Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:41:57 EST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Remo Ostini <rxo868@CSCGPO.ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      GRE etc
X-To:         psycgrad@acadvm1.uottawa.ca

Just a little recap.  My original comment was that the best way to prepare for
a test is to know your stuff.  This was in the context of a discussion on
test taking strategies.  A parallel discussion began on the evils of
standardized tests and the two discussions now seem to have merged.

Some good comments have been made about the limits of standardized tests.  It
has been suggested that tests like the GRE should be used in conjunction with
other criteria for making entrance decisions.  This is in my view the most
important issue to come out of this discussion.  To me this point is patently
obvious, and even the people who produce the tests advise this.  Past grades,
statement of purpose and examples of previous written work are all important
pieces in the selection puzzle.  But the tests still have an important place.

Interviews were suggested as a way of overcoming the cultural bias in tests.
I disputed this on the basis of a large literature which demonstrates that
interviews are themselves highly subjective and open to bias.  The question of
interviews for clinical was brought up as a counter-example.  This seems to me
to be a special case.  Presumably clinical program interviews are a type of
screening interview to select candidates with appropriate personality
characteristics and interpersonal skills to work as practitioners.  I don't
see how this could replace an ability test.

And yes the GRE is a type of general ability test.  Coaching does not make a
large difference to results.  It makes some difference if it's done before the
first time the test is taken, but there is little more advantage to be gained
from coaching compared to just doing the practice tests.  Most of the
advantage from coaching relates to getting people familiarised with the test.
As for what they do, I would still maintain that if you cannot express yourself
clearly in English, manipulate complex ideas and have a basic grasp of
mathamatical concepts then you need to question whether you should be aiming
for grad school.  Even therapists need to be able to understand complex models
of personality/behaviour/mind/human nature.  Having a kind heart and a
comforting word for people isn't the only criterion of a good therapist (now
I'm being facetious :-)).

As for examples of where the tests failed to identify excellent prospects, I'm
sure we could all give examples of people who were disadvantaged by unfair
grades or a grumpy interviewer.  There are always outliers, if you like I can
give you at least one example of where the GRE was perfectly accurate and
there are lots of them out there.  If you want a solution without flaws, there
just isn't one.  I would still prefer to include among the criteria I was
selected on some sort of objective test, even an inperfect one.

And so to predictive validity.  It depends who you talk to and what their
agenda is.  My reading of the literature suggests that at best college grades
are almost as good a predictor of success in grad school as the GRE.  Of course
it all depends how you define success and how you measure college grades.
Which leads to another issue and important role for standardized tests.  Would
opponents of these tests suggest that grades are comparable across all
undergrad institutions, or high schools for the SAT?  How do you compare
grades across institutions, or even for different subjects/courses within an
institution.  At my old school it was widely recognized that some departments
graded their courses easier than others.  Where is the objectivity in this?
If you have applications from around the world siting on your desk how do you
compare these people in an even handed way?  How do grades from the University
of Southern Queensland compare to grades from Berkeley?

The issue of selection criteria is highly political and arouses a lot of
emotional reaction.  No-one in this discussion has provided a superior
alternative to a standardised test.  But I do believe that the discussion has
highlighted the need to avoid reliance on just one criterion for selection.
My experience is that this is normally the case.  It certainly was the case for
all the grad schools I applied to.  Maybe I'm not normal - but that is a whole
new discussion! :-)

Remo

Remo Ostini 		       *  rxo868@huxley.anu.edu.au
NCEPH, ANU		       *  "Morality is a vast and inescapable
GPO Box 4, 		       *  conspiracy in which we all participate."
Canberra  ACT 2601, Australia  *  				- Norma Haan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU