Julie Titone
Director of Communications

It’s one of the first questions I asked about the Kroc Institute, and one that I hear frequently: How do you decide who will be admitted to a graduate degree program that is both free and priceless?

I’m not involved in the culling. That’s done by a half-dozen faculty members. But I do know that the admissions process can be agonizing. In the words of longtime Kroc professor George Lopez, “We didn’t get into this business to say ’no’ to people.” And these applicants are really good people. Not only good at heart — as evidenced by their thirst for peace — but excellent academically and brimming with life experience. The number of applicants hovers around 200. Half of those meet the basic qualifications.

This spring’s admissions decisions were more difficult than usual. There were slots for only 15 graduate students instead of the usual 20. That’s because the program is expanding from one to two years. In order to accommodate 30 students in both classes when the second year rolls around, the initial class size had to be reduced. (The number will slowly be increased in future years, as more housing becomes available and the logistics of the two-year program are perfected.)

I observed some admissions committee meetings, and found myself comparing their complex work to a chess game in which multiple boards are stacked on top of each other.

In addition to considering test scores, references, academic records and work/volunteer experience, the committee must gauge, without hearing them speak, the applicants’ ability to communicate in English. Another big question: How does the applicant plan to use this education? There is no “right” answer. Our alumni take many different paths after their detour to South Bend. But admission committee members are eager to know if potential students are likely to join the international corps of peacebuilders envisioned by institute founder, Father Ted Hesburgh.

The institute strives for nearly equal numbers of male and female students, even though more women apply. Geography also looms large. The greatest number of applicants is from North America, but it wouldn’t do to favor one continent. As the applicant list is whittled down, more questions arise: Have we chosen too many from Africa? Too few from Asia?

Despite the serious business at hand, admissions meetings are not brooding affairs. There is more than a bit of the gallows humor, as committee members lobby to keep their favorite candidates in the running. Some sample exchanges:

“His statement was kind of vague.”

“I thought it was very literary!”

“She’s absolutely at the top of the peacemaking effort in her country.”

“I think her grades are prohibitive.”

“She has her heart in the right place. Given her academic record, I don’t see how we can leave her out.”

“I put him among the ’free radicals’ — very hard to predict.”

”She reminds me of students we’ve had who’ve done tremendously.”

“I’m ready to drop that person.”

“No way!”

“They’re both fabulous and they both didn’t make it.”

“This is excruciating!”

The latest admissions fracas ended with nine women and six men chosen for the class of 2004-06. Their average age is 28. Their average caliber of achievements, on an Olympic 10-point scale, is about 9.9.

The envelope, please…..

Thomas Arendhorst, USA; Diana Batchelor, United Kingdom; Maria Clayton, Philippines; Sana Rizwan Farid, Pakistan; Simonida Kacarska, Macedonia; Isaac S.D. Lappia, Sierra Leone; Damon Lynch, New Zealand; Nicholas Bisase Mambule, Uganda; Sammy Mwiti Mbuthia, Kenya; Min Xiaomao, China; Burcu Munyas, Turkey; Sarah Park, USA; Elizabeth Serafin, Mexico; Jonathan Smith, USA; Zamira Yusufjanova, Tajikistan.

We’ll tell you about them on our web site this fall.

Top of Page

Home > Publications > Peace Colloquy > Issue 6, Summer 2004 > Choosing our students