Many GRE proponents say that grad programs need to prove that dropping the GRE increases diversity. No.
The burden of proof is on ETS to show that their product is effective and doesn't contribute to bias/inequity. Until then, I can't ask applicants to pay for it.

We don't need to conduct a multi-year study to determine whether grad admissions should be determined with a dodgeball tournament. If the company that sells dodgeballs wants to make that argument, the burden of proof is on them to show that their product is effective & equitable.

This is especially true if we require applicants to pay for the dodgeballs we are throwing at them. (And if we expect them to spend time and money they may not have on dodgeball-prep courses, books, and coaching.)

By the way, diversity in our umbrella PhD program *has* increased since we #GRExit-ed (though this doesn't prove causality). All I'm saying is that the burden of proof must lie with the third-party vendor. Otherwise, we must use ALL products until we can formally invalidate them.

Another common pro-GRE argument is that we must use *all* available sources of information in admissions decisions. Admissions is difficult, we have little data to work with, and those data are all imperfect and subject to bias. Why would you willingly throw out a data point?

It’s true that all the information used in admissions decisions is flawed and prone to biases & inequities (GPA, letters, interviews etc). It’s also true that grad admissions is very difficult, esp. for programs where qualified, promising applicants far outnumber available spots.

I have 2 rebuttals to the “we must use all available information” pro-GRE argument.
First: if we are really going to use ALL available information, then we need to set up those dodgeball tournaments immediately. Plus, we need to use height, astrological sign, and parents’ income.

“But wait: those variables don’t correlate with success in grad school. Also they’re totally unfair and inequitable metrics!”

So you agree: not *all* available information should be used when making admissions decisions.

By the way, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those farcical metrics DO weakly correlate with success in grad school, since they may correlate with factors that can unfairly hold back grad students [dodgeball:ableism; height:gender bias; income:privilege/education/racism]

[CW: fat-shaming]

So, we are forced to be selective about the information we use in admissions. GRE scores are considered legitimate because they are part of the system we’re used to. Height and weight are not—although, let’s not forget this tweet from a tenured UNM psych prof:

I will continue this rant after 11 hours of Zoom meetings :)