4.2 Review

Rubric-based holistic review: A promising route to equitable graduate admissions in physics

Journal

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020140

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Michigan State University College of Natural Sciences and the Lappan-Phillips Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposes rubric-based holistic review as a solution to address inequities in graduate admissions. By evaluating applicants using a rubric, the study finds significant differences in rubric scores between admitted and nonadmitted students, and these scores also reflect known inequities based on sex and undergraduate program.
As systematic inequities in higher education and society have been brought to the forefront, graduate programs are interested in increasing the diversity of their applicants and enrollees. Yet, structures in place to evaluate applicants may not support such aims. One potential solution to support those aims is rubric -based holistic review. Starting in 2018, our physics department implemented a rubric-based holistic review process for all applicants to our graduate program. The rubric assessed applicants on 18 metrics covering their grades, test scores, research experiences, noncognitive competencies, and fit with the program. We then compared faculty's ratings of applicants by admission status, sex, and undergraduate program over a three-year period. We find that the rubric scores show statistically significant differences between admitted and nonadmitted students as hoped. We also find that differences in rubric scores based on sex or undergraduate program reflected known systematic inequities such as applicants from smaller and less prestigious undergraduate universities scoring lower on the physics GRE and women performing more volunteer work in academia. Our results then suggest rubric-based holistic review as a possible route to making graduate admissions in physics more equitable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available