个体化审阅与美国名校生源选拔
|
摘要
个体化审阅是美国名校用以选拔本科新生的路径之一。招生官将每位申请者视为"一个整体"和"一个个体",查看申请材料中提供的所有信息,并以非机械化、具体情况具体分析的方式进行评价。个体化审阅的核心特征体现为没有阈值、没有公式、没有单一决胜因素。我国一流大学不可简单复制美国经验,但可学习其中的公平理念,以推进入学机会的高质量分配。
Individualized review is one approach to select freshmen by American elite colleges and universities,in which admission officers review each applicant as a whole person and as an individual,and review all the information provided by the application materials,as well as making evaluation in a non-mechanic and case-by-case approach.The core characteristics of individualized review include that no cutoff,no formula,and no single decisive factor.Although the first-class universities in China can't simply duplicate the experiences from the U.S.side,but can learn its philosophy of equity,so as to promote the high-quality distribution of admission quotas.
Individualized review is one approach to select freshmen by American elite colleges and universities,in which admission officers review each applicant as a whole person and as an individual,and review all the information provided by the application materials,as well as making evaluation in a non-mechanic and case-by-case approach.The core characteristics of individualized review include that no cutoff,no formula,and no single decisive factor.Although the first-class universities in China can't simply duplicate the experiences from the U.S.side,but can learn its philosophy of equity,so as to promote the high-quality distribution of admission quotas.
引文
(1)杰罗姆·卡拉贝尔:《被选中的:哈佛、耶鲁和普林斯顿的入学标准秘史》,谢爱磊、周晟、柳琳等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009年,第11页。
(2)从我国已有相关文献的内容和观点来看,关注的基本都是美国高校招生中使用的录取标准而非录取方式,例如郑若玲:《我们能从美国高校招生制度借鉴什么》,《东南学术》2007年第3期;乐毅:《美国本科招生模式及录取标准:启示、借鉴与本土实践》,《现代大学教育》2008年第1期;刘晓玲、陈欣:《美国高等教育少数种族优惠政策中的大学录取标准述评》,《外国教育研究》2014年第12期。
(3)Bowman,Nicholas,and Michael Bastedo.“What Role May Admissions Office Diversity and Practices Play in Equitable Decisions?”Research in Higher Education.http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bastedo/papers/BowmanBastedo2017.pdf(accessed September 1,2017).
(4)Lucido,Jerome A.“How Admission Decisions Get Made.”In Handbook of Strategic Enrollment Management,162.San Francisco,CA:Jossey-Bass Press,2015.
(5)Anderson,Nick.“Inside the Admissions Process at George Washington University.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/inside-the-admissions-process-at-george-washington-university/2014/03/22/f86b85fa-aee6-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html(accessed July 31,2015).
(6)陈向明:《质的研究方法与社会科学研究》,北京:教育科学出版社,2000年,第7页。
(7)凯瑟琳·马歇尔、格雷琴·罗斯曼:《设计质性研究:有效研究计划的全程指导》,何江穗译,重庆:重庆大学出版社,2015年,第113页。
(8)蔺亚琼:《多个案比较法及其对高等教育研究的启示》,《高等教育研究》2016年第11期。
(9)名校的界定在美国没有统一的标准,虽然人们通常会联想到哈佛大学、耶鲁大学、普林斯顿大学等世界排名领先的私立常春藤盟校,但公立大学也有跻身世界一流的高校,比如加州大学伯克利分校和洛杉矶分校、弗吉尼亚大学等。同时,根据不同的维度和研究目的,名校的范畴也有所差异。由于本文聚焦于本科招生制度研究,所以以最能象征选拔性的指标——录取率为界定标准。
(10)在美国,类似我国报考指南的巴伦档案对高校选拔性的划分得到较为普遍的认可。它使用“竞争性”一词指代“选拔性”,每年根据上一年新生的年级排名、高中GPA、SAT和ACT分数等信息对美国高校进行分类,包括“最具竞争性”“高度竞争性”“很有竞争性”“竞争性”“低竞争性”“不具竞争性”六个类别。在2015年,巴伦档案中选拔度最高的“最具竞争性”高校共93所,占美国该年2603所四年制高校的3.6%。该类高校录取率低于33%,新生的年级排名一般位于所属高中毕业生的前10%-20%,高中GPA为A至B+,SAT词汇和数学各部分的中位数为655-800(各部分的满分为800),ACT总分的中位数不低于29(满分为36)。参见Barrons College Division.Profiles of American Colleges 2016.Hauppauge,NY:Barrons Educational Series,2015.
(11)“全美新生调查”基于新生的学业成就对高校的选拔度进行了划分,具体依据为基于新生的平均SAT(词汇+数学)总分的平均中位数:分值在1190-1600分之间为高选拔性公立大学;在1185-1339分之间为高选拔性私立大学;在1340-1600分之间为超高选拔性私立大学;在1190-1600分之间为超高选拔性私立学院(指四年制私立非宗教学院,其中文理学院占大多数)。在案例高校中,只有UCSD的录取率略高于33%,但笔者认为这并不影响其精英性,例如UCSD与UCLA均属于“全美新生调查”中定义的高选拔性公立大学。参见Eagan,Kevin,Ellen Bara Stolzenberg,Abigail K.Bates,Melissa C.Aragon,Maria Ramirez Suchard,and Cecilia Rios-Aguilar.“The American Freshman:National Norms Fall 2015—Expanded Edition.”https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/TheAmericanFreshman2015-Expanded.pdf(accessed June 8,2017).
(12)每份录音整理完毕后,笔者对转录文件进行编号,编号系统包括如下信息:1)高校名称简写。2)受访者身份。3)如果同一高校招办存在多位受访者,则对受访者进行编号。例如“3”表示高校招办的第3位受访AO,如有意愿公开身份者则以名和姓的首字母组合代替编号,如UNC的宣传负责人艾希礼·玛梦丽(Ashley Memory)愿意公开实名,则以“AM”表示,其他类型以此类推。4)访谈日期简写,例如“160512”表示访谈时间为2016年5月12日。
(13)Dey,Ian.Qualitative Data Analysis:A Userfriendly Guide for Social Scientists.London,UK:Routledge and Kegan Paul,1993.
(14)美国名校和许多AO在表达中有时会使用“整体性审阅”一词指代笔者区分的“个体化审阅”。为了保持数据的完整性,笔者没有进行更改。但笔者所判定的整体性审阅指向个体化审阅而非背景化审阅和集体化审阅的标准,是本文论述的个体化审阅的内涵和特征。
(15)UNC-Chapel Hill Admission Office.“Why should I Apply to Carolina?”https://unc.askadmissions.net/ask.aspx(accessed April 10,2016).
(16)美国招办习惯把审阅申请材料并作出评价的人称为“读者”。读者包括招办AO,也包括外聘读者。
(17)UCLA Office of Media Relations.“Campus Explains Holistic Review Admissions Process.”http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/080905_holistic-admissions_reed(accessed November 16,2015).
(18)(35)(39)University of California Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools.“Annual Report on Undergraduate Admissions Requirements and Comprehensive Review 2016.”http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/documents/BOARS2016ReporttoRegents.pdf(accessed January 1,2017).
(19)UNC-Chapel Hill Undergraduate Admission.“Who We Want.”http://admissions.unc.edu/apply/who-wewant/(accessed April 16,2016).
(20)UNC-Chapel Hill Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.“2014-2015Annual Report.”http://faccoun.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/UAD2014-15.pdf(accessed April 20,2016).
(21)(46)College Board.Selection through Individualized Review:A Report on Phase IV of the Admissions Models Project.New York,NY:College Entrance Examination Board,2004,3.
(22)申请者也可以以SAT代替ACT,SAT的分数要求详见:http://www.olemiss.edu/info/admissions/admissions-guides/.
(23)U.S.Commission on Civil Rights-Office for Civil Rights Evaluation.“Beyond Percentage Plans:The Challenge of Equal Opportunity in Higher Education(Draft Staff Report).”https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/beyondpercentplns.pdf(accessed March 27,2016);UC Admission Office.“Statewide Path.”http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/admissions-index/index.html(accessed March 27,2016);UC Admission Office.“Local Path.”http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/local-path/index.html(accessed March 27,2016).
(24)University of Texas at Austin Undergraduate Admission.“Admission Decisions.” https://admissions.utexas.edu/apply/decisions(accessed July 18,2017).
(25)(33)UCLA Undergraduate Admission.“Freshman Selection—Fall 2016.”http://www.admission.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/FrSel.ht(accessed November 10,2016).
(26)(42)UNC-Chapel Hill Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.“Guidelines for Standardized Testing.”https://admissions.unc.edu/files/2013/07/Guidelines-for-Standardized-Testing-APPROVED-Updated. pdf(accessed April 18,2016).
(27)University of Southern California Undergraduate Admission.“Application Components.”http://admission.usc.edu/firstyear/prospective/components.html(accessed November 15,2015).
(28)(36)(40)University of California Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools.“Comprehensive Review in Freshman Admissions at the University of California 2003-2009.”http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/HP_MGYreBOARS_CR_rpt.pdf(accessed November 1,2015).
(29)(38)Douglass,John A.The Conditions for Admission:Access,Equity and the Social Contract of Public Universities.Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press,2007:131-132.
(30)University of California Eligibility and Admissions Study Group.“Final Report to the President.”http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/boars/documents/studygroup_final0404.pdf(accessed July 14,2017).
(31)(32)Comeaux,Eddie and Tara Watford.“Admissions&Omissions:How ‘the NumbersAre Used to Exclude Deserving Students.”http://www.bunchecenter.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Bunche-Research-ReportJune-2006.pdf(accessed July 21,2017).
(34)Charco,Cole D.“UNC Reviews Admissions after Wainstein.”http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/10/unc-reviews-admissions-after-wainstein(accessed April16,2016);Office for Civil Rights.“Compliance Resolution:University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill.”http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/11072016-a.html(accessed April 11,2016).
(37)University of California Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools.“Comprehensive Review in Admissions at the University of California:An Update.”http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/boars/BOARSREPORTCOMPREHENSIVEREVIEW2012. pdf(accessed November 1,2015).
(41)Allman,Martha.“Going Test-optional:A First Year of Challenges,Surprises,and Rewards”In SAT Wars:The Case for Test-optional College Admissions,170.New York,NY:Teachers College Press,2012.
(43)UNC-Chapel Hill.“Brief of Amicus Curiae:The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Supporting Respondents.” http://unc.edu/files/2014/04/Fisher-BriefFINAL.pdf(accessed April 14,2016).
(44)UCLA Undergraduate Admission.“FAQs from Denied Freshman Applicants.”http://www.admission.ucla.edu/faq/FR_Not_Adm.htm(accessed August 4,2017).
(45)UCSD Undergraduate Admission.“2016Freshman Application Workshop(Online Webniar).”http://admissions.ucsd.edu/events/index.html(accessed September10,2016).
(47)杨德广:《30年来中国高等教育的十大变革》,《重庆高教研究》2015年第5期。
(2)从我国已有相关文献的内容和观点来看,关注的基本都是美国高校招生中使用的录取标准而非录取方式,例如郑若玲:《我们能从美国高校招生制度借鉴什么》,《东南学术》2007年第3期;乐毅:《美国本科招生模式及录取标准:启示、借鉴与本土实践》,《现代大学教育》2008年第1期;刘晓玲、陈欣:《美国高等教育少数种族优惠政策中的大学录取标准述评》,《外国教育研究》2014年第12期。
(3)Bowman,Nicholas,and Michael Bastedo.“What Role May Admissions Office Diversity and Practices Play in Equitable Decisions?”Research in Higher Education.http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bastedo/papers/BowmanBastedo2017.pdf(accessed September 1,2017).
(4)Lucido,Jerome A.“How Admission Decisions Get Made.”In Handbook of Strategic Enrollment Management,162.San Francisco,CA:Jossey-Bass Press,2015.
(5)Anderson,Nick.“Inside the Admissions Process at George Washington University.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/inside-the-admissions-process-at-george-washington-university/2014/03/22/f86b85fa-aee6-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html(accessed July 31,2015).
(6)陈向明:《质的研究方法与社会科学研究》,北京:教育科学出版社,2000年,第7页。
(7)凯瑟琳·马歇尔、格雷琴·罗斯曼:《设计质性研究:有效研究计划的全程指导》,何江穗译,重庆:重庆大学出版社,2015年,第113页。
(8)蔺亚琼:《多个案比较法及其对高等教育研究的启示》,《高等教育研究》2016年第11期。
(9)名校的界定在美国没有统一的标准,虽然人们通常会联想到哈佛大学、耶鲁大学、普林斯顿大学等世界排名领先的私立常春藤盟校,但公立大学也有跻身世界一流的高校,比如加州大学伯克利分校和洛杉矶分校、弗吉尼亚大学等。同时,根据不同的维度和研究目的,名校的范畴也有所差异。由于本文聚焦于本科招生制度研究,所以以最能象征选拔性的指标——录取率为界定标准。
(10)在美国,类似我国报考指南的巴伦档案对高校选拔性的划分得到较为普遍的认可。它使用“竞争性”一词指代“选拔性”,每年根据上一年新生的年级排名、高中GPA、SAT和ACT分数等信息对美国高校进行分类,包括“最具竞争性”“高度竞争性”“很有竞争性”“竞争性”“低竞争性”“不具竞争性”六个类别。在2015年,巴伦档案中选拔度最高的“最具竞争性”高校共93所,占美国该年2603所四年制高校的3.6%。该类高校录取率低于33%,新生的年级排名一般位于所属高中毕业生的前10%-20%,高中GPA为A至B+,SAT词汇和数学各部分的中位数为655-800(各部分的满分为800),ACT总分的中位数不低于29(满分为36)。参见Barrons College Division.Profiles of American Colleges 2016.Hauppauge,NY:Barrons Educational Series,2015.
(11)“全美新生调查”基于新生的学业成就对高校的选拔度进行了划分,具体依据为基于新生的平均SAT(词汇+数学)总分的平均中位数:分值在1190-1600分之间为高选拔性公立大学;在1185-1339分之间为高选拔性私立大学;在1340-1600分之间为超高选拔性私立大学;在1190-1600分之间为超高选拔性私立学院(指四年制私立非宗教学院,其中文理学院占大多数)。在案例高校中,只有UCSD的录取率略高于33%,但笔者认为这并不影响其精英性,例如UCSD与UCLA均属于“全美新生调查”中定义的高选拔性公立大学。参见Eagan,Kevin,Ellen Bara Stolzenberg,Abigail K.Bates,Melissa C.Aragon,Maria Ramirez Suchard,and Cecilia Rios-Aguilar.“The American Freshman:National Norms Fall 2015—Expanded Edition.”https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/TheAmericanFreshman2015-Expanded.pdf(accessed June 8,2017).
(12)每份录音整理完毕后,笔者对转录文件进行编号,编号系统包括如下信息:1)高校名称简写。2)受访者身份。3)如果同一高校招办存在多位受访者,则对受访者进行编号。例如“3”表示高校招办的第3位受访AO,如有意愿公开身份者则以名和姓的首字母组合代替编号,如UNC的宣传负责人艾希礼·玛梦丽(Ashley Memory)愿意公开实名,则以“AM”表示,其他类型以此类推。4)访谈日期简写,例如“160512”表示访谈时间为2016年5月12日。
(13)Dey,Ian.Qualitative Data Analysis:A Userfriendly Guide for Social Scientists.London,UK:Routledge and Kegan Paul,1993.
(14)美国名校和许多AO在表达中有时会使用“整体性审阅”一词指代笔者区分的“个体化审阅”。为了保持数据的完整性,笔者没有进行更改。但笔者所判定的整体性审阅指向个体化审阅而非背景化审阅和集体化审阅的标准,是本文论述的个体化审阅的内涵和特征。
(15)UNC-Chapel Hill Admission Office.“Why should I Apply to Carolina?”https://unc.askadmissions.net/ask.aspx(accessed April 10,2016).
(16)美国招办习惯把审阅申请材料并作出评价的人称为“读者”。读者包括招办AO,也包括外聘读者。
(17)UCLA Office of Media Relations.“Campus Explains Holistic Review Admissions Process.”http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/080905_holistic-admissions_reed(accessed November 16,2015).
(18)(35)(39)University of California Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools.“Annual Report on Undergraduate Admissions Requirements and Comprehensive Review 2016.”http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/documents/BOARS2016ReporttoRegents.pdf(accessed January 1,2017).
(19)UNC-Chapel Hill Undergraduate Admission.“Who We Want.”http://admissions.unc.edu/apply/who-wewant/(accessed April 16,2016).
(20)UNC-Chapel Hill Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.“2014-2015Annual Report.”http://faccoun.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/UAD2014-15.pdf(accessed April 20,2016).
(21)(46)College Board.Selection through Individualized Review:A Report on Phase IV of the Admissions Models Project.New York,NY:College Entrance Examination Board,2004,3.
(22)申请者也可以以SAT代替ACT,SAT的分数要求详见:http://www.olemiss.edu/info/admissions/admissions-guides/.
(23)U.S.Commission on Civil Rights-Office for Civil Rights Evaluation.“Beyond Percentage Plans:The Challenge of Equal Opportunity in Higher Education(Draft Staff Report).”https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/beyondpercentplns.pdf(accessed March 27,2016);UC Admission Office.“Statewide Path.”http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/admissions-index/index.html(accessed March 27,2016);UC Admission Office.“Local Path.”http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/local-path/index.html(accessed March 27,2016).
(24)University of Texas at Austin Undergraduate Admission.“Admission Decisions.” https://admissions.utexas.edu/apply/decisions(accessed July 18,2017).
(25)(33)UCLA Undergraduate Admission.“Freshman Selection—Fall 2016.”http://www.admission.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/FrSel.ht(accessed November 10,2016).
(26)(42)UNC-Chapel Hill Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.“Guidelines for Standardized Testing.”https://admissions.unc.edu/files/2013/07/Guidelines-for-Standardized-Testing-APPROVED-Updated. pdf(accessed April 18,2016).
(27)University of Southern California Undergraduate Admission.“Application Components.”http://admission.usc.edu/firstyear/prospective/components.html(accessed November 15,2015).
(28)(36)(40)University of California Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools.“Comprehensive Review in Freshman Admissions at the University of California 2003-2009.”http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/HP_MGYreBOARS_CR_rpt.pdf(accessed November 1,2015).
(29)(38)Douglass,John A.The Conditions for Admission:Access,Equity and the Social Contract of Public Universities.Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press,2007:131-132.
(30)University of California Eligibility and Admissions Study Group.“Final Report to the President.”http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/boars/documents/studygroup_final0404.pdf(accessed July 14,2017).
(31)(32)Comeaux,Eddie and Tara Watford.“Admissions&Omissions:How ‘the NumbersAre Used to Exclude Deserving Students.”http://www.bunchecenter.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Bunche-Research-ReportJune-2006.pdf(accessed July 21,2017).
(34)Charco,Cole D.“UNC Reviews Admissions after Wainstein.”http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/10/unc-reviews-admissions-after-wainstein(accessed April16,2016);Office for Civil Rights.“Compliance Resolution:University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill.”http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/11072016-a.html(accessed April 11,2016).
(37)University of California Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools.“Comprehensive Review in Admissions at the University of California:An Update.”http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/boars/BOARSREPORTCOMPREHENSIVEREVIEW2012. pdf(accessed November 1,2015).
(41)Allman,Martha.“Going Test-optional:A First Year of Challenges,Surprises,and Rewards”In SAT Wars:The Case for Test-optional College Admissions,170.New York,NY:Teachers College Press,2012.
(43)UNC-Chapel Hill.“Brief of Amicus Curiae:The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Supporting Respondents.” http://unc.edu/files/2014/04/Fisher-BriefFINAL.pdf(accessed April 14,2016).
(44)UCLA Undergraduate Admission.“FAQs from Denied Freshman Applicants.”http://www.admission.ucla.edu/faq/FR_Not_Adm.htm(accessed August 4,2017).
(45)UCSD Undergraduate Admission.“2016Freshman Application Workshop(Online Webniar).”http://admissions.ucsd.edu/events/index.html(accessed September10,2016).
(47)杨德广:《30年来中国高等教育的十大变革》,《重庆高教研究》2015年第5期。