Research: Do Test-Optional Policies in Engineering Admissions Improve Decision Making and Equity? Empirical Research using Experimental Simulations

在未来，随着非考试录取政策在后covid时代变得更加普遍，越来越多的人声称它们有可能提高学生的多样性。本研究旨在探讨在这一不断变化的环境中关键的政策和实践问题。在招生政策的各种工具中，招生办公室在授予工程职业准入方面发挥着重要作用。然而，对于非强制性考试政策在招生过程中的实际作用，以及它们如何有效地促进公平的结果，缺乏研究。因此，这个项目的主要目标将是在工程招生中加强决策制定和测试选择政策的实施。通过深入了解他们的影响，我们的目标是改善申请人和招生人员的录取过程，为有抱负的工程专业学生提供更多的机会。这项研究与美国国家科学基金会（National Science Foundation）对工程师形成研究的关注直接一致，特别是对从高中到大学的过渡以及通过工程学位课程的多样化途径的研究。该项目的目标是研究非考试录取对工程专业高素质和代表性不足的学生入学的影响。尽管最近考试选择性政策普遍存在，但仍需要实证和实验工作来弄清楚认知偏见是如何阻止代表性不足的学生被工程专业录取的。因此，本项目的研究问题将如下：1)SAT/ACT考试成绩的提交（或不提交）如何影响工程招生官员对录取文件和决定的评估；2)对于女性、低收入家庭学生和未被充分代表的种族群体，是否存在与考试提交相关的录取率差异影响？3)考试提交是否会对工程招生官员产生不同的影响，这取决于机构的选择性、非考试录取的历史、他们的人口背景或他们在该领域的经验？参与这项研究的将包括实际的大学招生官员，他们中的许多人将有多年审查数千份申请的经验，并将采用实验性设计方法。特别是，我们将使用模拟的入学申请文件来调查不提交考试成绩的学生是否会因此而处于不利地位，特别是对于低收入学生、女性和工程领域代表性不足的有色人种学生。这项研究将有助于我们理解可选考试政策在招生实践中的实际运作方式，以及这些过程将如何产生公平的结果。此外，该项目不仅有可能为工程招生实践提供信息，还可能为重要的国家参与者和合作伙伴的活动提供信息。该奖项反映了美国国家科学基金会的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

In the future, as test-optional admissions policies become more widespread in the post-COVID era, there are increasing claims about their potential to enhance student diversity. This study aims to explore critical policy and practice questions in this evolving landscape. Among various tools in admissions policies, the admissions office plays a significant role in granting access to engineering careers. However, there is a lack of research investigating the actual functioning of test-optional policies in the admissions process and how effectively they contribute to equitable outcomes. Therefore, the primary goal of this project will be to enhance decision making and implementation of test-optional policies in engineering admissions. By gaining insights into their impact, we aim to improve the admissions process for both applicants and admissions officers, fostering greater opportunities for aspiring engineering students. The research directly aligns with the National Science Foundation's focus on research in the formation of engineers, particularly research on the transition from high school to college and diversifying pathways to and through engineering degree programs. The goal of the project will be to examine the impact of test-optional admissions on the entry of highly-qualified and underrepresented students in engineering. Despite the recent pervasiveness of test-optional policies, empirical and experimental work remains needed to figure out how cognitive biases may prevent underrepresented students from being admitted to engineering programs. Thus, the research questions of this project will be as follows: 1) How does the submission of SAT/ACT test scores (or not) affect engineering admissions officers’ assessments of admissions files and decisions?; 2) Are there differential effects of acceptance rates related to test submissions for female, low-income students, and underrepresented racial groups?; 3) Does test submission influence engineering admissions officers differently depending on institutional selectivity, history of test-optional admissions, their demographic backgrounds, or their experience in the field? Participation in the study will involve actual college admissions officers, many of whom will have years of experience reviewing thousands of applications, and an experimental design approach will be utilized. In particular, we will use simulated admissions application files to investigate whether students who do not submit test scores under test-optional admissions policies will be disadvantaged by doing so, particularly for low-income students, women, and students of color underrepresented in engineering. This research will contribute to our understanding of how test-optional policies actually work in admissions practice and how well those processes will yield equitable outcomes. Furthermore, this project will have the potential to inform not only practices in engineering admissions, but also the activities of important national actors and partnerships.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.