Comprehensive Admissions Review Criteria
A resource of the Comprehensive Graduate Review Guide
A resource of the Comprehensive Graduate Review Guide
When evaluating applicants for admission in the comprehensive admissions model consider the following best practices.
Evaluation should be distributed across four broad areas:
Specific criteria within these four areas should be discussed and modified by an appropriate program committee as part of the comprehensive admission strategy for a graduate admissions committee. This allows the review criteria to be tailored to the program.
These areas, with example criteria, are implemented within a corresponding sample template rubric available here to download. Within the template rubric, the High/Medium/Low/Not measurable (or, 3/2/1/0, respectively) scale is considered a best practice. The Graduate School does not recommend this scale be modified. It is also possible to weight specific criteria more heavily than others. However, it’s generally not recommended to use this approach because it can lead to subjectivity in determining the weighting scheme. Instead, the goal is to maintain the use of broad criteria within a comprehensive review.
The following sections of this webpage provide recommendations, requirments, and best practices for using a Comprehensive Review Rubric.
This criterion intends to evaluate all information on this topic that the available evidence (personal statement, transcripts, letters, supplements, etc.) might provide. While strong academic preparation is often evaluated in a straightforward way, there may be extenuating circumstances that cloud the record of academic preparation and an alternative evaluation of application materials can help clarify the academic record. For example, a student who had difficulty adjusting to college, had medical challenges, or took on caretaking responsibility might have low grades during a time period of high stress and high grades during the rest of their academic record. Indeed, the capacity for personal and professional growth may be represented by a higher GPA during the last two years of undergraduate studies compared to those in the first two. It may be worthwhile to consider alternative GPA calculations such as in courses relevant to the program or during the last 60 credits in order to incorporate a relevant view of academic preparation. Applicants may also have further challenged themselves through an academic challenge such as a double major that could be accounted for in a “Difficulty of courses/ credit load” category. A “Major independent, non-research/creative artistry contribution to undergraduate program” might be, for example, serving as a teaching assistant or discussion group leader for a course. Additional attributes to consider (and reward by additional points in a rubric) under this criterion might include problem solving, creativity, critical reasoning, written communication, etc.
Across the available documents/evidence, this criterion intends to identify and rank all past creative artistry/research activities with respect to how they might increase the potential of the applicant for successful completion of the graduate program. Additional attributes to consider under this point might include initiative, compassion, teamwork, motivation, etc. as they relate to scholarly activities. However, these could also be considered under “Personal attributes.”
This criterion intends to address “Curiosity”, both intellectual and practical as well as providing information about how the applicant spends time outside the classroom. It may also capture additional skillsets relevant to the graduate program. Examples of evidence include, but are not limited to, playing an instrument, emergency medical technician certification, rock climbing guide, etc.
This criterion intends to address “Alignment” and “Personal interest” as well as “Recruitability” of the candidates. The criterion is expected to be extensively discussed among the admissions committee members in a program specific manner prior to the review. The admissions committee might choose to consider how the applicant would either deepen or extend the research/creative artistry focus in the program and if the current faculty can provide appropriate mentoring for the student.
This criterion also intends to address “Alignment” and “Personal interest” with stated values of the program such as community-based research, performance, teaching, extension work, etc. The admissions committee might choose to consider how the applicant’s backgrounds, talents, experiences, and viewpoints would contribute to the vibrancy of the program’s graduate student community.
This criterion intends to address the applicant’s experience with leadership, organization, and furthering organizational goals consistent with the more advanced roles and contributions we expect from graduate students.
There are many personal attributes that may contribute to success in graduate school. The admissions committee should consider carefully which types of personal attributes are most important for success in their specific field. Below are a few examples of potential attributes programs may want to consider.
This criterion intends to evaluate the applicant’s perspectives by addressing preference for either short- or long-term goals. Examples for short-term goals include, but are not limited to, completing a specific course or acquiring a skill/method/technology. However, short-term goals may align with a long-term plan. For instance, if the applicant can clearly explain how mastering a particular skill contributes to achieving their long-term career aspirations.
While this criterion intends to evaluate perseverance as an important personal trait, it also encompasses valuation of the applicant’s dedication towards graduate education across socio-economic barriers, personal obstacles, and other challenges via specific scenarios. Again, the criterion is expected to be extensively discussed among the admission committee members and altered if needed in a program specific manner to widen the scope of comprehensive evaluation that promotes a variety of backgrounds, talents, experiences, and viewpoints. Alternative/additional criteria to consider here might include motivation, adaptability, life experiences, etc.
Self-efficacy relates to the applicant’s belief that they can be successful in carrying out tasks and meeting goals and understanding how their own actions determine the completion of short term tasks, long term goals, and their impact. Research suggests that self-efficacy is an important component in graduate student success.
Across the available documents/evidence, this criterion intends to identify and rank personal qualities with respect to how they might increase or decrease the potential of the applicant for successfully completing the given graduate program apart from the competencies/attributes evaluated separately. Since most of this information will most likely be extracted from the personal statement, letters of reference, and required life experiences statement, a rubric might assign extra points related to quality of letters. Examples of qualities to consider under this point might include cultural competency, reliability/dependability, maturity, integrity, ethics, values, and personal traits like being detail oriented, visionary, (un)focused, etc. The importance of any personal attributes should be determined prior to the review, and if deemed critical for the mission of the program, should be included and emphasized more by evaluating as a separate criterion.