What goes into selecting the candidates for our program?
Over the span of the last seven years we’ve received over 180 applications annually to the Joan H. Marks Graduate Program in Human genetics- more than 1500 applications during that time alone. We had our biggest spike during the COVID-19 peak in 2020-21 when we saw over 300 applications, followed by roughly 290 applications and 230 applications the subsequent years. We foresee a stabilizing trend of 200-250 applicants yearly, with 25-30 spots available per class. You calculated right- that means only about 12% of total applicants end up being accepted into the program. So, what goes into selecting which applicants ultimately attend our program?
We’ve long believed that academic achievement alone doesn’t indicate excellence in genetic counseling. Similarly, one who is able to eloquently articulate their understanding of the field, while lacking academic achievement, doesn’t guarantee success either. Our preference is for well-rounded candidates, rather than those who excel in any one area.
Although the admission process has evolved over the years as we attempt to improve the experience for students, reduce bias, and increase efficiency with growing numbers of applications, the focus has been the same for quite some time: to enroll a diverse group of open minded, insightful, academically inclined individuals who we believe will become successful in the field of genetic counseling. We’ve long believed that academic achievement alone doesn’t indicate excellence in genetic counseling. Similarly, one who is able to eloquently articulate their understanding of the field, while lacking academic achievement, doesn’t guarantee success either. Our preference is for well-rounded candidates, rather than those who excel in any one area. In turn, our admission process attempts to find those well-rounded individuals.
The Application Review
Reading applications has always been the first step in trying to get to know those who would eventually become our students. Every completed application is reviewed. Traditionally, readers from our admissions committee would be assigned applications and review each assigned application in its entirety to understand the applicant as a whole. Readers would explore academic performance, exposure to and understanding of genetic counseling, volunteer work, letters of recommendation and personal statements. Each element weighted equally in their decision making. In our pursuit of impartiality, we thoroughly examined potential biases in our application reading process. We had concerns that the traditional approach opened a door for any given reader to disproportionately advantage or disadvantage certain types of students depending on their bias towards one element of the application. In response to this, we ultimately revamped our reading system. Currently, instead of viewing an entire application, different readers are assigned only one section and focus on that section for every applicant. For instance, Reader A evaluates GPA and prerequisite grades, Reader B looks at experiences and insight into genetic counseling, Reader C examines letters of recommendation, and Reader D assesses personal statements. The idea is that biases held by a given reader are spread throughout the entire applicant pool and not just directed at a few students.
Over the past two years, this approach appears to have made for more efficient reading and, more importantly, mitigated some of our biases. This shift has resulted in many people from underrepresented groups being ranked high enough to receive an invitation for an interview, with 44% of those interviewed identifying as a Person of Color and 56% as White.
The Interviews
Our interview process, now conducted virtually, is another important step forward. It is where the candidates who we previously only knew as words on paper come to life and become real. Our admissions committee is intentionally diverse. It is composed of program leadership, faculty, alumni, and clinical supervisors from various backgrounds, experiences and identities - to bring multiple viewpoints to the table. Each interviewee meets with both a program leader and a non-leader committee member. Our interviewers, like our readers, also take a holistic approach to the
interview process, measuring insight, self-awareness, communication ability, passion, perseverance, readiness for grad school, and general fit into our program. After each day of interviews, the admissions committee meets to discuss each candidate, ask questions, share their impressions, and every member of the committee is involved in scoring each candidate on the aforementioned factors.
Match Day is particularly special because we know that each matched student wants to come to our program just as much as we think they would be a good fit in ours!
The Match
What has been coined “Match Day” is an exciting and fun day where the applicants and the programs are so excited to be matched with each other. Match Day is particularly special because we know that each matched student wants to come to our program just as much as we think they would be a good fit in ours!
Many people talk about “Admissions Season” as if it’s only one time in the year. I would say that it is a year round commitment. From initial conversations with prospective students to the excitement of Match Day, the journey involves counteless interactions. It is a process we have come to enjoy and embrace and I am glad that I am able to help applicants navigate their individual experiences within the admissions process, ultimately helping to usher in each year's newest set of genetic counselors to the field.
About the Author:
Janelle Villiers (She/Her) is Assistant Program Director at the Joan H. Marks Graduate Program in Human Genetics at Sarah Lawrence College. She identifies as a Black-Latina, heterosexual, currently able-bodied, cisgender woman. She is committed to fostering diversity and inclusivity in the field.