Engineering Admissions and Equity – Michigan Admissions Collaboratory

Bastedo, Michael N., Mark Umbricht, Emma Bausch, Bo-Kyung Byun, Yiping Bai, and Joy Richardson. 2023. “Narrowing Enrollment Gaps for Underrepresented College Students in Engineering: Using Contextualized Admissions Measures to Predict Student Success.” International Journal of Engineering Education 39(5): 1268-1285.

Building upon previous work, this study further examines whether contextualized measures of high school achievement may help identify students who have the potential to succeed in engineering programs, especially among traditionally underrepresented students in engineering (defined in our paper as low-SES students, underrepresented students of color, and women). Based on longitudinal data from a Midwestern state’s Department of Education database, this study finds that contextualized measures of high school performance are significantly associated with students’ college performance – for all students in engineering, as well as across our three subsamples of traditionally underrepresented students. These findings have important implications for incorporating contextualized measures of high school performance when making undergraduate admissions decisions in engineering programs, to help better identify applicants from traditionally underrepresented student populations in engineering.

This mixed method study uses open-response survey data, focus groups, and an experimental simulation to explore how 311 admissions officers define and use concepts of holistic review in selective college admissions. We find that three distinct definitions of holistic review predominate in the field: whole file, whole person, and whole context. We explore these concepts qualitatively and use the coded data to predict decision-making in an experimental simulation. We find that admissions officers with a “whole context” view of holistic review are disproportionately likely to admit a low-SES applicant in our simulation. Inconsistent definitions of a core admissions concept make it more difficult for the public to comprehend the “black box” of college admissions, and a more consistently contextualized view of holistic review may also have real-world implications for the representation of low-income students at selective colleges.

Bowman, Nicholas A. and Michael N. Bastedo. 2018. “What Role May Admissions Office Diversity and Practices Play in Equitable Decisions?” Research in Higher Education: 430-447.

Attending a selective college or university has a notable impact on the likelihood of graduation, graduate school attendance, social networks, and career earnings. Given these short-term and long-term benefits, surprisingly little research has directly explored the factors that might promote or detract from equitable admissions decisions at these schools. This study examined a unique national sample of 311 undergraduate admissions officers who work at selective institutions to explore this issue. Among the descriptive findings, more than half of respondents reported that they consider applicants’ demonstrated interest in attending their institution when making a recommendation, about two-thirds review at least 100 applications during busy weeks, and almost half were working at their alma mater. Moreover, in a simulation of admissions scoring, admissions officers from historically underrepresented groups were more likely to admit low-SES applicants, whereas participants with more work experience and who were employed at their alma mater provided less equitable recommendations.

Low socioeconomic status (SES) students are underrepresented at selective colleges, but the role that admissions offices play is poorly understood. Because admissions offices often have inconsistent information on high school contexts, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether providing detailed information on high school contexts increases the likelihood that admissions officers (n = 311) would recommend admitting low-SES applicants. Admissions officers in the detailed-information condition were 13 to 14 percentage points (i.e., 26%–28%) more likely to recommend admitting a low-SES applicant from an underserved high school than those in the limited-information condition, although the limited-information condition provided significant details about family SES and high school context. These findings were consistent regardless of the selectivity of the college, admissions office practices, and participant demographics.