集体化审阅:美国精英高校新生选拔模式的实证研究
|
摘要
文章采用质性取向下的多个案比较法,以不同类型的7所高校(UCLA、UCSD、UNC-Chapel Hill、USC、WFU、Pitzer、Davidson)为研究对象,通过对7校招办24位招生官的访谈数据和丰富文本的分析,探究了美国精英高校如何选拔本科新生。研究发现,精英私立大学和文理学院通常采用含地域主管在内的两名读者先行评价、招生委员会会议再行协商的委员会讨论模式,精英公立大学则采用读者团队的一致推荐意见,即为初步录取决定、有争议者被管理层进一步评价的团队审阅模式。尽管路径不同,两种模式都高度依赖人为经验和集体智慧,实为集体化审阅模式,体现为至少两名读者阅读同一份材料、必要时更多读者的介入以及大量的团体讨论和经验分享。集体化审阅可以避免单一评价的不足,更好地了解申请者,以及确保对录取生源特征的控制,以满足公平诉求和机构需求。
This paper applies the method of Small-N Case Studies under the qualitative approach, selecting seven elite institutions of different types(UCLA, UCSD, UNC-Chapel Hill, USC, WFU, Pitzer, Davidson) as cases, to figure out how American elite colleges and universities select a freshmen class, via analysis of the interview data with twenty-four decision-makers in their admission offices, as well as rich textual data. It is found that elite private universities and liberal arts colleges usually adopt the "multiple readers to committee for decision" mode, which consists of the preliminary evaluation by two-readers with one being the regional manager and the follow-up discussion by admissions committee. In contrast, elite public universities choose to adopt the "team readings to decision or further review" mode, in which consistent recommendations given by the reading team are tentative admissions decisions, and leadership members further review non-consistent ones. Despite the different approaches, two modes both highly rely on human experience and collective wisdom, and in nature belong to collective review, which is reflected in the actions like at least two readers review one application, more readers are involved when needed, and lots of team discussions and experience sharing. Therefore, the drawbacks of single evaluation can be avoided, the applicants can be better known, the control of admissions can be assured, and finally equity appeal and institutional needs can be satisfied.
This paper applies the method of Small-N Case Studies under the qualitative approach, selecting seven elite institutions of different types(UCLA, UCSD, UNC-Chapel Hill, USC, WFU, Pitzer, Davidson) as cases, to figure out how American elite colleges and universities select a freshmen class, via analysis of the interview data with twenty-four decision-makers in their admission offices, as well as rich textual data. It is found that elite private universities and liberal arts colleges usually adopt the "multiple readers to committee for decision" mode, which consists of the preliminary evaluation by two-readers with one being the regional manager and the follow-up discussion by admissions committee. In contrast, elite public universities choose to adopt the "team readings to decision or further review" mode, in which consistent recommendations given by the reading team are tentative admissions decisions, and leadership members further review non-consistent ones. Despite the different approaches, two modes both highly rely on human experience and collective wisdom, and in nature belong to collective review, which is reflected in the actions like at least two readers review one application, more readers are involved when needed, and lots of team discussions and experience sharing. Therefore, the drawbacks of single evaluation can be avoided, the applicants can be better known, the control of admissions can be assured, and finally equity appeal and institutional needs can be satisfied.
引文
[1]杨德广.30年来中国高等教育的十大变革[J].重庆高教研究,2015(5):3-10.
[2]万圆,Joseph Soares.美国北卡大学教堂山分校本科招生的卓越与公平:基于考量因素的实证研究[J].外国教育研究,2017(7):3-17.
[3][4][5][8][9] College Board.Admissions Decision-making Models:How U.S.Institutions of Higher Education Select Undergraduate Students [R].New York,NY:College Entrance Examination Board,2003:39-40,16,17,16,40.
[6]Anna Mountford Zimdars.Meritocracy and the University:Selective Admission in England and the USA [M].London,UK:Bloomsbury Academic,2016:137.
[7]Nick Anderson.Inside the Admissions Process at George Washington University [EB/OL].(2014-03-22)[2015-07-31].http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/inside-the-admissions-process-at-george-washington-university/2014/03/22/f86b85fa-aee6-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html.
[10]UCLA Newsroom.UCLA Statement on Admissions Process [EB/OL].(2008-08-29)[2017-05-16].http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/admissions-statement-59419.
[11]Robert D.Mare.Holistic Review in Freshman Admissions at the University of California-Los Angeles (2012 report) [R/OL].[2015-11-20].http://www.senate.ucla.edu/committees/cuars/documents/uclareportonholisticreviewinfreshmanadmissions.pdf.pp.21-25.
[12]UNC-Chapel Hill.Brief of Amicus Curiae:The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Supporting Respondents [R/OL].[2016-04-14].http://unc.edu/files/2014/04/Fisher-Brief-FINAL.pdf.p.9.
[13][14] Office For Civil Rights.Compliance Resolution:University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill,(NC) [R/OL].(2012-11-27)[2016-04-11].http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/11072016-a.html.p.2.p.4.
[15]Kat Cohen.10 College Admissions Secrets:An Inside Look from an Elite College Counselor [EB/OL].(2015-10-21)[2017-07-28].https://www.noodle.com/articles/10-college-admissions-secrets-from-an-ivy-league-counselor.
[16]Corey Risinger.UNC to Grant Students’ Requests for Admissions Files Under FERPA [EB/OL].(2015-03-23)[2016-04-22].http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/03/unc-to-grant-students-requests-for-admissions-files-under-ferpa.
[17]UNC-Chapel Hill Undergraduate Admission.Who We Want [EB/OL].[2016-04-16].http://admissions.unc.edu/apply/who-we-want/.
[18]UCLA Office of Media Relations.Campus Explains Holistic Review Admissions Process [EB/OL].(2008-09-05)[2015-11-16].http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/080905_holistic-admissions_reed.
[19]College Board.Selection through Individualized Review:A Report on Phase IV of the Admissions Models Project [R].New York,NY:College Entrance Examination Board,2004:6.
[20]Davidson College Undergraduate Admission.Frequently Asked Questions[EB/OL].[2017-06-15].http://www.davidson.edu/admission-and-financial-aid/frequently-asked-questions.
[2]万圆,Joseph Soares.美国北卡大学教堂山分校本科招生的卓越与公平:基于考量因素的实证研究[J].外国教育研究,2017(7):3-17.
[3][4][5][8][9] College Board.Admissions Decision-making Models:How U.S.Institutions of Higher Education Select Undergraduate Students [R].New York,NY:College Entrance Examination Board,2003:39-40,16,17,16,40.
[6]Anna Mountford Zimdars.Meritocracy and the University:Selective Admission in England and the USA [M].London,UK:Bloomsbury Academic,2016:137.
[7]Nick Anderson.Inside the Admissions Process at George Washington University [EB/OL].(2014-03-22)[2015-07-31].http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/inside-the-admissions-process-at-george-washington-university/2014/03/22/f86b85fa-aee6-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html.
[10]UCLA Newsroom.UCLA Statement on Admissions Process [EB/OL].(2008-08-29)[2017-05-16].http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/admissions-statement-59419.
[11]Robert D.Mare.Holistic Review in Freshman Admissions at the University of California-Los Angeles (2012 report) [R/OL].[2015-11-20].http://www.senate.ucla.edu/committees/cuars/documents/uclareportonholisticreviewinfreshmanadmissions.pdf.pp.21-25.
[12]UNC-Chapel Hill.Brief of Amicus Curiae:The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Supporting Respondents [R/OL].[2016-04-14].http://unc.edu/files/2014/04/Fisher-Brief-FINAL.pdf.p.9.
[13][14] Office For Civil Rights.Compliance Resolution:University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill,(NC) [R/OL].(2012-11-27)[2016-04-11].http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/11072016-a.html.p.2.p.4.
[15]Kat Cohen.10 College Admissions Secrets:An Inside Look from an Elite College Counselor [EB/OL].(2015-10-21)[2017-07-28].https://www.noodle.com/articles/10-college-admissions-secrets-from-an-ivy-league-counselor.
[16]Corey Risinger.UNC to Grant Students’ Requests for Admissions Files Under FERPA [EB/OL].(2015-03-23)[2016-04-22].http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/03/unc-to-grant-students-requests-for-admissions-files-under-ferpa.
[17]UNC-Chapel Hill Undergraduate Admission.Who We Want [EB/OL].[2016-04-16].http://admissions.unc.edu/apply/who-we-want/.
[18]UCLA Office of Media Relations.Campus Explains Holistic Review Admissions Process [EB/OL].(2008-09-05)[2015-11-16].http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/080905_holistic-admissions_reed.
[19]College Board.Selection through Individualized Review:A Report on Phase IV of the Admissions Models Project [R].New York,NY:College Entrance Examination Board,2004:6.
[20]Davidson College Undergraduate Admission.Frequently Asked Questions[EB/OL].[2017-06-15].http://www.davidson.edu/admission-and-financial-aid/frequently-asked-questions.