Admissions Interview Report Gator Preview Interview Report Please complete and submit this form for each applicant whom you interviewed. Thanks "*" indicates required fields Applicant Name:*Leslie AldayK M Salim AndalibPedro Ayres GalhardoHannah BendureEmilie BonillaJulianna BoothMadison BunceKevin BusuttilJennifer CleesSophia CochranGabriel CuceCarolina de Bovi PontesMeghan DitmeyerCole EnglishKellie ErvinJonah FrazierEricka Gonzales RodriguezCaleb GriffithDenise HernandezMegan JewellSarah JewellEzgi KarabulutLaura KellyRyan KiddleDaniel KimHallie KnightRyan KruegerHannah LamarArantxa LazartePaige LearyZhexin LiuCasey MadisonSean MartinJessica McKayKunal MehtaQuinlan MewborneNoah MullerGia Han (Hazel) NgoChristian NoblePayam NoeparvarEmerson ParksEmily ParisHaobo QuDiego Rubio RubioJaclyn ShawTrisha SivamMarium SultanaZamira TorresY TranDiana TymochkoTianyin WangMichael WebbJamila Zabla MejiaKylie ZiemkeTiffany ZhouHussein BadreldinWenxin HuSkyeler KlingeElizabeth McArthurAnnalisse McKeeJenna MillerArchyshmaan (Archy) PattanaikParidhima SharmaRohan SurapaneniGabriela Alburquerque OrtaOlivia D'AgatiNada ElbarbaryAllison KurtzKar Men LeeCatherine McKenzieAnthony OrnelasLeonardo PerezRaymond PrestonWei-Ren WangMichael YaoHarrison HiggsKenneth LindsleySebastian Magana PenaEsaria OliverAyesha AbuzerSufiya AliHeaven BrandtQuanxi (Tracy) ChengSamhita Divakar RaoMuhammad (Hassan) KalyarFrancisco LeeLillie LewisGrace LloydTimothy LocksmithMadeline (Maddie) MilesYash SharmaElysia VivancoQi ChenShivam KaushikVictor KnowlesUrszula KrekoraYuting LiNicholas GriffinBrooke HarrisKyuri LeeKaitlyn MillsJoseph NolffGrace OlagunjiKevin RobertsonHanna WhitneyHannah Greenblottllgaz OzyesilLorraine Tabales HernandezInterviewer:*Has a solid understanding of the fundamental biology and the specific goals of his/her research experiences.*Choose one:1 – Unacceptable2 – Weak3 – Fair4 – Very good5 – ExcellentHas good technical knowledge and trouble-shooting skills of techniques used in their previous research (e.g., they understood the mechanisms behind assays and techniques employed).*Choose one:1 – Unacceptable2 – Weak3 – Fair4 – Very good5 – ExcellentContributed to one or more of their research projects in a unique way and/or displayed a level of independence in their work, rather than just acting as a technician.*Choose one:1 – Unacceptable2 – Weak3 – Fair4 – Very good5 – ExcellentDisplayed a natural curiosity and critical thinking in their research experiences (e.g., they realized the limitations and/or questions raised by their results).*Choose one:1 – Unacceptable2 – Weak3 – Fair4 – Very good5 – ExcellentUnderstands future goals and directions of their previous research projects.*Choose one:1 – Unacceptable2 – Weak3 – Fair4 – Very good5 – ExcellentClearly communicated the reasoning for their interest in UF and the BMS Program.*Choose one:1 – Unacceptable2 – Weak3 – Fair4 – Very good5 – ExcellentOverall, displayed maturity and readiness for graduate school.*Choose one:1 – Unacceptable2 – Weak3 – Fair4 – Very good5 – ExcellentBased on the applicant's qualitiies I would want this student to study with me in my lab. Note – This is not about fit for research interest – this is only about quality of the student. Imagine that they were intersted in your research.*Choose one:1 – Strongly disagree2 – Disagree3 – Unsure4 – Agree5 – Strongly agreeOverall Candidate Recommendation:* Accept – definitely Hold – could be acceptable if space allows, but has weaknesses Reject – cannot work out Comments (warning – do not double click your text in this box – it will delete all of your text.)*
