- Soliciting Applications
- Application Materials
- Accepting Applications
- Organizing Applications
- Reviewing Applications
- Organizing Reviews
- Selecting Participants
- Announcing Decisions
- Providing Feedback to Participants
- Let’s Chat!
- Appendix A: ASCII Call for Participants
- Appendix B: Acceptance Email Text
- Appendix C: Waitlist Email Text
- Appendix D: Unable to Accept Text
We’re in the process of wrapping up participant selection for our upcoming Workshop for Avida-ED Software Development (WAVES). This workshop will team up early-career participants with mentors to help build the software foundation that will underly the next version of Avida-ED (as well as more broadly supporting web-based scientific apps and digital evolution research).
So far, almost everything’s been turning up roses. At least, the important things have: soliciting quality applications and thoughtful group discussion and decisions on admission. Behind the scenes, we’ve been racing to put all the pieces in place in time for our expected start date in two weeks, a build-the-plane-as-you-fly-it sort of situation. (We started planing the workshop only about a month ago, in part due to funding unexpectedly becoming available due to the ongoing situation with COVID-19.)
Lets go ahead and jump into what worked well and what we’d like to change up next time.
🔗 Soliciting Applications
This point seems obvious in retrospect, but in order to effectively recruit you need to put together a written job description or call for participants. Sitting down to write up a call for participants, in my view, is where our planning for the workshop really started to gain traction. Prior to this point, we had discussed the scope of newly available funding and the kinds of activities we would like to spend it on in broad terms. Writing down a call for participants made the workshop much easier to explain to potential applicants we approached in person and — because it was so easy to share — opened the door to a much broader pool of applicants. Plus, the text forced stakeholders to make our vision for the workshop concrete and explicit. More than anything else, engaging with each other over the call for participants brought us stakeholders all together onto the same page.
We chose to publish our call for participants as a website. This made it even easier to share — we just had to distribute a url — and allowed us to push our announcement out quickly with the confidence that we would be able to make minor corrections as needed (fixing typos, updating contact information, etc.). You can see what the site looked like to applicants here. Under the hood, the site is built with Jekyll and hosted with GitHub Pages. You can view (and fork!) the website’s source at https://github.com/mmore500/waves. As the workshop progresses, we are looking forward to using the workshop website to host week-to-week organizational information as well as showcase our participants and their projects.
we're recruiting participants (esp. undergrads) for a ten-week, funded ($6k), full-time, fully-remote software development workshop this summer! 🌞💻— Matthew A Moreno (@MorenoMatthewA) April 24, 2020
help build C++/JS tools for digital evolution & interactive science web apps
details & application -> https://t.co/uTuX5HIKMG
Once we had the call for participants put together, we threw it out into the world! Instead of assigning a particular stakeholder to distribute (or manage distributing) the call for participants, we simply had everyone distribute it where they saw fit. Dr. Ofria and I shared the call for participants with the Advanced C++ Seminar students we had last semester. Various stakeholders forwarded information to department secretaries and mentors at previous institutions and acquaintainces who managed email lists at MSU. (We prepared a condensed ASCII summary of our call for proposals, included at the end, I put a tweet up that got shared a few times. Dr. Ofria threw a post up on the MSU reddit. Dr. Blackwood put an announcement up on the school-endorsed job board.
This shotgun approach worked well for us. Over the week and a half we circulated our call for participants, we received 92 applications for the workshop.
Receiving too many applicants is, generally speaking, a much better problem than receiving too few. However, even with eleven sets of hands on deck, sorting through nearly a hundred applications was a big task. In future years, we might give some consideration to the signal-to-noise ratio that our different dissemination mechanisms yielded. Anecdotally, the school-endorsed job board (Handshake) seemed to perform poorly in this regard. When making future decisions about where to advertise, though, we will have to seriously consider questions of equity and inclusion.
🔗 Application Materials
The lesson learned here: make your ask very specific.
Here’s what we asked for from applicants.
Applications should consist of:
- a curriculum vitae or resume,
- a brief (appox. 500 to 1000 words) statement that describes
- your personal background and career goals,
- your interest in the program, and
- an interesting coding project you’ve tackled.
- in any setting: school, hackathon, personal project, research, work, etc.
- as possible, link us to the code, the deployment, the project website, a writeup, and/or presentation! * and, optionally, two references for your coding ability (include name, email, and relationship).
Applications should be submitted to email@example.com with the subject line “WAVES Application” no later than May 4, 2020.
We will announce participant selection no later than May 11, 2020.
First things first: ask for PDF files. You should probably be prepared to deal with the Word documents that will inevietably roll in, but cutting the number of misformatted resumes you end up digging through by even half counts as a win in my book.
Next, in our case, we should have said what not to submit.
We ended up with a veritable zoo of files submitted:
.zip archives of code, loose
.java files, PDFs of term papers, PowerPoints, and more.
Clarifying what we did (and didn’t) mean by “link” would have saved us some headaches.
The rationale behind asking for a specific subject line was to make harvesting emailed-in applications easier. However, there is no universe in which every single application comes in with the subject line “WAVES Application” so this pipe dream is basically useless. Instead, ask applicants to put their names as the subject line. This will make organizing applications much easier and, unlike the process of gathering applications where some might fall through the cracks, erroneous names are straightforward to spot and fix up later on. Asking applicants to submit applications from their school email would have made sorting through applications easier later on, too.
The WAVES workshop stakeholders strongly and unanimously believe in the importance of supporting inclusion and equity within our fields, particularly with respect to underrepresented groups. Recruiting mentees and hiring colleagues who demonstrate a similar commitment provides key means toward this goal. In a significant oversight, however, we failed to ask applicants to describe their perspective on and enterprise for inclusion and equity. This failure deprived applicants, particularly those who have prioritized action to promote inclusion and equity, of the opportunity to showcase their commitment. Because applicants from underrepresented backgrounds are often some of the strongest champions for inclusion and equity, failing to ask for a diversity statement hinders our own efforts to recruit in a manner that promotes equity and inclusion. Finally, this oversight also represented a lost opportunity to further cement consideration of inclusion and equity as a norm in our fields. In any future calls for participants, we plan to correct this mistake.
🔗 Accepting Applications
We accepted applications by email. This method was easy to set up, easy for applicants to use, flexible, and robust. The major downside to accepting applications by email was organizing applications after we had received them. (We did discover some tools, covered in the next section, that made this downside mostly manageable.) Much larger-scale solicitations should probably consider setting up something like a Google Form or paying for a pre-built software-as-a-service solution.
We set up a private Google Groups group, which comes with its own email address, to receive applications. After distributing our call for participants, we came to the stomach-turning realization that only registered group members could send email to the group. Luckily, we found an obscure configuration switch to toggle to turn the group into a “Shared Inbox,” which fixed our problem. The takeaway lesson here: test your means for accepting applications before you share it! After we had it set up correctly, the Google groups shared inbox automatically forwarded all applications to several workshop stakeholders. This was actually quite handy.
We had originally also planned to also use the Google group to coordinate workshop logistics among stakeholders. A slack channel is turning out to serve this purpose better. Having intra-workshop emails interspersed with applications turned out to be a huge headache, making double-checking that no application slipped through the cracks much more difficult than it needed to be. If you do use a Google group to receive applications, be sure to set one up that exclusively serves that purpose.
Another minor pain point was Handshake’s proprietary application submission system. I would wholeheartedly recommend choosing one pipe for all applications to go through and then strictly ensuring all applications end up going through that pipe. One might disable alternate submission options as possible or follow up with applicants to ask them to resubmit through the preferred pipe. Although making accommodations for a few cases doesn’t take much time or effort up front, it makes final validation that no applications fell through the cracks much more difficult.
Similarly, we would have benefited from planning how to handle late applications. We should have made the text of our call for proposals more explicit. If you plan to consider late applications, the text of the call for applications should say so with language like “for full consideration” or “rolling deadline.” Similarly, if you don’t plan to consider late applications, the text should probably explicitly say so with language like “strict deadline.” If you do plan to consider late applications, be sure to have a plan about how they will fit into the review process, especially if it is already underway.
Finally, as packets came in we replied to applicants individually to confirm we had received their materials. An auto-reply would have accomplished this task much more efficiently.
🔗 Organizing Applications
The lynchpin to bulk processing emailed-in applications was CloudHQ’s GMail-to-PDF tool.
This tool allowed me to bulk select emails from inside of the GMail web client then click a “Convert to PDF” button.
After a few minutes of running behind the scenes, I was able to open up my Google Drive to find PDF files corresponding to the email thread for each applicant.
Not only were entire email conversations converted to individual PDFs, but attachments were appended on automatically (including
CloudHQ provided several options to name the PDFS, including with the email address of the sender and the subject line of the email.
I ended up buying a one month subscription for $19.99 because I exceeded the free tier cap of 50 emails, but it was well worth the money.
Tip: do not rename files in Google Drive.
How ever Google Drive manages file names is a Big, Bad Lie.
I spent about an hour running on a hampster wheel where I was renaming files that were silently reverting back to their original names.
Download files from Google Drive and use some quick scripting to tidy everything up on a Real File System.
rename utility command is your friend here.
I tidied up the downloaded emails to name them based on the sender’s email address (e.g.,
I chose to distribute the application packets to reviewers as a single PDF booklet. Organizing applications into one document obviated the need for me to host the files in a directory where they could be downloaded individually or reviewers to unzip an archive and organize the files. Also, because we assigned reviewers contiguous subsets of applicants, it made moving from one packet to the next as easy as scrolling to the next page.
This yielded section heading pages titled as
Then, after tagging
.pdf.pdf onto the file extension of the actual packets to ensure that packets were alphabetically ordered after their corresponding section header documents, PDFtk made stitching the files together a breeze.
pdfk *.pdf cat output packet.pdf
Then, a little one-job web app slapped some page numbers on the booklet before I distributed it.
🔗 Reviewing Applications
We reviewed candidates on
- programming experience,
- the programming project they chose to discuss,
- the effectiveness of their written statement, and
- how candidate interests aligned with workshop objectives.
We had a robust discussion among reviewers as to how to assess applicants projects in an equitable manner. Extracurricular programming projects aren’t just a function of applicants’ proficiency and initiative: they also stem from conditioning, opportunity, and encouragement. We decided to avoid appraising open-ended programming projects as inherently less than just because they took place in a classroom context. We will certainly revisit the role of programming projects in our application process in preparation for next year’s workshop, if we do hold it.
We rated candidates on each of these criteria as either
- Strong, or
This system sufficed, but in future years we might consider switching to a numerical system. Numerical ratings avoid burdening reviewers with implicit value judgements associated with the categorical descriptors we used. The numerical system could also allow for more granular ratings. Several reviewers mentioned difficulty rating candidates that they felt fell between categories and that being able to mark categories “plus” or “minus” would have made the process much easier.
To ensure reviewers provided comparable ratings, we put together a rubric and discussed it as a group before performing reviews.
|Concern||red flags||red flags or missing||red flags||red flags||do not support|
|Neutral||no experience||insufficient content or quality||not mentioned||no evidence||neutral|
|Adequate||coursework only||adequate||basic proficiency and initiative||expresses interest||support|
|Strong||significant project||effective, engaging, and detailed||strong proficiency and initiative||demonstrates interest||strongly support|
|Outstanding||exceptional||exceptional||exceptional proficiency and initiative||demonstrates exceptional interest||want to mentor|
For some categories, allowing the “Concern” marking seemed superfluous. However, a few edge cases did arise where it proved a useful tool (such as applicants who described a project that appeared to be the work of others).
🔗 Organizing Reviews
We used a Google Sheets page to organize application reviews. We used input validation to ensure reviewers’ ratings stuck to our defined categories. This turned individual cells into drop-down boxes, which made recording reviews convenient. We found that having record reviews on their own sheets in the document and then, once all reviews were in, having a single stakeholder take care of pasting them into the main sheet worked well.
🔗 Selecting Participants
Our review process began with a pass through the spreadsheet to create a shortlist. For each application packet, we had reviewers give a brief oral recap and then decided as a group whether to shortlist. This helped reviewers double check with each other that they had similar impressions of applications packet. It also helped the rest of us double check the reviewers’ subjective interpretation of the application packet.
Then, we sorted through the shortlist to advance the strongest applications to a finalist list. Final selections were based on alignment with individual mentors’ projects.
This process took place over the course of several Zoom meetings. The number of strong applications we had made selecting participants very difficult. If we had the seats available, we could have filled a dramatically larger workshop with exceptional participants.
We got through the process, though, and ended up with final decisions based on broad consensus. Although we are pleased with the outcome, the process could have been made more efficient and less stressful by explicitly defining objectives before or at the very beginning of meetings instead of just trying to work through as much of the process as possible.
🔗 Announcing Decisions
We announced decisions by email. We simply sorted email addresses into groups based on application decisions and sent a bcc message to each group.
We put some effort into emphasizing our appreciation for the quality of applications we had received and the effort that went into them. Sending emails individually (by hand or with a mail merge) would have provided a more personal touch. However, I would rather invest time and effort elsewhere in the process.
In future years, we might avoid waitlisting by reaching out to first-round recruits well before the decision deadline then reaching out to more recruits as needed to fill spots before sending out an unable to accept email.
🔗 Providing Feedback to Participants
The applicant who followed up with us about how we had evaluated applications was specifically interested in feedback on how strengthen their future applications. Their inquiry raised up a valuable point we had not considered yet: how to better provide detailed, actionable feedback to all applicants. Applicants invest time and energy preparing their materials, so it only seems fair that we do our very best to make the application process worth their while. If we continue the workshop next year, we should consider how to design evaluation criteria for reviewers that not just help us sort through applications but also prove useful to applicants themselves. We might design the process from the beginning with the intent to return all reviews, including any written-out reviewer notes, to applicants. This would require some logistical considerations, but seems within the realm of possibility with the assistance of some clever scripting.
🔗 Let’s Chat!
What nuts and bolts have worked well in your efforts to recruit and review applications for academic positions? Not so well?
I started a twitter thread (right below) so we can chat … I know y’all got stories!!!
WAVES workshop call had an amazing response: 92 applications in all 🌟💻😸— Matthew A Moreno (@MorenoMatthewA) May 17, 2020
we're proud of the crew we assembled but (as always) things could have gone a little smoother behind the scenes... 🙄 🤷
blog post on Logistical Lessons Learned 💪https://t.co/zH0aSdNs9U
🔗 Appendix A: ASCII Call for Participants
🔗 Appendix B: Acceptance Email Text
Thank you for applying to become a participant in the WAVES workshop. We are delighted to inform you that you have been accepted as a workshop participant. We received 92 applications, most of which were excellent, and needed to make tough decisions. You are one of 19 participants who we have offered a position in the workshop.
Please let us know as soon as possible — at the latest by Friday, May 15 — if you accept this offer; if not we want to be able to offer your place to one of the other applicants.
The workshop will officially start Tuesday, May 26th with a welcome session and orientation from 1pm to 4pm EST. After we hear back from you, we will follow up in the next couple of weeks to provide additional details about the workshop and ask for information in order to set up computer accounts and your stipend.
Congratulations and welcome to WAVES!
🔗 Appendix C: Waitlist Email Text
Thank you for applying to become a participant in the WAVES workshop. At this time we cannot yet admit you as a workshop participant. However, you did make the short list and we have put you on our waiting list in case we have someone else decline or are able to further grow the workshop. We will update you by Monday, May 18 about whether we are able to add you. If you are no longer interested in participating, please let us know as soon as possible.
We received 92 applications, many more than the workshop capacity. In the end, we had to make tough decisions. You had one of the strongest applications and we really want to do our best to include you.
🔗 Appendix D: Unable to Accept Text
Thank you for applying to become a participant in the WAVES workshop. We appreciate the time and energy you put in to applying, but unfortunately we are not able to offer you a place in the workshop. We received 92 applications, many more than the workshop capacity. In the end, we had to make tough decisions and were unable to accept many exceptionally talented participants.
We are tentatively planning to hold another WAVES workshop next summer. If you are interested in receiving our call for participants next year, click here to add your name to our email list. Thank you!