Add "system fields" to reviewer group qualifications
Scenario #1 -- rephrased as a user story:
I want to conduct reviewing for the entire Business School, so I'm going to review at the Conditional level. My reviewers are sensitive to workload so I want to thin out the number of review assignments as much as possible. We're using GPA, Academic Standing, etc., to make sure they only spend time reviewing the "top quality" candidates, which is only about 20% of the whole.
In order to cut down on their workload further, I wish there was a way to add a qualification on my Conditional review group that would say:
Number of qualified applications :: must be greater than :: zero
That is to say, we only want to review applicants at the Conditional level who have some qualified opportunity applications within the Business School -- aka, those who stand a chance of actually receiving an award
As it is, my reviewers may waste some time conducting evaluations on applicants who will definitely not receive an award, because some of them haven't matched to anything within the department. If I could set up a review group qualification like the above, it would be easy to avoid this.
Scenario #2 -- similar idea, but at the opportunity level:
After reviewing at the Conditional level, there may be some opportunities within the Business School where no applicants have a Conditional review score, aka where none of the "top quality" candidates were matched Mostly these are going to be opportunities that end up with a tiny applicant pool. For these we're going to set up a secondary "ad hoc" reviewer group that will operate at the opportunity level. In some cases though, we might have only one or two "top quality" candidate within an opportunity, and we want this second round of reviewing to give a slightly wider range of options to the people making the award selections.
In this case it would be helpful to have another "system" type field to use as a qualifier within the review group that would say e.g.:
Conditional Review Score :: must not be present
That way, this "ad hoc" reviewer group is only going to receive the specific applicants that did not get covered by the first round of Conditional-level reviewing.
-
Guest
- Oct 14 2016
- Reviewed: Voting Open
| Employee Name | Ian Schumann |
| Client Name "shard name" | csulb |
| User | Opportunity Admin |
| Functional Unit | Reviewer Groups |
-
Qualify off of categorized date/Signature Date Timestamp
Merged There is a demand for the ability to capture an accurate time that the applicant applies, and use that time as a qualifier. Currently, users have the applicant write in a date with their signature, which is unreliable. In addition, the categorized...
0
Reviewed: Voting Open
-
assign applications based on qualification points
Merged Only assign applications with qualification points greater than 4, for example.
1
Reviewed: Voting Open
-
Qualify off of encumbered applications column
Merged Client does not want any applicants that have encumbrances over a certain amount to be reviewed, but can not use the encumbered funds column as a reviewer group qualification. This causes the number of reviews assigned to be more than necessary. S...0 Reviewed: Voting Open
-
Review Scores and Qualifications
Merged Problem: Review Committees only want to review the top 20% of students in a given scholarship applicant pool. The client is reviewing on the GA/CA level and wants to use that REVIEW SCORE to determine who the top 20% is on a given scholarship appl...0 Reviewed: Voting Open
Related Enhancements
UVA has similar needs - we have applicants that submit conditional applications and reviewers are reviewing at the conditional application level. However, some of the student applications don't need to be reviewed because they don't qualify for any related school opportunities. It would be great to have a field at the conditional application level to indicate how many associated opportunities based on the conditional application for which the student qualifies!
UCLA has related difficulties. We'd like to use system fields such as reviews completed or gen/opp/conditional scores as qualifications on the reviewer group, so we wouldn't need to create a second review group. For example, as we reach the final day of a review, we could force through just applications still awaiting our minimum number of reviews OR a second read of just the top "finalists" that have a minimum score of 90, for example.
Please see merged enhancement from ucr for a similar use case. They would like to use the reviewer score at a General App or Conditional App level to find the top candidates and have those candidates come up for review again at the scholarship level.