Admissions Committee Report 1

January 5, 2008

Ph.D. Admissions Committee Reportto Faculty Council

Submitted by: Carol Tomlinson

Date: January 5, 2008

Committee Composition: Carol Tomlinson (Chair), Randy Bell, Keonya Booker, Jennifer de Forest (Faculty Council Liaison), Dan Duke, Ann Gregory, Herb Richards, Sara Rimm-Kaufman, Tim Konold , Mike McKenna, Joanne McNergney (Dean’s Representative), Sue Saliba, Stan Trent (Dean’s Representative), Art Weltman

Committee Charge(The charge has been modified somewhat since its original form based on direction from the Dean and the Faculty Council Chair.)

The Admissions Committee will review Curry procedure to recruit and admit students into its on-grounds Ph.D. programs. The Committee should review standards and procedures for admission (level of review and/or materials required), admission dates (fixed or rolling), and assurance that matriculated students meet stated standards. The committee should consider the decentralized nature of Curry’s admissions at the Ph.D. level, and evaluate the need for a school-wide process for initial screening/evaluation of applications prior to a program area review. It is recognized that there may be provision for a waiver of specific admissions requirements in special circumstances and on a limited basis. The Committee should also consider the utility of a school-wide committee for regular and ongoing evaluation of the Curry Ph.D. admissions process and outcomes, quality control, and recruitment purposes. The committee should make recommendations for the membership of such a committee. The goals of the Committee’s work are to better align the quality of Curry’s graduate student body with that of the University, to ensure school-wide consistency in high standards, and to maintain fair and efficient admission procedures.

Rationale

As Curry moves to a fully-funded Ph.D. program and works to enact the University vision of escalation in status as a top-tier research institution, it is important for Curry admissions criteria and procedures to enhance over-all Ph.D. student quality.

Current Curry admissions criteria for Ph.D. students vary widely among program areas and are generally less rigorous than admissions criteria for top-tier Ph.D. education programs (e.g. we typically admit students with lower qualifications, admit far more students, and award far more degrees that do most top-tier programs).

Curry admissions procedures also vary widely across program areas, with different application deadlines and review processes among program areas. There is a broad sense that our rolling admissions policy and late student notification of funding puts Curry at a discernable disadvantage in recruiting outstanding Ph.D. candidates.

Background

As the committee prepared to make recommendations related to admissions criteria and quality of prospective Ph.D. students, members interviewed all program coordinators regarding current requirements and procedures for doctoral programs and potential implications of proposed changes for their program, examined admissions requirements and procedures for other UVa doctoral programs, examined requirements and procedures for doctoral programs at peer institutions, and talked with numerous Curry colleagues about potential committee decisions.A document developed by Faculty Council in 2006 and showing admissions criteria for Curry relative to top-tier Ph.D. education programs was very helpful in providing a context for decision-making. In addition, committee members researched GRE scores of a range of current Curry Ph.D. students, and utilized relevant university and Graduate Record documents.

Recommendations Regarding Admissions Criteria

1)To balance the desire to attract very high quality Ph.D. students and the desire to ensure equity of access to a diverse pool of candidates—including those from ethnically diverse backgrounds (including international students), females, and older students—the committee recommends including a statement in all Ph.D. admissions materialsindicating that admissions reviewers take a holistic approach when reviewing an application, with no single criterion being a determiner of admissions.

2)The committee recommends that Graduate Record Examination scores at or above the 60th percentile on verbal portion of the test (score of approximately 500), at or above the 50th percentile on the quantitative portion of the test (score of approximately 600), and at or above the 54thpercentile on the analytical writing portion of the test(score of 4.5) are highly desirable. The committee anticipates recruitment of students most of whom will have GRE scores that markedly exceed these levels.In time, it would likely be wise to report both the baseline of desirable scores and profiles of current students (e.g. 85% of Curry Ph.D. students score above 600 on the quantitative portion of the GRE exam…).

3)The committee recommends that GRE scores be no more than five years old at the time of submission.

4)The committee recommends that a GPA of 3.0 or higher at the undergraduate and/or graduate level is desirable for admission to the Ph.D. program. Again, it will likely be desirable in the future to report the profile of Curry Ph.D. students as well as baseline desirable grades (e.g. 80% of Curry Ph.D. candidates entered with grades averaging 3.6 or higher).

5)The committee recommends that TOEFL scores continue to reflect university-recommended proficiency levels of 600 on the paper-based TOEFL, 250 on the computer-based TOEFL, 7.0 on the IELTS, and 22 in writing, 22 in speaking, 23 in reading, and 23 in listening for a total score of 90 on the iBT TOEFL.

6)The committee recommends that program areas be allowed to include additional criteria for admissions (e.g., interviews, work experience, appropriate prior coursework, writing sample) as desirable to support program area needs. These additional requirements should be prominently posted on the program area’s website.

7)The committee recommends posting on the Curry website elements necessary for a student application to the Ph.D. (e.g. GRE scores, written statement, transcripts, etc.) with a general comment that the Ph.D. program is highly competitive and seeks students with outstanding credentials in the designated areas. In addition, there should be a statement noting that admissions reviewers take a holistic view of an applicant and that no one criterion determines admission.Finally, there should be a statement that some program areas have additional requirements that are posted on their program area websites. Applicants should also be directed to contact the mentors/program areas they have identified as the ones with which they want to work in the Ph.D. program.

Admissions Procedures

1)The committee recommends a fixed application date for all Curry Ph.D. programs of January 5, including a statement noting that all aspects of the application must be complete by that date.

2)The committee recommends that offers of admission for the Ph.D. program be made by March 1 and that students must notify Curry of their decision about acceptance by April 15.

3)The committee recommends that all Ph.D. applications include the online application form, 2 letters of recommendation from people familiar with the student’s academic preparation and level of scholarship(or professional experience where applicable), resume, official transcript(s), GRE scores, TOEFL scores (for international students), and a written goals statement that identifies a mentor(s) or program area with which the student wants to work and why the student feels the work of the mentor(s)/program area aligns with the applicant’s professional goals. The applicant review process should include evaluation of these documents.

4)The committee recommends that initial decisions to admit Ph.D. students be made at the program level. Those decisions will then go to the Department Chair for review. From the Department Chair, a Central Admissions Committee will serve as a final review body for Ph.D. candidates.

5)The committee recommends that if a program area elects to offer admission to a student whose profile falls below recommended levels (GRE scores, GPA, TOEFL), the Program Coordinator must provide a request for a waiver to the Department Chair and Central Admissions Committee explaining the reason for the request and providing information about the student that supports the request. Further, the committee recommends that such waivers be requested only when there is a substantial case to be made for by-passing Curry criteria for Ph.D. students. Letters requesting a waiver should be written by the prospective mentor and approved by the Program Chair and Department Chair.

6)The committee recommends that program areas list candidates for admission in the following categories:

  • Admitted with an offer for a fully funded package, with identification of funding source(s);
  • Admitted with an offer for partial funding, with identification of funding source(s);
  • Admitted without funding.

Where appropriate, program areas should rank order preference for admission when there are more strong candidates than assigned funding will support.In situations where the top candidate declinesan offer of admission, the program area will be prepared to continue to make offers to qualified candidates without unnecessary delay.

7)The committee recommends that the Central Admissions Committee consist of the Assistant Dean for Admissions and Student Affairs, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, the Assistant Dean for Diversity and Equity, and two faculty members who mentor Ph.D. students. The role of the Central Admissions Committee would be to: (1) ensure compliance with school-wide policies and procedures related to Ph.D. admissions, (2) systematically review the appropriateness of program area requests for waivers of school-wide criteria for Ph.D. admissions, (3) systematically review impacts of application policies and procedures on cultural and gender equity, program area vitality, and quality of outcomes for Curry, and (4) recommend modifications of admissions criteria and procedures as indicated by the review process.

Although not part of the committee charge, the committee recommends that the following areas be addressed prior to the implementation of a fully-funded, mentor-based PhD program:

1)Designation of faculty who will be eligible to serve as mentors for Ph.D. students.

2)Procedures for distribution of university funds to support fully-funded Ph.D. students in ways that balance the needfor financial support of program areas that have few sources for external funding and the desire of program areas that receive external funding not to be penalized for generating those funds by having funds reduced in favor of other program areas.