Significance of academic merit, test scores, interviews and the admissions process: A case study

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Spring 2001 by Hardigan, Patrick C, Lai, L Leanne, Arneson, Dean, Robeson, Andrew

The purpose of this study was to: (i) offer a model for admissions to colleges not using a weighted average formula; (ii) test the consistency of the model in the admission process; and (iii) test the model's predictive validity. Data from 274 applicants were used in the study. Discriminant analysis was used to test the predictive models. A total of seven predictor variables showed a significant impact on the admission's process. Of these seven variables, five predicted academic success. Results demonstrate a dynamic model that incorporates multiple measures in the selection of pharmacy students.

INTRODUCTION

Universities and colleges attempt to admit the best students possible. To help in this process, they use a variety of Information sources to select those applicants who best match the program and will offer the most to the field. Typically referred to as quantitative and qualitative variables, the Carnegie Council (1977) maintains that both qualitative and quantitative measures are useful in predicting the applicants most likely to be academically successful(1).

A quantitative measure is information collected that is in a quantified (numerical) form. Typical quantitative data used in the admission process are standardized test scores (PCAT, GRE, SAT) and grade point averages. A qualitative measure is information collected that is in narrative form, such as interview transcripts. Qualitative data normally used in the admission process includes interviews, recommendations and written essays.

Chesnut (1998) conducted a study to determine the current admission practices used by colleges of pharmacy(2). She discovered that pharmacy schools (92 percent) use a variety of both qualitative and quantitative factors. Variables most widely cited included grade point average, standardized tests (PCAT), essays, interviews, and recommendations. The use of so many different measures indicates a desire by pharmacy educators to choose the best applicants among a large selection pool. However, not all quantitative and qualitative variables have demonstrated the same level of criterion-related evidence of validity.

Liao and Adams(3) conducted one of the first studies investigating the importance of qualitative and quantitative factors in the prediction of first year grade point average. Results from the study indicated that overall pre-pharmacy GPA is the best single predictor of academic performance. Jacoby, Plaxco, Kjerulffa, and Weinert(4) also carried out a study that examined the importance of qualitative and quantitative factors in the prediction of first year grade point average. They discovered that: (i) the PCAT lends little predictive power; and (ii) pre-pharmacy grade point average and quality of feeder schools best predicts students' first year grade point average.

Subsequent research has presented conflicting data; however, it appears from the literature the following ideas are generally supported:

1. Pre-pharmacy grade point average, (math, science and cumulative) is a strong predictor of first-year pharmacy grade point average. Friedman et al.(5), Chisholm, Cobb and Kotzan(6), Allen et al.(7), Cobb, Chisholm and Lautenschlager(8), Van Breemen et al.(9).

2. PCAT scores (chemistry, biology, reading and quantitative) to varying degrees predict first-year pharmacy grade point average. Friedman et al.(5), Charupatanapong(10), Allen et al.(7), Cobb, Chisholm and Lautenschlager(8), Van Breemen et al.(9).

With such data available to educators, it is interesting to note that little published information exists which reports the criteria admission committees emphasize in the selection process. This is an important step in the investigation of an admission process as it can be potentially loaded with problems.

Research on the admissions process has described a phenomenon called the publication reason(11). When average scores on standardized admission tests, such as the PLAT, are made public there is pressure on college personnel to keep those averages high. If a college admits only students with high-standardized scores and ignores other variables, college personnel may come to believe that high scores are essential for success in their program(11). Such problems are not the sole domain of standardized tests.

Research examining the use of grade point average in the admission process has also demonstrated shortcomings with this quantitative indicator. Pryor and Gordan(12) measured the importance of upper-division prerequisite courses and lower division courses for future academic success. Overall grade point average was found to be the variable most closely associated with level of performance, whereas prerequisites demonstrated little relationship.

Additional evidence is provided by Gough and Hall(13). They studied the relationship between standardized tests, premedical school GPA and clinical performance among medical students. They found that clinical performance was not predicted from MCAT scores or premedical grade point averages. Friedman et al. also support the holistic argument as they maintain that no one variable should be used in the selection of students. As such, educators are now arguing for empirical verification of admission criteria on meaningful outcomes(11,14). For those colleges not using a weighted average formula in the admission's process, a formal method of applicant assessment may allow for the selection of a more diverse and prepared group. Rooney and Schaeffer(15) presented a study that indicated an admission process that begins with an audit of test scores and grade point averages, followed by other assessment efforts leads to greater diversity.