Research in Higher Education

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 375–407 | Cite as


  • David K. Leonard
  • Jiming Jiang


This study reviews and extends the considerableliterature demonstrating that the various College Boardexaminations (most importantly the Scholastic AptitudeTests) make a small underprediction of women's college grades relative to those of men in allfields except engineering. This finding persists evenwhen corrections are made for differences in the fieldsthat women and men study and for sample selection bias. Because of this underprediction, womenmost probably are underrepresented relative to theirmerit in freshman classes and scholarship competitionsat selective public universities. The differences in predicted grades are small, but account foran underrepresentation of women by at least 5% of thefreshman classes of the University of California atBerkeley (200 to 300 a year) in the late 1980s. Various solutions to this underprediction by the SATsand the dilemmas they pose for public universities suchas Berkeley are explored.


Selection Bias Education Research Sample Selection Gender Bias Sample Selection Bias 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Breland, Hunter M. (1979). Population Validity and College Entrance Measures. Research Monograph No. 8. New York: College Board.Google Scholar
  2. Bridgeman, Brent (1995). Some thoughts on a reply to Leonard and Jiang. Personal communication. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  3. Burton, N. (1995). How have changes in the SAT affected women' s mathematics performance? Paper presented to the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  4. California Postsecondary Education Commission (1992). Eligibility of California's 1990 High School Graduates for Admission to the State's Public Universities: A Report of the 1990 High School Eligibility Study. Sacramento: California Postsecondary Education Commission.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, M. J., and Grandy, J. (1984). Sex Differences in the Academic Performance of Scholastic Aptitude Test Takers. College Board Report 84-8. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  6. Cleveland, W. S. (1979). Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association74(368): 829-836.Google Scholar
  7. College Entrance Examination Board (1991). Testing 101: A Short Course on the SAT. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  8. Crouse, James, and Trusheim, Dale (1988). The Case Against the SAT. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Donlon, Thomas F., ed. (1984). The College Board Technical Handbook for the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Achievement Tests. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  10. Dwyer, Carol A. (1976). Test content and sex differences in reading. The Reading Teacher29(8): 753-757.Google Scholar
  11. Elliott, Rogers, and Strenta, A. Christopher (1988). Effects of improving the reliability of the GPA on prediction generally and on comparative predictions for gender and race particularly. Journal of Educational Measurement25(4): 333-347.Google Scholar
  12. Ford, Susan F., and Campos, Sandy (1977). Summary of Validity Data for the Admissions Testing Program Validity Study Service. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  13. Hewitt, B. N., and Goldman, R. D. (1975). Occam's razor slices through the myth that college women overachieve. Journal of Educational Psychology67: 325-330.Google Scholar
  14. Holden, Constance (1989). Court ruling rekindles controversy over SATs. Science243: 885-887.Google Scholar
  15. Jencks, Christopher, and Crouse, James (1982). Should we relabel the SAT... or replace it? In W. Schrader (ed.), Measurement, Guidance, and Program Improvement: Proceedings of the 1981 ETS Invitational Conference, pp. 33-49. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Kanarek, E. A. (1988). Gender differences in freshman performance and their relationship to use of the SAT in admissions. Paper presented to the Regional Association for Institutional Research, Providence, RI.Google Scholar
  17. Kessel, Cathy, and Linn, M. C. (1996). Grades or scores: Predicting future college mathematics performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice15(4): 10-14.Google Scholar
  18. Kowarski, Judy (1993). Preliminary results: Fall 1988 validity study. Unpublished staff paper. Oakland: Office of the President of the University of California.Google Scholar
  19. Lavin, D. E. (1965). The Prediction of Academic Performance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  20. Linn, Marcia (1992). Gender differences in educational achievement. In Sex Equity in Educational Opportunity, Achievement and Testing: Proceedings of the 1991 ETS Invitational Conference, pp. 11-50. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  21. Linn, M. C., and Kessel, C. (1996). Success in mathematics: Increasing talent and gender diversity among college majors. In A. Schoenfeld, E. Dubinsky, and J. Kaput (eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  22. Linn, R. L. (1973). Fair test use in selection. Review of Educational Research43: 139-161.Google Scholar
  23. Petersen, Anne C., and Dubas, Judith (1992). Strategies for achieving sex equity in postsecondary education. In Sex Equity in Educational Opportunity, Achievement and Testing: Proceedings of the 1991 ETS Invitational Conference, pp. 119-135. Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service.Google Scholar
  24. Peterson' s Guides (1994). Four Year Colleges: 1995, 25th ed. Princeton, NJ: Peterson' s Guides.Google Scholar
  25. Rigol, Gretchen Wyckoff (1989). Why do women score lower than men on the SAT? College Prep 4. Reprinted by the College Entrance Examination Board, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Stricker, Lawrence, Rock, Donald, and Burton, Nancy (1991). Sex Differences in SAT Predictions of College Grades. College Board Report No. 91-2. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  27. Thorndike, R. L. (1963). The Concepts of Over-and Underachievement. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  28. Wagner, M. E., and Strabel, E. (1935). Homogeneous grouping as a means of improving the prediction of academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology19: 426-446.Google Scholar
  29. Wainer, Howard, and Steinberg. Linda S. (1991). Sex Differences in Performance on the Mathematics Section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test: A Bidirectional Validity Study. Research Report No. 91-45. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  30. Wellesley College Center for Research on Women (1992). The AAUW Report: How Schools Shortchange Girls: A Study of Major Findings on Girls and Education. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation and National Education Association.Google Scholar
  31. Willingham, Warren W., and Cole, Nancy S. (1997). Gender and Fair Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Willingham, W.W., Lewis, C., Morgan, R., and Ramist, L. (1990). Predicting College Grades: An Analysis of Institutional Trends Over Two Decades. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  33. Young, John W. (1991). Gender bias in predicting college academic performance: A new approach using item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement28(1): 37-47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • David K. Leonard
  • Jiming Jiang

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations