You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 15 Next »

Minutes for the GAC meeting, 1/12/2012
  • Summary action items:
    • GAC needs to pick up the pace.
    • Done: Beth and Nick to check with specific faculty on rejects of under-represented groups.
    • Done: reply pending. Nick to contact letter writers of Dinesh Sivanandan, ask for verification.
    • Beth to explore options re: changing the format of the open house lunch.
    • 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
    • 452 complete and assigned, 25 missing material, 23 rejected due to low TOEFL, 2 rejected as incomplete.
      • 4 processed as off-cycle
      • 87 Admissible, sent for sector review
      • 58 Inadmissible, no further action.
      • Of those 145, 7 had a third review.
    • Of the remaining 307:
      • 43 ready for decision
      • 22 Pending GAC 3rd review
      • 242 Pending initial GAC review
    • Last year by now, we had 110 sent to sectors, 117 deemed inadmissible, with 49 third reviews. Even then, it was a major push to get the folders read. We are significantly behind, and the faculty need to start reading folders very soon.
  • Review rejected minority/female candidates
    • Possibly reconsider:
      • Adrian Bullock – check with Martinez-Sanchez. Action: Beth to assign to Manuel, Nick to mail Manuel.
      • Joseph Bynoe – Lozano says yes, increased to 2 in meeting.
      • Eden Dahan – ask Dave Miller. Action: Beth to assign to Dave, Nick to mail Dave.
      • Edwin Gomez – are the 1's just a result of the GREs? Seemed to do better at MIT. Double-check with Hamsa and Nancy. Action: Nick to mail them.
    • These applicants were looked at in the meeting, and will not be reconsidered:
      • Neeti Banerjee – weak letters, grades
      • Timothy Bright – grades just too low.
      • Angelica Ceniceros – weak letters, grades. Wardle confirmed his 2 is a weak 2.
      • Brittany Essink – grades not disastrously weak, GRE showed improvement. Wardle confirmed his 2 is a weak 2.
      • Esteban Maradona – grades low, Wardle confirmed his 2 is a weak 2.
      • Luz Maria Martinez Sierra – grades low, GRE low, letters not overwhelming.
      • Rochelle Mellish – double-check with Frazzoli. Nick says no.
      • Natalie Spenser — grades low, no academic letters.
  • Paulo brought up Sara Jamil, who has a strong connection to Sara Seager in EAPS. Action: Beth to add Sara Seager to the system, assign her the Sara Jamil folder. Nick to mail her.
  • Beth brought up Prakash Shrestha. He has had inappropriate, harrassing communications with Beth. Need to look carefully about this candidate.
  • Discussion of the forged letters of Nomana Hadi. Possibly issue with Dinesh Sivanandan. Action: Nick to contact letter writers, ask for verification.
  • Open house : Open house is March 16th.
    • Beth presented the following issues with the open house.
    • 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.
  • Any comments on the process, suggested changes for the future?
    • None.
  • No labels