The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Educ.
Sec. STEM Education
Volume 10 - 2025 |
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1474591
This article is part of the Research Topic Building Tomorrow’s Biomedical Workforce: Evaluation of How Evidence-Based Training Programs Align Skill Development and Career Awareness with a Broad Array of Professions View all 12 articles
A Comparison of Applicant and Accepted Student Characteristics to Research Training Programs with Implications for Recruitment and Selection Strategy
Provisionally accepted- California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, United States
Very few studies have examined the relationship between student characteristics and their acceptance to research training programs that use holistic selection. The present study addressed this question using institutional and applicant data of three NIH undergraduate training programs at California State University, Long Beach. Its first aim was to examine whether the applicants to the training programs were representative of the broader campus population. Its second aim was to investigate whether applicants who were accepted to the programs using a holistic selection process differed in academic discipline, demographics, and psychosocial characteristics from applicants who were not accepted. Information on students' majors, race/ethnicity, and gender was obtained from the university records or applications submitted by students. Majors were categorized as either biomedical or behavioral disciplines, while URM status was defined as students who self-identified their race and ethnicity as African American/Black, Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or Hispanic. Applicants' psychosocial characteristics were obtained from a separate online survey. The acceptance status of applicants was obtained from the training programs' records. The applicant and non-applicant groups showed similar distribution of demographic characteristics regarding URM status and gender. Moreover, students' academic discipline and other demographic variables were not associated with application status at either the lower division (LD) or upper division (UD) levels. Although psychosocial characteristics measured with the online survey were not considered in the selection process, post-hoc analyses showed that LD applicants with higher grit and UD applicants with higher science interests were more likely to be accepted to the programs. The equal representation of URM and female students in the applicant and nonapplicant groups suggests that students from these traditionally underrepresented groups in STEM were just as likely to apply to our training programs. Furthermore, while the holistic selection process resulted in comparable acceptance rates across URM status and gender, it appeared to favor LD applicants with higher grit and UD students with higher science interests. These findings imply that research training programs can effectively recruit diverse students from underrepresented populations in STEM by using intentional outreach and recruitment efforts coupled with an objective and holistic selection process.
Keywords: demographic characteristics1, psychosocial characteristics2, application3, Acceptance4, undergraduate research training5, diversity6
Received: 01 Aug 2024; Accepted: 13 Jan 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Cho, Chun, Ramos, Buonora, Narayanaswami and Vu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Chi-Ah Chun, California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.