A new approach to admissions decision making in schools of social work was developed by using decision tables. Existing admission policies were explicated and specific admissions requirements were developed for five types of applicants. The initial goal of reducing faculty time spent on reviewing applications was achieved and an important by-product is greater consistency in the decisions. Explicitness of the decision elements clarifies policy and facilitates analysis and research. Decision tables are amenable to manual or computer applications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Dailey, Dennis M., 1974: "The Validity of Admissions Predictions: Implications for Social Work Education," Journal of Education for Social Work, VoL 10, No. 2: 12-19.
2.
Dawes, Robyn, 1971: "A Case Study of Graduate Admissions: Application of Three Principles of Human, Decision-Making," American Psychologist , Vol. 26, No. 2: 180-188.
3.
Educational Testing Service1965: " Research on Admissions to Graduate Schools of Social Work," Admission to Graduate Schools of Social Work: Practices, Problems, and Prospects, Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service:33-67.
4.
Hepworth, Dean H., 1972: "The Use of Reference Letters and Certain Other Criteria in Student Selection," Social Work Education Reporter , Vol. 20, No. 2: 47-51.
Meyer, S. Ruth and Luse, F. Dean, 1978: "Report of Exploratory Survey on Use of Computers in Social Work Admissions," Jane Addams College of Social Work, mimeo.
7.
Montenegro, Marilyn, 1974: "Alternative Admission Criteria to Schools of Social Work: the Relevance of Grade Point Average," paper presented at the Council on Social Work Education, Annual Programme Meeting, MarchAtlanta, Ga.
8.
Pouts, Jane and Henley, H. Carl, Jr., 1977: "Admissions Roulette: Predictive Factors for Success in Practice," Journal of Education for Social Work, Vol. 13, No. 3: 56-62
9.
Pollack, Solomon L., Hicks, Harry T., Jr. and Harrison, William J., 1971: Decision Tables: Theory and Practice, New York: Wiley-Interscience .
10.
Sarbin, T., Taft, R. and Bailey, D., 1960: Clinical Inference and Cognitive Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
11.
Schmidt, D.T. and Kavanagh, T.F., 1970: "The Use of Decision Tables", Herman McDaniel, ed Applications of Decision Tables. Princeton: Brandon/Systems Press:1-19.
12.
Schwartz, S.L., Vertinsky, I., Ziemba, W.T. and Bernstein, M., 1976: "Some Behavioural Aspects of Information Use in Decision Making: A Study of Clinical Judgments," in Multiple Criteria Decision Making , H. Thiriez and S Zionts, eds. Proceedings of a Conference, Jouy-en-Josas, France, May 21-23, 1975, Berlin: Springer-Verlag: 378-389.
13.
Schutz,Margaret L. and Gordon, William E. , 1977: "Reallocating Educational Responsibility," Journal of Education for Social Work, Vol. 13, No. 2: 99-106.
14.
Wiggins, Jerry S., 1973: Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assessment, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley .
15.
Williams, J.H., Pengov, R.E., Sachs, L., Meleca, C.B. and Camiscioni, J.S.1977: "A Computer-Assisted Admissions Process," Journal of Medical Education, Vol. 52, No. 5: 384-389.
