91��ý

Yes. Programs may use a multi-stage review process, such as:

• Initial screening (e.g., minimum eligibility, required materials)
• Full holistic review
• Interview evaluation

This approach supports efficiency while maintaining holistic review.

Yes. Trained staff may assist with initial screening. Faculty should remain centrally involved in decisions about interviews and final admissions.

��Not necessarily. Applications that do not meet explicitly stated minimum requirements, are missing required materials, or are clearly misaligned with available faculty may be screened out prior to full faculty review. However, admissions decisions should not rely solely on automated processes or a single metric (e.g., GPA).

Rubrics can be built directly into Slate and incorporated into your program’s application review workflow for all designated reviewers.

Excel is preferred for initial development (especially for scoring and weighting). Programs may also use Word for drafting narrative components.

No. Rubrics are tools to support consistency, transparency, and documentation. Final admissions decisions remain with the program and faculty.

Yes. Faculty judgment remains essential. Programs may admit applicants based on strong research alignment, fit, or other strengths not fully captured by a total score. We recommend clearly documenting the rationale for decisions, especially when departing from overall rankings.

Yes, with care. Programs should avoid rigid cutoffs that may unintentionally exclude strong applicants, particularly those with non-traditional paths or uneven access to opportunities.

Yes. Programs are encouraged to weight criteria based on disciplinary priorities (e.g., research experience, faculty fit).

Yes. Structured interviews with consistent questions and evaluation criteria are strongly recommended.

Programs may either:

• Extend the application rubric, or
• Use a separate interview rubric

Both are acceptable.

At least two reviewers is recommended, including one faculty member.

Yes. Brief calibration or norming sessions help ensure consistent and equitable evaluation across reviewers.

Brief, objective comments are encouraged, especially when recommending for interview, denying after review, or deviating from rubric scores.

Programs may include faculty/lab fit or research alignment as a formal rubric category.

Relevant criteria may include research alignment, technical or methodological expertise, relevant experiences, competencies, and potential for success within a specific lab environment.

Programs should define “fit” using clearly identifiable, program-related criteria rather than general impressions or personal preference.

Faculty may:

• Advocate for applicants who are strong matches for their lab
• Recommend admission even if the applicant is not the highest scoring overall

Clear documentation of rationale is important for consistency and transparency.