Admission/Continuance Standards as Predictors of Academic Performance of Business Students

Pharr, Steven W.; Bailey, Jeffrey J.; Dangerfield, Byron

doi:10.1080/08832323.1993.10117659

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to specific course grades, we also considered a student's ACT or SAT score as well as the student's overall sophomore level GPA as possible predictors. The previously mentioned study of the validity of the CBE's 2.4 rule for its traditional curriculum (Pharr et al, 1993) indicated that specific course predictors had much greater validity than more general measures like ACT/SAT scores or overall GPA. Given the changes in the curriculum, however, it was unclear whether this finding would carry over to the current situation, so we included these two possible predictors in our study.…”

Section: Predictors Investigatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The efficacy of the 2.4 rule was validated for the traditional curriculum in a CBE study, which demonstrated that students who received a predictor GPA of less than 2.4 generally had considerable difficulty in their upper division business courses and high failure rates (Pharr et al, 1993). This 2.4 rule remained unchanged through the first six years of the IBC implementation.…”

Section: Research Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evolution of admission standards in response to curriculum integration

Lawrence

Pharr

2003

Quality Assurance in Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Admission standards are commonly employed as a means of maintaining the quality of an academic program’s student pool, and as a result, the program itself. The past decade has seen a number of efforts to integrate academic content and incorporate models of team‐based learning. While the emphasis and demands of these programs have changed, as well as the expectations of incoming students, admission standards have not. This study considers whether undergraduate business admission requirements developed and validated for traditional curricula remain valid admission standards for integrated programs. The relationship between student performance in various predictor courses and performance in upper level business courses is compared for students in an integrated program and those taking the traditional curriculum. Results indicate that the traditional predictor courses remain valid predictors of performance for the integrated program. Additionally, opportunities for improvement exist in the addition of courses emphasizing communication and reasoning skills.

show abstract

Section: Predictors Investigatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of admission standards in response to curriculum integration

Lawrence

Pharr

2003

Quality Assurance in Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, they are not permitted to take upper‐level (third and fourth‐year) CBE courses until they have completed 58 credit hours of coursework with a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.0, and have met what is known as the 2.4 rule. The 2.4 rule, which was validated empirically (Pharr et al , 1993), requires that students complete introductory economics, statistics, financial accounting, and managerial accounting courses with a minimum cumulative GPA in these courses of 2.4. These courses are referred to as the predictor courses and the cumulative GPA for these predictor courses is referred to as the predictor GPA.…”

Section: The College Of Business and Economic's Admission Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of admission standards is commonplace in academia as a method of identifying and accepting those students most likely to succeed at all levels of higher education (Boyles et al , 2005). For example, business education at the undergraduate level has typically used cut‐off levels of grade performance in discipline‐specific courses as a requirement for admission into the business program and/or advancement to upper‐level business coursework (Lawrence and Pharr, 2003; Geiger and Dangerfield, 1996; Pharr et al , 1993). The development and application of effective admission standards are important for two reasons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In many cases, admission standards were developed on the basis of intuitive logic and later tested for validity when questions of efficacy arose (Pharr et al , 1993). Causes for concern often focus on changing levels of performance of those students who have met the admission criteria and cases of significant curricular change (Lawrence and Pharr, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Admission requirements for transfer and non‐transfer students: should one size fit all?

Pharr

Lawrence

2007

Quality Assurance in Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo examine the efficacy of admission requirements as predictors of academic success in core business coursework, and as a rationing mechanism for limited course capacity, for both transfer and non‐transfer students following integration of the core business curriculum.Design/methodology/approachRegression analysis is used to test the efficacy of admission standards in explaining transfer and non‐transfer student performance in the core business curriculum, before and after substantial curricular revision. Fisher's r‐to‐z transformation is used to test differences between student groups and core curriculum formats. Stepwise regression was used to identify an accurate predictor of transfer student performance for the integrated business core.FindingsEfficacy of the admission standard decreased for transfer students following introduction of the new curriculum. While adequate for all students taking the traditional business core, it is a much less effective predictor of success for transfer students under the new curriculum. A modified admission standard for transfer students restored efficacy to previous levels.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper considers only one school's experience with revision of its core curriculum.Practical implicationsRe‐examination of admission standards following curricular revision is necessary to ensure effective screening of transfer students. The root problem, however, may not be addressed in its entirety by a unique transfer student admission standard. Non‐transfer students benefit from acculturation as freshman and sophomores, as well as prerequisite courses specifically modified to prepare them for the integrated curriculum.Originality/valueThis paper documents a potential problem for business schools that have, or are considering, significant curricular revisions.

show abstract