Tag: College Admission Team

Freshman Application Review – The Nuts and Bolts (part 1 of 2)

This week Senior Associate Director of Admission, Mary Tipton Woolley, joins us on the blog. Welcome, Mary Tipton!

If you’re reading this blog you’re likely a high school student (or connected to a student!) who is, or soon will be, applying to college. Once you send in your application, you probably wonder what in the world happens between the time you hit “submit” and when you receive your admission decision.

This year we’re changing the way we read freshman applications. This week and next I’ll explain why we made this decision, what we’re doing differently, and, most importantly, what it means for you!

How We Got Here (a little background)

First Year ApplicationLet me start by explaining how we got where we are now. Institutions across the country have seen large increases in applications over the last decade (not news to most of you!). But the growth in applications is rarely followed by an increase in staffing, leaving admission offices with roughly the same number of admission staffers processing and reading applications as we had a decade ago when we received a lot fewer. You can see how this could impact our review of your application and attention to your needs throughout the admission process. From a leadership perspective, we also have to consider how this volume affects our staff members. Admission offices across the country struggle to retain staff, due in large part to the nights and weekends staff are asked to give up to read applications.

Each full-time reading staff evaluates anywhere from 2000-2600 applications over a roughly twelve-week period from October through March. Our expectation was for our staff to read approximately 50 applications per day, or 250 per week. That accomplishment alone would be daunting, but along with reading, our staff is also expected to give information sessions, answer emails, plan events, work with student recruitment teams, and coordinate other responsibilities in our office. Staff are left wondering how to prioritize file review, customer service and project responsibilities throughout reading season. It was clear we couldn’t continue for fear of mass staff defections!

Times Are Changing…

Last spring we surveyed our (very burned out) staff to find areas for improvement. Several themes emerged for file review, including a desire for more accountability, efficiency, norming and clear office priorities. Let me unpack these:

Accountability – We all remember “that person” on a group project who we didn’t think pulled their weight. The same perception was happening in file review, and, true or not, it’s a hit on office morale. Additionally, from a leadership perspective, there is nothing fun about pressuring/nagging/cajoling staff to read the applications assigned to them.

Efficiency – We had some big technology hurdles and we’re addressing those while implementing our new review system, making it much easier for us to adopt a new model.

Norming – Staff felt the evaluation they gave an application initially carried too much influence throughout the process. In other words, in committee we relied heavily on the notes from the initial reviewer. While there were additional eyes on the application, advisors felt the decision they made without anyone else’s perspective carried too much weight later on.

Office Priorities – When staff were left to read on their own, when and how it was done varied widely and some people managed their time better than others. Not being seen reading at your desk (even if you were reading late into the evening at home) contributed to the accountability issues mentioned above.

Two Heads are Better than One

All of this leads up to our adoption of Committee Based Evaluation (CBE). What is CBE, and how can it address these concerns? First and foremost, we cannot take any credit for the concept. We tip our hat to the ingenious staffers at the University of Pennsylvania who developed the CBE model, and to their leadership for supporting the concept and willingness to share with colleagues around the country. I encourage you to read this article about CBE (or this one) if you want to dig in even more.

The overarching concept: together, two staffers can do better and more efficient work than one alone. To get into the weeds a bit, it means having two staff members spend an individual 8-10 minutes on an application (16-20 total review minutes) is not as efficient as having two people review and discuss one application for 8-10 minutes. The time in which an application is reviewed is the same, but it is accomplished in roughly half the time because two people look at it together.

You may be thinking this is not saving time because you cut the staff to file ratio in half. We’re getting around that in two ways. First, the 18 seasonal review staff we hire each year will make up one half of our CBE pairs. They are invaluable to our file review effort and are here training as I type to prepare for this change in our process. CBE also saves us time by allowing us to take a file to a final decision earlier in the process. If two people have reviewed and discussed an application, we can feel more confident in the decision they recommend than we could with the input of only one person.

The team approach to file review also addresses accountability because staff are assigned a partner and times to read, and must ask permission of their supervisor to be excused. It’s a bit of micromanaging their time, but, as I’ve said to staff, we’re only asking to do this for about 12 weeks out of the year. The benefits outweigh the negatives in our minds and also send a clear signal about prioritization of our office and individual time during file review season.

Drivers and Passengers

It’s also important for you to know who is doing what in the review. Here at Tech, the driver will read the school report/profile, transcript and recommendation letters. The passenger will read the application, including the activities and essays. Both the driver (permanent staff and territory managers) and the passenger (seasonal staff) will open an application and review a summary sheet together.

The driver has inherent knowledge of the school and is expected to provide a summary to the passenger. For example, the driver might say something like, “This is a school in an affluent, suburban part of Atlanta where most students will attend college. They offer a robust AP program, and students admitted to Georgia Tech in the past took an average of six of those courses. Because they are in such a heavy technology corridor, students have lots of opportunities for internships at technology firms.” Our goal is to allow the driver, who has more knowledge of an area and school, to manage this part of the application.

The driver and passenger will read their assigned portion of the application file and discuss an applicant’s strengths and weaknesses and fit to Tech. After CBE is complete an application can move on to an additional committee. So, yes, committee reviews still exist, but we hope to narrow the focus of committee to the applicants needing further discussion the most.

Now that I’ve explained why we adopted CBE and what it will mean for our file review process, tune in next week to learn how we are preparing for file review this year and what our change to the CBE model means for you!

Read part 2 now!

If you would like to subscribe to receive blog entries when they post, please enter your email address above, or click the “Subscribe” button in the header at the top of this page. We also welcome comments or feedback @gtadmission on Twitter.

Breaking Down The Admission Team. Week 5: Quarterbacks

This year we moved our Regular Decision Deadline from January 10 to January 1. When we initially made the call to change the date, one of my boss’s biggest concerns was that “we would ruin New Year’s Eve” by “making them” stay in to apply to Tech.Happy New Year

My counter was two-fold. First, the application opens on August 1, so we’ve “given” them five months to apply. How long do you need to write a few paragraphs and ask mom and dad some questions about their jobs, degrees, and residency?

Second, let’s not forget about January 1. Even if they stay out to celebrate NYE, they still have ALL DAY January 1. And, predictably, 3,500 students did wait to apply for 2017 in 2017.

I can relate. I started this series on The Admission Team in early November and committed to finishing before we went back to work January 3, and here I am writing this on January 2 (with all the time in the world to meet that deadline). Takes one to know one.

QB1

We’ve worked through The Communications Team (Defense), The Operations Team (Offensive Line), The Initial Review (The Bench), and The Recruitment and Holistic Review Team, (WRs and RBs). And that leaves us with just one position left to cover: The Director/Dean/AVP (or some other fancy title) of Admission. You can basically throw in folks with titles like Associate and Senior Associate to this group as well.

These are the Quarterbacks of the team. They call the plays, scan the entire field, read defenses, and align their team’s talent in the right positions to be successful. They make strategy and personnel adjustments as the game progresses in order to lead their team to victory.  Consequently, they are typically the names on recruitment and decision letters, the spokespeople providing quotes to journalists, and they’re also the ones who take the heat when goals are not met.

Signal Callers

These folks are part demographer, part pitch-man, part cheerleader, part bridge-builder, and of course, part soup maker. 

Directors and Deans are over-“meetinged.” They spend time looking at historical trends of applications by state or major or some other category; they are concerned about demographic shifts; they are constantly refining predictive models in order to be sure they bring in the right class size and make-up.  They field way too many calls from vendors wanting to sell them services. They meet with and listen to alumni, presidents, provosts, deans, donors, board members, legislators, and other key constituents, and attempt to translate sweeping five-part mission statements and aspirational future casting about the university into succinct, engaging messages that can be easily understood and attractive to students and parents.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit we don’t always get this right. I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of glossy, shiny brochures with phrases like “Invent your future” or “Be Bold” or “Find it here.” Trite? Cheesy? Sure. But next time you scoff at one of these short verb-led challenges on a mailing, imagine if instead it read “Engaging students in co-curricular and inspiring world-class education in order to create global citizens committed to endeavoring into passionate, meaningful dialogue for life-long learning and the cultivation of future impact.” (The reason you know I made that up is there are nearly ten mono-syllabic words).

These folks are multi-taskers (and often caffeine junkies) who have become masters of slipping out of meetings with influential alumni in order to quickly welcome a group of visiting sophomores to campus.

Quarter Backgrounds (see what I did there?)

QuarterbackIf you look at quarterbacks around the NFL, you’ll find their backgrounds and personalities vary widely. Eli Manning comes from a family that’s basically football royalty. He attended a prestigious private school in New Orleans, and played big time college ball at Ole Miss in the nation’s biggest powerhouse conference. Joe Flacco went to the University of Delaware (Go Blue Hens!) out of the Colonial Conference– far more known for basketball than football– and attended  public high school in New Jersey. Cam Newton has a gregarious and sometimes flamboyant personality. Drew Brees… not so much.

And so it goes with admission directors and deans. There is no template or mold. Accountants have CPAs. Lawyers have JDs. Look at some of these biographies online. Music majors, MBAs, PhDs in History and Fine Arts. Some have parents who were long time deans with a deep lineage in higher education, while others are converts from corporate America or have migrated from other parts of academia.

But there is one trait I’ve found applies to all of the folks: they are extremely genuine. They deeply want to see young people thrive and succeed. They believe in and love the school they represent.

What’s it to you? 

Like quarterbacks in football, these are typically very goal oriented, driven people. They spend a great deal of time analyzing, tweaking, refining. They like to win, they like to compete, and they want their team to be the best. But they are also committed collaborators. They share ideas and best practices, even with direct competitors, because they want to see others become better. They are humble people who know that even with all the skill in the world, there’s no way that they can individually recruit or enroll a great class. They need the full investment of their campus community, alumni community, and the team around them. No quarterback throws a pass to himself. And without support from the team, they’d be on their back every play.

So What?

Knowing this about the people who are recruiting you or reviewing your application is not going to give you any kind of edge when it comes to “getting in.” The truth is that most applicants never meet the dean or director of the colleges to which they apply or ultimately attend. But it is important to know what type of person is behind the emails, or the marketing materials, or the counselors and other admission representatives that you do meet. Their values and personality and priorities drive and transcend a great deal of what you see and experience.  These are people who  strive to create access to higher education for all students, and are fully committed to enrolling thoughtful, dynamic, diverse classes.

Post-Game Press Conference

If you have taken away nothing else from the parallels between positions on a team and the roles people play in the admission office at universities around the country, please remember this: the work of recruiting students and making admission decisions is deeply human. Unfortunately the vocabulary of this field (application, process, deadline) dilutes that very important truth. But it is critical that you know this, because ultimately you’re not applying to an institution. An institution does not teach nor inspire; a community does these things.

Now that you know the people of college admission, make your experience about the people. Don’t let the list of schools you apply to or ultimately choose be about where they are ranked, or what that name might look like on a bumper sticker. Don’t let the claim that you “got in” dictate your decision. Instead, make it about finding a distinct community where your talents, your goals, your skills, your vision, and your aspirations align with that team.

Tune in next week when we’ll be talking about something other than football.

If you would like to subscribe to receive blog entries when they post, please enter your email address above, or click the “Subscribe” button in the header at the top of this page. We also welcome comments or feedback @gtadmission on Twitter.