E
arlier this year, the University of Michigan be-
came the first US university to remove the re-
quirement that applicants to its nonprofessional
doctoral programs take a standardized test—the
Graduate Record Examination (GRE). This deci-
sion will not, on its own, address inequities in
admissions practice, nor the broader education
barriers that many applicants face. But it is a major
step toward an admissions process that considers all
dimensions of a candidate’s preparation and prom-
ise—a holistic view that should be adopted by all uni-
versities if equity in education and opportunities is to
be achieved.
The stated goal of the GRE general test is to assess
writing skills and quantitative and verbal reasoning.
Its actual value as an instru-
ment for determining who is
likely to be successful in a doc-
toral graduate program, how-
ever, has not been established.
There is a positive correlation
across disciplines between GRE
scores and first-year gradu-
ate course GPA (grade point
average). However, although
coursework is part of obtaining
foundational knowledge in a
field, the central focus of a doc-
toral degree comprises intellec-
tual contributions and research
accomplishments (measured in many dimensions,
such as publications, presentations, and patents).
Beyond major questions about GRE utility, there are
substantive financial and opportunity costs associated
with requiring the GRE: costs for applicants and costs
for admissions committees. For the potential applicant,
the test is expensive; registration alone has a price tag
of US$205, with additional fees for score reporting. (A
fee reduction is possible for qualified applicants.) Many
feel pressure to enroll in expensive GRE prep courses that
teach test-taking strategies and often offer money-back
guarantees for competitive scores and score improve-
ments. The GRE 162+ course offered by Princeton Review,
for example, guarantees scores of at least 162 (out of 170)
at a cost of US$2149.
What are the costs for admissions committees that use
the GRE in admissions decisions? In short, the loss of tal-
ented applicants at every stage of the process. Students
who do not have the financial means to prepare for and/
or take the test will not apply. A further loss comes from
potential applicants who lack access to the test, either be-cause of the limited availability of physical testing sites or
because of lack of access to wireless networks needed for
online test-taking options. Once applications have arrived
for review by a doctoral admissions committee, use of the
GRE can lead to additional loss of talented applicants.
Despite recommendations that GRE scores only be used
in the context of an overall evaluation of an applicant, in
practice they can readily be employed—implicitly or ex-
plicitly—as cutoffs for further consideration of an applica-
tion. This is an especially problematic practice given that
GRE scores consistently correlate with the sex, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, and race of the test taker.
Discontinuing the use of the GRE in doctoral admis-
sions is, therefore, a valuable step toward best practices
to reduce the barriers—systemic and otherwise—faced by
students, to decrease bias in the
evaluation process, and to sup-
port admission and recruitment
of outstanding student cohorts. A
concern is that in the absence of
the GRE score, admissions com-
mittees will rely more heavily on
other aspects of a candidate’s ap-
plication that—like the GRE—are
strongly correlated with race, sex,
and socioeconomic factors rather
than talent and promise. This
includes undergraduate institu-
tion ranking, prestigious intern-
ships, and performance on other
standardized tests. It is for exactly this reason that frank
conversations about discordance between the stated goals
and values of doctoral programs and the common prac-
tices in doctoral admissions are indispensable.
In recent years, many individual graduate programs
have removed the GRE requirement, with notable suc-
cess. But implementing a truly holistic admissions pro-
cess at the university level requires more than dropping
standardized tests. Faculty need education and institu-
tional support to develop effective and equitable evalu-
ation rubrics and to learn how to better use the rich
information in graduate applications rather than single
data points in their evaluative processes. The continual
collection and analysis of data surrounding all aspects of
the student life cycle—from recruitment through gradu-
ation—are also critical. In this way, changes across many
dimensions that correlate with GRE general test discon-
tinuation and evolving holistic admissions practices can
be identified and can inform future goals for the graduate
education community at large.
–Anna MappRemoving a barrier to equity
Anna Mapp
is the Edwin Vedejs
Collegiate Professor
of Chemistry in
the Department of
Chemistry, Research
Professor in the Life
Sciences Institute,
and Associate Dean
of Biological and
Health Sciences at the
Rackham Graduate
School, University
of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
[email protected]10.1126/science.abq
PHOTO: STEPHANIE KING
SCIENCE science.org 29 APRIL 2022 • VOL 376 ISSUE 6592 437EDITORIAL
“...a truly holistic
admissions process...
requires more
than dropping
standardized tests.”