Holistic versus test-only admission

Zhang, Wenhao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10058-024-00366-w
2024-09-19
Review of Economic Design
Abstract:I propose a theoretical framework under which holistic and test-only admission policies can be compared. The framework is based on an extension of the Coate–Loury model (Am Econ Rev 83(5):1220–1240, 1993) by allowing the candidate to signal in some additional attributes: The recruiting institution values the candidate's competency in two aspects (e.g. academic and leadership skills); standardized test is available only for screening academic skill whereas the candidate can also costly signal about his leadership skill type; the recruiting institution can adopt different admission scores conditional on the presence or absence of the leadership signal (i.e. holistic admission); and the candidate needs to invest in an aspect to be qualified in it. The presence of the signaling stage alters the mechanism by which the two-dimensional investment decision is made compared to the standard Coate–Loury case which corresponds to the signal-blind equilibria interpreted as the outcome under test-only admission, with implication on equilibrium multiplicity and welfare ranking. In particular, we find that the recruiting institution could benefit from the signaling option which leads to a more diversified skill profile but the candidate could be hurt from increased burden from costly investment and signaling even if his admission chance is improved.
economics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?