Can you not copy and paste the link to these studies that help prove that past performance does not help with future performance?

__________________
UTA '05 BSN-RN

Greenbook rotations? Click here for Sree's post
State Approvals? Click here
IAU Forum Moderator

Can you copy and paste the links to prove the lack of correlation between undergrad academics and graduate work? Or which schools shy away from GRE? Thanks.

__________________
UTA '05 BSN-RN

Greenbook rotations? Click here for Sree's post
State Approvals? Click here
IAU Forum Moderator

For those of you involved in this discussion who want to see a verified link on this topic and the VARIABILITY of models related to success in undergrad vs that of graduate school, please read the following published article...

Sorry Iaustudent006 my mistake & I do apologise for the oversight.

Wright State University, where i'm currently in grad school, is phasing out the GRE. The graduate nursing department doesn't require it any more. I took a statistics class, and the head of graduate admissions taught it.

He hates the GRE, said it's basically for old school people who think the best way to measure people's ability is to give them a test.
He said he thought the best way to measure grad potential was to allow them to take 12 credits of predetermined core grad classes and then evaluate performance.

Also, many nurse anesthesia programs that used to require it (case western, etc) are minimalizing it to people with absolute crap for undergrad.

I only have experience in nursing related fields, but I have a friend with an MS in psych who says it's trending that way in psychology too.

link #1

link #2 -This one is interesting because it shows correlation between the GRE, but very little on undergrad performance

.......at one point had a 1.9 in undergrad. I have a 1350 on the GRE (700 verbal - 97th percentile), and a 4.0 in grad studies.


there's some more studies, but i'm not going to do a whole research presentation here

way to go burnt

I don't think you'll be able to access the links, because they're for WSU students only, but just to give you a general idea here's part of the abstract for the 2nd link:

I think if EVERYONE who did poorly in undergrad did grad school there'd be a great correlation, but when you narrow the pool to people who just want to do graduate studies (and had a poor GPA) other factors come into play which makes GPA a pretty inaccurate predictor in general, and especially when compared to other methods.




edit:

That article is from 1942? Regardless, .4-.6 correlation for high school to college scores is mediocre at best, and underscores my point.

I didn't know this has been debated since 1942... but still widely used.

__________________
UTA '05 BSN-RN

Greenbook rotations? Click here for Sree's post
State Approvals? Click here
IAU Forum Moderator

Standardized Tests (SAT, MCAT, GRE, USMLE) are still used widely by admissions commitees. However, to what extent they are considered varies among programs. Why are they still used? Most likely, because nobody has come up with any admissions criteria which work better.

Predicting how an individual will perform in a situation that they have never been in (namely college, grad school, med school) is about as easy as predicting the weather, or the winner of a horse race. It is estimated on past performance, and on performance in experimental conditions (standardized exams). It's logically shaky, but it's the best we've got to go on. Philosophers call this the Problem of Induction.

Having professors who are well versed in the Problem of Induction, there are Law schools which actually ask the applicant if they prefer to be evaluated primarily based on past academic performance, or on past professional/life experience. Maybe they are on the right track. However, until somone thinks of a more valid and reliable predictor, standardized tests are here to stay.

For the record, my undergraduate performance had absolutely no correlation with my med school performance.