1. Letters of Evaluation Workshop Texas Association of Advisors for the Health Professions 40th Annual Meeting Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine Hilton Hotel and Conference Center, College Station February 5, 2009 February 5, 2009 Filomeno G. Maldonado Associate Dean of Admissions

2. Overview  The Letter of Evaluation or Recommendation  The Health Professions Advisory Committee Evaluation (HPAC-E)  Individual HP Evaluations/Recommendations  The Evaluation Form  A Definable Scale of Recommendations  The Body of the Evaluation  Significance of the Evaluation  The Issues Letter of Evaluation Workshop—2009

3. Letters of Evaluation The Health Professions Advisory Committee Evaluation  Appropriate faculty input and representation  Evaluate suitability for professional school  Give a multidimensional perspective  Interview to discern attitudes and personality  Establish a relationship to yield an informative evaluation  If unfamiliar with applicant, submit only letters from faculty who can appropriately advocate or evaluate the applicant  Submit a HPAC packet with a summary letter (in the range of 1-2 pages).  Discuss academic promise  Highlight accomplishments, activities, experiences  Be honest, and evaluate  Hone in on personality, ability to communicate and interact, altruism, depth/breadth of medical exposure  Overall suitability for medical school  Include at least two professor letters with evaluation forms (set a limit for more)  Use a definable scale of recommendations  Include an Evaluation Form  Be timely in submitting packet Letters of Evaluation Workshop—2009

4. Letters of Evaluation The Individual HP Evaluation/Recommendation  Write a health professions advisor letter (in the range of 1-2 pages) discussing the following:  Academic background  Communication skills and ability to interact  Breadth and depth of interests & activities  Extent of medical experiences  Community service and/or altruistic activities  Personality  Promise or suitability for medicine  Include an evaluation form  TMDSAS Version  Include at least one additional professor letter with your evaluation form (preferably two)  Additional letters are acceptable but set a limit  One extra letter can be sent to TMDSAS above the required two professor letters or HPCE.  Additional letters must be mailed directly to the schools Letters of Evaluation Workshop—2009

5. Letters of Evaluation The Evaluation Form  TMDSAS Version http://www.utsystem.edu/tmdsas/TMDSAS%20E valuation%20Form.pdf http://www.utsystem.edu/tmdsas/TMDSAS%20E valuation%20Form.pdf  Your Version or borrow from others. Some good examples:  UT Dallas  Baylor  Texas A&M  Rice  Devise a scale of measurement  Exceptional (Highest 5%)  Unusually Good (Next Highest 15%)  Very Good (Next 15%)  Average (Middle 25%)  Below Average (Lowest 40%)  Focus on Applicant’s Achievements, Characteristics and Experiences:  Communication Skills  Interpersonal Skills  Social Values  Reliability  Leadership  Self-discipline  Problem-solving skills  Motivation to professional school  Mastery of fundamental knowledge  Overall Assessment Letters of Evaluation Workshop—2009 Include with individual letter of evaluation but not in lieu of a letter.

6. Letters of Evaluation A Definable Scale of Recommendations  Important if you are evaluating to rank your applicants.  Determine as a committee or individual evaluator a set of definable recommendations, such as Tulane’s model, provided you have a basis to compare:  Exceptionally Recommend – one of few superior applicants each year. An applicant that stands out from all other applicants.  Strongly Recommend – an applicant who clearly can handle the rigors of medical school and possesses outstanding personal qualities.  Recommend – A good applicant that is capable of meeting the standards of medical school.  Recommend with Reservation – an applicant that is weak in academic performance or is lacking motivation, maturity, community service, medically related exposure, etc.  Do not Recommend – Serious weaknesses or deficiencies, not prepared for medical school.  Important to support or justify your ranking of the applicant. Letters of Evaluation Workshop—2009

7. Letters of Evaluation A Definable Scale of Recommendations  UT Dallas’ model is also another excellent example of the committee’s level of endorsement:  Recommended with Enthusiasm – exceptional intellectual and personal qualities; strong evidence of professional motivation; reserved for a minority of candidates each year. (Highest 10%)  Recommended with Confidence – strong academic and personal qualities indicative of highly desirable medical school candidates; broad understanding of and commitment to the profession. (Upper 33%)  Recommended – Academic capability that is likely consistent with successful professional school performance; personal characteristics appropriate to healthcare career. (Middle 38%)  Recommended with Reservation – Marginal academic and/or personal qualities; may experience difficulties in professional school. (Lower 17%)  Not Recommended – Questionable personal and/or academic qualities; unlikely to succeed in professional school; unsuitable for a career in healthcare. (Bottom 2%)  Important to support or justify your ranking of the applicant. Letters of Evaluation Workshop—2009

8. Letters of Evaluation The Body of the HP Evaluation Packet  Write a health professions committee packet or an HP Individual letter (in the range of 1-2 pages) which includes the following:  The Committee Letter of Evaluation  Introduce committee members along with titles  Identify applicant using entire name, middle initials, etc., along with TMDSAS and/or AMCAS PIN’s (DO NOT USE SSN’s)  Introduce the applicant  Highlight academic record and potential for success in professional school (MD and MD/PhD programs of study)  Highlight personality (potential for service to the public), extracurricular activities, including school, community, medical and research  Highlight unusual or extenuating life experiences (if applicable)  Submit committee’s recommendation based on your defined scale of recommendations  Conclude with the following:  A statement of academic and personal integrity  A waiver statement unless included in the evaluation form  Faculty Evaluations Solicited by the Student – have criteria and limits Letters of Evaluation Workshop—2009

9. Letters of Evaluation The Significance of the Evaluation  Provides legitimacy and credibility  Assures authenticity in terms of  Credentials  Activities  Experiences  Circumstances  Accomplishments  Influences decisions regarding applicant’s promise for medicine Letters of Evaluation Workshop—2009

10. Letters of Evaluation The Issues  Lack of consistency  Lack of organization  Weak development from point to point  No logical development from point to point  Ineffectual separation of ideas  Crowded paragraphs  Poor syntax and diction  Consistently repetitive  Asking questions instead of getting to the point  Misleading statements or use of platitudes  Poor content  Fails to answer questions  Fails to get to the point efficiently  Too long or too short  Lack of a definable scale of ranking  Unclear of committee’s or individual’s support  Not communicating with Deans’ of Admissions  Lack of faculty input or representation on the committee or in the process of evaluation Letters of Evaluation Workshop—2009

11. THANK YOU!  Filomeno G. Maldonado, M.A. Associate Dean of Admissions Texas A&M HSC College of Medicine Office of Admissions 159 Joe H. Reynolds Medical Building College Station, TX 77843-1114  (979) 845-7743 (Office) FGMaldonado@medicine.tamhsc.edu  Leila E. Diaz, M.A., M.Ed. Director of Admissions Temple Campus Office of Admissions 2401 South 31 st Street Temple, TX 76508  (254) 724-6480 (Office) Ldiaz@medicine.tamhsc.edu Letters of Evaluation Workshop—2009