Contextual Admissions: Normative Considerations

IF 2.8 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Joanne Moore, Anna Mountford-Zimdars
{"title":"Contextual Admissions: Normative Considerations","authors":"Joanne Moore,&nbsp;Anna Mountford-Zimdars","doi":"10.1111/hequ.12579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Access to higher education is often competitive, and much attention has been placed on the question of admission decision-making in such high stakes situations. We identify various approaches to distributive justice and consider these under the framework developed by Pike distinguishes between ‘egalitaria’ (everyone gets the same); ‘necessitia’ (people get what they need); ‘desertia’ (people get what they deserve); and ‘marketia’ (the market decides what people get). Considering applicants in context is one approach to deciding admissions designed to enhance fairness and support social justice. This approach is practiced in a range of countries including the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan and operates under names such as Contextual Admissions (CA), Holistic Assessment (HA) or Holistic Review (HR). This thought piece considers the philosophical/normative and practical reasoning approaches that underpin CA. We use the case of English higher education to illustrate the political and philosophical debates, to highlight practical challenges and potential limitations and to identify further considerations for realising the benefits of contextualising university applicants.</p>","PeriodicalId":51607,"journal":{"name":"HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY","volume":"79 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hequ.12579","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hequ.12579","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Access to higher education is often competitive, and much attention has been placed on the question of admission decision-making in such high stakes situations. We identify various approaches to distributive justice and consider these under the framework developed by Pike distinguishes between ‘egalitaria’ (everyone gets the same); ‘necessitia’ (people get what they need); ‘desertia’ (people get what they deserve); and ‘marketia’ (the market decides what people get). Considering applicants in context is one approach to deciding admissions designed to enhance fairness and support social justice. This approach is practiced in a range of countries including the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan and operates under names such as Contextual Admissions (CA), Holistic Assessment (HA) or Holistic Review (HR). This thought piece considers the philosophical/normative and practical reasoning approaches that underpin CA. We use the case of English higher education to illustrate the political and philosophical debates, to highlight practical challenges and potential limitations and to identify further considerations for realising the benefits of contextualising university applicants.

背景录取:规范性考虑
获得高等教育的机会往往是竞争激烈的,在这种高风险的情况下,录取决策问题受到了很多关注。我们确定了各种分配正义的方法,并在派克开发的框架下考虑这些方法,以区分“平等主义”(每个人都得到同样的东西);“必然性”(人们得到他们需要的东西);“desertia”(人们得到了他们应得的);“市场”(市场决定人们得到什么)。考虑申请人的背景是决定录取的一种方法,旨在提高公平和支持社会正义。这种方法在包括英国、美国和日本在内的一系列国家得到了实践,并以诸如上下文录取(CA)、整体评估(HA)或整体审查(HR)等名称运作。这篇思想文章考虑了支撑CA的哲学/规范和实践推理方法。我们使用英国高等教育的案例来说明政治和哲学辩论,突出实际挑战和潜在限制,并确定实现情境化大学申请人的好处的进一步考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY
HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Higher Education Quarterly publishes articles concerned with policy, strategic management and ideas in higher education. A substantial part of its contents is concerned with reporting research findings in ways that bring out their relevance to senior managers and policy makers at institutional and national levels, and to academics who are not necessarily specialists in the academic study of higher education. Higher Education Quarterly also publishes papers that are not based on empirical research but give thoughtful academic analyses of significant policy, management or academic issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信