Review
Summary
169
Applications Received
|
APPLICATION
and INFORMATION
Session
Dates
25 May 2008 - 2 August 2008
2008
Quick Links
Summer Session Index - 2008
A
total of 13 student will join the
RTP Class of '08
|
Selection
& Review Summary
There
were 170 review folders created based on application
documents received by the application deadline
of Friday, 1 February 2008. One additional folder
was mistakenly created. The final applicant
pool included 169 applicants. All were
reviewed.
To serve as a courtesy communication tool only,
application receipt and status was updated (manually)
and posted on the web
based on submissions received via e-mail, mail,
fax, and personal delivery.
Beginning
in January, the "Folder Status" column conveyed
submission comments from the system administrator.
A
"C" status indicated a COMPLETE application folder,
"I" indicated an INCOMPLETE folder with parts
missing or not acceptable. Staff added information
to the comment section to further communicate
problems identified.
Pre-screening Review
Traditional
RTP review procedure follows a seven set process
beginning with a prescreening of the entire application
set by two separate reviewers who are familiar
with the RTP program (John Brown and Matt Kosnik).
Application folders were ready for evaluation
by noon, Saturday, 2 February 2008. Prescreening
officially began at 9:00 a.m. Monday, 4 February
2008 and was completed by 9:00 a.m. the following
day. Pre-screeners worked independently. All 169
applications were reviewed and 120 selected
for forwarding as semifinalists. The list of RTP
'08 semifinalists was released Tuesday, 5 February
2008, at 2:00 p.m.
Pre-screeners
agreed on forwarding 107 applications as semifinalists
and removing 43 from further consideration. They
disagreed on placement of 19 applications. These
were evaluated by a third reviewer for final decision.
Of these 19, the secondary evaluation removed
6 from further consideration and forwarded the
remaining 13 as semifinalists. In addition, there
was 1 application originally agreed by the initial
pre-screeners to remove from further consideration,
that was reevaluated by the third reviewer and
this forwarded as a semi finalist; there was one
applicant initially marked by the pre-screeners
for forwarding as a semi finalist but further
review determined that they were not eligible
for participation and therefore removed from further
consideration.
The
role of the prescreener is to identify and remove
from further consideration those applicants not
eligible for participation in the program and
those that will not be competitive through the
final review process. Factors considered during
prescreening include:
1.
Incomplete folder resulting in inability to successfully
review the candidate including: cover letter missing
and/or lacking necessary information; recommendations
missing and/or lacking necessary information;
RTP application form and/or lacking critical information.
2. Ineligible for participation including: academic
status (status no longer considered undergraduate);
participation focus (not targeting full participation
in the goals and curriculum of the RTP session);
language proficiency; availability (unavailable
for adequate participation).
3.
Poor recommendations and/or reference
selection.
4.
Poor academic record and no adequate justification
provided.
5.
Career goals inconsistent with participation in
the RTP.
Semi-finalist Review
There
were 120 applications evaluated as semifinalists.
A panel of 7 judges, representing each discipline
(NMNH department), reviewed applications from
their set and nominated top candidates for forwarding
as finalists. Review sets:
Anthropology:
34 applications, reviewed by Melinda Zeder
Botany: 11 applications, reviewed by Bob Faden
Entomology: 6 applications, reviewed by John
Brown
Invertebrate Zoology: 5 applications, reviewed
by Steve Cairns
Mineral Science & Geology: 13 applications,
reviewed by Tim McCoy
Paleobiology: 19 applications, reviewed by
Gene Hunt
Vertebrate Zoology: 32 applications, reviewed
by Kris Helgen
Semifinalist
evaluation began at 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, 5 Feb 08
and was completed by 3:00 p.m. Thursday, 7 Feb
08. Reviewers worked independently. Reviewers
nominated 54 candidates for forwarding as finalists.
Unlike
previous years, this year there was no advisor
review conducted and no overall evaluation of
all applicants not nominated by judges as finalists.
Only, but all, those applicants identified by
Department reviewers were forwarded to the finalist
set.
Finalist Review
There
were 50 finalists originally identified. Four
more were added to the set prior to review and
one more added after the review began. The review
of finalist candidates began Thursday, 7 Feb 08
at 4:00 p.m. and the listing of finalists was
released to the web site at 8:00 a.m. the following
day.
Judges
had until the close of business, Tuesday 19 Feb
08 to complete their evaluation and submit final
scores and ranks. Two reviewers were unable to
complete the scoring due to illness so the deaddline
was extended to close of business Wednesday, 20
February 2008, and the review (all applicantion
scored) by 4:40 p.m.
Reviewers
typically score differently with some generally
awarding higher scores and others awarding lower
scores. To adjust for these differences, finalist
scores were normalized based on applicant rank.
The normalization began at 4:45 p.m. Wendesday,
20 Feb 08 and was completed by 7:30 p.m. that
same day. The normalization resulted in an overall
ranking and this was made available to the panel
by noon, Thursday, 21 Feb 08.
The
Selection Committtee met in the Academic Resources
Center (ARC) Friday, 22 February 2008 beginning
at 9:00 a.m. to discuss final rankings, nominate
the target of 12 candidates for participation
and identify complementary research advisors to
host students. The meeting concluded at 1:30 p.m.
resulting in 12 nominees for participation and
5 alternates.
Following
interviews with research staff to discuss potential
placements, and several adjustments, the committee
reconveined Friday, 29 Feb 08 to confirm research
topics and student/advisor teams. The committee
nominated 12 applicants for participation in the
2008 session of the Research Training Program.
Applicants were notified by phone Friday, 29 Feb
08 and Saturday, 29 Feb 08. Selectees were sent
detail a detailed e-mail message (Saturday, 1
Mar 08) complete with necessary forms to continue
the award processing. Selectees were given until
Friday, 7 March 2008 to accept or decline participation.
Nominees:
Kristin
Adams
Phillip Barden
Ana Marcela Florez Rueda
Thushara Gunda
Maureen Hoffmann
Irene Liao
Jonathan Mitchell
Teresa Nichols
Andrew Rominger
Ryan Stephens
Camilo Sanin
Catherine Sun
April Yang
Alternates:
None
Total
Applications Received: 169
| |
Name |
App.
|
Grades
or
Trans.
|
Cover
Letter
|
First
Ref.
|
Second
Ref.
|
Comments |
|
ADAMS,
Kristin |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
AGUIRRE-TAPIERO,
Maria Del Pilar |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
ALLEN,
Natalie |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
AMES,
Heidi |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
ANDERSON,
Damon |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
ARAUJO,
Ricardo |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| I |
ARMSTRONG,
Kalon |
NO
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
Need
RTP-application |
| C |
ASPDEN,
Daniel |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
BAILEY,
Tawny |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
BAKAS,
Kelsey |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
|
BARDEN,
Phillip |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
BARTON,
Jamie |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
BEARD,
Jacqueline |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
BECERRA,
Maria Florencia |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
BENTLEY,
Kerin |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
BERGMANN,
Emily
|
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
BERRYMAN,
Eleanor |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
BITTNER,
Noelle |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
BROWN,
Hannah |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
BROWNING,
Hilary |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
BUSTOS,
Claudia |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
|
CALDERON-ACEVEDO,
Camilo |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
CAMAK,
David |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
CAMEROTA,
Diana |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
CASTILLO,
Cristina |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
CEDILLO,
Emmanuel |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
|
CELY
SANTOS, Sandra Marcela |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
|
|
CERIO,
Donald |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
|
| C |
CHALATI,
Laila |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
CHAMBERS,
Candice |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
CHAN,
Christine |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
CHEE,
Christine |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
CHIMERA,
Matthew |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
CHISHOLM-SIMS,
Danza
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
CHUNG,
Grace |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
|
CIRIGLIANO,
Matthew |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
|
|
CULTON,
Hanna |
YES
|
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
CURTIS,
Abigail |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
DAVENPORT,
James |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
DAVIS,
Kristin |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
DEAN,
Katharine |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
|
DECAMARGO,
Luiza |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| I |
DEL
TORO, Israel |
YES
|
YES
|
NO
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
DOLGUSHINA,
Tatiana |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
ESKRIDGE,
Caryne |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
|
ESTES,
Jordan |
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
| C |
FELICE,
Ryan |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
FIRNSTAHL,
Aaron |
YES
|
ok
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
FLOREZ
RUEDA, Ana Marcela |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
| C |
FRABLE,
Benjamin |
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
|
FRANK,
Sarah |
YES
|
|
