51ÊÓƵ

• Rank in class
• Overall GPA and GPA in major
• Written communication skills
• Curriculum in prior degree programs
• Progression of academic performance over time
• Standardized test scores
• Foreign language fluency

• Research activity on and off campus
• Relevant work experience
• Intellectual creativity and  problem-solving
• Aptitude for planning and organization
• Scholarly engagement outside of coursework

• Indices of leadership
• Recognition of achievements over time
• Extracurricular activities
• Community involvement or service
• Special talents or skills
• Personal and professional ethics
• Learning differences
• Educational and geographic background

Consistent with it's mission, Indiana University counts its diversity as
one of its greatest strengths, and as an institution, we are committed to
promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. Carefully weighing strengths and
achievements in and outside of the classroom allows evaluators to better understand applicants' unique experiences, potential for success, and prospective contributions to the graduate educational environment.  Admissions reviewers use this understanding of how the applicant's personal experiences shaped their scholarly projects, academic history, interest in graduate education, and likely ability to succeed in our academic programs in their admissions decisions.

How to use: In response to these prompts, reviewers may determine if an applicant brings a unique or underrepresented perspective and intelletual skill set that would be an asset to the program. The response may also provide insight into an applicant's unique cognitive and non-cognitive skills and abilities. Reviewers may determine if the applicant brings skills to the academic program that will benefit cohort-mates, classmates, instructors, and undergraduates (if serving as a teaching assistant). How and with whom an applicant chooses to engage with scholarly opportunities, leadership, facilitating change, overcoming societal barriers, community involvement or mentoring can provide important insights into their unique character and perspectives, which can inform diverse intellectual perspectives (and leadership) they may bring to a graduate program.

More graduate programs are moving away from requiring standardized test scores due to their unreliability in predicting academic success. For those programs that require standardized test scores, reviewers should avoid using cutoff scores and consider all components of the application to gauge an applicant's potential for success in the program.

Reviewers should observe the following:

• Did the applicant exhibit exceptional academic ability with classroom performance?
• Was there evidence of meaningful research conducted as a student?
• Did the applicant participate in professional or service experiences that demonstrated their potential for success in the program?

Applicants are required to submit transcript(s) from all colleges and/or universities they attended regardless of whether they earned a degree from that institution. A holistic understanding of an academic transcript goes beyond the final cumulative grade point average.

Reviewers can gain a holistic understanding by observing the following:

• Did grades trend up, down, etc.?
• Were there one or two bad semesters that impacted the grade point average?
• Did grades improve after an event with change in major, change in institution?
• When considering other elements of the application materials, were there life circumstances that negatively impacted academic performance?
• Did applicants perform well in relevant coursework?
• Reviewers should not penalize applicants for attending a school they are unfamiliar with.

Most programs require one or more letter(s) of recommendation. As mentioned in the briefing, research has shown letters of recommendation bring their own potential for unconscious bias. Reviewers should focus on the recommenders' discussion of the applicant’s ability to succeed in the program.

Reviewers should observe:

• Are there meaningful (defined by the department) experiences highlighted in the letter?
• How does the recommender address the applicant’s ability to succeed in the program?
• Did the recommender discuss relevant academic, research, professional, or service experiences that demonstrate the applicant's potential for success in the program?
• Did the recommender describe the life experiences of the applicant that may contextualize uneven academic performance or shed light on unique abilities or perspectives the applicant would bring to the graduate program?

Some graduate programs require applicants to submit supplementary materials such as a CV/Resume, writing sample(s), a portfolio, or a course assignment.

When reviewing the material reviewers should observe:

• Is there relevant depth and/or breadth (defined by department) in the professional or academic experiences listed?
• Does the applicant reflect meaningfully on any of these experiences?
• Do the materials submitted demonstrate remarkable ability?
• Did the applicant explore a unique topic in the materials submitted?

• Reviewers should use personal statements and the responses in the personal experiences questions to contextualize cumulative GPA, test scores, CV/Resume, letter(s) or recommendation and supplemental materials to assess the breadth of the applicant's qualifications for graduate study.
• Reviewers should neither admit nor eliminate applicants solely on their research, professional, service, or personal experience.

• Reviewers should not disregard personal statements and narratives offered by the applicant. 

• Reviewers should establish rubrics. Rubrics promote equity and inter-rater reliability and mitigate bias. Rubrics can ensure no one factor is used to admit or eliminate an applicant.

Creating the Admissions Committee

Assemble the members early, involve people from a wide-range of backgrounds and experience, create a chair and vice chair of admissions, and allow time for members to undergo training before reviewing applications.

• Selection of Committee Members – Admissions committees may be composed of faculty, staff, and current graduate students. Admissions committees that include individuals with diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences are more effective at selecting applicants with diverse backgrounds and experiences (, 2018). Advanced graduate students can be asked to participate as reviewers for professional development.
• Number of Committee Members – The admissions committee needs enough members so each application can be read by at least two members of the committee. If graduate students and staff are members of the committee, ensure that at least one review of each application is completed by a faculty member.
• Assembling the Admissions Committee – The admissions committee chair, vice chair, and committee members should be identified as early as possible for the upcoming admissions cycle. This will allow faculty on the committee time to review past admissions practices and structure their upcoming admissions review. Determine length of service for each committee member. Having members serve multiple years and staggered start and end times will help maintain knowledge of processes and allow for smooth transitions from year to year

• Chair of Admissions – This position will lead and guide the committee through the review process. The chair collaborates with the Graduate Program Manager/Coordinator and the program chair as needed.
• Vice Chair of Admissions – In order to allow for continuity of holistic admissions practices, create a vice chair position to learn from the current admissions chair during their final year of graduate admissions service. This will facilitate a smooth transition and ensure the work that went into setting up admissions review is continued.

Admissions Committee Charge

The admissions committee should follow the goals, guiding principles, and criteria important to the program with respect to admitting students. The admissions committee should review program data for previous years to understand trends and set goals for where the program wants to head with future students. The committee should also review the current program’s admissions website to ensure it clearly states the application process and expectations. Admissions committee members should participate in Implicit Bias and/or Holistic Admissions Training.

Tasks

• Implicit Bias Training – Implicit bias training introduces committee members to how implicit and explicit biases can influence decision-making behavior

Resources for Implicit Bias

• Review Program Admissions Data – Utilize the data resources to review graduate program data for applications, enrollment, and degree completion for previous years to understand trends and set goals for the current admission cycle.
• Review and Update Program Admission Website – Review the program website and make any relevant changes for the upcoming admission cycle. Consider adding language to the program website detailing application processes (e.g. clear expectations for writing samples, prompts for the personal statement, requirements for specific courses or level of math skills).

Admissions Chair & Vice Chair

The admissions chair position will lead and guide the committee through the review process. The vice chair position allows for continuity of holistic admissions practice by learning from the current admissions chair during their final year of graduate admissions service. This will facilitate a smooth transition and ensure the work that went into setting up admissions review is continued.

Develop and/or Update an Admissions Review Guide - Briefly outline the overall admission process and goals to accurately capture the review process to share with current and future admissions committee members. The document should be reviewed annually for areas of improvement.

The admissions committee will need to collectively identify guiding principles, admissions goals, and undergo a holistic review of the application review process.

Tasks

• Identify Guiding Principles – Assess the guiding principles of your program and how admissions decisions will support your students’ impact in their profession and the world.
• Determine Admissions Goals – In coordination with program leadership, outline overall admission goals, number of applicants to be accepted, and the criteria to be prioritized. Consider how the students you admit contribute to your program’s goals and culture.
• Create a Timeline of the Application Review Process – The timeline should include admission committee meetings and the timeline for the review process.
  • Set up group meetings needed to review the process and criteria before application reviews begin.
  • Set dates applications are available to review and the date when reviewers need to finish reviewing applications.
  • Set a meeting to discuss application recommendations and finalize decisions.
  • Set the deadline to submit recommendations and denials to graduate program manager/coordinator to communicate with the applicants.

Review the Application – The admissions committee will need to be familiar with the layout of information in applications before reviewing applications. They will also need to form a consensus on criteria used to review applicants.

Application Layout – Understanding where information is located on the applications will reduce review time and enable reviewers to identify key skills and background experiences. Holistic admissions requires review of the entire application, therefore reviewers familiar with the layout of the application will be able to find information more quickly and understand experience in the context of life circumstances.

Commonly Used Terms – In order to establish a common understanding of application strengths and weaknesses, discuss the terms that are commonly used (e.g. diversity, first generation college), since reviewers may start with different experiences. Review commonly used terms and review the application to ensure an even evaluation across all applicants and by all reviewers.

Criteria/Skills – Identify skills or attributes desired by admissions and the overall program faculty. Incorporate these skills/attributes into a rubric and set guidelines for its use.

Develop and/or Update Admissions Review Rubric – Develop a template for the review process to evaluate the prioritized criteria defined by the program leadership/admissions committee.

The admissions chair and vice chair should meet to review the outcome of the admissions cycle with respect to offers accepted and the extent to which the program’s admissions goals were achieved. Discuss changes that will improve the admissions process and update relevant documents as necessary (e.g., websites with admissions guidance for prospective students), including any updates to admissions rubrics and goals anticipated for the following year. Share information with program faculty and staff about admissions outcomes. Invite feedback about the processes, outcomes, and future goals.

Benefits of Interviews

Provides additional context and information that contribute to holistic review

• The applicant is given space to provide greater detail about their experiences than they are afforded in their essays or resume/CV.
• An interview can provide helpful context. For instance, an applicant may be able to more fully explain all of their responsibilities and the skills they gained during a research, educational, or professional experience. They may talk about how they balanced their academic, extracurricular, and personal responsibilities while working 25 hours/week, yet didn’t include that 25 hours/week job on their resume/CV.
• An interviewer can ask questions to gather additional information about any perceived gaps in an applicant’s resume or transcript.
• Interviews allow for discussion of future goals and ambitions. Does the applicant have projects they want to explore, skills they want to develop, or experiences they are hoping to have? This allows applicants to discuss why IU Graduate School and the program is a good fit for them.

Programs can develop behavioral interview questions to gain insight into how applicants have responded to specific types of challenges previously. Behavioral interview questions focus on assessing applicants past experiences and the skills they used when navigating specific situations. This may provide insight into how they may approach challenges in the future.

An applicant’s essays and resume/CV may have gone through several revisions before being uploaded to the application portal. However, in an interview, while an applicant can and should prepare, they will not be able to anticipate every aspect of the conversation. They must demonstrate the ability to be responsive to real-time prompts for information and reply, both exceptional qualities for success in graduate school.

During the interview, an applicant will organically talk about their specific interests in your program and ask for more information to address their questions. As a result, the interview presents a key opportunity to promote the strengths of the program as a recruitment tool for applicants. This is an opportunity to highlight what makes your program unique versus your competitors. Spending time with an applicant in an interview also builds rapport between the applicant and faculty, staff, and current students within the program.

In addition to providing details about the academic, scholarly, and/or research strengths of your program, be sure to supply applicants with information about funding opportunities, the competitiveness of IU Graduate School stipends and benefits, the strength of student support services at our university, and the appeal of living in Bloomington. 

When the admissions committee meets to discuss the upcoming application cycle, they should discuss the purpose of their admissions interview as well as their administrative capacity to schedule and host these interviews. The admissions committee will need to determine the amount of time available to schedule interviews in. For example, do all interviews need to be scheduled to be completed within one week, or can they be scheduled to take place over a month? This can help the group determine how many individuals to invite to interview and during which part of the review process.

Determining who will be the interviewers

While there may be a large number of faculty and academic staff available to interview applicants, the following should be considered before creating the interviewer pool.

Recruit volunteers thoughtfully, aiming to have a representation of identities such as gender, scholary interest, program specialization, geographic location, etc. among your interviewer pool.  Consider asking applicants to provide a list of faculty names of who they are interested in speaking to, especially if the program is research based.

Ensure all interviewers have the relevant application documentation. Having access to all applicants asked to interview will help faculty determine the candidate pool and competitiveness. Consider creating a research summary document with details about each applicant interviewing for all faculty to review.

Current graduate students should not be asked to participate solely in interviews and any input they provide is considered advisory. 

Determining virtual or in-person interviews

Programs may offer interviews virtually, in-person, or both. Consider the advantages and disadvantages applicants may have in each setting.

For virtual interviews:

• Applicants may not have access to reliable internet, a working webcam, or a quiet, private space.
• Background visuals and noise may impact the interviewer’s perspective of an applicant’s professionalism or fit.
• For international applicants, consider the time zones where most of your applicants live. Consider asking the applicants what time of day works best for them and schedule applicants in similar time zones around the same time.

• Assign an interview coordinator
  • This person should not be an interviewer and should be available to troubleshoot and be a resource for any logistical questions and issues that arise.
  • This person should have personal contact information for the interviewers and applicants (i.e. cell phone) in case someone does not show up to the virtual interview.
  • Consider creating a virtual meeting with breakout rooms for each interviewee where the interview coordinator stays in the main room to be available to help with any issues.

Behavioral interviews

from Northwestern University
Non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements

from Kornberg School of Dentistry at Temple University
Creating inclusive video interviews

from Harvard Business School

Interview rubrics

from the Equity in Graduate Education Resource Center

from University of Washington

Implicit Bias

from Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science

from UCLA

from The Ohio State University

Programs should create rubrics to assess applicants. Below is an overview of the benefits of using admissions rubrics, as well as generic rubrics to use as a guide to developing a program-specific rubric. Programs should establish program-specific criteria tailored to program needs - detailed guidance is provided below the sample rubrics.

Benefits of Rubrics

• Structure and Equity: Assess all applicants on the same factors
• Specificity: Mitigates implicit bias by focusing on predefined factors
• Reliability: Raters have similar ratings; limit impact of single factors
• Synergies: Connect to recruitment application prompts
• Alignment: Helps reinforce a program's values and/or mission
• Accountability: Defense against charges of unfairness

Developing a Rubric (From the Alliance for Multi-campus Inclusive
Graduate Admissions Links to an external site) 

Equitable and inclusive review requires fair, clear and consistent evaluation across committee members. It can be accomplished broadly through faculty admission training and the use of a scoring template that admissions committee members develop and norm prior to application review. Discussing and finalizing selection criteria and scoring method/s among colleagues is critical to achieving consensus that supports validity and reliability. Consider the following issues to ensure the development of an equitable, inclusive and valid rubric for your graduate program.

Discipline specific skills – In context, weigh whether an applicant's ability to take
specific courses may be affected by other factors other than choice (e.g., a particular public institution may not offer Latin or Greek language study).

GPA – Contextualize the GPA by supporting evaluation with factors that may have been influential, such as a change of majors, personal circumstances or limited access to particular coursework.

Recommendation letters – Consider the questions that faculty respond to for
recommendation letters. Be cognizant that unfamiliar faculty, programs or institutions do not signal a less talented or prepared applicant.

Research experience – Consider the type and depth of research experience in the context of the undergraduate institution, availability of graduate preparation programs, and necessity to work extensively to pay for college expenses.

Personal background – Background to possibly consider includes contribution to obstacles overcome, first generation college, public college attendance, grad prep program participation and distance traveled.

Standardized test scores – Consider the equitable use of scores, such as the GRE, GMAT and others. If temporarily or permanently suspended, how might corresponding skills be evaluated from the current application information?

In order to define your program’s rubric categories, consider the top qualities that current students in your program possess that have helped them succeed. Consider non-cognitive variables such as:

• Resilience
• Work ethic
• Engagement in scholarship
• Creative problem-solving
• Leadership
• Service, etc.

The goal is to have between 3 - 5 categories with a defined rating scale. Create a “Master Rubric” with an explanation of each category and a descriptor of each rating for that category.

These are several common parts of a rubric:

• Categories - Qualities or skills that correlate with success in the program or field
• Scoring Scale - three to five levels, can be descriptive (ex. High, medium, low) or numerical (1 to 3)
• Quality Criteria - description of each level of scoring for each category

Example of rating definitions for each quality/skill and rating level.

International applicants need to navigate visa and immigration requirements to study in the U.S. This includes obtaining a student visa, providing proof of financial support, and complying with any required health and security checks. International applicants also need to factor in the time required for visa processing, which can impact their ability to start their program on time.

International applicants whose native language is not English will need to provide proof of English language proficiency through standardized tests like TOEFL or IELTS to ensure that they can successfully engage in coursework and communicate effectively.

International applicants' academic transcripts and degrees may need to be translated and evaluated by credential evaluation services or institutional staff to ensure their equivalency to U.S. educational qualifications.

Admissions committees should consider varying educational systems, grading scales, and academic norms from different countries. This requires evaluating international applicants' academic achievements in the context of their home country's educational system.

International students often have additional financial considerations, such as higher tuition rates and extra fees, currency exchange rate fluctuations, and the need to demonstrate sufficient funds for tuition and living expenses for the first year of study to obtain a visa.

When evaluating international applicants, graduate admission committees should consider a variety of factors to ensure that chosen students will not only succeed academically, but also contribute positively to the university community.

Review the applicant's transcripts and evaluate their performance in relevant courses. Look for consistency in grades, the rigor of coursework, and how their academic achievements compare to the program’s standards. Consult resources if you are unfamiliar with the country’s educational system or the grading scale used for assessment.

Consider standardized test scores such as GRE, TOEFL, or IELTS. These scores can help gauge the applicant's aptitude for the program's academic demands and their proficiency in the English language. Scores should be considered in the context of the entire application package; be mindful of cultural differences that may contribute to higher/lower scores, the effects of test preparation and access to resources, etc. Committees should also not use cutoff scores as an initial screening criterion.

Assess the credibility of the recommenders and the depth of insight they provide into the applicant's academic abilities, work ethic, character, and potential for success in the program.

Evaluate the applicant's clarity of purpose, alignment with the program's objectives, and their ability to articulate their academic and career goals. Consider how well the applicant's background, experience, and aspirations align with the program's offerings, faculty expertise, and research opportunities (if applicable). Look for genuine enthusiasm and a coherent plan.

Consider the applicant's research experience, publications, and projects, as well as relevant work experience that may demonstrate the applicant's qualifications and commitment to their field of study.

Assess the applicant's ability to effectively communicate, both in written materials and potentially through an interview. Clear and effective communication is vital for presenting research findings, writing academic papers, and collaborating with peers and mentors.

Determine if the applicant possesses non-cognitive skills or personal characteristics associated with success in graduate study, such as persistence, conscientiousness, motivation, curiosity, problem-solving, creativity, time management, and collaboration skills.