If you were made 'Chief Admissions Officer' for the world

[Ohm]

We all have been posting about the hitches we faced during the admissions process...filling forums with complaints and stuff. 

 

Now, if you were to be made the 'Chief Admissions Officer' for all the students who apply to any of the programs for ALL the universities....what would you do? (you may choose to keep a certain process or you may choose to put in your own...) Call it an open forum to appeal for the change in the current system, if required

[nickspoon]

The first thing I would do is make sure that every applicant is told instantly about the progress of their application, so they don't have to check Grad Café every 5 minutes to see if the admits have gone out yet.

[Ohm]

I would reject someone instantly if they were a bad fit...and would tell them the exact reason. Not make them wait for 3 months!

[pears]

break into a panicked sweat, immediately step down from my job, and hope that i saved up enough of my salary to become "chief beer officer" for all applicants instead. yknow, the person who hands you a nice cold one immediately after your decision is made, no matter what the outcome.

 

that's a thing, right?

[Angua]

My biggest policy push would be to send out rejections as soon as someone is no longer in the running, so that they can all move on. 

Clearly not going to cut it? Rejection email ASAP! 

Decent candidate, but looks like a bad fit? Rejection letter today! 

On further reflection, we're inviting a bunch of other people for interviews (and there won't be enough spots for them, so there's definitely not a spot for this other candidate!)? Rejected now!!

Came out for the interview and was a total jerk / intolerable diva / just plain bad fit? Rejection email NAO!

 

I'd be the Oprah of rejection letters.  YOU get a rejection, and YOU get a rejection, and YOU GET A REJECTION!!  YAAAAAAAHHHHHH!

[ridofme]

I would publish more specific statistics about successful applicants. While I imagine some schools truly do evaluate each application 'holistically', I'm sure most have cut-offs that send some applicants straight to the slush pile. I'd like to see something like: "most successfull applicants have GPAs above 3.3 and GREs in the 70th percentile or above. If you are weaker in one of these areas, your strength in the other becomes more important to the success of your application." I bet that many don't do this because they can decrease their acceptance rate by having a lot of unqualified applicants apply whom they can reject without spending a lot of time reviewing the file, thereby increasing their perceived competitiveness without much effort. But maybe all this waiting is just making me cynical.

[misskira]

One application per major. All schools get together with all applicants, and selections are made draft style. Only the applicants choose the school, not the other way around. And instead of a ball cap you put on a hoodie. No more waiting for decisions, filling out 73 applications and spending 12 zillion on the GRE.

[Ohm]

I would publish more specific statistics about successful applicants. While I imagine some schools truly do evaluate each application 'holistically', I'm sure most have cut-offs that send some applicants straight to the slush pile. I'd like to see something like: "most successfull applicants have GPAs above 3.3 and GREs in the 70th percentile or above. If you are weaker in one of these areas, your strength in the other becomes more important to the success of your application." I bet that many don't do this because they can decrease their acceptance rate by having a lot of unqualified applicants apply whom they can reject without spending a lot of time reviewing the file, thereby increasing their perceived competitiveness without much effort. But maybe all this waiting is just making me cynical.

I love that...also, what's lacking in today's valuation system is proper feedback. A change of policy where there can be real time interactions with evaluators after the results would be great...hell, we need to see our money's worth one way or the other!

[Ohm]

Another policy would be to stop internal recommendation and special consideration for their own students...somehow I feel others loose big opportunities because of that.

[Ohm]

One application per major. All schools get together with all applicants, and selections are made draft style. Only the applicants choose the school, not the other way around. And instead of a ball cap you put on a hoodie. No more waiting for decisions, filling out 73 applications and spending 12 zillion on the GRE.

Hmm...interesting. But aren't you worried about the paramount pile of work, confusion and fights that will arise because of this decision? Many people want the same people, the 'finders keepers, losers weepers' and stuff? 

[zapster]

introduce criteria based pre-applications that requires simple online input (e.g. unofficial GRE, GPA, summary POI/research interests - preferably based on a standard drop down menu, headline key experiences - e.g. research publications / work ex.) and require minimum manual effort to scan through, that provide, for example, a 4 scale rating: 1-Sure reject, 2-Weak Chance, 3-Strong Chance, 4-We Love You.

 

Reduce the processing requirements for the adcom / University, reduce cost of applications for students, and set realistic expectations for the students.

[sansao]

I would fire everyone, move to another country, and laugh into the night.

[Ohm]

I would fire everyone, move to another country, and laugh into the night.

Sounds like a plan

[Ohm]

I've got another one - video applications! All applicants have to make a 5-minute video of whatever they want to say/show/prove and send it across

[ZacharyObama]

I would accept everyone, everywhere, all of the time.

[EloiseGC]

1. Standardized applications. DEAR LORD. STANDARDIZED APPLICATIONS. One program, all your information.

 

2. Lower the damn application fee.

 

3. Have adcomms release dates of decision in advance.

 

4. Funding. Enough said. 

[Ohm]

1. Standardized applications. DEAR LORD. STANDARDIZED APPLICATIONS. One program, all your information.

 

2. Lower the damn application fee.

 

3. Have adcomms release dates of decision in advance.

 

4. Funding. Enough said. 

 

I should say free application, than lower. I mean, why do you have to pay for someone to just look at your resume??!

[Provincial Cosmopolitan]

To all who said standardized applications and lower fees, I'd vote for you. And if not that, why not at least send an explanation of what your fee is actually paying for? Really, they're extremely variable: some of the top schools charge $50, one medium school to which I applied charged $125 - who sets these costs? It must be a big stream of funding for the department, though. One school told me they only accepted 10 percent of the applicant pool, which, judging by the response on here, must have been about 120 people (12 acceptances x 10 = 120 applicants). I think their fee was $50 at least, which comes to $6,000. Not that much, but still.

 

My first change would be to hire a temp each year, maybe a work study undergrad, to keep in touch with all applicants about where they are in the process: didn't make the first cut? Let them know. Moving to a second round? Let them know right away. So much better than waiting with foolish hope that, even though you saw on here that 12 people were accepted weeks ago, you might somehow get accepted to the program. Of course, weeks later, that stupid hope is dashed by the rejection letter that could have gone out at the same time as people received their acceptances.

 

[phigirl]

My biggest policy push would be to send out rejections as soon as someone is no longer in the running, so that they can all move on. 

Clearly not going to cut it? Rejection email ASAP! 

Decent candidate, but looks like a bad fit? Rejection letter today! 

On further reflection, we're inviting a bunch of other people for interviews (and there won't be enough spots for them, so there's definitely not a spot for this other candidate!)? Rejected now!!

Came out for the interview and was a total jerk / intolerable diva / just plain bad fit? Rejection email NAO!

 

I'd be the Oprah of rejection letters.  YOU get a rejection, and YOU get a rejection, and YOU GET A REJECTION!!  YAAAAAAAHHHHHH!

 yes yes yes YES!. I've been saying it all along to friends, family, and really anyone who will listen to me babble on and on mindlessly. you know that no matter the program they eventually come down to an initial cut-if they do that initial cut 3 weeks after the deadline why wait another 3 months?

 

1. Standardized applications. DEAR LORD. STANDARDIZED APPLICATIONS. One program, all your information.

 

2. Lower the damn application fee.

 

3. Have adcomms release dates of decision in advance.

 

4. Funding. Enough said. 

oh standardized apps-I seriously had to double check that I had my birthday and name spelled right 2984734883 times on all my separate apps because I was paranoid about a typo. By doing this you would lower the blood pressure of candidates 50 points, which would be most appreciated come decision season

[Ohm]

Agreed, more statistical research is necessary.

[Rzilch]

So... Standardized applications, and zero application fee. What would this do? Probably double the number of schools you applied to, right? This effectively doubles the work if the admissions committees, and makes it less likely for them to find the applicants who really want to be there to admit on the first round. If the grad school is funding you (I.e.its selective), they want a 'difficult' app to weed out the non-serious folks. FYI.

That said, the application cost is mainly a small barrier to ensure serious applicants.

[Tuck]

1. Standardized applications. DEAR LORD. STANDARDIZED APPLICATIONS. One program, all your information.

 

In theory, but they had better do it right. Over in the speech-language pathology forums, it sounds like the CSDCAS (Communication Sciences and Disorders Centralized Application Service) was a nightmare for many people. Apparently, they didn't forward many applicants' information to their schools in time. Fortunately for me, none of my schools used it.  But yes, properly executed, this would be a godsend.

[Ohm]

So... Standardized applications, and zero application fee. What would this do? Probably double the number of schools you applied to, right? This effectively doubles the work if the admissions committees, and makes it less likely for them to find the applicants who really want to be there to admit on the first round. If the grad school is funding you (I.e.its selective), they want a 'difficult' app to weed out the non-serious folks. FYI. That said, the application cost is mainly a small barrier to ensure serious applicants.

And that's where the common applicant pool kicks in