There are many good reasons to introduce an aptitude test for admission: Some universities want to improve the average aptitude of their students and, if necessary, set minimum standards; some want to increase the legal certainty of the selection process (partly due to external pressure); some want to promote diversity among their student body by offering different admission routes; and others want to reduce their administrative workload by introducing a clear, simple and objective procedure. In addition, there are always considerations as to how the introduction of a test can be designed so that it is positively received by (potential) students.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
In this article, we present the different models for using study aptitude tests and provide tips on how to introduce them in order to achieve the highest possible acceptance of the selection process.
Improve average suitability
From a scientific point of view, the predictive power of a selection process is best when both HZB grades and subject-specific study aptitude tests are given high weighting. Other selection criteria have a lower predictive power and may even reduce the predictive power of the entire selection process if they are given very high weighting.
In practice, universities often rank applicants according to points, with a maximum score of 100 being popular. In the selection process for medicine at the University of Frankfurt, for example, up to 45 points are awarded for the average grade of the HZB, up to 50 points for the Test for Medical Studies (TMS) and 5 points for relevant vocational training. Pharmacy applicants at the University of Heidelberg can receive 60 points for their HZB in the selection process, 30 for the PhaST pharmacy aptitude test and 10 for additional qualifications such as training or awards.
Some private universities set cutoff values to ensure a minimum standard. For example, WHU requires applicants for its Master in Management programme to submit either a GTEBS with a standard value of at least 102, a GMAT with at least 600 points, or a GRE with at least 158 points in ‘verbal’ and ‘quantitative’.
Increase legal certainty of the selection process
The legislator has set clear guidelines for nationwide admission restrictions. After deducting the advance quotas, 30 percent of study places are allocated based on HZB grades, 60 percent based on the university’s selection procedure, and 10 percent based on the additional aptitude quota. The selection process must include a subject-specific study aptitude test and at least one other criterion that is not based on grades. Sub-quotas may be formed in this process. There is slightly more leeway in the case of local admission restrictions. For maximum legal certainty, it is advisable to follow the rules for nationwide admission restrictions. In the B.Sc. Psychology programme at the University of Mannheim, up to 120 points can be achieved in the selection process, with a maximum of 75 points for the HZB grade, 40 points for the STAV-Psych study aptitude test and 5 points for study-related (professional) achievements.
Promoting diversity
Some universities want to increase student diversity by giving those who do not have very good GCSE grades a chance. Many young people between the ages of 15 and 20 are in a phase of orientation, and not all of them reach their full potential at school. An aptitude test can then help to improve their chances. This is even enshrined in the Basic Law: anyone who is fundamentally suited to studying must also have a chance of getting a place at university. A procedure in which you have no chance at all with a grade of 2 in your Abitur is basically inadmissible.
In the B.Sc. Business Administration programme at Pforzheim University, a weighted HZB overall grade is calculated from the HZB grade (50%) and the individual grades in mathematics (30%) and English (20%). A grade is then determined in the selection process, with the weighted HZB grade accounting for 70 percent and the result of the voluntary ITB Business aptitude test accounting for 30 percent. However, the test is only taken into account if it improves the overall grade. In this model, no one can worsen their chances by taking the test. No one is deterred from applying, and at the same time, interested parties with weaker HZB grades have the opportunity to improve their chances of admission with a good test result.
Another way to promote diversity is through bonus models, in which test participation is also optional and good test results earn a bonus on the HZB grade, for example 0.3 if someone is among the top half of test participants and 0.6 if they are among the top quarter. Here, too, the test is only one way to improve one’s grade and thus one’s chances. At the same time, the university does not have to worry about deterring applicants – the test is completely voluntary.
As part of their selection procedures for nationwide admission restrictions, some universities set sub-quotas, which also promote diversity: the sub-quotas vary considerably in terms of the weighting given to HZB, Abitur and other criteria, so that prospective students with very different profiles can find a way into higher education.
Reduce administrative costs
Some universities use very complex and time-consuming admission procedures, for example, a combination of final grades, weighted individual grades, interviews, letters of motivation, or the evaluation of internships. These complex procedures can be significantly simplified by introducing a study aptitude test. The University of Cologne ranks applicants for admission to its M.Sc. Business Administration and Economics programmes according to a points system with a maximum score of 100. Up to 68 points are awarded for the bachelor’s degree grade and up to 32 points for the percentile rank in a recognised study aptitude test. The university offers a choice between the TM-WISO and the GMAT as aptitude tests. This model is simple and flexible and has proven itself over the years.
Recommendations for the smooth introduction of a study aptitude test
When introducing a new selection procedure, many universities have had good experiences with involving student representatives in the planning process at an early stage. This allows them to respond to students’ concerns, such as fears that expensive tests will favour applicants who are better off financially because they can afford expensive preparation courses. Students should also be involved in questions regarding the weighting of the test or tests. Offering an event with representatives of the test developer before the test is introduced, at which all students’ questions are answered, has also met with a positive response.
Another recommendation: universities should communicate the procedure as early and transparently as possible on their websites, providing information about the test and relevant links. A high level of transparency can significantly increase acceptance among students and applicants.
