admission model and equity in higher education
TRANSCRIPT
Admission Model and Equity in Higher Education
Grace Wang • Boaz Shulruf
Published online: 1 September 2012
� De La Salle University 2012
Abstract Equity in higher education is mostly related to the
context in which it is discussed. Most commonly, equity is
sought for enhancing access to higher education for under-
represented groups such as minorities, low income groups, or
any other type of disadvantaged group of people. The plethora
of research in this area mostly focuses on different types of
affirmative action aiming to enroll more under-represented
groups in higher education, whereas in the research on equity,
within the context of educational outcomes and quality, the
interaction between equity and quality in higher education is
scarce. This paper discusses the entangled issues of equity and
quality in higher education and explores the possible solutions
to promoting both. It concludes that admission models aiming
to achieve equity in higher education should be more out-
comes-based (e.g., increase success) rather than process-
based (e.g., increase participation).
Keywords Higher education � Admission � Equity
Admission Model and Equity in Higher Education
Equity in higher education can have several meanings. From
an economic perspective, it implies that all potential students
with eligible qualifications and aptitudes should have access
to higher education, irrespective of their financial capacity
(Jacobs and Van Der Ploeg 2006). Another perspective relates
to equality of participation across ethnicities or socio-eco-
nomic bands (Harper et al. 2009). This standpoint argues that
the student body in higher education should reflect the dis-
tribution of socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnicity/race
within the population from which the student body is drawn
(Astin and Oseguera 2004; Harper et al. 2009; Niemann and
Maruyama 2005; Harris 1999). Both perspectives focus on
universal student accessibility to higher education and are
irrespective of the realities. Consequently, many students who
access higher education via affirmative action are often ill-
prepared and are without the appropriate skills or aptitudes.
Quality in higher education can be measured by various
criteria. From an economic perspective, the quality of
higher education focuses mainly on the economic return to
the student, i.e., the additional income generated by a
student that can be attributed to the academic degree they
gained. Alternatively, a more academic perspective relates
quality to the grades achieved by students, their persis-
tence, and overall qualification (Brakke and Brown 2002;
Cameron 1978; Henning et al. 2012; Scott 2005, 2009a, b;
Searle 2003; Tumen et al. 2008; Yorke 1989, 2000). The
latter is our concern in this paper, which is optimizing
student selection tools for achieving better academic and
social outcomes.
Recent research (Shulruf et al. 2008b, 2009) suggests a
need to look at equity (equal opportunities) and quality
(educational attainment) within higher education in a more
comprehensive manner. Equity in terms of accessibility to
higher education is not sufficient. Instead, equity should be
measured in terms of success in academic programs
(grades/qualifications gained) across different populations.
This approach is adopted in this paper which discusses the
entangled issues of equity and quality in higher education.
G. Wang (&)
Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
e-mail: [email protected]
B. Shulruf
Medical Education & Student Office,
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Wang
The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
123
Asia-Pacific Edu Res (2013) 22:111–117
DOI 10.1007/s40299-012-0002-8
The Importance of Equity and Quality in Higher
Education
The importance and benefits of higher education are well
established. Increased student enrollment in higher educa-
tion is evident in most developed countries, such as the US,
the UK, and New Zealand (Thomas 2002), with numbers
increasing particularly from socially under-represented
groups (Tien 2008). However, access to highly selective
institutions remains extremely competitive with students
contesting a limited number of available places since it is
suggested that the top-ranked universities have better
resources and provide a better student experience than
other institutions, resulting in better educational outcomes
and career prospects. Consequently, it is likely that
admission policies at selective higher education institutions
significantly impact on individuals and societies, rationing
access to societal influence and power, and shaping mul-
tiple disciplines of social services such as business, the arts,
and law. Amid worldwide economic pressure, access to
highly selective institutions is increasingly becoming more
critical in terms of future career and financial success. It is
also essential to set up specific admission criteria to insure
potential students have eligible qualifications and aptitudes
for tertiary studies.
Historically, higher educational institutions and policy
makers have addressed issues of inequality in higher edu-
cation largely by modifying admission policies, reflecting
the belief that the barriers to equality lie with the gate-
keeper, i.e., the admission criteria. As a result, a range of
admission policies have been implemented that are aimed
at increasing the enrollment in the higher education of
students from traditionally under-represented populations.
Unfortunately, the system of selective admissions1 has
been considered the principal obstacle to achieving
equality of opportunity to participation. This is illustrated
in research that has shown that the majority of students
attending higher education come from the upper socio-
economic levels, and they are also more likely to study
areas with potentially high earnings (Guinier 2003;
McDonald et al. 2001; Thomas et al. 1979). Thus, many
argue that although members of ethnic and low income
under-represented groups have more access to higher
education today than 40 years ago, there is a hidden ele-
ment to the equity issue in terms of access to specific forms
of higher education.
Furthermore, in spite of the increasing number of
students enrolled in higher education institutions, the high
proportion of non-completion has remained constant, par-
ticularly among the under-represented groups (Scott 2004,
2005, 2009a, b; Thomas 2002). This suggests that lowering
the academic bar to increase equity in access to higher
education may not in fact achieve equity, but may affect
the quality of teaching and learning in higher education
institutions.
A different approach to this issue would be to look at the
quality of tertiary education admission systems, specifi-
cally in terms of their predictability of student achieve-
ment. The plethora of research on the predictability of
university achievement by secondary school achievements
focuses mainly on the 1st year university grade point
average (GPA). These studies show that the predictability
of secondary school achievement against the 1st year uni-
versity GPA is relatively low, with correlations between
these measures rarely exceeding r = 0.33 (Rooyen et al.
2006; Shulruf et al. 2008b, 2010). While some research
suggests that a school’s location (school decile or socio-
economic status) and student body characteristics have a
considerable effect on student achievement (Konstantopo-
ulos 2005; Shulruf et al. 2008a),2 it is also suggested that
demographic characteristics (such as gender, ethnicity,
SES, age, and achievement in university entry examina-
tions) at the individual level have a minor impact on a
student’s pathway outcomes.
Promoting Equity and Quality in Higher Education
Affirmative action, first introduced by the US President
John F. Kennedy, was intended to instruct contractors to
employ and treat employees equally regardless of their
race, creed, color, or national origin. In the 1960s, this
instruction was further adapted as a proactive strategy to
boost the admission rates of under-represented groups into
higher education and to help them succeed. Thus, affir-
mative action was intended to increase the proportion of
under-represented groups (races) in higher education and
make race/ethnicity irrelevant to university admissions.
Although well-intentioned, the US Supreme Court banned
affirmative action in 1996, arguing that such action is,
in fact, a form of racial discrimination. Nonetheless, the
impact of such affirmative action on student outcomes is
still unclear. For example, no significant impact on
minority admissions to higher education was found by Card
and Krueger (2005) following the removal of affirmative
action in California and Texas. Furthermore, there is little
evidence that implementing affirmative action increased
the student academic success among socially and eco-
nomically under-represented groups. It seems, therefore,
1 Used to provide a degree of confidence that qualifying students will
succeed at university studies.
2 In particular, students from high decile schools had higher average
achievements than students from lower decile schools, while
individual SES is controlled.
112 G. Wang, B. Shulruf
123
that affirmative action based on non-academic factors may
only have a limited impact on student outcomes.
Subsequently, several states in the US granted automatic
admission to some of their state universities for students
who were ranked at the top of their high school class. For
example, the famous Texas program gives students placed
in the top 10 % of their high school class automatic entry to
any public university in Texas, including the flagship
universities. This policy encouraged universities to con-
sider students’ background in their admission, such as SES,
second language ability, the ability to overcome adversity,
extracurricular activities, work history, or whether they
were raised by a single parent. Nonetheless, there is no
evidence of substantial effects of this policy on minority
enrollment.
Another approach toward achieving equity in higher
education is the ‘‘Open Admission’’ policy. This allows all
applicants who meet the minimum university requirements
to enroll in an academic program, but to compete for
retention in the program, normally based on their 1st year
GPA. As a result, the number of students from under-rep-
resented groups has greatly increased. However, a major
challenge of this policy concerns the huge number of stu-
dents enrolled in a program’s 1 st year courses and the
consequent high failure rate, or non-enrollment into year
two. For many, this means the loss of a full academic year
and significant financial burden, particularly for the students
from low income families. For example, during the 1980s’
Open Admission period at the City University of New York
(CUNY), the third largest University system in the US, the
4-year graduation rate was just 7 % and the 6-year gradua-
tion rate was about 30 %, well below the national average of
between 50 and 60 % for a 6-year graduate rate. Similarly,
in response to the city’s increased population and minority
people in the late 1960s, the Graduate School Dean of
CUNY, Albert H. Bowker, introduced an open admission
policy to expand enrollments and increase opportunities to
minorities. This policy guaranteed senior college enrollment
for students who graduated from high school with an aver-
age of at least 80 % or who ranked in the top 50 % of their
high school. However, throughout this period, the number of
the minority graduates remained relatively low, and many
tended to take longer to complete their courses compared to
white students. While this could have been due to multiple
factors, such as lacking college-level skills, family stress,
and financial difficulties, an open admission policy can be
costly, both in terms of time and money, for students and
graduates.
Brennan and Naidoo (2008) argued that issues of equity
in higher education should be discussed within the social
context of ‘‘who benefits’’ and ‘‘who pays the bill.’’ The
arguments of Brennan et al. were echoed by Scott (2009b),
who has reviewed access to, and outcomes of, higher
education in Europe and North America. P. Scott pointed
out that although the participation of minorities and women
in higher education in Europe and North America has
increased, there is little evidence suggesting that the
increase in participation has made any significant social
impact, particularly on the growing middle class.
A further issue of equity relates to financial barriers that
students from low income families face when trying to
access quality higher education. Asplund et al. (2008) point
out that the few empirical studies available suggest that the
average annual increase in the participation rates of students
from disadvantaged SES backgrounds has, in most cases,
failed to keep up with the increase in the total participation
rates. Moreover, recent research suggests that there is little
evidence demonstrating that financial aid to students has any
real impact on access, let alone on educational outcomes
(Admon 2008; Asplund et al. 2008; Flint 1994; Tumen and
Shulruf 2008). In conclusion, it seems that equity and quality
should be discussed primarily within the educational context
because the financial factors have little, if any, impact on
access and attainment in higher education.
Dual Admission Model (DAM) can Address Issues
of Equity and Quality in Higher Education
Attempting to achieve a better model for increasing access
and success in higher education, an alternative—and perhaps
more appropriate—solution for admission to selective pro-
grams as well as general academic programs was introduced
by Shulruf et al. (2008b, 2009). The new model, named the
dual admission model (DAM), aims to increase the number of
eligible students who demonstrate the potential to succeed at
university level. This New Zealand-developed model uses
student achievement data in the ‘‘National Certificate of
Educational Achievement’’ (NCEA) in two different ways to
determine an admission decision. To facilitate understanding
of the development of the DAM, a brief description of New
Zealand’s NCEA follows, along with an explanation of how
the DAM was developed. More details can be found in
Shulruf et al. (2010).
New Zealand’s NCEA is a standards-based system that
measures students’ performance against standards of
achievement or competence where assessments are under-
taken throughout the year. Achievement ratings for NCEA
are Excellence, Merit, Achieved, and Not Achieved. This
system is very similar to the 1 st year university study in
New Zealand in that the student’s level of competency is
measured via assignments during a course, often with an
end-of-course examination. However, the NCEA also
includes another form of credits, namely Unit Standards;
these only record level of performance as pass/fail (for
details see NZQA 2004; Shulruf et al. 2008b, 2010).
Admission Model and Equity 113
123
The current NCEA model used to determine entry into
open and limited entry university courses (agreed between
the New Zealand Qualification Authority, NZQA, and New
Zealand universities) is only one of a number of possibili-
ties. Shulruf et al. (2008b) assessed several alternative
models on their predictive validity for student success in
university, and evaluated the effects on the socio-economic
composition of the student body. Ten models were devel-
oped taking into account different attributes of the NCEA
performance (data included 26,161 secondary students of
whom 2,832 studied at the university). The most successful
model for predicting the 1 st year university GPA empha-
sized the quality of credits gained by taking into account
Excellence and Merit awards, compared to models that were
based on quantity, i.e., the number of credits achieved, as in
the NCEA model (for details see Shulruf et al. 2008b). This
NCEA-GPA model (i.e., the quality model) was highly
correlated with university GPA (r = 0.66).
The DAM was developed by considering the implica-
tions of the differential relationship between the various
NCEA models and university GPA. It looked at whether
different student groups (across school deciles, which are
10 ratings of socio-economic status for New Zealand
schools where 10 is the highest) had a higher probability of
passing university courses if different models of university
entry eligibility were used.
Given that an NCEA-GPA score could be calculated for
every student in the national database, a regression equation
was used to estimate their university GPA (R2 for this model
was 0.44). An alternative entry prerequisite was then gen-
erated for entry to university. As noted above, the most
successful was the NCEA-GPA model, based on the quality
of fewer credits (36 university-approved credits in com-
parison to the 42 credits required in the current policy),
namely on the grades achieved within those credits. The
benchmark of 36 credits was established in order to prevent
the misrepresentation of students achieving very high grades
in a very small number of credits, which do not adequately
test their knowledge base, skills, and abilities nor adequately
prepare them for university study (only 1 % of the students
who entered the university had fewer than 36 credits).
A regression analyses (r = 0.63; with similar simulated
GPAs) predicted that those who entered under the alterna-
tive model (NCEA-GPA) would have had the same high
probability of passing the 1 st year courses should they
have been permitted (and chosen) to enter and study. The
regression analysis demonstrated that a minimum NCEA-
GPA of 2.32 (falling between achieved and merit) predicted
a 1 st year university GPA of 2.0 or higher; therefore, this
NCEA-GPA (2.32) was set as the minimum for admission.
Under this NCEA-GPA model, there were very few
additional students who would have qualified for entry to
university (false positives = n = 1,253; 4.3 %). Similarly,
very few students who currently qualify for entry would be
excluded by the adoption of the new model (false nega-
tives = n = 1,623; 5.6 %). Thus, if the current entry criteria
were replaced with the new NCEA-GPA model, the total
number of students who would gain entry to university in
New Zealand would be reduced by 1.3 % (370 students). As
this is probably not a desirable outcome, it is assumed that
any reconsideration of university entry criteria would be an
additive approach; that is, a DAM would be adopted, which
included both the current credit-based model and the
alternative NCEA-GPA-based model. In practice, students’
achievement would be assessed against both the credit
quantity (current) and the credit quality models. Students
who meet the university entrance criteria in at least one of
these models would be admitted to the university. The
results of these simulations clearly indicate that the greatest
increase of new students eligible to enroll under the DAM
would come from low school and SES deciles (Fig. 1).
To further evaluate the merit of the DAM, Turner et al.
(2008) used the DAM concept to measure its possible
impact on three consecutive student cohorts at the Uni-
versity of Auckland. In this study, a criterion based upon
the NCEA-GPA was formulated (in a similar way to the
first study) for students who sat the NCEA examinations in
years 2004, 2005, and 2006. For this analysis, an ‘‘intake
neutral’’ criterion was created. This means that the ‘‘new’’
criterion would admit exactly the same number of students
as the ‘‘old’’ (current) criterion. Quantile–quantile plots
(not presented) reveal the tails of the distribution to be a bit
‘‘light’’ (in comparison with a normal distribution), which
is unsurprising in view of the fact that the GPA is con-
strained to lie between 0 and 4. Using an ‘‘intake neutral’’
calculation did not allow any standard or classical tech-
niques for calculating confidence intervals. Hence, a sim-
ulation technique (Monte Carlo inference or parametric
bootstrapping) was used instead. The results indicated a
minor effect on student intake across school deciles and
social groups. In the final analysis, Turner et al. (2008)
incorporated the DAM. Under this policy, students could
be admitted to the University if they achieved University
Fig. 1 Percentage increase of students from each school decile and
individual socio-economic status (SES) entering under the Dual
Admissions model compared with the current credit-based model;
(adapted with permission from Shulruf 2007)
114 G. Wang, B. Shulruf
123
Entrance under either the ‘‘old’’ or the ‘‘new’’ admission
criterion. Plots of the impact of the DAM (where the
‘‘new’’ criterion uses the NCEA-GPA cut-off values given
above) are shown in Fig. 2. Obviously, the intake of stu-
dents under a DAM must increase overall, but the pattern is
similar across all studies made in New Zealand (Shulruf
et al. 2008b, 2010); there appears to be a positive impact
upon the students from lower deciles.
As indicated above, Shulruf et al. (2010) found that the
best NCEA model was up to five times (0.662/*0.302)
more effective in predicting a student’s 1 st year university
GPA than other assessment systems. Shulruf et al. under-
took further investigation of features within the NCEA
system that may be highly relevant for policy making
concerning admission to degree programs and the 1 st year
university outcomes. Overall, they found that the level of
competency (NCEA-GPA) achieved by students may be as
important as reaching the required number of credits (i.e.,
breath of knowledge). The NCEA models which are based
on NCEA-GPA, namely, the level of competency, had the
highest correlations with the 1 st year GPA at the univer-
sity (for details see Shulruf et al. 2010). These findings
have been supported by another recent study demonstrating
that the NCEA-GPA (i.e., NCEA model) has the highest
predictive power of academic achievements in the health
professionals undergraduate programs (Shulruf et al. 2011,
2012). Hence, if NCEA candidates aspire to succeed in
university, it may be appropriate to shift the emphasis from
minimum passes in more credits to higher grades in fewer
credits (Shulruf et al. 2008b).
Additional analysis revealed that most of the 1,253
additional students who would be eligible to enter univer-
sity under the proposed DAM (i.e., those under the NCEA-
GPA model) would come from the most under-represented
groups (i.e., lower school deciles). It is important to note
that under this merit-based DAM, students’ eligibility for
university admission would be based on their NCEA
achievements being of sufficiently high quality to predict
that they would be likely to pass their degree level courses.
Previous studies suggest that Maori and Pacific students
who failed to qualify with the university entrance did not
do so because of low grades, but that it was more likely
because they did not meet some other administrative
criteria such as acquiring too few university academic
subjects or not meeting the specific distribution of credits
across subjects. A study showed that ethnicity did not have
any significant impact on student GPA in the academic
program (Shulruf et al. 2011). The dual admission
approach would, therefore, be likely not only to maintain a
high success rates in the student body, but also to increase
the number of students from under-represented groups at
the university.
The studies undertaken by Turner et al. (2008) and
Shulruf et al. (2008b, 2010) provide robust evidence of the
usefulness of the DAM, at least for the New Zealand
context. They demonstrated that the effect of the DAM was
consistent across three consecutive cohorts and two dif-
ferent statistical analyses as well as across slightly different
entry criteria. This finding is striking and, in particular,
highlights that New Zealand’s NCEA is an excellent sec-
ondary school assessment system (Shulruf et al. 2010) with
an unusually high predictive power of students’ achieve-
ment in their 1 st year at the university, which has not yet
been fully utilized to enhance equity in higher education.
The DAM may provide a suitable tool to address this and
enhance equity and quality in higher education. It is
acknowledged, however, that the DAM model has never
been applied in reality, but only provided a base for the
development of a new evidence-based admission model
which is yet to be implemented and empirically evaluated.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The need to enhance equity and quality in higher education
raises difficult ethical dilemmas, questioning, for example,
Fig. 2 Regression-based dual entry criterion, cohorts 2005–2006;
(adapted with permission from Turner et al. (2008)
Admission Model and Equity 115
123
the equity of affirmative admission policies that are based on
ethnicity or race. The literature is inconclusive and high-
lights the need to reassess current paradigms. This paper has
reviewed different admission systems implemented in higher
education and has discussed the impact of those admission
systems on student achievement. More importantly, it has
suggested the adoption of a new dual admission model, the
‘‘DAM,’’ in New Zealand and beyond to address the ineq-
uity issue in higher education. The DAM embraces both the
current credit-based model and an alternative NCEA-GPA-
based model—a merit-based system that gives greater
weight to the quality of the assessment (i.e., higher grades)
and less weight to quantity (i.e., credit accumulation) and
particular combinations of subject choices. In practice,
students’ achievements would be assessed against both
systems: the credit (current) model and the quality model.
Students who meet university entrance criteria under either
model are offered places at the university. Research has
demonstrated that applying the DAM in New Zealand is
likely to enhance participation and success of students from
groups under represented in higher education without the
need for affirmative action. It is, therefore, suggested that
educational stakeholders reconsider the way in which NCEA
results are used to select university candidates and consider
adopting the DAM to enhance equity in New Zealand’s
higher education system.
The concept of the DAM is not limited to NCEA or
New Zealand. In many countries, students from under-
represented groups are likely to study in schools located in
low SES neighborhoods. Studying in such schools tends to
have a negative impact on students’ outcomes. These
effects may relate to many factors (finance, teaching
quality, etc.), but schools in low income neighborhoods, in
particular, tend to offer programs that are less focused on
preparation for further academic studies and tend to
encourage students from disadvantaged backgrounds more
toward vocational pathways. We suggest that the DAM
partially alleviates this bias by allowing students who
demonstrate a likelihood of succeeding at the university
level to gain admittance regardless of whether or not they
meet other (mostly administrative) admission criteria.
Acknowledgments The authors greatly acknowledge Ms. Debbie
Waayer for language editing and proofreading of this manuscript.
References
Admon, N. (2008). Minority status and returns to higher education inthe United States. Paper presented at the Hurst Seminar on
Higher Education and Equality of Opportunity: Cross-National
Perspectives, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva,
3–5 June. Counts, http://edcounts.squiz.net.nz/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0020/7355/participation.pdf.
Asplund, R., Adbelkarim, O., & Skalli, A. (2008). An equity
perspective on access to, enrolment in and finance of tertiary
education. Education Economics, 16(3), 261–274.
Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining ‘‘equity’’ of
American higher education. Review of Higher Education:Journal of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,27(3), 321–341.
Brakke, D. F., & Brown, D. T. (2002). Assessment to improve student
learning. New Directions for Higher Education, Fall, 119,
119–122.
Brennan, J., & Naidoo, R. (2008). Higher education and the
achievement (and/or prevention) of equity and social justice.
Higher Education, 56(3), 287–302.
Cameron, K. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in
institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 23(4), 604–632.
Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2005). Would the elimination of
affirmative action affect highly qualified minority applicants?
Evidence from California and Texas. Industrial and LaborRelations Review, 58(3), 416–434.
Flint, T. (1994). The federal student loan default cohort: A case study.
Journal of Student Financial Aid, 24(1), 13–30.
Guinier, L. (2003). Admissions rituals as political acts: Guardians at
the gates of our democratic ideals. Harvard Law Review, 117(1),
114–224.
Harper, S., Patton, L., & Wooden, O. (2009). Access and equity for
African American students in higher education: A critical race
historical analysis of policy efforts. The Journal of HigherEducation, 80(4), 389–414.
Harris, F. (1999). Centricity and the mentoring experience in
academia: An Africcentric mentoring program. Western Journalof Black Studies, 23(4), 229–235.
Henning, M., Manalo, E., & Tuagalu, I. (2012). A comparison
between Asian and Pacific Islands students in their use of
academic advising services. The Asia-Pacific EducationResearcher, 21(1), 141–150.
Jacobs, B., & Van Der Ploeg, F. (2006). Guide to reform of higher
education: A European perspective. Economic Policy, 21(47),
535–592.
Konstantopoulos, S. (2005). Trends of school effects on studentachievement: Evidence from NLS:72, HSB:82, and NELS:92(September 2005). IZA Discussion Paper No. 1749. Available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=822350.
McDonald, A., Newton, P., Whetton, C., & Benefield, P. (2001).
Aptitude testing for university entrance: A literature review.
Berkshire: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Niemann, Y. F., & Maruyama, G. (2005). Inequities in higher
education: Issues and promising practices in a world ambivalent
about affirmative action. Journal of Social Issues, 61(3),
407–426.
NZQA. (2004). Assessment and certification rules and proceduresfor secondary schools. 6.3.1 Approved subjects. Retrieved 23
June 2004, from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/acrp/secondary/
contents.html.
Rooyen, P. V., Dixon, A., Dixon, G., & Wells, C. (2006). Entry
criteria as predictor of performance in an undergraduate nursing
degree programme. Nurse Education Today, 26(7), 593–600.
Scott, D. (2004). Pathways in tertiary education 1998–2002.
Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Scott, D. (2005). Retention, completion and progression in tertiary
education in New Zealand. Journal of Higher Education Policyand Management, 27(1), 3–17.
Scott, D. (2009a). A closer look at completion in higher education in
New Zealand. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Man-agement, 31(2), 101–108.
116 G. Wang, B. Shulruf
123
Scott, P. (2009b). Access in higher education in Europe and NorthAmerica: Trends and developments. Paper presented at the
UNESCO Forum on Higher Education in the Europe Region:
Access, Values, Quality and Competitiveness, Bucharest.
Searle, J. (2003). Equal opportunity does not produce equity: (Not)
getting into medical school. Medical Education, 37, 290–291.
Shulruf, B. (2007). Educational journeys in New Zealand: A synthesisof starpath research findings 2004–2007. Paper presented at the
Tertiary Education Matters—a Seminar Hosted by the Ministry
of Education’s Tertiary Sector Performance Analysis and
Reporting unit, Wellington, 12 December.
Shulruf, B., Hattie, J., & Tumen, S. (2008a). Individual and school
factors affecting students’ participation and success in higher
education. Higher Education, 56(5), 613–632.
Shulruf, B., Hattie, J., & Tumen, S. (2008b). The predictability of
enrolment and first year university results from secondary school
performance. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 685–698.
Shulruf, B., Hattie, J., & Tumen, S. (2010). The New Zealand’s
standard based assessment for secondary schools (NCEA):
Implications for policy makers. Asia Pacific Journal of Educa-tion, 30(2), 141–165.
Shulruf, B., Li, M., McKimm, J., & Smith, M. (2012). Breadth vs.
depth of learning: What is the best predictor of achievement in
clinical and health science programmes? Journal of EducationalEvaluation for Health Professions, 7(9), 1–9.
Shulruf, B., Turner, R., & Hattie, J. (2009). A dual admission model
for equity in higher education: A multi-cohort longitudinal study.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2416–2420.
Shulruf, B., Wang, Y. G., Zhao, Y., & Baker, H. (2011). Rethinking
the admissions criteria to nursing school. Nurse EducationToday, 31(8), 727–732.
Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: the role of
institutional. Journal of Education Policy, 17, 423–442.
Thomas, G. E., Alexander, K. L., & Eckland, B. K. (1979). Access to
higher education: The Importance of race, sex, social class, and
academic credentials. The School Review, 87(2), 133–156.
Tien, C. (2008). The Changing American college experience: A viewfrom the City University of New York, Hunter College. Paper
presented at the Hurst Seminar on Higher Education and
Equality of Opportunity: Cross-National Perspectives, Ben
Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, 3–5 June.
Tumen, S., & Shulruf, B. (2008). The effect of student loan scheme
on returning to study. Journal of Higher Education Policy andManagement, 30(4), 413–426.
Tumen, S., Shulruf, B., & Hattie, J. (2008). Student pathways at the
University: Patterns and predictors of completion. Studies inHigher Education, 33(3), 233–252.
Turner, R., Shulruf, B., Li, M., & Yuan, J. (2008). The impact uponpopulation subgroups of university entrance criteria based upona form of NCEA grade point average. Auckland: University of
Auckland.
Yorke, M. (1989). Undergraduate non-completion in England: Some
implications for the higher education system and its institutions.
Tertiary Education and Management, 4(1), 59–70.
Yorke, M. (2000). Developing a quality culture in higher education.
Tertiary Education and Management, 6(1), 19–36.
Admission Model and Equity 117
123