How Asynchronous Assessment keeps pace with rolling admissions

MUSC's hybrid PT and OT programs developed side by side, and both lean on rolling admissions within a defined application window. Kira’s Asynchronous assessment helps keep pace with that rhythm. As soon as an application is complete, the admissions teams can run an initial review, extend an interview, and route the completed interview straight to committee – no batching or waiting for a cutoff date.

"With the rolling admissions process, as soon as we get applications submitted and completed, we can start reviewing them, do an initial review, and see if that's an applicant that we want to extend an interview to," Wilhelm said.

The process drove a turnaround similar programs often can't match. "From the time that someone submits their completed application... it can be two weeks before they get a decision," Wilhelm said, "whereas most programs that have a hard deadline... an applicant may wait 3 or 4 months before hearing any type of decision." Scanlon called it "a very quick process, a very quick turnaround time — which is kind of unusual in these programs."

Kira is built for hybrid, faculty-everywhere programs

With PT and OT faculty distributed nationally, in-person interviews weren't practical. Flying faculty and applicants in would have been expensive and time-consuming. But neither program wanted to skip an interview altogether. "We felt like interviewing was an important part of the admissions process for physical therapy," Wilhelm said, and Scanlon agreed the format "really supports us. Our faculty is all over the country, so this made a lot of sense for us."

Reviewing is fast once faculty get comfortable with the platform. "I love having the rubric right next to the videos," Wilhelm said, "because as you're watching the video, you click on the number, and it automatically goes into the scoring component." Most faculty complete a review in 10-15 minutes.

Because there's no need to coordinate live interview times, decisions move quickly on the front end too. Wilhelm described reviewing two applicants and sending interview invitations in "5 minutes or less” before a call – no scheduling or back-and-forth. Applicants often complete interviews outside of business hours, at their convenience rather than relying on his team's availability.

Completion rates outpace in-person interviews

Because both coordinators started their roles alongside the implementation of Asynchronous Assessment, there's no pre-Kira baseline to compare against directly. What is measurable is applicant behavior: PT's completion rate rose from 90% in year one to 96% in year two. Wilhelm attributes much of that to the platform itself – applicants get up to 10 days and can record whenever it works for them. "They don't have to travel... they can do it at 5 in the morning if they're a morning person, or 10 or 11 or 12 at night if they're an evening person," he said, "and then we can review it on our own time," which he sees as a major driver of both completion and review efficiency.

Kira allows the flexibility to bring in extra reviewers – or revisit a decision later

Every applicant's interview is reviewed by two admissions committee members and having it on video means a third reviewer or the program director can weigh in on any applicant whose scores diverge – seeing the exact same interview, not a secondhand account.

"Whereas if you're doing live interviews, the opinion of the two people that saw the interview is all you have. You can't go back and watch it again," Wilhelm said.

Consistency and fairness by design

Kira’s randomized question sets mean applicants draw from a pool of questions within chosen behavioral domains rather than all seeing an identical script. "I like that it randomizes the questions for the applicant, so not every applicant gets the same exact question set," Wilhelm said. It safeguards against questions circulating among applicants ahead of time.

Room to grow with Kira

MUSC's hybrid PT program was the first at the university to adopt Kira, and Wilhelm expects applicant volume to keep climbing substantially over the next few years as awareness of the hybrid format spreads. Other programs at MUSC have since adopted or are actively exploring Kira, with Wilhelm fielding questions from colleagues setting it up for the first time.

"We knew what we wanted at the beginning and went with it, as opposed to struggling for 2 or 3 years first and then figuring it out," Wilhelm said. If we didn't have it, things would be a lot more difficult.” "We'd have to find a lot of different ways to try to get things done, and it would not be nearly as efficient, he added."

Advice for admissions leaders

Wilhelm's advice for a skeptical peer is straightforward: look at the numbers. Faculty aren't scheduling one-on-one time with every applicant, applicants aren't traveling, and a 96% completion rate speaks for itself. Compared to coordinating live interviews – finding common availability, then holding a 15–30 minute conversation per applicant – Kira lets applicants complete an interview in about 15 minutes and reviewers assess it in 10-15, cutting the time investment roughly in half.

Scanlon put it plainly:

"We would be very unhappy if we had to give up Kira. It's an easy process, we're able to be really efficient at it, and it doesn't feel like a burden."

Changing an established admissions process takes careful consideration.

Many admissions teams already have a structured interview process they're confident in. Their interview questions are established, reviewers are trained, and scoring rubrics are in place. As application volumes grow, however, coordinating interviews often becomes one of the most time-consuming parts of the admissions cycle.

That's especially true for programs that rely on faculty members, practising clinicians, or external reviewers. Finding interview times that work for everyone – while keeping the admissions process moving for applicants – can quickly become a logistical challenge.

Asynchronous assessment gives institutions another way to deliver structured interviews. Existing interview questions, competency frameworks, and scoring rubrics can all remain in place, while applicants and reviewers gain greater flexibility in how and when assessments are completed.

Concern #1: “Adding another platform will create more work for our team”

For a busy admissions team, adding another piece of technology can sound like adding another task to the list. But for some teams, introducing Kira has allowed them to replace steps they were previously managing manually or through scheduled interviews.

One healthcare admissions team saw this firsthand. The team told us its live interviews previously took 20 to 25 minutes. With the case study portion handled separately, those interviews could be shorter.

One faculty reviewer described the impact:

“It was a huge time saver.”

Instead of carving out hours for scheduled interviews, they could review applicant responses when their schedule allowed – even outside traditional working hours.
The team saw another benefit behind the scenes: fewer applicant support questions landing with admissions. After reflecting on the cycle, one administrator noted that they hadn’t received a single email from an applicant panicking about accessing or navigating the assessment:

“It worked because I didn’t get one email.”

A business school saw similar efficiencies after moving away from a process that required coordinating faculty and applicants around interview schedules. The team described its new process as “a lot smoother and also clearer” because it could establish a plan in advance without being as dependent on everyone’s availability.

Applicants had more flexibility, too. Instead of being available at a specific time for a live online interview, they had a defined window to complete their assessment. Practice questions also gave them an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the format before starting.

For teams evaluating Kira, it’s worth looking at both sides of the equation: the work involved in introducing something new and the work it could replace.

Scheduling interviews, coordinating faculty availability, supporting applicants, and managing other administrative steps all take time. Changing the process can give teams an opportunity to reduce some of that work.

Concern #2: “There will be a steep learning curve”

Admissions teams already work across plenty of technology. Adding a new platform can understandably raise questions about training and how quickly administrators and reviewers will become comfortable using it.

For one admissions professional, that concern extended beyond navigating Kira to actually building the assessment.

Their experience was different from what they expected:

“Even building the assessment was a lot easier than I expected. I was able to learn it very quickly.”

They also described the reviewer experience as “really easy” and the platform as intuitive.

We heard something similar from a healthcare program after its first cycle with Kira. Its faculty had initially been reluctant about the new platform, but the program administrator said they ultimately found it “easier than they expected.”

These experiences are consistent with what we’ve heard across other customer conversations. Administrators and reviewers at different stages of implementation have independently described Kira as intuitive and easy to navigate.

Part of the transition is also deciding what doesn’t need to change.

Programs don’t necessarily need to replace the questions, competencies, or evaluation criteria they’ve already developed. Existing interview questions and rubrics can often be adapted for use in Kira, with adjustments to elements such as timing and instructions where needed.

Kira’s Client Success team works with programs through assessment setup and implementation, helping teams apply their existing admissions goals and processes within the platform.
Your admissions expertise stays with your team. Kira provides a structured way to put it into practice.

 Concern #3: “Getting faculty and reviewers on board will be difficult”

Admissions teams aren’t always the only people affected by a process change. Faculty, committee members, and other reviewers may all need to work differently.

Elon University experienced this when its Physician Assistant program considered moving from live interviews to asynchronous assessments.

Dean of Graduate Admissions Alexandria Duffney said there had initially been “a lot of hesitation about asynchronous,” particularly because Elon is a “relationship rich community.” The team had questions about what changing the format could mean for its connection with prospective students.

After the first cycle, however, Duffney said:

“I had overwhelmingly positive responses from faculty which was shocking to me.”

Duffney noted that the program had been “very resistant for a long time,” but faculty were impressed by the intuitive interface and consistency of the ratings.

Elon went on to conduct roughly 450 interviews in a single cycle – more than triple its historical maximum of 130–150 –while compressing its review-to-decision timeline from 20 months to eight. The program also grew its incoming cohort from 36 to 76 seats while maintaining roughly the same staff size.

Read how Elon University doubled its PA cohort with Kira →

We’ve heard a similar progression from another healthcare admissions team.

Kira had initially been a “hard sell” for its admissions committee. Reviewers had questions about how applicants would be evaluated and how scoring would work.

The team gave committee members an opportunity to watch applicant responses and compare their own evaluations with existing scores. Rather than expecting everyone to be comfortable with the change immediately, they let reviewers see how the process worked.

The admissions leader said committee members “got more comfortable each time.”

Giving reviewers a chance to see the process in action can help answer questions that are difficult to resolve in theory. It also gives teams an opportunity to establish how applicants will be evaluated before reviewing begins.

With structured assessments, reviewers can use defined competencies and standardized rubrics to evaluate applicants against consistent criteria. Practices such as independent review and reviewer training can further help teams mitigate opportunities for bias in their process.

Reviewers still make the evaluation. Kira gives them a consistent structure to evaluate against.

Changing your process doesn’t mean starting over

Bringing Kira into an admissions process requires some adjustment. But the experiences we’ve heard from admissions teams suggest the transition can be more manageable than they initially expect.

A healthcare team shortened parts of its live interview process and gave faculty more flexibility over when they reviewed applicants. Administrators and reviewers across programs have described Kira as easier to learn than anticipated. And at Elon, initial hesitation was followed by overwhelmingly positive faculty feedback after the program’s first cycle.

Teams don’t have to abandon the foundations of their existing admissions process to make those changes. Questions, competencies, and rubrics can carry over into Kira, giving reviewers a consistent framework for evaluating applicants while giving admissions teams more flexibility in how they manage assessments.

For admissions teams considering Kira, the transition is only one part of the decision. It’s also worth considering what the process could look like once the transition is complete.

If you're exploring asynchronous assessment for your program, here's what you can expect.

From implementation through to the applicant, reviewer, and administrator experience.

Many admissions teams already have a structured interview process they're confident in. Their interview questions are established, reviewers are trained, and scoring rubrics are in place. As application volumes grow, however, coordinating interviews often becomes one of the most time-consuming parts of the admissions cycle.

That's especially true for programs that rely on faculty members, practising clinicians, or external reviewers. Finding interview times that work for everyone – while keeping the admissions process moving for applicants – can quickly become a logistical challenge.

Asynchronous assessment gives institutions another way to deliver structured interviews. Existing interview questions, competency frameworks, and scoring rubrics can all remain in place, while applicants and reviewers gain greater flexibility in how and when assessments are completed.

Building on the admissions process you already have

One concern we hear regularly is whether moving to an asynchronous assessment means redesigning an existing interview process. For most programs, that's not the case.

Existing question banks, competency frameworks, structured interview formats, and evaluation rubrics typically transfer into Kira with only minor refinements. During implementation, our team works with each institution to configure an assessment that reflects the admissions process they've already built rather than asking them to start over.

That allows admissions teams to continue evaluating the same qualities they value today while simplifying how assessments are delivered.

Setting applicants up for success

Every admissions process begins by setting clear expectations for applicants.

Each applicant receives a unique assessment link tied to their invitation. Before beginning, they can review exactly what the assessment includes—from the number of video and written questions to the estimated completion time, preparation and response times, submission deadline, and technical requirements. Programs can also customize the assessment name, branding, and messaging so the experience feels like an extension of their institution.

Most institutions choose to include a welcome video from their admissions team. It's a simple way to introduce the assessment, reinforce the program's brand, and explain what applicants can expect before they begin.

Rolling deadlines are another option many programs appreciate. Rather than asking every applicant to complete an assessment on the same day, institutions can give applicants a set amount of time – such as one week from receiving their invitation – to complete the assessment, creating greater flexibility throughout the admissions cycle.

Giving applicants an opportunity to prepare

Another question we hear often is how applicants adapt to an asynchronous interview format.

The experience is designed to remove as much uncertainty as possible before responses count.

Applicants begin with a guided check-in process that confirms their camera, microphone, and internet connection are working properly. They then complete a practice assessment that mirrors the live experience, allowing them to experience preparation timers, response windows, and transitions between questions before beginning the assessment itself.

Programs can also request supplemental materials during check-in, such as confidentiality agreements or additional documentation, keeping everything together in a single workflow.

Delivering a structured assessment

Once the assessment begins, applicants move through a structured interview built around the competencies your program wants to evaluate.

In Kira, assessments are organized by competency rather than simply by interview question. Whether you're assessing communication, compassion, professionalism, critical thinking, or another attribute, each competency can have its own bank of questions and associated scoring rubric. This allows admissions teams to evaluate applicants consistently while tailoring the assessment to their program's priorities.

Programs can combine timed video responses with written responses depending on their admissions goals. Preparation time, response time, transition periods, and question order can all be configured to support the interview model already in place.

Competency-based question banks also provide additional flexibility. Rather than presenting every applicant with the exact same question, programs can randomize questions within a competency. For example, a communication competency might include several different prompts, while every applicant is still evaluated against the same criteria. This helps maintain a consistent assessment framework while reducing opportunities for question sharing.

Most institutions also choose to record their own interview questions. Having faculty members or admissions staff appear throughout the assessment creates a more personal experience while ensuring every applicant receives a structured, consistent interview.

Supporting fair, consistent review

Consistency remains just as important after applicants submit their assessments.

Reviewers evaluate responses using standardized rubrics aligned to clearly defined competencies. Depending on the admissions process, reviewers can assess an applicant's complete interview or focus on specific competencies, making it easier to involve faculty members, clinicians, or external reviewers throughout the admissions cycle.

Many programs also use passive rubrics to capture broader observations that aren't tied to a single interview question, such as communication skills or behaviours that warrant additional discussion during committee review.

Advanced Applicant Integrity Insights

Supporting fair admissions decisions also means giving reviewers the right context throughout the assessment process.

Kira's new Admin Platform introduces Advanced Applicant Integrity Insights, providing admissions teams with additional context about applicant behaviour during an assessment. Rather than presenting a single integrity flag, these insights help administrators understand the sequence of events that occurred while an applicant completed their assessment.

Examples of tracked behaviours include:

Each event includes additional context, allowing admissions teams to better understand what occurred and when it happened during the assessment. These insights are designed to support human decision-making by providing reviewers with more information as they evaluate each applicant – they don't make admissions decisions on behalf of your team.

To learn more about these enhancements, read our blog introducing Kira Talent's New Admin Platform.

Making review more flexible

Reviewer flexibility is another area admissions teams frequently ask about.

Because applicants and reviewers no longer need to be available at the same time, reviews can begin as soon as assessments are completed. Institutions can distribute work across the admissions cycle rather than concentrating interviews into a handful of days, making it easier to involve busy faculty members and reviewers when their schedules allow.

Administrators can assign reviewers by applicant or by competency, monitor review progress, send reminders, and compare reviewer scoring trends over time. These insights support reviewer calibration and help admissions teams maintain consistency across the review process.

Greater visibility for admissions teams

Asynchronous assessment also changes how admissions teams manage the review process behind the scenes.

Administrators can monitor applicant progress from invitation through completion, see which applications are ready for review, track reviewer workloads, and understand where each applicant is within the admissions pipeline. Rather than relying on spreadsheets or manual follow-up, teams have a centralized view of the entire process.

Reviewer dashboards also make it easier to understand review progress across the admissions cycle, while scoring reports help identify opportunities for reviewer calibration and ongoing training.

Looking ahead

Every admissions process is unique. Some programs interview a few dozen applicants each year, while others are coordinating thousands of assessments across multiple reviewers and campuses.

Asynchronous assessment gives institutions another way to deliver structured interviews without changing what they're evaluating. Existing questions, competencies, and scoring rubrics remain at the centre of the admissions process, while applicants, reviewers, and admissions teams gain greater flexibility throughout the cycle.

For many programs, that means spending less time coordinating interviews and more time focusing on what matters most: getting to know applicants and making informed admissions decisions.

Growing fast, without losing what makes Elon, Elon

Elon University's Physician Assistant program is one of its most competitive: roughly 2,000–3,000 applications each cycle for just 36 seats, with an average incoming GPA of 3.6 and about 5,000 hours of healthcare experience per candidate. Historically, review ran on a 20-month cycle, and every single file was evaluated manually, by hand, against the same rubric — a level of commitment the admissions team takes seriously.

That commitment collided with an ambitious growth plan. Elon set out to double the program's cohort from 36 to 76 seats and, working with its accrediting body, needed to compress its 20-month review cycle down to just 8 months to do it responsibly.

"[We had] a lot of factors that were... challenging," said Alexandra Duffney, Dean of Graduate Admissions. Faculty were already stretched thin running the existing interview process; doubling volume in a fraction of the time risked burnout, inconsistent decisions, and — for a school that prides itself on being "relationship-rich" — an interview experience that lacked Elon’s personal touch.

Elon considered simply scaling up its existing in-person interview model and also explored a hybrid orientation-plus-scheduled-interview format. Both ran into the same wall: faculty availability. "It would also really be difficult for our faculty to reserve that much time over the summer," Duffney explained.

Why Reviewer Services was the best solution to scale while retaining personal connection

Trusting evaluation to an external service raised real questions for Elon's team: Would asynchronous video essays feel too impersonal for a school built on relationships? Would outside reviewers, unfamiliar with Elon's program and faculty, actually agree with how Elon's own faculty would score the same file? "The thing that made us pause was this idea of having an impersonal interview experience," Duffney said.

The answer to both, ultimately, came down to trusting human judgment over automation.

"We wanted to commit to humans evaluating the files. The ability to use human judgment rather than written technical rules that are very linear was important to us. It aligns with our relationship-rich community — it's something we take a lot of pride in."
–Alexandra Duffney, Dean of Graduate Admissions, Elon University

Elon built in a safeguard, too: any case without a clear consensus would go to an additional faculty member as a tiebreaker.

To preserve the relationship piece, Elon shifted its in-person energy toward the other end of the funnel — building dedicated yield events, faculty panels, and community-connection sessions for admitted students, rather than trying to pack relationship-building into the interview stage itself.

Setting Elon up for its next chapter of growth

The partnership launched fast: Elon signed its contract in April and was live by June. Once underway, the results were dramatic. As scores began coming in, Duffney watched closely. "I felt really excited," she said. "I realized quickly that this is definitely the right solution for us."

Elon conducted roughly 450 interviews in a single cycle — more than triple its historical max of 130–150 — while compressing the full review-to-decision timeline from 20 months to 8. Ten faculty members handled video essay evaluations at an estimated 8–10 minutes per review, roughly 5–5.5 hours per faculty member across the cycle, fitting the work around their own schedules rather than fixed interview-day blocks.

The number Duffney keeps coming back to, though, is consistency: of the 450+ files evaluated, only 19 required a second faculty reviewer to resolve a discrepancy — better than 96% inter-rater reliability. "That was a real confidence booster," she said. "In terms of morale, in terms of investment, in terms of willingness to partner and continue with these evaluations while enduring growth — it's difficult to quantify, but it is so very important for us."

Faculty adoption was smooth, too. "They were so completely supportive of the Kira interface," Duffney said, citing the video replay feature — useful for pre-cycle calibration training — and the platform's overall ease of navigation as standouts.

What's next

Elon is now expanding the model to a brand-new Physician Assistant cohort of 76 students at a regional campus in Charlotte, North Carolina — using the same Reviewer Services partnership to scale without adding headcount. Elon is now also looking to automate parts of its workflow, including invitation triggers and score mapping into its CRM, to reduce manual lift even further.

"This has been one of the most significant decisions that we have made in our admissions process," Duffney said. "It has allowed us to not only double the size of this cohort, but maintain the same staff size relatively, and also offer a whole separate program in Charlotte... If we were not doing that, we would not be able to facilitate that enrollment without a substantial increase in staff."

Her advice to a peer institution considering the same move is candid: "I have found this to be such a dynamic and valuable resource for us, so I would be happy to connect with anyone seeking a firsthand perspective on how Reviewer Services can support their institution and help inform their decision to move forward. I am so pleased with the decisions that we've made, and I'm really looking forward to continuing partnerships with Kira.”

What's shaping higher education admissions in 2026? Five trends to watch.

Admissions teams are navigating the fast-changing world of graduate education. This past year has been marked by uneven growth, increased competition, and rising uncertainty. While interest in new technologies like AI continues to grow, institutions are moving deliberately to prioritize fairness and defensibility alongside efficiency.

To better understand how institutions are adapting, Kira Talent surveyed more than 60 admissions professionals across a range of higher education programs.

Their responses reveal five trends shaping admissions in 2026 – from unpredictable application volumes and growing competition to the increasing role of interviews and cautious AI adoption. Together, these findings suggest admissions teams are placing just as much emphasis on flexibility, consistency, and fairness as they are on efficiency.

Here are the key insights and what they mean for admissions teams planning for the year ahead.

1. Application growth continues but predictability is disappearing

Many programs experienced application growth this year. More than half (56.25%) of survey respondents reported receiving more applications than they did during the previous admissions cycle. At the same time, 26.56% reported stable volumes, while 17.19% saw applications decline. Together, these findings suggest application demand is becoming more difficult to predict from one admissions cycle to the next.

Graduate business programs were strongly represented among those reporting application growth, while healthcare-related programs showed a mix of growth, stability, and decline. Across disciplines, unpredictable application demand is making it more difficult to plan reviewer capacity, interview schedules, and admissions timelines.

The Takeaway: Building flexibility into admissions processes can help teams adapt to changing application volumes without compromising fairness, consistency, or the applicant experience.

2. Competition is reshaping admissions priorities

Competition for top applicants was the top concern among admissions professionals, ahead of forecasting application volume, scaling admissions operations, working within budget constraints, and mitigating applicant AI usage.

Even as many institutions receive more applications, they're often competing for the same pool of best-fit applicants. That uncertainty also makes it more difficult to predict reviewer capacity, interview schedules, and resource needs from one admissions cycle to the next.

The Takeaway: As competition continues to intensify, the admissions process itself has become an important point of differentiation. Structured evaluation, clear communication, and transparent processes can help institutions respond to growing operational pressures while supporting fair, consistent, and defensible admissions decisions.

3. Interviews are playing a larger role in admissions decisions

Among survey respondents, 75% identified interview performance as one of the most important factors in admissions decisions, making it the highest-ranked response – even ahead of GPA (70.3%). By comparison, 31.3% selected standardized test scores.

The findings suggest interviews are becoming one of the most influential components of the admissions process, alongside traditional academic measures. As institutions continue to adopt holistic review practices, direct evaluation is becoming an increasingly important part of understanding an applicant's potential.

The Takeaway: This shift raises the importance of consistency. Structured interview formats, standardized evaluation criteria, and reviewer calibration can help ensure applicants are evaluated fairly, consistently, and on the competencies that matter most to your program.

4. Institutions are taking a measured approach to AI

Artificial intelligence remains one of the fastest-moving topics in higher education, but admissions teams are approaching adoption deliberately.

While 12.5% of respondents reported using AI or predictive analytics in their admissions process (up from 6.3% the previous year), another 25% said they are considering introducing AI in the year ahead.

For many institutions, the greatest opportunities lie in reducing administrative work rather than evaluating applicants. Tasks like scheduling, communication, and document organization can help improve efficiency while giving admissions teams more time to focus on meaningful engagement with applicants.

The Takeaway: Introducing AI thoughtfully – with clear governance and continued human oversight – can help institutions improve operational efficiency while maintaining trust in the admissions process.

5. Efficiency matters because it supports consistency

Efficiency remains a priority, but this year's findings suggest admissions teams increasingly value it because it creates more capacity for consistent applicant evaluation.

When respondents were asked where Kira Talent adds the most value to their admissions process, the most common responses were maintaining consistency and integrity across interviews (62.5%) and reducing time spent organizing and scheduling interviews (60.9%). Creating a more professional applicant experience also ranked highly (40.6%).

While these responses reflect the experiences of Kira users, they reinforce an important principle: reducing administrative work gives admissions teams more time to focus on meaningful applicant evaluation.

The Takeaway: Standardized evaluation criteria, streamlined workflows, and thoughtful reviewer planning can help admissions teams scale their processes while maintaining fairness, consistency, and defensible admissions decisions.

Looking ahead

Admissions teams are entering a period where adaptability matters just as much as efficiency.

Fluctuating application volumes, increased competition, growing reliance on interviews, and cautious AI adoption all point to the same challenge: building admissions processes that can evolve without compromising fairness, consistency, or the applicant experience.

Admissions teams that invest in structured, scalable processes will be better positioned to respond to change while helping reviewers make confident, consistent decisions – no matter what the next admissions cycle brings.

Tuesday, July 28, 2026 marks an exciting milestone for Kira Talent.

We're launching our new Admin Platform (AP) – a faster, more intuitive experience designed to help admissions teams manage high-volume admissions with greater speed, confidence, and flexibility.

Over the past 2 years, we've rebuilt the AP from the ground up to create a stronger foundation for Kira. This new platform starts by making everyday admissions workflows faster today while enabling us to deliver new capabilities more quickly in the years ahead.

Whether your school is inviting thousands of applicants, assigning hundreds of reviewers, monitoring progress across multiple assessments, or reviewing complex applicant integrity data, the new AP is designed to help your team work more efficiently.

Built for Speed and Scale

We know that your admissions team doesn't have time to wait for pages or workflows to load.

The new AP has been redesigned to handle large applicant pools and reviewing teams without sacrificing performance. Common administrative tasks, including inviting applicants, sending reminders, assigning reviewers, and navigating large datasets, are significantly faster on the new platform.

You'll also notice other improvements throughout the experience:

A More Intuitive Experience

We've reimagined the interface in the new AP to make everyday tasks easier to discover and complete.

Highlights include:

Whether you're a new administrator or a long-time Kira user, you'll spend less time finding information and more time acting on it.

Advanced Applicant Integrity Insights

We're also introducing an expanded set of applicant integrity metrics that provide additional context about applicant behaviour during their assessment.

Examples of tracked behaviours include:

These signals are presented together to help your team make informed admissions decisions. Every integrity event includes additional context so admins can better understand what occurred during the assessment and how to understand the sequence of events.

Better Visibility Into Issues

Large administrative actions (inviting, reminding, assigning) are now processed in the background, allowing you to continue working without waiting for lengthy processes to finish.

A new ‘Issue Log’ feature keeps you informed by highlighting any actions that require attention, including applicant invite or reminder emails bouncing, or invalid entries in assignment workflows.

Detailed information and downloadable reports make it easy to investigate and resolve the issues.

Small Changes Make a Big Difference

While the new AP introduces major improvements to performance and usability, we've also taken the opportunity to address 50+ smaller enhancements requested by our schools over the years.

These smaller improvements include:

Together these enhancements create a smoother, more efficient experience for everyone on your admissions team.

And we're just getting started! The new AP gives us the flexibility to continue delivering customer-requested improvements much faster than ever before.

Designed for What's Next

Perhaps the biggest improvement in the new AP isn't one you'll immediately notice.

The new AP has been built on a modern architecture that allows our team to deliver new features, enhancements, and performance improvements much more quickly than before.

Over the coming months and years, we'll continue expanding the platform with new capabilities based on feedback from institutions like yours.

Transitioning to the New Platform

On Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the legacy AP will be retired, and all administrative work will take place in the new experience.

Your existing login credentials will continue to work, and no action is required before launch.

We’re updating our Client Resource Hub weekly with new resources, documentation, and training materials to help your team get up and running quickly.

A Big Thank You

This launch represents years of investment in building a platform that can better support admissions teams around the world. We're so grateful to the schools that participated in our beta program and shared invaluable feedback throughout the last year of development.

We're excited to continue improving the platform alongside you and can't wait to hear what you think.

Welcome to Kira’s new AP!

Your holistic admissions process shouldn't be limited by your budget

Every admissions team has a list of improvements they'd like to make. Maybe it's adding an assessment to gain a more holistic view of applicants. Maybe it's introducing structured interviews, engaging more reviewers, or investing in deeper insights to support defensible admissions decisions.

The challenge is finding room in the budget to make it happen.

At a time when admissions teams are expected to do more with limited resources, every investment needs to have a clear impact. Teams are balancing growing application volumes, increasing expectations around fairness and accessibility, and the need to identify best-fit students efficiently. That's where Applicant Pay can help.

Applicant Pay in Kira Talent gives admissions teams more flexibility to invest in the initiatives that matter most, without adding pressure to already stretched budgets.

Create budget flexibility for the admissions initiatives that matter most

Applicant Pay allows institutions to collect a nominal fee directly within the Kira platform when applicants complete an assessment.

Your team decides who pays and how much. Depending on the Applicant Pay model you choose, applicant payments can either offset the cost of your Kira contract or be remitted directly back to your institution for use within your admissions process.

This flexibility can help admissions teams:

Rather than postponing improvements because of budget limitations, admissions teams can create a path forward that aligns with their financial realities.

An enhanced experience for applicants and admissions teams

Applicant Pay can also support a more accessible and applicant-friendly admissions experience.

Traditional interview processes often require applicants to invest significant time and money in travel, accommodations, and time away from work, school, or family responsibilities. For many applicants, those costs can quickly exceed the nominal fee associated with a virtual assessment.

By moving key parts of the admissions process online, institutions can reduce barriers while still gaining meaningful insights into each applicant's communication skills, critical thinking, and program fit.

For schools that want to provide additional support, Applicant Pay also includes the ability to create coupon codes and fee waivers for applicants who meet specific criteria, helping admissions teams balance flexibility with equitable access.

All payments are securely collected within the Kira platform in accordance with PCI compliance requirements, eliminating the need for third-party payment systems or additional administrative work.

How Roseman Dental found room in the budget to modernize admissions

Roseman University College of Dental Medicine knew they wanted a more efficient and scalable way to evaluate applicants.

Their team saw an opportunity to reduce faculty workload, create a more streamlined review process, and continue identifying applicants who would thrive in their program.

The remaining question was budget.

As Dr. Harman, Associate Dean at Roseman Dental, explained:

"Everyone agreed that we wanted to transition our process to Kira. The last step was finding a way that wouldn't exceed our already stretched-thin budget."

Although the admissions team was confident in the value Kira could bring, they still needed a solution that would work within their financial constraints. Applicant Pay helped make that possible.

"With Applicant Pay, our applicants are able to pay for the assessment directly, rather than us incorporating a fee for it into the general application fee," explained Dr. Harman. "And with that, we're able to use Kira without having to pull those upfront costs from our limited budget."

The flexibility became even more valuable as the school transitioned to a new three-year program model and faced uncertainty around future application volumes.

"Part of our criteria for a new admissions solution was one that would not hugely impact our budget. Applicant Pay allows us to accommodate any kind of applicant volume fluctuation without disturbing our budget. This was especially top-of-mind for us as we were transitioning to our new three-year model, and didn't have historic information to help predict application numbers."

With Kira, Roseman was able to implement a more efficient admissions process while saving more than 800 hours of faculty time. Applicant Pay helped remove a key barrier to adoption, allowing the team to move forward with confidence.

As Dr. Harman reflected:

"Kira allows us to scale our admissions process in a way that does not impact our budget, which has made the higher-ups in the university very happy."

Invest in a stronger admissions process without increasing budget pressure

Budget constraints are a reality for nearly every admissions team. But they don't have to prevent your institution from adopting the tools, workflows, and insights needed to build a more efficient, equitable, and holistic admissions process.

Applicant Pay gives admissions teams the flexibility to move forward with confidence – creating opportunities to save time, support applicants, and identify best-fit students while staying aligned with institutional budgets.

For admissions teams, growth presents both a challenge and an opportunity.

As your program gains popularity and applications multiply, there comes a point where reviewing every applicant through a traditional live interview process is no longer sustainable. Faculty time is limited, schedules become more difficult to coordinate, and the administrative burden of interviewing hundreds of applicants can quickly become overwhelming.

However, many schools are hesitant to move away from live interviews altogether. Real-time interactions provide valuable opportunities to evaluate communication skills, ask follow-up questions, and gain a deeper understanding of how applicants think and respond in the moment.

As one admissions leader shared:

"The only concern about an asynchronous video interview is that I don't get to really interact with the candidates. I can't really do the small talk chatting, which is part of the interview as well, sure to kind of test their communication and body language skills."

It's a valid concern. Live interviews provide insight that can be difficult to capture through an application or async alone.

At Kira Talent, we believe admissions teams shouldn't have to choose between efficiency and meaningful applicant interaction. That's why many programs are adopting a hybrid approach – using asynchronous assessments to evaluate applicants at scale, then inviting a smaller group of finalists to participate in live interviews. The result is a more sustainable admissions process that preserves opportunities for real-time connection while helping teams make informed, holistic admissions decisions.

Queen's University School of Medicine scaled admissions without losing human connection

Queen's University School of Medicine faced a challenge familiar to many admissions teams: how do you make your process scalable without losing the meaningful applicant interactions that live interviews provide?

Their Kira solution was a two-stage admissions model.

More than 500 applicants first complete an asynchronous Multiple Mini Interview (MMI), allowing the admissions team to hear directly from every applicant and evaluate key competencies in a structured format. Approximately 300 applicants then advance to a live panel interview, where reviewers can engage in real-time conversations and explore how applicants think and respond in the moment.

As Kelly Moore, Admissions Manager at Queen's University School of Medicine, explained:

"We're not just looking at what we see on paper. We want to interact with these applicants, we want to see how they think and act on their feet."

The asynchronous assessment helps Queen's identify which applicants should move forward to the next stage of review. The result is a process that allows the team to evaluate more applicants while preserving opportunities for meaningful interaction with finalists.

How Asynchronous Assessments and Live Interviews complement each other

One of the biggest misconceptions about asynchronous assessments is that they're designed to replace live interviews.

In reality, the two formats serve different purposes.

Asynchronous assessments help admissions teams hear directly from every applicant in a structured, standardized format. Rather than relying solely on application materials, reviewers gain additional insight into an applicant's communication skills, critical thinking, professionalism, and readiness for the program. Because assessments can be completed and reviewed on demand, admissions teams can evaluate larger applicant pools without the scheduling challenges that come with live interviews.

For Queen's Psychiatry Residency, asynchronous assessments became an effective way to evaluate applicants early in the admissions process. Applicants first completed an asynchronous Multiple Mini Interview (MMI), allowing reviewers to identify strong candidates before inviting finalists to participate in a live panel interview.

Live interviews, meanwhile, provide opportunities to go deeper. Reviewers can ask follow-up questions, explore areas of interest in greater detail, and observe how applicants respond in real time. These conversations often play an important role in assessing program fit and building connections with prospective students.

The University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy adopted a similar phased approach when it replaced its in-person interview weekend with a virtual admissions process. By combining asynchronous assessments with live interviewing, the school was able to improve efficiency while maintaining meaningful interaction between applicants and reviewers.

As Kaitlin Bynkoski, the Director of Admissions & Undergraduate Affairs, shared:

"For our fundamental skills assessment, the flexibility that the Kira platform offered to applicants and reviewers was a huge benefit. And the real-time interviewing allowed us to maintain that face-to-face connection."

Together, asynchronous assessments and live interviews create a more complete picture of every applicant.

One platform for the entire admissions journey

One of the advantages of a hybrid admissions process is that it doesn't require admissions teams to manage separate tools for each stage of review.

With Kira, teams can conduct asynchronous assessments and live interviews within a single platform. Admissions teams can build structured evaluations around the competencies they value most, apply consistent rubrics throughout the process, and gather multiple data points before making final admissions decisions.

This unified approach also helps support fairness and consistency. Structured assessments, competency-based evaluation criteria, and standardized review processes help admissions teams focus on what matters most: identifying applicants who are the best fit for their program.

Scale admissions without losing valuable connection

Kira provides the flexibility to build an admissions experience that reflects your goals.

Schools like Queen's University School of Medicine, Queen's Psychiatry Residency, and the University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy show us that a hybrid approach can provide the best of both worlds: the efficiency and consistency of asynchronous assessments combined with the depth and connection of live interviews.

By using asynchronous assessments to evaluate applicants at scale and reserving live interviews for finalists, admissions teams can create a more sustainable process while still gaining the insights needed to make confident, holistic admissions decisions.

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:

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:

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.

This combined approach allows you to:

What This Looks Like in Practice

Here’s what this looks like in practice:

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.

crossmenu