Core Organizer Application, Spring 2022

The Access Network would like to expand the Core Organizer (CO) team through an application process during Spring 2022, and this page will outline the application process and answer some potential questions. This is our second round of CO applications, and the process from our first round of applications is archived here. This iteration of applications will be similar but includes a few simplifications to reduce the load for applicants and reviewers.  Brianne Gutmann (, Gloria Lee (, Ben Pollard (), and Yasmeen Musthafa ( are the “point people” who will be coordinating this process; please reach out to them at any point if you have questions, concerns, and so on.

Who can apply?

We will recruit “internally” to Access by accepting applications from anyone who has attended an Access Assembly, had an official role in the Network as a Fellow or Task Force member, or participated in one of the nine Access sites.

In future rounds of soliciting new COs, we may advertise to and accept applications from people outside of Access, from other organizations focused on student support and equity. For this round, however, we only have capacity to recruit internally.

What do COs do?

These are the critical activities that the CO team has identified as must-dos over the next year or so:

  • Surface-level evaluation of the network (e.g., the Assembly feedback survey)
  • Mentoring AFs
  • Mentoring NFs
  • Preparing for and running CO meetings
  • Monitoring budgets and finances
  • External communication and website maintenance
  • Shepherding the Starter Kit to completion
  • Onboarding new COs
  • Internal communication (email list maintenance, maintaining Slack)
  • Mentoring any projects that emerged from the Assembly that are already happening

We also identified things which we would like to do, if we have the bandwidth:

  • More thoughtful and deeper evaluation/research on the network
  • Other possible documentation projects
  • Planning and running CO retreats
  • Additional fundraising (grant writing, looking into other sources of funding)
  • Running the Emergency Fund, if it continues
  • More deliberate outreach to external groups, e.g., on social media 
  • Fostering connections with alumni
  • Mentoring additional task forces (e.g. on NF structure)
  • Mentoring any projects that emerged from the Assembly that have not yet begun
  • Advocating for specific needs at sites on behalf of site leaders

If you would like more information about what any of these items mean, please get in touch with a point person (email addresses at the top of this page).

What is the time commitment expected of COs?

We hope to provide flexibility for incoming (and current) COs, so the level of engagement has variability. We have roughly defined three roles within the CO team: Liaison, Starting, and Full COs. These roles are more thoroughly defined with associated expectations, estimated time commitments, and compensation on this page: Core Organizer Role
For a sense of range, the Liaison role corresponds to about 3 hours/month and Full COs correspond to 8+ hours/month.

How many new COs will there be?

Based on these CO activities listed above and our estimation of the time and energy needed for each activity, we aim for this round of CO recruitment to generate between one and nine new Starting or Full COs. The exact number of new COs will depend on a number of factors, including funding availability, mentoring bandwidth, and the needs of the Network.

The number of Liaison COs is separate, and depends on the distribution of CO affiliations across Access sites. Ideally, we would have at least one CO (of any type) from each site.

What is the application review process?

The application review process is broken into four stages:

Pre-Selection (if needed): If there are more total applicants than the entire selection committee has the capacity to consider, then the point people for the application process will read the open response questions for all of the applicants and apply the rubric. After this process, they will make consensus decisions about which applicants to move forward to the next stage such that the number of applicants is small enough that the entire selection committee has the capacity to review them all.

Strengths/Growth Analysis: All members of the selection committee will review the open response questions from the applications, and the point people will use the rubric to assign point values to each category. Every rubric reviewer will have their own tab in a spreadsheet where they will enter this information. One tab will present color-coded summary statistics (such as mean, spread, etc.) across all committee members, broken apart by applicant and by rubric criteria. This step will be done individually.

First Round Selection: The goal of the first round of selection is for the whole selection committee to come to consensus on which applicants are currently suitable to be COs within our capacity to mentor and onboard candidates. This round will happen in a virtual meeting. All members of the selection committee will discuss the applications and use the summary tab of the rubric score to prompt discussions about capacity. The intention is for the color coding to help the committee to identify applicants’ strengths and areas to grow without hierarchical ranking. By the end of this process, the committee will have chosen a preliminary set of applicants to fill the number of CO positions available.

Second Round Selection (if needed): If there is an excess of qualified applicants, the committee will consider the demographics of the applicants to ensure that the resulting CO team includes diverse perspectives.

What is the application timeline?

  • Monday, May 2: Applications are due (but please reach out to the point people if you need more time!)
  • Tuesday, May 3: Pre-Selection phase completed
  • Thursday, May 6: Strengths/Growth Analysis and First Round  Selection phases completed
  • Monday, May 9: Second Round Selection phases completed (if needed)
  • Wednesday, May 11: Applicants are notified of results

Who will be on the application review committee?

The review committee will consist of about 10 current COs, and a subset of 4 COs who will do strengths analysis via the rubric (below). All current COs are included on the review team by default, but can opt out if they wish. Current committee members (subject to change) are:

  1. Joel Corbo
  2. Scott Franklin
  3. Brianne Gutmann
  4. Gloria Lee
  5. Kristy Mardis
  6. Emily Mehlman
  7. Yasmeen Musthafa
  8. Ben Pollard
  9. Gina Quan
  10. Chandra Turpen

Of these committee members, Gloria, Ben, and Brianne, and Yasmeen are the “point people,” who will additionally score applications with the rubric. They are generally responsible for shepherding the application process, which also includes communicating with applicants, answering questions about the process, coaching people through creating an application, organizing the logistics of the selection process, following up with applicants if the selection committee has questions or needs more information, and communicating the outcomes of the selection process. if you have any questions or concerns about any part of the new CO recruitment process, including what you should include in your application, please reach out them (see email addresses at the top of this page).

How will my application be assessed?

The application consists of three open response questions and a number of questions related to applicants’ identities (demographics, site, roles in Access that they have filled, etc). Please see this PDF version of the application to see the exact wording of the questions.

The open response questions will be assessed using the rubric below. The purpose of the rubric is to prompt reflection from applicants, give current COs a sense of needed support for applicants coming into the role, and ensure the set of new Core Organizers has a diversity of strengths and areas for growth. Applicants should therefore think about how their answers align with the rubric when composing their responses, and they should feel free to reach out to the point people (Brianne, Ben, and Gloria, whose emails are at the top of the page) to discuss what to include in their responses and how that information will be used in the selection process.

Category 0 Points 1 Point 2 Points 3 Points
Commitment to learning, growing from mistakes, humility, and feedback
(6 possible points)
Not addressed in response Ascribes little or no value to humility and feedback Shows humility, and acknowledges the value of feedback and learning from mistakes Provides a compelling personal example of being humble and/or learning from past mistakes
Not addressed in response Little or no commitment to future growth Demonstrates commitment to future growth in general Demonstrates commitment to future growth in particular areas
Identities and corresponding perspectives that they bring to the table
(6 possible points)
Not addressed in response Identity is discussed, but unclear how identities connect to relevant lived experience Identity and lived experience are discussed and connected at a surface level Lived experience stemming from an identity is fully explored
Not addressed in response Acknowledges that identity-based oppression exists, but does not offer further perspectives Discusses identity-based oppression at a surface level Demonstrates a deep and nuanced perspective of identity-based oppression
Alignment with Access
(6 possible points)
Not addressed in response
Explicit, overall mis-alignment with Access’s values
Some alignment with Access values, some explicit mis-alignment Overall surface alignment with Access values Aligned with Access values, evidence of deep consideration
Not addressed in response
Explicit, overall mis-alignment with Access’s values
Outside of Access’s activities and scope Some overlap with Access’s activities and scope Completely aligned with Access’s activities and scope

Question 1 only

Visioning or critiquing one (or more) of the following: a vision for an improved academic culture, a vision for the Access community, and/or critiques of academic or STEM spaces. 
(3 possible points)

Not addressed in response Seeds of a vision/critique are shared, but the ideas are not coherently connected with each other. A coherent vision/critique is shared, but with less well-developed rationale. A coherent vision/critique is shared with a well-developed rationale.
Questions 2 and 3 only

Current skills and past experience
(6 possible points)
Not addressed in response Beginning to demonstrate commitment to relevant activity Demonstrates scattered commitment to relevant activity Demonstrates an ongoing, sustained commitment to a relevant activity
Not addressed in response One narrowly-focused skill/experience Several interrelated skills/experiences A variety of skills/experiences

OK, so how do I apply?

Here is the link to the application.  Before filling it out, applicants should download a PDF version of the application so that they can see all of the questions they will need to answer and plan their answers ahead of time. As part of the application, you will be able to list which type(s) of CO you would like to be considered for (liaison, starting, and/or full). All applicants will be evaluated as a group, rather than by CO type. If an applicant is accepted and applied for more than one role, COs and the applicant will have a conversation to see which role fits best.  Applications are due on Monday, May 2, 2022.

I have a question!

Please reach out to the point people—Brianne Gutmann (, Gloria Lee (, Ben Pollard (), and Yasmeen Musthafa (—with any questions.

Scroll to Top