A peek into the admissions committee

Around this time of year I like to give readers a glimpse of our admissions committee review process. Given that last week I encouraged current applicants to stay patient and do their homework (kindly, I hope!) while they wait on us, it seems only fair to offer a few details about the goings-on on our end of things. I’ve written before about all the application processing, data work, and reading that occupies us currently, but the many, many in-depth discussions in which our committee engages are one of the most crucial parts of our process, and perhaps something of a mystery to applicants.

Amid the stresses of application season, one thing that keeps me sleeping well at night (beyond general exhaustion) is confidence in the integrity of our review process. Even the very best and very less-than-best applications to Fletcher are reviewed a minimum of three times by different people, and a large chunk receive considerably more detailed attention. Enter the admissions committee, meetings of which are one of my favorite parts of the year. The committee is a great cross-section of the Fletcher community, including Admissions staff, faculty, current student readers, and the Directors of the Office of Career Services and Student Services. It’s an opportunity to interact with all these folks in a unique capacity, and every member’s voice carries equal weight (it sometimes takes students a few meetings to get used to being able to confidently disagree with their professors). We place a premium on arriving at consensus, and rarely (if ever) resort to voting, even if the ultimate consensus is at times a bit of a cold one. Some discussions are relatively brief and straightforward, and others find us going in circles for a while.

Last week’s meeting offered a few good examples of the latter. We spent a long time discussing a candidate with an atypical profile, hailing from a part of the world that’s traditionally under-represented in our student body. There was consensus enthusiasm for the candidate’s life experiences and budding professional career, but also shared concern about some portions of the academic record. In another case, the committee was puzzled by a candidate with a quite stellar academic background from a top institution, but a strange lack of an established professional footing since graduation. In both cases, the group decided to pursue some further information from each candidate in the hopes of gaining some clarity.

This is the beauty of the committee process: we’re able to worry over these cases, to hear multiple perspectives, and return to them in subsequent weeks as needed. There’s no rule insisting that every case must be resolved on the spot. In general, the committee is inclined to look for reasons to support an offer of admission, and if there seems a reasonable chance of this kind of information emerging, the group is happy to table a case for a time while our office investigates further. Those candidates ultimately denied admission have still had the most thorough possible consideration. We all try to be mindful of our implicit biases, but the committee process ensures that no single viewpoint or opinion carries the day.