...
- 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 GRE recommendations, not cut-offs. Note for next year: the recommended GRE recommendation was scores were not known by GAC. We should make sure we inform the faculty/GAC of GRE recommendation these.
- Revisit the issue of the 3rd reviewer. Folders are getting a lot of review reviewing 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?
- Others
- Get Stanford open house date early, or set ours early, or negotiate with Stanford early. It turns out that our entire schedule can be affected by this.
Wiki Markup Change aa-gac mailing list to be a mailman list with \[AA-GAC\] prepended to subject and also Wiki and applyweb URLs in footer.
- Consider changing GRE score deadline
- Consider adding an explicit deadline for recommendation letters, consider sending recommendation letter reminders.
- Consider adding automatic generation of recommendation letter reminders.
- Need to fix the process from the grad admissions office
- Dave recommends not waiting transcript before allowing a folder to be reviewed. Beth has concerns about this.
- EECS system may become the institute-wide system, and we should stay aware of changes that may result.
- Need to formalize fast-track policy, in particular find a way to ensure that all relevant faculty have been given the opportunity to review a folder.