Whiteness as Credential: A Critical Quantitative Analysis of Inequality in Graduate Admissions

We examine the extent to which graduate admission policies in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) contribute to race and class-based inequities. Using Quantitative Critical Theory (QuantCrit) as an analytic framework, we critique the methodological choices in prior research and reanalyze graduate admission data to assess how traditional admission criteria reinforce whiteness as a credential for admission to CSD programs.

We conducted a secondary analysis of the Communication Science and Disorders Centralized Application System Open Data Initiative data set, which included applications from four graduate admission cycles (2016-2020). Logistic regression models were used to assess the influence of undergraduate grade point average (GPA), race, socioeconomic background, and other sociodemographic factors on the likelihood of receiving at least one admission offer. We used a race- and class-conscious framework (QuantCrit) to guide the model selection and specification process. Additionally, key limitations in the data set that obscure race and class inequality were identified and critiqued.

The findings indicate that applicants from historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups and those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are significantly less likely to receive an admission offer, even after accounting for undergraduate GPA. Additionally, White applicants with comparably high academic credentials received graduate admission offers at higher rates than did applicants of color.

Comparing the results to prior reports revealed that a conventional approach to quantitative analyses can obscure structural inequities. Considering the current findings, we conclude that graduate admission policies in CSD that rely heavily on GPA may disadvantage applicants from historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, reinforcing long-standing inequalities and representational imbalances in our professions. We advocate for holistic admission approaches that critically account for the racial and class-based biases embedded in traditional meritocratic measures.