harnett, R. T. (1984). The role of the GRE general and subject test scores in graduate program admission. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Sternberg, R. & Williams, W. (1997). Does the Graduate Record Examination predict meaningful success in the graduate training of psychologists? American Psychologist, 52, 630-641.
Jigsaw activity
Discussion questions from this jigsaw activity were derived from the suggested readings noted above. First, the instructor will divide participants into small groups and ask each group to read one of the articles noted above. Provide each group with a list of questions and ask each group to share their responses and teach the remaining participants about the significance of their article. Below is a list of questions that may be used for each article noted above:
How do you think the author(s) understand(s) graduate program selectivity?
How do you think the author(s) understand(s) holistic graduate admissions policies?
How do you think the author(s) understand(s) the GRE or admission test requirements for graduate program selection?
What role do you think the author(s) believe(s) Graduate Record Examinations play in the admission process?
What are the possible barriers to graduate admissions presented by your author(s)?
What questions does your article raise when considering the role of the GRE in graduate admissions?
To what extent is your article aligned with your graduate admissions process? Why or why not?
Round robin activity
Divide participants into small groups and ask to post the following questions on the wall in different sections of the room. Each small group will begin at one of the question stations. They will read the questions at their station. Small group participants will be provided 5 to 10 min to respond in writing to the questions provided at their station. After 5 to 10 min, the instructor will ask the students to move clockwise or counter clockwise to the next station. Participants will respond to the next set of questions for 5 to 10 min. They will document their responses at the station. The instructor will notify each small group when their time is up. The instructor will ask each group to move again either clockwise or counter clockwise to the next station until every small group visited each station and responded to all of the questions.
Station 1
How do we understand the “best” predictors of student success in graduate school?
What are the “best” predictors for being a “successful” school leader?
Station 2
What do we understand what the GRE measures?
How do we understand the influence of GRE scores within the graduate admissions process?
Station 3
What does it mean to be a “successful” graduate applicant? How do we understand graduate admissions “criteria”?
What does it mean to be a “successful” student in our program?
What does it mean to be a “successful” graduate from our program?
Station 4
How do we understand the demographics within our pool of graduate student applicants?
What do we know about the demographics of “accepted” graduate applicants?
What do we know about the demographics of “graduates” of our program?
How do the demographics in our school leadership program compare with those across the country?
To what extent do the demographics of students served in K-12 schools within our community reflect the demographics of graduate students admitted into our program? Why or why not?
After all of the small groups had an opportunity to respond to the questions at each station, each group will take turns summarizing common themes throughout the responses. These common themes will be shared with the large group. The instructor can refer to the articles to support claims made by participants, to guide large group discussions, and to provide participants with additional resources for further exploration.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.