To The Editor:

Everyone associated with graduate admissions should be required to read the editorial by Wendy M. Williams ("Reliance on Test Scores Is a Conspiracy of Lethargy," October 10). Her observations about the usefulness of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) should serve as a wake up call to those who believe that GRE scores are predictive in any meaningful sense.

Like most institutions, Western Kentucky University relies heavily on the GRE in making graduate admissions decisions. In the seven years that I have been coordinator of the master's degree program in college student affairs, however, I have found very little correlation between the quality of work exhibited by a graduate student and his/her GRE scores. (I published one of the definitive studies on the efficacy of the GRE in the December 1995 issue of Psychological Reports). Further, many students with relatively low GRE scores have gone on to become quite successful in the student affairs profession.

In recent years, many colleges and universities have been forced to reevaluate their graduate programs in terms of accountability and overall quality. One of the strategies frequently employed in an effort to enhance perceived "quality" has been to raise admissions standards; i.e., increase the minimum undergraduate GPA and/or the minimum combined GRE score required to gain admission to a particular graduate program. Simply stated, establishing higher cut-off scores on the GRE for admission to graduate programs is not an effective way to enhance quality. Such a simplistic approach denotes a severe lack of understanding of both the nature of quality and the personal characteristics needed for success in many professions.

Part of the problem is how quality is often defined within higher education. In most instances, quality is equated with rigorous adherence to a set of predetermined standards. Yet true quality does not hold everyone to the same yardstick. Although standards have their place, quality also implies the ability to respond flexibly to the individual needs of a diverse population of students. It takes into account the particular strengths and weaknesses of an individual in relation to their specific educational and career aspirations.

With respect to student affairs, raising minimum GRE scores only serves to restrict access from individuals who are capable of succeeding in the profession as well as making significant contributions to its future. The practice also has several ethical and philosophical implications that warrant further scrutiny. For example, it is known that raising the minimum GRE score needed for admission to graduate programs tends to adversely affect the institution's ability to attract students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. But most administrators are reluctant to even discuss this unfortunate reality.

Williams is right on target with her assertion that use of the GRE as an admission criterion for graduate programs is problematic. Its widespread use is largely due to administrative expediency and the lack of desire to pursue admissions procedures which are inherently better yet somewhat more labor intensive. In the very least, the GRE's limitations as a predictive vehicle need to be acknowledged and the test needs to be assigned an ancillary role in graduate admissions decisions.