I'll see you in appeals!

My reading team is done, having started and finished our last region this morning. Just two states, but 31 applications, from which we selected 11 as finalists. One state was much more competitive than the other -- we took 3/13 from one, but 8/18 in the other. There were a few excellent applications, including one which we considered giving the label of "outstanding" to. The foundation asks us to reserve that designation for truly deserving files, and this one was awfully close. One of the three of us was convinced -- the other two (including me) thought it was close, but not quite in that category. We did not name any of the 104 files we read in the last 48 hours as "outstanding."

Now, of course, my thoughts are on the same topic as many FacReps' -- the appeals process. One of my four nominees has been named a finalist; the other three candidates from Grinnell did not advance. I had a good conversation with Tara about generalities of the appeals process -- not "which of mine should I appeal?" but "how does this work, and, in general, how should FacReps decide which non-selected candidate to put forward?" Here are her thoughts:

1) They are really looking for candidates who were overlooked in the selection process. These are often non-traditional candidates, transfer students, and others whose file may present some challenges to read.
2) Each region has about 2-3 spots to fill, maximum, from the appeals process. States don't matter at this point -- they are all considered together in one region. Some regions do have more candidates than others, though.
3) Appeals are all read on Friday by a team of about three people -- Tara, the most senior reader (20+ years of experience), and a third reader from the greater DC area. None of them re-read files that they scored earlier in the week. They do not take the original readers' notes and scores into account.
4) I asked if there is any strategy in appealing every year (as I do) vs. only appealing when the FacRep feels that there has been a major oversight (as some others do). She did not have a solid recommendation on this -- they do not know all of the FacReps well enough to know "this person never appeals, so take it seriously" or "this person appeals every year, so just ignore him." An appeal is an appeal, and they don't look at the institution when they look at the candidate.
5) Really, all she needs is the name and state. REALLY. Don't take time to send her more than that -- your finely-crafted paragraph explaining why the candidate's non-selection was a mistake won't impact the appeal process at all.

Bottom line: which one of your non-selected candidates has the best record of service, leadership, and a solid academic plan for the future? Appeal that one.

I also wanted to add a note about academics in the Truman competition. One of my big realizations this year is that this part of the Truman score is not about academic ability - it is about the appropriateness of the graduate school plan for this student, given their academic record and plans for the future. A 4.0 who plans to go to the Kennedy School is not better off than a 3.6 who plans to go to [insert school here who I am not going to offend by naming], if both of their plans make total sense for their academic record and future plans. Academics are the least-important of the three criteria, as demonstrated by it only being scored on a 2-point scale, whereas leadership and service are scored on 3-point scales.

That said, as I wrote yesterday, there are a TON of very high-GPA students in the pool. I would guess that around 2/3 to 3/4 of the pool has a GPA of 3.9+, with almost all of the rest in the 3.7 range, and about 5% in the 3.5 range. So, yes, there are a lot of Truman finalists and scholars with sky-high GPAs, but that reflects the applicant pool, not a bias in the selection process. My team put forward several students in that 3.5-3.7 range. It's a remarkably strong pool academically -- and most of them have reasonable graduate school plans. Where students lost points with me was when their grad school plans and future career did not match what they have done in the past -- when that disconnect appears.