Use the following best practices as part of your admissions comprehensive review strategy.
Engagement and training
Faculty and staff engagement in the applicant review process is essential to the success and sustainability of a comprehensive review process and is primarily accomplished through the implementation of an admissions committee. The committee should be exposed to all elements of the comprehensive review model and receive training on topics including (but not limited to) inter-rater reliability, a broad prospective on program and student success, and rubric review.
The admission review committee must have at least one faculty member who has taken the Comprehensive Graduate Admissions Review training offered by the Graduate School each academic year.
Mentoring and funding
In some programs, final acceptance of an applicant depends on finding a faculty member who agrees to mentor, and often funds the applicant as a student. In these programs, it is often the individual faculty members reviewing subsets of applicants interested in their research who decide admissions rather than a committee. Comprehensive review can still be implemented by:
- Working together as a group to develop consistent criteria that all faculty agree to apply to their individual review of applications.
- Using a rubric filled out by individual faculty and collected across the program. This allows for a programmatic picture of the admissions process and provides data to assess applicant attributes that contribute to program and student success.
- Using a standard set of multiple mini interview (MMI) questions.
- Developing a pool of applicants who are qualified and not already matched with a faculty member for mentorship and circulating it broadly among faculty. Sometimes faculty have a late developing opportunity, their recruiting efforts have fallen through, or another faculty member ended up not taking an applicant of interest. Use of a pool is a best practice for increasing offers to applicants and recruiting a broader range of talents, experiences, and viewpoints. This hybrid model allows faculty a second look at applicants and often increases the number of offers made by a program.
- Having the faculty program director engage in required Comprehensive Graduate Admissions Review training offered by the Graduate School. This faculty program director can also serve as a resource to individual faculty reviewing applications.
Be specific
Bring specifics to discussions from the application/interview in describing what an applicant is like and how admissible you find them. Notice whether you or your colleagues are prone to unsubstantiated use of adjectives (excellent, solid, underprepared, etc.).
Disagreements
Disagreement during discussion is not a problem, but manage disagreement with care for both the question at hand and the people involved.
Use predefined criteria
Avoid the “Admission Death March” and focus on building the case for applicants relative to specific, predefined criteria (i.e., a rubric) instead of comparatively evaluating applicants against each other. The latter leads to privileging qualities to which there is unequal access.
Use of indicators
Ensure that the full range of available indicators are considered and used appropriately in the decision-making process.
Individual contributions
Individualize consideration about how an applicant will contribute value to the learning environment/mission/outcomes of a program is preferred and how their academic training, experiences, and attributes have prepared them for success.
Applicant identity
Colorado State University’s mission as a Land-Grant institution is rooted in expanding access to higher education and advancing the public good. From our founding, we have been committed to serving students from all backgrounds. In graduate admissions, this mission translates into a responsibility to consider how financial hardship or being a first-generation undergraduate student may have shaped an applicant’s academic journey and potential for success. Reviewing these factors helps ensure that promising scholars are not overlooked due to barriers beyond their control, and that CSU remains true to its commitment to educational access, opportunity, and excellence.
When an applicant indicates significant financial hardship or identifies as a first-generation undergraduate, and meets the program’s minimum admission criteria, admissions committees should carefully consider this context alongside academic and professional preparation. Doing so aligns our admissions practices with the values that define CSU as a Land-Grant university: opening doors, creating opportunity, and fostering the success of talented students who will contribute to our research, teaching, and service mission.
GPA/GRE/GMAT
Do not use GPA/GRE/GMAT as a first cut of applications because this discounts other important criteria, and do not include GPA/GRE/GMAT in discussions after the interview process!
Consider a broad perspective on success early
Do not wait until you are done to assess the breadth of backgrounds, talents, experiences, and viewpoints from your selected students. This breadth contributes to the vibrancy of your program and the university. Be sure to embed it into the conversation, evaluation, and your decisions. There are many pathways to success in a modern land grant university where both excellence and access are valued.