The Case for
Objective Evaluation of Talent
Posted by Sangeet Chowfla
Sangeet Chowfla is the president and chief executive officer of the Graduate
Management Admission Council (GMAC)
Posted on Jan 18, 2021 1:40:04 PM
The disruptions caused by the COVID-19
pandemic, along with the imperatives of the racial justice movement, have
reignited the debate about the use of standardized testing as an admissions
instrument for Graduate Management Education (GME) programs.
There are generally three arguments put
forward by the proponents of the no-test or test-optional movements: 1) that
standardized tests lack validity and predictive ability correlated to
real-world performance in academic programs and that undergraduate GPAs (UGPA)
combined with a holistic admissions process are an effective substitute; 2)
that dropping the use of standardized testing would decrease racial and gender
disparities in admitted cohorts; and 3) that standardized tests are biased
against historically underrepresented communities, undermining our societal
goals of equality. These arguments are well intended but are either not backed
up by empirical evidence in GME or, when data is cited, such data is generally
drawn from undergraduate admissions and tests such as the SAT/ACT rather than
graduate level admissions tests such as the GMAT.
On the contrary, a close
reading of the data shows that use of the GMAT in GME admissions is an
effective tool for the admissions professional and reduces subjectivity and the
potential for underlying bias. The data also shows that the GMAT provides a
more accurate predictor of performance than other available data such as the UGPA, particularly in constructing a
diverse classroom. Reliable test scores reflect objective, science-based data
that an experienced admissions professional can use to complement their
judgement about an applicants merits and fit within the GME program under
consideration. In doing so, they provide an objective anchor point that is free
of the variations of GPA across systems and countries and the unconscious
biases that may be inherent in even the best trained admissions professional.
It is the science that complements the art.
The GMAT has demonstrated predictive power
and other available data, such as undergraduate GPAs, are ineffective
substitutes.
A common argument against standardized
tests is that they lack predictive validity and that other data, such as the
UGPA, are effective substitutes. This is not backed by empirical evidence. On
the contrary, recent studies1 have shown the UGPA to be an unreliable indicator
for GME programs, largely due to the wide variability of GPA scoring across the
US and the inherent differences that exist across the globe. As the tables
below illustrate, the incremental contribution of the GMAT over the UGPA in
predicting classroom success in US GME programs is significant across racial
groupings of US citizens and amongst the region of origin for international
students.For African Americans, the UGPA seems to have no predictive ability and
all such predictive validity comes from GMAT scores.
The incremental predictive value of the
GMAT also increases with age, the raw predictive value of the UGPA declines as
the population gets older while the incremental predictive value of the GMAT
increases. As time passes, classroom grades such as the UPGA seems to have
lesser relevance. This is of importance to programs designed for a
post-experienced student base. GMAT test taking diversity closely mirrors
the mix of undergraduate degree holders in the US Another common argument against the use of
standardized tests is that their test taking populations do not adequately
reflect the racial mix that schools are looking for in their classrooms. This
is the result of an incomplete reading of the data. It is true that the racial
mix of the GMAT (and GRE) test taking population is not representative of the
US population overall. For example, African Americans in the 20-34 age group
comprise 14 percent of their age cohort but only 8 percent of GMAT test
takers (and a similar 9% for GRE). What is left out in this comparison is the
fact that African Americans comprise 9 percent of bachelors degree
holders in the US and, since a bachelors degree is a pre-requisite of graduate
education, that and not the overall population mix is the appropriate
benchmark.
Analyzed further, data shows that the GMAT
test taker mix in the US is more diverse – with the lowest percentage of test
taker who are white Americans – 59 percent for the GMAT, 65 percent for GRE, and
69 percent amongst the bachelors degree universe.
This is not to diminish the importance of
the gap in college attainment that the falloff from 14 percent to 9 percent for
African Americans represents, and what it says about the progress that we, as a
society, still need to make in order to achieve greater equality in America.
Its just that graduate admissions tests reflect current reality today. Waiving
them will not change this picture – graduate schools would still recruit from
the population that has a bachelors degree, not the entire population - but
could have the unintended consequence of introducing more bias as we will
discuss later.
The GMAT is designed so that each test
item is free of racial bias
|