UMN AdmTaskForce 31Oct05

8/14/2019 UMN AdmTaskForce 31Oct05

1/33

REPORT OF THE DEANS TASK FORCE ON ADMISSIONS

Submitted October 31, 2005

Introduction

The Deans Task Force on Admissions was commissioned on June 9, 2005 by Dean Powell. Thecharge given to the task force was to:

I. Assess the process and effectiveness for recruitment of the most highly qualified studentsto the Medical School

II. Assess the current relationship and effectiveness of recruitment strategies between theOffice of Admissions and Health Careers Center, the University of Minnesota, Office ofAdmissions, and other colleges of the University of Minnesota

III. Assess the relationships and coordination of recruitment of medical students to dual degreeprograms

IV. Assess the relationships and coordination of recruitment strategies with other colleges,universities, and potential sources of medical student applicants

V. Assess the process and criteria for recruitment and selection of medical studentsVI. Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the admissions process, including

communications, technological infrastructure and staffing in the Office of Admissions

VII.

Assess the effectiveness of the communications between the Offices of Admissions,Minority Affairs and Diversity (MAD), and the Center for American Indian and MinorityHealth (CAIMH).

VIII. Assess the current coordination and oversight of the admissions processes of the unifiedDuluth and Twin Cities campuses

AND

Recommend a strategy to optimize all of these processes.

The composition of the task force is found in Appendix A. This report contains the findings of

the task force and is submitted in good faith. The Task Force would like to acknowledge theoutstanding administrative assistance of Theresa Baultrippe; Krista Gallagher and TammyPederson also provided valuable technical and administrative support. The task force wishes tostate up front its high esteem for the commitment and integrity of the admissions staff andcommittee members at both campuses. It is apparent that all of the admissions staff andcommittee members work very hard in the service of our institution, and they are to becommended for their diligence and commitment.

Admissions Task Force Final Report Page 1


2/33

Forward:

The task force reviewed all the charges from the Dean, and has made many specific andgeneral recommendations based upon review of data, strenuous deliberations, and advocacy

for the medical school and profession. As we began to collect data, some of the storiesthequalitative databecame central to the task forces discussion. These stories came fromalumni, faculty and students, and the task force members felt strongly that they articulatedsome of the greatest challenges to the admissions process at the University of MinnesotaMedical School: 1) integration of the Duluth and Twin Cities campuses; 2) separate butmutually supportive admissions mission statements for the two campuses; 3) comparisons ofthe responsiveness, timing and processes of admissions by applicants; 4) the need foraccountability and transparency of admissions standards with the applicants, community andfaculty; and 5) the need to devote resources to the recruitment and scholarships for highlyqualified students to the medical school. For example, the comments of oneunderrepresented minority student who chose the University of Michigan over Minnesota are

illustrative of the effects of the lengthy admissions process, the relative lack of resourcesdevoted to recruiting, and our high costs:

The University of Michigan responded quickly with copiousamounts of information; and I completed my application for Michigan after the Minnesota application. I completed myapplication for Michigan after Minnesota because Minnesota wasnumber one on my list. Somewhere between January 5 and May 1my interest in Minnesota started to wane and Michigan became my first choice. Three things happened during that period: 1) Michigan contacted me for an interview first. Although this didnot change my ranking of the schools it did show that a quickresponse was possible. 2) After my interview with the University of Michigan, I was informed about their admission decision withintwo days. Therefore, I found out I was admitted to Michiganbefore I learned that I would interview at MinnesotaI receivednumerous publication materials from Michigan. I received at least20 pieces of correspondence by mail; at least seven phone callsfrom students; and over 40 e-mails from students; admissions staff,and professors. After all of this, Michigan flew me back to Ann Arbor for a second look. If Minnesota had been as quick torespond as Michigan, I might have received this extra attentionfrom Minnesota as well. 3) The University of Michigan offered mea $15,000 scholarship. Because Minnesota is one of the mostexpensive public medical schools in the country, this scholarshipbrought the financial burden of attending medical school out ofstate within reach.

The members of the task force accepted these challenges. This report and its recommendationsrepresent our best effort to address them.



3/33

Table of Contents

Part One. Description of the Current Situation; Strengths; Areas of Concern 4

Section Page

I. Process and effectiveness for recruitment of the most highly qualifiedstudents to the Medical School

4

II. Current relationship and effectiveness of recruitment strategies between theOffice of Admissions and Health Careers Center, the University ofMinnesota Office of Admissions, and other colleges of the University ofMinnesota.

8

III. Relationships and coordination of recruitment of medical students to dual

degree programs.

9

IV. Relationships and coordination of recruitment strategies with other colleges,universities, and potential sources of medical student applicants

10

V. Process and criteria for recruitment and selection of medical students. 11

VI. Effectiveness and efficiency of the admissions process, includingcommunications, technological infrastructure and staffing in the Office ofAdmissions.

16

VII. Effectiveness of the communications between the Offices of Admissions,Minority Affairs and Diversity, (MAD); and the Center for American Indianand Minority Health (CAIMH).

17

VIII. Current coordination and oversight of the admissions processes of theunified Duluth and Twin Cities campuses.

18

Part Two. Recommendations of the Task Force 20

Appendices

A. Admissions Task Force Membership 29

B. Comparison of Prerequisites for the University of Minnesota and PeerMedical Schools

30

C. Admissions Student Sub-Committee Recommendations 32



4/33


5/33

2. MAD and CAIMH are valuable resources for recruitment, particularly of URM

applicants. (Addressed in R.1.b and R.6)

B. Areas of Concern

1. Extensive prerequisite course requirements may pose barriers to recruitment. Theprerequisite course requirement is different for both campuses. At each campus therequirements are far more extensive and prescriptive when compared to other peerschools (See Appendix B, Comparison of Prerequisites for the University of Minnesotaand Peer Medical Schools). The Task Force feels that the extensive list of prerequisiteshas the potential to inhibit highly qualified applicants, particularly those who havepursued atypical or alternate pathways in their academic and nonacademic careers, ratherthan to ensure breadth among the applicants. Specific requirements for calculus, socialscience, behavioral science, humanities, and biochemistry are atypical when compared toother medical schools admissions requirements, and could serve to exclude highly

qualified applicants. For example, a student with a masters degree in public health,including extensive background in statistics, would certainly possess the mathematicalaptitude to become a fine physician; yet, to successfully apply to this medical school,such a student would have to complete a course in calculus. (Addressed in R.5.a)

2. The overall coordination of recruiting efforts across both campuses could be improved.There have been difficulties in communication between MAD, CAIMH, and the OAs ateach campus. Occasionally recruitment efforts sponsored by two different offices havebeen scheduled at the same time. This problem has been recognized and there are plansin place to develop a shared calendar of recruitment events and to have the offices meetregularly to discuss recruitment activities. (Addressed in R.1.b and R.6)

3. High tuition and lack of modern facilities are increasingly significant barriers torecruitment. Each year, the TC OA conducts a survey of applicants who have withdrawnafter being accepted to the medical school. In this survey these applicants are asked torank the factors that were most important in their decision to attend another medicalschool. In 2001, only nonresident applicants identified cost of attending as one of thetop five reasons, while neither residents nor nonresidents cited facilities. However, ineach of the past four years, both cost of attending and facilities have appeared on the listof the top five factors for both Minnesota and non Minnesota residents. In 2005, cost ofattending was the number one reason cited by Minnesota residents and the number tworeason cited by non residents. For perspective, US News and World Reporthas rankedMinnesotas in-state medical school tuition as fourth most expensive of all public schoolsin the nation for each of the past two years. Facilities were the second most importantreason cited by Minnesota residents to matriculate elsewhere. The fact that peer schoolssuch as Iowa and Wisconsin have new medical education buildings with state-of-the-artclassrooms presents a specific challenge for recruitment to this school. ( Addressed inR.1.c)

4. The lengthy admissions process at the TC campus may prompt applicants to lookelsewhere. See Section VI.B for further details of the TC application duration. Several



6/33

students who were interviewed by the Task Force members and on the studentsubcommittee described delays in the application process at Minnesota compared to otherschools to which they had applied. These delays were reported to occur in initial contactafter application via AMCAS, scheduling of interview day, and admission decision.(Addressed in R.3)

5. The evaluation markers described may not be so sensitive as to allow an in-depth,thorough assessment of the effectiveness of the recruitment process. The overallperception is that quality of the accepted student remains high but the question remains:are there students that we are not able to recruit to our school for yet unidentifiedreasons? Are we truly able to recruit the best students? (Addressed in R.1.b)

6. The basic recruiting message at the Twin Cities campus needs to be honed andpublicized. Admittedly, as a large land grant institution, the mission of the Twin Citiescampus is quite broad, and this mission is reflected in its mission statement and indocuments such as the 2004 LCME Self Study report. However, recruitment could be

potentially aided by a further honing of the Twin Cities campus message as it relates tothe schools mission, and this recruiting message could be more consistently promulgatedby publications, faculty, and staff. For example, at the Duluth campus, all publicationsmention the Duluth mission of rural family practice or primary care, with emphasis onservice in American Indian communities. This message is repeated over and over againin every Duluth publication, and is very consistently quoted by virtually any faculty orstaff who has interviewed at Duluth.

At the Twin Cities, there is no such corresponding succinct and widely quoted message.The LCME report mentions the schools identity as a full service medical schoolbefitting a land grant institution, and also highlights its particular strengths in primarycare and (particularly) basic research. The medical school catalogue publishes theMedical School Mission Statement on page 2, outlining its two campuses servingdiverse populations in rural and urban Minnesota, [and] dedicated to preeminence inprimary care medicine, exemplary specialty care, and innovative research; on page 4 ofthe catalogue, a Medical Student Education Vision Statement is printed, outlining thegoal of the educational program as preparing future primary care providers, clinical subspecialists, researchers, educators, and health care leaders. This section is followed bythe Duluth campus mission statement, once again succinctly outlining the pointsmentioned above, but then there is no corresponding Twin Cities campus missionstatement.

Additionally, the Medical School does not sufficiently advertise its strengths. Thestudents reviewed the points of pride page from the website and suggested thefollowing improvements:

Our rankings in U.S. News and World Report, for example for primary careand as a top three research institution.

Flexible M.D. Program



7/33

Points of pride for the Twin Cities campus include:o Primary careo Global healtho Basic scienceso Inter-professional educational opportunitieso Diversity of clinical experienceso Diversity of studentso Enormous diversity of faculty interests from primary care to

subspecialty clinical care to applied and basic scienceo Camaraderie among students, eg. students assisting each other

academically through the knowledge co-op and informal tutoring, anda strong sense of class success

o Camaraderie among faculty and studentso Flexibility and the availability of a large number of electives

Points of pride for the Duluth Campus include:o

Primary rural and Native American health care. These are usually wellcaptured in promotional materials, but for both, as with the TwinCities, the students want to be able to tell stories. They suggested, forexample, website postings of pop-up videos or examples ofconversations with students about their experiences in the Twin Citiesor Duluth.

o Availability of inter-professional experienceso Both campuses should include RPAP as a strong point of pride

(Addressed in R.1.a, R.1.e, R.2.a, and R.9)

7.

Without compromising the integrity of the selection process, there needs to be moreintensified recruitment of the most highly qualified applicants. While it is illegal tobestow privileges to individual applicants in the selection process, there is nothing wrongwith targeting certain applicants for special recruitment, such as through increasedcommunication of promotional messages or through facilitation of recruiting visits to theschool. As the applicant pool shrinks and competition for the highest qualified studentsincreases (see Section III), successful matriculation of the truly extraordinary applicantsbecomes more crucial.

A related issue concerning targeted recruitment is the extension of special admissionsconsideration for spouses and significant others of the most highly desired applicants,

current students, or faculty. Currently no preference is given for spouses/significantothers. To acquire some normative data on the topic, an e-mail inquiry was sent by theTC Director of Admissions to solicit the policies of other medical schools. Of thirtymedical schools who responded:

21 indicated that no spousal preference was given 2 replied that no preference was given, but there was an impression that

spousal consideration may enter unconsciously into selection decisions

1 school currently did not give spousal preference but was considering givingit a discretionary point in the consideration of invitation for an interview



8/33

6 stated that some type of consideration was given (though all mentioned thatthe spouse/SO would have to meet admissions standards or be a strongcandidate).

(Addressed in R.1.g and R.1.h)

II. The current relationship and effectiveness of recruitment strategies between the

Office of Admissions and Health Career Center, the University of Minnesota Office

of Admissions, and other colleges of the University of Minnesota.

Description

The Health Careers Center (HCC) provides the TC campus with recruitmentenhancement activities across all of the University of Minnesota undergraduate colleges.Core recruitment activities are the responsibility of the Medical School. The HCC is a

very active office with six full time and two part time faculty and staff. The HCCconducts a number of career exploration activities for all health profession schools withprospective pre-health students. Customized activities for pre-med students includeinformation sessions on application, interviewing, and experiential preparation. Highability pre-medical students are targeted with a course focusing on the roles of futurephysicians. Coaching on internships and volunteer activities is pivotal in developing thecritical decision making skills of these students. The Health Careers Center has aninteractive web site which offers workshops on assessment, career exploration andstrategies for being a successful pre-health student.

The HCC has become expert in monitoring data about prospective pre-health students in

collaboration with the Office of Admission and other state agencies such as theDepartment of Education and the Department of Health. The trends that are important indesigning a core recruitment plan for the Medical School are the decreasing pool ofcollege students, the increased diversity of the students in the pipeline, and the generalerosion of the K-12 system. These factors combined will create increased competition forupcoming college students in Minnesota who are able to master high ability math andscience in the collegiate system. This smaller pool of well prepared students will betargeted for recruitment by career options other than medicine in the health professions,and by non-health careers as well. Education costs along with lifestyle demands will alsobe factors in recruiting prospective medical students.

There should be a resource for undergraduates seeking opportunities to work inlaboratories, shadow faculty, or in other ways establish relationships in the MedicalSchool. Accomplishing this goal with faculty is an important consideration sincerequests for enrichment experiences are common and faculty do not have time orresources to deal with them presently. Failure to satisfactorily address these requests maybe a marketing and recruitment opportunity lost.



9/33

A. Strengths

1. The HCC is a valuable resource that reaches many students throughout the University ofMinnesota Twin Cities campus and the state. (Addressed in R.1.b)

2.

Programs like the TC Pre-Medical Scholars program and the DU EARS program havehelped to recruit very highly qualified, home grown matriculates to the medicalschool. (Addressed in R.1.d)

B. Areas of Concern

1. Recruitment at the high school and baccalaureate level will become increasinglyimportant and challenging over the next ten to twenty years given the projectionsregarding the applicant pool. (Addressed in R.1.d)

2. There is a strong perception, based upon conversations with the Associate Dean ofStudents for the College of Biological Sciences (CBS), Robin Wright, that highlyqualified applicants from CBS are not being optimally recruited. Although sheacknowledges that there no hard data to back it up, Dr. Wright emphatically states thatthe general feeling among CBS students is that they are not made to feel welcome at theTC campus, and that they are greatly predisposed to seek medical school admissionelsewhere. CBS is one of the most competitive colleges at the University and provides areservoir of potential highly qualified applicants to our own medical school.Approximately two-thirds of the CBS students are Minnesota residents, and the vastmajority of the remainder are from neighboring states, particularly Wisconsin.(Addressed in R.1.f)

3. There needs to be a thorough discussion of fast track programs to capture talentedprospective students into medical school. The Medical School will also have to deal withhigh school students who are starting on campus with credits that make them juniors.There will be more of this type of student with the financial constraints that studentsexperience. It will become increasingly more attractive to use the PSEO program to havecollege courses in high school for free. (Addressed in R.1.g)

III. The relationships and coordination of recruitment of medical students to dualdegree programs.

Description

The U of M offers five different dual degree programs: MD/PhD, MD/JD, MD/MPH,MD/MBA, and MD/MHI. The MD/PhD Program is by far the biggest of these, withfederal funding and an excellent reputation. MD/PhD admissions are handled primarilythrough the MD/PhD office. MD/PhD candidates turned down by the MD/PhD Programare informed that they need to contact MD Admissions if they are interested in beingconsidered for the MD Program. Admission to the other dual degree programs is handled



10/33

individually by the respective schools. The TC OA arranges individual appointments atthe specialty schools for interested applicants as part of their Interview Day activities.

Application to the second degree program is made after matriculation into the medicalschool. After matriculation, recruitment to each of these programs is handled by the

Medical School Office of Student Affairs and each specialty school.

A. Strengths

1. All of the dual degree programs are actively serving to prepare students for specificfuture challenges in health care. The large array of dual degree offerings illustrates theprotean resources that can be brought to bear by this University to individualize healthcare education. (Addressed in R.1.i)

B. Areas of Concern1.

The dual degree programs could be used more as a generalized recruiting tool. Not onlywould further recruitment help to attract students of unique qualifications and interest,but it would also help to sell the Universitys resources to all medical schoolapplicants. (Addressed in R.1.i)

IV. The relationships and coordination of recruitment strategies with other colleges,

universities, and potential sources of medical student applicants

Description

Recruitment activities consists of activities such as participating in recruitment and careerfairs, visiting other college and university campuses, presenting to classes and pre-medstudent groups, communicating with pre-medical advisors, hosting pre-medical groups,and hosting the annual pre-medical students day. OA, CAIMH, and MAD faculty andstaff perform many of these activities, some with the assistance of the HCC. In the pastsix years, the colleges providing the most matriculates in addition to those from theUniversity of Minnesota are St. Olaf, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Carleton, St.Thomas, Gustavus, Macalester, Notre Dame, Northwestern, St. Johns, St. Bens, Collegeof St. Scholastica, UMD, U of MN Morris, U of MN, and Concordia.. The vast majorityof medical school applicants who are Minnesota residents apply to the U of M medicalschool (614 out of 639 MN residents in 2004).

A. Strengths

1. Recruitment from outstanding undergraduate institutions within the state has beensuccessful. (Addressed in R.1 various subsections)



11/33

B. Areas of Concern

1. Could we do better in attracting students attending outstanding undergraduate institutionsin other states? We have done well in recruiting students from schools in Minnesota suchas Carleton, St. Olaf, and Macalester, but could we do better in recruiting students from

out of state similar schools such as Ripon and Grinnell? Are we successful in recruitingstudents from Minnesota who have attended elite undergraduate institutions outside ofthe mid-west? Of the highest qualified Minnesota resident applicants to our medicalschool, how successful are we at matriculating them? (Addressed in R.1.b)

V. The process and criteria for recruitment and selection of medical students

Description

The process of recruitment is described in Section I.

The process of application and selection is as follows:

1. Applicant is verified by AMCAS as having applied to the U of M. Once this notice isreceived, an e-mail is sent to the applicant with some promotional material; a secondwelcome e-mail is sent from the Director of Admissions. At TC, OA staff verifies thatthe applicant is on track for a degree and updates her or his racial/ethnic minority status.It is then checked to see if the student is planning on taking the August MCAT. If so(about 40% of students) the application is put on hold until the scores from the AugustMCAT are available in mid-October. Once these steps are completed:

2. The application is sent to the Admissions Committee (AC). It is put into a pool ofapplications and AC reviewers electronically access them randomly. At the TC, anexperienced reviewer (at least one year of experience on the AC) performs a Step 1review which determines whether the application will continue on or be rejected. If thestudent is deemed to have potential, they are sent onward. At DU, there is no Step 1review by the AC; if an applicant is a U.S. citizen he or she proceeds to the next step.

3. A request for a Supplemental Application (SA) goes out to the applicant. At TC, the SAconsists of 9 short essay questions; 4 letters of recommendation, which have a uniqueformat to this medical school; a form attesting to technical standards; a photograph; and a$75 fee. At DU the SA consists of 17 questions, three letters of recommendation using asimilar format as the TC, and a $75 fee. The applicants are given 30 days to complete theSA. TC applicants are sent an e-mail each time an application material is received andonce the application is complete. Applicants can access a checklist online at any time tosee what materials have been received and if their supplemental application is indeedcomplete. DU is implementing a similar online checklist this year. If the TC OA notesthat all materials are not received within 30 days, the student is contacted and encouragedto complete them. However, at the TC or DU, there is no fail-safe method for remindingstudents toward the end of this 30-day period if they have not yet finished completing allof the components of the supplemental application. At DU, applicants are encouraged to



12/33

complete the SA in 30 days; if they do not, their application remains on hold until it iscompleted. In January, DU applicants whose files are not complete are informed of anultimate application deadline of March 1.

4. Once the supplemental application is complete, a Step II review is assigned. A staffperson assigns an applicants completed file to two members of the AdmissionsCommittee. This is done at random. It is usually done to ensure an equal number of filesfor each committee member. Both reviewers can not be new members of the committee(at least one of the pair must have at least one year of experience on the AdmissionsCommittee). There also can be no relationship between a committee reviewer and theapplicant.

5. A Step II review occurs. At the TC, this is carried out by two members of the TCAdmissions Committee. Staff checks daily to see if these reviews have been completed.Once both reviews have been completed, the possible outcomes are as follows: 2 yes the applicant is asked for an interview; two no the applicant is rejected; and split-vote

the applicants file is assigned to a third reviewer. Prior to this year, the threereviewers were notified of the majority decision, and each could accept the decision orrequest a final review before by the Admissions Committee. In September 2005, the TCAC revised this policy, making the majority decision the final decision. In DU, astanding 3-person subcommittee of the DU AC performs the Step II review and decides(by 2 positive votes) if an applicant is invited for an interview.

6. Interviews are arranged by OA staff, primarily through e-mail at TC and by phone at DU.At the TC, interviews are conducted by a variety of AC members and non-members; atDU, all the interviews are conducted by AC members. At TC, applicants receive 1interview; at DU they receive 2. At DU, interviews are usually scheduled and completedwithin 2 weeks, while at TC there are longer lags until completion of the interview, dueto a variety of factors, including applicant circumstances (eg. out-of-state applicantspursuing low-cost airfares or scheduling interviews to coincide with other travel plans) orrecruitment efforts (eg. First Fridays). At TC, interviews are only conducted in themorning. Interview days are usually Monday and Friday, and occasionally on Tuesdayand Thursday. At TC, applicants are offered interview dates from which to select(typically 1-3 weeks from date of interview invitation), but if a minority applicant wishesto participate in the First Fridays program, the applicant needs to wait until the next FirstFriday for her or his interview. It is thus possible for minority applicants to have a longerlag between an invitation for an interview and the actual interview itself. The MAD hasadded additional First Fridays this year to shorten any lags that may have occurred inthe past.

7. The actual interview takes place and interview report forms (available in hard-copy andelectronic form for the past few years) are requested within 48 hours. Virtually all reportforms are returned within one week, but there are some exceptions.

8. A Step III review is conducted, incorporating all of the information gathered through andincluding the interview. At the TC, the applicant is given a numerical score by each ofthe two primary reviewers. Scores correspond to categories of Accept, Committee



13/33

Review, and Reject. If both reviewers independently assign a score warranting theAccept or Reject categories, summary applicant information and reviewers commentsand ratings are provided to the Committee for review. There may be comments and/ordiscussion on the applicant; and then a Committee vote is taken to accept the reviewersdecision. In the event that the reviewers rating fall in different categories or both

reviewers ratings are in the Committee Review category, then the reviewers present theapplicants file to the Committee. Following discussion, Committee members vote on theapplicant by each assigning a rating to the applicant. An Olympic style system is utilizedin which the top and bottom scores are thrown out and the average of the remainingscores calculated. The final rating will then determine the outcome of accept, reject, orwait list. At DU, all of the AC committee members score each applicant, and theaverage score is used to determine acceptance.

Both campuses employ a holistic selection process, in which all of each candidatesqualifications are considered for selection. No one criterion is given preferential weightacross all candidates in the selection process. There are no relative values assigned to

various selection criteria one accepted candidate may be outstanding in criterion A andadequate in criterion B, while another accepted candidate may be very good in both Aand B criteria.

Both campuses also use rolling admissions. The TC and DU maintains the sameacceptance standards throughout the year. This usually means that toward the end of theapplication season, there is a higher applicant/acceptee ratio. Thus, the competitivenessfor acceptance is higher at the end of the admission year than at the beginning; however,this phenomenon yielded only 2 TC applicants in 04-05 that were deemed acceptablecandidates late in the admissions season but not offered admission.

A. Strengths

1. The two campuses of the University of Minnesota Medical School, integrated in 2004 bythe LCME, have a powerful opportunity to strengthen admissions to both campuses byunderstanding and advertising the breadth of educational and training experiences. Theunique mission of the Duluth campus to recruit and train primary care physicians andAmerican Indian physicians for rural practice is invaluable to the Medical Schoolsoverall mission. (Addressed in R.1.a and R.2.c)

2. Overall, the current system functions to select a well-prepared class who go on to becomegood physicians. Virtually all of our matriculates graduate, score well in standardizedevaluations, match in competitive residencies, perform well as first year residents, andpursue a variety of career paths. The DU campus has been particularly effective inmatriculating students who practice in rural settings, choose Family Medicine or primarycare for their career focus, and serve American Indian communities. (Addressed in R.1.b,R.2.b, and R.2.c)



14/33

B. Areas of Concern1. Integration of the medical school campuses in Duluth and the Twin Cities poses a

particular challenge in maintaining the momentum of each schools mission. Specificconcern emerged from the members of the task force regarding the potential diminution

of the mission of the DU campus and the need to articulate that mission within theuniversity and to the greater community. (Addressed in R.1.a and R.2.c)

2. Many constituents some applicants, some faculty, some members of the admissionscommittee, and some community physicians perceive that the selection process ismysterious, inconsistent, and flawed. There are more than a few cases where applicantshave been mystified over being rejected at Minnesota while being accepted at otherhighly competitive schools. (This is a situation that is undoubtedly present to varyingdegrees at other medical schools; there are no data to determine the relative occurrence ofthis phenomenon at Minnesota). Faculty and community physicians, particularly U of Mmedical alumni, hear anecdotal stories from rejected (and ostensibly highly qualified)

applicants, fueling a perception of mistrust in the selection process. Of course, whatoutsiders are never privy to is the actual performance of the applicant and the actualdeliberative process of the AC. Thus, it is possible that an applicant with outstandingMCAT scores and GPA who was rejected on basis of a poor interview performance atMinnesota (but perhaps interviewed well at Harvard) becomes, to the outsider, theapplicant who was accepted at Harvard but inexplicably rejected at Minnesota.

The vast majority of AC members and staff possess a strong conviction to and confidencein the fairness and integrity of the selection process. However, a minority of members ofthe TC AC have expressed frustration that the selection process appears to be inconsistentacross applicants, with inconsistent weight given to varying selection criteria. Again,anecdotes supporting opinions such as these tend to find their way to faculty and medicalalumni.

Whether or not the perceptions cited above reflect real flaws in the selection process,these perceptions nonetheless constitute a significant problem reflecting on the schoolsoverall image. Widespread confidence in the selection process needs to be instilled.(Addressed in R.2.a, R.2.b, and R.9)

3. The stated criteria for selection is somewhat inconsistent across pertinent documents atthe TC site, and dont clearly reflect evaluation forms for selection used by ACmembers. For example, while there are 5 significant qualifications listed at beginningof the TC AC manual and on its website, there are then 12 additional non-cognitiveselection factors listed in AC manual. It is unclear how these criteria are prioritized inthe selection process (and they may not be, given the holistic selection strategy). There isnot a clear alignment of these criteria with the various missions of the medical school(see Section I.B.6). Nor is there a clear match between these criteria and the variousforms used by the TC AC members to evaluate applicants the questions answered bythe applicants on the Supplemental Application; the Guidelines for AdmissionsCommittee Reviews in the AC Manual; the Step 1, 2, and 3 Review Forms; and theInterview Report Form. The information and items in these documents swirl around but



15/33

are not specifically congruent with the stated selection criteria. In sum, there is no clearconnect the dots between published mission statements, selection criteria, andevaluative forms. The lack of clear consistency among these documents has the potentialto fuel a perception that the selection process is likewise inconsistent across candidates.

At DU, the stated mission of the campus, the published selection criteria, the questions onthe Supplemental Application, and all evaluative forms clearly address themes of serviceto the state in rural family medicine or primary care, with an additional emphasis onservice in American Indian communities.

(Addressed in R.2.a and R.2.b)

4. The interview process and quality could be improved. The Task Force members believethat the interview serves as both a tool of recruitment and as a method of validation of thequalities sought in medical school applicants. Interviews are an opportunity forclarifying dialogue between an astute faculty member and an applicant about those

qualities. Whereas at DU, all of the interviews are conducted by AC members, and eachmember conducts approximately the same number of interviews, the interviews at the TCare conducted by a much larger number of AC and non-AC members. Interviewquestions are not standardized at either campus, though interviewers are provided withsuggested questions. At the TC, there is no formal instruction or standardization on howan interview should be evaluated; interviewers complete a report form with writtenimpressions under various categories of applicant characteristics and performance. DUinterviewers use a more directed interview evaluation form corresponding to specificselection criteria.

With only one interview conducted at the TC campus, the large number of interviewersincreases the potential for inconsistent interviewer quality and evaluation. Applicantsurvey data indicate that the TC interview day overall is highly rated (mean of 1.65 on aLikert scale where 1=excellent), with good ratings for interviewers (e.g. mean ratings of1.55, 1.54, and 1.83 for items of put me at ease, communicated well with me, andwas able to get a fair and accurate picture of me as an applicant.) At DU, 99% ofapplicants state on an applicant that they are satisfied with their interviews. (Addressedin R.4)

5. The actual holistic evaluative process needs to be demystified. In explanations of ourselection process to applicants, students, faculty, and alumni, more information needs tobe provided on:

How the reviewer translates review form data into a numerical score. The qualifications for medical school. The steps taken to assure integrity of holistic evaluation across different

reviewers. The last study of inter-rater reliability was apparently done in 03-04.Interviewer report forms have somewhat crude rating anchors, leading to possiblerating inconsistencies among the interviewers.

The role of state residence on selection currently 28% of incoming TC class arefrom out of state, and 5% are from out of the country. The 92% of the applicantswho matriculate at DU are from in-state with a few from bordering states. The



16/33

proportion of out-of-state residents in the class is of paramount interest to severalimportant constituents of the medical school, most notably its alumni.

(Addressed in R.2.a, R.2.b, and R.9)

VI. The effectiveness and efficiency of the admissions process, includingcommunications, technological infrastructure, and staffing in the Office of

Admissions.

Description

The TC OA consists of a Director, a Principal Administrative Specialist, a WordProcessing Specialist, an Information Technology Specialist (all the preceding are fulltime, with the exception of the Director who also provides advising on learning andperformance issues for medical students and residents), and one student worker providingclerical and administrative support. The DU OA consists of an Associate Dean for

Admissions and Student Affairs and a Principal Administrative Specialist. The TC hasplaced major effort on establishing online application and review processes. DU will bephasing in online reviews over the next 2 years.

A. Strengths

1. Level of commitment by AC staff and members is excellent. On both campuses,admissions staff expressed an ardent pride and devotion to their work. (Addressed inR.3.b and R.7)

2. The TC online Supplemental Application (available since 2001-2002 application cycle) isconsistent with standard practice for major medical schools. Online reviews have helpedto speed up reviewer time and are consistent with the increased use of technology inmedical schools/by faculty. (Addressed in R.3.b)

3. CQI process has been implemented and is working on some known problems.(Addressed in R.3.c)

B. Areas of Concern1. There are concerns about the speed of processing of applications, especially at the TC

campus. Online reviews have improved this somewhat (though it has added to staff workburden), but there are still significant delays in processing. The average time fromreceipt of an AMCAS application to issuance of an acceptance letter is 10 weeks at DUand over 20 weeks at TC. Some factors that are involved in delays are:

The Step II application letter of recommendation form. This 3-page form, utilizedby both TC and DU, is unique to the U of M application and requires extra workby the recommender.

The length of the Step II application. There are 9 questions in the TCsupplemental application, 17 in the DU. How much does the AC use these in



17/33

determining selection? DU AC members use the answers to these questions todetermine fit for the mission of the school.

Length of Step II reviews. These take varying amounts of time, but can belengthy the mean time at the TC is 60 days. About half of this time (mean of 28days) is due to staff processing of the application scanning documents and

preparing it for online submission to AC reviewers. Length of Step III reviews. These can take as long as 29 days. There have been significant difficulties with interviewer time restrictions,

inhibiting timely scheduling of interviews. For example, interviews are onlyconducted in the morning. Interviews days are usually Monday and Friday, andoccasionally on Tuesday and Thursday.

(Addressed in R.3.a-c)

2. OA staff feel very strongly that there is inadequate staffing (in numbers, not in quality!)for efficient processing. On-line reviews have added work for staff, while improvingefficiency and ease for AC. Staff feel they need more help to speed up the application

processing activities or to further aid in recruitment activities. Significant staff time isneeded to prepare for the Wednesday TC AC meetings. There should be a way toimprove the efficiency of the Wednesday meetings to decrease staff time.(Addressed in R.3.a and R.3.b)

3. There have been communication breakdowns with applicants, particularly at the TCcampus, which processes 2 times the number of applications than at DU. Thesecommunication breakdowns have occurred sporadically with different applicants atdifferent places in the admissions process. Addressing these processes is a high priorityfor the TC OA with its CQI process.(Addressed in R.3.c)

VII. Effectiveness of the communications between the Offices of Admissions (OAs),

Minority Affairs and Diversity (MAD) and the Center for American Indian and

Minority Health (CAIMH)

Description

See Section I Description.

A. Strengths

1. MAD (in the TC) and CAIMH (in both DU and the TC) are valuable resources in therecruitment of a diverse student body. (Addressed in R.1.b and R.6, and R.8)

2. We have an outstanding record of recruiting American Indians at both campuses.(Addressed in R.1.b and R.6, and R.8)



18/33

3. There is a collegial, effective working relationship between CAIMH and both the DU andTC OAs. (Addressed in R.1.b and R.6, and R.8)

B. Areas of Concern

1.

At the TC campus, recruitment and admissions appear less linked both in philosophy andadministrative structure. The TC OA appears much more focused on selection thanrecruitment, whereas these two functions appear more integrated at DU (facilitatedgreatly by the smaller size and narrower mission at DU). (Addressed in R.1.a, R.1.b, andR.1.e)

2. The current administrative structure does not facilitate coordination of recruitment andadmissions activities. The CAIMH director, Joy Dorscher, and the DU Associate Deanfor Admissions and Student Affairs report directly to Dean Ziegler at Duluth; the MADdirector, Mary Tate, and the TC admissions director report to Dean Watson at TC.(Addressed in R.6.a and R.8.b)

3. Better communication across the OAs, MAD, and CAIMH are needed. Conflicts haveoccurred due to the offices scheduling various events without checking with each other.There is no formal meeting schedule between MAD, CAIMH, and OA staff oradministration. (Addressed in R.1.b and R.6.b)

4. In the past, there appears to have been less sharing of applicant information by the TCOA with MAD and CAIMH than occurs at DU. The ability of MAD personnel to accessdata electronically became available in July, 2005 with the development of the new 2.0AMCAS system. Prior to that MAD staff had to ask TC OA staff for certain data, leadingto delays in processing applications (due to tying up OA staff time) and hinderingrecruiting activities by MAD staff. With the introduction of the new AMCAS 2.0 systemin June 2005, TC OA is now able to provide and has provided electronic access on allmulticultural applicant information to MAD. ( No recommendation needed if fullinformation sharing continues)

VIII. The current coordination and oversight of the admissions processes of the unifiedDU and TC campuses

Description

During the process of LCME unitary accreditation, the decision was made that eachcampus should retain separate admissions personnel and processes, given the differingmissions of each campus. However, unitary accreditation mandated some type of centraloversight of admissions across both campuses. The Executive Admissions Committee(EAC) was thus created in 2003 to provide central oversight of admissions across bothcampuses. The EAC consists of the DU Associate Dean for Admissions and StudentAffairs, the TC Director of Admissions, the chairs of each campuss AdmissionsCommittee, and the Director of the MD/PhD program. The EAC formally meets twice a



19/33

year. There is weekly phone contact between the DU Associate Dean of Admissions andthe TC Director of Admissions.

A. Strengths

1.

There is excellent communication between the admissions administrators at bothcampuses. Drs. Becker and Repesh feel that communication is complete, respectful, andbuilt on mutual trust. The EAC meets twice a year and coordinates the processes on bothcampuses. (Addressed in R.8)

B. Areas of Concern

1. The Task Force agrees that admissions processes should be tailored at each campus toreflect its mission. However, there are several procedures handled differently at eachcampus that would appear to have no relation to their respective missions. Have suchprocedures addressed differently across campuses could create confusion among

prospective applicants and other potential problems for admissions. These proceduresinclude:

The Step I review. The TC performs a formal Step I review while DU does not(at DU, all applicants who are verified U.S. citizens receive an invitation tocomplete a Supplemental Application). Thus, it is possible that a student applyingto both campuses could be rejected at TC and continued in the application processat DU after only submitting the AMCAS materials.

The requirement of a photograph. The TC requires a photograph with theSupplemental Application while DU does not. Although the photograph at theTC is used strictly for identification purposes, this inconsistency across campusescould potentially send misleading messages to applicants applying to both.

Prerequisite course requirements. Though similar, they are slightly different foreach campus. See Section I.B.1 for further discussion of prerequisites.

(Addressed in R.5)

2. There is a strong perception, particularly among former and current AC members, thatadmissions and recruitment activities are undervalued at the TC campus relative to DU.AC membership is extremely time consuming, with an average of 200 hours/yearcommitment for each member. While membership on the DU AC is meted out uniformlyacross faculty as an expectation of regular duties, TC AC membership (established bymeans of the FAC Nominating Committee) is more ad hoc, with few provisions for equalrepresentation across departments and disciplines. The head of admissions at the TC is

the Director of Admissions, while the corresponding position at DU is Associate Dean forAdmissions. Some members of the Task Force feel that these differing titles furtherreflect a disparity in value across campuses. (Addressed in R.7)

3. Although communication between the two OAs is excellent, there could be bettercommunication between the OAs and senior management. There is no formalcommunication between the EAC and top medical school administrators, particularly theSenior Associate Dean For Education, the DU Dean, and the Dean. (Addressed in R.8.b)



20/33

Part Two. Recommendations of the Task Force

R.1. ENHANCE RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES.

R.1.a. Develop an overall marketing plan. The marketing plan should include thedevelopment and dissemination of a recruiting message for the Twin Cities campus,and further refinement of how the TC and DU campuses complement each other.Similar to the situation at the DU campus, the TC campus needs to develop asuccinct recruiting message that is consistently promulgated by faculty, students,mission statements, and all promotional material. Similarly, a succinct messageregarding how the two campuses complement each other needs to be furtherrefined.

R.1.b. Hire a professional Recruitment Coordinator. An experienced professionaldevoted exclusively to recruitment should be hired. This individual would work

with the offices of admissions at the two campuses, the Health Career Center,MAD, and CAIMH to coordinate all recruiting activities. The RecruitmentCoordinator could be housed in the medical school or the HCC (models exist ofsimilar recruiters for the Schools of Public Health and Pharmacy who are housed atthe HCC). The Recruitment Coordinator should consult with other U of Mprofessional schools noted for recruitment innovation and success, such as the LawSchool.

The recruitment coordinator would respond to undergraduate requests forinformation or mentoring and engage medical student volunteers more actively andintentionally.

The Recruitment Coordinator would also be charged with the collection andreporting of key outcome data, including not just the profiles of applicants andmatriculates, but also evidence that we are recruiting the best candidates out of highschool, college, and beyond, particularly from applicants who are Minnesotaresidents or who are likely to settle in Minnesota. Additionally, this person wouldbe responsible for tracking the subsequent activities and successes of ourmatriculates as they pursue their medical careers into the future (the career choices,professional profiles, and geographic placement of our graduates in residency andbeyond need to be reliably measured.)

R.1.c. Address problems of rising tuition and outdated facilities. While it is easy for atask force to make recommendations such as reduce tuition and build newbuildings, it is important to recognize that these two problems have becomeserious barriers to recruitment. As a start, these problems could be addressed by:

Publication to senior university administration and state government theevidence that lack of medical school financial support has contributed to theseproblems and now serves to threaten the quality of students we can recruit.

Assemblage and reporting of data regarding average student debt ongraduation for our schools compared to other schools. In lists of tuition alone,



21/33

our school tends to look much worse than peer schools; this may not be in factthe case if the more meaningful comparison of average student debt isconsistently compared and reported to potential applicants.

Further work with the Minnesota Medical Foundation to enhance scholarshipsas much as possible.

Exploration, through legislative lobby, of a loan forgiveness program forgraduates and residents who remain in Minnesota after residency if theyprovide service to underserved communities in the state.

Further upgrading of existing classrooms and student life facilities if erectionof a medical education building is out of the question.

R.1.d. Expand existing successful recruitment programs. Programs such as the PremedScholars Program, Early Decision Program, Early Admissions Rural ScholarsProgram, the Life Sciences Summer Undergraduate Research Program, and varioushigh school pipeline programs have shown some success in recruiting outstandingstudents. Strong consideration should be given to expanding these programs and

even to formalizing required faculty participation in these programs. The medicalschool should be a resource for undergraduates seeking opportunities to work inlaboratories, shadow faculty, or in other ways establish relationships in the MedicalSchool. Perhaps departmental and faculty involvement in recruiting activities couldbe built into the compact process.

R.1.e. Bring recruitment to the forefront of all admissions and outreach activities.

Every encounter with an applicant or potential applicantthrough university andschool websites, publications, telephone calls, written correspondence, formalinterviews, and casual conversationsshould include a recruitment message. Aculture of recruitment needs to be suffused into activities at the TC campus similar

to the way it has been done at DU.

R.1.f. Determine, and if necessary improve, the reputation of medical school with the

College of Biological Sciences and other UMTC undergraduate colleges. Themarketing plan mentioned in Section R.1.a should include a specific plan forelevating the stature and attractiveness of the medical school to CBS students. Thenew Recruitment Coordinator, the TC Director of Admissions, and the CBSAssociate Dean of Students should formulate and implement a plan to collectreliable data regarding CBS students opinions of the medical school andadmissions process, including data about the choices of career and post-baccalaureate education, especially medical school, that the CBS students are

making. The medical school should rectify any negative viewpoints ormisperceptions of the medical school that are uncovered, and create a marketingplan to specifically recruit the highest qualified BCS students. Similar activitiesshould be conducted with other colleges on the UM campus, particularly theCollege of Liberal Arts and the Institute of Technology).

R.1.g. Target extra recruiting activities for the most highly qualified applicants. TheRecruitment Coordinator should work with the OAs, CAIMH, MAD, the MedicalAlumni Association, the faculty, and the students to provide extra recruiting efforts



22/33

for applicants or potential applicants who are identified (through holistic review orsome other reliable process) as being truly extraordinary.

R.1.h. Maintain no special selection consideration for spouses/significant others of

applicants, students, faculty, and alumni. This policy should be articulated to all

applicants.

R.1.i. Prominently feature dual degree programs in recruitment activities. Aformalized process of application to dual degree programs should be developed andinstituted. These programs promote the vast resources of the AHC and help todistinguish us from other schools. In addition, they are addressing the unique healthprofessional roles that will need to be filled in the decades to come.

R.1.j. Update and improve the admissions websites on both TC and DU campuses.The website should include:

A link for information about the current status of a students applicationbeyond that available on AMCAS. This should be supplemented by telephonecalls, postcards, etc.

Links for student ambassadors or other volunteer students who might provideadditional personalized information and contacts. (Ideas to improve studentcontacts are listed separately below.)

R.2. CLEARLY ALIGN SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROCESS WITH MISSION

STATEMENTS, RECRUITMENT MATERIALS, APPLICATION MATERIALS,

AND APPLICANT EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS, PARTICULARLY AT THE

TC CAMPUS.

R.2.a. Revise recruitment materials, mission statements, selection criteria,

application materials, and applicant evaluation instruments to make them

more consistent. The message developed in recommendation R.1.a. should clearlybe reflected in all promotional literature, publicized selection criteria, items on thesupplemental application, and instruments used to evaluate each applicant by theadmissions committee. Each criterion for selection should reflect an element of therecruiting message and should have a clear linkage to an evaluation item in theapplication materials and/or interview. Theses materials should reflect the uniquemissions of the Duluth and Twin Cities campuses, in order to highlight forapplicants the distinctive opportunities that our two campuses provide.

R.2.b. Preserve the principle of the holistic selection process. While selection criterianeed to be more tightly aligned with specific evaluation items and recruitmentmaterials, the Task Force does not recommend assigning established weights toeach selection criterion. The principle of the holistic selection process ensures thatall of an applicants qualities will be factored into an admissions decision.Maintaining the spirit of the holistic selection strategy has advantages anddisadvantages. The advantages include facilitating greater diversity in ourmatriculates by considering particularly extraordinary individual qualifications, by



23/33

enhancing recruitment through assuring applicants that we judge the wholeperson in our admissions decisions, and by attracting highly qualified students whomight otherwise be rejected due to a strict selection formula based on explicitcriteria. The principal disadvantage of the holistic selection process is its potentialto appear imprecise or capricious to persons not intimately involved with selection

decisions. Such perceptions have fueled mistrust in the admissions process. Thismistrust can be ameliorated by establishment of tighter, more consistent selectionprocesses which correlate directly with recruitment and application materials (seeR.2.a above), and by straightforward explanations of the selection process withinterested parties (see R.9).

R.2.c. Maintain separate selection criteria and application materials for each

campus. The missions of each campus are distinct and should remain reflected ineach campus admissions process. There are however, certain elements ofadmissions that should be the same across campuses (see R.5).

R.3. STREAMLINE APPLICATION PROCESS.

R.3.a. Review and revise application materials to remove barriers to completion by

applicants. In particular, the evaluative merits of the following application itemsshould be carefully scrutinized:

The questions on the supplemental application. These questions should bekept to a minimum without compromising the evidence they provide formaking selection decisions.

The form used for letters of recommendation. The utility of the informationprovided by this form needs to be carefully weighed against its capacity to

hinder completion of the application. If at all possible, the letters ofrecommendations we request should be in a similar format to those of othermedical schools.

R.3.b. Accelerate application processing. Many of the following strategies are currentlybeing implemented, and should be further applied:

Use of technology. Information technology should be developed maximally toobviate time-consuming processing activities such as copying of applicationmaterials and hard-copy voting processes for Admissions Committee meetings.

More stringent review deadlines. This year a requirement has been establishedfor Admissions Committee members to complete Step II reviews within 11

days. Moving up application deadlines further in the calendar year. More flexible and timely interview scheduling at the TC campus (see R.4.). Appropriate staffing to ensure speedy processing. Currently staff is overtaxed

at the TC campus, hindering timely application processing. Decreasing thevolume of application materials and full implementation of informationtechnology capabilities in the admissions process may reduce some of theseburdens on staff time, but until these strategies are implemented, more staff helpis needed on the Twin Cities campus to speed these applications; according to



24/33

TC Director of Admissions, a .75 time staffing position for the TC OA has beenapproved.

Continue to provide holistic evaluation but develop a more efficient model foradmissions processes. Examples include but are not limited to sendingsupplemental applications to all Twin Cities applicants without a Step I screen

and moving the deadline for application and/or notification of acceptance toearlier in the application timeline. It is recommended that a specific timeline bein place to assess these changes and evaluate their effectiveness in terms ofrecruitment and impact on admission committee workload.

R.3.c. Focus CQI process on speed of application processing and evaluation.

R.4. IMPROVE INTERVIEW PROCESS AND EVALUATION.

R.4.a. Standardize questions and interview scoring method. The Task Force agreed

that the interview should be a tool for recruitment as well as a method of validatingan applicants qualifications for medical school. The Task Force did not seekevidence supporting a highly structured interview process, but felt that the interviewprocess was an opportunity to reliably assess an applicant for predeterminedqualities. Interviewers should be trained to ask specific questions, each of which islinked to predetermined and specific selection criteria, and applicant responses tothese items should be used in admissions decisions. The Task Force recommendsthat the admissions offices of each campus consult with other admissions deans,such as Laura Molgaard of the School of Veterinary Medicine, for assistance indeveloping this strategy.

R.4.b. Establish a set team of interviewers at the Twin Cities site. Rather than relyingon the largesse of individual faculty, the Twin Cities campus should formallyestablish a core of highly trained interviewers. Each member of the interview teamshould conduct approximately the same number of interviews; for example, if sixhundred interviews are conducted each year, a team of thirty interviewers couldconduct twenty interviews apiece. The team of interviewers could be formallydrawn from departments (perhaps proportionally based on size of department andenforced through the compact process) and community physicians (possiblythrough the involvement of the medical alumni association and various othermedical societies).

R.4.c. Provide cultural sensitivity training for all interviewers and admissions

committee members.

R.4.d. Incorporate a recruiting message into each interview. Admissions officesshould consider tailoring the interview day to recruit particular audiences ofapplicants, such as those interested in primary care, biomedical science, publichealth, international medicine, etc. Students suggested that the faculty interviewersin different disciplines could perhaps be matched with interviewees interests. Sucha strategy would be a way for the applicants to not only be identified by faculty as



25/33

good prospects, but also to begin a relationship with our faculty and a heightenedunderstanding of our institutions strengths.

R.4.e. Create more flexibility in interview scheduling. The Twin Cities campus shouldprovide more flexibility and capacity in scheduling interviews in order to

accommodate faculty and applicants throughout the week.

R.4.f. Increase medical student contact on Interview Day. The best interview dayexperience for most current students was meeting with second year students on bothcampuses. Students have suggested that volunteers be further recruited to provideovernight housing, tours, and an introduction to the culture of the Twin Cities.Above all, students on both campuses felt that the strongest selling point of ourmedical school was the deep camaraderie that exists among students. Theysuggested updating resources for access to culture and outdoor and sports activitiesin the Twin Cities on the website (students also volunteered to help with this).

R.5. WHILE MAINTAINING SEPARATE IDENTITIES OF ADMISSIONS OFFICES

AT EACH CAMPUS, STANDARDIZE CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE

ADMISSIONS PROCESS ACROSS CAMPUSES.

R.5.a. Reviewprerequisites and establish a single set of prerequisites for admission atboth campuses. The Medical School faculty and/or the Education Council shouldperform the review and establish this single set of prerequisites, which wouldeffectively address the diversity of pertinent educational and experientialbackgrounds of applicants and would make the number of our prerequisites more inline with other competing medical schools. Guidelines for waiving specific courserequirements in lieu of documented expertise and/or experience in certain fieldsshould be established. For example:

A course requirement in humanities or social and behavioral sciences wouldbe waived for every six months of continuous full-time service in a wellestablished human service organization such as the Peace Corps.

o Dissenting view from TF member Leon Satran: I do have one strongobjection to the recommendation suggesting the waiver of a course inhumanities for 6 months of human service in an organization such asPeace Corps. The 2 activities are really exclusive. One is servicedriven and the other represents academic exposure to great works ofliterature. I believe that requirement should remain.

In addition, the Medical School faculty and Education Council should deliberate onhow prescriptive course requirements should be for admission. For example, if it isdeemed essential for applicants to have formal training in mathematics, one mightpresume that this could be fulfilled through several different types of mathematicscourses such as statistics rather than a strict requirement of a semester of calculus.



26/33

R.5.b. Omit applicant photograph for the Supplemental Application. However wellintentioned, the requirement of a photograph at the Twin Cities campus and norequirement of a photograph at the Duluth campus may convey inconsistent andeven damaging messages to potential applicants. The Task Force recommends thatthere be no requirement of a photograph at both campuses for the Supplemental

Application. If a photograph is needed to assist in final deliberations, it can beobtained on the interview day.

R.6. ALTER ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF CAIMH, MAD, AND OAs TO

FACILITATE MORE COORDINATED RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES.

R.6.a. Establish a coordinated reporting structure. The directors of MAD,CAIMH,and the Recruitment Coordinator (see R.1.b) should report to the same person, suchas the Senior Associate Dean for Education. Integration of the activities developed

by these programs should include collaboration and communication between bothcampuses. Our desire is to retain the strengths and avoid the fragmentation ofproven successes such as the CAIMH.

R.6.b. Establish master calendar of recruitment events. A common calendar should beused by CAIMH, MAD, the OA at each campus, and the recruitment coordinator.This is being implemented in 05-06.

R.7. IMPROVE VALUE OF ADMISSIONS SERVICE AT THE TWIN CITIES

CAMPUS.

R.7.a. Change the culture regarding admissions work at the TC campus. The valueand stature of service on the Admissions Committee and work for the Office ofAdmissions needs to be elevated. Some of the methods in which this could beaccomplished would include:

Creating faculty incentives for AC service. Service on the AdmissionsCommittee should constitute strong evidence of a service requirement forpromotion in both tenure and clinical scholar tracks. Financial incentivesand/or release time for AC service, administered to faculty or departmentallythrough the mission-based management system, should be explored. Also,more public recognition, for example through appreciation dinners,certificates of thanks, and the like may help in elevating the stature ofadmissions service.

Formalizing admissions services equitably across faculty. The principle ofproportional service by departments and institutes to admissions should bestrongly considered. Perhaps a system by which departments contributedfaculty to serve on the Admissions Committee, with the amount ofcontribution based on the size of each department, should be considered.



27/33

Doing so would ensure an equitable and sufficient membership on theAdmissions Committee.

Considering change of the title of TC Director of Admissions to AssociateDean for Admissions to make it consistent with the corresponding title at theDuluth campus and most (if not all) U.S. medical schools.

Public acknowledgement by the Dean for the work of the committee (thiswould go a long way to increasing the value of the work).

R.8. ESTABLISH MORE FORMAL OVERSIGHT OF ADMISSIONS ACROSS

CAMPUSES.

R.8.a. Expand Executive Admissions Committee to include the directors of MAD

and CAIMH. Consideration should also be given to adding the proposedrecruitment coordinator to the EAC.

R.8.b. Establish a formal reporting structure of EAC to senior administration. TheEAC should provide an annual written report to and meet semiannually with theTwin Cities Senior Associate Dean for Education, the Duluth Dean, and the Dean.

R.9. ONCE CHANGES HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED, IMPLEMENT PUBLIC

INFORMATION CAMPAIGN TO EXPLAIN ADMISSIONS POLICIES AND

PROCESS TO APPLICANTS, STUDENTS, FACULTY, AND THE

COMMUNITY, PARTICULARLY U OF M MEDICAL ALUMNI.

This is perhaps the most critical recommendation of the Task Force. Each of thesegroups possesses an important stake in admissions and needs to have an accurateunderstanding of and a robust confidence in our admissions operations. The publicinformation campaign should have the following elements:

The development and dissemination of an admissions fact sheet. Inaddition to basic admissions data such as number of applicants andmatriculates from in- and out-of-state, the fact sheet should also provide dataregarding important outcomes of the admissions process such as the careerchoices, professional profiles, and geographic placement of our graduates in

residency and beyond (see R.1.b). In addition, the fact sheet should containour basic recruiting message, including a clear description of the missions ofthe two campuses and how they complement each other.

A straightforward explanation of the holistic selection process. The basicfeatures of the holistic selection process should be publicly articulated. Themerits of the holistic strategy along with the provisions in place to ensure itsrigor and integrity need to be concisely stated (see R.2.b).



28/33

A clear message of our policies regarding diversity and addressing theneeds of the state. There is a perceived conflict among various interestedconstituents between promotion of diversity and allegiance to state service inthe recruitment and selection of applicants. Proponents of diversity cite theneed to recruit and matriculate students of all types of backgrounds to best

address the health care needs of the future, pointing out that active recruitmentof out-of-state residents is crucial towards fulfilling this goal. Other groupsemphasize the land grant mission of our medical school, expressing concernthat the declining number of matriculates who are Minnesota residents willresult in fewer graduates practicing in Minnesota. This perceived conflictbetween promotion of diversity and service to the state needs to be publiclyreconciled. To do so, the public information campaign should include a clearmessage from the Dean about how the percentage of out-of-state andinternational matriculates is established, how its effects are monitored, andhow our admissions policies reflect the future health workforce needs of thestate. The justification for our admissions policies should be reinforced with

key data, such as the number of in-state and out-of-state matriculates whochoose residencies in Minnesota and ultimately practice in the state.

Presentations to important constituents. Admissions staff, recruitmentstaff, and more importantly, senior administration should present therecruitment and admissions activities of the medical school. Target audiencesshould include applicants, current students, faculty, and medical alumni.



29/33


Appendix A

DEANS TASK FORCE ON ADMISSIONS COMMITTTEE MEMBERS

Admissions Committee TC:

Marilyn Becker, PhD, Director of AdmissionsLynn Hassan, MD, MN Association of Black PhysiciansGerald Hill, MD, Association of American Indian PhysiciansLeon Satran, MD, Pediatrics

Admissions Committee DU:Lillian Repesh, PhD., Associate Dean for Admissions and Student AffairsRaymond Christensen, MD, Family Medicine/Community Health, UMDJoy Dorscher, MD, Family Medicine/Community Health, UMD

Affiliated Sites:

Elie Gertner, MD, Medicine, Regions HospitalRobert Petzel, MD, Medicine, Veterans Administration Medical CenterDavid Williams, MD, Medicine, Hennepin County Medical CenterRichard Zera, MD, PhD, Surgery, Hennepin County Medical Center

ConsultantAlex Johnson, Jr. Dean, U of Minnesota Law School

Lin Aanonsen, Ph.D., Chief Health Professions Advisor, Macalester CollegeDavid C. Anderson, MD, NeurologyKaren Armbrust, MD/PhD StudentJudy Beniak, RN, MPH, Director, Health Careers CenterColin Campbell, PhD, PharmacologyRichard Carlson, MD, Alumni (Suburban Radiologic Consultants)Gareth Forde, Medical Student, Twin CitiesFred Hafferty, PhD, Behavioral Sciences, UMDAlan Johnson, Medical Student, Twin CitiesCornelius Lam, MD, NeurosurgeryJune LaValleur, MD, OB/GYNSteven McLoon, PhD, NeuroscienceSteven Miles, MD, Professor of MedicineStacey Mollis, MD, General Medicine, VA Medical CenterLaura Molgaard, DVM, Associate Dean for Education, Veterinary MedicineManoj Monga, MD, Urologic SurgeryJames Pacala, MD, Family Medicine, Committee ChairBenjamin Phillips, MD, Medicine-Pediatrics ResidentLinda Reilly, Assistant Director, Student Support ServicesMary Tate, Administrative Director, Minority Affairs & DiversityJohn Tymoczko, Towsley Professor of Biology, Pre-med Advisor, Carleton CollegeErik Vilen, Medical Student, UMDKathleen Watson, MD, Medicine


30/33


31/33


32/33

Adm

issions Task Force Final Report Page 32

Appendix C.

DEANS TASK FORCE ON ADMISSIONS

Student Subcommittee Meeting, August 30, 2005

Present: K. Watson, T. Baultrippe, B. Brandt-Griffith (UMC), Libby Clark (TC), MeganClinton (TC), Stephanie Davison (TC), Ramsey Peterson (UMD), Amery Robinson (UMD), NeilShah (TC), Erik Vilen (UMD)

Our agenda was to (1) review the Deans charge to the Task Force on Admissions, (2) TwinCities, Duluth and national data provided to the students, and (30 discuss their experiences withadmissions, and the opportunities to improve the admissions and recruitment processes in themedical school in Duluth and the Twin Cities Medical.

Summary of key recommendations

1. There was consensus that the admissions offices on both campuses need to update andimprove their websites. Each campus should maintain separate admissions web siteswith links for both campuses admissions offices.

Website should include:

A link for information about the current status of a students application beyondthat available on MCAS. This should be supplemented by telephone calls,postcards, etc.

Links for student ambassadors or other volunteer students who might provideadditional personalized information and contacts. (Ideas to improve student

contacts are listed separately below.)

2. The Medical School does not sufficiently advertise its strengths. The studentsreviewed the points of pride page from the website and suggested the followingimprovements:

Our ranks on U.S. News and World Report, for example for primary care and as a topthree research institution.

Flexible tuition For the Twin Cities campus, enormous diversity of patients, clinical experiences, and

faculty; Special strengths:o Primary careo Global healtho Basic scienceso Inter-professional educational opportunitieso Diversity of clinical experienceso Diversity of studentso Enormous diversity of faculty interests from primary care to subspecialty

clinical care to applied and basic science


33/33

o Camaraderie among students, as well as students and facultyo Examples should be included on the web site such as the fact that there is a

knowledge co-op, that students distribute materials to each other to help eachother academically, and there is a strong sense of class success

o Flexibility and the availability of a large number of electiveso

On-line courses should be listed

For the Duluth Campus, the points of pride include:o Primary rural and Native American health care were captured, but in both, as

with the Twin Cities, the students wanted to be able to tell stories. Theysuggested, for example, pop-up videos or examples of conversations withstudents about their experiences in the Twin Cities or Duluth.

o Duluth also has inter-professional experiences, and both campuses wanted toinclude RPAP as a strong point of pride.

3. Increase medical student contact on Interview Day. The best experience for most current

students was meeting with second year students on both campuses. This group suggestedthat there may be volunteers to provide overnight housing, tours, and an introduction tothe culture of the Twin Cities. Above all, students on both campuses felt that thestrongest selling point of our medical school was the deep camaraderie that exists amongstudents. They suggested updating resources for access to culture and outdoor and sportsactivities in the Twin Cities on the website (students also volunteered to help with this).

4. Admissions offices should consider tailoring the interview day to a particular audience ofstudents. For example, those interested in primary care medicine of any type, biomedicalscience, public health, international medicine, etc. Students thought that the facultyinterviewers could be selected to coincide with the theme for particular interviewing, for

example basic science versus primary care interviewers. This would be a better way forthe applicants to not only be recruited and identified by faculty as good prospects, notonly to better understand the strengths of the University of Minnesota Medical School,but also to begin a relationship with those faculty.

5. It is important to maintain the identity of the separate campus admissions statement.Duluth students expressed concern that the processes of admissions remain distinct

Documents

UMN AdmTaskForce 31Oct05