Search

Selection for higher education (HE) programs may hinder equal opportunities for applicants and thereby reduce student diversity and representativeness. However, variables which could play a role in inequality of opportunity are often studied separately from each other. Therefore, this retrospective cohort study conducts an innovative intersectional analysis of the inequality of opportunity in admissions to selective HE programs. Using a combination of multivariable logistic regression analyses and descriptive statistics, we aimed to investigate 1) the representativeness of student populations of selective HE programs, as compared to both the applicant pool and the demographics of the age cohort; 2) the demographic background variables which are associated with an applicant's odds of admission; and 3) the intersectional acceptance rates of applicants with all, some or none of the background characteristics positively associated with odds of admission. The study focused on all selective HE programs (n = 96) in The Netherlands in 2019 and 2020, using Studielink applicant data (N = 85,839) and Statistics Netherlands microdata of ten background characteristics. The results show that student diversity in selective HE programs is limited, partly due to the widespread inequality of opportunity in the selection procedures, and partly due to self-selection. Out of all ten variables, migration background was most often (negatively) associated with the odds of receiving an offer of admission. The intersectional analyses provide detailed insight into how (dis)advantage has different effects for different groups. We therefore recommend the implementation of equitable admissions procedures which take intersectionality into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Applicant perceptions of selection methods can affect motivation, performance and withdrawal and may therefore be of relevance in the context of widening access. However, it is unknown how applicant subgroups perceive different selection methods. Objectives: Using organisational justice theory, the present multi‐site study examined applicant perceptions of various selection methods, rationales behind perceptions and subgroup differences. Methods: Applicants to five Dutch undergraduate health professions programmes (N = 704) completed an online survey including demographics and a questionnaire on applicant perceptions applied to 11 commonly used selection methods. Applicants rated general favourability and justice dimensions (7‐point Likert scale) and could add comments for each method. Results: Descriptive statistics revealed a preference for selection methods on which applicants feel more 'in control': General favourability ratings were highest for curriculum‐sampling tests (mean [M] = 5.32) and skills tests (M = 5.13), while weighted lottery (M = 3.05) and unweighted lottery (M = 2.97) were perceived least favourable. Additionally, applicants preferred to distinguish themselves on methods that assess attributes beyond cognitive abilities. Qualitative content analysis of comments revealed several conflicting preferences, including a desire for multiple selection methods versus concerns of experiencing too much stress. Results from a linear mixed model of general favourability indicated some small subgroup differences in perceptions (based on gender, migration background, prior education and parental education), but practical meaning of these differences was negligible. Nevertheless, concerns were expressed that certain selection methods can hinder equitable admission due to inequal access to resources. Conclusions: Our findings illustrate that applicants desire to demonstrate a variety of attributes on a combination of selection tools, but also observe that this can result in multiple drawbacks. The present study can help programmes in deciding which selection methods to include, which more negatively perceived methods should be better justified to applicants, and how to adapt methods to meet applicants' needs. The authors report that applicants to undergraduate health professions education prefer selection methods that provide a sense of control and allow the demonstration of more than just academic ability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]