Annmarie Caño

Solidarity and critical hope support faculty and staff who wish to accompany students, read the current reality of their experience, and imagine new practices that can rectify injustices and promote access and belonging. Here, we describe an example of this praxis by responding to student concerns about injustices in a course registration process. With some exceptions, undergraduates at this institution register for classes according to their earned college credits. At first glance, this meritocratic system shows care to students by recognizing their hard work. However, our analysis shows that it also discriminates against underserved groups of students. Using 10 years of course registration data, we compared assigned course registration periods between different student populations. The current registration process privileges white-identifying students over those identifying as African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino(a), Native American/Alaskan Native/Pacific islander, Asian, or two or more races. Pell grant-eligible and first-generation students also registered later compared to their peers; these inequities persisted throughout their college career. These results demonstrate an example of critical hope praxis for Jesuit institutions in which we accompany students and investigate policies that appear to preference cura apostolica (care for the institution in maintaining the status quo) at the expense of cura personalis.

While there is movement to create more equitable and holistic admission review processes, faculty continue to place strong emphasis on a single piece of information when making admissions decisions: standardized test scores. This study used an experimental design to test whether instructions provided to faculty prior to assessing doctoral applicants could support holistic review by reducing the weight of the general record examination (GRE) in faculty appraisals of competence and merit for graduate study. Tenured and/or tenure-track faculty (N=271) were randomly assigned to one of three instructional conditions: Control (no instruction), “Diamond in the Rough,” and “Weed Out.” In addition, faculty participants were randomly assigned to read one of two vignettes of a prospective first-generation student who either received high or average GRE scores. Faculty then rated the applicant’s competence using a three-item survey. As expected, faculty who read the vignette describing the candidate with the high GRE rated him as more competent than faculty who read the average GRE vignette. In addition, being instructed to seek out diamonds in the rough buffered the effect of the GRE score on competence. Faculty were also asked to indicate whether they would need additional information to make an admissions decision. They were more likely to ask about grades and research skills than about psychosocial factors that might contextualize the candidate’s performance and perceived competence. The results of this study have implications for creating more equitable doctoral admissions processes that center equity, diversity, and inclusion in decision making.