Admissions teams are being asked to do more – delivering timely, fair, and defensible decisions – while managing growing application volumes and tighter timelines.

In Kira’s 2025-26 Client Experience Survey, over 55% of admissions professionals reported receiving more applications than the previous year. As volume increases, so does pressure on your team and your ability to evaluate applicants consistently.

Traditional review models weren’t built for this level of scale.

Where traditional staffing models break down

Even well-designed review processes can break down when application deadlines pass and volumes spike. Teams spend less time evaluating applicants and more time managing internal workload, resolving inconsistencies, and covering capacity gaps.

Most admissions offices operate with stable staffing throughout the year, yet the period between deadlines and decision release compresses months of work into a few weeks. Familiar models – faculty committees, seasonal staff, or ad hoc reviewers – often struggle to scale under this pressure.

As applications are reviewed quickly and in parallel:

• Consistency becomes harder to maintain
• Fatigue starts to influence scoring
• Manual coordination pulls time away from evaluation

Small differences in early reviews aren’t contained – they carry forward, forcing committees to reconcile scores instead of focusing on thoughtful decisions.

These are real operational challenges that impact outcomes:

• Fairness: inconsistent evaluations can disadvantage applicants
• Defensibility: decisions become harder to justify
• Efficiency: teams spend more time managing process than evaluating applicants

To scale effectively, admissions teams need a better way to both capture applicant insight and to evaluate it reliably.

A Two-Part Approach: Insight + Capacity

To scale admissions without compromising fairness, admissions teams need two things:

1. Meaningful insights into applicants
2. The capacity to evaluate those insights consistently

Each solves a different part of the problem. Together, they create a complete admissions review system.

Kira Talent brings these together through:

1. Asynchronous video assessments – to capture structured insight
2. Reviewer Services – to evaluate that insight at scale

Part 1: Capture Meaningful Applicant Insights at Scale

Kira Talent’s Asynchronous Assessment allows you to hear directly from applicants – without the scheduling constraints of live interviews. The Kira Talent team works with you to design questions, define competencies, and build clear evaluation rubrics. Every applicant responds to the same prompts, using the same structure via recorded video sessions.

This consistency matters. It means you’re evaluating applicants on the same criteria from the start, rather than adjusting expectations as you go. It also makes the process more accessible. Applicants can complete assessments on their own time, from anywhere, without the barriers of scheduling or travel. And it gives you earlier insight into how applicants think, communicate, and approach challenges – so you can identify best-fit candidates more efficiently.

Admissions professionals consistently rank interview performance among the most important factors in decision-making, making it critical to capture this insight in a structured, scalable way.

But capturing insight is only part one of the solution.

Part 2: Evaluate Insights Reliably with Reviewer Services

As you engage more applicants through asynchronous assessments, a new challenge emerges:

How do you evaluate all of that insight with speed and efficiency?

Kira Talent’s Reviewer Services do not replace your team’s judgment. It gives you the capacity to apply it consistently – even during peak volume.

Trained professional reviewers evaluate applicant responses using your program’s rubrics and criteria. This allows you to scale evaluation without overloading your team, with reviewers trained on your competencies and scoring guidelines so every applicant is evaluated against the same standards. Distributing workload across trained reviewers also helps reduce fatigue – a known driver of inconsistency and bias – so evaluation quality holds up, even at scale.

With dedicated review capacity, timelines stay on track without rushing decisions. Kira’s Reviewer Services achieve 99.99% scoring timeliness, helping ensure your review timeline is consistently met – supported by a network of 30,000+ trained professional reviewers across programs and disciplines.

Behind the scenes, reviewer performance is continuously monitored and calibrated to maintain accuracy and consistency across your applicant pool. With Reviewer Services, you can manage high volumes more confidently, while protecting faculty time for high-value decision-making.

Why This Works Better Together

Asynchronous assessments and Reviewer Services are most effective when used together.

• Asynchronous assessments give you structured, comparable applicant insight
• Reviewer Services ensure that insight is evaluated consistently at scale

This combined approach allows you to:

• Evaluate more applicants without increasing internal workload
• Maintain consistent standards across large applicant pools
• Reduce variability introduced by fatigue or limited capacity
• Make decisions that are both efficient and defensible

What This Looks Like in Practice

Here’s what this looks like in practice:

• Applicants complete a structured asynchronous video assessment
• Responses are automatically organized and ready for review
• Trained reviewers evaluate responses using your rubrics
• Your team receives consistent, calibrated results
• You focus on selecting best-fit applicants – not managing logistics

Instead of coordinating reviews or managing bottlenecks, you can focus on evaluating applicants and making thoughtful decisions.

A Reliable Solution for Admissions Teams

By combining structured assessments with scalable evaluation capacity, admissions teams can transform how they review applicants.

As application volumes continue to grow, traditional models will continue to struggle under pressure. By combining asynchronous assessments with Reviewer Services, admissions teams can scale their process – without sacrificing consistency, fairness, or time.

Instead of managing volume, you can focus on what matters most: selecting applicants who will thrive in your program, with confidence and consistency.

Admissions decisions depend on evaluating applicants in a fair, consistent, and defensible way – and the traditional essay is increasingly unreliable for that purpose. Generative AI tools now allow applicants to produce polished written responses with minimal original input, making it difficult to determine what reflects the applicant’s own voice and perspective.

Institutions across disciplines are beginning to adjust. The Association of American Medical Colleges added an AI-specific certification statement to the 2025 AMCAS application, relying largely on applicant self-attestation. At Duke University, admissions leadership stopped assigning numerical ratings to essays after concluding they could no longer assume submissions reflected authentic writing ability. Admissions expert Kevin O’Hara states that if programs cannot confidently determine authenticity, essays may become less central to admissions decisions altogether.

Frontline reviewers are reporting noticeable changes in applicant writing. Former admissions professional Will Geiger notes an increase in formulaic structure and repetitive language characteristic of AI assistance rather than personal expression. The implications extend beyond authenticity to fairness. Applicants with greater access to advanced tools, coaching, and prompting expertise can use AI more effectively, amplifying existing advantages rather than leveling the playing field.

For graduate programs seeking to select best-fit students, this creates a fundamental evaluation gap. When authorship cannot be confidently established, written responses alone provide limited insight into communication skills, critical thinking, or readiness for graduate study.

Programs are turning to direct applicant voice

As confidence in written essays declines, many graduate programs are prioritizing assessment methods that allow applicants to demonstrate their abilities directly. Video assessments are emerging as a practical tool, enabling review teams to evaluate communication skills, reasoning, and interpersonal competencies in a format that is difficult to outsource or heavily edit.

Video is increasingly used as an authenticity layer that strengthens confidence in other application materials. A recent Washington Monthly feature, “AI Is Killing the College Essay. Enter the ‘Video Essay,’” highlighted how institutions are experimenting with recorded responses to better understand applicant readiness.

Admissions professionals consistently value hearing from candidates in their own words. In Kira Talent’s 2025-26 Client Experience Survey, interview performance and GPA ranked as the two most important factors in admissions decisions, underscoring the importance of direct interaction. Structured video assessments, supported by clear prompts and competency-based rubrics, allow programs to gather this insight consistently across large applicant pools while maintaining fairness, transparency, and comparability.

In Kira Talent’s 2025-26 Client Experience Survey, interview performance and GPA ranked as the two most important factors in admissions decisions.

Video enables scale – yet reviewing at scale requires dedicated capacity

Asynchronous video assessment allows programs to gather authentic insight without the logistical constraints of live interviews. Institutions design questions aligned to their priorities, applicants respond on their own time, and reviewers evaluate responses when capacity allows. Because every applicant receives the same prompts and is assessed using the same criteria, programs can maintain consistency across large applicant pools while expanding access and flexibility.

"By using video interviews instead of essays, we gained so much time back. Not just for admissions, but for faculty as well. And students can show us who they really are in a way an essay just can’t."
-Cher Knupp, Director, Health Sciences Admissions at Salt Lake Community College

However, the operational demands of reviewing video responses at scale are substantial. Application volumes continue to rise across graduate programs. In Kira Talent’s 2025-26 Client Experience Survey, more than 55% of admissions professionals reported receiving more applications than the previous year, increasing pressure to evaluate candidates efficiently without compromising quality.

Video review is inherently time-intensive: while reading an essay may take only a few minutes, watching a full set of responses typically requires 15–30 minutes per applicant. For a program receiving 5,000 applications, this represents roughly 1,250 hours of review time – equivalent to more than 150 full working days for a single reviewer.

In Kira Talent’s 2025-26 Client Experience Survey, more than 55% of admissions professionals reported receiving more applications than the previous year, increasing pressure to evaluate candidates efficiently without compromising quality.

Most admissions teams do not have the capacity to absorb this workload during peak cycles without risking reviewer fatigue, delays, or inconsistent evaluation. To maintain rigor at scale, many institutions supplement internal staff with trained professional reviewers who apply the program’s own rubrics and criteria. This approach extends capacity without requiring permanent hires or overburdening faculty, while preserving academic oversight through flexible models such as faculty-plus-professional review teams.

Kira Talent’s Reviewer Services provide access to more than 30,000 trained educational raters, many drawn from ETS’s established scoring programs for assessments such as GRE®, TOEFL®, and Praxis®. Reviewers are trained on each institution’s competencies, calibrated to ensure consistent scoring, and monitored throughout the cycle for accuracy and timeliness. Programs report significant time savings — often hundreds of faculty hours per cycle — while maintaining fairness, reliability, and transparency in decision-making.

"Even with all those extra candidates, we’ve managed to reduce our decision timeframe and get offers out to applicants faster. As a result, we’re seeing record enrollment."
-Larry Fillian, Associate Dean of Enrollment Management and Student Success at NYU SPS

By combining asynchronous video assessment with structured professional review, institutions can capture authentic applicant insight at scale without sacrificing evaluation quality or overloading admissions teams. This integrated approach enables programs to process growing applicant volumes while maintaining the consistency and defensibility required for high-stakes decisions.

Institutions are demonstrating what scalable, fair review looks like

Programs across disciplines demonstrate that high-volume video assessment can be implemented without sacrificing rigor or overburdening staff. By combining structured asynchronous assessments with additional review capacity, institutions manage growing applicant pools while maintaining consistent evaluation standards.

• McMaster University Engineering – conducted a holistic review of 13,000+ applicants scored by Reviewer Services within a five week window
• NYU School of Professional Studies – increased enrollment while saving over 3,000 hours of admissions work per cycle
• Berklee College of Music – streamlined the review of 4,000+ applications, reducing turnaround time to just five days
• Yale School of Management – Replaced standardized English exams with Asynchronous Video and Reviewer Services
• Salt Lake Community College – Scaled holistic review across nine healthcare programs, saving four and a half weeks of staff time

These examples illustrate a common outcome: when review capacity aligns with application volume, programs can move faster while preserving fairness, consistency, and attention to each applicant.

A practical path forward for scalable admissions

For graduate programs, the challenge is no longer simply identifying strong applicants – it is doing so in a way that remains fair, consistent, and defensible as both technology and application volumes evolve. Asynchronous video assessment offers a reliable way to understand how applicants think and communicate, providing insight that is difficult to replicate through AI-assisted written materials.

However, authenticity alone is not enough. Without sufficient review capacity, even the most effective assessment methods can create new pressures on admissions teams. Structured reviewer support ensures that programs can evaluate responses thoroughly and consistently, without overloading staff or delaying decisions.

Kira Talent integrates these capabilities into a single approach: standardized video assessments that capture authentic applicant responses, combined with trained reviewers who apply each program’s own criteria. This approach enables institutions to maintain rigorous standards while adapting to rising volumes and changing expectations.

As the role of traditional essays evolves, programs that prioritize direct interaction, structured evaluation, and sustainable review capacity will be positioned to select their best-fit students while preserving fairness for every applicant.

January through March can feel like a marathon for admissions teams. Calendars fill. Conversations blur together. Debrief meetings stretch long into the day.

What’s less visible is the true cost of parent interviews – not in dollars, but in staff time. Scheduling, preparation, documentation, scoring, and discussion often consume as much time as the conversation itself.

Reducing that burden isn’t only about improving efficiency. When teams are stretched thin, consistency can slip, fatigue sets in, and it becomes harder to evaluate each family with the same care and attention.

This guide breaks down where time is lost and outlines practical ways schools can reduce interview workload using structure rather than new systems – preserving both staff capacity and fairness across families.

The hidden time cost of parent interviews

On paper, a parent interview might appear simple – a 30-minute meeting. In practice, each one carries significant operational weight.

The real time per family

A typical parent conversation includes:

• 5–10 minutes – Scheduling and coordination
• 20–30 minutes – Live conversation
• 10+ minutes – Notes, scoring, and debrief

Total: 35–50 minutes per family

For schools interviewing 150–300 families, parent conversations alone can consume 90-250+ staff hours per admissions cycle.

“What feels like a 30-minute conversation is often nearly an hour of total staff time.”

Where time is lost

The challenge lies in small inefficiencies embedded in long-standing processes.

Common interview inefficiencies:

• Scheduling back-and-forth
• Conversations running over time
• Off-topic drift
• Inconsistent interviewer styles
• Manual note rewriting
• Multiple reviewers per family
• Fatigue slowing scoring
• Lengthy debrief discussions

Individually, each issue may seem minor. Together, they can add dozens – sometimes hundreds – of extra staff hours per cycle while making it harder to ensure consistent evaluation across families.

Five time-saving tactics (no new technology required)

Meaningful improvements don’t always require new platforms. Many schools have streamlined their process by tightening structure around what already exists – improving efficiency while supporting fair, consistent decision-making.

1. Standardize to four core questions

Limiting interviews to 4 consistent, high-impact questions helps:

• Keep conversations within 20 minutes
• Ensure fairness and comparability across families
• Reduce interviewer improvisation
• Surface meaningful insights without rambling

High-impact questions aren’t necessarily more difficult – they’re more intentional. Effective prompts are focused, specific, and designed to reveal how families think, support their child, and engage with school communities. Many schools align these questions with their mission and values to better identify families who will thrive in their environment.

For example:

“Tell us about a time when your child faced a challenge or setback. How did you support them, and what did that experience teach you about your role as a parent?”

“What do you believe is the most important role a parent should play in a child’s education? Please share a specific example.”

Determining your school's "core four" interview questions ensures every family has an equal opportunity to share meaningful experiences — and gives admissions teams insight that is easier to compare when decisions become complex.

2. Use a “guardrail script”

Simple transition phrases help redirect conversations while maintaining warmth:

• “That’s helpful context – let’s shift to…”
• “To ensure fairness across families, I’d like to ask…”

Guardrails prevent drift without making the interaction feel scripted or impersonal.

3. Implement a simple 4-point rubric

A streamlined rubric:

• Clarifies evaluation criteria across interviewees
• Aligns reviewers around shared expectations
• Reduces post-interview debate
• Supports more defensible decisions

Rather than relying on intuition, many teams define three or four qualities they are listening for – such as partnership, reflection, judgment, or clarity – and describe what limited, emerging, clear, and strong responses look like in practice. The goal isn’t technical scoring, but helping interviewers distinguish stronger signals from weaker ones using the same lens for every family.

Approaches like this reflect competency-based evaluation models used in many admissions processes, where rubrics are aligned directly to the qualities a school hopes to assess. When expectations are defined in advance, debrief conversations become shorter, more focused, and less subjective.

4. Consider a single-interviewer model

Many schools default to two or three interviewers per family. Moving to one interviewer – with optional second review for borderline cases – can:

• Reduce total staff time significantly
• Simplify scheduling
• Minimize coordination fatigue
• Maintain consistency when supported by a clear rubric.

5. Use a standardized notes template

A structured template helps interviewers capture what matters most:

• Prevents rewriting notes later
• Focuses attention on evaluative criteria
• Shortens debrief discussions
• Encourages active listening during the conversation

Clear documentation also makes it easier to compare families consistently when decisions become difficult.

What schools are reporting

Independent schools that introduce more structure into their interview process often report:

• More consistent interview lengths
• Stronger scoring alignment
• Fewer reviewers required
• Shorter decision discussions
• Greater confidence in final decisions

For example, Crystal Springs Upland School in California found that adding structured components improved the depth and clarity of insights gathered from families while reducing interviewer fatigue and bottlenecks.

Some schools also experiment with asynchronous elements to further reduce review time, though operational improvements alone can yield substantial gains.

When schools revisit their interview structure

Admissions teams tend to reassess processes at predictable moments:

• After the parent response deadline
• During March Break
• Post-cycle debrief meetings
• Summer retreats
• Early fall planning sessions

These windows are ideal for evaluating whether the current approach is sustainable – and whether it supports consistent, equitable evaluation of families.

"The best time to redesign your interview process is immediately after the cycle ends–when the friction is still fresh."

Planning smarter for next year

Reducing parent interview workload is about protecting staff time while maintaining a thoughtful, high-quality experience for families and producing insights that are genuinely useful in decision-making.

Small structural adjustments – tighter prompts, clear guardrails, and a simple rubric – can significantly reduce calendar strain while improving consistency and clarity across the review process.

If you make one change:

Pilot four standardized questions and a four-point rubric for a short period (for example, the first two weeks of interviews). Even this small shift can create immediate time savings and more comparable data across families.

Admissions teams reviewing next year’s process may benefit from mapping where time is actually spent today – then identifying what should remain live, what can be standardized, and what may be creating more workload than value.

Some schools also explore structured assessment approaches or dedicated platforms designed to support consistent, efficient evaluation. Kira Talent, for example, works with independent schools to help make parent interviews easier to conduct, fairer to evaluate, and more useful in admissions decision-making.

At Kira Talent, the applicant experience directly shapes admissions outcomes. When the process is structured, accessible, and well-supported, applicants can focus on demonstrating their potential – and admissions teams can evaluate with confidence.

We continuously refine our platform based on valuable applicant feedback. From product enhancements to support improvements, each update is designed to promote clarity, consistency, and equal opportunity across every assessment.

In 2025, more than 290,000 applicants left feedback on their Kira experience.

This report takes a closer look at what they told us, exploring satisfaction trends, support performance, and the platform capabilities that helped applicants feel prepared throughout their assessments.

1. New features making an impact in 2025
2. Applicant feedback scores
3. Applicant testimonials
4. What’s next?
5. Past reports     

New Features Making an Impact in 2025

In 2025, we focused on strengthening the accessibility, scalability, and reliability of the Kira applicant experience. As admissions processes grow in complexity and volume, consistency and performance matter more than ever.

This year’s updates expanded how applicants can participate, while giving admissions teams stronger tools to support structured evaluation and maintain fairness at scale:

Mobile Support
Applicants can now complete async assessments and live interviews directly from their mobile devices. This milestone expands access by allowing applicants to use the device that works best for them – whether that’s a smartphone, tablet, or desktop. For many applicants with limited access to laptop or desktop computers, mobile support removes a meaningful barrier to participation.

Live Interview Recordings
Admissions teams can now choose to record live interviews conducted in Kira. This enhancement supports greater transparency of the applicants' experience and helps schools refine questions and discussions to improve for future cycles. Recorded interviews also provide valuable insight into interviewer consistency across applicants, supporting a fairer applicant evaluation process.

Scalability and Stability
Behind the scenes, we delivered substantial infrastructure upgrades to improve system performance under high load – particularly during large live interview events and peak async assessment deadlines. Applicants can now expect faster page load times and smoother transitions throughout their assessment.

Applicant Feedback Scores

The highlights:

• 4.6/5 average applicant satisfaction rating – our fifth consecutive year of an “Exceptional” rating!
• 90.8% of users rated their experience as “Exceptional” (5/5) or “Great” (4/5) – another remarkable track record, over 90% of applicants have rated their Kira experience as ‘Exceptional’ every year since 2019.
• 87% of support reviews marked “Great” – maintaining the high standard of technical support that applicants appreciated in previous years.

When applicants feel supported throughout the process, they are better positioned to demonstrate their potential – and more likely to view your program as organized, fair, and intentional.

Each year, our Applicant Experience Report measures how effectively the Kira platform delivers that experience. The findings reflect our ongoing commitment to structured evaluation, transparent processes, and equitable access at every stage of review.

Applicant Testimonials

Kira Talent was founded on the belief that numbers alone can't capture the whole story. That’s why, when we evaluate the Kira applicant experience, we focus on sharing feedback straight from the applicants themselves. Here’s what some users shared about their experiences this year:

Applicants valued the opportunity to show who they are.

“Kira Assessment was a great way to show soft skills and demonstrate professionalism beyond academic achievements. I enjoyed the platform because I was able to express myself and show personality.”

“The questions were well structured and gave me enough time to think and express my ideas, rather than feeling rushed. I also appreciated that the platform allowed me to respond in my own words, which helped me present my personality and experiences more authentically. ”

“I enjoyed the ability to speak with the interview panel in a relaxed manner through the video interview. The time feature was reassuring as well, making sure that there was enough time for everyone to speak and give thoughtful answers.”

“This was a very efficient process for the admissions staff to get to know students in a casual and stress-free way. I thought that the questions were very insightful, and allowed me to add additional points that my AMCAS application may not have been able to get across.”

The platform made interviews feel clear and manageable.

“I absolutely loved this experience! KiraTalent made it easy to navigate these mini-interviews as I wasn't required to touch anything. The whole experience was seamless with no tech issues at all and I really appreciated that!”

“I thought the format was very easy to use. I like that there [were] practice questions to familiarize yourself with the process. It was laid out very nicely, showing the total questions and then updating as questions were completed. For not being super tech savvy, I think this website was very easy to use for this interview.”

“I really enjoyed this format! The process was smooth and well-communicated and overall felt very natural to complete from start to end. I hope to complete more asynchronous Kira Talent interviews in the future.”

“I thought the format was very easy to use. I like that there [were] practice questions to familiarize yourself with the process. It was laid out very nicely, showing the total questions and then updating as questions were completed. For not being super tech savvy, I think this website was very easy to use for this interview.”

Custom questions helped applicants feel seen.

“I liked that the questions were tailored to the school. I also liked being able to give both written and video responses. It felt like a nice substitute for or addition to an interview.”

“The platform was very easy to understand. Practice scenarios helped me to know the formatting of each question and the technical requirements that were needed before being surprised by errors in the actual attempt.”

“I really appreciated this platform's ability to read out the scenarios. Sometimes when I'm stressed I'll read too fast and miss important information. With this platform I was able to clearly understand what was expected of me and I really appreciated that!”

“I enjoyed the clarity of the user interface. I also enjoyed that this test was able to be custom-made based on the needs of the institution. I felt that there was ample time provided for my written responses, allowing me to effectively show my strengths and my story.”

Built-in support reduced stress.

“It was awesome and smooth! I had some technical difficulties and had to use incognito, but I didn't even have to [do] a google search; the support page had all the information I needed. Awesome platform; compliments to the developers!”

“The platform was very intuitive, even when I faced some technical issues I had the easily accessible support available. The experience of doing an online interview is very nerve [w]racking however Kira made it easy.”

“I found the interview platform to be intuitive and well-structured, which made the experience feel organized and low-stress. My internet would fail out sometimes, but the mechanism of my progress saving is a life-saver. I especially valued how clearly the instructions were presented and how smoothly the platform guided me through each stage of the interview. This allowed me to focus on reflecting and responding thoughtfully.”

“What I valued about the platform was how supportive and accessible it was when I needed help. And the staff did a great job of explaining the question and guiding us.”

Virtual interviews expanded access and flexibility.

“I thought it ran very smoothly. It also valued everybody's time by allowing both the person being interviewed and the people watching the interview to do these interviews on their own time.”

“I like the virtual interviews! I think it's a great way to get your foot in the door and put a face to a name on an application. I thought all of the questions were wonderful introduction questions that really made me ponder and construct well-thought-out answers. I appreciate the ability to do this and hope to see more of it in the future!”

“This experience was helpful in that it allowed us to work within our schedule. Having a virtual option moving forward will benefit families with complicated schedules.”

“I found that this is an efficient and flexible way to conduct an interview. The timing of responses and the flexibility of carrying out the interview at home took some pressure [off] me as the interviewee.”

“It was fun. It was also fast and convenient. This process saved time and money over having to show up in person at the university.”

At Kira, we value sharing applicant feedback transparently. Our aim is to give admissions teams clear insight into how their processes are experienced – and where continued refinement can strengthen fairness and consistency.

What’s Next?

In 2025, we advanced the accessibility, reliability, and scalability of the Kira platform. We will continue to invest in improvements that support structured evaluation, reduce friction for applicants, and help admissions teams manage complexity with confidence.

Be the first to know when this feature launches by subscribing to the Kira Talent newsletter.

To everyone who used Kira Talent this year, thank you for sharing your stories, feedback, and insights. Together, we’re reshaping admissions—one exceptional experience at a time.

Click here to learn more about why we publish this data and how we collect and use applicant feedback

Explore reports from other years

With nine selective programs and nearly 1,000 students yearly, Salt Lake Community College struggled with increasing applicants and limited staff to review essays, an essential part of the admissions process.

Scaling holistic review at the community college level

The School of Health Sciences offers 10 programs, nine of which use holistic selective admissions. With nearly 13,000 students in the pipeline planning to apply in the coming years, scalability was a growing concern. These programs encompass a range of healthcare disciplines, including Nursing, Physical Therapy Assistant, Dental Hygiene, Radiologic Technology, Respiratory Therapy, Surgical Technology, and other allied health professions.

“Our programs are highly competitive,” shared Cher Knupp. “And our healthcare partners are very clear about the qualities they’re looking for in future professionals. We needed an admissions process that reflected that.”

By implementing Kira Talent’s standardized video interviews, we were able to assess a broader range of competencies while maintaining consistency across programs and reviewers.

Replacing essays with meaningful, efficient assessment

Previously, essays were central to the admissions process—but they came at a high cost. Admissions staff spent extensive time redacting personal information, and faculty reviewers often received documents stripped of context.

“By using video interviews instead of essays, we gained so much time back,” Knupp explained. “Not just for admissions, but for faculty as well. And students can show us who they really are in a way an essay just can’t.”

The shift allowed the team to ask more targeted questions earlier in the process, while giving applicants a chance to demonstrate communication skills and professionalism.

Supporting diverse and non-traditional applicants

As a community college, Salt Lake Community College serves a wide range of learners—from career changers entering healthcare fields to younger students completing dual enrollment and applying directly into professional programs. The applicant pool is also ethnically diverse.

Students responded positively to the new format, particularly re-applicants who had experienced the essay-based process before.

“They told us it saved them time and stress,” Knupp shared. “They felt seen and heard, and they appreciated being able to answer questions in depth without worrying about word limits.”

Fast, collaborative implementation

Despite a tight timeline—less than one month before going live—the onboarding process was smooth and efficient.

“The customer service team was incredible,” said Knupp. “They were responsive, knowledgeable, and willing to jump on calls whenever I needed help. It was easier than any other platform I’ve used.”

The team successfully launched on schedule, even during the holiday period, reinforcing confidence in the partnership.

Looking ahead

After a successful initial rollout across two programs, the School of Health Sciences is expanding its use of Kira Talent to additional programs. The team continues to refine its holistic admissions process, leveraging Kira’s expertise to reduce workload while improving outcomes for students and faculty alike.

Reviewer Services has improved the reviewer experience by providing clear structure, manageable workloads, and consistent evaluation criteria. Reviewers appreciate being able to focus on meaningful applicant signals—without the fatigue and inefficiencies of essay-heavy review—and look forward to incorporating Reviewer Services into future cycles.

“If you’re considering holistic admissions, don’t be afraid to ask for help,” Knupp advised. “Kira knows this work, and they’ll sit down with you and help you build it. That kind of partnership is incredibly valuable.”

Program Snapshot

• Institution: Salt Lake Community College – School of Health Sciences
• Programs: 9 selective admissions healthcare programs
• Admissions Volume: ~1,000 students annually
• Time Savings: ~4.5 weeks of combined staff and faculty workload