Outcomes Applicant Review Form Mock-up

Graduate Application Review — WSU

Part 1 — Universal Review

Applicant Information (pulled from application record — read only)

Last Name

Mitchell

First Name

Sarah

Applicant ID

WSU-2026-04821

Entry Term

Fall 2026

Degree Status

Attended Graduate School

Citizenship

U.S. Citizen

Academic Background (Self-Reported)

Undergrad Institution

University of Washington

Undergrad Major

Psychology

Self-Reported UG GPA

3.72 / 4.0

Grad Institution

Portland State University

Grad Major

Clinical Psychology

Self-Reported Grad GPA

3.88 / 4.0

Test Scores & Additional Info (Self-Reported)

GRE Verbal

162 (90th %ile)

GRE Quantitative

155 (67th %ile)

GRE Analytical Writing

4.5

English Proficiency

N/A (Domestic)

Faculty / Lab Interest

Dr. James Whitfield

Seeking Assistantship

Yes — RA

View Full Application (PDF)

Reviewer & Prerequisites

Reviewer Name

Review Date

Has the applicant met the Graduate School minimum GPA requirement?

Yes No

English Language Proficiency

Mark “Above Minimum” for U.S. residents with a Master’s degree, or international applicants who earned a U.S. Master’s degree within the last 2 years.

Above Minimum At Minimum Below Minimum N/A — Domestic

Application Completeness

Complete Incomplete — materials missing

Universal Evaluation Domains

Rate each domain using the four-point scale below. Not Measurable (NM) should be used when the application does not provide sufficient evidence to assess a domain — it is not the same as a low score. All four domains are evaluated for every applicant regardless of program.

NM — Not Measurable 1 — Low 2 — Medium 3 — High

Based on the CGS framework adopted across R1 graduate programs: Academic Achievement · Research Experience & Program Fit · Motivation & Mission Alignment · Personal Attributes.

Domain 1 Academic Achievement

Self-reported GPA is shown above for reference. Consider academic trajectory, institutional selectivity, and the rigor of relevant coursework — not the number alone. Account for documented extenuating circumstances where applicable.

Rate the applicant’s academic preparation in the context of their institution, degree level, and field.

NM Insufficient information to assess — unusual institutional context, missing materials, or other circumstances prevent a meaningful rating. 1 Low. Academic preparation raises substantive concerns; performance is below program expectations with no evident compensating factors. 2 Medium. Adequate preparation; meets program minimums; relevant coursework demonstrates foundational competence. 3 High. Strong preparation; above-average performance in relevant coursework, a rigorous curriculum, or a clear and sustained upward trajectory.

Domain 2 Research Experience & Program Fit

Two separate ratings are required. Research experience (track record) and research fit (direction and alignment) are related but distinct — an applicant may have substantial experience but a vague direction, or vice versa.

2a · Prior research experience — rate the depth and quality of the applicant’s research track record.

Consider duration, independence, and range. Publications and presentations are indicators of strength, not requirements for admission.

NM No research experience is evident in the application, or materials are insufficient to assess. 1 Low. Minimal — course-based or a single brief exposure; limited independent contribution to a research project. 2 Medium. Meaningful — sustained involvement across multiple semesters, an honors thesis, or an equivalent independent research contribution. 3 High. Substantial — led or independently managed research; evidence of scholarly output (presentations, publications, grants, or paid research position).

2b · Program fit — rate the correspondence between the applicant’s stated interests and available faculty and program expertise.

If research interests are not clearly stated in the application, select Not Measurable rather than Low.

NM Research interests are not clearly articulated in the application materials. 1 Low. General interest in the field; no specific faculty or research area identified; limited evidence the applicant has researched this program. 2 Medium. Clear research focus; meaningful alignment with at least one faculty member’s active program; applicant has identified the program as a good match. 3 High. Specific, well-developed research direction; demonstrates familiarity with faculty work; articulates a compelling and well-informed case for this program.

Domain 3 Motivation & Mission Alignment

Consider whether past experience and future goals form a coherent narrative, and whether the applicant demonstrates genuine understanding of what graduate study at this program entails.

Rate the clarity and credibility of the applicant’s motivation for pursuing this degree at this program.

NM Motivation is not meaningfully addressed in the available materials. 1 Low. Motivation is stated but generic, unconvincing, or inconsistent with the applicant’s background and stated goals. 2 Medium. Clear motivation; past experience and future direction are reasonably connected; the applicant articulates a purpose for choosing this program. 3 High. Compelling, specific motivation; a coherent narrative connects prior experience, the degree, and well-defined goals; applicant demonstrates genuine knowledge of the program and field.

Domain 4 Personal Attributes

Two separate ratings are required. Written communication and personal attributes (persistence, initiative, leadership potential) are both evaluated here. Evidence may appear in any part of the application — personal statement, work history, letters, or descriptions of how the applicant overcame obstacles.

4a · Written communication — rate the quality of writing across all application materials.

Consider the personal statement, writing sample (if provided), and any other written components together.

NM Insufficient written materials to assess. 1 Low. Writing raises significant concerns; errors, lack of clarity, or poor organization impede comprehension of the applicant’s ideas. 2 Medium. Adequate writing; communicates the applicant’s ideas clearly with minor lapses in convention, depth, or precision. 3 High. Strong writing; clear, well-organized, and demonstrates depth of thought; writing reflects the applicant’s intellectual engagement with the field.

4b · Persistence, initiative, and leadership potential — rate the evidence of personal qualities that support success in doctoral-level work.

Consider initiative in research or other pursuits, resilience in the face of obstacles, capacity for independent work, and potential for mentoring or leading others.

NM Insufficient evidence across application materials to assess. 1 Low. Application raises concerns about readiness or persistence; limited evidence of self-direction or initiative. 2 Medium. Adequate evidence; applicant demonstrates appropriate work ethic, commitment, and ability to follow through on extended projects. 3 High. Strong evidence across multiple application elements; clear initiative, resilience, and capacity for the intellectual and practical demands of doctoral work.

All Programs Letters of Recommendation — Overall Quality

The strongest letters are written by someone with direct knowledge of the applicant’s academic or research work, include specific examples, and rank the applicant relative to others the writer has supervised. Use Not Measurable only if letters have not been received. Program-specific letter requirements (e.g., individual ratings, faculty origin checks) appear in Part 2.

Rate the overall quality and specificity of the letters of recommendation.

NM Letters not yet received, or materials are insufficient to assess. 1 Low. Weak or generic; letters offer little meaningful evidence of the applicant’s capabilities; recommenders may not know the applicant well, or endorsements are hedged or ambiguous. 2 Medium. Adequate; recommenders speak to the applicant’s abilities with some specific observations; endorsements are generally supportive and credible. 3 High. Strong or exceptional; at least one letter provides detailed, evidence-based endorsement from someone with direct supervisory or research knowledge; applicant is ranked highly among those the writer has taught or supervised.

Part 2 — Program Review

Program Assignment

In Outcomes, this form is automatically routed based on the application’s program assignment. Use the selector below to preview each program form.

Psychology — Clinical PhD Neuroscience — PhD Math & Science Education — PhD Soil Science — PhD

← Select a program above to load the program-specific review form.

Psychology — Clinical PhD Program-Specific Review

The following questions supplement the universal domains above. They reflect the clinical program’s specific scoring rubric and should be completed in addition to Part 1, not instead of it.

I Academic Record — Program GPA Ratings

The clinical program uses specific GPA thresholds that differ from the general academic achievement rating in Domain 1. Complete both; they serve different purposes.

Undergraduate GPA Rating (use transcript — not self-report)

	≥3.0 & <3.25 1 pt	≥3.25 & <3.50 2 pts	≥3.50 & <3.75 3 pts	≥3.75 & <3.90 4 pts	≥3.90 5 pts
UG GPA

Graduate GPA Rating (if applicable — skip if undergraduate only)

0GPA < 3.3 1GPA ≥ 3.3 and < 3.95 2GPA ≥ 3.95

Notes on Academic Record (optional)

II Personal Statement — Program-Specific Dimensions

Writing quality is assessed in Domain 4a above. The ratings below address the clinical program’s specific content requirements.

Program-specific personal statement dimensions (0–2 per row)

Dimension	Absent / Inadequate 0	Adequate 1	Strong 2
Fit with scientist-practitioner program model
Reasons for applying to a clinical PhD program specifically
Identified major professor / clinical faculty fit

III Research Experience & Scholarly Productivity

Domain 2a above provides an overall research experience rating. The ratings below capture clinical-program-specific distinctions and scholarly output separately.

Scholarly productivity — rate the highest level achieved

0None 1Co-author on a conference presentation 2First author on a conference presentation 3Co-author on a peer-reviewed publication 4First author on a peer-reviewed publication; co-author on multiple publications; or research grant recipient

Honors thesis or independent senior project?

If yes, add 1 point to the Research Experience domain above.

Yes (+1 pt) No

IV Clinical Experience

Prior clinical experience

1 point = full-time paid work at a mental health agency or facility, and/or extensive externship/internship/practicum in a mental health position (one or more years).

0No prior clinical experience 1Some clinical experience, but limited (e.g., brief volunteer, single-semester practicum) 2Substantial clinical experience — meets the paid work / extensive internship criterion above

Notes on clinical experience (optional)

V Individual Letter Ratings

Overall letter quality is rated in Part 1. Rate each of up to three letters individually here. If four or more letters were submitted, randomly select three. Consider percentile rank stated by the letter writer when assessing tone.

At least 2 letters must be from a faculty member in a university or medical setting. Confirm this before proceeding.

At least 2 letters from a faculty member (university/medical setting)?

Yes No

Individual letter ratings (average of 3 = final score, 0–4)

Letter	Below Avg (0) Tepid, vague	Average (1) Minimal specifics	Above Avg (2) Strong, top 10–20%	Superior (3) Highly, top 5–10%	Exceptional (4) Outstanding, top 1–5%
LR 1
LR 2
LR 3

VI Enrichment, Adversity & Concerns

These three adjustments modify the applicant’s total score. Add points for enrichment experiences and resilience; subtract for identifiable concerns. Document each item scored below.

Enrichment Experiences (+0 to +5)

Add 1 point per identifiable EE, up to 5. Examples: military service; additional degree in a related field; honor’s program; awards beyond high-achieving undergrad norms; multilingual; Peace Corps / AmeriCorps / Teach for America; research or volunteer work with marginalized populations; McNair Scholars, Gates Millennium, MARC, etc.

Overcoming Adversity / Resilience (+0 to +5)

Add 1 point per identifiable indicator, up to 5. Examples: significant socioeconomic challenges; disability; marked GPA improvement after major change; first-generation college student; under-resourced prior education; non-English primary home language; historically underrepresented in higher education.

Evidence of Potential Problems (0 to −5)

Subtract 1 point per identifiable concern, up to −5. Examples: vague/unfocused career plans, apparent training deficits, inconsistent grades, application problems. A questionable undergraduate diploma (unaccredited or online-only institution) is an automatic disqualifier.

Notes on adjustments

VII Red Flags

Select all that apply

Low GPA (<3.0 undergraduate and/or <3.3 graduate) Problematic personal statement Inconsistent grades (low outliers masked by overall GPA) Academic dishonesty noted on transcript Problematic letter(s) of recommendation Evidence of limited sensitivity to diversity Problems with the application process

Notes on red flags / additional comments

Final Recommendation — Psychology Clinical PhD

Recommended Decision

Admit Deny Waitlist Need More Info

Justification / Summary Comments

Aim for 2–4 sentences. This may be shared with the committee.

Neuroscience — PhD Program-Specific Review

The universal domains above cover academic achievement, research experience, program fit, motivation, written communication, personal attributes, and letter quality. The questions below address neuroscience-specific context that the universal form cannot capture.

I Neuroscience-Relevant Academic Preparation

Domain 1 assesses overall academic preparation. This question addresses specifically whether the applicant’s coursework prepares them for neuroscience doctoral training.

Preparation in neuroscience-relevant disciplines

Consider coursework in neuroscience, biology, chemistry, physiology, psychology, or related quantitative fields.

0Minimal or no coursework in neuroscience-relevant disciplines; significant preparation gaps 1Some relevant coursework; foundational preparation but missing key disciplinary areas 2Solid preparation; coursework covers core relevant sciences with appropriate breadth 3Strong preparation; advanced coursework in at least one relevant discipline; well-positioned to begin doctoral-level neuroscience training

II Faculty Mentor Recommendation

Domain 2b rates general program fit. Note here whether a specific faculty mentor has been identified and whether the match is strong enough to name.

Suggested faculty mentor(s)

Additional notes on program fit or disciplinary context

Final Recommendation — Neuroscience PhD

Recommended Decision

Justification / Summary Comments

Aim for 2–4 sentences. This may be shared with the committee.

Math & Science Education — PhD Program-Specific Review

Rate each domain 0–3. If the applicant is not rejected but receives a 0 on any item, a discussion by the review committee is automatically warranted. Part 2 (TA/RA) applies only to candidates seeking financial assistance.

Part 1 · Application Review

The applicant has met the minimum GPA requirement of the Graduate School.

Yes No

1 Mathematics and/or Science Content Background (0–3)

Consider: degree in math or science, grades in relevant content courses, GRE Quantitative score, and content teaching or professional development that developed content knowledge.

0Little to no math/science background — no undergraduate content coursework; GRE Q below 139 (10th %ile) 1Weak — minimal undergraduate content coursework; C grades or lower in content courses; GRE Q below 144 (25th %ile) 2Adequate — minor or equivalent in a content area; strong grades; GRE Q above 149 (50th %ile); or extensive content teaching/PD that developed content knowledge 3Extensive — degree in math or science; exceptional grades in discipline-relevant courses; GRE Q above 155 (70th %ile)

2 Teaching Experience (0–3)

Teaching may occur in PreK–16 settings or informal learning environments.

0No evidence of teaching experience 1Limited — some successful experience with children or adults in an educational setting 2Abbreviated — tutoring or structured environment; minimal responsibility for curriculum planning or assessment 3Extensive and consistent — duties included management, curriculum design, planning, and assessment

3 Familiarity with Learning Contexts (0–3)

0Little to no familiarity with learning contexts beyond personal experience as a student 1Some familiarity with K–16 learning contexts in a country other than the U.S. 2Some professional familiarity with K–16 in the U.S., or deep familiarity with K–16 in a different country 3Deep professional familiarity with K–16 and other relevant learning contexts in the U.S.

4 Commitment to Scholarship & Professional Development (0–3)

0Unclear or missing commitment to scholarship and/or professional development 1Discusses scholarship/PD; limited or no evidence of past experiences in line with program goals 2Discusses scholarship/PD; some evidence of past scholarly experiences or PD in line with program goals 3Clearly states commitment; ample evidence of past scholarly experiences or PD in line with program goals

5 Academic Writing Sample (0–3)

Domain 4a rates general written communication. This question specifically assesses whether the academic writing sample demonstrates doctoral-level scholarly writing.

0Sample suggests the applicant cannot perform doctoral-level writing tasks even with significant faculty support 1Sample suggests significant faculty support above and beyond regular coursework would be needed 2Sample suggests writing skills sufficient for doctoral work can be developed through normal coursework 3Sample suggests the applicant will develop into a very successful scholarly writer at the PhD level

6 Additive Perspective (0–3)

Consider perspectives on educational and social systems, challenging the status quo, educational and social justice, and how power structures influence math and/or science education.

0Little or nothing in the application suggests the applicant will bring an additive perspective to the program 1The applicant may bring an additive perspective, but this is not made clear in the materials 2A few novel ideas and a unique perspective that would add to the richness of the program community 3Several novel ideas and a distinctive perspective that would meaningfully enrich the program community

Part 2 · TA/RA Candidates Only

Is the applicant seeking a TA/RA position?

Yes No — skip this section

TA/RA suitability score (1–5)

Consider teaching experience/potential and letters of recommendation that specifically address teaching.

Comments on TA/RA suitability

Final Recommendation — Math & Science Education PhD

Recommended Decision

Admit Deny Waitlist Need More Info

Suggested faculty mentor(s) (optional)

Justification / Summary Comments

Note: Any applicant not rejected who scored 0 on any item must be flagged for committee discussion.