- Overall Timing Reminder (should be done by now, Jan 25 drop dead)
-
- Karen to discuss with Jaime encouraging more faculty to be present at the open house.
- Beth, Nick, Karen to discuss modifying the acceptance letter to clarify how appointments with the faculty are set up.
- Beth to send numbers regarding travel reimbursements for all students to Karen, Karen to discuss to Jaime.
- Nick to send mail to faculty telling them to start reading. (Will do this Monday)
- Nick to ask Sophia to start scheduling sector admissions meetings.
- Karen to follow up on the USAF Academy data.
- Karen to send email to faculty requesting yield data early next week.
- Review status
- Kerri Cahoy Rookie of the Year Award (Jackie Robinson award in MLB)
- 523 Complete Folders out of 545 started. 523 compares to 466 last year.
- x 162 Probably Reject
- y 221 Admissible and sent to Sectors
- z 140 need GAC to finish reviews (zz Folders GAC needs to read, concentrated in yy, BLW to twist arms - 3 are behind and should discuss, others tracking to end of week)
- We are a little behind and should just finish (actually a bit ahead, but we need to get things done a bit quicker due to Quals/Fac Retreat Week)
- Review rejected minority/female URM & Female candidates
- BLW to project list of URM and Female and discuss real time
-
- (discussed the 2.0+ cases and changed a couple to admissible)
- Open house: Open house is March 15th
- Should we do the lunch differently? We already know 1.5 hours is too long, especially if only ten faculty are present.
- Moe observed it is hard to mingle. Beth proposes a bigger room and a buffet, to give a way to mingle.
- Two possibilities: bigger room with names on the tables, or standing tables.
- Consensus: lunch should be done different. Action: Beth to explore options.
- No closing reception this year: expensive, faculty don't go and the student are about to go out to dinner anyhow.
- Students are bothered by the absence of faculty. Karen to discuss with Jaime encouraging more faculty to be present. Another way to do this is to manage the student expectations: have the students make appointments with the faculty ahead of time. Great idea Paulo! Action: Beth, Nick, Karen to discuss modifying the acceptance letter to clarify this.
- Can we offer the travel reimbursement to all students? Action: Beth to send numbers to Karen, Karen to discuss to Jaime.
- Sector meetings : they need to be scheduled Week of Feb 13-17th..
- Action: Nick to send mail to faculty telling to start reading.
- *Action: Nick to ask Sophia to start scheduling sector admissions meetings: Quentin/How, Sally/Hansman, Robin/Greitzer. *
- Need to get USAF academy rankings
- Karen emailed on Dec 16th. No response yet. Action: Karen to follow up.
- Need to start collecting yield data.
- Action: Karen to send out email to faculty requesting yield data early next week.
- Improved format from last year (thanks Beth!) to be continued
- Faculty participation
- Karen/Jaime to encourage this, other ideas? (Karen will send email to remind people and encourage participation)
- Set expectations in invite letter (was this done last year as planned?) - make appointments with individual faculty (done last year, will repeat)
- Beth to tell us how travel reimbursement works for students based on last year. Modify acceptance letter? (reimbursements same, for female, URM and fellowships)
- Sector meetings being scheduled (any update?) (Info should be 2/15, other TBA)
- USAF academy rankings should be here (BLW requested) (Here, being placed on Wiki)
- Yield data (survey to faculty) went out from Karen. Jan. 21 due date, suggest Karen followup Jan. 18 (Fri) (Karen/Jean will follow up then get GAC info)
- Any comments on the process, suggested changes for the future?
- Open discussion (Only faculty/senior PIs should be allowed to enter ranked reviews in system - others can help. can't police this 100% but the policy should be there)
- BLW observation. Our increased volume of applicants, but non-volume-based criteria for sending to Sectors, may be sending too many low-quality applicants to the faculty.
- Our cutoff for sending to Sector might be adjusted upward or redefined given applicant volume vs. Admission Need.
- Last year 104 were Admitted, yet 271 were sent to Faculty to read
- As of 1/13/13, we have 202 Folders done by GAC with 3+ average score, and 142 between 2 and 3. Numbers not final but one might think that all our Admits (assuming similar to last year) could come from 3+ bucket
- This would essentially pull Needed student volume (from faculty survey) forward in the Admissions process
- Discuss? (discussed - think things are working well the way they are, with the new improvements at the GAC level reducing number of reviews)
- None.
{"serverDuration": 170, "requestCorrelationId": "14409d0fb01c58fd"}