1. Optimal Admissions Decision Making: Trends and Metrics
CAPCSD
New Orleans
April 21,2017
Julie Masterson
Missouri State University
Robert Ruiz & Karen Jacobs
Liaison International

2. Overview of Presentation
Current National Trends
Comparisons to PT and OT
Best Practices in Admissions
Identifying “Best Fit” Students
Increasing Efficiency

3. Participation in CSDCAS

4. Comparisons CSDCAS: 148 programs (now 194!!) PTCAS: 201 programs
Available because of final disposition entry
AUD and SLP combined, but disaggregated
PTCAS: 201 programs
OTCAS: 130 programs
Cycle Data

5. Volume

6. Acceptance Rates

7. Age of Applicants

8. Sex/Gender

9. Race/Ethnicity: CSD

10. Race/Ethnicity: PT

11. Race/Ethnicity: OT

12. Undergraduate GPA

13. GRE-Verbal Percentile

14. GRE: Quantitative Percentile

15. GRE: Analytical Percentile

16. Trends Volume Demographics We all get way more than we can take
About half of the applicants get at least one offer
Demographics
All 3 disciplines draw from the year age range
Primarily women in all three, but PT (41% male) is more balanced than OT (12% male) and CSD (5% male)
All 3 disciplines are challenged to recruit applicants from underrepresented groups
Hispanic and African-American applicants are accepted at slightly lower rates than white applicants

17. Trends GPA GRE CSD and OT tend to be higher than PT in GRE Verbal
Applicants’ average is low to mid 3.0s
Accepted students’ average is 3.5 and higher
GPAs of PT and OT tend to be lower than CSD
GRE
CSD and OT tend to be higher than PT in GRE Verbal
PT tends to be higher than OT and CSD in GRE Quantitative
All are relatively stronger in Analytical area (scale less distributed); CSD slightly higher than OT and PT

18. Expanding Role of CSDCAS
Past (& Continuing) Focus
Benefits to Students, Faculty, Departments
Revenue for CAPCSD
Emerging Area of Emphasis for Future
Optimal Admissions Practices and Processes
WebAdmit Tool = Feasible
Partnership with Liaison and Integration with CAS Network
Workforce Issues Identified and Addressed

19. Increasing Efficiency and Effectiveness in Admissions

20. Liaison Campus Partnerships in Admissions (900+)
And they are serving a very broad and diverse audience. Yes, we have a logo screen too… large, small, public, private, names you know, many you may not know … all we do is enrollment management for undergraduate and graduate admissions. (If the prospect is a CAS user, add their logo to box on left and group. Then animate to appear on click. Drag to position.)

21. Goals for Admissions Effectiveness Efficiency
Consistency with university/department mission
Ensure applicants provide pertinent information
Attract a diverse student population
Evaluation tools that increase likelihood for student success
“Soft Skills” mentioned in yesterday’s talk on EI
Best fit
Need for additional support
Ongoing assessment of admission practices
Efficiency
Streamline processes

22. Efficiency

23. Using Workflow Planning is paramount
Whiteboard to analyze your process
How many touch points?
What are the triggers?
Does it result in a move to the step?
Does it result in communication?
One of the best ways to address the challenges inherent in admissions is to have a well thought out and easy to execute process. The centralized application systems have shown us that using workflow tools can assist in achieving this goal. 1 – Planning is the first step. Articulating the various roads that an application must travel to reach a decision is often not as easy as it sounds. Whiteboarding the process is a good first step. Use this as the foundation and build, reduce or tweak each cycle. 2- identify the touch points. What happens when a touch point is achieved? Communication? Move to the next step? Clearly identify the call to action for each stop in the workflow. 3- reference School House Rock.

24. Workflow and Data Collection
Consider touch points as data collection buckets
Be granular – Ex. Denied students – reasons can be different
Allows you to do a better, more thorough and data driven forensic analysis at the end of the cycle
Ability to respond to data requests quicker and with more detail
Comparative reporting allows for checks throughout the cycle on whether you are meeting admissions goals (ex. diversity, gpa, etc.)
Another benefit to creating well articulated workflow is that it provides you with the opportunity to collect information about the applicant pool that might have been lost otherwise. Ex. denied students – denied GPA, Denied GRE, Denied from the waitlist – all different reasons and all good info to have. Too many left on the waitlist? Do you need to open new seats? Comparative reporting – don’t need to wait until the end of a cycle to find out if you’ve been successful in meeting goals. Can change tactics mid-stream.

25. Workflow and Efficiencies
Speed to decision
A well constructed process, delivered effectively will move students through it more efficiently
Offers an advantage – respond to top students quicker
Go paperless
Reduce unforced errors
Ex. sending offer letters to the wrong students
Increase accountability
Systems approach. Submarine example.

26. Effectiveness
Optimal Admissions = Increased Student Success in a Diverse Student Population

27. Workflow and Effective Admissions
Fair and consistent application of your admission requirements
Can address more than just high level admissions goals – provides more space to dig deeper

28. The State of Student Success
OVER
50%
40%
doctoral students that leave graduate school without completing their studies, a number that’s risen substantially in the years since CGS’s Ph.D. Completion Project.1
STEM master’s students leave graduate school without completing their program of study as well.2 2

29. Its Long-lasting Effects
Students
Programs
Emotional distress
Decreasing completion rates
Substantial debt
Unrealized forecasted revenue

30. The Future of Admissions: Applicant
Attributes and talents over experience
Non-cognitive
attributes
Situational judgement

31. The Future of Admissions: School
Multiple Mini Interviews (MMIs)
Standardized Letters of Evaluation (SLOEs)
Mobile-friendly applications (Access!)
Non-cognitive attribute scoring
Clear expectations
Emphasis on Diversity and Inclusion (SES, Gender, Sex, etc.)
Holistic review
Data-driven decisions
Video Interviews/Situational Judgement Tests (SJTs)

33. Multiple Mini-Interviews

34. Situational Judgement

35. Summary
Effective, qualitative admissions processes can be both defendable and efficient
Move toward holistic admissions
Additional data is needed to document validity
Role of accountability in the future
Already ethical and moral reasons
State accountability currently in place for undergraduate
What about 50% who do not get accepted?
Early, frequent conversations with advisors
Potential for “scramble”?

36. Effective Can Be Efficient!
Questions? Comments?