Presenters: 

• Abbey Thompson, Assistant Dean, Graduate School Office Access, Engagement & Funding
• Katie Bourassa, Assistant Dean, Graduate School Admissions
• Beth Meyerand, Associate Dean, Graduate School
• Aireale J. Rodgers, Assistant Professor, Education Leadership & Policy Analysis

Presentation Summary

• Presentation slides are available.

Mapping the Legal Context

Recap of SFFA

• Prior to the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision in SFFA v. Harvard and University of North Carolina (“SFFA), identity characteristics were one element considered in the admissions process.
• Following SFFA, admissions policies and procedures no longer consider identity characteristics.
• Nothing in SFFA or other recent decisions from the Supreme Court or other federal courts suggests that the use of identity-neutral criteria such as personal experiences or geographical locations are prohibited under Title VI.
• Efforts like removing artificial barriers through holistic admission practices are legal under Title VI.

What does this mean in practice?

• In general terms, consider identity neutral characteristics such as academic success, experiences, and interests.
  • Is the applicant likely to contribute varied perspectives to the program because of their life experiences, such as overcoming personal adversity or family hardship, records of extensive community service, or successful careers in other fields?
  • Does the applicant have an interest in a specific program or a focus that would benefit the school as a whole?
  • Can you identify specific attributes that are highly relevant to your program and incorporate those into your decision making?

Establish quantifiable criteria and ensure consistent application

• Clear and concise documentation is key in the event of inquiry; retain your rubrics (including a master rubric or one “clean” copy), spreadsheets, or any other decision making documentation in an easily accessible location pursuant to applicable records retention schedules.
• Refrain from notes or comments that are outside the scope of criteria appropriate for review; assume documents could be subject to a request.
• If/when reviewer learns of identity characteristics through essay, other response, or interview, do not discuss; consider expectations agreements for all reviewers.

Overview of Holistic Admissions

Our Invitation: A Necessary Reframe

• Move from the dominant frame: What can(‘t) we do given our context?

• To instead ask ourselves & each other: What do we value? Why do we value it? How might our admissions processes best reflect those values?

Why holistic admissions

• Quantitative measures of student merit (GPA, GRE, etc) are not reliable predictors of success (Feldon et al. 2023
• Evaluation of quantitative and qualitative measures offers a more complete picture of each applicant’s attributes and potential to thrive in graduate school. (Barcelo et al, 2021; Posselt et al., 2023)

Holistic Admissions Defined

• No single factor or single performance leads to admission decision
• Comprehensive, contextualized and systematic review (Miller & Posselt, 2020)
  • Use numerous and diverse criteria to consider the whole person and their potential
  • Example criteria: Academic preparation, professional potential, alignment with program, socio-emotional competencies, etc.
• Align program mission and values with admission goals and application evaluation

Obstacles to Achieving Excellence

• Metrics & Achievements
  • Often not viewed in context of opportunity and access.
  • Accumulation of disadvantage when fewer opportunities, same level of competence
• Over-Reliance on Poor Indicators of Talent
  • Ex: High GPA from elite institution, institutional preference
• Preference for people like oneself or familiar training/background
• Time required to identify talent - preference for efficient, collegial (non-controversial) processes (Posselt, 2016)

Best Practices - Pre-Admissions

Transparency of process described on website

• Instructions for applying
• Guidelines for questions on application
• Provide a detailed framework for the Research Statement and/or
• Personal Statement (may include specific prompts)
• List evaluation criteria

Admissions Committee/Reviewers Discussions

• Define admissions goals
• Define admissions workflow with admissions committee/reviewers

Best Practices - Application Evaluation Application

• Use an evaluation rubric
• Each application read individually by multiple reviewers

Holistic Admissions Toolkit

• Living document
• Designed for Admissions Committees

Implementing a Rubric

Example: Cellular and Molecular Biology (CMB)

500+ applications reviewed by the admissions committee

• 8 committees (2 faculty and one student), Chair does not review applications
• ~65 applications per committee (all members review all applications)
• 1 week to review
• Rankings based on the rubric are standardized across committees
• Day-long meeting to discuss applicants
• Top 40 ranked applicants automatically receive interviews
• The next 40-60 are discussed individually
• ~35 additional applicants are selected for interviews
• ~20 students are not interviewed but are placed on a direct admit list

A rubric:

1. Promotes fairness and equity
2. Brings transparency and clarity
3. Improves consistency across reviewers
4. Encourages holistic review
5. Supports accountability
6. Fosters constructive discussion

Rubrics in Holistic Admissions

• Facilitate systematic, equitable approach to evaluation
  • with pre-defined criteria and evaluation categories that illuminate qualities and potential for success of applicants
  • Components of the grad application (often sorted in a spreadsheet) used as evaluation criteria is not equivalent to using a holistic admissions rubric.
• Your rubric categories connect program values and admissions goals with practice

Rubric Categories

• Each of the success qualities can be a translated into a category in your rubric; goal is no more than 5-6 categories
• Each category should be rated with a predetermined scale
  • Example: Numerical (1 to 3), descriptors (excellent, good, poor)
  • Considerations for Interrater Reliability
  • Integrating Qualitative Feedback
• “Master Rubric”: the rubric key
  • explanation of each category and a descriptor of each rating, and where it can be found in application - to be provided to all evaluators. A must-have for effective and equitable use of rubrics

Takeaways

• Holistic Admissions should be considered iterative and practices should be revisited and refined annually
• Leave with a foundation of your program rubric or ideas of how to start the process
• You have created a community of peers today - keep in touch and continue to help each other

Next Steps

• Discuss with evaluators involved in admissions in your graduate program
• Create the Master Rubric: Continue to develop categories with explanation and descriptor of each rating
• Document your admissions process for committee members
• Seek implementation of holistic admissions practices in all stages of your admission processes

Resources & References

• UW-Madison Graduate School Holistic Admissions Toolkit: https://kb.wisc.edu/grad/131840
• Bastedo, M. N., Bowman, N. A., Glasener, K. M., & Kelly, J. L. (2018). What are We Talking About When We Talk About Holistic Review? Selective College Admissions and its Effects on Low-SES Students. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 782–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1442633
• Feldon, D. F., Litson, K., Cahoon, B., Feng, Z., Walker, A., & Tofel-Grehl, C. (2024). The predictive validity of the GRE across graduate outcomes: A meta-analysis of trends over time. The Journal of Higher Education, 95(1), 120-148.
• Haynes B, Griffin K, Posselt, J.R.. (2023, August 29). Creating Equitable and Inclusive Graduate Programs: From Recruitment to Admission to Retention. National Institute for Mental Health, Office for Disparities Research and Workforce Diversity (ODWD)
• Miller, C., & Posselt, J. (2020). Equitable admissions in the time of COVID-19. Physics, 13, 199.
• Posselt, J. R. (2020). Equity in science: Representation, culture, and the dynamics of change in graduate education. Stanford University Press.
• Posselt, J. R. (2016). Inside Graduate Admissions: Merit, Diversity, and Faculty Gatekeeping. Harvard University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjghw8s
• Posselt, J., Southern, D., Hernandez, T., Desir, S., Alleyne, F., & Miller, C. W. (2023). Redefining Merit Through New Routines: Holistic Admissions Policy Implementation in Graduate Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 47(1), 159-184. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231201612 (Original work published 2025)