Related Experiment Videos
Holistic versus actuarial student selection.
William C McGaghie1, Clarence D Kreiter
1Office of Medical Education and Faculty Development, Northwestern University, The Feinberg School of Medicine, 3-130 Ward Building, 303 East Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611, USA. wcmc@northwestern.edu
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
|February 5, 2005
Summary
Scientific evidence shows actuarial procedures are fairer and more consistent than holistic reviews for student selection. Higher education should support diversity goals but advocate for evidence-based, individualized decision-making processes.
Area of Science:
- Higher Education Policy
- Legal Studies
- Admissions Processes
Background:
- Discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 rulings in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger regarding affirmative action in higher education.
- Highlights the Court's decision that student diversity is a compelling interest and that "holistic," "individualized" selection methods are constitutionally permissible.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review and critique existing literature on the Supreme Court's affirmative action cases and their implications.
- To evaluate the effectiveness of different student selection procedures in achieving diversity goals.
Main Methods:
- Literature review and critique of professional and academic scholarship.
- Analysis of scientific evidence on student selection procedures.
Main Results:
- Scientific evidence from 1954 onwards indicates actuarial procedures outperform holistic, individualized methods for fair and consistent student selection.
- Holistic methods may not be the most effective or equitable means to achieve stated diversity objectives.
Conclusions:
- The higher and professional education community should uphold the Supreme Court's stance on student diversity.
- Advocacy is needed for the Court to reconsider its emphasis on holistic review in favor of more empirically supported selection methods.