Dear Tipsters,
Here is a research study that you may find interesting. At a university in Michigan in the 1970s and 1980s, students were admitted to a graduate programme in psychology without regard to GRE scores, which radically reduces the usual restriction of range problem. The results? The correlation coefficient between GRE Total (Verbal + Quantitative) and the four measures of performance were as follows: Advanced stats: .60 Behavioural assessment course: .70 Research methods behavioural analysis course: .55 Overall classification: .63 These values are higher than usual. As an interesting adendum, the authors computed the overall coefficient for students who received more than 1200 on the GRE (a typical cutoff score). This correlation was .24, which is typical in other research. Huitema, B. E., & Stein, C. R. (1993). Validity of the GRE without restriction of range. Psychological Reports, 72, 123-127. Sincerely, Stuart __________________________________________________________________ Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: (819)822-9600, Extension 2402 Department of Psychology, Fax: (819)822-9661 Bishop's University, 2600 College Street, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy <blocked::http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy> ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________ From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 29, 2008 9:45 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Radcial admissions schemes (was: SAT and selection) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The major problem with accepting everyone and then paring down the classes each year based on performance is that it ignores competence and it ignores the fact that grades have unknown validity and reliability. It may be the case that all the students are actually within the same range of competence and the differences between them are accounted for by error in using grades to stratify them. If this were true generally (not just in "hyper-selected" medical schools and the like) then one would expect individual student's grade records to show a random distribution of grades, but they do not, broadly speaking. I expect (in a groups of typical undergraduates, where there is quite a lot of real variability) that an 85% promotion rate would more than capture those students who would falsely be excluded by a 50% cutoff (e.g., "misses"). (And if our grades our actually random, as you suggest, then we have much more serious problems than who we admit to university in the first place... not least of which is why I spend so much time on them when I could just as easily assign them by a random process, such as the proverbial tossing of assignments down the staris.) But I think that Ken Steele may be right -- we are already cutting off around 15% each year, and it is not working very well. So perhaps the cutoff would have to be higher in order to have any visible effect. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ "Part of respecting another person is taking the time to criticise his or her views." - Melissa Lane, in a Guardian obituary for philosopher Peter Lipton ================================= --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
