Yvonne Romero da Silva has thought a lot about innovation in admissions. Recently she oversaw the University of Pennsylvania’s move to committee-based evaluations, in which admissions officers simultaneously read applications in teams of two.
Three years ago, Ms. da Silva, vice dean and director of admissions, invited colleagues at nearby colleges to come and learn more about the model Penn has pioneered. Though many people were interested, only a few showed up — the rest were too busy reading applications to get away.
Since then she has talked with admissions officials at numerous colleges about how the system works. At least a dozen have adopted Penn’s model; many others are trying it or considering it.
A team-based approach to initial reviews can often save time and may allow for better evaluations
Ms. da Silva, who is pursuing a doctoral degree in higher-education management at Penn, is writing her dissertation about how the new evaluation process has changed admissions offices. The Chronicle asked her to share some thoughts about the new model. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Q. Why do you think the new process has appealed to so many colleges?
A. For some, the motivation for change was all about efficiency. Some admissions offices had reached a point where the staff was just plain exhausted. Some institutions had just come off years so arduous that they didn’t have anything left to give.
Other institutions gravitated to the professional-development aspect. Now you can have people working together, talking and learning in a way that doing these evaluations individually doesn’t allow for. One of the benefits we’ve found is you get professional development every day. We engineer it so we have seasoned officers with junior officers, and it can be a teaching moment.
Q. What might such a moment look like?
A. If admissions officers are making a mistake or aren’t aware of something, it gets caught a lot faster. For example, a new admissions officer might think that being a National Merit semifinalist is a big distinction, and it is. But it’s so common in a pool like Penn’s. While we value it, it doesn’t really distinguish that student from others. So somebody might overvalue that and think it’s worthy of a higher rating.
Some colleges really like the idea of reducing bias. Michael Bastedo [director of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor’s Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education] has research to show that admissions officers have biases that they bring into the admissions process. Because of the discussion component of this, you have to sort of defend your biases. This is putting biases up to the task in the evaluation phase. Maybe somebody doesn’t think much of cheerleading as an activity. The other person might say, “Wait, that’s a huge commitment.”
Q. Writing a summary, or “narrative,” about each applicant can be an arduous task. But isn’t it important for the final selection committee to have a rendering of what’s inside an application?
A. One person sitting down, reading the application, and writing it all out can take 20-30 minutes, and half of that time was the writing. Now, instead, we’re having a conversation about the application, making a determination about the strength or competitiveness of the applicant. The person leading the discussion is taking notes, and they’ll type something in if they feel it’s important. The reason we did those long narratives was that, in a paper-based process, it was efficient.
Q. It was efficient because an application could be in only one place at a time, and someone had to distill it for everyone else. Now, because applications are sent electronically, admissions officers can call up any part of the app on a screen.
A. Right. And I’ve heard from people elsewhere that some admissions officers didn’t know what to put in the narrative. They didn’t know what was important, so they just kept putting more stuff in there.
Now we’re making sure that the analysis of the file is aligned to the priorities of an institution, and it’s not just “Tell me a story about the student.” When teams can make quicker and more definitive decisions, there’s more time being spent on subsequent phases of the process, where you can focus on the applications you really want to focus on.
Q. Efficiency’s good, but so, too, is fairness. Do you believe you’re making better, more equitable decisions? How are you measuring the effectiveness of this?
A. At Penn the admissions metrics are as strong as they’ve been in previous years, or stronger. There isn’t any demonstrable difference in the performance of students. Where it’s helping is that applicants are not falling through the cracks. Kids we maybe wouldn’t have had a longer conversation about before, we’re having them now.
Q. Nothing is perfect. Tell me about a drawback or challenge that colleges might have to work through.
A. Institutions should really think it out. It’s not a silver bullet. When you’re reading with partners in three-to-four-hour sessions twice a day, there’s a different kind of fatigue. It’s still emotionally exhausting to go through that many files, reading about wonderful kids you know you can’t take. That’s hard.
Admissions officers are responsible for so many other things, like meetings and emails. Before, they could just catch up with their reading in the evenings. So the model is best when you can commit to specific times for evaluations. We do evaluations 9:30 to 12:30, break for a lunch hour, and then 1:30 to 4 or 4:30. No evaluations on Wednesdays. Staff members appreciate knowing they have their evenings to themselves.
Q. In the traditional model, an admissions officer who recruits in Georgia tends to see himself as the most qualified to evaluate — and advocate for — applicants from Georgia. Does that change here?
A. For some staff members, there is this feeling of losing control, that nobody’s gonna know my schools from Georgia the way I know them. Admissions officers often describe applicants from their territories as “their babies,” “their kids.” Now there’s an element of having to share with your colleagues. For some people, that feels different.
But one unexpected change is knowing your colleagues better. You end up learning more about them. Our staff was close before, but not in the way that they are now.
Q. You’re finishing your dissertation on this subject. Can you give us a preview?
A. I’m studying how institutions experience change when they integrate committee-based evaluations. Change in terms of productivity, professionalism, and culture. There’s more engagement, better work-life balance. Some people believe that you can’t do holistic review in another way. When you prove it can be done, there’s a belief change.
Eric Hoover writes about admissions trends, enrollment-management challenges, and the meaning of Animal House, among other issues. He’s on Twitter @erichoov, and his email address is eric.hoover@chronicle.com.
