Many graduate schools, including those at the eight public universities in Kentucky, use the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) as a component in their admission processes.

In recent years, many colleges and universities have begun to re-evaluate their academic programs in terms of accountability and overall quality. One of the strategies frequently employed in an effort to enhance perceived "quality" in graduate programs has been to raise admissions standards; i.e., raising the minimum undergraduate GPA and/or the minimum Combined GRE score required to gain admission to a particular program.

In the thirteen years that I have been teaching graduate-level courses, however, I have found very little connection between the quality of work exhibited by students and their GRE scores. Many students with relatively low GRE scores have been quite successful in both the classroom and their subsequent careers, while some with exceptionally high scores have not been able to complete basic course requirements.

Establishing higher cut-off scores on the GRE for admission to graduate programs is simply not an effective way to enhance the quality of those programs. Such a practice indicates an alarming lack of understanding of both the nature of quality and the personal characteristics needed for success in graduate-level work.

The problem is that the GRE, by many criteria, is simply not a good test. In a number of disciplines, there is a relatively weak statistical correlation between an individual's scores on the GRE and their subsequent ability to complete graduate-level work. As Howard Gardner and Robert Sternberg (two leading critics of standardized testing) have argued persuasively, the knowledge and skills needed to be a successful graduate student are not necessarily the same ones measured by the GRE.

Factors such as perseverance and motivation have been conclusively demonstrated to be are far more critical determinants of success or failure at graduate-level work than abstract reasoning ability. But these considerations are not measured or even taken into account by standardized tests such as the GRE.

Even the Educational Testing Service (ETS), the company that publishes and administers the GRE program, strongly recommends against use of the GRE as a primary criterion in graduate school admissions processes. ETS also discourages combining the three scores (verbal, quantitative and analytical) into a composite score. Finally, ETS recommends that making decisions based on small score differences is entirely inappropriate.

Many institutions, however, do not seem very interested in following these recommendations.

Furthermore, the standard error of measurement (SEM) for the three sections of the GRE ranges from the mid-30s to the mid-40s for individual scores and from the upper-40s to the upper-50s for score differences. This range is substantial and mandates that test results should always be interpreted in a fairly liberal manner.

Unfortunately, the interpretation is often very restrictive.

There is also substantial evidence that the GRE has a detrimental impact on students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Minorities (especially African-Americans) tend to score below the White means on all three sections of the GRE. ETS reports the current difference at around one standard deviation, which translates to difference of about a hundred points or so on average. Moreover, the GRE has virtually no predictive ability when used with nontraditional students--it constitutes an especially significant barrier to graduate school admission for older women.

And although the ETS and other psychometrists may argue that technically the GRE is culturally fair and free from gender bias, the bottom line is that when used as a primary admissions criterion for graduate admissions, the net result is that it disproportionately affects minorities and women.

So should we do away with the GRE?

No. But the GRE should be utilized for the purpose it was originally intended; i.e., as one of many factors in a larger decision-making process. As currently employed by many schools, the GRE simply carries too much weight in graduate admissions decisions.

Other avenues for securing admissions to graduate programs could include:

(a) Completing three undergraduate courses with an average grade of 3.0; i.e., a "B" average. These "prerequisite" courses would be selected by the department which administers the graduate program the student wishes to enter.

(b) Completing three graduate courses with an average grade of 3.0; i.e., a "B" average. These "probationary" courses would also be selected by departmental faculty associated with the desired degree program.

(c) Responding to two essay questions developed specifically for the particular student. These questions should be constructed so as to reveal not only basic understanding of written communication, but also the ability to analyze issues drawing from a personal knowledge base and then synthesize an appropriate response--key skills in graduate-level work.

Such modifications would allow for greater responsiveness to the individual needs of students who can do the work but have not had a positive experience with the GRE. It is well-documented that some students are not good at objective tests even though they may actually possess superior intellectual skills. These criteria take this reality into account while still requiring a student to demonstrate an acceptable level of academic potential.

The truth is that the GRE tends to restrict access from individuals who are capable of doing graduate-level work, completing their degree programs, and then going on to make significant contributions to both their profession and to society in general.

As a profession and a society, we have simply got to get away from our over reliance on standardized tests such as the GRE.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

Comments or questions should be directed to Aaron.Hughey@WKU.EDU