Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

An Essential Guide

to Graduate Admissions

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

Carol Diminnie, Dean of the Graduate School, Angelo State University

Revised and edited by:

2012 edition

Daniel J. Bennett, Education Committee Chair, National Association for Graduate

Admissions Professionals (NAGAP), and UCLA Graduate Division (retired)

Colleen Flynn Thapalia, Publications Chair, NAGAP and Director of Graduate Ad-

missions and International Recruitment, The College of Saint Rose

2005 edition

Kristin Williams, President, National Association for Graduate Admissions Pro-

fessionals (NAGAP) and Director of Graduate Student Enrollment Management,

George Washington University

Patricia Baron, Publications Chair, NAGAP and Director of Graduate Admissions,

Northern Arizona University

CGS Managing Editor

Daniel D. Denecke

may be reproduced or used in any form by any means—graphic, electronic, or

mechanical including photocopying, recording, taping, Web distribution, or informa-

tion storage and retrieval systems—without the written permission of the Council

of Graduate Schools, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 230, Washington, D.C. 20036-

1173

ISBN-13: 978-1-933042-34-3

ISBN-10: 1-933042-34-6

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ..........................................................................................v

Foreword ........................................................................................................ vi

Introduction .................................................................................................... 1

 Denitions ............................................................................................................. 2

Organizational Structure and the Management of

Graduate Admissions .....................................................................................3

Centralized, Decentralized, and Collaborative Models .............................................. 3

Comparison of Models in the Processing of Admissions ............................................. 4

Establishing Admissions Policies

Collecting Applications

Evaluating Credentials

Selecting Applicants for Admission

Notifying Applicants of Admissions Decisions

Maintaining Accurate Admissions Records

Assessing Admissions Policies

Establishing Admissions Policies ................................................................10

Philosophy, Goals, and Objectives of the Institution and Department ............... 10

Legal Issues .........................................................................................................11

Offers of Admissions

Afrmative Action/Diversity Recruitment

Application Forms

Student Behavior

The Buckley Amendment/FERPA

Fraudulent Applications

Application Requirements and Selection Standards ........................................... 18

Required Application Material

The application form

Ofcial transcripts

Letters of recommendation

Proof of English competency

Optional Application Materials

Standardized test scores: GRE, GMAT, Miller Analogies Test (MAT)

Personal statement

Writing sample or examples of an applicant’s written work

Interview

Portfolios, auditions, and work/research experience

iv An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

CONTENTS

Admissions Categories ........................................................................................ 31

Readmission Policies .......................................................................................... 34

Transfer Policies ................................................................................................. 35

Advanced Admission for Undergraduates .......................................................... 36

Application to More than One Degree Program ................................................ 36

Implementing Admission Policy .................................................................38

The Admission Decision...................................................................................... 38

Admission Processing ......................................................................................... 40

Rolling versus Fixed-Date Admissions

Challenges and Opportunities in Admission Processing

Technological Innovations

Social Media

Evaluating an Applicant with an Incomplete Dossier

International Applicants

The Use of Paid Agents

Monitoring Special-Interest Applications

The Appeal Process ............................................................................................. 46

Evaluating Admission Policies ....................................................................47

Post-Admission Decision Activity ...............................................................49

Financial Considerations .............................................................................50

The Application Fee ............................................................................................ 50

Graduate Student Support .................................................................................. 51

Conclusion ....................................................................................................52

Appendices ....................................................................................................53

Appendix A. CGS Resolution Regarding Graduate Scholars,

Fellows, Trainees and Assistants ........................................................................ 53

Appendix B. Examples of Graduate Program Application Materials ................ 55

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

he Council of Graduate Schools gratefully acknowledges the

contributions of the National Association of Graduate Admissions

Professionals (NAGAP) to this publication. In their capacities as chairs

of the Education and Publications committees of NAGAP, Daniel J. Bennett

and Publication Committee Chair Colleen Flynn Thapalia, respectively, have

made valuable revisions to the present edition to ensure that the information

presented in this booklet is accurate and timely. They were ably supported by

members of their association, including past Presidents Kristin Williams and

Tom Rock, as well as Sean-Michael Green, Kristin Sterba, and Myron (Mick)

Thompson.

CGS also acknowledges the efforts of Carol Diminnie, the author of the

CGS manuscript upon which this revised publication is based. The 1991 Task

Force that contributed to that manuscript deserves recognition here: Elizabeth

U. Baranger, Adela A. Allen, Carol B. Diminnie, Virginia Falkenberg, Robert P.

Guertin, Jacqueline Looney, Douglas P. Ormrod, James M. Siddens and Nancy

A. Gaffney (CGS Editor). The 2005 edition was updated by Kristin Williams,

Assistant Vice-President for Graduate and Special Enrollment Management at

The George Washington University, and was edited by Patricia Baron, former

NAGAP Publications Chair, Northern Arizona University (retired).

vi An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

FOREWORD

raduate admissions processes are among the key factors that shape

the quality and character of a university in areas such as recruitment,

retention, academic quality, and diversity. This publication is

intended to identify and discuss good practices for graduate enrollment

management. We have revised and updated the Council of Graduate Schools’

2005 Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions to reect recent issues faced by

graduate schools and graduate admissions professionals in this ever-changing

graduate education landscape. Among these issues are the evolution from the

traditionally narrow focus of “graduate admission” to the more comprehensive

approach pursued through “graduate enrollment management,” as well as the

evaluation of credentials submitted by international applicants, the use of paid

agents for international recruitment, and the generally accepted “do’s and

don’ts” of graduate afrmative action/diversity policies that have resulted

from decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. This publication is intended for

graduate deans and other graduate school administrators, as well as faculty and

graduate admissions professionals, who are involved in admissions decisions

and who seek a broad view of the issues relating to graduate admissions,

including federal and state laws and regulations, university-wide policies and

procedures, and departmental guidelines.

Policies and practices of graduate admissions differ by institutional

mission and structure. Some universities are highly selective, seeking the

best and most talented among domestic and international applicants, while

other universities strive to be widely accessible to their particular regional

and/or state populations. Graduate admissions processes in some universities

are highly centralized, with baseline standards established and technical

aspects of the admissions process carried out by a central graduate school or

administrative unit; in others, these processes are decentralized, with much

more authority in all stages of the process residing in the colleges, schools,

departments and programs. As with other CGS volumes, this publication

recognizes the great variety of institutional cultures and structures in graduate

education. At the same time, it seeks to identify common goals of successful

graduate admissions processes. Regardless of mission and administrative

structure, graduate admissions processes are most effective when they

facilitate the matriculation of applicants who indicate promise of successfully

completing their chosen programs, and when they match the applicants’

knowledge, interests, and skills with the requirements and characteristics of

those programs. Successful graduate admissions processes generally result in

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions vii

higher retention rates; more satised graduate faculty, students, and alumni;

and better quality graduate programs. We hope that this volume will contribute

to the heightened understanding, enhancement and effectiveness of graduate

admissions at your institution.

Debra W. Stewart

President

Council of Graduate Schools

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 1

INTRODUCTION

AN ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO

GRADUATE ADMISSIONS

his document is intended to identify and discuss good practices for

managing graduate admissions. Although a primary function of graduate

admissions policies and procedures is to facilitate the matriculation of

applicants who demonstrate promise of successfully completing their chosen

programs, admission is also the rst step – and an integral part – in effective

enrollment management. Matching the knowledge, the interests, and the

developed skills of the applicant with the requirements and characteristics of

the graduate program results in higher retention rates; more satised graduate

faculty, students, and alumni; and graduate programs that are more diverse,

more effective, and of higher quality.

Graduate enrollment management requires sound organizational

structures, effective policies, and good practices in both data and “customer

relations” management. The admissions process is often the prospective

student’s rst real contact with the university, and the quality of the experience

may well determine whether the student will attend and later complete the

graduate program, and perhaps even how the graduate will relate to the

university in future years. Increasingly, customer relations management for

the applicant and student is viewed as a continual communications process that

should be maintained throughout the student life cycle and beyond.

It is easy to take a passive role in the admissions arena and allow the

composition of the admitted student cohort to be determined by accident or

chance, rather than by design. Instead, graduate administrators and faculty

should take an active approach to admissions, establishing in advance their

program goals and priorities and the means by which they plan to realize them.

Graduate admission policies that result from this proactive design will reect

these goals. The requirements for admission must then be articulated clearly to

all relevant parties, including the applicants, admission committee members,

and graduate admission administrators.

The question of where to begin is not an easy one. It is difcult to

separate the recruiting function from that of admissions. The development and

distribution of the catalog, promotional materials, and associated centrally-

managed web sites are usually handled by an admissions ofce. Similarly, the

2 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

INTRODUCTION

tracking of inquiries and ongoing communication with prospective students is

a crucial aspect of recruitment and, handled properly, leads to a better match

of admitted students to programs. Demographic studies of the inquiry pool

are useful for planning, recruiting, and resource allocation. These activities

will be considered part of the recruitment function and will not be discussed

here. However, as the accuracy and effectiveness of these activities in meeting

enrollment goals are inextricably linked to admissions, it is important that both

deans and faculty be knowledgeable about and involved in the recruitment

process.

Denitions

Throughout this policy document, the words “department” and

“program” will be used interchangeably. “University” will be used to refer to

any institution of higher learning. “School” indicates a unit of the university

that offers degrees and is led by an academic dean; “graduate school” will refer

specically to the administrative unit or ofce that is responsible for central

university graduate affairs. “Graduate admissions ofce” is used to describe

the ofce with primary responsibility for admissions processes, whether this is

accomplished within a single ofce for the entire university or at the school or

department level. The title of “graduate dean” will refer to the chief academic

ofcer responsible for graduate programs, whether he/she is in a graduate

school (university-wide) or within an individual school. “Baseline” application

materials or “baseline” admission standards will refer to those required for all

graduate programs in the institution.

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 3

II.

ORGANIZATIONAL

STRUCTURE AND THE

MANAGEMENT OF GRADUATE

ADMISSIONS

Centralized, Decentralized, and Collaborative Models

n effective and successful graduate admissions system requires

appropriate admissions policies, procedures to implement these

policies, and professional staff and efcient ofces to carry out the

admissions processing functions. The administration of this system includes

oversight of both technical and policy-making functions. The technical aspects

include collecting application materials, evaluating credentials, entering and

maintaining admissions data, tracking applicants’ progress through the system,

and communicating with them throughout the process (e.g., informing them of

missing documents, responding to questions, and sending notication of the

admission decision). In the policy area, establishing and maintaining standards

of admission, and determining and assessing admissions policies, are the

primary concerns. Universities have devised a variety of ways to manage

these graduate admissions functions, ranging from completely centralized to

completely decentralized administrative structures, with many systems falling

somewhere in between. Data collected by the National Association of Graduate

Admissions Professionals in 2009 indicate that graduate admission processing

is centralized at 62% of universities, is decentralized at 22% of universities,

and involves a collaboration across levels (between the university and schools

and/or schools and department) at the remaining 16% of institutions.

Centralization may occur at a university with a single graduate school,

where only graduate applications are considered, or at the university level,

where applications for both undergraduate and graduate students are processed.

In fully centralized graduate college systems, policies governing procedures

and baseline standards for all graduate programs are typically administered by

the graduate college in conjunction with a university-wide council of faculty.

1 “Results of the NAGAP 2009 Survey on Organizational Structures,” Perspectives, National As-

sociation of Graduate Admissions Professionals, Spring 2010, pg. 7.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND THE

MANAGEMENT OF GRADUATE ADMISSIONS

4 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

The collection of application materials, the evaluation of credentials, a second

level review of departmental admissions decisions, ongoing communication

with applicants, the maintenance of accurate admissions records, and the

assessment of admissions policies are all carried out centrally by the graduate

college. A university-wide centralized admissions ofce, on the other hand,

typically handles more, if not all, technical aspects of admissions, but does

not make policy on baseline standards. Additionally, some technical functions

(e.g., applicant evaluation) may be handled by the departments, schools, or the

graduate school.

In a fully decentralized admissions system, each department or the school

to which it belongs sets most of the policy governing procedures, establishes

standards, and handles the technical aspects of admission as well.

A collaborative model melds these two systems. Although the specic

distribution of responsibilities may vary from university to university

depending on institutional size and complexity, components of graduate

admissions that are more cost-effective when located within a single ofce

(such as developing and maintaining online admissions processes and data

entry) and/or that require specialized expertise that is difcult to provide in

a decentralized environment (such as international credential evaluation) are

generally centralized. Aspects of graduate admissions that require discipline-

specic expertise (such as review and evaluation of applications) and personal

contact with applicants are usually handled by the school or department.

Certainly, variations on these models are common. Since proper

management of admission activities is critical to high quality graduate education,

universities involved in graduate education should carefully consider which

admission functions should be centralized and which departmentalized. Below

are descriptions of the various admission functions with some advantages and

disadvantages of centralized or decentralized control over each function.

Comparison of Models in the Processing of Admissions

Establishing Admissions Policies. Every institution needs a framework

of university-wide policies governing graduate admission. In the centralized

graduate school model, these policies are determined by the graduate school in

consultation with various faculty councils. In a decentralized system (whether

maintained in the school or the department), these might be determined by the

chief academic ofcer of the school to which the departments belong, again in

consultation with faculty councils. The advantage of the centralized graduate

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND THE

MANAGEMENT OF GRADUATE ADMISSIONS

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 5

school model is that a group of administrators and faculty with experience

in graduate education make the policies governing graduate admissions. In

consultation with colleagues in the departments, they decide what should be

university-wide policy and what policy can be determined by the departments.

In the decentralized system, the establishment of necessary university-wide

policies may be deferred or, indeed, may not be specied at all. The absence

of university-wide policies may result in a decline in the quality of the process

and confusion among prospective students who may be interested in multiple

programs that may cut across traditional academic boundaries.

Collecting Applications. The collection of applications involves

monitoring the receipt of required online and paper credentials and timely

notication to the prospective student of any missing documents. It is

recommended that routine notices be sent to the applicant showing the status of

the application, especially shortly before any decision deadlines. The applicant

should also be informed when the application le is complete. At institutions

where the application is deactivated if all credentials are not received within

a set time period (typically one year), the student should receive a warning

a month or two before the deactivation deadline. Allowing applicants to

conrm receipt of documents, check the status of their application, and access

admissions decisions through a secure online enrollment management system

greatly enhances this process.

Certain aspects of these functions are best handled centrally. Development

and maintenance of an online admissions management system and clerical

and data-entry functions can be performed more efciently and effectively

with full-time, professional staff members trained for and dedicated to

these responsibilities. Admissions processing is not an ad hoc or additional

responsibility as it may be at the department level. Personnel who are involved

full-time in the admissions process can provide the focus and expertise

required to meet the needs both of students applying for admission and faculty

considering applications. Having a central ofce to which all materials are

sent can often be less confusing to applicants, particularly those interested in

multiple programs.

When these processes are centralized within a graduate school rather than

combined with undergraduate admissions in a university-wide ofce, more control

is achieved over the entire admissions process. The graduate school often can

answer applicants’ questions about the institutional requirements and policies

and about its array of academic programs more knowledgeably than a centralized

university-wide ofce. Further, graduate applications do not compete for attention

with other deadlines (freshman, transfer, or professional applications).

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND THE

MANAGEMENT OF GRADUATE ADMISSIONS

6 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

Successful matriculation of applicants, particularly of the most highly

qualied students, depends upon timely responses and appropriately targeted

communications. Unless care is taken, a centralized admissions system can

fall behind in processing applications at times of peak activity, leading to

frustration on the part of faculty and applicants. Holding documents until a le

is completed can hinder information ow. These problems may be overcome

when applicant data and document tracking is maintained in a shared database

that allows faculty to be aware of applications in process and begin a preliminary

review of materials before the dossier is complete. Allowing online access for

applicants to check the status of their application and the receipt of documents

also facilitates a more satisfying admissions experience. The graduate dean

should set goals for the timely processing of applications and, with input from

departments and admissions staff, periodically examine the efciency of the

admissions process.

The greatest advantage of involving schools and departments in

admissions processing is the sensitivity that can be practiced in dealing directly

with the applicants. Inappropriate applications can be returned quickly to the

students, saving considerable time and effort in clerical work, and permitting

the applicants time to apply elsewhere or seek other career paths. Students who

apply directly to the department can be contacted immediately by telephone,

text message, or email and, where feasible, invited to visit the department.

However, it is important to establish a university-wide view of the admissions

process and to require departments to adhere to university standards. This

is particularly true in terms of responding in a timely fashion, especially if

a department is understaffed. Departments where the graduate program is

a central focus tend to perform this function better than programs in which

undergraduate education dominates. However, issues of staff turnover and

training at the department level can still be problematic, resulting in loss of

organizational memory and administrative inconsistencies.

Evaluating Credentials. Evaluation of credentials requires the accurate

computation of grade-point averages as required by the individual programs

(overall undergraduate GPA, major GPA, GPA for the last 60 credit hours

earned, etc.), the evaluation of international transcripts, and monitoring for

proof of completion of prerequisite courses and entry-level degree(s). While

GPA computation and the evaluation of course and credential prerequisites can

be performed centrally or at the department level, evaluation of international

credentials generally requires a specially trained staff and extensive (and often

expensive) reference materials. Identifying potentially fraudulent documents

also requires a breadth of exposure to documents that is difcult to achieve at

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND THE

MANAGEMENT OF GRADUATE ADMISSIONS

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 7

the department level. As noted below under Establishing Admissions Policies -

Ofcial transcripts, some schools utilize the services of an external educational

credential service, in particular for the review of international records. More

qualitative components of the application (such as letters of recommendation

and interviews) are normally evaluated by the department, together with

supplemental application material such as resumes, writing samples, and

portfolios.

Experienced graduate school personnel understand the unique nature of

the graduate admissions process, wherein faculty members and departmental

committees have the major voice in determining which applicants should

be accepted. Thus, graduate school personnel can more suitably prepare the

dossier that will be sent to the department and attempt to match the applicant to

the program best suited to his or her interests and abilities. High priority les

can be marked so expedited action will be taken by the department.

Selecting Applicants for Admission. The faculty of the department

recommends applicants for admission. Generally, this is done by the program

director or, preferably, by a departmental committee, using campus-wide and

program-specic standards. In some programs, students must take signicant

amounts of coursework in other disciplines, in addition to courses in the

specic eld of study. In these cases, it may be wise to involve individuals

from those disciplines in the review of credentials to ensure that the applicant

has the necessary background to successfully complete the coursework in

those elds. The graduate school should provide a second level of review of

all admissions decisions, not only of those that deviate from established policy.

Even the rejected applications should be carefully reviewed by the graduate

ofce to ensure equitable and responsible admissions decisions across the

program, school, and university.

The graduate school has the authority to enforce standards or, in

exceptional cases, to waive requirements. Policies to create and maintain a

diverse graduate student population are best monitored by the centralized

graduate ofce. Even well-intentioned faculty in departments may lack

the skills and experience required to actively seek qualied students from

underrepresented populations, based on ethnicity, gender, social/economic

background, or geographic location.

Notifying Applicants of Admissions. Decisions. Individual faculty

members or department chairs should never make offers of admission, either

verbally or in writing, unless authorized to do so by the graduate college or

school. Notication of an admission decision should come from an administrator

designated as the ofcial source of this information in the graduate college or

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND THE

MANAGEMENT OF GRADUATE ADMISSIONS

8 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

an individual school. This person is usually the dean or his/her designee.

Admissions decisions should never be provided verbally, but must be

conveyed in writing. For ease and speed of communication, notication that a

decision has been made can be sent via e-mail, and admissions decisions can

be posted online, provided access is password-protected to prevent viewing

by anyone other than the applicant. Online posted decision letters should be

available to the applicant as printable documents, and can eliminate the need

for a paper letter.

Many institutions use sophisticated technology, such as Customer

Relationship Management (CRM) systems, to communicate with prospects

and admitted students. These systems often have modules to enable efcient

and timely delivery messages from the Ofce of Admission.

Maintaining Accurate Admissions Records. To respond to federal and

institutional requests for information and to formulate strategic plans for

graduate programs, it is necessary to collect, analyze, and present data on the

numbers and characteristics of applicants. Information on the rates of attrition

from applications to acceptances, to enrollments, and to degree completions

should be kept for each program and augmented yearly to provide a continuing

record. Distribution of the reports should include admissions policy-making

bodies as well as admissions committee members.

Data should be maintained centrally wherever possible, but reviewed

and evaluated by the faculty of the program to ensure accuracy. Consistent

data input for all programs demands central responsibility for computer design

and maintenance and data entry. Without such central control, all graduate

programs may not have adequate or comparable computer access. Central

data entry facilitates accurate statistics on such items as gender, age, ethnicity,

programmatic interest, etc. This centralized database can be used to improve

recruitment, to help with planning of future enrollments, and to monitor time-

to-degree. In their major study on factors contributing to high attrition and

long time-to-degree in graduate programs, Bowen and Rudenstine

state that

“the desirability of centralized control over graduate school records is one

indisputable lesson of this entire project.”

Assessing Admissions Policies. Monitoring the outcomes of admissions

policies in terms of student numbers, demographic prole of the student body,

academic success, student satisfaction, and job placement should be a continuing

process. It is very difcult to carry out the review of admissions actions and

their impact on programs in the absence of a centralized review by the graduate

2 William G. Bowen and Neil L. Rudenstine, In Pursuit of the PhD, Princeton

University Press, 1992, p.295.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND THE

MANAGEMENT OF GRADUATE ADMISSIONS

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 9

school. While the department should conduct annual self-assessments of its

admissions practices, the success of the graduate endeavor as a whole requires

similar evaluation by a neutral party, such as the graduate dean.

10 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

III.

ESTABLISHING

ADMISSIONS POLICIES

Philosophy, Goals, and Objectives of the Institution and Department

o be effective, admissions policies must be consistent with the philosophy

of the institution. They must be realistic, readily understood, and have

widespread support. The degree of selectivity should be inuenced

by the history, tradition, and academic values of the institution. Policies

for admitting international, underrepresented, minority, non-traditional,

physically impaired, or learning disabled students must be rmly grounded

in an institutional commitment to providing resources to ensure that these

students have the opportunity to pursue a graduate education and fulll degree

requirements. Graduate admissions policies follow a Federalist model: the

graduate school denes the baseline academic admissions standards and may

set goals for the desired general population mix of the graduate student body,

while the individual schools and departments may rene and strengthen these

requirements to assure the entry of students who demonstrate the promise of

completing their chosen educational programs successfully, and, indeed, with

distinction. In all instances, admissions policies must ensure that decisions are

based on a holistic review of the credentials and background presented by each

applicant.

At the department level, special conditions may exist which help mold

the admissions policy of that unit. Limited departmental resources, limited

employment opportunities for graduates, or undergraduate teaching needs may

dictate enrollment goals. When setting targeted enrollment numbers, however,

the program must be cautious that it is doing so in the students’ best interest.

Too large or too small a class may not be conducive to educational enrichment.

In some programs, other non-academic factors may have major impacts on

the probability of success in those elds of study.

Prior employment history

is quite relevant in business or public administration and a number of other

professional elds of study, as are personality characteristics and interpersonal

skills in elds such as counseling or social work.

3 For further discussion of institutional factors, see the CGS publication Ph.D. Completion and

Attrition: Policies and Practices to Promote Student Success, 2010, and Ph.D. Completion and

Attrition, 2004.

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 11

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

Once baseline performance measures for admissions have been established,

it is prudent that the university legal counsel review them to assure compliance

with all applicable laws and regulations affecting the admissions process.

Legal Issues

Graduate admissions personnel should keep abreast of the laws,

regulations, and legal issues affecting admissions.

Since 1960, a growing body

of case law and legislative protections has emerged dealing with the rights of

students in the admissions process. Legal issues relevant to admissions involve

the criteria upon which admissions decisions are made and the procedures by

which admissions criteria are enacted. These criteria and procedures should

be well documented and published in institutional announcements so both the

prospective student and admissions committees are aware of the measures

for admission. Courts in many states have concluded that such documents

constitute a legal contract between the student and the institution. Providing a

complete description of the factors that can inuence an admissions decision

will have the added benet of allowing applicants to provide institutions

with complete, relevant information from which the faculty can make better-

informed, more purposeful decisions.

This publication is not intended to include a denitive or exhaustive

statement on legal issues affecting graduate admissions.

It is not a substitute

for professional advice from the university’s legal counsel, and indeed,

such advice should be sought concerning the appropriateness of admissions

requirements, application forms, and afrmative action programs. The text

that follows is intended to heighten the awareness of those persons involved in

the admissions process regarding potential legal problems.

Offers of Admission. Because faculty involvement in the review of

applicant credentials is essential to the graduate admissions process, the

potential exists for verbal offers of admission or acceptance letters to emanate

from departmental ofces or individual faculty. To address this potential

problem, a clearly dened administrative person (often the graduate dean)

4 Both the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Ofcers (www.

AACRAO.org) and the National Association of College and University Attorneys (www.

NACUA.org) offer publications on a wide variety of legal topics relating to university admis-

sions.

5 For a more extensive discussion of legal issues surrounding graduate admissions, see the 2006

revision of the CGS publication, Selected Legal Issues Relating to Due Process and Liability in

Higher Education - A Policy Statement (1

printing, 1994).

12 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

should be assigned the sole authority to offer admission to applicants, and

applicants should be advised that only a written communication from that

person is an ofcial offer of admission. All personnel should be cognizant of

who has the legal authority to admit students. To underscore the importance of

this point, it may be helpful to remind unauthorized personnel that litigation

defense costs and damage awards are not covered by an institution’s insurance

policies when an employee acts outside the scope of his or her ofcial authority.

Generally, the courts will not interfere in admissions standards decisions

made by universities, provided they are reasonable, well publicized, and not in

violation of applicable federal or state law. This deference to the university’s

autonomy is based on the theory that in academic matters the expertise of

educators is superior to the judgment of the courts. Indeed, in the 1957 case

Sweezy v. New Hampshire, the United States Supreme Court identied the

ability of universities to select their students free from undue governmental

inuence as one of four fundamental components of academic freedom.

However, certain aspects of the admissions process are subject to three general

constraints:

(1) the selection process must not be arbitrary or capricious; (2) the

institution may be bound, under a contract theory, to adhere to its

published admissions standards and to honor its admissions decisions;

and (3) the institution may not have admissions policies that unjustiably

discriminate on the basis of characteristics such as race, sex, disability,

age, residence or citizenship.

Afrmative Action/Diversity Recruitment. Afrmative action/diversity

recruitment can take many forms, from targeted outreach and recruitment

efforts, to using race as a plus factor in admissions decision-making, to

targeted scholarship and grant programs. Most of the litigation surrounding

afrmative action has focused on the second type of afrmative action—

giving members of selected minority groups a preference in the admissions

process—and several cases have made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court

in recent decades. Although the Supreme Court has not sought to establish a

single, legally viable method of pursuing this type of afrmative action, the

Court’s decisions about some specic policies and practices that have come

before it enable us to extract some general principles and cautions.

In reviewing an afrmative action program, whether at a public or private

institution, courts engage in a two-part analysis. First, they determine whether

6 William A. Kaplan and Barbara A. Lee, The Law of Higher Education, 4

ed., Jossey-Bass Pub-

lishers, 2006, p.753.

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 13

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

the afrmative action program serves a “compelling” purpose. Second, they

examine the mechanics of the program to determine whether it is “narrowly

tailored” to meet that purpose.

To date, universities have advanced many purposes for afrmative action,

but the Supreme Court has found only two to be sufciently compelling to

overcome the Constitutional and statutory prohibitions against discrimination

on the basis of race. Those two purposes are 1) remedying the present effects

of an institution’s own prior discrimination, and 2) achieving the educational

benets that ow from racial and ethnic diversity in the classroom. Other

purposes, such as training a diverse leadership class for a state, training

professionals who will work in underserved communities, and overcoming

general, societal discrimination, have been found wanting.

The most recent higher-education afrmative-action cases to come before

the Supreme Court involve both the undergraduate and law school admissions

processes at the University of Michigan.

In those cases, the Court found

Michigan’s stated purpose (achieving classroom diversity) to be compelling,

but struck down the undergraduate process while upholding that of the law

school. Those two decisions, especially when combined with earlier Supreme

Court precedent, provide some guidance about the second prong of the analysis

– whether the process is “narrowly tailored” to achieve its goal. In a very

general way, this “narrow tailoring” analysis can be described as an attempt to

balance the interests of the institution and minority applicants with the rights of

non-minority applicants. Some clearly impermissible methods are: 1) quotas,

or numerical goals that are implemented in such a way that they effectively are

quotas; 2) having separate review tracks for different applicant populations; 3)

using race or ethnicity as the sole criterion for minority applicants; 4) having

different admissions requirements for members of different racial or ethnic

groups; and 5) within an admissions point system, automatically assigning a

specic number of points to members of certain racial or ethnic groups.

Helpfully, these cases also provide some guidance about what the

Supreme Court considers to be permissible methods of practicing afrmative

action. Afrmative action programs must be deemed necessary to achieve the

institution’s goals, i.e., the institution must examine alternatives to afrmative

action to determine whether methods other than race-consciousness are

effective, using those methods that are effective. Institutions should reevaluate

their afrmative action programs periodically to determine their effectiveness,

7 In February 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear another afrmative action admissions

case (Fisher v. University of Texas), but the trial is scheduled to take place after this publication

went to press.

14 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

to determine whether they are still necessary, and to make renements when

needed. Race or ethnicity should be one of many factors that an institution

considers when selecting among its applicants, and all applicants should be

reviewed using a unitary process that evaluates each applicant on all of the

criteria the institution deems important. Also, it is clear that programs that

dene eligibility on the basis of race are more legally suspect than programs

that are open to all but may give a preference to members of certain minority

groups.

The Court has endorsed a “holistic” approach to admissions decision-

making among those institutions that practice afrmative action. Hallmarks

of this approach are: clearly established admissions criteria and goals that are

consistent with the institution’s mission; and a full-le review for each applicant,

one that considers all of the institution’s admissions criteria. Also, institutions

should consider forms of diversity beyond racial and ethnic diversity, and

carefully examine each le for evidence of a potential contribution to the rich

exchange of ideas and viewpoints that should characterize a diverse student

body. Graduate schools may seek diversity within incoming classes on the

wide range of factors that contribute to students’ background experiences and

their development of particular points of view. For example, schools may

strive to enroll students from different political viewpoints, geographic origins

(urban/rural, domestic/ international), religious afliation, socio-economic

status, undergraduate institutions attended, work and volunteer experience,

and many other factors.

The law concerning afrmative action (both in admissions and in related

activities) is still developing, and changes in the law can occur rather quickly.

When developing or rening any type of afrmative action program, it is

essential to involve university counsel.

Application Forms. When designing an application form, several

legal factors must be taken into consideration. Various federal statutes and

regulations require universities to include some specic kinds of information,

and prohibit them from asking applicants certain questions or place conditions

on the circumstances under which requests for some information may be made.

Universities are required to include a statement of nondiscrimination on the

basis or race and sex on all literature dealing with admissions. Federal law also

requires universities to include, somewhere in their general information for

applicants, contact information for the ofce that provides services to students

with disabilities and for the ofce that maintains campus crime statistics.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibit pre-admission inquiries about disabilities,

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 15

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

although such information may be asked after admission, on a voluntary basis.

The application form cannot inquire about marital status nor can it ask the

applicant to give her maiden name. Public institutions that ask an applicant to

provide his or her Social Security number (SSN) must indicate that providing

the number is voluntary and provide enough information about how the number

will be used that an applicant can make an informed decision about whether

to supply it. Several states have prohibited colleges and universities from

using the SSN as the student ID number or otherwise publishing it. Therefore,

universities all across the country, even in states without such a prohibition,

will receive transcripts and letters of recommendations on behalf of applicants

that do not bear a Social Security number. In addition, many states have laws

governing the handling and storage of the SSN (e.g., in encrypted format with

partial-number displays on screens and documents) that require the attention

of information technology personnel. An emerging best practice in this area is

to ask the applicant for his or her undergraduate student ID number or the GRE

(or other testing program’s) account number rather than the Social Security

number.

Questions about race and ethnicity are permissible under federal law, but

should be accompanied by a statement indicating that responses are voluntary.

In addition to the usual check-boxes, questions regarding race and ethnicity

should include an “other” category or an open-ended opportunity for an

applicant to describe him or herself. Many universities have chosen to mirror

the Department of Education’s race and ethnicity reporting format on their

applications. This is a convenient, but not a required, format for collecting

this information. Indeed, many universities nd that using more rened

categories is helpful to their programmatic goals. Public institutions in states

where afrmative action is not permissible may, however, best be served by

not including a question about race or ethnicity on the application form.

Although this section has described limitations on including certain kinds

of questions on an application form, it is important to remember that questions

seeking the same kinds of information during an in-person interview also

carry similar restrictions. Understanding these limitations and restrictions is

particularly relevant to graduate admissions personnel and faculty decision-

makers, as interviews often play a key role in the graduate admissions process.

Student Behavior. A developing legal issue in the admissions arena

relates to the liability of the institution for acts of its students. In 1986, a public

8 Note that the Federal government requires applicants for Federal nancial aid to provide their

SSN on the application for nancial aid. As a result, many programs have chosen to have sepa-

rate admissions and nancial aid applications.

16 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

institution was found liable for admitting as a student an ex-felon who engaged

in additional problematic behavior as a student. The university was not aware

of the student’s extensive criminal record.

Many states do not have law relating specically to the admission of

candidates with prior criminal histories. As a result, this issue is a matter

of policy for institutions in such states. Different institutions have and will

continue to adopt different policies and practices. Some may adopt a blanket

prohibition on the enrollment of students with certain kinds of histories, while

others will adopt a policy of case-by-case review and determination. As with

all matters covered in this Legal Issues section, policies and practices should

be adopted or modied in consultation with university counsel.

For programs that include a required externship or clinical experience,

or that typically lead to licensure or external certication, there will be

additional considerations. In the former case, a program may choose to deny

admission to applicants who cannot successfully complete the academic

program because they will be ineligible to participate in required externship or

clinical components. In the latter case, it may be legally more problematic for

a program to deny admission on the basis of a post-degree, external licensing

requirement. In both cases, universities best serve candidates by making any

programmatic or licensure requirements known to all applicants, so that they

can make informed decisions about whether to seek admission

It is generally permissible for an institution to make pre-admission

inquiries about prior criminal records although some state statutes prohibit

discriminating against persons convicted of criminal offenses. In formulating

criteria for rejecting applicants with criminal records, consideration should

be given to the nature of the criminal activity and its relationship to a campus

environment, the elapsed time since the crime was committed, and the

rehabilitation efforts of the applicant. Because state law governs inquiries

about prior criminal behavior, and the weight a university may attach to the

information it receives, it is particularly important to work with university

counsel in drafting application questions and admissions policies in this area.

The Buckley Amendment/FERPA. The Family Educational Rights and

Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), popularly known as the Buckley Amendment,

generally provides access rights of enrolled students to their admissions

records, except for condential recommendations for which a valid waiver

to the right of access has been signed by the student. Admitted students have

the right to see comments written about them by admissions ofcers, whether

these notes are kept separate from the student’s permanent record or not. Some

universities routinely destroy reports prepared by their admissions ofces

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 17

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

once students are admitted, which is permissible as long as the student had not

requested access to this material before it was destroyed.

Other institutions

choose to keep admissions comments for assessment purposes; to check if their

prediction about a student’s potential matched his or her actual performance.

The FERPA provisions do not apply to unsuccessful applicants, to accepted

applicants who do not enroll, or to applicants applying to a different program at

an institution they have already attended. Nevertheless, it is possible that state

law or an institution’s own privacy and condentiality policies provide some

privacy protections for information about applicants who are denied admission

or who do not enroll. It is important, therefore, to understand the promise

of condentiality an institution is making to its applicants, and to train all

personnel who have access to applicant information about its implementation.

Since the Buckley Amendment does not govern records of a person who

has not attended an institution, many institutions choose to destroy, after a

designated period of time (e.g., three years), application les of students who

were not accepted or who did not attend. Keeping the applicant’s record for

this period of time is useful in case of a complaint by a disappointed applicant

or in case of a review by an outside agency. Once again, decisions about which

information to retain, and how long to retain it, are best made in consultation

with university counsel.

Fraudulent Applications. If a student submits a fraudulent application, he

or she may have the offer of admission rescinded or, if already in attendance,

be subject to dismissal from the university. It is helpful to explain these

consequences to candidates at the application stage. If the student has not yet

enrolled, an opportunity to rebut the decision in writing constitutes sufcient

action to satisfy due process requirements. At public institutions, if the student

has commenced studies, he or she is entitled to a formal written notice of

the charges, an opportunity to rebut the charges, an opportunity to retain the

services of counsel at any hearing, confront the accusers, present evidence on

his or her behalf, and receive a record of the hearing which took place before

an unbiased disciplinary board. Private institutions do not have to follow

due process procedures in dismissing students with fraudulent applications;

however, they must follow their own published procedures in such actions,

and those procedures must provide the applicant with “fundamental fairness,”

which has come to mean, in essence, notice of the matter and an opportunity to

present information or arguments on his or her own behalf.

Although one should be aware of potential legal problems, fear of a

9 The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Students Have Right to See Comments of Admissions Of-

cers, Education Department Rules,” Volume XXXVIII, Number 30, April 1, 1992, p. Al.

18 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

lawsuit should never deter anyone from fullling the role of his or her ofce.

As non-lawyers, we are more likely to get into legal difculties if we try to

make our decisions on a legal rather than an academic basis. The courts will

generally uphold decisions made with good academic judgment and an earnest

effort to act within the law.

Application Requirements and Selection Standards

Baseline admissions standards (those applicable to all degree applicants)

are generally set in one of two ways, depending on the administrative

organization of the institution. Where there is a central graduate unit, standards

are set by a council of faculty representative of all graduate degrees and

programs. In decentralized systems, specic administrative entities such as a

College of Art and Sciences or a School of Education establish faculty councils

that set the standards. In either case, departments may require additional

material or set more stringent standards. These standards will determine what

credentials will be required from the applicant.

Generally the graduate administrative unit sets a minimum overall

undergraduate grade-point index which the student should have earned to be

considered for admission. This minimum usually ranges between 2.7 and 3.0

on a 4.0 scale. Departments may set higher minimum standards. Departments

may also stipulate the minimum grade-point averages to be achieved in the

desired major or during the last year or two of undergraduate study. When

calculating the grade-point average, all previous transcripts should be

evaluated. Admissions committees should pay attention to when the GPA was

achieved, since grading standards generally have become less rigorous over

time. In cases where exceptional circumstances incline faculty to want to admit

a student with a grade-point average below the standards set, the graduate dean

or the ofcer responsible for graduate education should have the authority to

make the nal decision.

Required Application Material. Regardless of what standards are set by

individual departments, all applications to graduate programs should include,

at a minimum, the following elements:

1. An application form.

2. Ofcial transcripts of all previous academic work

(with certied

10 Some institutions accept unofcial transcripts or last 60 hours transcripts for screening or evalu-

ation purposes. Students who are accepted must submit ofcial transcripts at a later date. See

Ofcial Transcripts and Evaluating an Applicant with an Incomplete Dossier, below, for further

discussion.

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 19

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

translations, for non-English transcripts) from which undergraduate

grade-point averages can be computed.

3. Letters of recommendation.

4. Proof of English competency for international students for whom

English is not the rst language.

The application form. There are almost as many different versions of

application forms as there are graduate institutions. Indeed, there may be

different forms in use within a given institution. A plethora of application

styles is not ideal for either the university, which requires a uniform database

for report generation and institutional research and planning, or for the student

who may apply to two or more programs within the same school. A simple,

common application form for all graduate programs should be developed,

requesting student identication data, demographic data (basically for

reporting purposes and institutional research), and information to assist in the

admission decision. Individual departments can then supplement this common

form with program specic requirements.

Biographical data should include the student’s name and other names

or alternative spellings that may appear on transcripts or test score reports,

permanent and temporary addresses and telephone numbers (with a date

indicating when the temporary address will no longer be valid), Social Security

number (with the caveats noted in the “Application Forms” section above),

date and place of birth, citizenship, visa information (a checklist of possible

visa types is preferable to a blank space), and native language.

Demographic data collection can create difculties since applicants may

believe their responses may count against them in the admissions process. Yet

federal, state, and institutional report requirements mandate the collection of

ethnic, sex, age, and disability information. As mentioned in the section above

on legal issues, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits pre-

admission inquiries about disabilities (unless an institution is taking remedial

action to correct effects of past discrimination), so this information cannot

be obtained from an admissions application. Race and ethnicity data may be

obtained prior to admission, but must be provided on a voluntary basis.

When requesting demographic information from applicants, categories

should be clearly dened and options should include all categories of relevant

interest to the institution. Many institutions pattern their demographic questions

on US Census Bureau categories. Of particular signicance is a 2010 Census

Bureau brief

, which noted “federal standards mandate that race and Hispanic

11 Karen R. Humes, Nicholas A. Jones, and Roberto R. Ramirez, “Overview of Race and Hispanic

Origin: 2010.” 2010 Census Briefs. C2010BR-02. March 2011.

20 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

origin (ethnicity) are separate and distinct concepts and that when collecting

these data via self-identication, two different questions must be used.” (See

Appendix B, section II.c, for sample.)

Some institutions include a disclaimer with the ethnicity question,

saying data will be used only for reporting purposes. However, if race (or

sex) is being used in the admissions process to identify special groups as

part of an afrmative action or diversity initiative, it is important that such a

disclaimer be omitted. A statement such as the following may be appropriate:

“The purpose of this inquiry is to assess the effectiveness of the University’s

recruitment efforts and to facilitate selection of a diverse student body. Since

the University does not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnic origin, the

answer to this question or the omission of an answer will not inuence the

University’s decision on admission.”

As stated in the legal issues section above, all application materials must

contain a non-discrimination statement. For example, the application might

state: “(Name of University) does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed,

national origin, sexual orientation, age, sex, disability, or marital or veteran

status in any of its policies, procedures, programs, or practices. Any grievances

pertaining to discrimination should be directed to (Name of appropriate

person).”

If the institution has clearly identied how it will utilize the information,

questions may be asked pertaining to the criminal record of the applicant

(see legal section above) or previous academic ineligibility at any college or

university.

Academic data should include a list of all institutions previously attended.

Many application forms request dates and scores for one or more assessment

tests such as the GRE, GMAT, MAT, and/or TOEFL, IELTS, or PTEA. Since

these student-reported scores should not be accepted for admission purposes,

the application form should tell the student also to request ofcial scores be

sent directly from the testing company. In many instances the university will

be able to obtain these scores electronically directly from the testing company

if the student has authorized their release.

Program related data include name(s) of program(s) to which the

student is applying and area of specialization (if applicable), graduate degree

objective, full- or part-time status, and date of anticipated enrollment. For state

institutions, legal residency must be ascertained. Additional questions, such

as whether the applicant wishes to be considered for nancial aid or whether

the applicant has ever applied to (or attended) the institution before might be

included on the general form or as part of a linked student support application.

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 21

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

Program-specic questions including those related to employment

history, courses in progress, publications, research experience, honors or

awards, etc., can be asked as part of the personal statement, if the department

desires this information. The statement also may include questions needed to

determine eligibility for diversity consideration. Material requested should be

necessary for the consistent evaluation of the applicant and not on a “nice to

know” basis.

Ofcial transcripts. It must be stressed that ofcialtranscripts from all

institutions attended need to be submitted. Since the possibility of fraudulent

records always exists, when ofcial transcripts are placed in a sealed envelope

and given to the student either to be hand delivered or placed in an application

packet envelope, documents must be carefully reviewed, and the institution

contacted if there is any question of their accuracy or authenticity. Including a

“Request for Transcript” form with application materials can help streamline

and clarify the process. (See Appendix B, section III.b, for sample.)

For evaluation purposes only, some universities accept unofcial copies

of the student’s transcript or transcripts, received via fax or email as a PDF

attachment. Some university registrars now provide ofcial digital transcript

services. When unofcial review transcripts are permitted, if the student is

accepted it should be a provisional (or tentative) acceptance, pending receipt

within a specic time frame of ofcial copies of all transcripts.

Since a baccalaureate degree from a regionally accredited institution is

generally a prerequisite for admission to any graduate program, it is important

to ascertain that such a degree has indeed been earned. When an applicant is

admitted before completing the bachelor’s degree, some sort of mechanism

needs to be in place to ensure that the degree has been awarded before the

student may enroll in graduate classes. At a minimum, the student should be

admitted conditionally pending submission of an ofcial transcript showing

the awarding of the degree. A certied document from the student’s institution

stating that all requirements for the bachelor’s degree have been satised

may be sufcient to permit matriculation, but the student still must submit an

ofcial transcript when it becomes available.

The question of accreditation of an institution can be confusing to both

the applicant and the admissions ofce. The American Council on Education

publishes a booklet, Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education,

which lists all regionally accredited institutions. Students sometimes confuse

regional accreditation with professional accreditation. Regional accreditation

is carried out by one of the six regional accrediting organizations and applies

to the institution. Specialized or programmatic accreditation is carried out by

22 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

national organizations that represent a professional or specialized discipline,

and applies to specic programs such as pharmacy, law, etc. The pertinent

consideration with respect to graduate admission is regional accreditation.

International transcripts that are not in English should be accompanied

by certied English translations. The application instructions should stipulate

that a literal, not interpretive, translation is required. Resources (reference

materials and trained evaluators) must be available to provide an adequate

review of foreign transcripts since these can pose problems with respect to

degree equivalence, grading systems, and quality of the institution. Generally,

a minimum of sixteen years of schooling and an earned degree equivalent

to an American bachelor’s degree is required of all applicants. On occasion,

graduates of three-year postsecondary programs in prestigious universities

may be well qualied. In this case, admissions ofces need to work closely

with departmental admissions committees to identify those students who

demonstrate the ability to successfully complete the graduate program. Three-

year Bologna degrees deemed equivalent to an American bachelor’s degree

increasingly are accepted on a routine basis by U.S. universities.

A variety of resources are available to assist in evaluating international

credentials. A number of valuable materials are available from NAFSA, the

Association of International Educators. The International Education Series,

published by AACRAO, provides descriptions of the educational systems of

a number of countries, with recommendations for placement. Additionally,

schools often utilize the services of an external educational credential evaluation

service. The National Association of Credential Evaluation Services (NACES,

www.naces.org) is an association of private foreign educational credential

evaluation services.

In rare instances, a student is unable to obtain a copy of his/her transcript.

Institutional records may have been destroyed by re, ood, or another natural

disaster. In countries where there has been political upheaval, documents may

have been destroyed or simply may not be obtainable. When institutions close,

all records are usually transferred to another site such as a state education

department (in the case of domestic institutions) or a national ministry of

education (in the case of foreign credentials). However, students may not be

able to trace the new location of their records. An admissions ofcer should

be very skeptical about a student’s claim that a transcript is not available. On

the other hand, if follow-up checks conrm that the ofcial transcript is not

available, an institution should consider accepting unofcial student copies

of transcripts if available and/or a notarized or otherwise certied statement

from the student of the courses taken and grades received. In this case, other

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 23

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

application credentials would be given more weight in the application process,

and a provisional acceptance may be appropriate to provide the student an

opportunity to verify his or her abilities.

Occasionally, a person who does not have a bachelor’s degree and is not

enrolled in an undergraduate degree program may apply to graduate school.

For domestic students, this sometimes occurs when an older applicant with

extensive practical experience in a eld desires to further his or her academic

knowledge of the subject. On the international level, students seeking political

or social asylum who may not have completed all coursework for the degree

may request to make up the deciencies prior to or concurrent with their

graduate work. It is extremely important that the institution have a clear view

of the policy it wishes to follow in these cases. Whether for a domestic or

an international student, deviation from the published norm of admissions

requirements must be grounded in sound educational principles and rooted in

the mission of the institution, and admission of such students should occur in

only extremely unusual circumstances.

Letters of recommendation. Most institutions require two or three letters

of recommendation, although this may vary by program. Applicants should

be given some general guidance by the institution (and in particular by the

department) regarding what is expected in these letters. There should be at

least one letter required from someone who is familiar with the applicant’s

previous academic work, and in general, letters from former professors are

preferred, especially those representing the applicant’s major eld. However,

many professional degree programs may require letters from employers or

other professionals in the eld. Students should be advised that letters from

prominent individuals or from family or friends have little or no impact if these

persons cannot properly and objectively evaluate the applicant’s ability to do

graduate work. However, letters which can describe the applicant’s background

experiences, motivation, or capacity to succeed should be included. These could

come from employers or other people familiar with the strengths of the student.

The form for the letter of recommendation should be dened by or in

consultation with the department. The combination of an open-ended letter

with and a checklist of specic attributes helps to assure the collection of

information useful to the department. Institutions with online application

processes generally now also use online recommendation forms. Some

programs or institutions create or provide a structured tool to facilitate

comparisons. Such tools may be employed in addition to or in place of

traditional letters of recommendation.

Since the effectiveness of a letter of recommendation often hinges

24 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

upon the writing style of the recommender, a checklist also makes it easier

to compare letters of recommendation. Forms for letters of reference should

include statements on them permitting the applicant to waive the right to see

the letter of reference.

Those submitting recommendation letters should be given specic

advice on what kind of information to include in the open-ended letter relative

to the requirements of the eld. An indication of how long the writer has

known the applicant and in what capacity is important information. Also, the

writer should be advised that no reference should be made either directly or

indirectly to the applicant’s disability, if applicable. Letters of recommendation

are not a common part of the admissions process at foreign institutions, so

more precise descriptions of what is expected will increase the likelihood of

receiving satisfactory letters from individuals overseas. Examples of letter of

recommendation forms are included in Appendix B, section IV.

If the admissions committee is not familiar with the recommender or

is not sure of the credibility of the recommender, a call to that person might

be helpful. Any ambiguities or contradictions of other supporting documents

could also be claried in this way. A letter from a university thanking the

recommender may encourage the person to direct future students to that

institution and, additionally, can help to ensure that the person acknowledged

wrote the letter.

Proof of English competency. All students for whom English is not the

rst language must provide proof of English prociency. Possible exceptions

may be made for applicants who have completed a degree at an accredited

institution in an English-speaking country where English was the language

of instruction. Institutions offering courses in English for foreign students

can modify academic course loads to allow for additional concurrent language

training, and thus may be able to consider applicants with a lower range of

scores on tests of English ability than can institutions that have limited or no

additional language training.

Although some institutions exempt from any further proof of English

prociency those students who have completed EFL (English as a Foreign

Language) instruction at an English language institute, and others routinely

test students after they arrive on campus, most schools require score reports

from a recognized testing organization, most notably the Test of English as

a Foreign Language (TOEFL) provided by the Educational Testing Service

(ETS). Other examinations, such as the academic version of the International

English Language Testing System (IELTS), jointly managed by the University

of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate (UCLES), the British Council,

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 25

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

and IELTS Australia, and Pearson’s Test of English – Academic (PTEA) are

being used by an increasing number of universities. Since a student’s ability to

study material in the English language hinges on his/her English prociency,

an offer of admission should not be made unless it has been objectively

veried that the student has adequate English prociency for that campus

environment. It is ill-advised to accept the word of faculty or other institutional

employees that an international applicant has sufcient mastery of English.

Postponement of admission pending improvement of English language skills

is preferable to failure or unanticipated delays in degree completion due to

language difculties. The graduate dean should insist on proof of minimal

English prociency regardless of the pressures from departments.

As with all standardized exams, the TOEFL cannot provide a perfect

measure of the English ability of the applicant, so absolute cut-off scores

should not be used. The four sections of the internet-based TOEFL (iBT), the

most common version of the test, are scored 0-30, for a total test score range

of 0-120. On the paper-based TOEFL, scores are reported on a scale from 200-

677, while section scores can range from 20-68. These scores are not related

to the distribution of scores on any other test, such as the SAT or the GRE tests,

so admissions personnel should be cognizant of this difference. The TOEFL

test assesses four areas of language skills (listening, writing, reading, and

speaking). Attention should be paid to each of these sections individually, not

to just the total TOEFL score. In establishing the range of acceptable TOEFL

scores, the institution should be guided by score use information regularly

published by the Educational Testing Service at www.ets.org/toe. Different

elds of study may require different English prociency levels, so acceptable

TOEFL scores may vary by discipline as well as by institution.

The academic IELTS test includes four separate modules: listening,

reading, writing, and speaking. The rst three modules (listening, reading,

and writing), available in both a computerized and paper version, must be

completed in one day, with no break. The speaking module may be taken in

the period seven days before or after the other modules. The results, available

within two weeks of the test, provide scores on a band scale of 1 to 9 for each

module, with 1 dened as a “Non User” (essentially has no ability to use the

language beyond possibly a few isolated words) and 9 dened as an “Expert

User” (has fully operational command of the language: appropriate, accurate,

and uent with complete understanding). The individual module scores are

averaged and rounded to produce an overall band score. Overall band scores

and listening and reading scores are reported in whole and half bands; writing

and speaking band scores are reported in whole bands only.

26 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

The minimum IELTS scores required by an institution should depend

upon the linguistic demands of specic programs. Universities are advised to

consider both overall band scores and individual module band scores when

making admission decisions. Generally, the minimum score for admission is

an overall band score of either 6.0 or 6.5, with no individual band score below

5.0. A higher standard (a minimum overall band score of 7.0, with no individual

band score below 6.0) is often required of applicants being considered for

teaching assistantships or of those applying to programs that are linguistically

demanding.

Pearson’s Test of English–Academic (PTEA) measures overall English

language competency in addition to providing feedback on reading, writing,

listening and speaking skills. The score scale ranges from 10 to 90. The score

report provides three types of scores: an overall score, scores for communication

skills (listening, reading, speaking, and writing) and scores for enabling skills

(i.e., grammar, oral uency, pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary, and written

discourse). The computer-based exam is administered at company test centers.

TOEFL, IELTS, and PTEA tests are not a measure of scholastic aptitude

or ability to adapt to an English-speaking environment, but the scores can

be useful in interpreting an applicant’s performance on other standardized

tests. When these English language test scores are low, high verbal scores on

another standardized test (e.g., GRE) represent an inconsistency that should

be investigated. On the other hand, when English language test scores are low

and scores on another standardized test are also low, it is possible that the

applicant’s performance on the second test may have been impaired because

of deciencies in English.

Institutions should regularly evaluate their TOEFL, IELTS, and PTEA

requirements to ensure they are consistent with the institution’s own academic

requirements and the language training resources available on the campus.

Setting standards too high may deny qualied students admission to the

graduate program. Setting them too low will result in a large number of

students being unsuccessful because of language deciencies. In addition,

since a person’s language prociency may change with time, test results more

than two years old may not be reliable and should be discounted as verication

of current English ability.

Because a student’s ability to use the English language can have a

marked effect on academic success, institutions should waive this requirement

only in extremely unusual cases and then only if they have adequate assurance

that the applicant has the necessary English prociency. It is important to

clearly state the minimum scores required for admission so applicants who

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 27

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

are not sufciently procient in English do not waste either their own or the

institution’s time, or incur the costs (including the application fee, other test

requirement fees, transcript fees, postage, etc.) associated with processing a

full application.

Many international students have a strong desire to study in the United

States and Canada, and there have been reported cases of falsied test scores

submitted to institutions. Only ofcial scores mailed directly from the testing

service should be accepted. If questions arise regarding the validity of a test

score, the institution should consult with the testing services to verify the

accuracy of the scores and conrm whether an ofcial report was issued.

With the increased availability of real-time communication at low cost,

through Skype or other services, admission ofces and academic selection

committees are increasingly including a formal or information interview to

assess candidates’ prociency in English. (See also Interview section, below.)

Optional Application Materials. Additional credentials required by some

institutions, departments or programs may include standardized test scores,

a personal statement, writing samples, resumes, or examples of the student’s

work. Some programs may request an interview or an audition; others may

request submission of a portfolio or require verication of relevant work or

research experience. Supporting materials required by a program should be

requested only with a clear rationale for doing so. It is important to know what

these materials are expected to demonstrate. It is equally important that the

student be told what attributes are being assessed. In evaluating an applicant’s

dossier, the aim should be to understand the student’s background in order to

broaden the admissions committee’s perception of the student’s capabilities.

Standardized test scores: GRE, GMAT, Miller Analogies Test (MAT).

Regardless of which test scores are required, admissions personnel must keep

two major concepts in mind when evaluating the submitted results: 1) a test

score should never be the sole criterion for acceptance or denial of admission,

and 2) cutoff scores below which every applicant is categorically rejected are

inappropriate. No test (indeed, no single admission credential) can measure

all the skills needed for success in graduate school. A low test score does not

necessarily reect an applicant’s inability to learn, but may reveal a deciency

due to a different educational, economic, or social background. A holistic

approach utilizing multiple sources of information should be employed in the

admissions process to identify students who not only have suitable academic

credentials, but are committed to learning and motivated to succeed. Multiple

criteria are particularly important when relying on standardized test scores

to assess the abilities of educationally disadvantaged students, international

28 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

students, and students who are returning to school after an extended period of

absence. Differences in early education and undergraduate course content and

selection may result in lower test performance. Additionally, the GRE, GMAT,

and MAT tests were developed for students who were educated in the United

States. When interpreting a foreign student’s score, linguistic, cultural, and

educational factors must be considered.

Standardized tests are offered under special arrangements to students

with disabilities. Because so few students with disabilities have taken tests

under these non-standard conditions, and because different disabilities have

highly varied effects on whether test scores accurately represent the developed

abilities of the examinee as they will become apparent in graduate school,

no normative data have been developed for interpreting the scores of these

examinees. Institutions may wish to consider waiving the test score requirement

for these students, or, with the understanding that the test score may not reect

the applicant’s educational achievements, they may place less importance on

its inuence in the admissions decision.

Many students take standardized tests more than once. When more than

one score is reported, several approaches to the interpretation of the score

report are possible. One technique is to average the several reported scores.

Both the GRE and the GMAT guidelines recommend this approach, especially

if the tests were taken over a short period of time. Some departments prefer

to use the most recent score reported, while others use the highest score

reported. Whatever approach is adopted, it should be used consistently with

all applicants.

A department that uses standardized tests in the admission process should

attempt to demonstrate empirically the relationship between the test scores and

measures of performance in its academic program. Programs can make use of

the Graduate Record Examinations’ Validity Study Service (for GRE scores)

or the Graduate Management Admission Council’s Validity Study Service (for

GMAT scores), which are free of charge, or may conduct their own studies.

Advice on the design of appropriate validation studies is available from GRE

program staff free of charge.

Only ofcial copies of score reports should be accepted. These should

be sent directly from the testing program itself and not from the candidate

or any third party. If scores are more than ve years old, caution in their

interpretation is advised. An applicant’s developed ability may have changed

either positively or negatively in the time since the exam was taken, depending

upon life experiences.

When institutions use standardized test scores as part of the admissions

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 29

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

process, they have the responsibility of ensuring that all individuals who

interpret these scores know the policies and guidelines established by the

testing agency. They should monitor the use of the scores, and correct instances

of misuse when identied. Users of GRE test scores should obtain and read

the Guidelines for the Use of GRE Scores and other publications available on

the GRE website (www.gre.org). GMAT test users should obtain and read the

Guide to the Use of GMAT Scores, available from the Graduate Management

Admission Council and at www.gmac.com. Miller Analogies Test users should

read the Examiner’s Manual published by Harcourt Assessment.

Distinctions between students should not be based upon small differences

in standardized test scores. Standard errors of measurement vary by test and

are available in the usage guides of the respective tests.

The GRE Guidelines recommend that scores from the various sections of

the GRE (verbal, quantitative, and analytical writing) be used as three distinct

measures which should not be combined. Since the kind of reasoning skills

required for success varies by eld, departments may wish to establish weights

for the three measures reecting the program’s emphasis on particular skills.

Should this be done, the weighting must be based on empirical evidence, and

the reliability of such a measure should be tested by validity studies.

Effective with the worldwide introduction of the revised GRE General

Test in August 2011, the maximum score obtainable on the Verbal Reasoning

and Quantitative sections of the GRE General Test is 170 with a minimum

score of 130; the Analytical Writing section score scale is 0-6. GRE Subject

Test scores range from 200 to 990. GRE General Test scores are not directly

comparable to GRE Subject Test scores or any other graduate or undergraduate

admission test. Similarly, Subject Test scores should not be compared with

scores on another Subject Test. For example, a 700 on the Physics Test is

not equivalent to a 700 on the Mathematics Test. Percentile ranks should be

compared only if they are based on the same reference population.

Subject tests have been used primarily for Ph.D. programs. For these

programs, it has been found that subject test scores add signicantly to GPA

and scores on the GRE General Test as predictors of rst-year graduate grades.

Total GMAT scores range from 200 to 800. Comparisons of a person’s

GMAT score with scores on the GRE or other admissions tests are not

appropriate. The content of the tests are quite different and the populations

taking the various tests have different characteristics. It is unwise to estimate

a GMAT score from a person’s GRE General Test score or vice versa. While

the GMAT has been consistently shown to be a good predictor of performance

in the rst year of study in MBA or similar degree programs, it has not been

30 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

generally established that the GMAT is a valid predictor in other programs,

such as a doctoral business program or programs in health administration or

public administration. Use of the GMAT in these types of programs should be

based on the results of individual institutions’ validity studies.

The Miller Analogies Test consists of 100 analogy questions. Typically

taken by applicants to education, social science, or humanities graduate

programs, the test requires the student to synthesize from three given words a

fourth word that best completes the analogy. Miller Analogies Test scores can

range from 0 to 100, reecting the number of questions answered correctly

on the test. Two percentile scores are also given, one comparing the student’s

performance relative to individuals in the same intended major, the other

ranking the student’s performance within the general population of MAT

examinees. Percentile norms for applicants to graduate programs by eld

of study are available from The Psychological Corporation. Foreign student

scores are not included in the normal data.

Personal statement. Some programs ask students to provide a personal

statement that may be open-ended or answers to specic questions. Typically,

academic and career objectives, research activities or interest, work-related

experiences, and other accomplishments are topics requested to be covered.

The open-ended response gives the applicant an opportunity to provide

further evidence of potential success as a graduate student that may not be

reected in the standard application materials, such as test scores or grade-

point average. Attitudes, values, motivation, determination, and creativity may

play an important role in assessing an applicant’s potential for success. The

department should have a systematic way of evaluating whatever statement

it requires. (See Appendix B, section V for examples of Personal Statement

forms.)

Writing sample or examples of an applicant’s written work. As with

the personal statement, some departments ask that a student submit a writing

sample, such as a graded research paper, thesis, or other written evidence of

research or writing ability. Whatever form it takes, the department should have

a reason for requiring this material and a mechanism for assessing its value.

Departments should also specify whether the subject matter of the writing

sample must be relevant to the eld.

Interview. Especially in program areas where personality characteristics

can inuence success in the eld, such as counseling or social work, an

interview can help identify those individuals who are likely to perform well

in graduate school. Interviews also help students analyze their probable “t”

with the department. On-campus interviews should not be made compulsory

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 31

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

if travel to the institution causes an undue hardship for the applicant. Some

institutions conduct interviews by telephone, send representatives out into the

eld to interview applicants closer to their homes, or provide travel assistance

to bring students to campus. For international applicants, these approaches

have limited value. When interviews are a signicant element in the admissions

process, the structure of the interview and the approach of the interviewer

must assure an unbiased evaluation of the applicant. If interviews are not

compulsory, serious consideration must be given to how an interview affects

the admission decision. Rubrics or other standards-based scoring systems can

be used to minimize interviewer bias. As noted previously, interviewers should

be trained to avoid asking questions that are impermissible in the admission

process (see Legal Issues, above).

Portfolios, auditions, and work/research experience. In many disciplines,

faculty expect students to have had practical experience in the eld. In order

to assess an applicant’s ability in the ne or creative arts, the submission of

a portfolio or an audition (in person or in an electronic format) is generally

required. Caution is needed when the applicant submits an audio-recorded

voice sample or musical performance, since the possibility exists that the work

is not the product of the applicant.

In business or management disciplines, where faculty expect to build

on the knowledge base attained through prior or concurrent work experience,

programs may require prior employment in a business environment. Prior

research experience is a signicant factor for entrance into most doctoral

programs in the sciences.

Admissions Categories

Students whose records satisfy all general requirements for admission and

have been judged by their proposed departments to be completely satisfactory

for graduate study are accorded Regular or Full admission status. Students

whose records fall short of meeting all general and departmental requirements

may be awarded Conditional or Provisional status. This category may cover

either of two situations: there is specic information, such as GRE scores,

missing from the student’s le, or the student is decient in some academic

area. These are very different cases. In the rst, the student’s records of

prior work are incomplete but sufcient documents have been submitted to

make a preliminary decision. The submitted documents indicate the student

to be admissible, and all that is required for consideration for full admission

32 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

is that the missing items be submitted. In the second, the student’s records

are complete; based on the admission committee’s evaluation, however, the

admitting department is imposing additional requirements in order to further

evaluate the student’s academic ability or to compel the student to resolve

academic deciencies. In this case, the conditions imposed often consist of a

requirement for a certain level of performance in a specied course or courses

taken during the rst term or year in graduate school. Students in this status

should be told exactly what conditions must be met before they can petition for

regular or full status. It is essential that the student’s progress be tracked each

term and if timely progress towards satisfying the provisional requirements is

not made, that appropriate action be taken. This monitoring should be done by

the graduate ofce, or, where no graduate school exists, at the school level.

Students accepted with provisional status because of academic deciencies

should not be considered for assistantships until these deciencies are removed.

Some departments admit students with bachelor’s degrees directly into

their doctoral programs, while other doctoral programs require a master’s

degree in the eld before admission.

Because graduate studies often attract a much broader population than

just degree-oriented students, many non-degree status designations appear

in graduate admissions. Students may intend to transfer graduate credits to

another institution, use graduate credits for professional development or a

pre-master’s certicate program, enroll for personal satisfaction, “prove”

themselves academically qualied for a program that has not accepted them,

or accomplish other ends. It is tempting to set up as many status categories

as there are reasons for enrolling (e.g., Transfer Credit, Audit Only, Non-

matriculating, Tentative, Special Status, etc.), but unless good reasons exist, it

is better to minimize the number of categories and if possible, include all these

non-degree students under one rubric such as Non-matriculating, Special,

Non-degree.

Requirements for admission to a non-degree status vary widely across

institutions. Some schools require the same entrance requirements as for degree

students, others require only proof of a bachelor’s degree, while still others are

somewhere between these extremes. Since non-degree students will enroll in the

same classes as degree seeking students, some mechanism should be in place

to assure that the quality of graduate study is maintained. This is especially

true when non-matriculating students are not admitted under the purview of the

graduate school, as may occur when a separate continuing education ofce exists

on a campus. Many institutions require departmental approval or permission of

the instructor before a student is admitted to a class. Once permission is granted,

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 33

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

students are allowed to enroll on a space available basis.

Some institutions restrict registration of non-degree students to a set

number of terms or courses. One reason for limiting the number of terms or

courses for non-degree enrollment is to prevent a student from approaching

degree status “through the back door” by taking most or all the coursework for

a degree and then petitioning for degree candidacy. The difculty with stating a

maximum number of terms or courses for non-degree enrollment is that a student

who reached that specied limit would have to gain matriculated admission to

a degree program or take courses at another institution if he or she wished to

continue taking courses. If the student does not choose to attend or cannot attend

another school, but wishes to continue to take classes for personal enrichment

only, he or she would have to apply to a degree program while having little

interest in obtaining a degree. Therefore, rather than limit the number of terms

or courses in non-degree status, it could be made clear at admission whether or

not any credit earned in a non-degree status can be applied to a degree program,

should the student later seek admission and be accepted for an advanced degree.

A range of from 0 to 12 semester hours (0-16 quarter hours) is generally the

maximum number of graduate credits that may be applied toward a graduate

degree (most typically 9 semester or 10 quarter hours), pending approval of the

department. Some institutions have the student sign a statement of understanding

which informs the student that although an unlimited number of courses may be

taken as a non-degree student (subject to other department restrictions), only a

set maximum may be counted toward a degree. Such a statement also stipulates

that taking courses as a non-degree student does not automatically evolve into

matriculated admission to a degree program.

Many institutions have a special status for persons with a bachelor’s

degree who are seeking to become certied teachers. Students in this

category often take a combination of undergraduate and graduate courses, the

completion of which does not lead to a degree. Upon successful completion

of the prescribed coursework, they are eligible to apply for state teacher

certication. Requirements for Certication status are generally the same as

for degree-seeking students within the School of Education. As for all non-

degree status students, it is recommended that a limit be placed on the number

of credits of graduate study a student may take while in certication status.

Since these students may plan to continue beyond the certication status to

seek a master’s degree, careful monitoring of their progress will help ensure

that they reapply to the appropriate degree program when eligible.

Students may request to have their admission deferred to a term later

than the one originally specied on their application. Whether this request

34 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

is granted depends upon the nature and capacity of the program. Deferral

of admission is usually denied in programs where the class size is xed and

enrollment of men and women from different backgrounds and demographic

groups is sought to enhance the educational experience. In some cases, an

applicant is simply added to the new pool of applicants for a subsequent term

and will be re-evaluated for admission. Decisions to defer admission for one

year or less are usually the prerogative of the department, as is the decision of

whether the applicant must re-compete with the next group of applicants.

In cases where the numbers of qualied applicants exceed the space

limitations of the program, some students may be placed on a waiting list.

Accepted students should be asked to complete a “Statement of Intention to

Practices such as collecting enrollment deposits help institutions assess the

probability that a student on a waiting list will gain admission, and permit a

more reliable answer to student inquiries.

Some institutions may allow a student with incomplete application

materials to temporarily register for graduate coursework. An applicant

admitted under this condition must present complete application materials

within the rst term of enrollment. Such enrollment does not guarantee

acceptance into the graduate program and the student should clearly understand

this. The applicant is essentially a non-degree status student and the same

conditions for course enrollment and course transferability to a graduate

program should apply.

Readmission Policies

Formal application for re-admission should not be required of a student

who is returning from an approved leave of absence. However, a student who

has not been active in a graduate program for more than one term or year

(depending on the institution’s policies) and who did not obtain a leave of

absence should le a re-admission form. Some institutions also charge a re-

admission fee. The department makes the determination as to whether the

student’s status should be reactivated. If programmatic changes were made

during the student’s absence, the department may hold the student to the new

policies. At the time of reinstatement, students should also be informed as

to their current status with regard to credits, time limits, and other factors

affecting their programs.

Admitted applicants who did not enroll for the term in which they were

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 35

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

admitted and did not obtain permission to defer admission should consult

the department to determine if they are eligible to enroll in the succeeding

term or year. If a year or more has passed since admission was granted, the

student should reapply. Supplementary transcripts covering any academic

work completed since the initial application should be submitted. Since some

institutions destroy application materials within a set time frame for applicants

who did not enroll, the applicant should conrm that original application

materials are still on le and still accurately reect his or her academic

background, and if not, resubmit the required documents.

Students who have been dismissed from the graduate program for

academic reasons should address a written request for re-admission to the

graduate department or program. The request should include reasons why the

reinstatement should be considered. The department should review the request

and make a recommendation to the graduate dean or administrator designated

as the admitting ofcer for graduate programs. The nal decision for re-

admission in these cases should be made by the graduate dean/administrator in

accordance with policies set by the institution (generally by a graduate council

or similar body.)

Some institutions do not charge a fee for reapplication. Others require the

same fee as for an original application, while still others require the fee only if

the original le has been destroyed.

Transfer Policies

Students planning to transfer from one graduate institution to another

should be required to submit the same admission credentials as the typical

rst-time applicant. If admission is granted, the student should be advised

whether any of the coursework completed at the prior institution will apply

toward the degree. For master’s degree programs, a limited number of credits

ranging from 6 to 12 semester hours (9 to 18 quarter hours) may be considered

for transfer. An average of 6 semester hours (9 quarter hours) is generally

the maximum allowed to be petitioned for transfer. In doctoral programs, at a

minimum the transfer student should be required to take the comprehensive or

admission-to-candidacy exams at the new institution. Coursework must have

been taken at the graduate level and a minimum grade must have been earned

(usually a ‘B’ or better). Coursework completed at another institution should

not be transferred if it does not fall within the time-to-degree requirements set

at the new institution, and some institutions require the coursework to have

36 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

been taken within a specic time frame (e.g., within two years of admission).

Students who request to transfer from one degree program to another

within the same institution should complete a reapplication form. Such

students should be in good academic standing (overall grade-point average

of 3.0 or greater on a 4.0 scale) and hold full or regular status. Generally,

the application credentials required by the new department will have to be

submitted with the exception of transcripts already on le. The application

should then be processed in the usual manner for a new applicant. The decision

concerning which, if any, courses taken in the original program may apply to

the new program should be made by the new department.

Advanced Admission for Undergraduates

Undergraduate students with exceptional academic backgrounds are

frequently allowed to petition to take graduate coursework as part of their

undergraduate experience. Permission to take graduate courses should be

granted on a course by course basis, upon approval by the instructor, department

head, and graduate dean or graduate division administrator. The total course

load for an undergraduate student enrolled for graduate coursework should not

exceed 15 semester hours.

These undergraduate students may later enroll in a graduate program and

request graduate credit for this work. If the coursework was over and above

the requirements for the undergraduate degree, as veried in writing by the

undergraduate institution’s registrar or other appropriate ofcer, a graduate

institution may consider granting transfer credit in accordance with its general

transfer credit policies, although this is generally done only for a school’s own

undergraduate/graduate students.

Application to More than One Degree Program

Some institutions explicitly prohibit applicants from applying to

more than one degree program at a time. Others permit only one program

application; however, an applicant may designate an alternative eld on the

application form. If admission to the rst choice is denied, the application

will be considered by the alternative eld. Still other schools allow multiple

applications. Since an overarching objective of graduate admissions should be

to nd a good match between the student and the department, and because a

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 37

ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS POLICIES

student may not have time to apply to an alternate department after receiving a

rejection of admission, it would seem that giving the student the opportunity to

specify an alternative eld would be in everyone’s best interest. However, for

some universities, allowing applicants to compete between programs within

the same university for admissions and nancial support can create difculties

that they wish to avoid.

At some institutions, students may apply to dual or concurrent degree

programs and work toward completion of both degrees simultaneously. The

policy of whether any courses can count toward both degrees should be set by

a committee of graduate faculty (such as a graduate council) and approved by

the appropriate state educational agencies, where necessary.

38 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

IV.

IMPLEMENTING

ADMISSION POLICY

The Admission Decision

he recommendation to accept or reject a student comes from a department,

often through its school dean, to the graduate dean or designated ofcial

for nal acceptance or denial of admission. Considering the wide variety

of circumstances that inuence the lives of today’s graduate school applicants,

departments are encouraged to be exible in assessing applicants while still

maintaining admission standards. When a goal of the institution is to increase

multi-cultural, gender, socio/economic, or geographic diversity, to increase

the number of under-represented students in a discipline, or to increase

opportunities for the non-traditional (older) student, it is especially important

that admissions personnel look for indicators of admissibility instead of the

usual causes for rejection. Letters of recommendation, personal statements,

a history of work and volunteer experiences that demonstrate potential for

contribution to a eld, and interviews may play a major role in determining

the potential t between these students and their chosen major eld of study.

At the department or program level, recommendations for admission

are generally made by the program director or by an admissions committee.

Where a committee exists, both junior and senior faculty representing differing

specializations within the department should serve on this committee. An effort

should be made to include a mix of faculty by gender and ethnicity. The role of

graduate students on the committee should be carefully considered in light of

constraints upon their access to personal records of other students and liability

factors associated with admissions decisions. In some cases where students serve

on admissions committees, they do so as non-voting members. In all cases students

should sign a statement indicating they have read, understand, and agree to abide

by privacy laws governing student records involved in the admissions process.

To debate the merits of the applicant, admissions committees should meet

together as a group rather than merely circulate the applicant’s dossier. Acting

alone, a committee member may not consider an important aspect of the application

which could have a bearing on the admission decision. Meeting as a committee

also helps prevent untimely delays in applicant processing, which is possible if a

committee member fails to review the dossier in an expedient manner.

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 39

IMPLEMENTING ADMISSION POLICY

On occasion, factors other than the qualications of the applicant affect

the admissions decision. Institutional capacity can be a limiting factor. For

example, if studio space facilitates only ve sculptors, accepting more than

ve students would be unfair to both the students and the faculty. If the faculty

members in a department decide to limit the number of advisees any faculty

member may have, then the department should not accept more than that

number of students in each advisor’s specialty. If the program does not offer

the specialty desired by the applicant, the student should not be admitted. The

overriding criterion here is that the department should deliver what it promises

to the student, including adequate resources, access to an appropriate advisor,

and the opportunity to complete the requirements for the degree.

In most instances, particularly for doctoral programs, admissions and

nancial support decisions will be strongly linked. Few students will have

private funding to cover many years of graduate study and in many instances

multi-year packages of intramural funding – through research grants,

fellowships, teaching assistantships – can be tailored to facilitate and enhance

student progress through a doctoral program. Students admitted with extramural

funding (e.g., a portable fellowship) may relieve stress from limited university

funding sources but they should meet or exceed the same qualications (e.g.,

grade point average or ESL test scores) as others who are part of an admissions

cohort. Some self-supported students, particularly in master’s and professional

degree programs, may be considered for admission. However, having to rely on

one’s own resources may extend the time-to-degree and in some instances may

reduce the likelihood that a student will complete the degree.

It is important,

therefore, that self-funded students have an understanding of the real costs of

graduate education, including tuition, supplies, housing, health coverage, child

care, etc.

If an international applicant requires a visa but has not submitted sufcient

nancial documentation, many institutions will inform the applicant that he/

she is academically admissible, but cannot be ofcially admitted until nancial

certication has been received and visa documents can be issued.

Also, as noted above, students who have outside nancial backing

should not be given preferential consideration in the admissions process. The

department should be aware that preliminary screening by outside agencies,

even when they provide nancial backing, does not ensure that the student is

qualied for academic study. This may be especially true for many international

students with external funding.

At the graduate ofce level, departmental admissions recommendations

12 Bowen and Rudenstine, In Pursuit of the PhD, Princeton University Press, 1992, p. 191.

40 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

IMPLEMENTING ADMISSION POLICY

are usually accepted except in special circumstances. The graduate school

should make the nal determination for applicants who do not meet the

minimal standards of admission yet are recommended for admission by the

department. There will inevitably be requests for special consideration for

certain students who, for example, claim difculties in taking standardized tests

or fall short on one or more of the baseline standards. Review of these requests

is generally carried out by the graduate dean or other designated administrator

who can view the effects of this admission on the general admission policies

of the institution. Further, particular attention should be paid to applications

from under-represented populations. Rejections of qualied students in these

categories should be questioned.

Although admission to graduate school is based mainly on academic

preparation and potential, the university may wish to deny admission based

on non-academic factors, such as criminal history or prior college disciplinary

history. In such cases, clear guidelines should be stated in admissions documents.

Admission Processing

The interests of both the student and the institution are best served

when applications are processed and students are notied of the admission

decision in a timely fashion. In centralized systems, departmental information

on potential students must be brought into the admissions process as soon as

possible, and for decentralized systems, current information received by the

graduate ofce or administrative unit must be disseminated to the departments

shortly after it is received. Utilizing a centralized data management system is

crucial in efciently tracking materials and keeping both units informed of

documents on hand and the status of the application.

Applicants should be encouraged to follow a “student-managed” process

when submitting their application and supporting documents. If the university

has a fully developed online admissions system, the applicant should be

required to submit as much of the application as possible electronically. For

applications and supporting documents submitted by paper rather than online,

it is recommended that applicants submit them all together to the admissions

ofce, either centralized or department ofce. This process saves the university

time tracking the receipt of application materials, and keeps the applicant

well informed. In reviewing any documents submitted through the applicant,

however, admissions staff and faculty must be particularly alert to possibilities

of fraud.

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 41

IMPLEMENTING ADMISSION POLICY

Rolling versus Fixed-Date Admissions. Some institutions or departments

practice a form of rolling admissions whereby applicants’ dossiers are

evaluated as soon as all credentials are received, or they are held and evaluated

on a set basis (e.g., biweekly review) which may vary according to application

workload (e.g., monthly during slow periods, but weekly during busy periods).

Under rolling admissions, the applicant is notied of the admission decision

shortly after it is made. Other universities use a xed-date notication system

in which all candidates for admission are notied of the admission decision on

a predetermined date (typically April 1 for fall matriculation).

Rolling date admissions are generally preferred by discipline-based

humanities and sciences departments, while some of the professional

departments or schools prefer xed-date admissions. Rolling admissions

works best in those graduate programs that do not have xed class sizes. An

advantage of rolling admissions is that applications are reviewed shortly after

they come in and students receive an answer rather quickly. This minimizes

the student’s motivation to search elsewhere and helps the student set future

plans as quickly as possible. From the administrative point of view, rolling

admissions spreads the burden of processing admissions over a period of

several months.

On the other hand, xed-date admissions enable all dossiers to be

reviewed at the same time with the same standards being applied to all

applicants. A xed review method should be followed when class sizes are

xed, to ensure the best possible entering class. Since more time is generally

required to evaluate an admissions le for an international applicant, in some

instances earlier application deadlines are necessary for this group so that they

can be evaluated with the domestic applications.

When a department uses rolling admissions, it may choose to wait until

a sufcient number of applications are submitted before holding a committee

meeting. However, the department should not unduly delay processing

admission dossiers. Some institutions may set a time limit, usually two to

four weeks, to ensure that departments respond expeditiously to applications.

Every effort should be made to notify the graduate school of the admission

decision in a timely manner.

The membership of the Council of Graduate Schools has supported

the CGS Resolution Regarding Graduate Scholars, Fellows, Trainees and

Assistants. The Resolution focuses on nancial support of graduate students

(see section on Financial Considerations) which indirectly affects admission

decision timing. In order to abide by the CGS Resolution’s guidelines,

wherein applicants have until April 15 to accept offers of nancial assistance,

42 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

IMPLEMENTING ADMISSION POLICY

all institutions need to inform prospective students of both admission and

nancial aid decisions before April 15. (See http://www.cgsnet.org/cknder/

userles/les/CGS_Resolution.pdf).

Challenges and Opportunities in Admission Processing. In today’s

economic and political environment, graduate admissions ofces are reporting

a variety of challenges: maintaining the quality of services with decreased

budgets and staff resources caused by reductions in legislative funding and

endowment revenue; keeping up-to-date with technological innovations; and

continuing to attract international students in an era of growing administrative

burden and increased competition from abroad. Institutions have learned they

must continually reassess their processes and procedures and be more exible

and responsive.

Time-saving approaches to speed initial review of applicants are

becoming the norm: accepting student-reported grade-point averages,

unofcial transcripts, and/or student copies of standardized test scores. These

undocumented data are used only in the screening or evaluation stage of the

application process. All applicants recommended for admission must provide

ofcial copies of all credentials prior to either acceptance or matriculation.

Prospective applicants are informed that a material misrepresentation of data

might result in their acceptance being withdrawn. In most cases, departments

are given the option of requiring ofcial credentials for evaluation purposes

or permitting applicant submitted data. Self-reported grade-point averages

provided separately for each institution attended are usually accurate, but

overall GPAs from applicants who have completed coursework at multiple

institutions are more likely to be error-ridden, due to arithmetic errors, failure to

consider properly a mixture of quarter and semester hour credits, or “ignoring”

certain courses with grades of ‘D’ or ‘F.’ However, as long as applicants clearly

understand that unofcial documents will be carefully compared to ofcial

ones prior to matriculation, the likelihood of submitting altered materials is

reasonably unlikely.

Some institutions have found that staggering application deadlines by

department over a period of two or more months helps relieve the backlog of

GPA calculations and evaluations in the admissions ofce by leveling the peak.

Others compute GPAs only when the department indicates they are needed.

When the GPA is obviously very high or very low, precise computation may

be deemed unnecessary.

Technological Innovations. The benets of using the most current

technology outweigh the challenges of investment costs and generally provide

costs savings. The increased use of online applications and e-mail, text

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 43

IMPLEMENTING ADMISSION POLICY

messaging, social media, and CRM technology have reduced postage, printing

and stafng costs; the turnaround time for processing and evaluating applications

has been reduced, e-mail offers more timely; and frequent communication

with applicant, and, as applicants can check their status online, staff time spent

responding to these requests is reduced and applicant satisfaction is increased.

Not having these systems in place will place a university at a disadvantage

in the highly competitive and market-driven world of graduate enrollment

management, where CRM is considered a high priority among administration,

faculty, and the technology-smart applicants of today.

Social Media. The use of social media in graduate enrollment management

has increased signicantly in recent years as well. While many institutions

entered this world cautiously, it has now become the norm for communicating

and engaging students. The Millennial Generation (those born 1984-2005)

is entering graduate school. They are comfortable communicating with

peers through channels such as Skype, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter,

LinkedIn and Flickr, and they expect institutions to employ the same tools.

Millennials are not alone in responding to the social media wave; more than

77% of adults aged 18-24 have a social network prole while 65% of adults

between the ages of 25-34 have one.

Institutions are increasing their social

media presence is because prospective students are increasing researching

schools online without ever sending an inquiry to a college or university.

The only time their identity is known is when they submit an application for

admission, yet they could have been online and engaging in communication for

quite some time. By participating in social media, institutions can now become

part of the conversation. These prospective students are commonly called

“stealth applicants.” The familiar admission funnel metaphor is no longer

the norm. The funnel has changed. Many institutions have fewer prospects in

their databases, but record numbers of applicants and students. This can be

attributed to the notion of the stealth applicant.

As this edition of the Essential Guide goes to press, Facebook reports

that it has 800 million users, one half of whom visit the site at least once

each day. Many institutions are utilizing social media to advertise and market.

Through search engine optimization and search engine marketing, institutions

can prole Facebook users and engage with prospects who visit their sites.

Evaluating an Applicant with an Incomplete Dossier. Occasionally

a candidate or a department may request that the student be considered for

admission before all credentials are submitted. In general, it is advisable to

13 TheInniteDial2010:DigitalPlatformsandtheFutureofRadio, Edison Research, April 8th,

2010, http://www.edisonresearch.com/innite_dial_presentation_2010_reva.pdf

44 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

IMPLEMENTING ADMISSION POLICY

require a complete le to admit a student, although in some cases it might

be safe to reject a student based upon an incomplete dossier. Early notice of

non-acceptance gives the student an opportunity to apply in a timely fashion

to other schools or to look for alternative career opportunities. This practice

is particularly appropriate for international students for whom requiring a

complete dossier can create a great hardship. Some institutions have adopted a

preliminary admission procedure for the foreign applicant to provide an early

screening process to identify candidates who are not qualied for admission

to the program, usually because of low TOEFL, IELTS or PTEA scores or

inadequate academic preparation. Especially for those students who must travel

great distances to take the GRE or for whom test costs are beyond their means,

to be told that a program is not appropriate or that their academic background is

not sufcient for admission before taking the exam is humanitarian. However,

some universities have found that this preliminary application is not useful

because of timing problems or added personnel costs.

Generally, no student should be admitted before all required credentials

are submitted. However, unusual circumstances might lead a department to

request an early admission decision even though some application material,

such as a letter of recommendation or a transcript of a minor portion of the

student’s record, has not been received. An example of this situation might be

when a student with exceptional talent in a subject area expresses a desire to

work with a distinguished professor in that eld, and the professor requests an

early admission decision. In these special cases, a system should be established

to properly and evenhandedly evaluate the merits of a request for admission

prior to all credentials being received. The graduate school should develop

a form through its admissions exception processes (which might be called a

“Form to Expedite Admission”) that the graduate program director could ll

out and submit to the graduate school. The form would request a rationale for

admitting the student without the required documentation. The graduate dean

would then make the determination of whether early admission is warranted.

In cases where the department requires additional material beyond that

required by the graduate school, the department may ask to waive any of this

documentation but should provide justication for the request. The graduate dean

or division graduate administrator may then approve or deny the waiver request.

International Applicants. International applicants increasingly experience

a broad set of challenges that are far too complex to sufciently cover in this

booklet. For a detailed discussion, see the CGS publication, Graduate Study in

the United States: A Guide for Prospective International Graduate Students,

2007.

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 45

IMPLEMENTING ADMISSION POLICY

Generally speaking, in response to the time and administrative process

involved in obtaining visas, many universities are setting earlier deadlines

for international applicants and expanding guidelines and other informational

materials provided to international students. Additionally, in an attempt to

shorten visa processing time, if an international student is being admitted to

a eld included in the State Department’s Technology Alert List (TAL), some

academic departments include in the admit packet a letter that describes the

specic type of research with which the student will be involved.

The Use of Paid Agents. Admissions personnel and faculty involved in

the graduate admission process should be aware of the unique approaches and

resources often utilized by international applicants to identify programs of

study and to gain admission to those programs. One such strategy is the use

by students (and their parents) of paid agents. Agents charge a fee to provide

advice regarding the application process and, in many instances, assist the

student in preparing his/her application materials. In some countries, the use

of agents is especially prevalent.

It should be recognized that, while many agents perform their tasks with

high ethical standards and responsible attention to the best interests of both

student and institution, some agents go far beyond “coaching” the applicant

and literally author the applicant’s essays, statements of purpose, etc. On

occasion, unscrupulous agents will even assist with providing fraudulent

transcripts, test score reports and other application credentials. Those involved

in the graduate admissions process should be trained to carefully examine all

application materials for instances of inconsistency or fraud, and to conrm to

the extent possible that what the candidate has provided has not been prepared

by any other person.

Increasingly, institutions are also considering using paid agents to assist

them in identifying and enrolling international students. Institutions typically

pay an agent only when a student referred by that agent has been successfully

recruited and has actually enrolled in the institution. The agent’s fee is often

a percentage of the rst-year tuition amount, though other approaches to

compensating agents also exist.

Many institutions, and several U.S. higher education organizations,

have expressed concerns regarding the potential conicts of interest, ethical

dilemmas, fraud, and other abuses of students and institutions that can result

from an institution’s paid use of agents. Undoubtedly, the issue of utilizing

paid agents will continue to be debated both publicly and on campuses, and

careful consideration of the use of agents should be exercised.

Monitoring Special-Interest Applications. Many institutions have special

46 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

IMPLEMENTING ADMISSION POLICY

initiatives to increase participation of under-represented groups in several

academic areas.

When this is the case, it is important to set up a monitoring

system for these applications to track the success of the effort. Students in these

special categories need to be identied and the admission recommendation

examined by someone in the graduate ofce. When a student who appears to

meet graduate school and departmental standards is rejected, a discussion with

the department may result in a decision to admit the student, or the department

may verify that the decision not to admit was made for valid reasons, such as

space limitations or incompatible research interests of the student and faculty.

The Appeal Process

When a student is denied admission, it is important that the specic

reasons are stated in the student’s le. A student who requests the information

should also be informed of the reasons for the rejection. It is important for the

university to establish and disseminate a faculty council- and campus counsel-

approved policy and procedure for appeals, and for staff and faculty to work

with campus counsel on difcult cases. If the applicant appeals the decision,

the administrator who had the nal authority in making the rejection decision

should ascertain whether any policies or procedures were violated in the case.

If so, the admission decision should be reviewed. Some institutions request

that a committee, such as an executive committee or a subcommittee of the

graduate council, review the application.

14 The CGS Inclusiveness Series of publications (2004), including Achieving an Inclusive Graduate

Community (Volume 1), Recruiting for Success (Volume 2) and Ensuring Success (Volume 3),

provide examples of how schools have successfully accomplished this goal.

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 47

EVALUATING ADMISSION

POLICIES

he graduate admissions process is, at best, a method for deciding on

the best m ix of students commensurate with the philosophy and goals

of the department. However, since all the skills necessary to succeed

in graduate programs are not measurable, any admission criteria cannot be

viewed as perfect. For this reason, it is imperative that every program evaluate

the effects of its admission policies on an annual basis.

An important factor in evaluating the success of the admissions process

is the determination of student success (or failure) as correlated with his or her

admission credentials. Evaluation questions include: Do students who were

admitted provisionally with academic deciencies perform any differently

in the program than those who were admitted with regular status? Are the

credentials of those students who ‘succeed’ any different from those who do

not complete the program due to academic difculties? Why do students whom

we predicted would succeed not succeed?

To effectively evaluate the admissions policies, a centralized graduate

enrollment database that tracks the inquiry, applicant, and student enrollment

pools is a necessity. Demographic information, including gender, age,

citizenship, and ethnicity, as well as the undergraduate major, undergraduate

institution, undergraduate grade-point average, and standardized test scores

(GRE, GMAT, MAT, TOEFL, IELTS, PTEA, etc.) should be recorded. The

graduate program name, admission decision, category of admission, and

degree sought should be entered for each applicant. Data should be maintained

on the number of inquiries, applications, admissions, and enrollments for

each department, either on a term or a yearly basis. Also, when possible, the

reasons why an accepted applicant chose not to attend should be included in

the database.

Using these data, the characteristics of the applicant pool can be examined

and changes over time detected. An analysis by program of what percent of

applicants are being admitted will give an indication of which programs are

more selective than others. Comparisons with national percentage acceptance

rates by program may lead to revised admission policies in those programs

where large discrepancies exist. A student prole for each program in which

the population characteristics of sex, age, ethnicity, citizenship, and geographic

48 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

EVALUATING ADMISSION POLICIES

location are tabulated will show whether diversity goals are being met and

where further efforts are needed. An analysis of the matriculation rates by

program, including percentages and demographics of those who actually

enroll, may indicate where problems exist.

The data can be used also to predict enrollments, which is especially

useful if the institution must react to sudden demands to reduce enrollments or

budgets. Shifts in student interests may prompt a shift in institutional resources.

A knowledge of which undergraduate institutions are feeder schools is

helpful in targeting recruitment efforts. A comparison of where underrepresented

student groups who currently are attending the graduate school received their

bachelor’s degrees with those institutions that award degrees to large numbers

of these students may lead to a reassessment of recruiting practices at those

institutions.

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 49

VI.

POST-ADMISSION

DECISION ACTIVITY

t is critical that departments and graduate schools follow up on admission

offers to increase the likelihood that admitted students will actually

enroll. Graduate school or department newsletters, orientation materials,

and other campus information on such issues as housing availability, tness

facilities, or health insurance options might be sent out at intervals to keep

the institutional image in mind. It is important that the student have direct

contact with their assigned faculty advisor prior to arriving on campus, and

asking current graduate students to contact their incoming colleagues can also

be successful in both encouraging matriculation and smoothing a student’s

transition to graduate study. Accepted applicants should be encouraged to visit

the campus to talk with faculty and students and to see the facilities.

Whenever possible, it is also informative to determine why offers of

admission are declined. Some reasons for not matriculating (e.g., obtaining a

job, experiencing health problems) may be unrelated to specic university or

program factors. But if specic academic, nancial or environmental reasons

seem to recur, the institution or department may wish to make changes in

policies or practices or reallocate resources to alleviate the problems, if it is

within their domain to do so. Academic reasons might include perceptions

of inadequate laboratory or library facilities or the absence of a desired

specialty. Financial reasons might include a perception that the amount of

nancial support was insufcient, nancial aid was not competitive with

other institutions’ offers, or nancial aid was offered too late. Environmental

reasons might relate to housing availability, safety factors on campus and in

the community, or support services such as child care.

50 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

VII.

FINANCIAL

CONSIDERATIONS

The Application Fee

Most institutions charge all applicants an application fee, which may

vary by program. This application fee is almost always non-refundable. Some

university systems centrally establish the application fee level (and some retain

the income). If possible, the amount of the fee should be determined by the

reason for which it is charged. To encourage electronic applications where both

paper-based and electronic application alternatives are offered, some institutions

impose a higher application fee for paper, as opposed to electronic, submissions.

Many universities assess this fee to offset the cost of processing the application,

particularly in terms of paying for rapidly increasing costs for technology, but it

has also been used to discourage frivolous applications. Because of the additional

processing requirements for international applications, some institutions charge

a higher fee for this group. It is practical to consider the application fee of schools

comparable to your own institution when setting the fee.

Institutions may consider waiving the application fee for applicants

with nancial need. Universities may consider waiving the fee of current

undergraduates upon receipt of certication by a nancial aid coordinator at the

applicant’s undergraduate institution that the student has signicant nancial

need. Many institutions also waive the application fee for students involved

with special programs, such as the McNair Scholars Program or PROJECT

1000. These programs are not usually available for international applicants

or for students who are no longer in college. For this growing population of

applicants, some other mechanism for showing nancial need is required. This

might be achieved by requesting that the applicant to write a letter explaining

the nancial circumstances which necessitate the fee waiver request. It is then up

to the individual institution whether to waive the fee. The graduate admissions

administrator should be aware of those countries in which it is difcult for the

applicant to remove money, and in these cases, may consider either waiving the

fee or requiring its payment after the student arrives in the country. It is also

common for private universities to waive the application fee for alumni and for

applicants currently enrolled at the institution in an undergraduate or another

graduate degree program.

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 51

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Graduate Student Support

Institutional graduate student support normally occurs in the form of

fellowships, teaching assistantships, research assistantships, administrative

assistantships, and/or tuition scholarships. Research assistantships are generally

dependent upon a particular match between student and faculty member, and

if awarded to a new student, are often done so at the same time that his or her

acceptance is offered. All other graduate student support, particularly merit

fellowships and tuition scholarships, should be awarded following a review of

all applicants. This enables the institution to rank these applicants and award

aid to the most qualied. The determination of these awards should be made by

a faculty committee with the participation of administrators who can oversee

the effective distribution of resources. The student should be informed of the

award by the graduate ofce (or in institutions with no graduate school, by the

same individual who offers admission to the student). This ensures that offers

of nancial assistance are not made prematurely (before a student has been

admitted) and serves as a check on allocation of funding.

In addition, the CGS Resolution Regarding Graduate Scholars, Fellows,

Trainees, and Assistants (Appendix A) should accompany the award letter.

Students are under no obligation to respond to offers of nancial support

prior to April 15, and if they do so, they may withdraw this acceptance in

writing at any time through that date. An acceptance made on or after April 15

commits the student not to accept any other offer without rst getting a release

in writing from the institution to whom the commitment is made. Similarly,

an offer made by an institution after April 15 is conditional on presentation

by the student of a written release from any previously accepted offer. When

the offer of nancial aid is sent from the graduate ofce, it is less likely that a

department or student will violate the spirit of this agreement.

52 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

VIII. CONCLUSION

his booklet was written for the purpose of describing good practices

in graduate enrollment management. While each institution may

implement graduate admissions activities in its own fashion, in all

cases the academic departments play a critical role in determining who will

ultimately make up the community of scholars at the university. It is vital that

the faculty involved in admissions decisions be cognizant of the issues relating

to graduate admissions, including federal and state laws and regulations,

university-wide policies and procedures, and departmental guidelines.

The role of the graduate school or graduate administrative unit in this

process should be one of maintaining quality standards as established by a

council of the faculty, and providing resources as well as policy guidance

in matters of admission. Friendly relationships with departments must be

maintained with timely interchange of information both to and from the

graduate school and the department.

Effective graduate enrollment in ensured by effective integration of

customer relations and data management, which is greatly facilitated by

current technologies. These advances come at an opportune time, as increasing

competitiveness in both domestic and international graduate admission arenas

as well as nancial and political exigencies make it all the more necessary

for institutions to consider strategic planning in recruitment, enrollment, and

graduation at the graduate level.

A range of options for the various graduate admissions functions have

been presented here, with some discussion of the advantages and disadvantages

of each. Each institution must determine how best to administer graduate

enrollment management so that quality, efciency, and equity are achieved.

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 53

Appendix A

CGS Resolution Regarding Graduate Scholars, Fellows, Trainees

and Assistants

Acceptance of an offer of financial support *(such as a graduate scholarship, fellowship, traineeship, or assistantship) for the

next academic year by a prospective or enrolled graduate student completes an agreement that both student and graduate

school expect to honor. In that context, the conditions affecting such offers and their acceptance must be defined carefully and

understood by all parties.

Students are under no obligation to respond to offers of financial support prior to April 15; earlier deadlines for acceptance of

such offers violate the intent of this Resolution. In those instances in which a student accepts an offer before April 15, and sub-

sequently desires to withdraw that acceptance, the student may submit in writing a resignation of the appointment at any time

through April 15. However, an acceptance given or left in force after April 15 commits the student not to accept another offer

without first obtaining a written release from the institution to which a commitment has been made. Similarly, an offer by an insti-

tution after April 15 is conditional on presentation by the student of the written release from any previously accepted offer. It is

further agreed by the institutions and organizations subscribing to the above Resolution that a copy of this Resolution or a link to

the URL should accompany every scholarship, fellowship, traineeship, and assistantship offer.

The following list includes CGS member institutions that indicated their support of the Resolution.

This Resolution was renewed October 2009.

Council of

Graduate Schools

Resolution Regarding

Graduate Scholars, Fellows,

Trainees and Assistants

Abilene Christian University

Air Force Institute of Technology

Alcorn State University

Alfred University

American University

Andrews University

Angelo State University

Appalachian State University

Arizona State University

Arkansas State University

Auburn University

Austin Peay State University

Ball State University

Baylor College of Medicine

Baylor University

Bloomsburg University of Penn.

Boise State University

Boston College

Boston University

Bowling Green State University

Bradley University

Brandeis University

Brigham Young University

Brown University

Bryn Mawr College

Caldwell College

California Institute of Technology

California State Polytechnic

University, Pomona

California State University, Bakersfield

California State University, Fresno

California State University, Fullerton

California State University, Hayward

California State University,

Long Beach

California State University,

Los Angeles

California State University, Northridge

California State University,

Sacramento

California State University,

Stanislaus

California University of Pennsylvania

Case Western Reserve University

Catholic University of America

Central Michigan University

Central Missouri State University

Central Washington University

City University of New York

Graduate Center

Claremont Graduate University

Clark Atlanta University

Clark University

Clemson University

Cleveland State University

College of Charleston

College of New Jersey

College of Saint Rose

College of William and Mary

Colorado School of Mines

Columbia University

Concordia University, River Forest

Coppin State College

Cornell University

Creighton University

Dartmouth College

Drew University

Drexel University

Duke University

Duquesne University

East Carolina University

East Central University

East Tennessee State University

Eastern Illinois University

Eastern Kentucky University

Eastern Michigan University

Eastern Washington University

Emerson College

Emory University

Emporia State University

Fayetteville State University

Fairmont State University

Fielding Graduate Institute

Fitchburg State College

Florida A & M University

Florida Atlantic University

Florida International University

Florida State University

Fordham University

Fort Hays State University

Gallaudet University

George Mason University

George Washington University

Georgetown University

Georgia Institute of Technology

Georgia Southern University

Georgia State University

Hampton University

Harvard University

Hebrew Union College - Jewish

Institute of Religion

High Point University

Hofstra University

Hood College

Howard University

Idaho State University

Illinois Institute of Technology

Illinois State University

Indiana State University

Indiana University

Indiana University - Purdue University

Fort Wayne

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Iowa State University

Jackson State University

James Madison University

John Carroll University

Johns Hopkins University

Kansas State University

Kent State University

Lamar University

Langston University

Lehigh University

Lipscomb University

Loma Linda University

Louisiana State University and

A & M College

Louisiana State University

Health Sciences Center

Loyola Marymount University

Loyola University of Chicago

Marquette University

Marshall University

Marywood University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Medical College of Georgia

Medical College of Ohio

Medical College of Wisconsin

Medical University of South Carolina

Miami University

Michigan State University

Michigan Technological University

Middle Tennessee State University

Minnesota State University - Mankato

Mississippi State University

Missouri State University

Montana State University - Bozeman

Montclair State University

Mount Mary College

Murray State University

National University

Naval Postgraduate School

New Jersey Institute of Technology

New Mexico State University

New York Medical College

New York University

North Carolina Agricultural & Technical

State University

North Carolina State University

at Raleigh

North Dakota State University

Northeastern Illinois University

Northern Arizona University

Northern Illinois University

Northern Michigan University

Northwestern State University

of Louisiana

* This Resolution applies to offers of financial support only, not offers of admission.

54 Global Perspectives on Graduate International Collaborations

APPENDIX A

CGS - Resolution Regarding Graduate Scholars, Fellows, Trainees and Assistants (continued)

Northwestern University

Nova Southeastern University

Oakland University

Ohio University

Ohio State University

Oklahoma State University

Old Dominion University

Oregon State University

Park University

Pennsylvania State University

Pepperdine University

Pittsburg State University

Polytechnic University

Princeton University

Purdue University

Queens College of the City

University of New York

Radford University

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Rice University

Rockefeller University

Rockhurst University

Rosalind Franklin University of

Medicine and Science

Rowan University

Rutgers - New Brunswick

Rutgers - Newark

St. Bonaventure University

St. Cloud State University

St. John's University

Saint Louis University

San Diego State University

San Francisco State University

San Jose State University

Santa Clara University

Shippensburg University

South Carolina State University

South Dakota School of

Mines & Technology

South Dakota State University

Southeast Missouri State University

Southern Illinois University

at Carbondale

Southern Illinois University

at Edwardsville

Southern Methodist University

Southern University A&M College

Spalding University

Stanford University

State University of New York

at Binghamton

State University of New York –

Upstate Medical University

State University of New York

at Stony Brook

Syracuse University

Temple University

Tennessee State University

Tennessee Technological University

Texas A & M International University

Texas A & M University

Texas A & M University - Corpus

Christi

Texas Christian University

Texas Southern University

Texas State University, San Marcos

Texas Tech University

Texas Woman's University

Towson University

Trinity University

Truman State University

Tufts University

Tulane University

University at Buffalo, State University

of New York

University of Akron

University of Alabama

University of Alabama at Birmingham

University of Alabama in Huntsville

University of Alaska, Fairbanks

University of Albany, State University

of New York

University of Arizona

University of Arkansas

University of Bridgeport

University of California, Berkeley

University of California, Davis

University of California, Irvine

University of California, Los Angeles

University of California, Riverside

University of California, San Diego

University of California, San Francisco

University of California, Santa Barbara

University of California, Santa Cruz

University of Central Arkansas

University of Central Florida

University of Chicago

University of Cincinnati

University of Colorado at Boulder

University of Colorado at Denver

University of Connecticut

University of Dayton

University of Delaware

University of Denver

University of the District of Columbia

University of Florida

University of Georgia

University of Hartford

University of Hawaii at Manoa

University of Houston

University of Idaho

University of Illinois at Chicago

University of Illinois at Springfield

University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign

University of Iowa

University of Kansas

University of Kentucky

University of Louisiana at Lafayette

University of Louisville

University of Maine

University of Maryland, Baltimore

County

University of Maryland, College Park

University of Massachusetts Amherst

University of Massachusetts Boston

University of Massachusetts Lowell

The University of Memphis

University of Miami

University of Michigan

University of Minnesota

University of Mississippi

University of Missouri, Columbia

University of Missouri, Kansas City

University of Missouri, St. Louis

University of Montana

University of Nebraska-Kearney

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

University of Nebraska-Omaha

University of Nevada-Las Vegas

University of Nevada-Reno

University of New Hampshire

University of New Haven

University of New Mexico

University of New Orleans

University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill

University of North Carolina

at Charlotte

University of North Carolina

at Greensboro

University of North Dakota

University of North Texas

University of North Texas Health

Science Center - Graduate School

of Biomedical Sciences

University of Northern Colorado

University of Northern Iowa

University of Notre Dame

University of Oklahoma

University of Oklahoma Health

Sciences Center

University of Oregon

University of Pennsylvania

University of Pittsburgh

University of Puerto Rico -

Rio Piedras Campus

University of Rhode Island

University of Rochester

University of San Diego

University of Scranton

University of South Alabama

University of South Carolina

University of South Florida

University of Southern California

University of Southern Mississippi

University of Tennessee

at Chattanooga

University of Tennessee at Knoxville

University of Texas at Arlington

University of Texas at Austin

University of Texas at Brownsville

University of Texas at Dallas

University of Texas at San Antonio

University of Texas Graduate School

of Biomedical Science at Galveston

University of Texas Grad School of

Biomedical Science at Houston

University of Texas Grad School of

Biomedical Science at San Antonio

University of the Pacific

University of Toledo

University of Tulsa

University of Utah

University of Vermont

University of Virginia

University of Washington

University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire

University of Wisconsin – La Crosse

University of Wisconsin – Madison

University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee

University of Wyoming

Utah State University

Valdosta State University

Vanderbilt University

Villanova University

Virginia Commonwealth University

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University

Wake Forest University

Walden University

Washington State University

Washington University

Wayne State College

Wayne State University

Wesleyan University

West Chester University

West Virginia University

West Virginia Wesleyan College

Western Carolina University

Western Illinois University

Western Kentucky University

Western Michigan University

Western Washington University

Wichita State University

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Wright State University

Xavier University of Louisiana

Yale University

Council of Graduate Schools

One Dupont Circle, NW, 230

Washington, DC 20036

202-223-3791

202-331-7157 (fax)

APPENDIX B

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 55

Appendix B

Examples of Graduate Program Application Materials

I. General Information: Status and Notication

Source: Oregon State University

II. Application Forms

A. Biographical Information

Source: Bradley University

B. Visa Information

Source: University of Maryland-Baltimore County (UMBC)

Source: Columbia University

Examples of Graduate Program Application Materials

I. General Information: Status and Notification

Source: Oregon State University

II. Application Forms

A. Biographical Information

Source: Bradley University

B. Visa Information

Source: University of Maryland-Baltimore County (UMBC)

Source: Columbia University

Examples of Graduate Program Application Materials

I. General Information: Status and Notification

Source: Oregon State University

II. Application Forms

A. Biographical Information

Source: Bradley University

B. Visa Information

Source: University of Maryland-Baltimore County (UMBC)

Source: Columbia University

Examples of Graduate Program Application Materials

I. General Information: Status and Notification

Source: Oregon State University

II. Application Forms

A. Biographical Information

Source: Bradley University

B. Visa Information

Source: University of Maryland-Baltimore County (UMBC)

Source: Columbia University

Examples of Graduate Program Application Materials

I. General Information: Status and Notification

Source: Oregon State University

II. Application Forms

A. Biographical Information

Source: Bradley University

B. Visa Information

Source: University of Maryland-Baltimore County (UMBC)

Source: Columbia University

56 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

APPENDIX B

C. Ethnic Survey

Source: South Dakota State University

Source: Eastern Michigan University

D. Prior Criminal History

Source: Iowa State University

Source: George Washington University

E. Signature Block

Source: George Washington University

Source: Barry University

414 East Clark Street • Vermillion, SD 57069 - 2390 • 1-800-233-7937 • Fax: 605-677-6118 • www.usd.edu/grad

GRADUATE ADMISSIONS TESTS

ALL ocial test scores must be submitted directly to the University of South Dakota Graduate School.

I plan to take/ took the GRE on and my scores are: V Q A Writ. Assess. Subject

I plan to take/ took the MAT on and my score was:

I plan to take/ took the GMAT on and my scores are: V Q AWA

I plan to take/ took the LSAT on and my score was:

I plan to take/ took the

TOEFL

on and my score are: Sect. 1 Sect. 2 Sect. 3 Total

I plan to take/ took the IELTS on and my band score was:

Where or how did you rst learn about the Graduate School at the University of South Dakota?

INFORMATION REQUEST OPTIONAL

e information requested below is used to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As an applicant, responding to these questions is optional and your response will in no

way aect your admission. However, we are asking for the information now to avoid a separate request once a person is an enrolled student. We use the data in aggregated form only to

comply with federal reporting requirements.

1. Please indicate if you are of Hispanic/Latino(a) ethnicity:

Hispanic/Latino(a) (A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race).

NonHispanic /Latino(a)

2. Please indicate your race (mark one or more):

American Indian/Alaska Native (A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains Cultural

identication through tribal aliation or community recognition.)

Asian (A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent. is area includes, for

example, China, India, Japan, and Korea.)

Black/African American (A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.)

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacic Islander (A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Pacic Islands. is area includes, for

example, the Philippine Islands, Samoa, and Hawaii.)

White (A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.)

Other

APPLICATION FOR GRADUATE ADMISSION

Type or print legibly in ink. Complete both sides.

rrr-rr-rrrr

Social Security Number*

EasternMichiganUniversitystudentIDnumber

Have you previously enrolled at Eastern Michigan University?

r Yes (date: ___________) r No

Have you previously applied for admission to graduate study?

r Yes (date: ___________) r No

Are you currently enrolled in a graduate program at EMU?

r Yes r No

If yes, do you intend to nish the rst program?

r Yes (date: ___________) r No

Are you applying for a fully online program?

r Yes rNoIfyes, are you planning to live in the U.S.? r Yes r No

(InternationalstudentsadmiedtoonlineprogramsandnotlivingintheU.S.willnotneedavisaandarenotrequiredtoprovidenancialdocuments.)

1. Name (last or family name / rst or given name / middle name) 2. Gender* r Female r Male

| | / /

3. Other names that may appear on transcripts or documents (include last, rst, middle) 4.Dateofbirth(month/day/year)

| ( )

5. Permanent mailing address (number and street)*** 6. Home telephone

| ( )

 City/State/Province/Territory/ZIP/Postalcode/Country   7. Cell telephone

| |

r Yes r No

8. E-mail address (May be used to correspond regarding application status.) 9. May EMU send you an occasional

text message regarding admissions?

9a. Are you Hispanic or Latino?*

r No, not Hispanic or Latino.

r Yes, HispanicorLatino:apersonofCuban,Mexican,Chicano,PuertoRican,SouthorCentralAmerican,orotherSpanishcultureororigin,regardlessofrace.

9b. What is your race? You may select one or more races.*

r White:apersonhavingoriginsinanyoftheoriginalpeoplesofEurope,theMiddleEast,orNorthAfrica.

r Black or African American:apersonhavingoriginsinanyoftheblackracialgroupsofAfrica.

r American Indian or Alaska Native: apersonhavingoriginsinanyoftheoriginalpeoplesofNorthAmerica(includingCentralAmerica),andwho

  maintainstribalaliationorcommunityaachment.

r Asian: apersonhavingoriginsinanyoftheoriginalpeopleoftheFarEast,SoutheastAsia,ortheIndiansubcontinentincluding,forexample, 

  Cambodia,China,India,Japan,Korea,Malaysia,Pakistan,thePhilippineIslands,ailand,andVietnam.

r Native Hawaiian or Other Pacic Islander:apersonhavingoriginsinanyoftheoriginalpeoplesofHawaii,Guam,Samoa,orotherPacicIslands.

10a. Country of citizenship:

r U.S. r Other ______________________________ r Country of Birth ____________________________

Non-U.S. citizens:IfyouareintheU.S.,pleaseencloseacopyofyourAlienRegistrationCard,I-94orVISA

rIamapermanentresident.Dateresidentstatusissued:_______/_______/_______

rIcurrentlyhavea_________visa.

rIwillapplyfora__________visa.

10b. State of legal residence:

r Michigan r Ohio r Other ___________________ 10c. How long have you lived there? ____years ____months

11. Have you served in the U.S. armed forces?

r Yes (dates: _______________________________) r No

 Ifyes,pleaseprovideanocialcopyinasealedenvelopefromtheinstitutionofyourSMARTorAARTtranscriptforevaluationofcollegecredit.

12. Indicate the semester to which you are seeking admission.

rFall(Sept.-Dec.)rWinter(Jan.-Apr.)rSummer(July-Aug.)

201/August 2010

C. Ethnic Survey

Source: Barry University

Source: New York University

Source: University of Tulsa

D. Prior Criminal History

Source: Iowa State University

Source: George Washington University

E. Signature Block

Source: George Washington University

C. Ethnic Survey

Source: Barry University

Source: New York University

Source: University of Tulsa

D. Prior Criminal History

Source: Iowa State University

Source: George Washington University

E. Signature Block

Source: George Washington University

C. Ethnic Survey

Source: Barry University

Source: New York University

Source: University of Tulsa

D. Prior Criminal History

Source: Iowa State University

Source: George Washington University

E. Signature Block

Source: George Washington University

Source: Barry University

Source: New York University

III. Transcript Evaluation

A. Student Computed GPA

APPENDIX B

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 57

Source: New York University

III. Transcript Evaluation

A. Student Computed GPA

Source: Barry University

Source: New York University

III. Transcript Evaluation

A. Student Computed GPA

Source: Arcadia University, Forensic Science

58 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

APPENDIX B

Source: Arcadia University, Forensic Science

B. Request for Transcript

APPENDIX B

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 59

IV. Letters of Reference

60 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

APPENDIX B

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 61

62 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

APPENDIX B

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 63

64 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

APPENDIX B

An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions 65

V. Personal Statement

66 An Essential Guide to Graduate Admissions

APPENDIX B