"Best Practices" - Selection

Recruitment • Selection • Terms and Conditions of Award • Monitoring and Evaluation

A. WRITTEN APPLICATIONS

1. Be sure that application materials are available to candidates with substantial lead time before the deadline (see point 1. above in "Recruitment" section).

2. Make available sample successful applications to candidates along with other materials. In addition, consider adding a sample of what the program considers a "model" letter of recommendation. Those without prior experience applying for scholarships will especially benefit from such guidance.

3. Consider establishing a "pre-application process" so that potential applicants can easily express initial interest in your program without being discouraged by more lengthy and laborious steps required to complete a full formal application. Respond promptly to promising pre-applications from under-represented groups, encouraging them to pursue the full application process without any commitment, of course, to final acceptance.

4. Fellowship programs with similar types of grantees should consider sharing unselected applications, possibly via the Internet, so that programs in need of good candidates can be matched with programs that have too many highly qualified applicants for the available spots. To avoid violating the confidentiality of the application process, programs could include on the application a box asking applicants if they are willing to have their applications shared with other fellowship programs. Only applicants who give their express consent will have their applications forwarded.

5. Programs seeking to encourage more applications from candidates who may be less confident about their English language skills might consider the possibility of allowing pre-applications in the candidates' native language.

6. In the formal application stage, programs should be even-handed in disqualifying candidates who fail to obey the rules, i.e. observation of the application deadline, answering each question completely, or sending in all additional requested material. It may appear superficially that this weeding-out process will adversely impact those from under-represented groups. In fact, there was evidence in one case study that when programs are strict and even-handed in the initial weeding-out of formal applications, the result is that women candidates will benefit, and less careful/serious applications from traditional candidates are eliminated. To be fair to first-time applicants, however, program staff should review incoming applications carefully (before the deadline if possible) to insure that those unfamiliar with application procedures are not inadvertently excluded by failure to include all required materials.

7. It is critical that the impact of biases held by application reviewers (conscious or unconscious) be minimized in the selection process. In assessing written applications, reviewers should not consider or (ideally) even have access to personal information (i.e., age, marital status, maternal/paternal status, photograph) of applicants. Programs should organize the written application so that such personal information can be kept separate from professional/educational credentials and personal essays, letting reviewers form their first impression without knowing the marital status or ethnic background of the candidate, unless the candidate chooses to reveal it in other parts of the application. In many cases, of course, candidates' names reveal their gender or ethnic background. Some programs remove names from applications prior to the review process, tracking them by assigned numbers instead.

8. Another way to minimize subjective judgments on the part of selectors is to develop and apply a clear and consistent grading system for ranking written applications. A pre-established range of test scores or grades, for example, will let reviewers quickly eliminate traditional candidates whose ranking falls below that of more qualified nontraditional candidates. Programs committed to "affirmative action" may decide to be flexible in applying such grading systems to candidates from under-represented groups, but several case studies suggest that when the applicant pool is sufficiently inclusive, nontraditional candidates need only fair treatment, not preferential treatment, to succeed.

9. Review panels should not only be briefed about what constitutes criteria for selection; they should be very well briefed about what will be considered unacceptable criteria for inclusion or rejection.

10. In reviewing the qualifications/professional accomplishments presented in written applications, programs should enlist reviewers with current knowledge of and experience in relevant fields of study. Non-traditional candidates tend not to fare as well if the reviewers come from more traditional fields and established networks. Where fields of study are quite diverse, or new fields have been added, and the reviewing panel cannot be expanded to include full coverage, programs should have experts in the fields "on call" for consultation by selectors.

11. Application review panels should be as diverse a group as possible, in terms of gender and ethnic background, as well as expertise in the relevant professional fields.

12. Programs that are seriously committed to greater participation of individuals from under-represented groups cannot assume that each member of the review panel knows and supports this policy. On the contrary, program directors should explicitly inform potential selectors that the program is committed to a policy of fairness and equity, and insure that reviewers explicitly agree to abide by such a policy before they are formally invited to join the process. Programs might also consider doing a review of a potential panelist's previous performance(s) in terms of commitment to fairness and equity on other panels before they are invited to participate.

13. Programs and funders must be prepared to monitor the work of selection panels on an ongoing basis to assure that the commitment to fairness is being honored. Detailed statistics on the ratio of applicants from under-represented groups must be maintained and compared with the ratio of selected candidates from under-represented groups to see if the review process is screening in or screening out such candidates.

B. IN-PERSON INTERVIEWS

1. While personal information can and should be separated from the review of professional/academic credentials during the written application phase, it is obvious that gender, race, ethnicity, some physical disabilities, and general appearance and demeanor are visible during the in-person interview stage of the process. Inevitably, these factors have an effect, positive or negative, conscious or unconscious, on the interview panel. Recognizing that the potential for less than objective selection does exist, programs should develop and use protocols/procedures that minimize the opportunity for biased selections. For example:

   • Interview protocols should be developed well in advance by program staff and selectors and used by all the selectors as they conduct their interviews.

   • The list of questions developed should be the only questions asked. Questions used should be the same for all candidates, regardless of their gender or other status. Questions should focus on professional/educational areas, not on personal issues (e.g. "will you miss your children if you study abroad? ").

   • To avoid even the appearance of a biased selection process, the selection panel should be as diverse a group as possible, and include panelists who have demonstrated a commitment to inclusiveness in their professional careers.

2. At least one program staff member should always be present during the interview, even if the individual does not actively intervene in the process.

3. Programs should conduct regular post-interview debriefings, to determine if all went as planned, and to air any concerns about inappropriate questions or behavior towards candidates.

4. Some programs have found that for many individuals from under-represented populations, the most difficult aspect of the selection process was the in-person interview, because they had so little experience in that arena. Some programs have set up "orientation" seminars to strengthen in-person interview skills. Fairness requires that such sessions be provided to all candidates, not just those from under-represented populations. However, there is evidence that such even-handed treatment yielded disproportionate advantages to those from under-represented groups, simply because they were most in need of the help. Programs that have a rigorous interview process may wish to offer interview-skills training, by making available seminars, perhaps staffed by program alumnae/i from under-represented groups along with knowledgeable program staff.

5. Some programs advocate so-called "waiting-room interviews," that is, having a staff member or panelist meet applicants informally before a formal interview, chat with them, and then provide other panelists with information on any significant differences in performance between the formal and informal interviews. For applicants who are so nervous at the formal process that they are unable to perform at their best (and these may, or may not, be from under-represented groups), the intervention of someone who has talked with them informally may mean the difference between receiving and losing a scholarship.

6. Funders have a key role to play in assuring that a program's commitment to fairness and equity in selections is not a hollow pledge. Funders should actively monitor and assess the selection process. Funders that require programs to be more diverse should sit in as observers on selection panels and regularly review statistics on ratios of applicants to awardees by various categories of special concern. Donors should be prepared to require changes in the process if the data is not satisfactory or raises questions about equity.