Are GRE scores the best predictor of success for historians? The answer to this question was probably yes in the early 1980s. William B. Schrader published a study in 1980 that demonstrated a positive correlation between the GRE Verbal and GRE Advanced scores of historians who had earned a doctorate in the mid-1960s and their citation rates in the Social Sciences Citation Index between 1972 and 1977. (ETS phased out its GRE History exam in early 2000.) Schrader's findings probably struck a chord with historians who had jettisoned quantitative methods in the 1970s. Anecdotally, I have heard that many history departments ignore the quantitative scores of applicants to their graduate programs. The assumption seems to be that students with high verbal scores on the GRE will perform well in a history masters or doctoral program.
I think we are approaching the day when GRE scores will no longer serve as the best predictor of long-term success for historians. At best we will likely be able to demonstrate a correlation between a history student's grades in graduate school and his or her GRE scores. Consider what has been happening in the field of law. Earlier this week, the Law School at the University of Berkeley announced that it is using a new test in conjunction with the LSAT. This new test was developed by researchers who interviewed Berkeley's law alumni and identified "the qualities that make good lawyers." As they developed new tests and ran trials to measure these non-cognitive qualities, the researchers discovered that these new tests provided a much better prediction than LSAT scores of how successful a lawyer would become. Impressively, racial and ethnic gaps among law school applicants are minimized or disappear when these new tests are used. The College Board has found similar results in its attempts to measure the con-cognitive qualities of SAT test-takers.
We need similar research in history. Have any of us tried to identify the qualities that make good historians? Can we distinguish between the cognitive and non-cognitive skills and attributes that are essential for success as a historian? Does the obsession with GRE scores, and their apparent correlation with publication rates, unintentionally discriminate against students who want to work in public history? Do public historians often make more money than history faculty because the employers of these public historians reward non-cognitive skills? Would the racial and ethnic gap in history doctoral programs go away if we used a new test? Would the retention rates in history doctoral programs improve if we developed a new test that measured things like intellectual curiosity, artistic appreciation, multicultural tolerance, leadership, interpersonal skills, civic engagement, psychological well-being, career goals, life skills, perseverance, and integrity--and used this in combination with the GRE? Could this new test be used when history graduates go on the job market, to help measure their skills as a teacher, colleague, and employee? Could a new test help historians to become educators who live up to the ideals of the liberal arts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Sterling,
I think these are very good questions to ask. My feelings: I am someone who benefited from the GRE in the admissions process (came from a no-name school). But I fully recognize that my GRE performance had a lot to do with playing too many computer games growing up in the 90s. It didn't have as much to do with my inherent ability to excel in history.
That said, I think that given the obscenely competitive process to get into top programs in American History, we need more factors to weigh for admissions, not fewer. So keep the GRE, and add some other tests that measure professional potential.
As someone applying to various Ph.D programs, most of them have said the GRE is basically used a tie breaker between candidates. While some schools are rigid regarding minimum requirements, many others have expressed that performance is not that important. They like to see high verbal and writing scores but quantitative can be low.
My seminary required psychological exams as well. They were assessing abilities to be a successful student and professional.
the qualities that make good historians
what is good, though? Frequently cited doesn't necessarily cover it: Sam Huntingdon gets cited all the time because he annoys people. The popularity of a historical work doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality of its research. Some books are widely read, others are extensively used for the information they contain. Job and tenure committees are sometimes impressed by mere quantity of output. I'm not even sure what the intention is, here.
Who or what are historians supposed to serve? Do we work in service of producing prestige or creating things that society values? I am getting really tired of scholars telling me that whether their work is read by the public is irrelevant. We need to wake up from our research fantasy and realize that we need the support of the public.
I am getting really tired of scholars telling me that whether their work is read by the public is irrelevant.
I'm a little confused: is this a response to my comment? I don't think I was making any kind of ivory tower argument.
I agree with you that we need to identify who historians are supposed to serve, or what kind of effect they're supposed to have, or get some kind of criteria of value before we can assess who is performing well and who is performing poorly. I don't think such criteria are easy to come by: there are philosophical questions to be answered. For instance, I don't know what the logical distinction is between producing prestige or creating things that society values - prestige is a form of social value, isn't it? I think, naively, that the comparison with lawyers may not work for us, too: in adversarial legal cases there may be explicit victory conditions, against which one can measure lawyer success. I'm not sure historians ever have a comparable frame for measuring.
That said, now that I've read some of the articles you link to here, I see that at least part of what you mean by a good historian is an effective teacher. This seems basically true to me. However, I'm at a research university and I don't get any training in teaching. Moreover, I'm under pressure to finish my dissertation, publish papers and get on the job market on the strength of my research alone, so spending time learning about teaching is (passively) discouraged. Might I suggest adding some teaching requirement, at least to grad courses and possibly to undergrad?
Question from someone applying for PhD programs. What do you consider a good GRE score?
Not my score of 590 on the verbal! But, I did receive full funding to some relatively decent schools.
Anonymous 2:14. I'm with you on the 590 verbal. I also scored a disappointing 4.5 on writing. Any hope?
I have been following your blog for sometime... though this is my first comment here.
Thought would drop by and send you some flashcards for your opinion before I start using it with my class.
Nice blog! I like your writing way. I'm doing practice GRE here: masteryourgre.com . I hope it's useful for GRE test takers.
Excellent work. It is really useful and informative. I really appreciate with your post. waiting for your next post.
Forzest
Post a Comment