ucb_phdapp

8/21/2019 ucb_phdapp

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ucbphdapp 1/10

UC Berkeley Department of Political ScienceOnline PhD Application Management and Review System

Prepared and submitted by Janet E. Newhall

Project Leader: Janet E. Newhall, Graduate Advisor or Admissions and Job Placement !eam "embers:

• !im #is$en, pro%rammer&

• Gilbert 'ernande(, department )! proessional

• Andrea *e+, Graduate Advisor or urrent -tudents

• ic$i Lucas, /epartment "ana%er



Proect S!mmary

!he /epartment o Political -cience, 0 1er$eley internally desi%ned P'P2based online application mana%ement and review system was desi%nedbased on successul systems at other 0 campuses and at 1er$eley, alon%

with the e+pressed needs o department aculty and sta3, as well asprospective students. !he result is a comprehensive application data,document, and review system that has dramatically simpli4ed theapplication mana%ement process. !his has allowed us to dramatically cut thenumber o sta3 hours re5uired durin% the admissions process, improvestudent service to our applicants, and create a hi%h 5uality and e6cientreview process or our aculty admissions committee.

Proect Description

About 4ve years a%o, the sta3 and aculty in the department decided that it

was time to move to an online Ph/ application review process rather thanthe traditional paper review process still used by many departments today. !he campus was ully en%a%ed in acceptin% applications online, and we eltwe should ta$e advanta%e o the process. #or two years, we used a primitivebut airly e3ective internally2desi%ned system to which we could upload datacollected by the Graduate /ivision application and allow aculty on theadmissions committee to review this data online. 7hile aculty ullyembraced and appreciated the online review process, several limitations othe system prevented a smooth review process and proved to be very laborintensive or sta3 members who would scan and upload each documentsubmitted by applicants throu%h the mail, which totaled in the thousands.

Encoura%ed by campus enthusiasm or a new system bein% desi%ned inanother department called 89ur 0nit, the department decided to retire theinternally desi%ned system and subscribe to this new system. 7ithin a shorttime at the be%innin% o the ollowin% admissions cycle, we reali(ed that inaddition to a ew serious security concerns, 9ur 0nit ailed to meet many othe needs o our admissions committee includin% searchin%, sortin%, andreportin%, all o which are essential aspects o our review process.

7e then decided to build a new system with the %oal o creatin% a systemthat would not only meet our current needs, but would also be dynamic and;e+ible enou%h to meet our chan%in% needs in the uture, and hopeully the

needs o other departments on campus. 7e be%an by researchin% thesystems used at other 0 campuses ollowed by visits to the admissions sta3 at departments on 0 1er$eley campus with e+emplary systems o theirown. 7e then created a ;ow chart o the needs o our three primary users,which are applicants, sta3, and aculty. !he ollowin% three sections outlinethe unctionality o the system or each o these %roups.

Applicants



• 9ne o the primary needs o an applicant durin% the application processis re%ular updates on the status o the application. 7hether we<vereceived their o6cial transcripts, recommendation letters, o6cial G*Escores, etc. !he standard method or handlin% this need is orapplicants to email sta3, and or sta3 to %o throu%h physical or

computer2based 4les to 4nd whether these documents have beenreceived. 7e thereore developed a simple, short, online summary pa%ewhere applicants can see a list o the materials we are e+pectin% andwhich o those we have received. !his inormation is entered by sta3.

• !wo speci4c documents that our department re5uires or the application

that are not re5uired by the Graduate /ivision are a writin% sample and. Previously, these documents were sent by mail, which resulted inenormous stac$s o paper mailed at %reat e+pense by applicants, andmana%ed over many sta3 hours or aculty review. !he applicantsummary pa%e also includes an 80pload /ocument unction or thesetwo documents, savin% both sta3 and applicant a %reat amount o time

and resources.• 9ccasionally, admissions sta3 may wish to convey a messa%e to the

entire applicant pool or to individual applicants about the admissionsprocess or individual 4les. !he normal procedure has been to send amass email. -ta3 can now leave personal or all2applicant messa%es orapplicants that appear at the very top o the applicant<s summary pa%e. !hese messa%es also include the email address o our admissions o6cein case the applicant has urther 5uestions.

Staf

• As mentioned in the student section, sta3 can now enter when they

have received an applicant<s document with %reat ease, which is thenconveyed in real time on the applicant<s summary pa%e. !his not onlysaves an enormous amount o time in individual correspondence withapplicants, it simultaneously %reatly improves student service byprovidin% immediate eedbac$. !his also provides aculty and sta3 withan accurate record o which materials are accounted or in theapplication. -ta3 are also able to update the decision status o eachapplication =not viewable by applicants& as the committee pro%ressesthrou%h its decision ma$in% process.

• -ince our system is able to automatically pull updated data and online

recommendation letters rom the Graduate /ivision admissionsdatabase, we are able to re%ularly %lance throu%h applicant 4les toupdate the status with the clic$ o a button to indicate to all userswhether a 4le is complete. 1ecause we mar$ both individual sections=i.e., whether we<ve received all e+pected transcripts&, as well as theapplication as a whole, aculty can decide whether to review anincomplete application based on the materials present.



• 1ecause many campus people are usin% the system, it is essential tolimit the unctionality and privile%es o each o these people. Peopleidenti4ed by campus as members o this department are automaticallylisted on our privile%es pa%e, and sta3 can choose to desi%nate them asone o a number o assi%ned roles such as sta3 administrator,

admissions committee chair, committee member, or non2committeemember aculty.

• -ta3 are able to leave messa%es within the system or both applicants

=which appears on the applicant summary pa%e& and or aculty, whichthey see when reviewin% each 4le.

• -ortin% and reportin% unctions allow sta3 to $eep trac$ o a variety o%roups o applicants such as complete applications, or which applicantsare applyin% to a particular speciali(ation within the department.

• !he person=s& assi%ned as sta3 administrator are able to chan%e a

number o system settin%s, which creates some ;e+ibility in how theadmissions process ta$es place. -ettin%s which may be chan%ed

include desi%natin% a new admissions cycle =thereore archivin%previous cycles, which can then be easily accessed later&, whichmaterials are re5uired by applicants, and the status options orapplications.

Faculty

• !he committee chair has the authority to assi%n aculty committee

members to review speci4c applications. !he chair can assi%n one ormultiple aculty at once, and as many or ew as he sees 4t and withinthe current parameters o department admissions policy. !hesecommittee members can then enter their own names into a search bo+to 4nd the list o applicants to which they were assi%ned.

• Ater committee members 4nd their list, they can search and sort the

list by one or more o a number o application elements includin%under%raduate institution and>or GPA, preerred sub4eld o study, andcurrent committee evaluation avera%e score. !hey can then clic$ on anapplicant name to view that 4le, and scroll throu%h all applicationswithin those search parameters without havin% to return to the list,which saves the reviewer a %reat deal o time and rustration whencombin% throu%h over ?@@ applications.

• 7hile reviewin% an applicant 4le, the reviewer may e+pand or shrin$

each section o the application or easier viewin% o speci4c sections othe application. #or e+ample, i a reviewer wishes to %lance at the GPAand G*E score brea$downs o each o their assi%ned applicants within acertain sub4eld, they can create a viewin% environment which allowsthem to do this with ease.

• )n order to review application documents such as transcripts,

recommendation letters, and writin% samples, a reviewer clic$s on thename o the document, and is brou%ht to a pa%e within the system with



an embedded P/# viewer. 0nli$e most other application reviewsystems, this prevents the need or a new P/# window to open, andallows to reviewer continued access to a ew main menu items such as8return to applicant without havin% to use browser unctions. !his hasalso allowed us to include buttons allowin% the reviewer to scroll

throu%h all o the documents in an applicant<s 4le without havin% toreturn to the main applicant pa%e. !his unctionality brin%s to onlinereview one o the preerred advanta%es o reviewin% applications bypaper, which is the ability to 8;ip throu%h the pa%es o the application.

• As the committee member reviews 4les, he or she can immediately

leave and save comments and scores or the applicant within thesystem. ommittee members are able to edit their scores andcomments durin% the review process as they become more amiliarwith the applicant pool or learn additional inormation about anapplicant. !hese comments and scores are currently viewable by othercommittee membersas dictated by current department admissions

policybut this can easily be chan%ed to ma$e this inormationcon4dential rom other committee members.

• 9nce the reviewer has 4nished with all applications, he or she may

choose to manipulate data in ar more complicated ways than is withinthe scope o this system. !hereore, we added the unction to e+portdata to a csv 4le, which includes the reviewer<s individual scores oreach applicant. !his e+ported data 4le is also used durin% theadmissions review meetin%s, when each committee member brin%s hisor her own laptop with which to review individual 4les durin% themeetin%, and the admissions sta3 person at the meetin% mana%es thedecisions bein% made durin% the meetin% usin% the e+ported

spreadsheet.

S!mmary

"ost campus departments have developed their own procedures or dealin%with the massive underta$in% that is admissions. -ome have created#ile"a$er Pro databases to mana%e data. "any have some combination opaper and online application mana%ement and review, while some stillconduct the entire process by paper. As the 0 1er$eley campus wor$stoward developin% a new campus2wide application system, they aree+plorin% the possibilities or includin% a comprehensive online review

system or all departments to use, as well. 9ur department has been closelyinvolved with the development o this system, and we are con4dent that ouronline review system will be an important model or the based on eedbac$rom other admissions sta3 around campus as well as central campusadmissions mana%ers. 1ecause our system has been lar%ely inspired bysome o the best in the 0 system, we believe it to be one o the bestdepartment2developed admissions review systems and hope to be able to



share our %reatly improved admissions process with many others aroundcampus and throu%hout the system.



"echnology Used in the Proect

Scanning-otware and hardware rom anon are heavily utili(ed in the scannin% se%ment othe wor$;ow. 'undreds o application documents %o rom a physical medium to anonline orm in mere minutes instead o several hours and days.Software#$ardware Usageanon ima%e*unner B@CD /i%italopier

-cans a batch o documents =Letterso *ecommendation and !ranscripts&received rom applicants and storesthem on an on2campus 4le server asa sin%le 4le

anon ima%e7are -can"ana%er )ndenti4es, inde+es, separates,renames, and stores each documentrom the batch 4le scanned by thecopier as individual P/# 4les on the4le server.

%e& Application !he web application ollows common practices and utili(es standard webdevelopment technolo%ies such as P'P, "y-L, '!"L, Java-cript, and F"L. 1elow isa table o speci4c tools ound in the project that use these technolo%ies:"echnology Usageend #ramewor$http:>>ramewor$.(end.com

end is an " ="odel2iew2ontroller& P'P ramewor$ used as abuildin% bloc$ to create webapplications. 7e elected to use a phpramewor$, li$e end, to eliminatethe need to 8reinvent the wheel

when writin% code needed to connectto databases, authenticate users, etc.phpA-http:>>www.ja2si%.or%>wi$i>display>A->phpA-

A- is a secure authenticationsystem used to securely lo% users inand out o the system. Each user,when authenticated and reco%ni(ed,is assi%ned a speci4c role in thesystem thus increasin% applicationsecurity by limitin% user ri%hts andpermissions to certain unctionsrelated to that role. phpA- is amodule written in P'P to help

inte%rate and acilitate theauthentication within the system. jueryhttp:>>juery.com

juery is a Java-cript library used tohelp ease codin% by providin% manyuseul unctions or documenttraversin%, animation, eventhandlin%, etc. juery is used in thesystem to animate certain sections o the user interace =0)& or better



usability. =e.%. lic$in% sectionheadin%s can to%%le sections o theapplicant view thereby eliminatin%clutter on the pa%e&

Other Camp!s Systems Utili'ed !he system utili(es pree+istin% campus resources to accomplish several tas$s. !hese campus %roups and tas$s are detailed below:(ro!p System Usage0 1er$eley Graduate/ivision

Graduate Admissions9racle /atabase =9/1&

9ur system uses severalviews o the Graduate/ivision<s admissionsdatabase to retrieveapplicant inormationsuch as Letters o*ecommendation,-tatement o Purpose,#ield o -tudy, etc.

0 1er$eley olle%e oLetters and -cienceomputer *esources0nit =L-*&http:>>ls.ber$eley.edu>lscr

7eb -erver 7eb and "y-L/atabase hostin%

L-* #ile -erver !emporary stora%e oscanned P/# documentsrom copier

"imeframe of )mplementation !he entire project too$ appro+imately D months to complete ="ay to November&.Stage "imeframe-cannin% and #ile -tora%e H wee$sNeeds Assessment ? wee$Application /esi%n I wee$sApplication odin% > )mplementation ?@ wee$s

!estin% > /ebu%%in% wee$s



User Comments*

!he admissions database system was desi%ned or use primarily by the acultyadmissions committee. ommittee members responded e+tremely avorably to theelectronic system on multiple %rounds: ease o useK e6ciencyK transparencyKability to revise and compare ran$in%s rom di3erent committee membersK and

overall reliability>security.

9ne member o the admissions committee, servin% or the 4rst time this year, said:

!he system was incredibly helpul. 1y havin% direct access to adatabase o documents, ) was able to review 4les at any time or place )ound convenient, without havin% to worry that while ) had the 4lechec$ed out someone else was unable to use it. !he system is also verywell2or%ani(ed, ma$in% it easy to compare applicants in any majordimension.

Another aculty member who had served on the admission committee several times

in previous years, commented by sayin%,

!he %raduate admissions system has been dramatically improved by%oin%paperless. !he current system is easy to navi%ate rom oneapplication to another or rom one piece o a candidateMs 4le to others.

!he ability to enter comments, see the comments o others, and editoneMs own scores provide additional pluses. !his has wor$ede+ceptionally well and clearly acilitated my own review o 4les.

!he continual improvement o the database was hi%hli%hted by a committeemember, who said this year<s system made reviewin% 4les 8easier and more

systematic and said it was 8%reat not to have to haul a bi% stac$ o applicationsbac$ and orth between home and o6ce. Even more than convenience ande6ciency, however, this committee member emphasi(ed how the databaseimproved the 5uality o the selection process itsel:

Each year, admission committee members write more comprehensive5ualitative evaluations in the remar$s section, allowin% us to ma$e moreaccurate assessments in later rounds. )nstead o just loo$in% at a5uantitative score, we can also reer to these 5ualitative assessments.

!he 5ualitative improvements in the process 4%ured in the comments o anothercommittee member, who compared the admissions process in Political -cience tothat in other departments:

) thin$ the admissions database is antastic. ) do admissions in anotherdepartment, too, and the database is the sin%le most important actor inma$in% the process in Political -cience more e6cient, more humane,more transparent, and more e5uitable. !Ohe way my otherdepartment does this =not allowin% any 4les to leave the buildin%, whichis loc$ed in the evenin%s& is really tou%h, and ) suspect it leads to all



sorts o corner2cuttin%. #acin% well over our hundred applications, )Mmat a loss to e+plain how we could do without the electronic database. )ound it intuitive and easy to use, and was deli%hted to 4nd that theinormation ) wanted was always available or each 4le andcomparatively.

!he committee chair or I@@C2I@?@ also noted that the electronic databasepermitted secure access to particular applications by a ran%e o aculty collea%uesin the department, with important conse5uences or ma$in% %ood admissionsdecisions and or usin% departmental resources e6ciently.

1y allowin% non2committee collea%ues to read particular applicationswithout transerrin% paper 4les, the new system %reatly improved thecommittee<s ability to %et speciali(ed readin%s o individual applicantsto the %raduate pro%ram. !his led to better decisions and more reliablematchin% o applicants to departmental aculty. )n several cases, it alsoled to important cost savin%s or the department when non2committeecollea%ues su%%ested undin% sources or particular applicants that the

committee would otherwise not have not been able to identiy or secure.

Accordin% to the committee chair, all committee members commented inormallyon how much more di6cult the process would have been without the electronicdatabase to acilitate and %uide their readin%s.

Documents

ucb_phdapp