Rachel E. Scherr, Seattle Pacific University

This article is based on R. E. Scherr, M. Plisch, K. Gray, G. Potvin, and T. Hodapp, “Fixed and growth mindsets in physics graduate admissions,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13 020133 1-12 (2017).

Much more so than experts in other disciplines, physicists agree with statements such as, “Being a top scholar of [my discipline] requires a special aptitude that just can’t be taught,” and “If you want to succeed in [my discipline], hard work alone just won’t cut it; you need to have an innate gift or talent.” Researchers interpret these findings as indicating that physics experts especially value “brilliance” - a presumed innate gift or talent that makes some people more likely to succeed than others.^1,2 These same researchers document strong correlations between this “brilliance” expectation and gender and racial/ethnic representation in various fields: The stronger the “brilliance” expectation in a discipline, the lower the proportion of PhDs awarded to women and members of certain racial and ethnic groups. The connection, according to these researchers, is that fields that especially value “brilliance” may especially discriminate against groups that are stereotyped as not innately gifted. The data suggest that “academics who wish to diversify their fields might want to downplay talk of innate intellectual giftedness and instead highlight the importance of sustained effort for top-level success in their field.”¹

Our research team investigated a particularly consequential occasion for “talk of innate intellectual giftedness” in physics by interviewing 18 physics graduate admissions committee chairs, asking them to describe what they look for in deciding who to admit to graduate school. The programs represented in the study were both selective (they admit less than 20% of applicants) and diversity-oriented (they prioritize diversity in their admissions practices, according to a separate study conducted by the American Physical Society).³ Our analytical framework was informed by mindset research, in which intelligence is understood either as an inherent capacity or ability measured primarily by grades and standardized test scores (a “fixed mindset”), or in terms of acquired knowledge and effort (a “growth mindset”).⁴ To analyze the interviews, we deductively created a coding scheme based on the many specific findings about fixed and growth mindsets,⁴ and coded the faculty interviews using this scheme.

Many of the faculty members interviewed expressed elements of a fixed mindset. The commonest code in this analysis was the code indicating statements of innate ability, suggesting that such “smart talk”⁵ is common among the faculty interviewed (and/or their programs). For example, various interviewees said their aim is to “find the diamond... the obvious cream of the crop,” “the top people,” “the best individuals,” or the “blue-chip students.” Others explicitly said they were looking for “brilliance...the real stars,” or “this person is a research genius.” In describing their admissions practices, various faculty members made statements such as, “Most of the cases are straightforward because it all goes together...Students with high GREs are strong students all around,” and “We want basically ‘A’ students in physics courses.” This approach is likely to negatively impact the admission of women and some racial or ethnic groups, who are stereotyped as lacking high-level intellectual ability1 and perform lower on standardized measures of achievement, including the physics GRE. ^6,7,8

Some faculty that we interviewed expressed elements of a growth mindset, describing their programs as seeking to admit students who can grow into physics excellence with support, and evaluating students partly in terms of noncognitive factors such as passion for physics, determination, perseverance, and coping with adversity. For example, some faculty members made statements such as, “If their grades show a positive trajectory, that’s great... we are looking for a sense of progress,” and “Success is not just good grades but also long term, will they make us proud down the road.” Admissions practices in this approach included “Independence, grit, writing — qualities we want to look for in the applicant, instead of documents.” One faculty member said that overall, “the purpose is to admit students who will thrive under certain very good conditions that the department is responsible for creating.” This approach to admissions has improved diversity in other graduate fields.⁹

Overall, most interviews expressed elements of both mindsets. All the interviews expressed elements of a growth mindset, and almost all expressed elements of a fixed mindset. This result is evidence against the idea that the beliefs and practices associated with individuals in this study, and/or their physics programs, comprise a unitary theory of intelligence — that individuals (or their programs) have either an entirely fixed mindset or an entirely growth mindset.

Even though nearly all interviews expressed elements of both fixed and growth mindsets, three-quarters of the interviews analyzed were associated with a preponderance of codes indicating either fixed or growth mindset. In this data set, half the faculty indicated that their program has (or they have) an overall growth mindset regarding graduate admissions, and one-fourth indicated a predominantly fixed mindset. The remaining four interviews were associated with a substantial mix of codes associated with both fixed and growth mindsets, such that a clear overall mindset was not indicated.

As stated above, programs that participated in this study were chosen because they were understood to be prioritizing diversity in their graduate admissions practices, in an environment of substantial admissions pressure. Thus, we do not expect that the results of this study are representative of graduate programs in general. Instead, the results suggest that in these selective graduate programs that are striving to prioritize diversity, about half are described by their faculty as having an overall growth mindset and one-fourth as having an overall fixed mindset.

Our results suggest that elements of both fixed and growth mindsets are common in physics graduate admissions committee members. Our analysis includes evidence that a single individual may represent a variety of convictions, corresponding to both fixed and growth mindsets. Significantly, elements of a fixed mindset persist even among those whose departments are striving to prioritize diversity in admissions. This fixed mindset manifests in both beliefs about who is likely to succeed in physics — those with innate talent — and admissions practices that emphasize undergraduate grades and physics GRE scores over other possible measures. Both these beliefs and these practices tend to exclude women and some racial or ethnic groups from the discipline.^6-8 Fortunately, our results also document a growth mindset among some graduate admissions committee members, including both growth-oriented beliefs (e.g., that students can grow into physics excellence with support) and growth-oriented practices (e.g., placing value on noncognitive factors). Programs that apply a growth mindset to their admissions processes include APS Bridge Programs associated with highly competitive physics departments, which are documented to have a high rate of student retention.¹⁰ These programs embrace and promote cultural change, anticipating benefit to the field, while remaining committed to the academic integrity that has proven so powerful for physics in solving some of the most complex problems in the universe. As one interviewee stated: “We have to be the example of showing that nothing bad happens when you change who does the science.”

Rachel E. Scherr is a senior physics education researcher at Seattle Pacific University who studies physics disciplinary culture and practices.

(Endnotes)

¹ S.-J. Leslie, A. Cimpian, M. Meyer, and E. Freeland, “Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines,” Science 347, 262-264 (2015).

² A. Cimpian and S.-J. Leslie, “The brilliance trap,” Scientific American 317, 60-65 (2017).

³ G. Potvin, D. Chari, and T. Hodapp, “Investigating approaches to diversity in a national survey of physics doctoral degree programs: The graduate admissions landscape,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020142.

⁴ C. S. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Ballantine Books, New York, 2007); C. S. Dweck, Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Taylor & Francis, London, 2000).

⁵ J. R. Posselt, Inside Graduate Admissons: Merit, Diversity, and Faculty Gatekeeping (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2016).

⁶ J.R. Posselt, “Toward inclusive excellence in graduate education: Constructing merit and diversity in PhD admissions,” Am. J. Educ. 120, 481 (2014).

⁷ C. Miller and K. Stassun, “A test that fails,” Nature (London) 510, 303 (2014).

⁸ R. Bielby, J.R. Posselt, O. Jaquette, and M. Bastedo, “Why are women underrepresented in elite colleges and universities? A nonlinear decomposition analysis,” Res. High. Educ. 55, 735 (2014).

⁹ A. Nasim, A. Roberts, J. P. Harrell, and H. Young, “Non-cognitive predictors of academic achievement for African Americans across cultural contexts,” J. Negro Educ. 74, 344 (2005); S. Messick, “Potential uses of noncognitive measurement in education,” J. Educ. Psychol. 71, 281 (1979); P.C. Kyllonen, The case for noncognitive assessments (2005), http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RD_ Connections3.pdf; J. D. House, “Noncognitive predictors of achievement in introductory college chemistry,” Res. High. Educ. 36, 473 (1995); C. H. Grobe and I. S. MacDonald, “Noncognitive predictors of geology performance,” J. Exp. Educ. 43, 1 (1975).

¹⁰ T. Hodapp and K. Woodle, “A bridge between undergraduate and doctoral degrees,” Phys. Today 70, 50 (2017).

---

Disclaimer – The articles and opinion pieces found in this issue of the APS Forum on Education Newsletter are not peer refereed and represent solely the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of the APS.