Eric N Reeves PhD Portfolio - Home



Declining Graduate Admissions

At George Mason University

Eric N. Reeves

CTCH 826

George Mason University

December 2, 2013

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the issues related to declining graduate applications for, and admissions into, George Mason University (GMU) master’s degree programs. Project sponsors identified three primary objectives for this effort: 1. Identify and document a “textbook” example of an effective admissions process, 2. Determine the “as is” state of the current application process for each of the schools and colleges at GMU, 3. Capture information and best practices as determined from a review of the existing literature and industry best practices to help frame future proactive efforts and research. Surveys were provided to each of the colleges and schools at GMU requesting information about the current state of their graduate admissions processes. Responses indicated extreme diversity in the use of the information technology infrastructure for admissions processes, as well as a lack of consensus about effectiveness of Graduate Admissions support for the various departments’ graduate admissions programs.

Keywords: graduate programs, admissions, master’s degree

Declining Graduate Admissions at George Mason University

Colleges and universities have long competed for student dollars and faculty talent. As governmental resources continue to decline, this competition has become ever more uncompromising. Factors such as changing demographics, technological alternatives to traditional education, and a general concern that formal programs do not adequately prepare today’s students for the job market have contributed to this declining enrollment. States are not spending less money on education because they want to, but because the budgets aren’t there to be able to afford more. After seeing a surge in graduate enrollments in 2008 and 2009, due in large part to unemployed workers seeking refuge from the recession, enrollments have continued to decline. This trend occurring in spite of a significant increase in graduate applications submitted (Rampell, 2012).

Northern Virginia universities and colleges have not been spared this decline in graduate enrollment, and it was the intent of this study to examine the causes behind the specific factors influencing the decline in graduate enrollment at George Mason University. The Office of the Provost was interested in compiling and analyzing data to address this concern. Most data collected was retained by the individual colleges and schools (10 total). This project focused on the admissions process, specifically in identifying and documenting a “textbook” example of an effective admissions process, and determining the “as is” state of the current application process for each of the schools and colleges at GMU. Additional information and best practices identified were documented to help further research and proactive efforts in this area.

Literature Review

Klein (2012) identified six areas of interest that influenced student decisions on college choice: the specific major or program area of interest, the reputation of the school, distance of the school from the student’s home, previous family interaction with the institution, financial considerations, and the overall campus environment (size of the institution, atmosphere, friendly people, clubs and activities, prior experience with the campus). Greater emphasis must be placed at an earlier timeframe for undergraduate curriculum planning for graduate school, even if planning for graduate school is only a remote possibility (Lawson, 2012). This information is useful to advisors who can use it to inform students of the impact of differences in course preferences for different types of programs, and ensures a logical progression from undergraduate studies into master’s programs for an institutions more “significant” programs.

In a meta-analysis of graduate admissions research, Cashin (1991) found three admissions criteria that appeared in all studies: graduate examination scores (Graduate Record Examination (GRE), Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT), and Miller Analogies Test (MAT)); undergraduate grade point average (GPA); and letters of recommendation. While students in the study were knowledgeable of the graduate admissions criteria, they were not familiar with the relative importance of those criteria, underestimating the importance of test scores and letters of recommendations. They also overestimated the relative importance of undergraduate extracurricular activities. This conclusion was support by other studies that suggest there may not be enough clear and readily available information for prospective graduate students about admissions criteria (Young, 2005; Newton & Moore, 2007).

Standardized test scores are convenient, easy-to-access indicators. Academic departments commonly assume the desirability of candidates is proportional to their GRE scores and that these numbers somehow predict academic success (Lightfoot, 2008). Halpern and Butler (2013) found the predictive value of standardized graduate schools admissions examination to be consistent across a review of numerous studies on the topic. In their comparison of exam scores they found 1) standardized exam scores accurately predicted performance in graduate school as measured by 1st year GPA, GPA at graduation, and faculty ratings, 2) both undergraduate grades and standardized test scores predicted graduate school performance beyond graduate school GPA alone; third, standardized exam scores predicted most of the performance measure better that undergraduate GPA; and 4) the combination of standardized exam scores and grades resulted in the most accurate prediction of performance in graduate school.

Stricker, Wilder, & Bridgeman, B. (2006) assessed the attitudes and beliefs of those taking the Graduate Management Admission Test, and the relationships of these attitudes and beliefs to their test performance. Test takers were asked to report on their views of whether the test was valid and unbiased. The results showed that reported attitudes and beliefs were slightly related to their test performance. Hedlund, Wilt, Nebel, Ashford, & Sternberg (2006) looked at the disparities exhibited in GMAT scores and the potential for adverse impact in the admissions process. The authors added two measure of practical intelligence – one knowledge-based and one skill-based – to compensate for GMAT limitations, and found the scores on both measures predicated success and provided significant increments beyond GMAT scores and undergraduate GPA in the prediction of performance variance in MBA programs.

While graduate examinations are generally accepted to be good indicators of student success, other studies have identified evidence that questions their validity and reliability. Specifically, direct comparisons of the predictive power of graduate admission examinations for different programs have not had any extensive research conducted. These differences in validity by degree program, as well as degree level, would have more practical implications for how graduate admissions examination scores are used in making admissions decisions. If graduate examination scores are determined to be more effective for degree program or degree level, then other elements of application documents should be given greater weight (Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2001).

Newton & Moore (2007) identified undergraduate grade point average as a better predictor of graduate schools success than the Graduate Record Examination, and postulated that undergraduate GPA alone may be sufficient for application and acceptance, thus reducing expense and unnecessary levels of bureaucracy for potential graduate students. Wongsurawat (2009) pointed out that numerous statistical studies show that college GPAs have been increasing over many years, and set out to study the impact this phenomena had on graduate schools admission. Specifically, he wanted to see if this continued grade inflation reduced the credibility of grades viewed by graduate schools and employers. As grades continued to be compressed upwards, the concern is whether this is a less effective indicator of student abilities for graduate study and to turn to other more credible signals of applicant ability when making admissions or hiring decisions. While higher rates of inflation were correlated with increases in reliance on test scores during the earlier five-year period (1995–2000), this trend did not continue when the latest data from 2007 were analyzed. The data point to some suggestive evidence that inflated grades during the 1990s may have caused a drop in minority enrollment due to increased emphasis on standardized test scores. Grade inflation therefore might have had a negative impact on diversity in institutions of higher education as well.

Faculty ratings are also important measures of student performance. Faculty members have much contact with students and their evaluations on non-classroom aspects of performance enhance confidence that the graduate admissions examinations predict a range of important outcomes for both undergraduate and graduate degree levels (Kuncel, Wee, Serafin, & Hezlett, 2010). Sanders & Landrum (2012) surveyed one hundred and thirty-four undergraduate psychology majors to assess their evaluative ratings of the importance of research experience, letters of recommendation, and GPA to the graduate school application process. These results support efforts to enhance the preparation of undergraduate psychology students who aspire to attend graduate school.

Newton & Moore (2006) assessed the significance of written goal statements, topics addresses, and the relationship between quality of writing and graduate-level coursework. The results indicated that written goals statements provide significant information about graduate applicants and represent overall writing abilities, and that written goals statements of graduate applicants should be considered to be at least as important as more objective criteria such as GPA and graduate test scores.

Another area of potential effectiveness in applications is the use of the portfolio. Informal experiential learning occurs through work and life experiences, and is not easily measures by standardized tests. Dodge & Derwin (2008) suggested that, with an increasing number of adult learners pursuing higher education, the typical admission criteria of graduate examinations and grade point average might not be the most effective predictor of graduate success. The study compared graduate students admitted through the portfolio process to students admitted through more traditional assessment and found that portfolio submissions predicted success as well as the more traditional admissions criteria, in terms of GPA and credit accumulation.

Appleby & Appleby (2006) conducted a survey of graduate admissions committees chairs to identify 5 categories of mistakes applicants make that reduce their probability of acceptance: damaging personal statements, harmful letters of recommendation, lack of program information, poor writing skills, and unsuccessful attempts to impress. Strategies for undergraduate advisors to help students avoid these mistakes include mentoring, academic advising, and teaching classes designed to prepare students for their lives after undergraduate school.

Methods

The initial proposal for this effort was provided by the project sponsor and was to address the interested in “compiling and analyzing data related to graduate student success at Mason (beyond completion rates, etc.). Not surprisingly, many units have little to no means of assessing students (beyond very baseline methods) and few assets available to appropriately monitor students as they progress through the program. It would be helpful if we could identify (early on) students (or faculty mentors) in need of “additional” support.”

Our initial meeting was conducted on September 27, 2103 with the intention of clarifying the desired outcomes of this project. It was during this meeting that we identified the underlying concern being the decline of graduate student enrollment at George Mason University, specifically focused on master’s degree programs. The ensuing discussion identified numerous factors, many of which would be too extensive to pursue within the parameters and timeframe of this project. After additional discussion we determined that this project would lay the ground work for a longer term effort, identifying areas for potential future study. The objectives of the project were determined to be:

1. Identify and document a “textbook” example of an effective admissions process.

2. Determine the “as is” state of the current application process for each of the schools and colleges at GMU.

3. Capture information and best practices as determined from a review of the existing literature and industry best practices to help frame future proactive efforts and research.

Researchers attended the monthly Graduate Admissions meeting on October 9, 2013, to gain background information and to solicit support for the project. This monthly meeting is hosted the GMU Central Admissions, and attended by graduate admissions personnel from each of the colleges and schools. Attendance allowed us to get a better understanding of the personnel involved and how information is shared in this forum. From October 15-17, 2013, project sponsors assisted with identifying, collecting, and providing relevant point of contact for this study. Personnel from the following were invited to participate: College of Education and Human Development (CEHD), College of Health and Human Services (CHHS), College of Humanities and Social Sciences (CHSS), College of Science (COS), College of Visual and Performing Arts (CVPA), School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (SCAR), School of Management (SOM), School of Public Policy (SPP), Volgenau School of Engineering (VSE), and non-degree students.

On October 14, 2013, the Director of Graduate Admissions provided information on the current graduate admissions processes and suggestions for where to acquire additional information. She suggested examining the admissions “funnel” to better understand the processes involved. This became our textbook example of the appropriate flow of information through the application and admissions process:

[pic]

We researched the literature for background on the topic and prepared a list of initial survey questions for sponsors for review. Since our focus was on the application process, we intended to contact students to ask them about their experience of the graduate admissions process. However, due to the timeline restriction of the project, we were wisely advised by our sponsors to forego this aspect for this study and record it as an option for future research. Upon approval of our questions topics we e-mailed the questions to the colleges’ and schools’ points of contact. We requested a 2-week turnaround (October 31 – November 15, 2013) to allow respondents sufficient time to draft responses. At the end of the 2 week timeframe, we had received 5 of 9 responses, with 3 additional responses received within the following week (November 16-23, 2013). A graphic depiction of our defined processes looked as follows:

[pic]

A final meeting with project sponsors occurred on November 26, 2013. At that time we presented initial findings and discussed final deliverables for the project. Sponsors approved the final proposal for content delivery

Discussion of Study

Responses were received from College of Education and Human Development (CEHD), College of Health and Human Services (CHHS), College of Humanities and Social Sciences (CHSS), College of Visual and Performing Arts (CVPA), School of Management (SOM), School of Public Policy (SPP), Volgenau School of Engineering (VSE), and non-degree students. No responses were received from the College of Science (COS), or the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (SCAR). The School of Law was not included in this study as previously discussed with our sponsor.

Applicants to graduate programs at George Mason University are required to submit: completed online Application for Graduate Study; nonrefundable application fee; application for Virginia In-State Tuition Rates, if claiming entitlement to these rates; two official transcripts from all institutions attended for each program applied to unless the programs are in the same college or school; goals statement; letters of recommendation as required by the program; official exam scores, such as GRE or GMAT, reported directly from the appropriate testing service, as required by the program; application fees, and other materials specified by the program, including departmental forms, portfolio, or interview. International students are also required to submit proof of English proficiency, additional transcript documentation, student visa information, and the Certificate of Financial Responsibility and all supporting financial documents

The significant diversity of the departmental processes prohibited an effective one-to-one comparison. Beyond the required GMU application documentation, the additional requirements extend beyond each schools and colleges and into individual department requirements. Our literature review focused on the most meaningful elements of the application process, the most common factors of undergraduate grade point average, graduate school examinations, and letters of recommendation. However, additional departmental requirements extended into departmental forms; additional essay/critical thinking question; license requirements; pre-requisite coursework; portfolios; in-person auditions; interviews; and professional essay. Survey responses were consolidated and are provided below. Best practices are stated as such where identified by survey respondents.

When received, how are the applications processed? Is the information technology infrastructure sufficient for the process?

GMU uses the Hobsons’ Enrollment Management Technology (EMT) (Apply Yourself; Connect CRM) to manage admissions communications, track results and interact with prospective students; Banner Workflow software to automate, simplify, and direct the flow of information and procedures across the university; Mason Enterprise Services Architecture (MESA) for file services and storage, desktop management, and enhanced desktop security; Web eXtender, for indexing documents that were scanned at an earlier time; Oracle Discoverer, tool-set for querying, reporting, and data analysis; and Blackboard for secure storage of committee review files. Regardless of the ability to go paperless with Banner and MESA, several respondents indicated their department’s faculty admissions committees review applications via paper copy. Respondents described the electronic system as having greatly increased the efficacy of outreach, recruitment and yield initiatives over the last 3 years, but still having glaring weaknesses that require improvement, primarily due to the ad hoc nature of development. One respondent suggested reviewing the American University as a best practice, indicating they have been paperless since the 2001-2002 timeframe.

How is the review board selected and what type of training is provided?

Although each department has autonomy in how they conduct their applicant review boards, the processes are similar in execution – each department has a program chair; the program chair appoints the program coordinator (for each degree); the program coordinator selects appropriate committee members based on background and expertise to assist in the review process and be on the Admissions Review Committee. Because departments are small, most faculty members are a part of the Admissions Review Committee at one time or another. The SOM asks volunteers to make a two-year commitment to the process.

The CHHS provided a description of what would be considered a “best practice” for this process. Training occurs at three levels: 1) When a new program chair or new program coordinator are assigned. The CHHS Director of Admission will meet with him/her to discuss the admission process from initial application to final admission decision. Forms, reports, policies, and processes are all covered at this time. If the program coordination feels the Admissions Review committee is weighted with an excessive number of new members, then the Director of Admissions will also meet with them to review and explain the process. 2) The CHHS Director of Admissions hosts Graduate Coordinator meetings once a semester. These meetings are open to all department chairs, program coordinators and office managers (because they are critical to the flow of information for the admissions process). These meetings allow for information to be shared and direction provided on the policies and procedures regarding the admission guidelines. 3) The Director of Admissions provides training on an individual basis as needed via phone, email and meetings.

What are the factors the review board uses to select students for admission into your programs?

Admissions standards are proposed, discussed, and reviewed annually among admissions personnel and faculty; they are subsequently updated and accepted by the Academic Program Directors for implementation. Training and oversight of application review personnel are administered by the Graduate Admissions Office. All programs adhere to GMU Graduate Admission standards of 3.0 undergraduate GPA, graduate admissions test scores, letters of recommendation, English proficiency, previous degree from a regionally accredited institution, and international evaluation documents/credentials (when appropriate). In addition, various programs required completion of pre-requisite coursework, essay/goal statements, critical thinking component, or a strong undergraduate background in their selected graduate discipline. Depending on the program, applicants who do not meet the deadline with all documents submitted on time (not just the application) can be “ineligible for review.”

What are the coordination requirements between your College or School and the GMU Graduate Admissions office?

Schools and colleges notify the Graduate Admissions office of new or deleted programs and provide information about any changes made to existing programs. The GMU Graduate Admissions office supports the university in four primary areas: 1) recruitment for the schools and colleges (all except SOM and SPP, which are either budgeted for, or have the ability to do their own recruiting; CVPA also reported doing their own recruiting), 2) the monthly Graduate Admissions meetings, which brings together the directors from all graduate admissions offices; 3) technical support for the online application processes, 4) ensuring application documents are forwarded to the appropriate departments.

After notification of acceptance/denial of admission, what tracking of students occurs?

Admitted students receive an offer letter and an invitation to attend the respective graduate orientation program. If a student is accepted, they have deposit deadlines prior to which, a student will either decide whether or not to enroll. Students who choose not to enroll, they can indicate their alternate plans. If students do not submit “intent to enroll,” a follow-up e-mail is sent to them. Some programs track to see if they enroll within the university, and then register for courses. Some programs have current graduate students reaching out to the newly admitted student. Programs also send emails regarding new student orientation dates and new student luncheon before classes begin. Some departments track denied students for reporting purposes, but there is no consistent follow-up between departments. Tracking of denied students is inconsistent among the programs.

What is the follow up process for those prospective students who decline the offer to attend GMU? If there is none, how would you suggest improving collecting data in this area?

Most colleges and schools do not have a follow up process for students who decline to attend GMU after acceptance, to determine factors for declination (enrolling elsewhere, financing, etc.). Some programs have, in the past, sent surveys requesting information about why and accepted student chose not to attend Mason. The response rate was extremely low and the practice was discontinued. Several respondents referenced the Hobsons’ Connect customer relationship management (CRM) software, and the ability to easily generate e-mails and surveys to obtain additional data, but use of this program was inconsistent across the departments.

What other thoughts or recommendations do you have for improving the graduate admissions processes?

Survey respondents provided the following suggestions: 1) Identify and implement best practices that would be adhered to across all across GMU programs. 2) A central office (Graduate Admissions) should make the selection of applicants, although one respondent identified the need to maintain a decentralized graduate admissions process due to the individual program requirements). 3) Conduct recurring training on applicant selection for graduate admissions staff (based on current state of processes). 4) Improve marketing of and recruitment for programs. Although the GMU Graduate Admissions office conducts this activity for the majority of GMU programs, several respondents indicated a desire to have greater ability to conduct their own marketing and recruiting. 5) Require the use of an online review and selection process.

Analysis and Reflection

The issue of declining enrollment at master’s degree programs at GMU is impacted by issues that require more extensive examination than was allowed within the timeframe and parameters of this study. To better gain a full understanding of the impact of the enrollment and admissions processes, student feedback is essential. It would seem unlikely that this would influence the decision-making process of a potential graduate student, but survey feedback indicated student information is sometimes not efficiently transferred between central graduate admissions, and the schools, colleges, and their respective departments. This may impact whether or not an acceptance letter is received by a student in time for enrollment, or if other lurking variables in this process influence the decision-making process.

During our initial discussion with our project sponsor, we recognize the breadth to which the problem extended. This was reinforced through our research, further discussions with our sponsors, and the results of the survey. We discovered that the process was distributed beyond the schools and colleges, and extended into the approximately 50 individual departments. Consequently, a more comprehensive study would extend into each of GMU’s departments and division that have autonomy, or significant input into the application requirements and review processes. Researchers recommended the employment of lean six sigma processes to investigate more deeply and make recommendations for improvement. These techniques lead to reducing the expenditure of resources or steps in a process that do not directly contribute to the creation of value for the end customer (“lean”), and improve processes by identifying and removing causes of defects (“six sigma”). The GMU Office of Continuing Education provides lean six sigma training and could be leveraged to provide this service to the university at little to no cost, since the conduct of a real-world project is a requirement for successful completion of the training.

Through our examination of the admissions funnel and the building of a more extensive “supply chain” impacting graduate enrollment, we determined the following factors each warranted a more extensive review and research project: general institution image building, segmented (program) image building, advertising to and recruiting prospective students, information accessible for inquiry, application submission process (including student feedback), application processing and review, tracking accepted candidates, deposits, confirmed, enrolled, registration, entering class, and examining retention/attrition data. Also to be considered includes the impact of graduates, alumni, and donors on the various phases of this supply chain. These areas will continue to be pursued in coordination with project sponsors.

Conclusion

The United States recession that began in 2007 is still impacting higher education to some degree. Potential graduate students are weighing the expenses of additional education against the perceived benefits in the job market, and choosing to leverage the increasing number of certificate programs as a more cost effective alternative to improving their job skills. On a broader scale, students will come to a university if the programs are of the caliber that they are willing to pay for. That means that curriculum must be top notch, faculty must be knowledgeable of the latest development in curriculum development and instruction design, and those who are unwilling to embrace new technologies as a means to provide meaningful educational experiences for their students must be replaced. GMU has illustrated through their Vision Statement that they have acknowledged several of these areas, in principle if not in practice.

Brick (1999) identified four obligations with which graduate schools are confronted: first, they must decide as definitely as possible what their institutional objectives are; second, these objectives must be to analyzed in terms of the prerequisites which prospective students should possess; third, to select or develop techniques appropriate for the study of each applicant for admission and fourth, to encourage only those to pursue graduate work for whom there is reasonable probability of success. These can be difficult decisions for universities to make, but they must do so for continued success.

References

Appleby, D.C. & Appleby, K.M. (2006). Kisses of death in the graduate school application process. Teaching of Psychology, 33(1), 19-24. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top3301_5.

The authors of this article conducted a survey of graduate admissions committees chairs to identify 5 categories of mistakes applicants make that reduce their probability of acceptance: damaging personal statements, harmful letters of recommendation, lack of program information, poor writing skills, and unsuccessful attempts to impress. Strategies are suggested for undergraduate advisors to help students avoid these mistakes.

Brink, W.J. (1999). Selecting graduate students. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(5), 517-523. URL:

This article proposed that the increase in graduate enrollment over the preceding decades necessitates a different approach to graduate admissions than has been exhibited as most institutions. Specific to the field of teacher education, the usual four-year degree in no longer considered adequate to provide the cultural and professional education needed by teachers today.

Cashin, J.R. & Landrum, R.E. (1991). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of graduate admissions criteria in psychology. Psychological Reports, 69(3), 1107-1110. doi: pr0.1991.69.3f.1107.

This study surveyed undergraduate psychology majors and compared graduate schools admission criteria to students’ perceptions of those criteria. The study found that while the students were knowledgeable of the graduate admissions criteria, they were not familiar with the relative importance of those criteria, underestimating the importance of test scores and letters of recommendations. They also overestimated the relative importance of undergraduate extracurricular activities.

Dodge, L. & Derwin, E.B. (2008). Overcoming barriers of tradition through an effective new graduate admission policy. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 56(2), 2-11. doi: 10.1080/07377366.2008.10400148

This study suggested that, with an increasing number of adult learners pursuing higher education, the typical admission criteria of graduate examinations and grade point average might not be the most effective predictor of graduate success. The study compared graduate students admitted through the portfolio process to students admitted through more traditional assessment and found that portfolio submissions predicted success as well as more traditional admissions criteria, in terms of GPA and credit accumulation.

Halpern, D.F. & Butler, H.A. (2013). Assessment in higher education: Admissions and outcomes. In K.F. Geisinger (Ed), APA Handbook of Testing and Assessment in Psychology: Vol. 3. Testing and Assessment in School Psychology and Education. Washington, D.C., American Psychological Association

This article examined the validity of the numerous assessments used for graduate school admissions and found them to be accurate predictors of graduate school success, especially when reviewed in combination with applicants’ undergraduate grade point averages. Little difference was noted in gender and ethnicity, and where differences were noted they were in favor of minorities.

Hedlund, J., Wilt, J.M., Nebel, K.L., Ashford, S.J., & Sternberg, R.J. (2006). Assessing practical intelligence in business school admissions: A supplement to the graduate management admissions test. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(2), 101-127. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.005

This study looked at the disparities exhibited in GMAT scores and the potential for adverse impact in the admissions process. The authors added two measure of practical intelligence – one knowledge-based and one skill-based – to compensate for GMAT limitations, and found the scores on both measures predicated success and provided significant increments beyond GMAT scores and undergraduate GPA in the prediction of performance variance in MBA programs.

Kuncel, R.K., Hezlett, S.A., & Ones, D.S. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive of the Graduate Record Examination: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 162-181. doi: 10.1037//Q033-2909.127.1.162

This article investigates the validity of Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) as predictors of graduate school performance. Validity of GRE and undergraduate grade point average are correlated with degree attainment.

Kuncel, R.K., Wee, S., Serafin, L. & Hezlett, S.A. (2010). The validity of the Graduate Record Examination for master’s and doctoral programs: A meta-analytic investigation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(2), 340-352. doi: 10.1177/0013164409344508.

This article synthesized previous studies to determine if the Graduate Record Examination accurately predicted the performance of students in master’s programs. Across approximately 100 studies and 10,000 students, the study found that GRE scores accurately predicted first year grade point average, graduate grade point average, and faculty ratings for both master’s and doctoral students.

Lawson, T.J., Reisinger, D.L., & Jordan-Fleming, M.K. (2012). Undergraduate psychology courses preferred by graduate programs. Teaching of Psychology, 39(3), 181-184. doi: 10.1177/0098628312450430.

This article examined undergraduate course preferences of graduate psychology programs. The intent was to provide useful information for undergraduate curriculum planning and advising psychology majors who are interested in graduate school.

Lightfoot, R.C. & Doerner, W.G. (2008). Student success and failure in a graduate criminology/criminal justice program. American Journal of Criminal Justice, (33), 113–129. Doi: 10.1007/s12103-007-9029-4.

This study tracked the performance of 287 master’s and 70 doctoral students to help determine completion rates, risk factors, and successful strategies. The author provided a series of recommendations to be implemented at the college, university, and discipline levels to better understand what variables influent degree attainment.

Newton, S.E. & Moore, G. (2006). The significance of graduate admission written goal statements. Nursing Education Perspectives, 22(3), 205-209. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2006.03.010.

This article assessed the significance of written goal statements, topics addresses, and the relationship between quality of writing and graduate-level coursework. The results indicated that written goals statements provide significant information about graduate applicants and represent overall writing abilities, and that written goals statements of graduate applicants should be considered to be at least as important as more objective criteria such as GPA and graduate test scores.

Newton, S.E. & Moore, G. (2007). Undergraduate grade point average and Graduate Record Examination scores. The experience of one graduate nursing program. Nursing Education Perspectives, 28(6), 327-331. URL:

This article identifies ungraduated grade point average as a better predictor of graduate schools success than is the Graduate Record Examination, and postulates that undergraduate GP alone may be sufficient for application and acceptance, thus reducing expense and unnecessary levels of bureaucracy for potential graduate students.

Rampell, D. (2012, September 28). Enrollment drops again in graduate programs. The New York Times. Retrieved from .

This article identifies several factors influencing declining enrollment in US graduate programs. Financial considerations were highlighted as a significant factor including increased undergraduate debt and reduced state aid for graduate programs. While overall enrollment had declined, the number of applications submitted for graduate programs had increased.

Sanders, C.E. & Landrum, R.E. (2012). The graduate school application process: What our students report they know. Teaching of Psychology, 39(2), 128-132. doi: 10.1177/0098628312437697.

This study surveyed one hundred and thirty-four undergraduate psychology majors to assess their evaluative ratings of the importance of research experience, letters of recommendation, and GPA to the graduate school application process. These results support efforts to enhance the preparation of undergraduate psychology students who aspire to attend graduate school.

Stricker, L.J., Wilder, G.Z., & Bridgeman, B. (2006). Test taker’s attitudes and beliefs about the Graduate Management Admission Test. International Journal of Testing, 6(3), 255-268. doi: 10.1207/s15327574ijt0603_3.

This study assessed the attitudes and beliefs of those taking the Graduate Management Admission Test, and the relationships of these attitudes and beliefs to their test performance. Test takers were asked to report on their views of whether the test was valid and unbiased. The results showed that reported attitudes and beliefs were slightly related to their test performance.

Wongsurawat, W. (2009). Does grade inflation affect the credibility of grades? Evidence from US law school admissions. Education Economics, 17(4), 523-534. doi: 10.1080/09645290802470061

This article presents data from a study of the nature and causes of grade inflation. The study used data for 48 law schools and analyzed their admission decisions in 1995, 2000, and 2007. The analysis suggested that higher rates of grade inflation were associated with greater emphasis on standardized test scores between 1995 and 2000; however, while grade inflation continued between 2000 and 2007, law schools seem to have reduced the importance of grades and test scores as admissions factors.

Young, I.P. (2005). Predictive validity of applicants’ reference information for admission to a doctoral program in educational leadership. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 16-25.

This study analyzed the perceptions of references provided by applicants as a means for differentiating between those accepted and those rejected for a particular program focusing on educational leadership. The findings indicated that reference information provided by reference sources varied in utility relative to differentiating between those rejected and those accepted for a particular program.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download