letter of recommendation graduate school speech pathology

Letter Templates & Example

Top Letter of Recommendation Template for SLP Grad Students

Are you a Speech-Language Pathology (SLP) graduate student in need of a letter of recommendation? Look no further! We have compiled a Letter of Recommendation Template specifically catered towards SLP graduate students. Our template includes examples that you can easily edit and make your own. Whether you need a letter for your graduate program application, a job application, or anything in between, our template has got you covered. So save yourself the time and stress of starting from scratch, and use our SLP Letter of Recommendation Template to give yourself the best chance of success.

The Best Structure for a Letter of Recommendation Template for SLP Grad Students

If you’re a Speech-Language Pathology (SLP) graduate student and you’re requesting a letter of recommendation from a professor, supervisor, or mentor, it’s important to understand what should be included to make the best impression. A well-structured letter of recommendation can help the reader understand your strengths, abilities, and potential, as well as give a sense of your personality and character. Here’s a breakdown of the best structure for a letter of recommendation for an SLP grad student.

First, start with an introduction that explains your relationship with the person you’re writing about. This should be a brief paragraph that explains how long you’ve known the student, in what capacity, and what impressed you about them. You might also include some information about their work ethic, problem-solving ability, or communication skills that make them ideal for a career in SLP.

Next, provide evidence in support of your recommendation. This is the meat of the letter and should include specific examples of the student’s abilities and accomplishments. Use concrete examples such as projects completed, patient interactions, or presentations given at conferences. Don’t rely solely on general statements or anecdotes; instead, be specific and detailed, including any achievements that set the student apart from others. Also, try to tie in any strengths that you think would be relevant to future careers or opportunities in SLP.

After you’ve provided evidence to support your recommendation, offer an assessment of the student’s potential. This is an opportunity to share your perspective on the student’s future as an SLP. Evaluate the student’s abilities and potential for success, perhaps by comparing them to other successful SLPs you know. Indicate why you believe they have the potential to excel in the field and make a difference in their patients’ lives.

Finally, close the letter with an overall recommendation. If you feel strongly that the student would make a great SLP, be clear and direct. Explain why you believe the student is an excellent candidate, what value they can bring to the field, and why you support their candidacy. Be positive and encouraging but avoid making false statements or exaggerations.

In conclusion, a well-structured letter of recommendation can make all the difference when it comes to a SLP grad student’s future opportunities. Provide specific examples, assess potential for success, and close with a strong endorsement. This will leave a positive impression on the reader and increase the chances of the student getting into their desired program or landing their dream career.

Letter of Recommendation Templates for SLP Grad Student

Letter of recommendation for slp grad student – job application.

Dear Hiring Manager,

I am writing to highly recommend [Name], who recently completed their Master’s degree in speech-language pathology from [University]. During their time at our clinic, they displayed exceptional knowledge, skills, and professionalism that were consistently reflected in their work. [Name] was an exceptionally diligent student who was always passionate about making a positive difference in the lives of individuals with communication disorders.

[Name]’s clinical skills demonstrate their ability to provide effective and high-quality speech language therapy for clients with diverse backgrounds and needs, including those with developmental delays, autism spectrum disorder, and hearing impairments. They have experience working with both children and adults. Their patience, empathy, and strong communication skills are what makes them an excellent candidate for the position.

Your organization will benefit greatly from having [Name] as a member of your team. They are a hard-working, dedicated, and passionate clinician whose commitment to putting their clients first is second to none.

[Your Name]

Letter of Recommendation for SLP Grad Student – Graduate School Application

Dear Admissions Committee,

I am writing to highly recommend [Name], who completed their undergraduate degree in speech-language pathology and is now seeking admission to your Masters’ program in the same field. [Name] was an exceptional student who demonstrated a deep understanding of the field and its practices.

[Name] was always eager to learn and was proactive in seeking out opportunities to learn more about speech-language pathology. Their academic performance was excellent, and their clinical skills were equally impressive. They were able to work well in a team setting and communicate their opinions effectively. They actively participated in class and provided meaningful feedback on assignments and group projects.

I am confident that [Name] will continue to shine in your program and make a positive impact in the field of speech-language pathology. [Name]’s enthusiasm for the field, coupled with their academic and clinical achievements, makes them an ideal candidate for your program.

Thank you for your consideration.

Letter of Recommendation for SLP Grad Student – Scholarship Award

Dear Scholarship Committee,

I am writing to recommend [Name] for your speech-language pathology scholarship. As [Name]’s supervisor for their graduate-level clinical practicum, I can attest to their significant achievements in the discipline.

[Name] is an excellent clinician who has consistently demonstrated their passion for the field and a commitment to serving others. They possess a broad knowledge of the latest research, methods, and techniques in speech-language pathology and were active in seeking out new ideas and resources to improve their understanding of the field. Their commitment to evidence-based practice and their ability to critically evaluate research has been particularly impressive.

[Name] is also an exceptional communicator, both with clients and their families, and other professionals in the field, such as our interdisciplinary team of psychologists, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists. Their ability to connect with clients and their caregivers has proven invaluable, and their ability to adapt their technique and goals to suit clients with diverse needs is remarkable.

Overall, I highly recommend [Name] for this scholarship, and I am confident that they will continue to strive to achieve excellence in speech-language pathology.

Letter of Recommendation for SLP Grad Student – Practicum Placement

Dear [Clinic Director’s Name],

I am writing to recommend [Name] for a clinical practicum placement in your clinic. As [Name]’s academic supervisor, I have come to know [Name] as an empathetic and passionate speech-language pathology student.

[Name] has shown exceptional clinical skills, including initial evaluations, client goal setting, treatment planning, and clinical documentation. They have had experience working with individuals with communication and related disorders with diverse sociodemographic backgrounds, ages, and disorders. They have worked effectively in a team setting and have shown the ability to work autonomously.

I am confident that [Name] would be an excellent addition to your team and would make a significant contribution to the growth of your organization. [Name] is a hard-working, honest, and open-minded individual with a strong interest in expanding their practical skills and experience in clinical speech-language pathology. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you require further information.

Best Regards,

Letter of Recommendation for SLP Grad Student – Professional Reference

Dear [Hiring Manager/Professional Organization Head],

I am writing this recommendation letter for [Name] who is seeking a position with your organization. I have known [Name] for the past two years during their speech-language pathology program and, in that time, have been impressed with their intellect, diligence, and dedication to work.

[Name] consistently impressed us with their ability to create easy yet effective communication with clients and families alike. They have a unique ability to connect with clients, understand their needs and goals and put them at ease. Their approach is accessible, therapeutic, and professional, regardless of the client’s level of communication difficulty or differences.

Moreover, [Name] has a strong desire to contribute to the field of speech-language pathology and explore ways to publish research in the field. They are confident leaders when it comes to leading research and clinical projects and bringing out the best in their team members. Their enthusiasm for their research interests is contagious and has encouraged others to investigate in the field.

[Name] is excellent in handling work pressure, and they have never missed any deadlines or important appointments. They are always well-prepared, on time, and professional. I highly recommend [Name] for your organization’s consideration. They will be a perfect candidate who will work diligently and make a meaningful contribution to your organization’s growth.

Letter of Recommendation for SLP Grad Student – Program Scholarship

I am writing this recommendation letter for [Name], who is applying for your speech-language pathology program scholarship. As [Name]’s professor and academic advisor, I have been fortunate to work closely with them, and I am highly impressed with their competence, steadfast dedication to work, and excellent communication skills.

[Name] has demonstrated a keen interest in the theoretical and clinical aspects of speech-language pathology. Their outstanding academic performance and clinical skills are evidence of their strong commitment and passion for the field. Their ability to critically evaluate literature and synthesize information has been particularly impressive.

[Name] is also an exceptional communicator who is respectful, attentive, and empathetic to clients and their families’ needs. Their ability to adapt their communication style and techniques to suit clients with different needs has been invaluable, and they are able to effectively communicate with colleagues from many levels extending from assistant to administrative levels.

In summary, [Name] is an outstanding speech-language pathology graduate and one who would make the most of your program. The scholarship would present them with the opportunity they have been seeking for growth in the field. I strongly recommend that you accept [Name] for the scholarship.

Letter of Recommendation for SLP Grad Student – Internship Placement

Dear Internship Placement Director,

I am writing to highly recommend [Name] for your clinic placement. [Name] has completed their Master’s degree in speech-language pathology at [University], and I had the privilege of supervising their clinical practicum. They have stellar skills and would be an asset to any workplace setting for clinical internships.

[Name] has been exceptional in the delivery of appropriate treatment plans and evidence-based practice for their clients. They possess excellent professional skills, an empathetic approach, and an excellent ability to work with clients and their families. Their accommodating and accessible communication has instilled confidence in their clients and colleagues alike.

Furthermore, [Name], committed to ongoing learning and growth, actively seeks out information that can further hone their therapy skills. They are creative and innovative in developing communication strategies and excel in building positive relationships with clients and colleagues.

Based on their exceptional clinical skills, passion for speech-language pathology, and excellent work ethics, I deduce that [Name] would make an excellent addition to your clinic. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions or require more information.

Tips for Writing a Strong Letter of Recommendation for a Speech-Language Pathology Graduate Student

A letter of recommendation for a speech-language pathology (SLP) graduate student is an important document that can help determine the student’s career path and future opportunities. Here are some tips for writing a strong letter of recommendation:

• Focus on the student’s strengths: Identify the student’s unique abilities, skills, and accomplishments and highlight them in your letter. Discuss specific examples of how the student demonstrated excellence in their academic and clinical work.
• Be specific: Use concrete examples and anecdotes to illustrate the student’s strengths and contributions. Avoid vague language and generalizations.
• Use professional language and tone: Be formal but not overly stiff in your writing. Use professional language and avoid slang or overly casual expressions.
• Discuss the student’s potential: Mention the student’s potential for growth and future success in the field of speech-language pathology. This can help the reader understand why the student is a good candidate for the program or job they are applying for.
• Include your credentials: Share your qualifications or experiences that make you a suitable person to write a letter of recommendation. This will give credibility to your letter and help the reader understand why your opinion matters.
• Be honest: Provide an honest assessment of the student’s abilities and potential. Include any areas where the student could improve or areas where they struggled, but also note how they worked to overcome these challenges.
• Keep it concise: Limit your letter to one or two pages and focus on the most important points. Be sure to include a brief introduction of yourself and your relationship with the student.
• Proofread: Before submitting your letter, review it for spelling and grammar errors. A well-written, error-free letter can help make a strong impression on the reader.

By following these tips, you can write a compelling letter of recommendation that showcases the strengths and potential of a speech-language pathology graduate student.

Frequently Asked Questions about Letter of Recommendation Template for SLP Grad Students

What should be included in a letter of recommendation for slp grad students.

A letter of recommendation for SLP grad students should include the student’s personal and professional qualities, academic achievements, involvement in extracurricular activities, and any other relevant information that will support their application. It should be written by someone who knows the student well and can speak to their abilities and potential.

Can I use a template for a letter of recommendation?

Yes, you can use a template as a guide for writing a letter of recommendation for an SLP grad student. However, it is important to remember that each letter should be personalized and tailored to the individual student.

Who should write a letter of recommendation for SLP grad students?

A letter of recommendation for an SLP grad student should be written by someone who knows the student well, such as a professor, supervisor, or mentor. It is important that the letter writer can speak to the student’s personal and professional qualities and provide examples to support their claims.

How long should a letter of recommendation for SLP grad students be?

A letter of recommendation for an SLP grad student should be one to two pages in length. It should include a brief introduction, a body that highlights the student’s strengths and accomplishments, and a conclusion that summarizes the writer’s recommendation.

What is the best way to format a letter of recommendation for SLP grad students?

A letter of recommendation for an SLP grad student should be formatted with a clear and professional font, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It should include the writer’s contact information, the student’s name and contact information, and the date the letter was written. It should also be addressed to the relevant graduate program or institution.

When should a letter of recommendation be submitted for SLP grad students?

A letter of recommendation for an SLP grad student should be submitted along with their graduate school application. It is recommended that the letter be submitted as early as possible to ensure it is received by the application deadline.

Is it necessary to include a signature in a letter of recommendation for SLP grad students?

Yes, it is necessary for the writer of a letter of recommendation for an SLP grad student to include their signature at the end of the letter. This adds a personal touch and validates the authenticity of the letter.

Saying Goodbye

Well, well, well! Looks like we’ve come to the end of our discussion about letter of recommendation template for SLP grad students. It is our greatest pleasure to have shared valuable tips and insights with you. We hope that you are now fully equipped to write a killer recommendation letter as you help mold the next generation of SLP professionals. Don’t forget to visit us again as we bring you more informative articles that could benefit you on your educational or career journey. For now, thank you so much for taking interest in our piece, and cheers to your success!

Top 10 Grad School Letter of Recommendation Templates to Help You Shine 5 Essential Tips for Using a Grad School Occupational Therapy Letter of Recommendation Template A Comprehensive Guide to Creating a Letter of Recommendation Template for Grad School Applications 5 Effective Letter of Recommendation Template Grad School Samples to Get You Accepted Get a Head Start on Your Grad School Applications with Our Letter of Recommendation Template Grad School Sample Grad School Civil Engineering Letter of Recommendation Template: Tips and Examples

Ohio State navigation bar

• BuckeyeLink
• Search Ohio State

MA-SLP Application Process

Ma-slp application dates and deadlines, (to begin program in autumn 2025).

July 15, 2024: Application opens in CSDCAS

December 15, 2024: Application deadline for domestic and international applicants

January 15, 2025: OSU Supplemental Application Deadline

Step 1: Review this essential information carefully

Application Preparation Timeline: Familiarize yourself as soon as possible with CSDCAS' suggested application timeline . Most application steps should be completed at least 2-3 months before the application deadline.

Common issues that may prevent your application from being reviewed by our program:

All application materials, including transcripts and letters of recommendation, must be received through CSDCAS by 11:59pm EST on the application deadline. Please note: Failure to report and submit transcripts to CSDCAS for ALL college-level coursework, such as college credit earned while in high school, will result in significant delays and may result in your application not being reviewed. If CSDCAS sees an indication of transfer credit from another institution listed on one transcript, but you have not provided the original transcript from that institution, your application will be returned to you and therefore will not move into our queue to be reviewed. 

Please confirm that your recommenders (CSDCAS refers to these as "evaluators") have submitted their letters of recommendation by the application deadline. Your application status can still be marked as COMPLETE or VERIFIED even if the minimum 3 letters have not been received. Applications with less than 3 letters on the application deadline will not be reviewed. 

Applicants are responsible for monitoring the status of the application before and after submission. Notifications are not sent for any missing items. To help you keep track of your application and all materials, click  Check Status  at the top of the application dashboard. Applications that have not reached either a COMPLETE or VERIFIED status by the application deadline, will not be considered. (Refer to  CSDCAS Application Status Guide. ) It is the applicant’s responsibility to monitor their application status and notifications and consult CSDCAS if there is  any  question about the application status. Applications in the following statuses after the application deadline will NOT be reviewed: IN PROGRESS, RECEIVED, ON HOLD, or UNDELIVERED.

When entering coursework, if an in-progress or planned course is listed on the transcript, do NOT leave the grade blank, but do enter the "In-progress/Planned" option. CSDCAS will be comparing your transcripts to your entries. Any discrepancies will likely result in your application being UNDELIVERED. 

If you use the Professional Transcript Entry (PTE) service, you must approve the work completed by the service! Failure to do so will result in your application being incomplete and therefore not reviewed by our program. This issue negatively impacts several students each application cycle, so please beware if you use this service. This service will also add up to 10 additional days to the application process. 

Academic Update Process: You are strongly encouraged to complete an  academic update  after your autumn semester grades are posted. Academic update allows you to update planned or in-progress coursework that you completed since your application was submitted. This will provide faculty reviewers a complete and updated picture of your academic progress. 

Step 2: Complete the CSDCAS application

CSDCAS : Carefully review CSDCAS instructions before applying. Keep the  CSDCAS Applicant Help Center page  handy throughout the application process. Learn more about CSDCAS Application Fees and Fee Waivers .

Letters of Recommendation:  A minimum of three letters of recommendation is required to complete your application. It is strongly recommended that letters be written by faculty members and/or instructors that can speak to your academic abilities and potential success as a graduate student. Letters are submitted electronically through CSDCAS. You will list your references in the “Evaluations” section. Letters of recommendation must be received through CSDCAS by 11:59 PM ET on the application deadline. Be sure to give your recommenders adequate time to meet this deadline. 

Transcripts:  Official transcripts for ALL college-level coursework completed in the United States for which college credit was awarded must be received by CSDCAS by the application deadline. Please note: Failure to submit transcripts for ALL college-level work completed while in high school or at other post-secondary institutions will cause application processing delays. Applications that have been "undelivered" due to the applicant not providing transcripts for ALL college-level course work will not be accepted after the application deadline. Transcripts must be sent to CSDCAS. Do not send to OSU!

Short Essays:  We consider our short essays to be in lieu of a personal statement. A strong applicant’s responses will fully address the essay question, demonstrate originality, and reflect strong writing skills. Less attention will be given to responses that simply list items from a resume.

English Language Proficiency:  TOEFL scores are required for most international students. Visit OSU Graduate and Professional Admissions for additional information. 

Decision Communications:   All communications regarding admissions decisions will be sent to the email address associated with the CSDCAS application. Please monitor your email frequently so you do not miss any important communications from us!

 Step 3: Complete the OSU supplemental application

Accessing the OSU supplemental application:  The OSU Supplemental application is much briefer than the CSDCAS application and focuses primarily on biographical and demographic data. Once your CSDCAS application reaches a VERIFIED status, you will receive access to OSU’s Supplemental Application via the email address associated with your CSDCAS account. VERIFIED status does not occur until:

• The CSDCAS application has reached a COMPLETE   status
• CSDCAS has determined that no issues have been identified with your CSDCAS application. If you have not received an email to access the OSU supplemental application by Jan. 1, it is likely that CSDCAS identified a problem with your application, such as failure to submit transcripts for ALL college-level coursework. 

OSU supplemental application deadline:  January 15, 2025

OSU supplemental application fees:  $60 for domestic applicants; $70 for international applicants. Fee waivers may be available for qualifying applicants. Waivers must be requested well in advance of the supplemental application deadline.

Please also review each item below before applying:

8 Tips to Prepare for Speech Pathology Graduate School

Industry Advice Healthcare

If you’re considering a career as a speech-language pathologist (SLP), you’ll need to complete a graduate program, such as a Master of Science in Speech-Language Pathology, in order to practice . An advanced degree will provide you with both the foundational knowledge and hands-on experience you’ll need when working with patients.

With this in mind, below are eight tips to help you prepare for an SLP graduate program. 

Tips for Getting Into a Speech-Language Pathology Graduate Program

1. think carefully about your undergraduate degree..

If you know that you are interested in becoming an SLP as an undergraduate, it will be helpful to major in a field related to SLP. Two common choices include a Bachelor of Science in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology and a Bachelor of Science in Communication Sciences and Disorders. 

While not a requirement, earning a degree in a related field will provide you with foundational knowledge that will help you succeed in your graduate courses. Most related undergraduate programs also include hands-on clinical hours, which you must typically complete anyway before enrolling in a graduate program. Additionally, having a related undergraduate degree can help your application stand out among your peers and increase your chance of admission. 

If you have already completed your undergraduate degree in a field outside of speech-language pathology, that’s fine! Just know that you will likely need to complete several prerequisite courses before you begin your graduate program. 

Interested in a Speech-Language Pathology Career?

Learn how an SLP degree can give you the skills you need to make a difference in educational and healthcare settings.

2. Apply to multiple programs.

Speech-language pathology graduate programs tend to be highly competitive, typically admitting relatively few students in each cohort. With this in mind, it’s a good idea to apply to multiple programs to improve your chances of being admitted to at least one. 

“Because of the competitive nature of the admissions process, it makes sense to apply to multiple programs—even if you have a dream school in mind,” says Lorraine Book, department chair and associate clinical professor at Northeastern’s MS in Speech-Language Pathology program.

3. Maintain your grades. 

While this tip likely goes without saying, it’s important to maintain your grades and earn as high a GPA as possible in your undergraduate courses. GPA is a key piece of information admissions officers consider when reviewing applications, and it can be the difference between getting into a program or not. 

“Admissions counselors pay special attention to the GPA you earned in any prerequisite courses, so at a minimum, you should be mindful of those,” Book says.

The good news is that most programs will list their minimum required GPA on their program pages. With this information, you can retake courses if you are falling below the threshold or find other ways to boost your score. 

4. Complete the GREs.

Many programs waived their GRE requirements in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID-19. Those programs may decide they do not need GREs to adequately evaluate applicants, in which case they may permanently no longer require test scores. On the other hand, GREs may become necessary again in the future. As such, Book recommends that all students prepare for and take their GREs to be ready for either scenario. 

“You want to study and do well on those exams because those scores are closely evaluated in the admissions process,” Book says. “If you don’t do well the first time, you should try again until you have achieved a score that is at least the minimum required by the university, if not higher.”

5. Think critically about your letters of recommendation.

According to Book, the letters of recommendation you submit with your application are critical pieces of information for admissions officers to evaluate. Therefore, you must be thoughtful about the people that you ask to write your letters of recommendation. 

“Most programs look for letters of recommendation written by a professor or course instructor that knows the student well,” Book says. “You don’t just want a letter that says you attended class or earned a certain grade. The letter should be written by somebody who knows you beyond simply the coursework that you took.”

Book recommends that students take the time to develop authentic relationships with their professors and advisors during their undergraduate studies. This way, they’ll have multiple people that can write a strong letter of recommendation. If you have lab experience, research experience, or have completed an independent study, those individuals can all offer powerful recommendations as well.

6. Take the time to write a meaningful personal statement.

In writing your personal statement , Book offers the following pieces of advice:

• Be very mindful of spelling and grammar.
• Tailor your message to the university and program that you are applying to by mentioning certain professors or recent research completed by faculty members.
• Write as genuinely as possible. 

“The personal statement is your opportunity to speak directly to an admissions officer,” Book says. “Use that space to tell them about your dreams, your goals, and why you want to be a speech-language pathologist.”

7. Be thorough in your application.

While students may think admissions counselors don’t much consider extracurricular activities at the undergraduate level, Book confirms that they are, in fact, an important part of the process and are something that counselors actively seek.

“Volunteer experience, leadership experience, and research experience are all important,” Book says. “They help the admissions team get a fuller picture of who you are and how you would engage in their programs.”

8. Choose the right program.

Finally, Book mentions the importance of choosing the right program for your interests. For example, if you are interested in working with a specific patient population or within a particular branch of SLP, Book recommends looking for programs that will allow you to explore those interests.

Some programs offer concentrations or learning tracks, while others may offer specialized courses that can be just as helpful. 

An Important Part of Your Speech-Language Pathology Journey

Earning your MS in Speech-Language Pathology is one of the most important steps you will complete in beginning your career. By following the tips above, you’ll increase your chances not only of getting into a program but of achieving success once you enroll.

Interested in becoming a Speech-Language Pathologist? Learn more about the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at Northeastern University.

Subscribe below to receive future content from the Graduate Programs Blog.

About shayna joubert, related articles, 4 pressing global health problems we face today, global health careers: how can i make a difference.

Compliance Specialists: Who They Are and What They Earn

Did you know.

Advanced degree holders earn a salary an average 25% higher than bachelor's degree holders. (Economic Policy Institute, 2021)

Northeastern University Graduate Programs

Explore our 200+ industry-aligned graduate degree and certificate programs.

Most Popular:

Tips for taking online classes: 8 strategies for success, public health careers: what can you do with an mph, 7 international business careers that are in high demand, edd vs. phd in education: what’s the difference, 7 must-have skills for data analysts, in-demand biotechnology careers shaping our future, the benefits of online learning: 8 advantages of online degrees, how to write a statement of purpose for graduate school, the best of our graduate blog—right to your inbox.

Stay up to date on our latest posts and university events. Plus receive relevant career tips and grad school advice.

By providing us with your email, you agree to the terms of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Keep Reading:

Top Higher Education Conferences To Attend in 2024

Grad School or Work? How To Balance Both

Is a Master’s in Computer Science Worth the Investment?

Should I Go to Grad School: 4 Questions To Consider

• Search SF State Search SF State Button SF State This Site

SFSU NSSLHA's Guide to Applying to Grad School

Applying to grad school can be a daunting task! Each university has its own requirements, deadlines and specifications for how applications must be prepared and submitted. The SFSU NSSLHA Chapter is here to help!! Listed below are the common requirements for most Speech-Language Pathology Graduate Programs. This is a guide written for students by students.

Applications

For every university you apply to you are required to submit two applications, one application directly to the department and one application to the university's graduate admissions. California State Universities, including San Francisco State, no longer accept paper applications to graduate programs. Applications must be submitted online via CSU Apply .

Be sure you check each university's graduate admission requirements before applying as well as the department?s requirements.

SFSU Says: Apply to San Francisco State University's Graduate Division using the Graduate/Post-baccalaureate application to The California State University. The application can be filled out online at CSU Apply . The program application can be downloaded or picked in up in Burk Hall 156, or 244.

Transcripts

You will need a set of transcripts for every college you have attended. Actually, just like applications, you will need to submit two copies of your transcripts, one to the university and one directly to the department. In most cases these must be official sealed transcripts. Most programs ask that you include these with the application packet, however this is problematic because a lot of colleges will not send official transcripts to the student. In this case you must have the transcripts sent to the university directly.

SFSU Says: Submit one official set of sealed transcripts from every college or university attended. This is in addition to transcripts for the CSU Graduate application. You should collect all official transcripts and submit them with the application. SFSU transcripts can be unofficial copies from MySFSU.

Letters of Recommendation

Speech Language Pathology/Communicative Disorders graduate programs usually require applicants to submit letters of recommendation. These letters are very, very important. While your transcript, resume, and personal statement or admissions essay are vital components to your application, an excellent letter of recommendation can compensate for weaknesses in any of these areas.

Each University requires that these be submitted in a specific way. Some require that the writers of your letters fill out a form to submit along with the letter of recommendation. These forms can usually be found on the departments website. Each university also requires a different number of letters, usually two or three.

When asking for a letter prepare in advance. You should provide each writer with enough material to write a meaningful and personalized recommendation. Provide each of them with a copy of your transcript, your letter of intent, resume, and for professors especially, any work that you have from classes you've taken with them. If possible give them the original draft with their grade/comments. Also be sure to include forms (if any) required by each school you are applying to. You might want to consider placing all materials in a large pre-stamped envelope that is already addressed to you. This way the writer can simply return the letters to you in once completed.

SFSU says: Candidates must submit at least two letters of recommendation. Letters should come from individuals who have observed and collaborated with the applicant in a professional or educational setting. It is preferred that the letters be from people who can comment on the applicant's experiences with people with disabilities and or in an educational setting. It is also appropriate to have recommendations from those who can speak to the applicant's academic ability and potential for success in a graduate-level program. Additional letters beyond the required two will also be accepted to augment the application. Letters need to be typed on professional letterhead with original signatures. Letters from relatives are not acceptable.

This is a great place to include any info that you could not squeeze into your letter of intent. Although length and organization may vary the following format is standard for a grad-school resume:

Objective – A short sentence identifying the school and the program to which you are applying. Example: To gain admittance into San Francisco State's Speech Language Pathology Master's Program.

Education – This should be the most important entry in your resume. After providing the basics (name of undergraduate college / university, degree, graduation date, major, minor, GPA, etc), select the outstanding academic accomplishments to highlight for the admissions committee. These may be sub-topics under Education or they may be their own categories. Areas that may be included are Research, Scholarships, Independent Study, International Study, Honoraries, Conferences, Presentations, and Publications.

Academic Experience/Course Highlights – Highlight particularly relevant academic courses by providing more details about these courses. Describe two to three upper-level courses that provided hands-on experiences or in-depth study with bullet statements. Include only the most salient courses relevant to your intended graduate school major. Do not list all courses.

Internship, Volunteer, and/or Related Experiences – While your academic abilities are the most essential assets to emphasize, experiences in the field related to your intended graduate school major are significant, too. Most graduate schools prefer applicants with a combination of academic and experiential preparation. Some graduate schools require volunteer or internship experience. Provide details about your related experiences.

Activities – If you participated in campus or community activities that developed your leadership, time management, or other skills important to your success in graduate school, include these activities and provide details that show your active participation.

Additional Experience – Experiences not related to your graduate school admission do not need to be included unless they show skill development relevant to graduate school.

ASHA offers some wonderful resources for preparing a professional resume. See Asha resume preperation tips .

SFSU says: You may include information about your academic, employment, and volunteer experiences that are pertinent your application and program objective.

Letter of Intent

Graduate and professional schools often require some sort of written statement -- often called a "statement of purpose," "personal statement," or "letter of intent"-- as a part of the application. Some universities require that statements include rather specific information--for example, the applicant's intended area of study within the field of Speech Language pathology. Still others are quite unstructured, leaving the applicant free to address a wide range of matters. The importance of the statement varies from school to school.

SFSU says: Applicants must submit a typed essay outlining personal attributes and professional experiences that illustrate a potential for excellence in the field. The essay should also include a brief discussion of future professional and academic goals. The essay should be no longer than two double-spaced pages.

Standardized Tests

This is another requirement that varies from program to program. Some require the GRE, some require the GRE only if your GPA is below 3.5 and, some require no standardized test scores at all. SFSU has a written English Proficiency requirement that can be met through a number of standardized tests (see below).

The best advice we have to offer regarding standardized tests is to check requirements at each program you plan on applying to early. You need time to study for the test, take the test and receive the scores, all before our application deadline. And if you do not feel confident with the test then you may even want to allow time to retake the test and raise your score.

SFSU’s WRITTEN ENGLISH PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT : All graduate students are required to submit evidence of one of the following as part of the requirements for the M.S. degree in Communicative Disorders: 1. Score of at least 3.5/6.0 on the GRE Analytical Writing Test or GMAT Analytic Writing Assessment; 2. Score of at least 4.5/6.0 on the essay test of the paper-based [PBT] TOEFL (a minimum score of 24/30 on the Writing section of the Internet-based test [iBT] TOEFL 3. Score of at least 6.5/9.0 on the IELTS writing test, or a concordant socre on the Pearson Test of English 4. A passing status score of at least 220 on the CSET Writing Skills Test

Final Thoughts

• The most important thing to remember is to start early.
• Decide which schools you would like to apply to and review their requirements in each area.
• Allow yourself time to prepare for any standardized tests that may be required.
• Allow plenty of time to write a well-structured letter of intent and resume.
• Request transcripts early.
• Ask for recommendations early on and provide plenty of material.
• Begin to gain experience through volunteering and employment ASAP.
• Sign up for NSSLHA's Volunteer Committee to learn about volunteer experiences.
• Get to know the faculty!!

Helpful Websites

• Speech, Language & Hearing Sciences Prospective Students

Addresses for SFSU Applications

SF State Graduate Admissions Office (for transcripts): San Francisco State University Graduate Admissions, ADM 250 1600 Holloway Avenue San Francisco, CA 94132

SF State Communicative Disorders Graduate Admissions: Credential Services Office ATTN: Credential Admissions CD College of Education - Burk Hall 244 San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway Avenue San Francisco, CA 94132-4158

• Email: [email protected]
• Telephone: (415) 338-1001

Office Hours

Quick links.

• Frequently Asked Questions
• SFSU Graduate College of Education
• NSSLHA (National Student Speech Language Association) at SFSU
• Interprofessional Education Resources

The 6 Key Things To Get You Into SLP Grad School

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?

Key searches.

Master of Science Education Program in Speech-Language Pathology

Students who are interested in pursuing a Master of Science degree in Speech-Language Pathology at USC should review the following information on our application and admissions process. Applicants must apply through the University of Southern California Centralized Application System (USC). Please go to  Apply at USC

For program questions please email us at  [email protected] .

Admission for Fall 2025 will open mid to late October 2024.

The Admissions Committee only reviews applications that are submitted and verified. This means that all items required (see below) have been submitted and verified by USC. It is recommended that applicants submit their applications early to allow for verification during the busy application season. Submitting all required documents at least three weeks prior to the deadline is advised, to avoid any delays in the application review process. Admission is granted one time per year, for a fall semester start. We enroll 25 graduate students each fall.

Click to view our NON-DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT

USC Application

Complete all sections of the application. Pay specific attention to the Program Materials required for the MS-SLP. Below is an overview of the requirements for the application. Specific information is described in the actual application. Go to  Apply at USC.

• Application Required Components Checklist

Holistic Admissions Criteria

A holistic review evaluates applicants based on both cognitive and non-cognitive traits, which ensures that more than one factor contributes to admissions decisions.

The five requirements included in the University of Southern California Master of Science Education Program in Speech-Language Pathology (MS-SLP) review process are:

• Letters of recommendation
• Personal statement
• Program statements/questions

A select number of applicants will be invited to participate in a personal interview with the USC Faculty. These interviews may be either in person or via teleconference. It is anticipated that interviews will occur sometime in the beginning of March.

Application Requirements

Admission to the Master of Science Education Program in Speech-Language Pathology is highly competitive. Meeting the minimum thresholds below does not guarantee admission.

Undergraduate Degree/Post Baccalaureate requirement

• All students applying for admission to the graduate program must either 1) have completed a bachelor’s degree in Communication Sciences and Disorders at an accredited college or university prior to the start of the master’s program, OR 2) hold a baccalaureate degree from an accredited institution in a major other than Communication Sciences and Disorders and also have, or will have completed a post-baccalaureate (e.g. preparatory) equivalent of a Communication Sciences and Disorders degree (i.e. leveling courses) certificate program prior to the start of the master’s program.
• All preparatory (e.g. Leveling courses must be completed at a regionally accredited college or university in the United States.)
• Undergraduate degrees, minors or leveling courses completed outside the United States will not be accepted.

Prerequisite coursework: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) requires that master’s degree candidates show transcript evidence of at least one course in each of the following categories with a passing grade:

• Biological Sciences Coursework, which emphasizes content related to human or animal science
• Physical Sciences Coursework, which must be either Physics or Chemistry Coursework, due to the need to establish foundational knowledge necessary to understand of the profession of speech-language pathology
• Social/Behavioral Sciences Coursework, such as psychology, sociology, anthropology or public health
• Statistics, which must be a stand-alone course

Each course must be a minimum of 3 credits and must be completed prior to enrollment in the graduate program. For more detailed information and a list of all of the acceptable courses, please visit the ASHA website.

Please complete the attached form and submit with your application.

• USC MS SLP ASHA Prereq form for application

GPA Requirement

• A minimum 3.00 GPA overall is required for admission to the graduate program.

Transcripts

• As part of the USC application, you must submit official transcripts from each college or university attended. You will need to do this directly through the USC application system. To allow adequate processing time, please ensure you do this early in the process.
• Transcript Requirements

Letters of Recommendation

Submit three letters of recommendation from professors, therapists, and/or other professionals who know you well. They should attest to your skills and abilities as they relate to becoming a speech-language pathologist, and your potential for completing a graduate program. Academic references who can speak to your potential in a graduate program are the strongest, but work references who can cite your professionalism are also acceptable. Recommendations should be submitted electronically through the USC application system.

Personal Statement

The letter of intent/personal statement should highlight the applicant’s interest in speech-language pathology by identifying personal interests, passions and relevant qualities, work experience, clinical and extracurricular experience, academic history, and an aptitude for working with a linguistically and culturally diverse population. The statement should also outline professional interests, future career goals and objectives in obtaining a Master of Science Education Program in Speech-Language Pathology at USC. It is recommended that you not list the same items that are on your resume, but rather reflect on the importance of the activities in terms of your growth and development to this point. It is important that you reflect on the mission and values of the program and how they align with your personal values and desires regarding graduate work and a future career.

The Personal Statement/Letter of Intent is to be submitted through the Documents in Supporting Information on the USC Application System.

USC Program Questions

Submit a response to the  two required  short-answer essays through questions in the application, in response to the prompts provided.

A resume or CV should be uploaded with your application. The resume should include relevant work and volunteer experiences, research, and other extracurricular activities or accomplishments. Applicants are encouraged to include all relevant information in order to provide a holistic view of themselves.

Cost of Attendance

University of Southern California Master of Science in Speech-Language Pathology Estimated Costs: Tuition and Fees 

Total Direct Cost Estimate   

Tuition: $167, 842 + Fees: $5,223 = Total Direct Cost Estimate: $173,065 Cost of Attendance  

This estimate does not include Indirect Costs (Books & Supplies, Room & Board, Personal Expenses).  Please see USC Financial Aid Website for additional information on estimating indirect cost https://financialaid.usc.edu/graduate-professional-financial-aid/cost-of-attendance/ . USC Financial Aid Office https://financialaid.usc.edu/ and phone number (213) 740-4444.   

* Flat rate is any student taking 15-18 semester units who will be charged a flat rate for tuition that will be the same if a student enrolls in 15, 16, 17, or 18 semester units.   

Because the Master of Science in Speech-Language Pathology is a new program we do not offer any forms of departmental scholarships/aid/assistance, including graduate assistantships. Students are, however, encouraged to seek funding from other sources that may support their education.   

Speech-Language Pathology Admissions Requirements

• Adjunct Faculty
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Speech-Language and Hearing Clinic
• Student Outcome Data

The SLP program begins in August of each year. For deadline information please visit our Application Information Page . The application and all supporting documentation must be received by the deadline. Applicants will be informed of admissions decisions by April 15th.

Admissions Requirements

• You will receive an email from SHP Application Systems within two business days of submitting your CAS application, with your login information, to complete your personalized Speech-Language Pathology SHP supplemental application.
• You must wait to receive this email before beginning your supplemental application. Do not go to the TTUHSC SHP website and attempt to access your supplemental application. The “start your application link” on the TTUHSC SHP website does not link to your personalized application. 
• If you did not receive your email, please check your junk email folder. 
• Please contact our Application Team with any questions at 806-743-3220 or [email protected] .
• Application Fee The $75 application fee may be paid by credit card through the TTUHSC SHP online application. You may also pay by check or money order; mail a check or money order to the Office of Admissions and Student Affairs (3601 4th Street MS 6294, Lubbock, TX 79430). Please make checks and money orders payable to "TTUHSC." Your application will not be considered for admission until your fee has been paid.

TTUHSC SHP Admissions and Student Affairs 3601 4th Street MS 6294 Lubbock, TX 79430

• Official GRE Scores Official GRE scores are required for admission. The CSDCAS SHP GRE submission code is 4569 . If your GRE scores are more than 5 years old, they are not considered valid.
• Bachelor's Degree A Bachelor's Degree is required for admission in addition to the specific prerequisite courses listed in Section 7.
• Minimum GPA A  minimum cumulative GPA of 3.0  is required; this includes all courses taken at every institution attended.  A minimum GPA of a 3.0 in undergraduate audiology and speech pathology courses   is also required.
• Proof of a Bachelor's Degree in Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences or Speech Language Pathology or Communication Disorders  OR   completion of required leveling courses (See Out-Of-Field Step 1 and Out-Of-Field Step 2 on FAQ page)
• All applicants must have completed at least one course in each of the following areas with a grade of "C" or better:  Prerequisites Physical Science (i.e. chemistry or physics) Life Science (i.e biology or human anatomy and physiology) Behavioral/Social Science (i.e. psychology, sociology, anthropology) Statistics *Must submit updated official transcript showing completion of fall grades prior to application deadline.
• Letters of Recommendation The CSDCAS application requires 3 names for letters of recommendation in order for your CSDCAS application to be submitted. The SLP program does not require letters of recommendation and any submitted will not be reviewed.
• Essay/Letter of Intent/Resume The SLP program does not require an essay, letter of intent or resume.
• International Applicants All foreign coursework must be evaluated by a Foreign Credential Service. We also require TOEFL/IELTS Scores for any applicant for whom English is their second language (scores are considered on a case by case basis). Please refer to our International Applicants webpage for more information and TOEFL/IELTS exemptions
• Technical Standards THE SLP Program has established a document of technical standards that reflects the functions that are considered essential to the profession of speech-language pathology. Ability to meet these technical standards is required for admission. The Technical Standards document can be accessed here .

Application Process

Applications are considered on a rolling basis for acceptance into the professional program. Individual applications are reviewed once materials have been received; therefore, it is in the applicant's best interest to complete their application, including submission of required documentation, as early as possible. Fulfillment of the basic requirements does not guarantee admission. Applicants who meet the above listed requirements and are deemed competitive candidates for admission will be invited for an interview. The admissions committee selects the most qualified applicants for admission by considering the following: major GPA, cumulative GPA, GRE scores, interview scores, and other factors.

Admission interviews are granted by the SLP admissions committee by invitation only. Applicants are selected for interviews based on a holistic evaluation of their application and supporting documents.

Application Submission Checklist

• Online CSDCAS application
• Online TTUHSC SHP application
• Application Fee
• Official Transcripts
• Official GRE Scores

Contact Information

Questions regarding the application process should be directed to the Office of Admissions and Student Affairs. Please contact our office by phone at 806-743-3220 or email at [email protected] .

• Admissions Overview
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Degree Programs
• International Student Admissions
• Academics Overview
• Undergraduate Majors & Minors
• Graduate School
• Purdue Online Learning
• Tour Purdue’s Campus
• Research and Innovation Overview
• Research & Partnerships
• Corporate & Global Partnerships
• Purdue Research Foundation
• About Purdue
• Office of the President
• Commitment to Free Speech
• Student Life at Purdue
• Purdue Activity & Wellness
• Campus Inclusion
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Faculty and Staff
• Purdue Northwest
• Purdue Fort Wayne
• Purdue Global
• Purdue Online

Speech-Language Pathology (MS-SLP) Graduate Program

Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences

Ranked No. 2 by U.S. News & World Report, highest ranked program in Indiana

The clinical master’s program in speech-language pathology (MS-SLP) at Purdue is designed so graduates can meet all academic, clinical certification, licensure and credentialing requirements of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), the Indiana Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Board (ISLPAB) and the Indiana Department of Education Communication Disorders License. 

The Master of Science (MS) program in speech-language pathology (residential) at Purdue University is accredited by the Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2200 Research Boulevard #310, Rockville, Maryland, 20850, 800-498-2071 or 301-296-5700.

Program Highlights

• The MS-SLP graduate program prepares you to provide independent clinical services in speech-language pathology to individuals of all ages through coursework, clinical experiences and research.
• High-quality clinical education is integral to the MS-SLP program. You will have opportunities to work under the direct supervision of clinical faculty members in the M.D. Steer Speech, Language and Swallowing Clinics to diagnose, assess and treat communication and swallowing disorders and acquire the skill sets needed to become a licensed, certified speech-language pathologist.

Program Quick Facts

Degree Type : Master’s (MS-SLP)

Program Length : 2 years (5 semesters)

Location : West Lafayette, IN

Department/School : Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences

Admissions/Requirements

Applications for admission to our clinical programs (AuD, MS-SLP) require materials to be sent both via the Centralized Application Service for Communication Science & Disorders (CSDCAS) and via Purdue’s online systems.

Application Materials to Be Submitted to CSDCAS

To be considered for admission, your application should be marked by CSDCAS as “ Complete”  or as  “Verified”  before January 15.

Material to be submitted to CSDCAS:

• Application submitted and fee paid
• Official transcripts received from all universities granting any credit
• Official evaluations of any international transcripts,   that are not originally in English and/or do not follow the 4.0 GPA scale.
• Three letters of recommendation *
• CV or resume . Please be sure to include relevant experience in the areas of leadership, collaboration, critical thinking and community advocacy.
• Personal essay – Required*** Please follow the prompt in the CSDCAS application. See the “Essay Guide” here for instructions on writing your essay.
• Other Additional Essay – Required*** See the “Essay Guide” here for instructions on writing your essay. (Please note CSDCAS lists this as optional but it is actually required).
• Video response to question prompt .

*You will not be penalized if the recommendations you requested are not received by the deadline date.

Please contact the  Graduate Program Secretary  with any questions.

Application Materials to Be Submitted to Purdue University

• Application submitted and fee paid  ( Click here for the Purdue Graduate Application )
• Copies of official transcripts as directed in the Purdue Graduate School application
• For those whose first language is not English, official English proficiency test scores less than 2 years old
• CV or resume
• Academic Statement of Purpose: Use your CSDCAS “Personal Essay” for this required document. See the “Essay Guide” here for instructions on writing your essay.
• Personal History Statement: Use your CSDCAS “Other Additional Essay” for this required document. See the “Essay Guide” here for instructions on writing your essay. Any questions you have can be directed to the Graduate Program Secretary .

Prerequisite Courses for MS-SLP Clinical Degree

Minimum undergraduate course requirements.

Students who plan to achieve professional clinical certification through the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) in Speech-Language Pathology will be expected to take all of the following prerequisite undergraduate courses prior to the beginning of the graduate program.

• 1 course in normal anatomy & physiology for speech and hearing
• 1 course in acoustics or speech science
• 1 course in normal language development
• 1 course in aural rehabilitation other than sign language
• 1 course in hearing disorders and hearing evaluation
• 1 course in phonetics
• 1 course in biological sciences
• 1 course in physical sciences
• 1 course in behavioral/social sciences
• 1 course in statistics covering at least t-tests, analyses of variance, regression (correlation) and non-parametric statistics (e.g., chi-square). This should be a stand-alone course in statistics. Research methodology courses may not be used. The courses offered at Purdue University that are acceptable are: STAT 30100, STAT 50100, STAT 50300, PSY 50000, and SOC 38200. Other Purdue courses and all transfer courses must be approved by the Graduate Committee. AP credit cannot be used to meet the statistics requirement.

For questions about the prerequisite requirements, applicants should contact the graduate program secretary, Vicki Black, at [email protected] as soon as possible.

Prerequisite Students

We accept students with a bachelor’s degree in other areas. We consider this type of student a prerequisite applicant. Students accepted into the prerequisite program will take an extra year to complete. All applicants are evaluated equally regardless of their degree area. Students with bachelor’s degrees in other areas may also take the prerequisite courses prior to applying to our program.

Completion of 25 Observation Hours

Graduate students do not participate in a clinical practicum until they have completed 25 clock hours of ASHA certified, supervised guided observation. Therefore, students entering the MS-SLHS clinical program must complete 25 clock hours of ASHA certified, supervised guided observation prior to the beginning of the program. These guided observation hours must be accumulated through observation of evaluation and treatment of children and adults with disorders of speech, language, swallowing, or hearing.  The guided observation experience must be signed by a Speech-Language Pathologist or Audiologist with current certification (CCC-SLP or CCC-A) status. For students who did not complete 25 clock hours of observation, an online option will be offered, to be taken by the students during the summer before they begin the graduate program. Students should reach out to the Director of Clinical Education as soon as possible.

Applications for International Students

Please note, the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences has higher minimum requirements for English language proficiency for a clinical degree than the Purdue University Graduate School. Also, SLHS does not waive this requirement even if you have earned a degree within the past 24 months from an institution where English is the primary language of instruction.

To be eligible for admission into the clinical programs, or to be eligible for departmental funding as a PhD student (unless other arrangements are made with the students’ PhD supervisor) all international applicants must meet the higher department standards.

English proficiency test scores are required of all international applicants whose first language is not English.

TOEFL Ibt: a minimum total score of 100 with minimum individual scores of 28 for speaking; 22 for writing; 22 for listening; and 22 for reading.

IELTS: a minimum score of 7.5 with no single band score lower than 7.0. International transcripts must be uploaded or submitted in their original form and in translation, along with copies of any diplomas awarded. Please send any paper transcripts to the Graduate Program Secretary .

The department has a long record of significant contributions to research and professional education. Because of this the MS-SLP program offers opportunities for students to explore research alongside faculty across a variety of topics to address speech, language and swallowing disorders.

Research Opportunities

• Autism spectrum disorder
• Language development
• Language disorders
• Linguistics
• Sign language
• Neurogenic disorders
• Speech sound disorders
• Voice disorders

Research Areas

• Language Science; Language Disorders and Disabilities
• Speech, Swallowing, and Voice Science; Speech, Swallowing, Voice Disorders

Research Facilities

• Aphasia Research Laboratory
• Attention and Neurodevelopmental Disorders Lab
• Child Language Research Lab
• Child Phonology Lab
• Language Learning and Meaning Acquisition Lab
• Motor Speech Lab
• Neural Systems for Language Processing Lab
• Purdue Infant Speech Lab
• Sign Language Research Lab
• Voice Lab —Sivasankar Research Group
• Jaime Bauer Malandraki
• Arielle Borovsky
• Françoise Brosseau-Lapré
• Tamar Greenwell
• Michelle Gutmann
• Natalya Kaganovich
• Brandon Keehn
• David Kemmerer
• Lydia Kruse
• Arianna LaCroix
• Laurence B. Leonard
• Chenell Loudermill
• Georgia Malandraki
• Christi Masters
• Allison Schaser
• Preeti Sivasankar
• Dawn Wetzel
• Ronnie Wilbur

Program Director

Chenell Loudermill, PhD, CCC-SLP, has nearly twenty years of experience as a Speech-Language Pathologist, thirteen of which were obtained working as a Speech-Language Pathologist in the public schools before moving to higher education.

• School of Allied Health and Communicative Disorders
• Speech-Language Pathology

Graduate Admission to Specialize in Speech-Language Pathology

Our specialization in speech-language pathology will prepare you to enter the field as a confident, knowledgeable and well-prepared professional. This program is designed for full-time students. It allows you to finish your degree in six terms while working alongside peers in a supportive cohort environment.

Admission Requirements

• A minimum 3.00 GPA in all undergraduate coursework
• Three letters of recommendation submitted only to CSDCAS
• Letter of intent submitted only to CSDCAS
• Resume submitted only to CSDCAS
• Application to NIU graduate school submitted to NIU
• Application submitted to the Communication Sciences and Disorders Centralized Application Service (CSDCAS)

Your three letters of recommendation should come from professors or employers that can attest to your abilities to succeed in a graduate program and your qualifications. Your letter of intent should help us get to know you. We want to know what steps you took to prepare yourself for graduate study in speech-language pathology and what your goals will be as a graduate student at NIU. A competitive applicant has above a 3.6 cumulative GPA, strong letters of recommendation and enrichment experiences outside of the classroom. See admission statistics .

Admission to specialize in speech-language pathology is limited to the summer term with an application deadline of January 1 .

To be considered for admission, applicants must apply by January 1 through CSDCAS and through NIU's graduate school admission system. At the time of application, official transcripts, three letters of recommendation, your resume and letter of intent should be submitted only to CSDCAS. If admitted, you will be asked to send NIU official transcripts certifying your bachelor's degree. When students accept their admission offer, they will be asked to enter into a matriculation agreement with NIU. The agreement requires a $100 non-refundable deposit to hold your spot in the program. The amount of the deposit will be applied to the first year’s tuition unless the agreement is broken, which will result in forfeiture of the deposit.

Prerequisite Requirements

If you don't have an undergraduate degree in communicative disorders , you will need to complete some prerequisites before applying to the graduate program. Get more information on prerequisite requirements .

Basic Sciences

Before applying to the graduate program, you should complete specific courses in statistics, biological sciences, physical sciences and social sciences. These classes also serve as prerequisites for the required courses in communicative disorders.

Human Communication Sciences and Disorders

Once you have completed the basic sciences prerequisites, you can work on the 28 hours of required communicative disorders courses. These courses are undergraduate and will provide you the background knowledge needed for the graduate program. In addition, they will count toward the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's certification requirements.

You can take these classes at Northern Illinois University by applying as a communications disorders student through undergraduate admissions . Once admitted, contact the School of Allied Health and Communicative Disorders to declare your major and work with an advisor to plan out which prerequisites you still need.

If you take the prerequisite courses at another college be sure to verify that they are the equivalent to our requirements.

Thesis Information

As you apply for the speech-language pathology specialization, consider if you'd like to complete a thesis upon graduation. You don't have to decide when you submit your application, but it is helpful to think about your research goals as you plan your educational path.

Thesis Option

You'll work closely with a faculty mentor to construct a thesis and perform research in a specialized area of interest. You can work on it throughout the program and submit it when you have completed your coursework.

Note: Only three credit hours of thesis coursework can be applied toward degree completion.

Exam Option

If you decide not to complete a thesis, you will take a comprehensive exam to test your knowledge and ability in speech-language pathology at the end of the program.

Requesting Accommodations

A student may request reasonable accommodations to meet the essential functions of the program by submitting such a request in writing to the program director at the Disability Resource Center (DRC) . If you need an accommodation for any class, please contact the DRC. The DRC coordinates accommodations for students with disabilities. It is located in the Peters Campus Life Building , suite 180 and can be reached at 815-753-1303 or [email protected] .

Additional Information for International Students

Northern Illinois University's speech-language pathology program maintains curriculum and policies and procedures for admission, internal and external clinical placements and retention of students that reflect consideration of cultural, linguistic and individual diversity. A positive clinical and learning environment is based upon mutual respect, open communication and nondiscrimination; and our program and facilities do not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age, disability, veteran status, religion, sexual orientation, color or national origin.

The following are basic essential functions of physical health, emotional health and communication required for matriculation in the program and all clinical settings. In compliance with the American Disabilities Act and the Council on Academic Accreditation in Speech-Language Pathology, students must have:

• Adequate physical health to meet job requirements and not endanger the health of the student, patient or employee.
• Adequate emotional health to work safely and accurately under stress.
• The ability to use oral and written communication effectively in English and to read, understand and follow directions printed in English.

Students applying whose native language is not English must submit TOEFL or IELTS scores administered no more than 24 months prior to the beginning of the academic term for which admission is sought. Students must earn an IELTS score of 6.5 or TOEFL score of at least 80 on the TOEFL IBT, 213 on TOEFL CBT or at least 550 on the PBT where applicable. Students may be required to improve their competence in English by earning an A or B in either ENGL 451 and ENGL 452, or ENGL 453. International students should review the special instructions for admission on the Graduate School website .

• Why Major in Communicative Disorders?
• Program Requirements
• Communicative Disorders Student Association (COMDSA)
• Music and Memory
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Minor in Communicative Disorders
• Admission Information
• Faculty and Staff
• Speech-Language-Hearing Clinic
• Student Outcome Data
• Application
• Information for Applicants
• Course Sequences
• Clinical Training
• Careers in Audiology
• Cost of Attendance
• Student Outcomes
• Clinical Requirements

Looking for the  NIU Speech-Language-Hearing Clinic ? Call 815-753-1481

College of Health and Public Service

Search form.

• EagleConnect
• UNT Directory
• Jobs at UNT
• HPS Grants & Contracts
• HPS Grant & Funding Resources
• Search HPS Faculty Research
• HPS Student Research
• HPS Research Seminars
• HPS Global Projects
• HPS Faculty Publications
• PI Resources
• Audiology & Speech-Language Pathology
• Behavior Analysis
• Criminal Justice
• Emergency Management & Disaster Science
• Nonprofit Leadership Studies
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Urban Policy & Planning BA
• Collegiate Recovery Program
• Texas Beacons of Excellence
• Social Work
• Center for Public Management
• HPS IT Services
• Graduate Advising
• Scholarships
• Marketable Skills
• HPS Graduate Admissions Appeal
• HPS Philanthropy Cord
• Student Orgs
• Give to HPS
• Request for Space Allocation
• HPS Incentive Program for Grant Writing
• HPS Small Seed Grants Program
• Faculty and Staff
• HPS Community Engagement & Service
• Notify Niki

You are here

Unt slp recommendation letter form.

Thank you for taking time to complete our UNT SLP Recommendation Letter Form. Click below to begin.

Start Evaluation  

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Speech Lang Pathol

Preliminary Evaluation of Applicants to Master's Programs in Speech-Language Pathology Using Vignettes and Criteria From a Holistic Review Process

Teresa m. girolamo.

a University of Connecticut, Storrs

Stephen Politzer-Ahles

b The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom

Samantha Ghali

c University of Kansas, Lawrence

Brittany Theresa Williams

d The Pennsylvania State University, State College

Little is known about how others evaluate applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology along criteria used during holistic review despite more programs adopting holistic review. This knowledge gap limits our understanding of whether holistic admissions may offer a more equitable pathway to entering speech-language pathology. This study investigated how faculty and PhD students evaluated applicants to master's speech-language pathology programs along criteria used during holistic review.

We administered a survey online through a Qualtrics platform. Respondents ( N = 66) were faculty and PhD candidates in U.S. speech-language-hearing departments. Survey blocks included demographics, professional background, and vignettes. Vignettes featured profiles of applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology. Vignettes systematically varied in the indicators of applicant criteria, which were specified at low, moderate, or high levels or not specified. After reading each vignette, respondents rated the applicant and indicated their admissions decision. Analysis included descriptives.

Relative to an applicant who was at a high level for all indicators except cultural and linguistic diversity, respondents ranked applicants who varied in their indicators of criteria levels lower. Respondents were also less likely to make an explicit “accept” decision (vs. “waitlist” or “reject”) for this latter group of applicants.

Conclusions:

Even when implementing criteria used during holistic review, applicants who vary from a “high-achieving” stereotype may still face barriers to entry. Future work is needed to understand the precise nature of how holistic admissions review may play out in actual practice and help increase diversity in the profession.

In the United States, some graduate speech-language pathology graduate programs are adopting holistic review and moving beyond traditional indicators to evaluate applicants ( Guiberson & Vigil, 2021 ). From an intersectional perspective, holistic review removes barriers to entry that disproportionately impact racial/ethnic minorities ( Crenshaw, 1989 ). However, it is unknown how criteria used during holistic review function in speech-language pathology. Of particular interest is how indicators of applicant quality (e.g., recommendation letters) relate to evaluation of personal characteristics (i.e., criteria used during holistic review) and admissions decisions. These criteria are often social constructs, such that applicant ratings rely on individual interpretation of what a strong profile looks like. For example, a faculty member who uses a personal statement to evaluate academic ability might actually be judging the applicant's adherence to stylistic conventions in academic writing, which is something that applicants from more privileged backgrounds are more able to emulate ( McGlynn, 2016 ).

More broadly, there is a need to understand how holistic review in speech-language pathology may help diversify the profession. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association ( ASHA, 2020a , 2020b ) reports that less than 10% of its members are members of color, and even fewer are bilingual service providers. These shortages may be tied to underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) master's students in speech-language pathology ( Horton-Ikard et al., 2010 ). In 2018–2019, 34.6% of applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology received an offer of admission, among a total of 60,784 applications to master's degree programs ( Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders [CAPCSD] & ASHA, 2020 ). Of 19,185 master's students overall in speech-language pathology, 20.3% of first-year students were racial/ethnic minorities ( CAPCSD & ASHA, 2020 ). However, it is unknown how many applications came from unique, minority applicants ( CAPCSD & ASHA, 2020 ). Considering that minorities are persistently underrepresented in ASHA, it may be that few minorities ultimately become speech-language pathologists (SLPs) because admission is the point of access for entry to the profession ( Association of American Medical Colleges [AAMC], 2013 ; Boske et al., 2018 ). In all, understanding how applicants are evaluated through holistic review is essential for understanding pathways forward for intersectional excellence—and excellence overall—in the profession. This report describes how faculty and doctoral students evaluate applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology along criteria used during holistic review.

Holistic review is a selection process that considers the whole applicant, including what they would bring to the program ( AAMC, 2010 , 2021 ; Posselt, 2016 ). Its purpose is to create a flexible, individualized evaluation of applicant abilities relevant to success ( AAMC, 2010 ; Kent & McCarthy, 2016 ). The tenets of holistic review are as follows: (a) criteria are broad, mission aligned, and consider diversity as integral to excellence; (b) using applicant experiences, personal characteristics, and academics to inform applicant review in an equitable and evidence-based manner; (c) consideration of applicants' contributions to the class, institution, and profession; and (d) consideration of applicant race/ethnicity to achieve institutional goals related to institutional mission ( AAMC, 2010 , 2013 , 2021 ; Glazer et al., 2014 ). As such, diversity is not the goal but a means to achieving educational goals and institutional missions ( AAMC, 2010 , 2014 ).

Practices and Procedures

To ensure fidelity of holistic review, programs must have practices and procedures in place for each stage of holistic admissions: screening, interviewing, and selection of applicants for admission ( Glazer et al., 2014 ). The holistic review scoring model provides guidance on specific practices and procedures ( AAMC, 2013 ; Glazer et al., 2014 ). Under this model, schools may adopt the following: (a) evaluation of applicant criteria related to specific missions or goals of the school (e.g., research mission), (b) using an admissions mission statement that includes diversity, (c) consideration of nonacademic criteria in addition to academic metrics in screening, (d) evaluation of nonacademic criteria related to applicant background or experiences in screening (e.g., socioeconomic status [SES]), (e) selection of students from the waitlist using the school's missions or goals as guidance, and (f) providing training for the admissions committee related to school mission and diversity ( Glazer et al., 2014 ).

Holistic Review in Speech-Language Pathology and the Health Professions

Speech-language pathology. A survey explored holistic review in accredited graduate speech-language pathology programs nationwide ( Guiberson & Vigil, 2021 ). We report the key findings here. First, although a majority of programs reported using holistic review, their exact usage varied: 14% reported using holistic review, 46% reported using some holistic review practices, and 40% reported not using holistic review. Of programs using at least some holistic review practices, 72% reported a positive impact, with more diversity in the program, more well-rounded students, and better identification of clinically competent applicants. Furthermore, although diversity increased, applicant grade point average (GPA) and graduate record examination (GRE) scores and graduate outcomes (i.e., graduation rate, employment rate, and Praxis outcomes) did not change. Of the programs not using holistic review, 51% indicated concerns that admitted students would not be as academically prepared. Furthermore, only 29% of respondents believed CLD students faced barriers to entry to master's programs, including academic ability and preparation and proficiency in mainstream American English.

Second, programs varied in the aspects they implemented at each stage. In screening, 85% of programs reported using a GPA cutoff (range: 2.75 to ≥ 3.3), and 73% of respondents ranked GPA as the most important criterion. Few (26%) programs reported using a GRE cutoff score. In applicant review and selection, 61% of respondents ranked GPA and 30% ranked GRE scores as an important or the most important criterion, respectively. Nearly half the respondents reported considering bilingualism/multilingualism during these stages. Other common practices across programs included consideration of nonacademic criteria (e.g., interpersonal skills, oral communication skills, professionalism, and critical thinking) and diversity essay responses.

Overall, these findings suggest holistic review is on the rise in speech-language pathology, although many programs do not fully follow the AAMC (2013) model. If only some practices are in place, holistic review may not increase diversity ( Boske et al., 2018 ; Cahn, 2015 ). Furthermore, it is unknown how admissions committees evaluate criteria across applicants.

Health professions. A nationwide survey of health professions schools in nursing, medicine, dentistry, public health, and pharmacy found that nearly 50% of nursing schools and over 75% of the remaining schools had implemented holistic review ( Glazer et al., 2014 ). Like speech-language pathology, individual schools varied in what holistic review practices they adopted ( Glazer et al., 2014 ). Schools—particularly those which had adopted many holistic review practices—reported that implementing holistic review increased diversity and had the same or improved student outcomes ( Glazer et al., 2014 ). However, individual practices alone, such as eliminating the GREs as an admissions requirement, may be insufficient for increasing diversity ( Cahn, 2015 ). Importantly, schools implementing holistic review reported 2–3 times more student engagement in the community, teamwork and cooperation, and openness to different perspectives than schools that did not ( Glazer et al., 2014 ).

Conceptualizations of Holistic Review

Although AAMC (2013) has provided an established definition of holistic review, other conceptualizations of holistic review have emerged that are also relevant to understanding holistic review in practice. For example, as shown in Figure 1 , different interpretations are whole file, whole person, and whole context ( Bastedo et al., 2018 ). Although Bastedo et al. (2018) developed this framework to study holistic review practices of undergraduate admissions officers, it is well suited to exploring graduate admissions in speech-language pathology.

Potential holistic review process. GPA = grade point average; GREs = graduate record examinations.

Whole file. Under this approach, committee members consider the application file. Although committee members may consider both academic variables (e.g., GPA and GRE scores) and nonacademic variables (e.g., extracurricular activities), how these factors inform admissions decisions depend on individual committee members. Because evaluation of the application file at face value does not necessarily include consideration of personal characteristics or academic or family background, committee members may miss relevant information to contextualize the application file materials of CLD applicants.

Whole person. In addition to the application file, committee members consider the applicant as a unique individual with achievements in terms of involvement, leadership, background, and what they will contribute to their cohort and program (i.e., applicant fit). This approach may pose barriers to CLD applicants because it does not take into account the context, environment, or lived experiences of applicants. Academic and family background afford individuals with different opportunities, such that some experiences may be a function of privilege and not ability. Furthermore, it is unclear how committee members perceive applicant fit for those who are not of the dominant majority in communication sciences and disorders (CSD).

Whole context. In addition to whole-person characteristics, this approach takes into account the context, environment, and lived experiences of applicants. Committee members consider the applicant as a unique individual from educational and family circumstances that shaped who they are. This approach is the most inclusive yet requires the most interpretation. If committee members are skilled at interpreting application materials beyond what is explicitly stated or present, such that they understand the potential barriers that an applicant faced in their pursuit of a master's program in speech-language pathology, they may credit them for their accomplishments. If committee members are less skilled, they may underestimate their abilities.

Admissions Application Materials

As shown in Figure 1 , common application materials to master's programs are GPA, GRE scores, letters of recommendation, a personal statement, and a resume or curriculum vitae (CV; Baggs et al., 2015 ; Kent & McCarthy, 2016 ; Michel et al., 2019 ; Okahana et al., 2018 ). These components vary in their predictive value of graduate school outcomes, and interpretation of them may be subject to bias.

Predictive value. The predictive value of GPA in identifying qualified candidates is uncertain, despite an emphasis on these metrics in the reviewal of applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology ( Guiberson & Vigil, 2021 ). Some studies have found undergraduate GPA in speech-language pathology ( Baggs et al., 2015 ; Boles, 2018 ; Halberstam & Redstone, 2005 ; Ryan et al., 1998 ) and undergraduate GPA ( Forrest & Naremore, 1998 ; Halberstam & Redstone, 2005 ; Troche & Towson, 2018 ) to be predictive of graduate school outcomes, as defined by Praxis outcomes, graduate GPA, and comprehensive exam performance. Elsewhere, undergraduate GPA and GPA in speech-language pathology have not predicted graduate school outcomes ( Anderson et al., 2017 ; Richardson et al., 2020 ).

Potential for bias. Utilizing GPA as an indicator of applicant quality may give rise to bias. Despite emphasis on a near-perfect GPA, the GPA of admitted students to speech-language pathology master's programs is variable ( Polovoy, 2014 ; Sylvan et al., 2020 ), in terms of average GPA of accepted students to U.S. master's programs (range: 3.14–3.97; CAPCSD & ASHA, 2020 ; Koay et al., 2016 ) and international grading systems ( Michel et al., 2019 ).

Findings beyond speech-language pathology also suggest there are issues with using GPA as an indicator, including heavy reliance on GPA in screening and final admissions decisions ( Kent & McCarthy, 2016 ). In psychology, Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx students are underrepresented in doctoral programs relative to their White peers, despite having the same GPA ( Callahan et al., 2018 ). Such underrepresentation is not limited to graduate programs. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx students who had guaranteed admission to top undergraduate institutions by earning a top GPA were less likely than their White peers to apply and more likely to apply to lower ranked schools ( Black et al., 2015 ). When there are racial/ethnic differences in GPA, they may be due to educational resource availability ( Michel et al., 2019 ) and instructor mindset ( Canning et al., 2019 ; Gershenson & Papageorge, 2018 ). Across all students at a large public university, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and Native American students had lower grades in science, technology, engineering and mathematics courses than White or Asian students; this gap was twice as large in classes where faculty believed academic ability was a fixed ability ( Canning et al., 2019 ).

Predictive value. GRE scores have limited predictive value of graduate outcomes. In speech-language pathology, some studies have found GRE scores to be predictive of Praxis outcomes, graduate GPA, and comprehensive exam performance ( Anderson et al., 2017 ; Baggs et al., 2015 ; Boles, 2018 ; Kjelgaard & Guarino, 2012 ; Ryan et al., 1998 ; Troche & Towson, 2018 ). Elsewhere, GRE scores have not predicted graduate outcomes ( Anderson et al., 2017 ; Richardson et al., 2020 ). Despite this mixed evidence, over a quarter of 110 speech-language pathology faculty reported their programs use a GRE cutoff and rated GRE scores as an important or the most important in both screening decisions and application selection ( Guiberson & Vigil, 2021 ). In the adjacent field of psychology, analysis of doctoral student enrollment revealed that Black and Hispanic/Latinx students were underrepresented relative to White students, despite having equally high GRE scores ( Callahan et al., 2018 ). More broadly, as per C. Miller and Stassun (2014) , the GRE is a more accurate indicator of skin color and sex than of ability and long-term success.

Potential for bias. Across all GRE takers, American Indian, Black, and Hispanic/Latinx examinees have performed lower than White and Asian students ( Bleske-Rechek & Browne, 2014 ; Educational Testing Service [ETS], 2019 ). Of all GRE takers between July 2018 and June 2019, those who were Asian scored higher on GRE Quantitative than all other racial/ethnic groups, those who were White and non-Hispanic scored higher on GRE Verbal than all other groups, and those who were White and non-Hispanic or Asian scored higher on analytical writing than all other groups ( ETS, 2019 ).

This finding has several implications. The first involves how admissions committees interpret test scores ( Messick, 1989 ). Although GRE scores are clearly not lower for every racial/ethnic minority applicant, structural racism systematically denies underrepresented minority groups of low SES access to resources (e.g., educational opportunity; Kendi, 2020 ). Thus, if minorities have lower GRE scores, it may be due to structural racism in terms of economic success, educational opportunity, and bias in the educational environment ( Lucey & Saguil, 2020 ). The second implication involves how admissions committees use GRE scores ( Messick, 1989 ). If programs use GRE scores as a singular benchmark instead of integrating multiple sources of information, they risk misusing the test ( ETS, 2019 ) and effecting racialized outcomes, in that admissions may not mention race but systematically exclude racial/ethnic groups ( Powell, 2012 ). Indeed, when GRE scores were used as a cutoff in the biomedical sciences, nearly two thirds of Black/African American, Native, and Hispanic/Latinx applicants were triaged, but only 26% of White male applicants were triaged ( Wilson et al., 2019 ). In all, interpretation and use of the GRE must account for inequity.

Personal Statements

Predictive value. Personal statements may not reliably reflect the abilities of students. When measured using idea density, the quality of personal statements did not predict graduate GPA or comprehensive exam outcomes ( Anderson et al., 2017 ). However, when evaluating personal statements using grammar, content, and apparent knowledge of and commitment to the field of speech-language pathology, statement quality has correlated with graduate GPA ( Halberstam & Redstone, 2005 ). These last two criteria are subjective ( Halberstam & Redstone, 2005 ). Furthermore, assessing grammar as an indicator of personal statement quality may give rise to linguistic bias ( Politzer-Ahles et al., 2020 ).

Potential for bias. Some of the criteria that admissions committee members evaluate through personal statements, such as apparent knowledge of and commitment to speech-language pathology, depend on personal judgment ( Halberstam & Redstone, 2005 ). CLD applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology may be at a disadvantage relative to their White peers in developing personal statements, especially with respect to writing skills ( Fuse, 2018 ). Findings from medicine support this possibility. Nearly half the students across three cohorts reported receiving help from others in developing their personal statement for medical school ( Albanese et al., 2003 ). CLD applicants may not have the same access to help developing a personal statement as do their White peers, who are likely to know previous applicants willing to share materials or to have the financial wherewithal to access paid services ( Albanese et al., 2003 ). Hence, the personal statements of CLD applicants could vary in their quality because of differences in resource availability and not ability ( Kendi, 2020 ).

Letters of Recommendation

Predictive value. Letters of recommendation may have limited predictive utility in admissions. On one hand, letter of recommendation quality—as measured by recommender prestige, apparent depth of knowledge of the applicant, reasons for recommending the applicant, and level of enthusiasm of recommendation—has predicted graduate GPA in speech-language pathology ( Halberstam & Redstone, 2005 ). However, a large-scale meta-analysis found that letters only weakly predicted graduate GPA, performance rating from faculty, and degree attainment ( Kuncel et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, letters of recommendation only accounted for a negligible proportion of unique variance in graduate GPA and faculty ratings of graduate school performance ( Kuncel et al., 2014 ). Although not specific to CSD, these findings suggest letters of recommendation have limited power in identifying qualified applicants to graduate programs.

Potential for bias. Using letters of recommendation to select applicants may introduce bias. First, some applicants may be at a disadvantage in obtaining the experiences requisite for strong letters of recommendation. Amid general student concerns about having to work outside school and obtaining letters of recommendation, Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx master's students in speech-language pathology have reported being of lower SES than their White peers ( Fuse, 2018 ; Fuse & Bergen, 2018 ). Thus, if CLD applicants of lower SES must work outside school, they have less time for coursework, research, and extracurricular activities, all of which may help them develop relationships with letter writers and demonstrate the characteristics for a strong letter ( Fuse, 2018 ).

Second, some applicants may be at a disadvantage in receiving strong letters of recommendation, even when they are as equally qualified as peers of dominant backgrounds. Of all undergraduate students applying to a research experience program, minority applicants versus White applicants and applicants from institutions that were not research intensive versus research-intensive institutions received different letters of recommendation, despite having the same GPA ( Houser & Lemmons, 2018 ). Although letters for White students tended to describe them in terms of cognitive ability, productivity, and insight, letters for Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx students tended to describe them in terms of affect and emotion ( Houser & Lemmons, 2018 ). Furthermore, graduate programs nationwide have reported knowing the author of letters of recommendation as an influence on the admissions process ( Okahana et al., 2018 ). In all, these findings warrant caution in using letters of recommendation to assess applicant quality.

Resumes or CVs

Predictive value. The resume or CV includes many of the other components: GPA, GRE scores, accomplishments, and experiences that are referred to in a personal statement and letters of recommendation. Because the resume or CV is essentially an organized listing of a subset of what is in other application materials, then the criticisms about the predictive utility of other application materials apply here. For example, research experience on the resume or CV is also probably mentioned in the personal statement, and undergraduate institution and performance are probably also mentioned in recommendation letters.

Potential for bias. Interpreting the resume or CV without considering the full array of factors that shaped the applicant may lead to lower ratings for CLD applicants, particularly those who are from less privileged backgrounds ( Bastedo et al., 2018 ). Master's students in speech-language pathology have reported feeling overwhelmed by the application process, such that application materials may not fully align to program expectations ( Sylvan et al., 2020 ). At the same time, many applicants to the health professions report receiving external help in preparing their applications ( Albanese et al., 2003 ). Hence, interpreting resumes or CVs at face value may affect bias against applicants without access to outside help ( Albanese et al., 2003 ).

Altogether, previous findings on application materials highlight the importance of evidence-based holistic review. There is no singular set of reliable predictors of applicant quality. An additional concern is that previous studies did not include rejected applicants, which limits the ability to predict later outcomes; thus, the predictive value of application materials may be even lower than what it appears ( Michel et al., 2019 ; Ryan et al., 1998 ). Given underrepresentation in speech-language pathology, confounds relevant to cultural and linguistic diversity may exist in the prediction of graduate outcomes, as such evidence informs admissions committees on what to consider. This problem is circular in nature; if programs fail to diversify, it is impossible to know what predicts graduate success across diverse backgrounds.

As shown in Figure 1 , admissions committees evaluate application materials for personal characteristics or criteria. However, the evaluation of criteria may be subject to bias, such that applicants who do not fit the stereotype of a speech-language pathology student may face additional obstacles in entering the profession ( Rogus-Pulia et al., 2018 ; Shapiro et al., 2002 ).

A Framework for Noncognitive Variables in Holistic Review

A framework for noncognitive variables in holistic review for all students comes from Sedlacek (1993) , who argued for the importance of noncognitive variables in holistic review. Noncognitive variables, which are qualitative metrics indicative of personal characteristics, entail experiential and contextual factors “relating to adjustment, motivation, and student perceptions” ( Sedlacek, 2011 , p. 180). Importantly, these variables may best predict success in nontraditional students: (a) positive self-concept, (b) realistic self-appraisal, (c) ability to successfully handle a system that was not designed for them (i.e., graduate admissions), (d) preference for long-term goals over short-term ones, (e) availability of a strong support person, (f) successful leadership experience, (g) demonstrated community service, and (h) knowledge acquired in or about a field ( Sedlacek, 2004 ). These variables are an indicator for success in higher education for all students and must be considered in order to truly generate diverse and socially just admissions decisions ( Sedlacek, 1993 , 2004 , 2005 , 2011 ). For reference, programs in the Council for Graduate Studies most commonly identified past academic performance, critical thinking, program fit, and writing ability as qualities relevant to master's admissions ( Kent & McCarthy, 2016 ).

An Instantiated Example of Holistic Review Criteria in Speech-Language Pathology

An example of holistic review criteria comes from the University of Kansas Intercampus Program in Communicative Disorders ( University of Kansas, Department of Hearing and Speech, 2018 ). The admissions committee evaluates applicants for criteria, which are social constructs whose evaluation depends on the indicators used and the interpretation of admissions committee members ( Boske et al., 2018 ). Although a detailed analysis is beyond the present scope, it is not always clear how the criteria below align to the noncognitive variables as proposed by Sedlacek (1993) . For example, the criteria do not mention or allude to an applicant's ability to handle a system that may not be designed for them.

Academic ability and preparation. Academic ability and preparation refer to the need to have a firm foundation in speech-language-hearing and broader knowledge of related areas, with the goal of being able to apply this knowledge in clinical practice. Indicators of this criterion include overall and GPA in speech-language-hearing, letters of reference, and resume.

Communication skills. Communication skills refer to the need of SLPs to communicate with clients, families, and other professionals using oral and written language. Indicators of this criterion include personal statement, letters of recommendation, and resume.

Interpersonal skills. Interpersonal skills refer to the need of SLPs to work collaboratively and effectively with clients, families, and other professionals. Indicators of this criterion include teamwork experience and clinical experience on the resume.

Analytical skills. Analytical skills refer to the need of SLPs to critically read, analyze, interpret, and apply research to evidence-based clinical practice, thus requiring a foundation in research, critical thinking, and clinical application. Indicators of this criterion include an essay, research, and clinical experience on the resume and letters of reference.

Potential for professionalism. Potential for professionalism refers to the need for SLPs to be organized, reliable, respectful, and able to grow from constructive feedback. Indicators of this criterion include letters of reference and personal statement.

Potential for leadership. Potential for leadership refers to the need of SLPs to advocate for their clients and for the profession. Indicators of this criterion include leadership experience on the resume and letters of reference.

Cultural and linguistic diversity. Cultural and linguistic diversity refers to the need for SLPs to work effectively with diverse and multilingual clients from a variety of backgrounds that differ from their own. Indicators of this criterion include personal or academic cultural experiences on the resume and letters of reference.

Indicators of Criteria

In addition to the application materials, indicators of criteria from the example are teamwork experience, clinical experience, and research experience. As with the application materials, these indicators may have limited predictive ability and potential for bias.

Teamwork experience. Teamwork may not reliably indicate applicant quality because effective teamwork may be something that CLD applicants do not highlight in their application materials as an individual accomplishment. For example, Native American academics from tribal communities have reported a gap between their cultural norms and those of predominantly White academia ( Dvorakova, 2019 ). Although relationality and communal cooperation were central to their respective cultures, academia emphasized individualism ( Dvorakova, 2019 ). Similarly, Korean undergraduates reported a greater sense of “oneness” with members of a whole (e.g., family and friend networks), whereas their White peers reported a greater sense of individualism ( Lim et al., 2011 ). Thus, sense of self—and of one's strengths, including teamwork as a type of accomplishment or skill—are culturally situated; CLD applicants may not consider positive teamwork experiences as an individualistic skill to explicitly mention.

Students may also face inequity in gaining teamwork experience. Undergraduate students in CSD have reported relying on cohort mates for social support ( Roos & Schreck, 2019 ). Furthermore, younger SLPs who recently graduated from master's programs have demonstrated significant bias against speakers with they perceive to have a “nonnative” accent ( Chakraborty et al., 2019 ). Together with the potential for homophily, one possibility is that CLD students are less able to access social support from their peers in a predominantly White profession ( Rogus-Pulia et al., 2018 ). Those with intersecting identities in multiple marginalized groups (i.e., racial/ethnic minority plus being perceived as a nonnative speaker of English) may face more barriers ( Crenshaw, 1989 ).

Research experience. Prior research experience may not predict academic performance, degree attainment, and clinical performance in the health sciences and professions ( A. Miller et al., 2020 ). Research experience is oftentimes unpaid, such that it may be accessible only to those who can afford to provide unpaid labor ( A. Miller et al., 2020 ). Consequently, using research experience as an indicator of analytical skills may reflect access to opportunity and disadvantage CLD applicants ( Houser & Lemmons, 2018 ; A. Miller et al., 2020 ). In speech-language pathology, family financial support is predictive of admissions outcomes to master's programs. Therefore, students who work outside school (who are disproportionately minority students) may be less likely to have research experience and appear to have less strong analytical skills due to inequity ( Fuse, 2018 ; Fuse & Bergen, 2018 ).

In addition, undergraduate research experience may only be available at some schools ( Houser & Lemmons, 2018 ; A. Miller et al., 2020 ). Even when paid research opportunities are available, students from institutions that are not research intensive and community colleges have been underrepresented in the applicant pool compared to their peers from research-intensive institutions, with 40% of 389 students applying versus 70% expected ( Houser & Lemmons, 2018 ). Thus, using prior research experience as an indicator may favor applicants at institutions with research opportunities ( A. Miller et al., 2020 ). By the same token, committees may perceive applicants to have weaker analytical skills, simply because research opportunities were unavailable at their institutions.

Clinical experience. Little is known about prior clinical experience as a reliable predictor of graduate outcomes in speech-language pathology. Findings from the allied health professions suggest clinical experience may not reliably predict graduate success. In nursing, prior clinical experience did not predict graduate GPA ( El-Banna et al., 2015 ; Patzer et al., 2017 ) or program completion ( Niemczyk et al., 2018 ). Similarly, in medicine, prior clinical experience did not predict medical school GPA, medical licensing exam outcomes, or later assessment of expertise and professionalism ( Artino et al., 2012 ; in contrast, see Shah et al., 2018 ). In all, these findings highlight the importance of caution in using clinical experience as an indicator.

Using clinical experience as an indicator also gives rise to potential bias. As with research experience, undergraduate clinical experience, such as internships, is often unpaid. Therefore, the same concerns with accessibility of research experience also apply to clinical experience. In addition, CLD students may face more hurdles than their White peers in clinical settings. For example, minority supervisors in psychology have reported spending the most time discussing multicultural issues if their supervisee was a minority; in contrast, White supervisors spent the least amount of time discussing multicultural issues if their supervisee was White and more time if their supervisee was a minority ( Hird et al., 2004 ). One conclusion is that minorities must navigate multicultural issues as an everyday reality, thus adding to the burden of gaining clinical experience ( Hird et al., 2004 ). Explicitly, minorities may be perceived as having more difficulties in clinical settings, even though the underlying issue is underrepresentation, such that clinical supervision methods and perceptions of clinical competency are based on the dominant majority alone ( Buchanan & Wiklund, 2020 ). Altogether, these findings highlight one way in which clinical experience may create bias.

In all, teamwork experience, clinical experience, and research experience may have limited utility in admissions if they are used as gatekeeping mechanisms and considered in the absence of applicant background. As Figure 1 shows, there are many steps in the application process, such that application materials may or may not truly reflect applicant characteristics and criteria ratings may or may not correspond to explicit admissions decisions. How do admissions committees interpret applicants of diverse backgrounds using holistic review criteria? In the section that follows, we propose a methodology for exploring this question.

Vignettes or information in a narrative paragraph format is an emerging method for probing real-world decision making. Medicine, speech-language pathology, academic reviewing, and admissions have used vignettes to examine the decision-making practices of gatekeepers as related to quality of care (i.e., the series of decisions that lead to improved outcomes) and evaluation in higher education contexts. We suggest that the admissions decisions brought about by holistic review are akin to quality of care, in that they may to lead to improved program outcomes ( AAMC, 2010 , 2014 ).

Quality of Care

In Peabody et al.'s (2000) study, physicians read eight vignettes and made decisions, with the outcome being quality of care. The study manipulated vignettes for clinical symptomatology and presented them in a simple or complex clinical scenario. In measuring quality of care or the “goodness” of decision making versus patient outcomes, this study removed the potential confounds of characteristics beyond the control of individual practitioners (e.g., underlying conditions) to isolate the role of practitioner knowledge. Importantly, findings showed that quality of care as measured by the vignettes was closer to the quality of care as measured by standardized patients (i.e., the gold standard in medicine) than chart abstraction (i.e., a report of diagnostic information).

Selin et al. (2019) expanded upon this methodology to explore quality of care in the context of SLP clinical decision-making practices for children with specific language impairment (SLI). As in Peabody et al. (2000) , the study manipulated clinical symptomatology across vignettes and removed confounds of characteristics beyond the control of individual SLPs (e.g., workplace policies for eligibility) by instructing respondents to use only best professional judgment and to assume neutral workplace conditions. Although all children in the vignettes had SLI, their characteristics were specified at impaired, borderline, or typical levels or not specified. This structure allowed for the examination of both child and SLP characteristics. Findings revealed SLPs identified children with SLI for services at higher rates than reported in the literature, thus indicating a higher quality of care than in actuality. In all, vignettes may be an effective method for understanding the role of individuals in decision-making practices.

Evaluation in Higher Education Contexts

Politzer-Ahles et al. (2020) used vignettes to explore how faculty and PhD students in CSD evaluate academic writing. The study manipulated conference abstracts to vary along one parameter: whether they conformed or not to international academic English. Respondents rated the vignettes using criteria, such as scientific quality and clarity of writing. Results showed that the abstract written in language that conformed less to international academic English received lower ratings of scientific quality than the abstract written in language that conformed to international academic English, despite having identical substantive content. Hence, vignettes may be useful for evaluating how those in CSD interpret and evaluate criteria across diverse contexts.

Turning to admissions, Bastedo et al. (2018) used vignettes to explore the decision-making practices of undergraduate admissions officers. Respondents made admissions decisions using full hypothetical admissions files for applicants who were of the same race, ethnicity, gender, college, and major but varied in their coursework, educational background, and academic metrics (i.e., grades and test scores). Two came from an upper middle-class high school with a strong or less strong academic background. The third came from a lower SES high school with the least strong academic background and had fewer opportunities in their academic environment. Respondents made decisions under one of two conditions: limited information or detailed information to contextualize their performance. Findings revealed that providing context on applicant background resulted in a higher admissions rate and that respondents who considered not only academic performance but also personal characteristics and applicant background were more likely to admit the applicant from the low-SES background. Thus, utilizing hypothetical profiles of applicants as vignettes may be informative for understanding evaluation of applicants using holistic review criteria.

Taking together what is known about holistic review and vignettes as a methodology, this study explored the evaluation of applicants along criteria used during holistic review. To isolate the role of individual interpretation in evaluation, respondents completed vignette items under neutral conditions (i.e., using only best professional judgment, assuming the application was complete, and evaluating the applicant as is). Thus, the research questions were as follows:

• Considering criteria used during holistic review, are applicants from CLD backgrounds less likely to be accepted into master's speech-language pathology programs than their peers from dominant backgrounds?
• Do applicant ratings predict admissions decisions?

The institutional review board at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University approved this study. Methods for the experiment were preregistered at https://osf.io/5ygzw . We report any analyses that deviate from the primary analyses of the preregistration as exploratory.

Sampling Procedure

To recruit a broadly representative respondent base, recruitment included posting information inviting study participation online in national professional groups: ASHA Students to Empowered Professionals Board; ASHA Special Interest Groups 1 (Language Learning & Education), 10 (Academic Affairs), and 14 (Multiculturalism) discussion boards; and social media groups, such as Clinical Research for SLPs on Facebook. Data collection took place online from mid-July 2020 to mid-September 2020 on Qualtrics ( http://www.qualtrics.com ). Respondents elected whether to participate by reading an information statement, indicating consent, and completing the survey with the ability to stop and return to it over a 2-week period. There was no compensation for participation.

The target sample size was 100–200 participants. This sample size was based on previous research in speech-language-hearing ( Selin et al., 2019 ) using similar methodologies. The stopping rule was to collect data until the survey had 100 completed observations. If data collection yielded over 10 responses per week, the survey would stay open until 200 responses were collected. However, if data collection yielded less than 10 responses per week across a 2-week period, the survey would close. Here, responses decreased to six responses in the penultimate week of data collection and one response in the ultimate week of data collection. Given that data collection took place during the COVID-19 pandemic and participants did not receive compensation, the authors determined reaching the target sample size was unlikely and ceased data collection when the survey had 66 responses. Of those 66 participants, 53 completed the first block (demographics), and 35 completed the survey. Inspection of the data did not suggest that any particular variables influenced attrition.

Participant Characteristics

To participate in this study, respondents had to be a faculty member, PhD student, or PhD candidate at an accredited program for speech-language pathology or equivalent (e.g., CSD) in the United States. The study included PhD students and candidates because they are likely to become faculty and serve on admissions committees. There were no restrictions based on demographic characteristics. As shown in Table 1 , participant demographics were consistent with ASHA demographics. Participants were mostly Caucasian, non-Hispanic, and women. About half held a research doctoral degree, and about half held a master's degree. There was diversity in current positions, with the most common being a PhD student or candidate, an associate professor or equivalent, and an assistant professor or equivalent. Over two thirds served on a master's admissions board.

Respondent characteristics.

Note.  Current positions add up to more than 100%, because one person was both an assistant professor and PhD student. AuD = Doctor of Audiology; SLPD = Doctor of Speech-Language Pathology.

The authors developed and piloted the survey with PhD candidates and faculty in speech-language pathology. Pilot testers provided feedback that informed survey revision, with key considerations being survey length and providing definitions for holistic admissions criteria. Participants completed an online survey (see Appendix ) implemented in Qualtrics. To respect privacy, respondents did not provide institution-specific information.

In the main portion of the survey, participants read six vignettes describing hypothetical applicants. Prior to the vignettes, the survey instructed respondents to use their best professional judgment to evaluate each applicant as is under the assumption that each applicant had a complete application and that there was no applicant interview or other available information. The survey included definitions of each criterion for use in applicant ratings from the University of Kansas Intercampus Program in Communicative Disorders ( University of Kansas, Department of Hearing and Speech, 2018 ). After reading this information, the survey presented six vignettes.

To avoid bias, the vignettes used initials and did not specify gender, race, or ethnicity ( Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004 ; Milkman et al., 2015 ; Simonsohn, 2015 ). Furthermore, to control for order effects, respondents read and rated vignettes in a randomized order. As shown in Table 2 , indicators of seven criteria from a holistic review framework were conceptualized at a low, moderate, or high level. GPA scores for each level were based on findings about GPA for master's programs in CSD from the research literature ( Koay et al., 2016 ; Polovoy, 2014 ; Sylvan et al., 2020 ). As shown in Table 3 , the authors systematically manipulated indicators of these criteria across vignettes, such that applicants varied by level and specification (i.e., specified or not specified, meaning that information was not provided). Not specifying information allowed for the opportunity to examine default judgments.

Conceptualization of indicator levels of criteria.

Note.  Although the process of evaluating criteria and determination of ratings is subjective, this framework offers one way of conceptualizing the levels of indicators that reviewers use to inform their evaluation of applicants.

Vignette design of applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology.

Note.  High = criterion specified and indicators of this criterion were highly positive; Moderate = criterion specified and indicators of this criterion were moderately positive or ambiguous; Not specified = information not included in the vignette; Low = criterion specified and indicators of this criterion were minimally positive; CLD = cultural and linguistic diversity.

For example, applicant A.B. graduated from a private college with a 3.8 GPA. Their resume showed that they worked as a teaching assistant for one semester and had an internship with the general counsel of General Electric Corporate. Thus, indicators of their academic ability and preparation (i.e., GPA and previous professional experience) were high. Furthermore, in their essay, A.B. wrote about growing up in an ethnic enclave. Because they did not specify whether this experience entailed working with people from backgrounds different from their own, indicators of their cultural and linguistic diversity were low. Their letters of recommendation came from three professors, one of whom supervised the student in their work as a teaching assistant. The professors reported that the student wrote well for assignments and produced comprehensive reports and client plans in clinic. Therefore, indicators of their analytical skills (i.e., academic writing) were high. However, the professor also reported they rarely participated in group work in class. Thus, indicators of their interpersonal skills (i.e., teamwork) were low. Furthermore, the supervising professor wrote that the student could be hard to reach and received below-average student ratings, indicating their communication skills and potential for leadership were low. Given the mixed findings (i.e., produced comprehensive plans, worked as a teaching assistant, and difficult to reach), indicators of their potential for professionalism were moderate.

After reading each vignette, respondents rated the applicant on criteria using a 5-point Likert scale from weak to very strong : (a) academic ability and preparation, (b) communication skills, (c) interpersonal skills, (d) analytical skills, (e) potential for professionalism, (f) potential for leadership, and (g) cultural and linguistic diversity. Respondents also selected an explicit admissions decision as admit, waitlist, or reject. To maximize the likelihood of capturing first impressions, respondents could not return to previous vignettes and post hoc change answers.

In addition to the vignettes, participants also answered questions about their own demographic background and professional background. Demographic items included race and ethnicity using categories from the National Institutes of Health, as well as gender. Professional background items included education level, current position, current experience on a master's admissions board for speech-language pathology or related programs, current experience on other admissions boards for speech-language pathology or related programs, and factors in applicant reviewal. Respondents could select multiple options from a list of factors in applicant reviewal. To prevent bias in responses, as the survey never explicitly stated the questions under review, professional background items (c)–(e) came after the vignettes. The demographic items and professional background items (a) and (b) came before the vignettes.

The key dependent variable was whether or not the applicant is accepted (i.e., whether they are in the top 50% of applicants) by a given respondent. This was calculated on a per-respondent basis. In other words, for each respondent, the 5-point Likert scale ratings across seven criteria were averaged into one number for each applicant, and then within that respondent, the six applicants were ranked. The top three applicants were considered “accepted” by that respondent, and the bottom three as “not accepted.” Thus, each applicant–respondent pair has an “accept” or “not accept” decision. This cutoff was determined by information from an actual accredited program in speech-language pathology, which accepts the top 40%–50% of applicants. Because it is a highly ranked program, this study adopted a 50% cutoff.

Analytic Strategy

Incomplete surveys were excluded from analysis. To compare the likelihood of acceptance for the applicant from the dominant background to that of the applicants from other backgrounds, the analytic plan was to dummy code applicants (with “0” for students from nondominant backgrounds and “1” for the student from a dominant background) and regress acceptance on applicant background using the following generalized (logistic) mixed-effects model: glmer(Acceptance ~ 0 + Background|Rater), data, family = “binomial.” The random effects in this model fit a different effect of Background (i.e., difference between the dominant background applicant and the others) for each rater but do not fit different intercepts for each rater. Secondary analyses included comparison of the likelihood of acceptance for the applicant from the dominant background to that for each other applicant. Exploratory analyses included descriptive analysis of likelihood of acceptance between respondent groups, which were determined by self-reported consideration of factors in admissions. Following Bastedo et al. (2018) , respondents who selected “application file,” “unique characteristics,” “family background,” and “educational background” were coded as “whole context,” and those who did not were coded as “not whole context.” In addition, exploratory analyses also included descriptive analysis of likelihood of acceptance by criteria.

We report preliminary findings of how respondents, or faculty and doctoral students in CSD, ranked and made explicit admissions decisions (i.e., admit, waitlist, and reject) for hypothetical applicants presented in vignettes. Again, respondents rated hypothetical applicants along seven criteria used during holistic review from an actual program.

Applicants of Varying Indicator Levels for Criteria Were Lower Ranked

Figure 2 shows, for each applicant, the proportion of respondents who ranked this applicant among their top three, alongside the proportion of respondents who gave the applicant an explicit “accept” decision. Applicant F.G. was far more likely to be accepted than the others. In fact, every rater ranked this applicant among their top three. This situation rendered our planned statistical analysis moot, as logistic regression is not possible when one condition has 100% of one kind of response, since the logit function is undefined for proportions of 0% or 100%. Nevertheless, the results support the conclusion that the applicant from the stereotypically “successful” background, who had a high indicator level for all criteria except for cultural and linguistic diversity, was more likely to be accepted than the applicants of varying backgrounds—who also had moderate or high indicator levels for cultural and linguistic diversity. Although our results do not prove cultural and linguistic diversity influenced the likelihood of acceptance across vignettes, they do suggest that likelihood of acceptance varied by it. This is because CLD background is confounded with other factors in this data set. Although applicant F.G. had the highest GPA, which is an important criterion in admissions decisions for master's programs in speech-language pathology ( Guiberson & Vigil, 2021 ), and high indicator levels for other criteria, all other applicants varied significantly more in their indicator levels (see Table 2 for details).

Likelihood of acceptance when acceptance is based on scores from holistic review criteria ratings (dark bars) versus when acceptance is based on explicit decisions (light bars).

Holistic Review Approaches and Criteria

As an additional exploration, we examined whether respondents who reported using a whole-context approach (i.e., considered applicant file, personal characteristics, and educational and family background) yielded different admission outcomes (as a function of ratings that translated into individual rankings) than respondents who reported using a whole-file (i.e., considered applicant file) or whole-person (i.e., considered applicant file plus personal characteristics) approach. As shown in Figure 3 , the three candidates who generally received lower rankings (A.B., B.C., and C.D.) were slightly more likely to be accepted by whole-context raters than by raters who did not take a whole-context approach. This effect was more pronounced in candidate E.F. Recall from Figure 2 that candidate E.F. received a fairly good ranking (and thus high likelihood of acceptance when acceptance was determined by ranking) but did not receive many explicit “accept” decisions. It appears that high rankings for E.F. were especially driven by raters who embodied a whole-context approach. The only candidate who received a worse ranking from whole-context raters than other raters was D.E.

Each candidate's likelihood of acceptance by raters who did not take a whole-context approach (dark bars) versus by raters who did take a whole-context approach (light bars).

Finally, we examined the relationship between the other properties of the candidate described in each vignette (see Table 2 ) and the candidate's likelihood of acceptance. It was not possible to analyze these data with regression, given the abovementioned problem (i.e., cells with 100% or 0% acceptance), the small amount of data overall, and the repeated-measures nature of the data (which preclude using a simple logistic regression and necessitate a mixed-effects logistic regression, which is difficult to get to converge without a large amount of data in each cell). Without regression, it is impossible to attribute increases or decreases in acceptance likelihood to any particular factor, since many of these factors are confounded. Nevertheless, some tentative trends can be noted from Figure 4 . This figure shows, for each factor, how likely applicants were to be accepted as a function of how much of that factor they had. For example, the solid red line for “academic ability” shows that applicants whose academic ability was not specified (i.e., not described) in their vignette had a very low probability of being accepted. In contrast, applicants whose indicators of academic ability were “low” or “high” had about a 60% chance of being accepted, and applicants whose indicators of academic ability were “medium” had about a 40% chance of being accepted. It is shown from the figure that indicator levels of communication skills were fairly strongly associated with the outcomes, applicants whose communication skills were not described had a very low chance of acceptance, and applicants whose indicators of communication skills were “high” had a very high chance of acceptance. The biggest predictors of acceptance appear to be having indicators of communication and potential for professionalism at a high level. As shown in Table 2 , these are precisely the indicator levels that the applicant F.G. had for these two criteria and the other applicants did not.

Likelihood of acceptance as a function of indicators of seven different applicant criteria. CLD = cultural and linguistic diversity.

This study explored how faculty and doctoral candidates rated vignettes of applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology. Respondents were likely to rank applicants varying in levels of indicators of criteria lower than the applicant who was “high” across all indicators except for cultural and linguistic diversity. Respondents were also more likely to make an explicit “accept” decision for the latter applicant.

Equity in Admissions

Overall, the applicants in the vignettes reflected the real-world complexity of applicants. We manipulated vignettes to vary in the indicators of holistic review criteria that admissions committees use to evaluate applicants: academic ability and preparation, communication skills, cultural and linguistic diversity, interpersonal skills, analytical skills, potential for professionalism, and potential for leadership. Cultural and linguistic diversity was not manipulated independently from other factors; we did not compare applicants who were maximally similar other than their cultural and linguistic background.

A potential criticism of this study could be that if A.B. through E.F. received lower ratings than F.G., that could have occurred because of other factors (e.g., they had “weaker” applications) rather than because of their CLD background. That argument, however, presupposes that the goal of admissions should be for committees to ensure applicants with an equal demonstration of indicators of academic ability get equal admissions outcomes. We are approaching the problem, however, from an antideficit and systemic perspective ( AAMC, 2013 ; Urban Universities for Health, 2016 ). In holistic review, committees should take on the responsibility of creating an environment that honors and respects applicants' backgrounds, including potential for growth, in their evaluation systems. This necessarily includes admissions and extends to ongoing evaluation of students in the program ( AAMC, 2013 ).

In practice, being of a CLD background is often confounded with many of the indicators that committees evaluate—not because students from CLD backgrounds are weaker, but because of structural inequities which often set up students from dominant backgrounds with more chances to show their academic ability, leadership potential, and other characteristics that graduate admissions committees tend to recognize ( Kendi, 2020 ; McGlynn, 2017 ). Thus, if one makes the assumption that students from CLD backgrounds often face structural barriers that students from non-CLD backgrounds do not and thus that a CLD student who is just as qualified as a comparable non-CLD student may nevertheless appear weaker along certain indicators ( Bleske-Recheck & Browne, 2014 ; Fuse, 2018 ; Michel et al., 2019 ), then a goal of admissions committees should not be to achieve admissions outcomes that are blind to an applicants' background. Rather, the goal should be to create equitable admissions policies that work against inequitable outcomes ( Powell, 2012 ). This may mean ranking an applicant of a CLD background higher than a non-CLD applicant with comparable or slightly higher ratings on personal characteristics, such as academic achievement or potential for leadership, which structurally favor applicants from dominant backgrounds. As per Bastedo et al. (2018) , such a ranking would reflect an appreciation of applicant academic and family background. Under such a view, demonstrating that holistic admissions is effective would not require showing that a CLD applicant gets the same (i.e., equal) outcome as a maximally similar non-CLD applicant, that is, why we did not manipulate CLD status independently of other personal characteristics?

To be clear, this study does not assume that all CLD applicants are lower on criteria than their peers from dominant backgrounds, nor does it argue that all reviewers are not culturally responsive. Our argument is that, in light of empirical evidence documenting the systemic barriers that CLD students are likely to face, admissions committees risk evaluating them as lower on criteria if they do not proactively plan for just interpretation and use of application materials and indicators of applicant quality ( Messick, 1989 ). At the same time, admissions committee members are diverse themselves, with respect to their evaluation of applicants ( Bastedo et al., 2018 ). Here, the fact that the highest likelihood of acceptance occurred when indicators of all applicant characteristics, except for cultural and linguistic diversity, were high, which only F.G. had, may or may not be coincidental. As individuals who have succeeded in the field of speech-language-hearing, respondents may have been predisposed to favor those who were similar ( Rogus-Pulia et al., 2018 ; Wilson et al., 2019 ). Respondents may have more positively ranked applicants where they felt they could identify “success,” which may be tied to how well indicators of applicant characteristics conformed to their own backgrounds.

Recommendations for Graduate Admissions Processes Using Holistic Review

In full holistic review, the time commitment required for evaluation of all application components is significant. The preliminary results of this study suggest that at least one step of a holistic review process (i.e., ratings of criteria in applicants and subsequent ranking) may face challenges, to recognizing excellence across diverse applicant profiles. Nevertheless, with careful development and implementation, holistic review processes may increase diversity—and ultimately, educational excellence—without a substantial workload increase for admissions committees ( Wilson et al., 2019 ). General recommendations from holistic admissions in the health professions include creating an admissions mission statement that includes diversity and balancing academic and nonacademic criteria in initial screening of applicants ( Artinian et al., 2017 ). Here, we offer CSD-specific recommendations for programs seeking to develop effective holistic review processes in graduate admissions.

First, considering that applicant ratings in this study favored the applicant many committees would consider to be the most traditionally successful, admissions committees may have to pursue training to learn about diversity, how to assess characteristics and barriers across diverse cultures, and their own biases ( AAMC, 2020 ; Michel et al., 2019 ; Zerwic et al., 2018 ). However, learning about bias alone is insufficient. To actually counter bias, effective steps include having faculty panels that include faculty of diverse backgrounds (or faculty who recognize excellence across diverse backgrounds) review materials, proactively planning an order in which application materials will be reviewed and implementing candidate interviews ( Okahana et al., 2018 ).

Second, given the broader issue of underrepresentation among CSD faculty, programs might consider bringing in CLD alumni to serve as interviewers or advisory board members coaching admissions committees on how to mitigate bias in their decision-making structures and processes ( Okahana et al., 2018 ). Just as CLD faculty may be effective in mentoring CLD students in speech-language pathology ( Saenz, 2000 ), CLD alumni may be effective in interviewing applicants while also helping to not overburden minority faculty who are oftentimes very few and asked to represent all minority groups ( Addams et al., 2010 ). Furthermore, CLD interviewers may be more likely to recognize the barriers that CLD students often face through their own experiences. For example, a CLD mentee shared with one of the authors that they received a low grade in a clinical course. Knowing the student was insightful with cross-cultural perspectives, the mentor probed for more information. It became evident that their training did not include information on the cultural norms or expectations for clinical interactions. Thus, the CLD student had to figure out (a) that there were cultural norms that differed from their own background, (b) what those norms were, and (c) how to acquire this additional set of norms before even approaching clinical training itself. In contrast, their peers of dominant backgrounds were able to bypass (a) through (c) and focus on clinical training. This instantiated example runs counter to narratives, such as that of Ebert and Kohnert (2010) , which proposes personality traits drive clinical competence. Such a narrative suggests clinical competence is fixed and may yield racialized outcomes, especially considering the severe underrepresentation of diverse faculty in the discipline of CSD who are arguably better equipped than their White counterparts to appreciate excellence across diverse backgrounds ( Canning et al., 2019 ; Powell, 2012 ).

Third, programs aiming to implement holistic review must consider not only their admissions processes but also their overall structure to ensure students graduate and advance in the field of speech-language pathology. If the aim is to truly diversify the profession in an intersectional way ( Buchanan & Wiklund, 2020 ; Crenshaw, 1989 ), programs must also reevaluate and revise their ideas of excellence, outcomes, and supports from preadmissions to postgraduation. For example, if a program outcome, such as passing the Praxis, stands alone without supports in place to ensure students of all backgrounds have a fair opportunity at passing the Praxis, then CLD students and students of marginalized backgrounds may face additional challenges in entering the profession even if they receive admissions offers. Similarly, programs must proactively plan for how they will meaningfully support students throughout their time in the program ( Girolamo & Ghali, 2021 ). One example of a support relevant to re-envisioning excellence is inclusive teaching, such that students of all backgrounds have opportunities to acquire and demonstrate academic and clinical excellence.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, the sample size was well below the target sample size. Since data collection took place during the COVID-19 pandemic and a period of civil unrest in the United States, potential participants may have had less availability for study participation or received an influx of invitations to participate in such studies. Although the small sample size limits the precision of the estimates of the effect sizes we examined, we believe the findings are still useful as a preliminary demonstration of how evaluators use holistic review criteria, and we hope future studies will contribute more data to further clarify these patterns. Second, presenting applicant characteristics in vignettes may differ from what admissions committee members view in reality. Clearly, admissions committees complete many more steps of holistic review and, thus, evaluate applicants at each step of the process: screening, interviews, and selection of applicants for offers of admission. However, we pursued this methodology given the aim of conducting an exploratory investigation of holistic review criteria in master's speech-language pathology programs, evidence of vignettes as a valid measure of real-world decision-making behavior, and constraints on survey length to encourage completion.

Future Directions

This study highlights the need for future research on holistic review in speech-language pathology. One direction entails evaluating breakdown in holistic review in terms of diversity. A future study might implement the approach of Bastedo et al. (2018) , which employed a survey questionnaire with full hypothetical application files plus interviews. If holistic review fails to diversify accepted applicants, it would be useful to examine which steps of the process do or do not work. In a situation such as the one our study mimicked, in which respondents reviewed brief profiles, problems may occur not in the way the committee evaluates the vignettes but in how committee members construct profiles based on the application materials in the first place. One aim of holistic review is to consider the whole context, such that strengths in some areas may offset weaknesses in other areas ( Wilson et al., 2019 ). Further work is needed to understand how interpretation of applicant criteria plays out at each step, and evaluating holistic review models, perhaps using the model from AAMC (2010) , may inform this area ( Okahana et al., 2018 ). Future research could also explore what practices support admissions committees in considering an applicant's personal characteristics plus background. Evidence from biosciences and nursing suggests that training members for admissions committees on holistic review, as well as on the interpretation and use of master's application materials, is effective at increasing diversity ( Addams et al., 2010 ; Okahana et al., 2018 ; Urban Universities for Health, 2016 ; Wilson et al., 2019 ; Zerwic et al., 2018 ). However, training efficacy has yet to be tested in speech-language pathology.

A Final Note: Measurement and Merit

This study underlined the need to critically question admissions processes, even if they sound promising. Following AAMC (2013) , we must consider the fundamental principles of holistic review in the context of speech-language pathology. What constructs, or personal characteristics, should admissions committees measure? How should committees measure these characteristics? If committees use an evaluation system where characteristics are treated as fixed (e.g., Canning et al., 2019 ; Ebert & Kohnert, 2010 ), rather than ones which are socially situated, may or may not indicate excellence, or which could be cultivated through academic and clinical training, does this create or hinder excellence in the profession? Finally, who are our admissions systems built for and not built for? As Mandulak (2021) noted, “the resistance and difficulty with change, with respect to…assumptions about merit and achievement may be so well-entrenched in our processes within our programs” (p. 4). To achieve excellence for our profession, we must not only reshape our notions of merit but also restructure our systems to be for all students.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by T32 DC000052 (Director: Mabel L. Rice) and R01 DC001803 (PI: Mabel L. Rice). The authors would like to thank the survey pilot testers, respondents, reviewers, Ivan Campos, and Matt Gillispie for their feedback.

Information Statement

An online study on academic peer reviewing.

You are invited to participate in a study conducted by Dr. Stephen Politzer-Ahles, who is a staff member of the Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies in The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The project has been approved by the Human Subjects Ethics Subcommittee (HSESC) of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HSESC Reference No. HSEARS20200703001).

The aim of this study is to better understand entry to speech-language pathology master's programs in the United States. You will be asked to read profiles of students while pretending that these are applicants to a master's program in speech-language pathology. For each profile, you will be asked to rate applicant quality. It is hoped that the results of this experiment will help us understand more about admissions for master's speech-language pathology programs.

The experiment has no risks or direct benefits to you. All information related to you will remain confidential and will be identifiable by codes only known to the researcher. You have every right to withdraw from the study before completing the survey, without penalty of any kind. The survey is expected to take between 10 and 15 minutes to complete.

If you would like to obtain more information about this study, please contact Dr. Stephen Politzer-Ahles (Tel. no.: +852 27662891/ kh.ude.uylop@tilopjs :liam-e ).

If you have any complaints about the conduct of this research study, please do not hesitate to contact Miss Cherrie Mok ( [email protected] ), Secretary of the HSESC of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, in writing (c/o Research Office of the University), stating clearly the responsible person and department of this study as well as the HSESC Reference Number.

Thank you for your interest in participating in this study.

Stephen Politzer-Ahles, PhD

Principal Investigator

◯ I consent to participate in this study.

◯ I do not consent to participate in this study.

I am affiliated with a CAA-accredited program in speech-language pathology or the equivalent (e.g., communication science and disorders, communicative disorders) within the United States.

◯ No

◯ Yes

I am a PhD student/candidate or faculty member (nontenure track, tenure track, or tenured).

Survey instructions

Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. The purpose of this survey is to examine how faculty and PhD students/candidates evaluate applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology. Completion of this survey is anonymous.

You can complete the survey over multiple sessions. Please keep in mind that you will not be able to return to previous questions once you move to the next page. The survey should take 10–15 minutes.

Demographic information

In order to track how representative this survey's respondent base is of the demographics of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, please answer the following questions.

(a) Select the item(s) that best describe yourself.

□ American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut

□ Asian or Pacific islander

□ Black or African American

□ Caucasian or White

□             Other:

□ Don't know

□ Prefer not to say

(b) Of Spanish-Hispanic/Latinx origin (select one)

◯ Don't know

◯ Prefer not to say

Which of the following describes your gender identity? Check all that apply.

□ Nonbinary

□ Multigender

□ Gender fluid

□ Agender/no gender

□ Genderqueer

□ Male

□ Female

□ Prefer not to respond

□             An option not listed here:

Professional background

What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

◯ Bachelor's degree or equivalent

◯ Master's degree or equivalent

◯ AuD or equivalent

◯ SLPD or equivalent

◯ PhD or equivalent

◯             Other:

What is your current position?

◯ PhD student or candidate

◯ Assistant professor or equivalent

◯ Associate professor or equivalent

◯ Clinical professor (nontenure track) or equivalent

◯ Full professor or equivalent

◯ Lecturer or equivalent

◯ Research associate/scientist or equivalent

Applicant profiles

The next section of the survey will present six profiles of prospective students who have applied to a master's program in speech-language pathology and ask you to evaluate each applicant.

Note: For this section, please use only your best professional judgment to evaluate each applicant as is . Assume there is no applicant interview or other available information and that each applicant has the required materials in their application. You may use the following information in your evaluation:

• Academic ability and preparation : Students need foundational knowledge in core speech-language-hearing concepts in addition to knowledge from related disciplines so they are able to learn how to apply this knowledge to clinical situations.
• Communication skills : SLPs need to communicate clearly and effectively with clients, families, and other professionals in spoken and written formats.
• Interpersonal skills : Given the importance of working with clients, families, and other professionals, SLPs need to be able to work effectively in collaboration with a wide range of people.
• Analytical skills : To implement evidence-based practice, SLPs need to critically read, analyze, interpret, and apply research to clinical practice. Accordingly, SLPs need a firm foundation in research, critical thinking, and clinical application.
• Potential for professionalism : Because SLPs work in busy and sometimes stressful environments, they need to be organized, reliable, and respectful. SLPs are also lifelong learners and need to be able to grow from constructive feedback.
• Potential for leadership : SLPs advocate for their clients to ensure they receive appropriate services and may also advocate for their profession at the local, state, or national level.
• Cultural and linguistic diversity : SLPs have diverse and multilingual caseloads, such that they need to value and work well with people from a variety of backgrounds that differ from their own.

A.B. graduated from a private college with a 3.8 GPA. Their resume shows that they worked as a Teaching Assistant (TA) for one semester and had an internship with the general counsel of General Electric Corporate. In their essay, A.B. wrote about growing up in an ethnic enclave. Their letter of recommendation writers were three professors, one of whom supervised the student in their work as a TA. One professor reported that the student wrote strong essays in class and produced comprehensive written reports and client plans in clinic. The other professor wrote that A.B. rarely participated in group work in class. The supervising professor wrote that the student could be hard to reach and received below average student ratings as a course TA.

Rate A.B. on each of the following:

Please indicate your admissions decision for A.B. based on the information available.

◯ Admit

◯ Waitlist

◯ Reject

Please leave any optional comments or reasoning for your ratings and admissions decision for A.B.

B.C. is a first-generation college graduate. Their resume shows they had a 3.3 overall GPA, had a 3.1 GPA in speech-language-hearing, and worked full time during college as a server. In their essay, B.C. wrote about finding free classes in their community to learn another language. Their letter of recommendation writers were their former employer and two professors. The employer reported that B.C. showed initiative at work and streamlined the process of taking and delivering orders to customers. One professor noted that the student's speaking style was not appropriate for clinic (i.e., spoke too casually with grammatical errors). The other professor wrote that despite showing interest for the profession, classmates reported difficulty working with the student on group projects due to their lack of availability.

Rate B.C. on each of the following:

Please indicate your admissions decision for B.C. based on the information available.

Please leave any optional comments or reasoning for your ratings and admissions decision for B.C.

C.D. graduated from a state university. Although sparse, their resume shows that they led some type of community cultural programming with a local nonprofit organization. The organization has an ethnic name, but the cultural connection is unclear. In their essay, C.D. wrote about how they needed to increase their flexibility to improve their leadership skills. Their letter of recommendation writers included two professors. One professor wrote that C.D. served in an affinity organization and worked well with fellow officers. However, they seemed to have difficulties getting along with a significant proportion of their classmates in clinic. The other professor wrote that the student was enthusiastic about their interests in the field of speech-language-hearing and sought out clinical shadowing opportunities.

Rate C.D. on each of the following:

Please indicate your admissions decision for C.D. based on the information available.

Please leave any optional comments or reasoning for your ratings and admissions decision for C.D.

D.E. is an international university graduate with borderline TOEFL scores and an overall GPA of 8.68 out of 10. Their resume shows they had several years of experience in the health professions as some type of student hourly or research assistant. Although their essay was short and choppy, D.E. wrote about working with families with children from a variety of backgrounds and with a wide range of speech-language service needs and their families in their country. Their letter of recommendation writers were two professors and one lab principal investigator who was their former boss. The professors' letters indicated that the student was compliant in following directions for coursework and clinic but required significant clinical supervision. The PI wrote that they interacted with families well.

Rate D.E. on each of the following:

Please indicate your admissions decision for D.E. based on the information available.

Please leave any optional comments or reasoning for your ratings and admissions decision for D.E.

Student E.F. graduated from a minority-serving institution with an overall GPA of 3.0 and a 3.4 GPA in speech-language-hearing. Their resume shows they are fluent in two languages. In their essay, E.F. wrote about being raised by their extended family and being inspired to pursue a career in the profession to help care for others as they did for their younger relatives. Their letter of recommendation writers included two professors. One was a tenured professor who was an officer in ASHA. They wrote that the student showed limited initiative in learning to use course materials independently. The other, a clinical faculty member, wrote that the student demonstrated strong critical thinking skills in their term papers but lagged behind their classmates in contributing to class discussion.

Rate E.F. on each of the following:

Please indicate your admissions decision for E.F. based on the information available.

Please leave any optional comments or reasoning for your ratings and admissions decision for E.F.

Student F.G. graduated with a 4.0 GPA. Their resume shows that they worked as an undergraduate research assistant and served on the boards of the National Student Speech-Language-Hearing Association and of a Greek organization. In their essay, F.G. wrote about what they learned in a month-long study-abroad volunteer program with children and in organizing an annual fundraiser for children with special education needs. Their letter of recommendation writers were two professors and the principal investigator of the lab where they worked. One professor wrote that they were frequently the leader during group work in class. The lab PI wrote that they were a good fit for the lab team with sharp thinking, clear communication skills, and responded promptly to electronic communications.

Rate F.G. on each of the following:

Please indicate your admissions decision for F.G. based on the information available.

Please leave any optional comments or reasoning for your ratings and admissions decision for F.G.

Professional background continued

Do you serve on an admissions board for a master's program in speech-language pathology, communication science and disorders, communicative disorders, or the equivalent?

Do you serve on some other admissions board (e.g., bachelor's or doctoral) in speech-language pathology or communication science and disorders?

Please indicate what you consider in applicant reviewal. Select all that apply.

□ Application file (i.e., application materials)

□ Family background

□ Previous educational environment

□ Undergraduate alumni status (i.e., whether or not student attended school for undergraduate degree)

□ Unique contributions the applicant would bring to the program

Do you have any comments regarding this survey? Thank you for your time and effort.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by T32 DC000052 (Director: Mabel L. Rice) and R01 DC001803 (PI: Mabel L. Rice).

• Addams, A. N. , Bletzinger, R. B. , Sondheimer, H. M. , White, S. E. , & Johnson, L. M. (2010). Roadmap to diversity: Integrating holistic review practices into medical school admission processes . Association of American Medical Colleges. [ Google Scholar ]
• Albanese, M. A. , Snow, M. H. , Skochelak, S. E. , Huggett, K. N. , & Farrell, P. M. (2003). Assessing personal qualities in medical school admissions . Academic Medicine , 78 ( 3 ), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200303000-00016 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2020a). Demographic profile of ASHA members providing bilingual services, year-end 2019 . https://www.asha.org/siteassets/uploadedfiles/Demographic-Profile-Bilingual-Spanish-Service-Members.pdf
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2020b). Profile of ASHA members and affiliates with PhDs, year-end 2019 . https://www.asha.org/siteassets/uploadedfiles/2019-Year-End-Counts-PhD-Tables.pdf
• Anderson, H. S. , Hayes, S. L. , Massey, N. M. , & Brownell, J. R. (2017). Potential predictors of success in a speech-language pathology graduate program . American Association of University Administrators , 32 ( 1 ), 101–114. [ Google Scholar ]
• Artinian, N. T. , Drees, B. M. , Glazer, G. , Harris, K. , Kaufman, L. S. , Lopez, N. , Danek, J. C. , & Michaels, J. (2017). Holistic admissions in the health professions: Strategies for leaders . College and University: The Journal of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars , 92 ( 2 ), 65–68. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708588/ [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Artino, A. R., Jr. , Gilliland, W. R. , Waechter, D. M. , Cruess, D. , Calloway, M. , & Durning, S. J. (2012). Does self-reported clinical experience predict performance in medical school and internship? Medical Education , 46 ( 2 ), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04080.x [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Association of American Medical Colleges. (2010). Roadmap to diversity: Integrating holistic review practices into medical school admission processes . https://store.aamc.org/downloadable/download/sample/sample_id/195/
• Association of American Medical Colleges. (2013). Roadmap to excellence: Key concepts for evaluating the impact of medical school holistic admissions . https://store.aamc.org/downloadable/download/sample/sample_id/198/
• Association of American Medical Colleges. (2014). Roadmap to diversity and educational excellence: Key legal and educational policy foundations for medical schools . https://store.aamc.org/downloadable/download/sample/sample_id/192/
• Association of American Medical Colleges. (2020). Holistic considerations in light of the intersections of Covid-19, racism, and inequality . https://www.aamc.org/services/member-capacity-building/holistic-review#covid-19
• Association of American Medical Colleges. (2021). Holistic review . https://www.aamc.org/services/member-capacity-building/holistic-review
• Baggs, T. , Barnett, D. , & McCullough, K. (2015). The value of traditional cognitive variables for predicting performance in graduate speech-language pathology programs . Journal of Allied Health , 44 ( 1 ), 10–16. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bastedo, M. N. , Bowman, N. A. , Glasener, K. M. , & Kelly, J. L. (2018). What are we talking about when we talk about holistic review? Selective college admissions and its effects on low-SES students . The Journal of Higher Education , 89 ( 5 ), 782–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1442633 [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertrand, M. , & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination . American Economic Review , 94 ( 4 ), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561 [ Google Scholar ]
• Black, S. E. , Cortes, K. E. , & Lincove, J. A. (2015). Academic undermatching of high-achieving minority students: Evidence from race-neutral and holistic admissions policies . American Economic Review , 105 ( 5 ), 604–610. http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151114 [ Google Scholar ]
• Bleske-Rechek, A. , & Browne, K. (2014). Trends in GRE scores and graduate enrollments by gender and ethnicity . Intelligence , 46 , 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.005 [ Google Scholar ]
• Boles, L. (2018). Predicting graduate school success in a speech-language pathology program . Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences & Disorders , 2 ( 2 ), 1. https://doi.org/10.30707/TLCSD2.2Boles [ Google Scholar ]
• Boske, C. , Elue, C. , Osanloo, A. F. , & Newcomb, W. S. (2018). Promoting inclusive holistic graduate admissions in educational leadership preparation programs . Frontiers in Education , 3 , 17. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00017 [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchanan, N. T. , & Wiklund, L. O. (2020). Why clinical science must change or die: Integrating intersectionality and social justice . Women & Therapy , 43 ( 3–4 ), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2020.1729470 [ Google Scholar ]
• Cahn, P. S. (2015). Do health professions graduate programs increase diversity by not requiring the graduate record examination for admission? Journal of Allied Health , 44 ( 1 ), 51–56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Callahan, J. L. , Smotherman, J. M. , Dziurzynski, K. E. , Love, P. K. , Kilmer, E. D. , Niemann, Y. F. , & Ruggero, C. J. (2018). Diversity in the professional psychology training-to-workforce pipeline: Results from doctoral psychology student population data . Training and Education in Professional Psychology , 12 ( 4 ), 273–285. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/tep0000203 [ Google Scholar ]
• Canning, E. A. , Muenks, K. , Green, D. J. , & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes . Science Advances , 5 ( 2 ), eaau4734. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4734 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chakraborty, R. , Schwarz, A. L. , & Vaughan, P. (2019). Speech-language pathologists' perceptions of nonnative accent: A pilot study . Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups , 4 ( 6 ), 1601–1611. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_PERS-SIG17-2019-0030 [ Google Scholar ]
• Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders. & American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2020). Communication sciences and disorders (CSD) education survey: National aggregate data report, 2018–2019 academic year . https://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/CSD-Education-Survey-National-Aggregate-Data-Report.pdf
• Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics . University of Chicago Legal Forum , 1 , 139–167. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dvorakova, A. (2019). Relational individuality among native American academics: Popular dichotomies reconsidered . Culture & Psychology , 25 ( 1 ), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X18763799 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert, K. D. , & Kohnert, K. (2010). Common factors in speech-language treatment: An exploratory study of effective clinicians . Journal of Communication Disorders , 43 ( 2 ), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2009.12.002 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Educational Testing Service. (2019). A snapshot of the individuals who took the GRE General Test: July 2014–June 2019 . https://www.ets.org/gre/snapshot
• El-Banna, M. M. , Briggs, L. A. , Leslie, M. S. , Athey, E. K. , Pericak, A. , Falk, N. L. , & Greene, J. (2015). Does prior RN clinical experience predict academic success in graduate nurse practitioner programs? Journal of Nursing Education , 54 ( 5 ), 276–280. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20150417-05 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Forrest, K. , & Naremore, R. C. (1998). Analysis of criteria for graduate admissions in speech-language pathology: Predictive utility of application materials . American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 7 ( 4 ), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0704.57 [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuse, A. (2018). Needs of students seeking careers in communication sciences and disorders and barriers to their success . Journal of Communication Disorders , 72 , 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2018.02.003 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuse, A. , & Bergen, M. (2018). The role of support systems for success of underrepresented students in communication sciences and disorders . Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences & Disorders , 2 ( 3 ), 3. https://doi.org/10.30707/TLCSD2.3Fuse [ Google Scholar ]
• Gershenson, S. , & Papageorge, N. (2018). The power of teacher expectations: How racial bias hinders student attainment . Education Next , 18 ( 1 ), 64–71. https://www.educationnext.org/power-of-teacher-expectations-racial-bias-hinders-student-attainment/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Girolamo, T. M. , & Ghali, S. (2021). Developing, implementing, and learning from a student-led initiative to support minority students in communication sciences and disorders . Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups . https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_PERSP-20-00299 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glazer, G. , Danek, J. , Michaels, J. , Bankston, K. , Fair, M. , Johnson, S. , & Nivet, M. (2014). Holistic admissions in the health professions: Findings from a national survey . Urban Universities for Health Report. https://urbanuniversitiesforhealth.org/media/documents/Holistic_Admissions_in_the_Health_Professions_final.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Guiberson, M. , & Vigil, D. (2021). Speech-language pathology graduate admissions: Implications to diversify the workforce . Communication Disorders Quarterly , 42 ( 3 ), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740120961049 [ Google Scholar ]
• Halberstam, B. , & Redstone, F. (2005). The predictive value of admissions materials on objective and subjective measures of graduate school performance in speech-language pathology . Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , 27 ( 2 ), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800500120183 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hird, J. S. , Tao, K. W. , & Gloria, A. M. (2004). Examining supervisors' multicultural competence in racially similar and different supervision dyads . The Clinical Supervisor , 23 ( 2 ), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1300/J001v23n02_07 [ Google Scholar ]
• Horton-Ikard, R. , Muñoz, S. B. , & Maria, L. (2010). Addressing multicultural issues in communication sciences and disorders . Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders , 37 ( Fall ), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_36_F_167 [ Google Scholar ]
• Houser, C. , & Lemmons, K. (2018). Implicit bias in letters of recommendation for an undergraduate research internship . Journal of Further and Higher Education , 42 ( 5 ), 585–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1301410 [ Google Scholar ]
• Kendi, I. X. (2020). Public Statement by Ibram X. Kendi . Boston Coalition for Education Equity. https://www.bosedequity.org/blog/read-ibram-x-kendis-testimony-in-support-of-the-working-group-recommendation-to-suspendthetest [ Google Scholar ]
• Kent, J. D. , & McCarthy, M. (2016). Holistic review in graduate admissions: A report from the council of graduate schools . Council of Graduate Schools. https://louisville.edu/graduate/faculty-staff/directors-of-graduate-studies/spring-2017/3a_3_HolisticReviewinGraduateAdmissions.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Kjelgaard, M. M. , & Guarino, A. J. (2012). Assessing clinical and academic performance in a master's level speech language pathology program: A path analysis . Creative Education , 03 ( 1 ), 145–148. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.31023 [ Google Scholar ]
• Koay, M. E. T. , Lass, N. J. , Parrill, M. , Naeser, D. , Babin, K. , Bayer, O. , Cook, M. , Elmore, M. , Frye, R. , & Kerwood, S. (2016). Availability of pre-admission information to prospective graduate students in speech-language pathology . Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , 38 ( 4 ), 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2016.1182671 [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuncel, N. R. , Kochevar, R. J. , & Ones, D. S. (2014). A meta-analysis of letters of recommendation in college and graduate admissions: Reasons for hope . International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 22 ( 1 ), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12060 [ Google Scholar ]
• Lim, T. S. , Kim, S. Y. , & Kim, J. (2011). Holism: A missing link in individualism–collectivism research . Journal of Intercultural Communication Research , 40 ( 1 ), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2011.558317 [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucey, C. R. , & Saguil, A. (2020). The consequences of structural racism on MCAT scores and medical school admissions: The past is prologue . Academic Medicine , 95 ( 3 ), 351–356. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002939 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mandulak, K. C. (2021). The case for holistic review in communication sciences and disorders admissions . Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups , 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_PERSP-20-00137 [ Google Scholar ]
• McGlynn, T. (2016). Recruiting underrepresented minority students . Small Pond Science. https://smallpondscience.com/2016/09/05/recruiting-underrepresented-minority-students/ [ Google Scholar ]
• McGlynn, T. (2017). The deficit model of STEM recruitment . Small Pond Science. https://smallpondscience.com/2017/05/01/the-deficit-model-of-stem-recruitment/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment . Educational Researcher , 18 ( 2 ), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018002005 [ Google Scholar ]
• Michel, R. S. , Belur, V. , Naemi, B. , & Kell, H. J. (2019). Graduate admissions practices: A targeted review of the literature . ETS Research Report Series , 2019 ( 1 ), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12271 [ Google Scholar ]
• Milkman, K. L. , Akinola, M. , & Chugh, D. (2015). What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations . Journal of Applied Psychology , 100 ( 6 ), 1678–1712. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000022 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller, A. , Crede, M. , & Sotola, L. K. (2020). Should research experience be used for selection into graduate school: A discussion and meta-analytic synthesis of the available evidence . International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 29 , 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12312 [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller, C. , & Stassun, K. (2014). A test that fails . Nature , 510 , 303–304. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7504-303a [ Google Scholar ]
• Niemczyk, N. A. , Cutts, A. , & Perlman, D. B. (2018). Prior work and educational experience are not associated with successful completion of a master's-level, distance education midwifery program . Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health , 63 ( 2 ), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12716 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Okahana, H. , Augustine, R. M. , & Zhou, E. (2018). Master's admissions: Transparency, guidance, and training . Council of Graduate Schools & Educational Testing Service. https://cgsnet.org/publication-pdf/5396/CGS_Masters_Web_Final.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Patzer, B. , Lazzara, E. H. , Keebler, J. R. , Madi, M. H. , Dwyer, P. , Huckstadt, A. A. , & Smith-Campbell, B. (2017). Predictors of nursing graduate school success . Nursing Education Perspectives , 38 ( 5 ), 272–274. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000172 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peabody, J. W. , Luck, J. , Glassman, P. , Dresselhaus, T. R. , & Lee, M. (2000). Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: A prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality . JAMA , 283 ( 13 ), 1715–1722. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.13.1715 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Politzer-Ahles, S. , Girolamo, T. , & Ghali, S. (2020). Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing . Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 47 , 100895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100895 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polovoy, C. (2014). Student's say: Craft a stand-out application: With applications far outnumbering available spots in graduate speech-language pathology programs, how can you make sure yours has a fighting chance? Admissions officials offer advice . The ASHA Leader , 19 ( 1 ), 54–55. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.SSAY.19012014.54 [ Google Scholar ]
• Posselt, J. R. (2016). Inside graduate admissions: Merit, diversity, and faculty gatekeeping . Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674915640 [ Google Scholar ]
• Powell, J. A. (2012). Racing to justice: Transforming our conceptions of self and other to build an inclusive society . Indiana University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Richardson, L. , Roberts, E. , & Victor, S. (2020). Predicting clinical success in speech-language pathology graduate students . Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups , 5 ( 2 ), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_PERSP-19-00075 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogus-Pulia, N. , Humbert, I. , Kolehmainen, C. , & Carnes, M. (2018). How gender stereotypes may limit female faculty advancement in communication sciences and disorders . American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 27 ( 4 ), 1598–1611. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0140 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roos, B. H. , & Schreck, J. S. (2019). Stress in undergraduate students studying communication sciences and disorders . Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups , 4 ( 6 ), 1430–1444. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_PERS-SIG10-2019-0003 [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, W. J. , Morgan, M. , & Wacker-Mundy, R. (1998). Pre-admission criteria as predictors of selected outcome measures for speech-language pathology graduate students . Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders , 25 , 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_25_S_50 [ Google Scholar ]
• Saenz, T. I. (2000). Issues in recruitment and retention of graduate students . Communication Disorders Quarterly , 21 ( 4 ), 246–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/152574010002100407 [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedlacek, W. E. (1993). Employing noncognitive variables in admissions and retention in higher education . In Achieving diversity: Issues in the recruitment and retention of underrepresented racial/ethnic students in higher education (pp. 33–39). National Association of College Admissions Counselors. http://williamsedlacek.info/publications/articles/employing1.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedlacek, W. E. (2004). Why we should use noncognitive variables with graduate and professional students . The Advisor: The Journal of the National Association of Advisor for the Health Professions , 24 ( 2 ), 32–39. http://williamsedlacek.info/publications/articles/why1.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedlacek, W. E. (2005). The case for noncognitive measures . In Camara W. J. & Kimmel E. W. (Eds.), Choosing students: Higher education admission tools for the 21st century (pp. 177–193). Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedlacek, W. E. (2011). Using noncognitive variables in assessing readiness for higher education . Readings on Equal Education , 25 ( 13 ), 187–205. http://web.augsburg.edu/em/UsingNCV-Sedlacek.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Selin, C. M. , Rice, M. L. , Girolamo, T. , & Wang, C. J. (2019). Speech-language pathologists' clinical decision making for children with specific language impairment . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 50 ( 2 ), 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-18-0017 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shah, R. , Johnstone, C. , Rappaport, D. , Bilello, L. A. , & Adamas-Rappaport, W. (2018). Pre-matriculation clinical experience positively correlates with Step 1 and Step 2 scores . Advances in Medical Education and Practice , 9 , 707–711. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S173470 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapiro, D. A. , Ogletree, B. T. , & Brotherton, W. D. (2002). Graduate students with marginal abilities in communication sciences and disorders: Prevalence, profiles, and solutions . Journal of Communication Disorders , 35 ( 5 ), 421–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(02)00093-X [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simonsohn, U. (2015). How to study discrimination (or anything) with names; if you must . Data Colada. http://datacolada.org/36 [ Google Scholar ]
• Sylvan, L. , Perkins, A. , & Truglio, C. (2020). Student experience applying to graduate school for speech-language pathology . Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups , 5 ( 1 ), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_PERSP-19-00102 [ Google Scholar ]
• Troche, J. , & Towson, J. (2018). Evaluating a metric to predict the academic and clinical success of master's students in speech-language pathology . Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences & Disorders , 2 ( 2 ), 7. https://doi.org/10.30707/TLCSD2.2Troche [ Google Scholar ]
• University of Kansas, Department of Hearing and Speech. (2018). Admissions overview . University of Kansas Medical Center. http://www.kumc.edu/school-of-health-professions/hearing-and-speech/admissions-overview.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Urban Universities for Health. (2016). Increasing diversity in the biomedical research workforce: Actions for improving evidence . https://urbanuniversitiesforhealth.org/media/documents/Increasing_Diversity_in_the_Biomedical_Research_Workforce.pdf
• Wilson, M. A. , Odem, M. A. , Walters, T. , DePass, A. L. , & Bean, A. J. (2019). A model for holistic review in graduate admissions that decouples the GRE from race, ethnicity, and gender . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), 7. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-06-0103 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zerwic, J. J. , Scott, L. D. , McCreary, L. L. , & Corte, C. (2018). Programmatic evaluation of holistic admissions: The influence on students . Journal of Nursing Education , 57 ( 7 ), 416–421. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20180618-06 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Remember me Not recommended on shared computers

Forgot your password?

• Speech-Language Pathology Forum

Letter of Recommendation

By kate775 October 10, 2016 in Speech-Language Pathology Forum

Recommended Posts

After speaking with my advisor I was instructed to reach out to professors within my major whose courses I had received an A in and ask them for letters of recommendation. After doing so, one of my professors responded and said she did not feel she should write me a letter because even though I received a 97/100 in her course, the course did not allow me to demonstrate my writing or verbal expression skills. I have two other CMD professors who are going to be writing me letters or recommendation, I am wondering if instead of having the aforementioned professor write a letter I should reach out to a writing professor with who I also earned an A. My professor told me graduate schools care more about your writing abilities than what was learned in her class. Any thoughts on this are greatly appreciated!

Link to comment

Share on other sites.

It depends on the graduate school some school don't really weigh your written score even on the GRE. I would say schools with any kind of research focus are very interested in your writing abilities.  That being said other schools will use your statement of purpose to see if you can write well.  

That being said do NOT use any professor that tells you they don't feel comfortable no matter how nicely they phrase it!  It will not be a good letter (trust me I've seen what kind of letters come from those professors) choose someone else.  

I think you should consider asking a professor who can attest to your contributions in class, or what kind of student you are, not just your grade! I only have asked two professors within major, and I plan on asking one professor from the Psychology (my minor) department. Even though it's not a CDS professor, I have taken 3 heavily discussion and critical thinking based courses with her and I know I contributed a lot. You don't want your letter of rec to make it seem like you were just a number in their class! And I agree with CBG321, make sure you ask if they're comfortable writing a strong or positive letter.

The problem i encounter is because I am completing my undergrad in three years I have not had as much time to make connections with all of my professors. I have two CMD professors who I have had multiple classes with who are both writing letters. In this case the teacher was my third option recommended by my advisor because I received an A in the course. I know my writing professor rather well, but my advisor told me that the number of letters they say they want should be from within the major and then you can do an extra outside professor. I believe this is going to be my approach.

Most schools require three letters- at least 2 academic, and then one clinical (or academic).

• Are you introverted?
• Was the course online?
• Did you not participate very much in class?

The above questions are not meant to come off as rude, but moreso for yourself to figure out the situation.

 Needless to say, I would steer clear of any professor that doesn't seem genuinely excited to write your letters. One mediocre letter of "student can earn the grade but doesn't have the interpersonal skills and would not be a good clinician" is an app killer. I personally would not go with the professor that said s/he didn't know your writing or verbal abilities. You want an excited "yes, I would love to write your letter! Schedule an appt and we can talk about your potential schools!" as a response. 

iamthesith4382

I have to agree with the above poster. If a professor feels that they cannot write a strong letter of recommendation, then you should find someone else. It is likely the professor feels they do not know you very well as a researcher or as an analytic thinker after just one course. If I were to ask someone in a different field though, I would make sure they are easily connected back to your area of study (e.g., asking a statistics professor for a letter when applying to a research intensive psychology graduate program). Another option is you could reach out to a professor that you struggled in their course and demonstrated resilience (although not quite obtaining the A). Of course, if you have any research experience or internships applicable to your area of study, you could always ask a supervisor to write a letter.

I have spent a lot of time in an elementary school observing the speech pathologist and working with the children in this setting. Would this be an appropriate person to ask for a letter in reference to my interpersonal abilities? 

Potentially that could be a great person to ask. Especially if your programs are interested in you having some previous hands on experience!

Definitely! The school speech pathologist sounds like a great 3rd letter. 

For most programs, I am having 2 CD professors write, and then my boss (I work in pediatrics). 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Already have an account? Sign in here.

• Existing user? Sign In
• Online Users
• All Activity
• My Activity Streams
• Unread Content
• Content I Started
• Results Search
• Post Results
• Leaderboard
• Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

Welcome Weekend is August 23-25. Register today.

Popular Searches

• Financial Aid
• Tuition and Fees
• Academic Calendar
• Campus Tours

• Premedical/Predental Track

Request Information

Pursue a Premedical/Predental Track at Azusa Pacific University

This is a benefit and advising relationship provided to your degree if you’re accepted into the track.  You’ll be familiar with the medical/dental school admission process through personalized, step-by-step advising and a mock interview with the premedical committee, yielding a high success rate for admission to medical and dental schools. You’ll also have the opportunity to receive a committee letter in support of your medical or dental school application. Students interested in this track should consider the Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences or Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry (Pre-Health Professions Emphasis) programs to fulfill medical school and dental school requirements.

See Admission Requirements

Program at a Glance

Upcoming events.

APU One Day

• March 8, 2024

Application Deadline

• Students in second-year courses BIOL 280 and CHEM 252 who are planning to apply to medical or dental school may apply for APU's premedical/predental track.

Program Information

• Program Units: 38-40
• Azusa (Main Campus)

Yellow Ribbon and Military Friendly School

Gain Hands-on Experience

• Benefit from focused academic advising tailored toward your career goals.
• Prepare for grad school interviews via a mock interview with the premedical/predental committee
• Take a course that will prepare you to receive a high score on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT).

By the Numbers

Get started, program details.

Students in this track have a high success rate for acceptance into medical and dental schools as they become familiar with the medical school or dental school admission process through personalized, step-by-step advising and a mock interview with the premedical/predental committee. In addition, students have the opportunity to receive a committee letter in support of their medical or dental school application. 

Students interested in this track should consider the Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences program or Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry (Pre-Health Professions Emphasis) program, which are designed to fulfill medical school and dental school program requirements and prepare students well for medical or dental school.

Browse the tabs below—if you have questions, visit the  Student Services Center  page, and we’ll make sure you get the info you need.

General Undergraduate Admission Requirements

Select an option below:

• First-time Freshman
• International

You might think that a private college education is beyond your reach, but  there are many financial resources available to help make an Azusa Pacific education a reality . APU students may take advantage of three basic types of financial aid: scholarships and grants, education loans, and student employment.

Scholarships and Grants

Scholarships   and   grants   are considered “gift aid” and do not require repayment. They can come from federal, state, or private sources. Scholarships are typically merit-based, meaning they are awarded depending on demonstrated academic ability or other specific talents.

Scholarships are often available from sources outside of APU. You can search for these scholarships through websites such as   finaid.org   or   fastweb.com . The Student Services Center is sometimes notified of scholarships available through APU departments or local organizations, and can provide information about any available scholarships on request.

Education Loans

Education loans   are usually repaid after graduation, may be deferred until after graduate school, and often have very low interest rates.

Military Benefits

Military members—and in some cases their spouses and dependents—qualify for   financial assistance   covering tuition, housing, and books. Azusa Pacific is a Yellow Ribbon University and Military Friendly School, so you can be confident that you’ll receive the benefits and flexibility you need to complete your education.

Student Employment

On-campus   student employment   is available for students needing additional income to pay for education-related expenses. APU students also find work off campus in the surrounding community.

Net Price Calculator

We’re committed to helping families understand early in the college search process the value of the APU experience and options for affordable financing of a top-tier Christian university education.

Now that you’re familiar with the financial aid opportunities available to APU students, it’s time to estimate what your true cost may be to attend Azusa Pacific. Remember, estimations are only as accurate as the information you provide. Click on the Net Price Calculator button below to begin.

Programs Requirements

Freshman Year

At APU, the premedical/predental track begins during freshman year as students establish a solid foundation in English and in the sciences (general biology, general chemistry, organic chemistry, physics, and calculus). Students should make it a priority in these core science courses to develop the work habits and the commitment to excellence that results in   A   grades. These courses, plus a semester of biochemistry, are required for the majority of medical and dental schools.

Sophomore Year

Typically, prospective medical and dental students apply to the premedical/predental track in spring of their sophomore year while taking 200-level biology and chemistry courses. The Department of Biology and Chemistry admits students to the premedical/predental track who have shown a serious commitment to preparing for a career in medicine or dentistry, and who are performing at a level that would make acceptance into medical or dental school a realistic possibility.

Students admitted to   medical majors   progress through their college education with the fellowship and support of like-minded peers, and benefit from academic advising from members of the Premedical/Predental Advisory Committee.

Junior Year

In their junior year, students in this track have the opportunity to take our in-house MCAT review course and the premedical/predental practicum course.

Senior Year

As seniors, students in this track prepare for the process of interviewing at medical or dental schools by participating in mock interviews with the Premedical/Predental Advisory Committee. This experience culminates with the committee assisting each student with the application process and submitting a committee letter on his/her behalf.

Preparing for the Mock Interview

The purpose of the mock interview is twofold:

• To better prepare students for medical or dental school interviews.
• To assist the committee in preparing a committee letter to enhance the student’s application.

To ensure that these goals are met, premedical/predental track students should:

• Request letters of recommendation from faculty, MDs, DOs, research advisors, etc., in January of the application year.
• Ensure that all letters of recommendation are sent to committee advisor by April of the application year (prior to scheduling the mock interview).
• Schedule mock interviews with the committee chair in April of the application year.
• Start drafting their personal statement in January of the application year.
• Submit personal statements to the committee before or at the time of the mock interview if feedback is desired.

Medical and Dental School Academic Prerequisites

In addition to   APU’s General Education requirements , view the typical   academic prerequisites   required by most medical and dental schools.

Preparation for medical or dental school can begin as early as high school. Follow these four guidelines and review the specific precollege classes recommended for   medical majors .

Basic Preparation Guidelines

• Study as many different sciences as you can (e.g., a year each of biology, chemistry, physics, and geology).
• Take as many mathematics classes as you can.
• Study a foreign language as many years as you can.
• Develop as many computer skills as you can.

Recommended Precollege Classes

• 1 year biology
• 1 year chemistry
• At least 3 years of math, including basic and advanced algebra, geometry, and trigonometry
• English (ability to write and read at the appropriate level, including understanding math word problems)

Strongly recommended:

• Advanced biology or anatomy and physiology

Also recommended:

• Computer sciences
• Social studies and history

Additional learning:

• Medical terminology
• Critical thinking
• Logic (rational, deductive, and inductive reasoning)
• Professional behaviors (punctuality, attendance, attire, personal interactions with patients or health care team, etc.)

Azusa Pacific University is accredited by the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC).

Featured Faculty

Matthew Berezuk

Professor, Department of Biology and Chemistry

Sarah Richart

See All Faculty

Career Outlooks and Outcomes

Zuleika Franco: Getting to Know God Better Through Biology

Thanks to guidance from faculty mentors, Zuleika Franco was able to secure an internship at Cedars Sinai, the second best hospital in the country.

Read the Article

Related Programs

Biological sciences major.

Available Concentrations:

Biological Systems, Ecological, Cellular and Molecular

No program selected or no program found. Go to properties and enter program name.

Biochemistry major.

Pre-Health Professions, Research

Explore APU

APU’s life-changing education develops you into a disciple and scholar, equipping you to succeed in your field and make a difference in the world.