Understanding the factors that influence the construction of faculty-led admissions committees at highly-regarded Canadian public universities


Ryan Hargraves, University of Toronto

The social impact of university student demographic underrepresentation, which may be construed as an indicator of what Lucas (2001) referred to as Effectively Managed Inequality or EMI, a framework that ensures that many members of underrepresented minority (URM) communities fail to realize the social mobility benefits of an elite educational experience. University admissions committee work is broadly considered a factor which can lead to or lessen student underrepresentation (Bastedo and Bowman, 2017; Guinier, 2003; Jayakumar and Page, 2021; Posselt, 2016; Robinett et. al, 2019). Beyond broad underrepresentation in postsecondary education, many URM students are underrepresented in greater proportion at Canada’s most prestigious or highly-regarded (e.g., highly-ranked by Times Higher Education) universities (Davies et al., 2014). This qualitative dissertation study used cultural reproduction (Bourdieu, 1973) and the homophilic tendencies observed in elite graduate school admissions committees in the United States by Posselt (2016) as the basis of a theoretical framework to understand better the construction of admissions committees at Canadian universities. This research investigates the factors that are important to faculty leaders at two highly-regarded Canadian universities as they consider faculty colleagues for admissions committee service. The study also sought to understand the influence of a faculty leader’s social identities and lived experiences on their approach to committee construction. Fourteen faculty members from the two sites who were associate or full professors and had prior academic administrative leadership experience (e.g., department chair) participated in the study. The two-part participant interview included a mock undergraduate interdisciplinary honors admissions committee construction simulation, wherein participants selected candidates from among imaginary colleague bios and a semi-structed interview during which they reflected on their choices and their prior experience and knowledge of admissions committee construction at their home institutions. For this inquiry I used Iterative Thematic Inquiry (Morgan and Nica, 2020) to identify themes emanating from data generation. I also used dual scaling (Nishisato and Nishisato, 1994) to understand better the selections made by participants during the committee construction simulation, attempting to connect their backgrounds (e.g., social identities) to their selections of imaginary colleagues based on review of their bios. The thematic inquiry results suggest that a colleague’s experiential and identity diversity (e.g., professorial rank), their willingness and capacity to serve and their records of student engagement (e.g., teaching, advising) are factors faculty leaders consider when evaluating colleagues for committee service.  Data suggest study participants rely on their networks and consider the interpersonal skills of potential admissions committee candidates. The data also suggest that a faculty leader’s race, gender identity, and academic background may influence their evaluations of potential committee candidates. Finally, the data also indicate interviewed faculty leaders prefer to construct admissions committees without undue influence from top university leadership though many believed those leaders could connect the process to the institution’s mission. This research serves to support understanding of how access at highly-regarded  universities may be influenced by admissions committee construction practices, which may serve to perpetuate barriers.

This paper will be presented at the following session: