Literature DB >> 15691821

Holistic versus actuarial student selection.

William C McGaghie1, Clarence D Kreiter.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 in the Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. and the Grutter v. Bollinger et al. cases that affirmative action selection policies aimed at student diversity in higher and professional education are acceptable on constitutional grounds. The court also ruled that "holistic," "individualized" selection procedures, not "mechanical" methods, must be used to achieve student diversity goals.
SUMMARY: This brief essay reviews and critiques professional and academic literature that addresses the two court cases and their likely sequelae. The weight of scientific evidence dating from at least 1954 shows that actuarial procedures are superior to holistic, individualized procedures to fulfill a priori student selection policy goals fairly and consistently.
CONCLUSIONS: The higher and professional education community, including medicine, should support the Supreme Court's student diversity policy but should insist the court change its reliance on holistic, individualized decision making.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15691821     DOI: 10.1207/s15328015tlm1701_16

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Teach Learn Med        ISSN: 1040-1334            Impact factor:   2.414


  2 in total

1.  A measurement perspective on affirmative action in U.S. medical education.

Authors:  Clarence D Kreiter
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2013-04-10

Review 2.  A meta-analytic perspective on the valid use of subjective human judgement to make medical school admission decisions.

Authors:  Clare Kreiter; Marie O'Shea; Catherine Bruen; Paul Murphy; Teresa Pawlikowska
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2018-12
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.