Undergraduate admissions selectivity is a common defining characteristic of the academic quality or excellence of a given college or university. This assertion is borne out by the relationship that institutional reputation and resources -- both common approaches to assessing institutional quality -- have with admissions selectivity [2]. The reputational approach defines institutional quality in terms of institution's place in the hierarchy of colleges and universities [2], whereas the resource approach delineates quality by applying such criteria as SAT or ACT scores of entering freshmen, the number of books in institution's library, or the scholarly productivity of institution's faculty [2]. Selectivity is the best single predictor of the reputation or prestige of a college or university [3, 32] and is highly associated with such resource criteria as faculty salaries, endowment per student, and educational and general expenditures per student [3]. Thus, undergraduate admissions selectivity appears to be adequate indicator of the perceived academic quality of a college or university [3, 4, 20]. Moreover, the role of institutional selectivity as important index of academic quality or academic standards is well rooted in the academic folklore beliefs held by academics and the lay public alike. This folklore reads as follows: an 'excellent institution' is one that 'maintains high standards,' and high standards in turn means highly selective admissions policies [2, p. 41]. Furthermore, a common belief of this academic folklore is that students attending a highly selective institution learn more and develop their intellectual skills more fully than do their counterparts at less selective institutions [1, 28]. If selectivity is index of academic standards or quality, then institutional selectivity should exert the influence on student achievement and intellectual development suggested by academic folklore. This contention has been pursued by empirical research [1, 5, 6, 27, 30, 31, 33]. From their review of the findings of this research, Pascarella and Terenzini [28] conclude that the effects of institutional quality (selectivity) on student learning are small and inconsistent when various student entry characteristics are statistically controlled. They offer several interpretations for the failure of this body of research to validate the folklore touting a positive relationship between institutional selectivity and student academic achievement and intellectual development [28]. The first of these interpretations is that institutions of putatively varying degrees of quality have the same general influence on students. A second explication is that the samples used in these studies are restricted to a narrow range of academically able students. The data-analytic approaches used prevent the identification of the unique effects of institutional attributes and precollege (entry) student characteristics, because student learning is likely to be influenced by the joint effect of these two categories of variables. Such is a third interpretation advanced by Pascarella and Terenzini [28]. A fourth explanation is that institutional level variables such as institutional selectivity may be too broad to discern the anticipated effects, for such effects may be occurring at the level of the academic department. The lack of a common educational experience among students is a fifth accounting offered by Pascarella and Terenzini [28]. However, another perspective can be advanc]ed. This perspective is that academic quality is manifested in such course-level academic processes as the type of questions faculty ask students during class, the nature of term paper assignments or other written exercises, and the type of examination questions written by faculty [10]. Put differently, academic quality is embedded in process at the course level rather than in the achievement of various cognitive outcomes. Academic standards are manifested in such processes through the level of academic demands or rigor expected of students. …