In this study, we investigated the currently applied selective admission criteria and tools of the two-year research master’s programs of both the Graduate Schools of Life Sciences and Natural Sciences of Utrecht University (the Netherlands). In addition, we evaluated their transparency to applicants. Both admissions staff members and applicants participated. To determine admission criteria that are important for admission decisions, we ranked 51 admission criteria and, on their basis, combined into six domains: academic background, grades, cognitive ability, research background, personality and personal competencies, motivation factors. To evaluate transparency, we contrasted the perceptions of applicants with the actual importance of admission criteria, as reported by admission staff members. We found that admissions criteria related to personality and personal competencies are less important in admission decisions than criteria related to grades, academic background and motivation. The applicants find the admissions decisions transparent to a moderate degree. This study also revealed that selectors use criteria and tools both with and without predictive value for later graduate performance. Moreover, some of the currently applied admission instruments might be prone to admission biases. We advocate selectors to use admission criteria and tools that are evidence-based, resistant to admission biases, and transparent to the applicants.

中文翻译：

---

招生委员会如何选择？申请人知道他们如何选择吗？荷兰大学的选择标准和透明度

在这项研究中，我们调查了乌得勒支大学（荷兰）生命科学研究生院和自然科学研究生院的两年制研究硕士课程目前采用的选择性录取标准和工具。此外，我们评估了他们对申请人的透明度。招生工作人员和申请人都参加了。为了确定对录取决定很重要的录取标准，我们对 51 条录取标准进行了排名，并在此基础上将其合并为六个领域：学术背景、成绩、认知能力、研究背景、个性和个人能力、动机因素。为了评估透明度，我们将申请人的看法与招生工作人员报告的录取标准的实际重要性进行了对比。我们发现，与成绩、学术背景和动机相关的标准相比，与性格和个人能力相关的录取标准在录取决定中并不重要。申请人发现录取决定的透明度中等。这项研究还表明，选择者使用的标准和工具对毕业后的表现具有或不具有预测价值。此外，目前应用的一些录取工具可能容易出现录取偏见。我们提倡选择者使用以证据为基础、抵制录取偏见并对申请人透明的录取标准和工具。申请人发现录取决定的透明度中等。这项研究还表明，选择者使用的标准和工具对毕业后的表现具有或不具有预测价值。此外，目前应用的一些录取工具可能容易出现录取偏见。我们提倡选择者使用以证据为基础、抵制录取偏见并对申请人透明的录取标准和工具。申请人发现录取决定的透明度中等。这项研究还表明，选择者使用的标准和工具对毕业后的表现具有或不具有预测价值。此外，目前应用的一些录取工具可能容易出现录取偏见。我们提倡选择者使用以证据为基础、抵制录取偏见并对申请人透明的录取标准和工具。