Trinity v. Black, 100 MSA 1d. 5 (2024)

by **luck** Fri Jun 21, 2024 1:02 am

Trinity v. Black, 100 MSA 1d. 5 (2024)

Proposed Rule: While the number of exam attempts can provide insights into an applicant’s profile, in accordance with Carly's Rule, it should not be included in the holistic evaluation process.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This court considers whether Multiplication Schools should factor in the number of exam attempts within their "holistic evaluation" process as required by Whal v. Carly, MSA 1d. 100 1 (2024). 2. Carly's rule mandates that admissions criteria for specialized academic institutions must include holistic evaluation alongside standardized test scores to ensure fairness and academic excellence. p.18. 3. Trinity argues that counting exam attempts violates inclusivity principles, while Black contends it is essential for evaluating true aptitude.

II. BACKGROUND

4. Multiplication Schools, known for their advanced mathematical programs, heavily rely on standardized sigma scores for admissions. 5. Trinity was denied admission despite a competitive score due to the high number of attempts taken to achieve it. 6. Trinity argues this consideration is unfair, while Black defends it as a critical part of assessing an applicant’s overall capability.

III. DICUSSION

A. Meritocracy Emphasizes High Scores and Aptitude
7. The meritocratic approach values quantifiable achievements such as high test scores. 8. High scores obtained on fewer attempts are seen as indicators of quick comprehension and innate ability, essential traits for success in specialized academic environments. 9. Including the number of attempts aligns with meritocracy by distinguishing between applicants who achieve high scores effortlessly and those who require multiple tries, thereby rewarding raw talent and efficient learning.

B. Inclusivity Recognizes Diverse Paths to Success
10. Inclusivity, on the other hand, emphasizes equal opportunities and acknowledges that multiple attempts may be necessary due to factors like test anxiety or lack of resources. 11. Considering the number of attempts could penalize those facing such challenges, thus undermining the fairness mandated by Carly's rule. 12. Inclusivity argues that admissions should consider a broad range of criteria, ensuring all aspects of an applicant’s potential are assessed.

C. Correlation Between Scores, Attempts, and Aptitude
13. Including the number of exam attempts can reveal insights into an applicant’s abilities and commitment. 14. High scores achieved on fewer attempts suggest a higher level of innate aptitude, critical for success in rigorous programs. 15. Studies show a strong correlation between high scores on fewer attempts and long-term academic success, indicating better problem-solving skills and cognitive abilities.

D. Perseverance and Resilience Also Indicate Potential
16. Trinity contends that high scores, regardless of the number of attempts, demonstrate eventual mastery and commitment. 17. Penalizing multiple attempts disproportionately affects those who lack resources, undermining inclusivity. 18. Recognizing perseverance and resilience through multiple attempts values determination and hard work, traits crucial for long-term success.

IV. CONCLUSION

19. Balancing meritocracy and inclusivity requires a comprehensive approach. 20. Quantitative measures like test scores should be balanced with qualitative factors such as personal statements and recommendations. 21. This balance ensures a holistic evaluation that reflects both innate ability and personal growth, aligning with both meritocratic and inclusive principles. 22. Ultimately, while the number of exam attempts can provide insights into an applicant’s journey, it should not be included in the holistic evaluation process. 23. Excluding this factor ensures that all applicants are assessed fairly, recognizing diverse pathways to success without penalizing those who face additional challenges. 25. Multiplication Schools are instructed to exclude the number of exam attempts from their holistic evaluation process, ensuring that all criteria are applied equitably and transparently in line with the principles established in Whal v. Carly.