ADMISSIONS REVIEWER TRAINING

Your reviewer reference

Keep the evidence behind every rating clear. Use this reference alongside the approved Admissions procedures and current rubric.

Save the offline reference to keep a copy with the logo and guidance included. On a phone, your browser’s Share or Print menu may also offer Save to Files or PDF.

A rating another reviewer can understand

1. Identify the criterion. Evaluate the specific competency assigned.
2. Record the response evidence. Name what the applicant said, proposed or explained.
3. Match the descriptor. Select the approved numbered description that best fits the evidence.
4. Check the reasoning. Look for an unsupported assumption or unrelated impression.

Before submitting a rating

1. I used the assigned criterion and approved rating descriptions.
2. I considered the full response.
3. I recorded specific supporting evidence.
4. I chose the description that best fits the evidence.
5. I checked whether unrelated impressions affected my score.

Common patterns and a useful reset

Halo or horn: one impression spills into another judgment. Return to the assigned criterion.

Confirmation: an early conclusion filters later evidence. Consider the full response, including details that change your view.

Ingroup: familiarity substitutes for relevant evidence. Name the actions that matter for the criterion.

Bizarreness effect: an unusual detail attracts extra attention. Evaluate the skill demonstrated by the experience.

Contrast: the previous applicant becomes the benchmark. Return to the approved rating descriptions.

Evidence and assumptions

Evidence: “The applicant said they would speak privately with the teammate.”

Assumption: “The applicant seems mature and naturally empathetic.”

A proposed action can be relevant evidence in a situational answer. Evaluate the plan described without adding unstated actions or demanding a completed outcome that the question did not request.

Teamwork: Communication

Approved descriptions supplied for this training. Evaluate this criterion independently.

1. Needs Improvement. Does not address the issue or communicate with the team member
2. Fair. Attempts to communicate but lacks clarity or respect
3. Good. Communicates with the team member with some clarity and respect
4. Very Good. Clearly and respectfully communicates with the team member to understand their perspective
5. Excellent. Exemplifies clear, respectful, and empathetic communication, fully understanding the team member's challenges

Teamwork: Follow-Up and Feedback

Approved descriptions supplied for this training. Evaluate this criterion independently.

1. Needs Improvement. Does not follow up or seek feedback
2. Fair. Minimal follow-up or feedback mechanisms
3. Good. Regularly checks in and seeks some feedback
4. Very Good. Consistently follows up and creates a feedback loop
5. Excellent. Exemplifies thorough follow-up and feedback mechanisms, ensuring continuous improvement and team cohesion

When evidence is missing or an anchor is unclear

Use the approved Admissions process for clarification and missing information. A memorable experience or perceived sincerity does not establish a competency by itself. Do not invent a score, an unofficial criterion or an unapproved follow-up question.

Your next review

Before selecting a number, record a specific action or statement from the response and the rubric wording it supports.