The admission of graduate students to post-bachelor’s physics programs is a complex and challenging system. Any graduate director, faculty member, or graduate student can recount their own vivid experience with that complicated and, quite often, opaque process, but in the late 1970s not so much. My graduate school entry was based on submitting undergraduate transcripts, GRE test score results and passing a physics qualifying exam.
But
Michigan State in its latest iteration for setting admission standards has
evidently gone ‘over the top’. While an applicant to a US physics graduate
program will typically submit their CV, undergraduate transcripts, letters of
recommendation, and multiple written statements covering such topics as their
personal history, research experience, motivations and goals for attending
graduate school, my own requirements to attend U.W.I.
But
according to Physics profs at MSU, writing in the July, 2023 issue of Physics
Today : “Our department began to rethink its graduate admissions
process in 2016.”
That
led to the faculty members deciding on five categories for a rubric that
aligned with both their previous experience from reviewing applications and the
recommendations of the workshop leaders: academic preparation, research
experience, noncognitive competencies, fit with program, and GRE scores.
Each
of the categories was then further divided into subcategories that mapped onto
specific information about the applicant, such as their technical skills, their
GPA in physics courses, and whether their research interests aligned with those
of faculty members. Information to assess the subcategories, of which there are
18 in total, comes from the applicant’s materials, which include transcripts, a
CV, a personal statement, a research statement, and letters of recommendation. (Refer to the lower graphic above).
Was this a case of academic overkill? That can be debated. At first blush it appeared the team's approach made sense and was practical, as they noted:
"We found that before we started using the rubric, our model could correctly predict whether three out of every four applicants would be admitted based on only the applicant’s GREP score, GPA, and score on the quantitative portion of the standard GRE. "
But then the MSU team admitted (ibid.):
"The data from after we started using
the rubric are murkier. Those three numbers are no longer determinative of
whether an applicant will be admitted, which does make it seem like we are
evaluating applicants on a broader set of criteria."
Which is true, as inspection of the table shows. Statistically, it makes sense the determinative aspect would lessen as the number of subcategories for evaluation increase. This is particularly so for the more subjective subcategories, like: research disposition, achievement orientation, conscientiousness, perseverance and alignment with faculty. All of which, I'd argue, can be dropped with minimal loss of evaluation accuracy. After all, who is to say how much perseverance a grad student really displays? Is that observer monitoring the student all the time, seeing the late night burning of the "midnight oil" invested? Likely not. As for "alignment with faculty" that is about as subjective and variable as one can get given faculty interest in research can often turn on a dime even in the same semester or quarter.
The MSU team then goes on to admit:
"But even when we used the rubric scores to build a model, the resulting simulation was not able to predict whether a given student will be admitted. Perhaps the lack of a few predictive features signifies that our admissions process has become more holistic and that the rubric has created multiple routes to admission. "
This obviously constitutes a major failing of the MSU rubric scores, if they can't predict whether a student will be admitted. It kind of defeats the purpose and I attribute that to the imbalance of actually predictive (or determinate) criteria. Hence, I'd argue the model stands a better chance of predicting future admission using the original criteria.
Still it is gratifying to read:
"We’re currently working on determining what parts of the application are driving admissions decisions so that we can know for sure."
While also acknowledging that the new rubric with all the 18 subcategories has succeeded in: "admitting more applicants from underrepresented groups in physics without increasing the time required for faculty to review applications."
That's definitely a plus and physics graduate department observers will impatiently await the MSU team's next moves in showing what sections of its application process delivers most 'bang for the buck."
No comments:
Post a Comment