INSIDE GRADUATE ADMISSIONS MERIT DIVERSITY AND FACULTY GATEKEEPING

INSIDE GRADUATE ADMISSIONS: MERIT, DIVERSITY, AND FACULTY GATEKEEPING JULIE POSSELT, PH. D. University of Southern California posselt@usc. edu @Julie. Posselt © JRP 2017 © JRP 2018

Doctoral Degree Attainment BY GENDER, SELECTED FIELDS Field % Female © JRP 2018 All fields 46% Biological sciences 52% Physics 18% Psychology BY RACE, ACROSS FIELDS Racial/ethnic group U. S. Doctorate recipients Black 12% 7% Latino 14% 6% 71% Native American 1% <1% Economics 34% Asian American 4% 9% Sociology 60% White 67% 78% Philosophy 29% Linguistics 60% Source: National Science Foundation, 2013, Doctorate Recipients from US Universities. Engineering 21%

Empirical research suggested basic tensions. There is strong evidence. . . Institutions profess the importance of racial & gender diversity in. . . § Undergraduate admissions & other types of selection 1 § Mission statements & websites 2 1 Grodsky, 2007; Lamont, 2009; Karabel, 2005; Stevens, 2008 2 Morphew & Hartley, 2006; Osei-Kofi, et al. , 2013 © JRP 2018

© JRP 2018

Empirical research suggested basic tensions. There is strong evidence. . . At the same time. . Institutions profess the importance of racial & gender diversity in. . . § Undergraduate admissions & other types of selection 1 § Mission statements & websites 2 1 Grodsky, 2007; Lamont, 2009; Karabel, 2005; Stevens, 2008 2 Morphew & Hartley, 2006; Osei-Kofi, et al. , 2013 3 Griffin & Muñiz, 2011 4 Garces, 2012; Attiyeh & Attiyeh, 1997 5 Milkman, et al. , 2014 © JRP 2018 § Work of graduate diversity officers is often stymied. 3 § 2 of the 3 best predictors of admission are high GRE scores and selective college attendance. 4 § Unconscious bias in responses to emails from prospective students. 5

Why? © JRP 2018

§ Research Questions: -How do faculty individually judge & collectively select applicants to highly ranked Ph. D. programs? -What assumptions about merit guide faculty judgment? -How do disciplinary norms shape faculty judgment? § Comparative ethnographic case study § 10 programs in 3 public & private universities Harvard University Press, 2016 • 85 interviews with professors & a few graduate students • 22 hours of admissions meeting observations in six of the programs © JRP 2018

Humanities Social Sciences Natural Sciences High Consensus Philosophy Economics Physics Moderate Consensus Classics Sociology Astrophysics Political Science Biology Low Consensus © JRP 2018 (2 programs) Linguistics

© JRP 2018 Female International Scholars of Color Domestic Scholars of Color Field N Humanities 24 33% 26% 7% 4% Social Sciences 24 15% 35% 16% 4% Natural Sciences 19 6% 46% 21% 0% Total 67 18% 36% 15% 3%

Evaluative cultures explain apparent tensions between (definitions of) merit & (valuing) diversity. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. © JRP 2018 Preference for specific criteria was rooted in beliefs about what they signal. Those beliefs were tightly linked to their own identities as scholars in highly ranked programs. Preference for a process that is efficient and collegial. They wanted to quantify quality & minimize conflict. In high-consensus fields, defended decisions to themselves and one another using disciplinary logics (def: shared disciplinary norms about epistemology/methods, theories & metaphors, and practical priorities) In low-consensus fields, the strong role of individual preferences included four clear patterns of homophily (pedigree, cool, social mobility, international). Ambivalence about organizational change, especially reforms related to diversity and equity. Faculty mindsets toward diversity, equity, and inclusion must be addressed.

Two-tiered review is used in most places. Initial screening Conceptualizing merit Conventional achievers with low perceived risk of attrition Important criteria “Numbers” in context of undergraduate prestige & curriculum rigor Relationship of merit & diversity Standard of merit may be in tension with racial/gender diversity aims.

Two-tiered review is used in most places. Initial screening Later rounds of review Conceptualizing merit Conventional achievers with Future of the discipline low perceived risk of attrition Important criteria “Numbers” in context of undergraduate prestige & curriculum rigor Experience with and dispositions for research; Unique perspective; research interests align Relationship of merit & diversity Standard of merit may be in tension with racial/gender diversity aims. Diversity is a component of merit.

PROBLEMS WITH THE FIRST CUT © JRP 2018

SCRIPTS ABOUT GRE SCORES • Theory of cultural & evaluative scripts (Goffman, 1959; Lamont, 2009) • GRE scores and Grades | Institutional prestige Intelligence • Belonging in an elite intellectual community • Risk profile © JRP 2018

GRE SCORES & INTELLIGENCE • In interviews, 50% of the sample volunteered some idea about intelligence when asked what GRE scores signal (e. g. , “sheer intellectual horsepower”, “native intelligence”) • In meetings, >50% of GRE mentions were what I classified as smart talk. “Someone who does that well on the GRE is unlikely to be lame- brained. They are likely to be smart. ” (philosophy) “Freaking genius” (political science) “I question she has what it takes. ” “[He was] from a different planet and we were confident that this person was not going to be one of us. He’s not going to be a full member of the scientific community. ” (biology) © JRP 2018

RISK AVERSION • Risk aversion as obligation & luxury • Examples of challenging risk aversion Prof. Bob: “Her GREs [of 690, 740, & 4. 5] present a risk for her not succeeding” particularly because she “didn’t attend a top-rated university. ” Prof. Lynn: “She may have undershot…This is an area that can be gendered…We have to be very careful here. ” Prof. Bob: “All in all, it gives me doubt. ” PHILOSOPHY [Student ultimately waitlisted] © JRP 2018

Prof. Denise: “She might be a bet, but it could be a good bet… If we are going to increase diversity, these are the students we need to take seriously. ” Prof. Jack: (Tentatively) “What’s the diversity? ” Dept. Chair Nancy: “Family financial hardship. ” [Committee agrees to move her forward, but discussion continues. ] Dept. Chair Nancy: “It will be good for the whole faculty to take a look at her file. It seems pretty clear that she’s a risk, but if we’re going to increase diversity, we have to take risks. ” Prof. Denise: “And she seems like a good bet. ” [Student ultimately rejected after being waitlisted and attending recruitment weekend] © JRP 2018 LINGUISTICS

BLINDSPOTS ABOUT RISK § Informal assumptions about risk might not be entirely accurate. § Untested § Difficult to reliably predict Ph. D completion for populations who rarely enroll (i. e. , problem of small n’s) § Validity of graduate entrance exams varies by test and graduate school outcome, but is consistently strongest for first year grad school GPA. 1 § Student outcomes result from what they bring to the table AND from the educational experience we provide. § Women who did not complete the Ph. D had higher mean GPA than 2 men who didn’t complete, but left programs in higher numbers. 1 Kuncel & Hezlett, 2007 2 Lovitts & Nelson, 2000 © JRP 2018

Physical Sciences GRE Quantitative Score (2006 -2007) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Asian American White Other Mexican American Hispanic American Indian Puerto Rican African American SOURCE: ETS, "Factors that can influence performance on the GRE general test 2006 -2007” Male Female

Engineering GRE Quantitative Score (2006 -2007) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Asian American White Other Mexican American Hispanic American Indian Puerto Rican African American SOURCE: ETS, "Factors that can influence performance on the GRE general test 2006 -2007” Male Female

Life Sciences GRE Quantitative Score (2006 -2007) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Asian American White Other Mexican American Hispanic American Indian Puerto Rican African American SOURCE: ETS, "Factors that can influence performance on the GRE general test 2006 -2007” Male Female

Social Sciences GRE Quantitative Score (2006 -2007) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Asian American White Other Hispanic Mexican American Indian Puerto Rican African American SOURCE: ETS, "Factors that can influence performance on the GRE general test 2006 -2007” Male Female

Humanities and Arts GRE Quantitative Score (2006 -2007) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Asian American White Other Hispanic Mexican American Indian Puerto Rican African American SOURCE: ETS, "Factors that can influence performance on the GRE general test 2006 -2007” Male Female

GRE Test Disparities Are… • Technically not “bias” • Nearly independent of intended graduate major • Qualitatively unchanged when controlling for undergraduate GPA • Qualitatively the same for • GRE Subject test • SAT Math • 8 th grade math achievement tests • 4 th grade math achievement tests • A feature of standardized testing Miller, C. , & Stassun, K. (2014). A test that fails. Nature, 510 (7504), 303 -304.

POP QUIZ With all else equal, which folder do you admit? FOLDER A GRE-Q: 740 (80%) FOLDER B GRE-Q: 800 (perfect) © JRP 2018

From ETS Guide to Use of Scores: “It is an inexact measure; only score differences that exceed the standard error of measurement of a given score can serve as a reliable indication of real differences in applicants' academic knowledge and developed abilities. ” S. E. M. ~60 points (on old GRE scale, 200 -800) 740 = 800 Source: http: //www. ets. org/gre/institutions/scores/guidelines/ © JRP 2018

WHAT DOES THE LITERATURE SAY ABOUT THE GRE & PREDICTING STUDENT SUCCESS? Meta-analyses come to differing conclusions. • Morrison & Morrison, 1995; • Kuncel, et al. , 2001; • Kuncel & Hezlett, 2010 • Orlando, 2005 Why? Studies draw upon different methods, different disciplinary and institutional contexts, and different populations. Only a few correct for attenuation bias; ETS continues to revise the test. © JRP 2018 What do we know? • There has never been a true validity study: Denied students aren’t studied. • Correlations vary by exam and by graduate school outcome (Kuncel & Hezlett, 2007). • The longer the time between the test and the outcome, the weaker the validity. • A flurry of discipline-specific studies: some find relationships with first year graduate school GPA, none with later outcomes, race or gender (despite score gaps)

r = 0. 33; N = 1743 r = 0. 02 [ETS 0. 04]; N = 2133 Miller et al. , submitted r = 0. 24 [ETS 0. 27]; N = 1686 r = 0. 15; N = 2133 r = 0. 15 [ETS 0. 18]; N = 2133

r = 0. 33; N = 1743 r = 0. 02 [ETS 0. 04]; N = 2133 Miller et al. , submitted r = 0. 24 [ETS 0. 27]; N = 1686 r = 0. 15; N = 2133 r = 0. 15 [ETS 0. 18]; N = 2133

PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE? © JRP 2018

UNDISCIPLINED ”HOLISTIC” REVIEW © JRP 2018

ASTROPHYSICS COMMITTEE: BLINDSPOTS IN HOLISTIC REVIEW © JRP 2018

Juan: Is it enough to be a woman in science? (Discussion of how different perspectives might affect the community. ) Prabhat: Lisa said she wants to be a role model because she never received explicit encouragement until recently. She wrote about the importance of providing active support, not just the absence of discrimination. Wayne: Shawna says she needs to develop self-confidence and overcome self-doubt. Juan: And then there’s Amy, who claimed to experience teasing and bigotry from her peers and a high school science teacher. She went to an all-women’s college so she could still study science. Chris: I’m less persuaded by that story. Maybe the teacher was young and inexperienced in handling high school boys. She might come to the program with an axe to grind. Juan: Either way, now she’s taking action, organizing a lecture series on women in science. . . We need to read between the lines on these things. © JRP 2018

Prabhat: He grew up in a yurt in the Himalayas, was raised by his mom and grandma after his father died at an early age, and the next neighbors were two mountains over. He then found his way to a major U. S. public research university and has since started the only organization for the discipline in the Himalayan region. Jeff: But do we think he can succeed? [long pause] Prabhat: He’s the most amazing case we’ve ever seen. George: He would bring some personality to the department. I commit to look after him and fund him through the prelims…. He presents himself as quite intelligent. Chris: Excellent idea to give him a chance. [Student ultimately admitted and enrolled. ] © JRP 2018

IMPROVING HOLISTIC REVIEW © JRP 2018

”Beware the tyranny of best practices. ” -Paul Courant © JRP 2018

What is holistic review? • “…the consideration of a broad range of candidate qualities including ’noncognitive’ or personal attributes” (CGS, 2016, p. iii) • Three types: • Whole file: Considers all parts of the application. • Whole person: Considers many facets of the applicant. • Whole context: Considers the context in which the applicant achieved what they did. (Bastedo, Bowman, & Glasener, 2018) http: //cgsnet. org/ckfinder/userfiles/CGS_Holistic. Review_final_web. pdf © JRP 2018

Comprehensive Contextualized Systematic © JRP 2018

COMPREHENSIVE • Numerous and diverse criteria • Consider the whole person and the sum of their potential • Note that diverse perspectives improve scholarly work • Consider that socio-emotional skills are necessary for outstanding professional performance © JRP 2018

NON-COGNITIVE COMPETENCIES • Social and emotional skills that we use to navigate life. • Measurable! • Results from decades of psychology research (developmental, social, and industrial-organizational) • Predict academic/job performance • Little, if any, group differences by gender and race • Orthogonal to cognitive measures (e. g. , GPA, SAT/GRE) • Domain specific. Some will be specific to academia, grad school, and/or fields of study. © JRP 2018

Correlating professional performance with admissions criteria and non-cognitive competencies Cognitive Non-Cognitive Didactic Yes Maybe Clinical No Yes Self-Management competencies correlate with clinical grade. 1. Achievement Orientation 2. Adaptability 3. Initiative 4. Emotional Self-Control 5. Trustworthiness 6. Conscientiousness 7. Optimism “Cognitive ability and knowledge are threshold aspects of professional work, necessary but not sufficient for outstanding professional performance. ” Victoroff and Boyatzis, J. Dent. Ed 77, 416 (2013) © JRP 2018

Self Management Optimism: Persistence in pursuing goals despite obstacles and setbacks. Trustworthiness: Maintaining integrity. Achievement Orientation: Striving to improve or meeting a standard of excellence. Conscientiousness: Taking responsibility for personal performance. Adaptability: Flexibility in handling change. Emotional Self-Control: Keeping disruptive emotions/impulses in check. Initiative: Readiness to act on opportunities. Self Awareness Self-Confidence: A strong sense of one’s self-worth and capabilities. Accurate Self-Assessment: Knowing one’s strengths and limits. Emotional Awareness: Recognizing one’s emotions and their effects. Relationship Management Social Awareness Teamwork and Collaboration: Working with others toward shared goals and creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals. Communication: Listening openly and sending convincing messages. Building Bonds: Nurturing instrumental relationships. Conflict Management: Negotiating and resolving disagreements. Influence: Wielding effective tactics for persuasion. Change Catalyst: Initiating or managing change. Inspirational Leadership: Inspiring and guiding individuals and groups. Developing Others: Sensing others’ development needs, Cultural Awareness: Respecting and relating well to people from varied backgrounds. Organizational Awareness: Reading a group’s emotional currents and power relationships. Empathy: Sensing others’ feelings and perspectives, and taking an active interest in their concerns. Service Orientation: Anticipating, recognizing, and meeting customers’ needs.

CONTEXTUALIZED • Metrics in context • Note intrinsic error • Note societal patterns • Achievements in context • Distributions of opportunities relative to societal patterns • Achievements don’t always signal aptitude or ability • Admissions in context • How students aid your program’s identity/mission and broader goals © JRP 2018 SYSTEMATIC • Base review on shared, predefined criteria with structured protocols, for efficiency & consistency. • Build in safeguards & checks to promote equity and limit biases. • Carefully select & train gatekeepers • Coordinate evaluation with recruitment and yield efforts

RUBRICS: COMPREHENSIVE, CONTEXTUALIZED, & SYSTEMATIC © JRP 2018

RUBRICS OFFER BENEFITS THAT REDRESS COMMON DRAWBACKS IN MANY PROGRAMS’ PROCESS. • EFFICIENCY is enhanced by expediting review, reducing faculty load. • STRUCTURE for a process in which many applicants are compared on multiple dimensions. • SPECIFICITY about what reviewers should be looking for may reduce implicit bias and prevent unseemly considerations from creeping in. • TRANSPARENCY about evaluation criteria is good for decision makers, their colleagues, and applicants themselves. • RELIABILITY across raters can be assessed. • ACCOUNTABILITY heads off charges that the process is unfair. © JRP 2018

DEVELOPING A RUBRIC: IDENTIFY QUALITIES ON WHICH EVERYONE SHOULD BE EVALUATED. • Here, knowing your program mission can be very helpful. • Qualities can be broad if you want to leave room for individual interpretation & multiple ways for people to fulfill them • Or, qualities, can be narrowly defined if you want a highly structured process. • Examples: Research experience, Academic preparation, Clearly defined goals align with program expertise • Recommended: If you choose to require GRE scores, fold GRE scores and grades into a single judgment of academic preparation, to prevent anchoring bias and/or attributing small differences in scores/grades into large differences in overall quality. © JRP 2018

DEVELOPING A RUBRIC: DEFINE HOW YOU WILL MEASURE/ OPERATIONALIZE THE QUALITIES NAMED ABOVE. • What does it means for an applicant to be outstanding, strong, acceptable, or weak on each of these? • The more concrete your definitions, the more consistent you can expect your judgments to be. • Recommended: Create space for comments to justify assessments; Leave open the possibility of naming unique strengths that merit special consideration. • Optional: Weight some qualities more than others. © JRP 2018

• A rubric is only as beneficial as users’ fidelity to it. USING THE RUBRIC • Calibrate and increase inter-rater reliability by having all members independently rate two applications, then meet to discuss how they came to their scores. • Ensure each application is reviewed by 2+ people. If there is significant divergence in the ratings, bring in a third reader. • Prepare in advance a plan to subject very unique cases to a different sort of evaluation. © JRP 2018

CONSIDER YOUR COMMITTEE • Composition: Larger committees with a variety of voices require less effort person & reduce risks of groupthink and homophily. • Would your committee consider including students, staff, or alumni in decision making? • Discussion norms • Discuss how race and gender may be relevant: Easier if faculty talk candidly elsewhere in department life about race and gender dynamics. • Disagree with each other: Where trust is higher, friendly debate & challenging assumptions may be less threatening. • Provide reasons for decisions: Central to deliberative democracy; legitimizes the outcome. • Get comfortable with discomfort: Develop capacity & collective will to talk about how race, gender, and other power dynamics. © JRP 2018

FACULTY & ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION • Obtaining institutional data, disaggregated by race and gender, to test evidence for common assumptions about risk. • Facilitating opportunities for learning & create accountability structures • Considering with you the biases primed or mitigated through the application’s design, content & layout. • Incentivizing admissions & recruitment for diversity through fellowships © JRP 2018

WORK TOGETHER TO STRENGTHEN RECRUITMENT: BUILD THE POOL & CLOSE THE DEAL • Coordinate admissions, recruitment, and outreach. 1 • Assess cues about the value of diversity sent by your online presence. 2 • Remember that prestige & financial aid are not enough to attract students of color. 3 • Faculty composition may send cues about the qualities necessary for success. 4 • Faculty responsiveness & early contact. 3 • Student ambassadors can play an important role. 5 1 Griffin & Muñiz, 2009 2 Slay et al. , forthcoming • Positive climate as a competitive 3 Bersola et al, 2014 4 Correll, 2001 advantage. 5 5 Posselt et al. , in press © JRP 2018

CONCLUSION © JRP 2018

© JRP 2018

DISCUSSION Julie Posselt posselt@usc. edu © JRP 2018

© JRP 2018

© JRP 2018

Grading Rubric for Written Assignments CLCIV 372 Fall 2015 LETTER GRADE A CRITERIA B Answers all questions citing adequate sources and arguments and opinions have logical justifications; has analyzed sources critically in most cases. Very few typographical errors. C While the assignment is complete, it is poorly supported by source citation. There is little or no sophistication of argument, or critical acumen. The overall strengths of the piece clearly do not outweigh its flaws; Typographical errors. Α clear and significant failure to achieve an adequate level in the criteria. Ancient sources/material are handled in an incorrect and ill-informed manner; assignment is grossly incomplete; full of errors. D © JRP 2018 Shows an ability to handle ancient material in an intelligent, precise and informed manner; use of relevant reading, which has been absorbed analyzed critically; shows an ability to argue a case in a well-organized manner; the very best work will also show some original thought well expressed. There may be shortcomings in any one of these criteria, but the first class work must clearly and significantly outweigh any such flaws. No spelling errors. No or almost no typographical errors.

© JRP 2018

© JRP 2018

DIMENSION OF FIT HIGH MEDIUM LOW research interests align with multiple faculty in multiple subfields research interests align with multiple faculty in one subfield limited alignment between student interests and faculty expertise faculty someone wants to hire as RA now someone could supervise, but and/or there is a clear fit with current interests do not directly support a faculty expertise faculty member's work faculty aligned with applicant's interests are not seeking students community has clearly contributed positively to applicant only discusses him/herself; no some evidence of participating in prior department/school culture, and evidence of engagement in department or service activities would do the same for our program university activities diversity belongs to an underrepresented identity group; first generation in applicant has been an active advocate contributions to diversity are unclear from college or low SES; and/or for diversity in physics the application contributes to another type of diversity the department seeks program mission fits a unique program goal, e. g. , wants to be a community college teacher, entreprenuer, etc. Background and interests generally a good fit for the program's focus Student interests and experience do not seem well-suited for this particular program's focus geography student has expressed a significant reason for wanting to be at/near our location some desire for our location no mention of geography potential exemplar © JRP 2018 consistent excellence in and beyond strong and well rounded in and out limited evidence of potential for exemplary coursework and research of school scholarship and/or program participation

LEGAL LANDSCAPE © JRP 2018

Bakke 1978 University of CA-Davis Medical School © JRP 2018 Gratz & Grutter 2003 University of Michigan undergraduate education & law school Fisher 2013, 2016 University of Texas undergraduate education

Racial quotas are unconstitutional. Race is a permissible “plus factor, ” BUT policies must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve diversity, which is the only “compelling state interest” for aff action. Bakke Gratz & Grutter 1978 2003 © JRP 2018 Fisher 2013, 2016

Racial quotas are unconstitutional. Race is a permissible “plus factor, ” BUT policies must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve diversity, which is the only “compelling state interest” for aff action. Bakke Gratz & Grutter 1978 2003 Redressing the “present effects of past injustice” was ruled to be an unconstitutional basis for affirmative action. © JRP 2018 Fisher 2013, 2016

Predetermined points for race/ethnicity unconstitutional (Gratz), BUT race can be considered as one of many factors (Grutter) in a holistic way. Bakke Gratz & Grutter 1978 2003 © JRP 2018 Fisher 2013, 2016

Colleges must offer a “reasoned, principled explanation” for diversity. Race-conscious admissions must …be narrowly tailored to achieve diversity goals. …withstand strict scrutiny (i. e. , demonstrate that diversity can’t be achieved through means that don’t require the consideration of race). Bakke Gratz & Grutter 1978 2003 © JRP 2018 Fisher 2013, 2016

MEANWHILE, 8 STATES HAVE BANNED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. BALLOT INITIATIVES LEGISLATURE / GOVERNOR • Arizona • New Hampshire • California • Florida • Michigan • Nebraska • Oklahoma • Washington © JRP 2018 INSTITUTION-SPECIFIC • University of Georgia

IN OTHER STATES, KEY PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTICE FROM BAKKE STILL STAND. • Reserving seats or shares of seats for underrepresented students is not permissible. • Reviewers should use a common evaluation process for all applicants. • Race should be just one of several individual characteristics assessed as a plus factor. • Every applicant should be evaluated as an individual, not assumed to represent a broader identity category. • Programs should not single out specific racial/ethnic groups, but Source: UCLA Civil Rights Project, 2002 consider contributions that all groups make to diversity. © JRP 2018

LEGAL LANDSCAPE IN SUM • Under specific conditions, race-conscious admissions policy is constitutional outside the states mentioned, as part of how SCOTUS conceives of academic freedom. • However, the parameters are arguably tightening. Universities & graduate programs MUST seek to build diversity in multiple ways, and they should have a “reasoned, principled explanation” for why diversity has value in their context. • Weighing race as a formal admissions consideration is different than accounting for how dynamics of race in America may shape… • …the distributions of grades, test scores, and institutional affiliations our applicants hold. • …the kind of opportunities and viewpoints our students contribute. • Our admissions committees need not be colormute, & they will be best protected legally if admissions policy is defined. Ad hoc policy is hard to defend. © JRP 2018

RECRUITMENT © JRP 2018

Institutional actions Outreach: Build the pool Admissions: Extend offers Apply Student actions © JRP 2018 Recruitment: Close the deal Visit Matriculat e

Importance placed on various institutional characteristics by two hypothetical students. Bersola et al. (2014).

Importance placed on various institutional characteristics by two hypothetical students. Consider: Which one will be easiest to attract, if the students were considering your program? Importance placed on various student characteristics by two hypothetical professors. Consider: Which one would be most admissible to your program? Bersola et al. (2014).

Bersola et al. (2014). FACULTY MAY MISJUDGE WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO STUDENTS’ MATRICULATION DECISIONS. WHAT FACULTY THOUGHT • Financial aid is paramount © JRP 2018 WHAT NON-MATRICULANTS SAID • 77% of non-matriculants said they would have still enrolled at their current institution if Western University had matched their current institution’s package.

Bersola et al. (2014). FACULTY MAY MISJUDGE WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO STUDENTS’ MATRICULATION DECISIONS. WHAT FACULTY THOUGHT • 85% rated their yield activities as “strong” or “above average. ” © JRP 2018 WHAT NON-MATRICULANTS SAID • When asked ”which institution gave a more favorable impression, ” 60% named their current institution, 27% rated them the same, and only 13% rated Western University higher.

RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES USED BY HIGHDIVERSITY STEM PROGRAMS IN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED PHYSICS • Website revamp • Individualized curriculum • Creation of a diversity-focused curriculum track • Prominent role of administrative staff in all facets of program life. • Coffee hour during campus visit weekend for “straight talk” about diversity in the department. • Beware the risk of bait & switch • “Eyes & ears of the department” • Family-like roles with prospective & current students • Cultural translators to aid faculty in serving students across race & gender • Climate as a ”competitive advantage” in the admissions process. Slay, Posselt, & Reyes (2017) © JRP 2018 Posselt, Reyes, Slay, Kamimura, & Porter (2017)

• Online messaging DOMAINS OF RECRUITMENT WORK • Programming & points of connection for students • Financial aid • Faculty composition DISCUSS: • Faculty responsiveness & Which of these are strengths & one-on-one contact weaknesses in your department? How could you shore up weaknesses? © JRP 2018 • Student ambassadors • Climate