GEM Operations

Removing Barriers to Admission–The Effects of Waiving/Removing Entrance Test on Graduate Applicant GPA and Academic Performance

Presented by Melissa Webb, EdD, University of West Florida Reported by Patricia Pothour, University of Iowa, Tippie College of Business

Standardized test scores have been used in admissions for more than a hundred years. These tests are used to evaluate and screen applicants and are considered a more quantitative measurement of merit than GPA. While these tests provide additional criteria to be used in the admissions process, there are pros and cons. Standardized tests can provide an objective measurement, specific information regarding verbal, quantitative, and writing abilities, as well as showing intent to enroll (being willing to prepare and sit for the exam shows motivation). However, standardized tests have not been shown to be a good predictor of success, may create bias, and are not being used consistently across admissions.

What happens if we stop requiring standardized test scores? The University of West Florida (UWF) began waiving graduate admission test scores in 2014, requiring tests based on GPA. The waiving of standardized tests was broadened in 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. UWF wanted to understand how students felt about the lack of standardized tests in the admissions process. A survey was sent to 1584 students who were admitted without the need to submit test scores with a 20% participation rate. This survey revealed, of those who responded, 75% would not have applied for admission or would have considered not applying for admission had test scores been required. The top reason these students would not have applied if tests were required, was the time needed to prepare and take the exam (48.63%). This survey showed more students would have questioned if they would have applied for admission or not, but UWF also wanted to see how students who did not need to submit standardized tests were performing in the classroom. UWF reviewed eight semesters of data and over 5000 students looking at the GPA at the point of admission and the GPA at the end of the first semester. On average, the incoming GPA of those who did not submit test scores was higher than those who did submit test scores. In looking at the GPA of these students after the first semester, the GPA of those who did not submit scores and those who did, were nearly identical. Through the student survey and the data review, UWF found waiving the standardized test scores resulted in increased applications, as well as consistent incoming and first semester GPAs. While admissions was not able to use this additional piece of information in the admissions process, there was no difference in academic performance after admission. The presentation stressed the importance of tracking academic performance, retention, and the continual evaluation of admission practices to minimize barriers. n

“You’re on Mute”: Leading Hybrid Teams

Presented by Jennifer Sayre, PhD; Erin Heilmeier, MEd, Bowling Green State University Reported by Patricia Pothour, EdD, University of Iowa Tippie College of Business

As we move from situations where many teams were fully remote, we are coming back to work in a variety of ways. Some offices are back 100% in person, some are continuing in a hybrid format, and some are remaining fully remote. Although we may not have considered working remotely, or leading remote or hybrid teams in the past, it is quickly becoming a new normal. As a result of hybrid working arrangements some leaders witnessed increased compassion for each other, with humility and grace becoming more apparent in the workday. In addition, because hybrid work tends to be more flexible, it offers many benefits such as: • improving work life balance; • providing uninterrupted time for staff to focus on projects; • making available a larger applicant pool for open positions; • increasing time savings, productivity, satisfaction, and working days for our teams.

The challenges of hybrid working arrangements, especially for the leaders of these remote and hybrid teams includes a lack of institutional understanding and support as well as: • monitoring work assignments; • keeping team members on task; • on-boarding new staff members; • fighting feelings of isolation; • finding ways for leaders to be proactive in keeping teams engaged in different ways.

Hybrid work looks like it is here to stay, so we need to embrace the change and understand how to best lead hybrid teams. • Get regularly scheduled, all-team meetings on the calendar and cancel if needed, but have the time and space for the team to get together. • In meetings, it is also important to leave time for the non-work conversation among team members.

Remember, email isn’t the only way to communicate. • Utilize the different communication you have available through instant messaging, video meetings, or phone calls to connect. • Encourage social interaction, even in the hybrid world. Host a virtual team building activity or challenge. And if something is happening in person, always include a virtual option to allow everyone the opportunity to participate.

Our new work environments have pros and cons, as leaders we must find ways to fully engage staff and leverage these new opportunities to recruit and retain our teams. n

The NAGAP Experts Bureau

The NAGAP Experts Bureau provides members, as well as outside media, with valuable and reliable resources in the matters of GEM. NAGAP members benefit from having well-respected colleagues within the organization who can confidently and respectfully respond to their best-practice questions or concerns.

Areas of expertise include, but are not limited to: • Recruitment & Marketing • Graduate & Adult Student Services • Ethical Issues in GEM • International Recruitment & Retention • Staff Professional Development • Admissions Policies & Procedures and Operations & Technologies • Diversity & Inclusion in GEM • Academic Program Development • STEM, Biomedical, Medical School Recruitment and Retention

Questions, concerns, or feedback for the Experts Bureau may be directed to nagapmedia@gmail.com.

Are We There Yet? A Navigation Tool for Implementing Change in Graduate Operations

Presented by Hillary Coats, MBA, University of North Alabama Reported by Amanda Selby, EdD, A.T. Still University

Coats began the presentation by pointing out the three questions we need to ask when implementing change at an institution. Those three questions are: 1. Where are we?

2. Where do we want to go? 3. What do we need/how do we get there?

Coats shared the answers her institution had to these questions. First, when considering where you are, look at the layers of the issue, identify ways to add value through meaningful conversation, and innovate how to build a culture of continuous improvement. Coats posited that we need a safe place to share opinions that are respected by others to get there. As for the how, Coats advocated for guided conversations that produce action-oriented collaborations for positive outcomes. You need to define the outcome and project scope, identify challenges, and then make an action plan for this to work. Coats then shared how she and her colleagues accomplished this using Rapid Improvement with Lean Tools, Three Levers for Change Management, and the fundamentals of continuous improvement. Rapid Improvement Events (RIE) are guided conversations using structured tools that support transparent continuous improvement and positive action-oriented outcomes. Participants used the BOSCARD (Background, Objectives, Scope, Constraints, Assumptions, Risks, and Deliverables) approach to discuss and assess the institution’s current state and desired future state. Then, they used idea cards and an interim map to create action items. Process Mapping was an essential tool for accomplishing goals. A process map identifies activities that add value, determines the process to reach goals, and creates a flow to reduce waste. Coats presented a pragmatic approach to mapping that identifies Who (person or system by title), Does (the action or task) What (how the action is carried out). Due to the complicated nature of process mapping (Coats shared a picture of her staff working on a process map covering an entire table), some helpful tips were shared. Pointers included: • stay focused by meeting regularly and holding team members accountable; • shift the paradigm to student outcomes, not the bureaucratic process; • don’t put things off for more than 30 days • maintain shared deliverables; • if you have a CRM, optimize your use of it by maximizing what it can do for you (processes that can save time, money, and energy); • measure results from changes to better predict trends; • be prepared to pivot by developing cross-functional teams; • maximize the use of reporting systems.

Audience members added to the discussion by sharing some of their knowledge. Comments included the idea of mapping processes as you complete them, considering how change might alter other processes. Do not become so focused on the future that you ignore the present. Consider using virtual process mapping tools. Make “mapping days” fun and engaging with catered food or keynote speakers. Coats ended the session with a message that continuous improvement and resource optimization are essential. n

Onboarding New Technology to Your Campus: Tackling Change Successfully

Presented by Jillian Baer and Ujjaini Sahasrabudhe, Liaison International Reported by Amanda Selby, EdD, A.T. Still University

A brief poll of the audience showed that many in attendance were planning to implement a new technology system or were currently doing so. The implementation process was broken down into a high-level framework and phases. Three essential considerations were presented: • involvement should be scalable based on the size and scope of the technology implementation; • unique perspectives should be considered; • voices and decision-making should be balanced and inclusive.

Baer and Sahasrabudhe identified who needs to be involved with implementation—the decision-makers, implementers, subject-matter experts, and end-users. They also cautioned attendees to be mindful of the timing of implementation, such as keeping your resources and process cycle in mind. They also pointed out the difference between “must-haves” and “nice-to-haves,” noting that you may need to be willing to make some trade-offs.

A phased model was shared, highlighting when the most energy and effort are required from those involved in the process. • Phase 1, evaluating new technology, is the most energy heave for decision-makers b those who facilitate buy-in and have the authority to make the decision; • Phase 2, onboarding, requires the most resources from the implementers b document decisions, utilize vendor training, and have time dedicated to the project b experts are also involved during this phase, sharing input; • Phase 3, post-go-live, requires the most effort from the end-users who are using the new technology daily, sharing tips, and documenting the process as they go b subject matter experts are still documenting progress, creating feedback, and refining the process. Much of the presentation was focused on best practices and helpful tips for the implementation process. Some highlights included: • host a town hall for internal stakeholders when considering new technology; • create a temporary role or title, ideally with supplemental pay, to give authority and recognition during implementation; • keep your feedback organized and updated at each point in the process; • consider a project management tool to help manage the timeline; • cover your bases by making sure every department that might be affected by the new technology is involved; • know who your internal influences are and get them on board early; • use the support resources provided by the vendor; • document everything; • create internal feedback loops, such as discussion groups or an advisory committee; • evaluate outcomes to see if goals were met – this includes metric tracking; • celebrate the wins, even the small ones.

The audience shared several helpful tips as well. • consider how new tech will integrate with existing tech; • make sure you are not creating more work for yourself by adding new technology; • be clear with your needs from your own IT department; • listen to the vendor’s advice – they really do know what they are talking about. Finally, it takes time to get new processes in place and results to begin to show. So be sure to give your new processes time to work. n

...many in attendance were planning to implement a new technology system or were currently doing so.