Integrative review in PhD admissions: A case study of efficiently minimizing bias while maximizing the student narrative
Minerva A. Orellana, Danielle J. Beetler, Carmen J. Silvano, Ryan Wuertz, Jennifer L. Weisbrod, Lewis R. Roberts, Anthony J. Windebank, Felicity T. Enders, Marina R. Walther-Antonio, Jake Anders, Jake Anders, Jake Anders, Jake Anders

TL;DR
This case study explores a new admissions process for PhD programs that reduces bias and promotes diversity by prioritizing student narratives.
Contribution
The novel integrative review process is shown to minimize bias in graduate admissions while supporting diverse student recruitment.
Findings
Classic admissions review processes showed bias towards specific students, while integrative review did not.
The integrative process enabled fairer assessment and recruitment of diverse student cohorts.
Adopting the integrative process streamlines admissions and supports underrepresented applicants.
Abstract
Developing scientific and medical innovations continue to be limited by lack of diverse representation among leaders and learners. One key gateway for these goals is graduate school admissions, but comprehensive consideration of all components of applications, which is needed to reduce systemic bias in admissions, is resource intensive. This case study details the conceptualization of an integrative application review process to challenge and improve classic application review frameworks which gatekeep admissions opportunities from under-represented (UR) applicants. PhD applicant cohorts to a longstanding Clinical and Translational Sciences PhD TL1 program were assessed using one of three review processes: traditional, algorithmic, or a novel integrative review process. Admissions results from each review process were pooled across matriculation years to attain a testable sample size.…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMedical Education and Admissions · Health and Medical Research Impacts · Innovations in Medical Education
