...
- Evaluation issues:
- Need to grow the GAC, make sure we get coverage in all areas. 6 and 2/2 GAC members is way too few.
- Determine better TOEFL cut-off process. Also compare success rates vs. TOEFL scores of matriculated grad students.
- Should we have a GRE cut-off like the TOEFL? No: stick to recommendations. Note for next year: GRE recommendation was not known by GAC. We should make sure we inform the faculty/GAC of GRE recommendation .
- Revisit the issue of the 3rd reviewer. Folders are getting a lot of review now. If a folder gets 3 GAC reviews and is AD, then it will get at least 2 from the sector, for a minimum of 5 reviews. Maybe in the future if the reviews conflict, it should go the sector to resolve the conflict. Dependent on size of GAC. Right answer is probably to stick to 3 reviews on conflicts, but have more people.
- Visit the issue of applicants who failed the quals twice. Are they allowed to apply, and how do we evaluate them fairly?
- We evaluate SM applicants differently from PhD applicants. Should we evaluate SM applicants who clearly only want an SM (e.g., USAF) differently from applicants who might go on to get a PhD? If not, we should make this explicit to reviewers. If so, we should enforce the difference at quals time.
- Can a faculty member force a fast-track even with low GAC scores? Suppose the low GAC scores were given by reviewers outside the area? Fast-track is a competitive advantage. If the candidate is admissible, and someone wants the fast-track, what's the argument against?
...