LCWL Group Covenors
Evaluating Grad Applicants
Feedback on applications must come to me as the rankings of the group as a whole. In other words, however many of your faculty participate, the GSC wants just one set of rankings from your group, not one set from each faculty member.
Also, your group is responsible for ranking all applicants in your field. If any applicants
are unranked, the GSC will disregard the entire set. If the aim is to move away from
the unevenness of the old system for reviewing writing samples, we must have all students
(not just some) reviewed by the faculty in the area in order to validate the results
of that review.
Note: this should not be so cumbersome, as most fields are unlikely to have only 5-10 applicants.
As a group, you can arrange whatever system you'd like for collecting the results of your review. But the results that you forward to the Graduate Studies Committee must take this form: evaluation on a scale that runs from 5 (the highest) down to 1 (the lowest). It's the numerical scale we use on the Committee, and here is what the numbers mean:
- 5 - Excellent applicant, definitely admit and fund, potential nominee for Chancellor's Fellowship
- 4 - Very good applicant, definitely admit and fund
- 3 - Good applicant, definitely admit, offer funding if available
- 2 - Marginal applicant, maybe admit, but not a priority for funding
- 1 - Poor applicant, do not admit,
All you should forward to the Committee, then, is a list of the names in your field coupled with a numerical ranking. Rankings that come from groups will be supplemental to the rankings arrived at by members of the GSC.
- BH:Book History
- F/MS: Film/Media Studies
- C17:17th-Century Brit
- LSJE:Literature, Social Justice, Environment
- Med:Medieval lit
- NCS:Nineteenth-Century Studies (Brit/Am/Comp)
- OE:Old English
- Comp Lit
Tell your faculty that they are welcome to browse all Lit applications if they wish to do so. At minimum they should browse the spreadsheet itself.