Recent trends in American higher education point to imminent change in the way students are reviewed for admission. The resurgence of class-based admissions in the Hopwood case and the upheaval over Proposition 209 in California have marked certain college admission criteria for possible extinction. As a result, university officials are searching for alternative admission models to protect their institutions from circumstances of legality and conflict. The authors of this article have determined an alternative admission model that may afford the desired protection from controversy, yet maintain the same degree of variability in predicting the future academic success of college students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ACT/SAT Optional Colleges List Soars to 280. (1997, Summer). The Examiner. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Fair & Open Testing.
American College Testing Program (1992). The ACT assessment user handbook 1992–1993. Iowa City, IA: ACT Publications.
4.
American College Testing Program (1997). ACT Assessment 1997 Results: Summary Report. Iowa City, IA: ACT Publications.
5.
Ayers v. Fordice, 95–60431 (5th Cir. 1997).
6.
ClagettC. A. & KerrH. S. (1994, July). Take charge of your enrollment: Improving enrollment management through policy analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for College and University Planning, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374 875).
7.
College Board (1991). Taking the SAT 1991–1992. New York: College Board Publications.
8.
College Board (1997). 1997 Profile of College-Bound Seniors. New York: College Board Publications.
9.
El KhawasE. (1994). Restructuring initiatives in public higher education: Institutional response to financial constraints. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 377 753).
10.
HealyP. (1998a, April 3). Admissions law changes the equations for students and colleges in Texas for some minority applicants, the question is no longer ‘can I get in?’ But ‘Can I succeed?,’The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44, A49.
11.
HealyP. (1998b, May 29). Berkeley struggles to stay diverse in post-affirmative-action era. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44, A31.
12.
Illinois State Board of Higher Education (1992). Undergraduate education: Access and preparation. (ILSBHE Publication No. HE 025 938). Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Higher Education.
13.
Illinois State Board of Higher Education (1994). Undergraduate education: Access and preparation reexamined. (ILSBHE Publication No. HE 027 177). Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Higher Education.
14.
MeranteJ. A. (1983). Predicting student success in college: What does the research say?NASSP Bulletin, 67(460), 41–46.
15.
National Center for Fair & Open Testing (1992). K-12 testing fact sheet. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Fair & Open Testing (Fair Test). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352 376).
16.
PodhajskyM. (1997). Rank-in-class: Current advantages and future challenges. The Journal of College Admission, (157), 20–27.
17.
SelingoK. (1997, October 3). Task force suggests that University of California drop SAT as admissions requirement. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44, A37.
18.
Southern Regional Educational Board (1963). Research related to college admission. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Educational Board.
19.
State Higher Education Executive Officers (1991). Higher education and school reform: Creating the partnership. Denver, CO: SHEEO Task Force on Achieving National Goals. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 337 110).
20.
ZiomekR. & SvecJ. (1995). High school grades and achievement: Evidence of grade inflation. ACT Research Report Series 95–3, Iowa City, IA.
