EngineeringCAS Cycle Report 2019-2020

2019-2020 Cycle Report

The 2019-2020 EngineeringCAS TM Cycle Report aggregates data for all received and complete applications submitted through the Centralized Application Service during the 2019-2020 admission cycle ( September 10, 2019 through March 31, 2021 ). This report primarily reflects data for applications to Summer 2020, Fall 2020, Winter 2021 and Spring 2021 . Liaison offers it as a resource to participating schools to assist in trend and recruitment analysis, benchmarking and strategic decision-making.

EngineeringCAS Summary

The 2019-2020 cycle marked the third year for the CAS. EngineeringCAS has experienced significant growth in this time, expanding its reach both in terms of participating schools as well as prospective applicants using the CAS.

PROGRAM FEE COLLECTION: The Liaison processing fee for EngineeringCAS applications is $58 . Participating schools have the option to collect an additional program fee (specific to their institution) as part of the application if they so choose.


Participating schools grew by nearly 60% in EngineeringCAS this cycle. The growth expanded the CAS’s reach across more states and provided services to a diverse range of research, liberal arts, minority-serving and other types of institutions.

Programs Collecting Fees in addition to Liaison’s Processing Fee

` Alabama ` Arkansas ` California ` Colorado ` Connecticut ` District of Columbia

` Indiana ` Massachusetts ` New Mexico ` Oregon ` Pennsylvania ` Rhode Island ` Tennessee ` Texas

$ 60- $ 148 $ 50

Total fees ( i.e. Liaison processing fee + school program fee ) range from

` Florida ` Georgia ` Illinois

For those collecting program fees the average amount collected is

SOFTWARE SYSTEMS: EngineeringCAS comes with one of two admissions management software, WebAdMIT or Admissions by Liaison. However, CAS users also have the option to build integrations to their local systems to manage some or all of their communication plans, review process and/or post-admission processes. EngineeringCAS users frequently choose to take advantage of Liaison’s export tools and move data and documents to their local systems. Here is a breakdown of systems EngineeringCAS users currently use:

1. Salesforce 2. Slate by Technolutions 3. Not Reported 4. Ellucian CRM Recruit 5. Liaison Enrollment Marketing Platform (EMP) 6. TargetX (A Liaison Company)

1. Ellucian Banner 2. Oracle PeopleSoft

SIS/ERP System usage

CRM usage

1 | #buildabetterclass

EngineeringCAS 2019-2020 Cycle Report

Program Summary Programs that participate in EngineeringCAS reap the benefits of a Centralized Application Service and a community of their peers while maintaining the unique branding and requirements that help them admit and enroll best-fit students. A “designation” refers to how a program is listed and can be selected within the CAS. Each designation allows EngineeringCAS users to specify the program name, fee, track, term, population and method of delivery. An applicant submits applications to programs as per these designation listings. DESIGNATION DETAILS:

TRANSCRIPTS REQUIREMENTS: One of the benefits of EngineeringCAS is that it gives users the ability to set up their transcript requirements such that Liaison can receive and process official transcripts on their behalf. Alternately, users can also set up their applications allowing students to upload unofficial transcripts. The 2019-2020 cycle saw a 18% increase in the number of engineering programs requesting applicants to upload unofficial transcripts compared to the previous year.

RECOMMENDATION REQUIREMENTS: The Letters by Liaison provides recommenders with an easy-to- use experience for submission. EngineeringCAS users have the option to chose from several different recommendation types that support their admission requirements.

Average number of recommendations required: Each designation determines minimum recommendations required and maximum recommendation allowed. Approximately 21.5% of EngineeringCAS programs did not set up any recommendation requirements for their programs or provided students the option to submit if they chose.

Minimum – 2.74

Maximum – 4.26


Average # of recommendations received per applicant

Total number of transcripts Liaison processed

For Submitted ​ Applicants

For In-Progress Applicants

Total number of recommendation letters Liaison processed

For Submitted ​ Applicants

For In-Progress Applicants

Official US Transcripts



Unofficial US Transcripts



Recommendation letters submitted by Letters by Liaison



Foreign Evaluations



2 | #buildabetterclass

EngineeringCAS 2019-2020 Cycle Report

Applicant Pool Summary As more schools joined the CAS, the EngineeringCAS submitted applicant pool grew by 32% from the previous application cycle. As this growth trajectory continues and we ramp up recruiting and marketing efforts to drive qualified applicants to the CAS, we expect steady growth in applicants, both in volume and quality.


16% of the applicant pool, or approximately 1 of every 6 applicant used a mobile device (as opposed to a desktop) to access their EngineeringCAS application.

Nearly 75% of applicants used Google Chrome as their browser to apply to EngineeringCAS.



of applicants identified themselves as first-generation college students. 33 %

COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP: EngineeringCAS received domestic applications from residents of all 50 US states. The international applicant pool drew students from 132 countries. The 2019-2020 cycle saw an 7% increase in applicants from outside the United States.

Top 5 US States of Residency:











Top 5 Sending Countries for International Students:









Islamic Republic of Iran


ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE: Although students who attended both US and non-US schools report their credits and GPA, the diversity of grading and credits systems internationally makes it difficult to report averages. The data below reflects academic performance of students who reported their studies at US institutions only.

Average cumulative GPA: Undergraduate

Average number of credits earned: Undergraduate

3.36 3.57

98.80 35.44



3 | #buildabetterclass

EngineeringCAS 2019-2020 Cycle Report

TEST SCORES: Below is a breakdown of the top two self-reported test scores for all EngineeringCAS applicants, irrespective of the type of program they applied to.

Average self-reported GRE score (scaled): Overall

318.27 162.76 152.20

of applicants to EngineeringCAS self-reported GRE scores on the application.








The undergraduate majors for EngineeringCAS applicants stayed constant from the previous cycle, with finance and business fields dominating at the top and engineering and other social science majors following.

1. Mechanical Engineering/Design 2. Computer Science/Engineering 3. Electrical/Electronic Engineering 4. Civil Engineering

7. Information Technology and Sciences 8. Electronics and Communication Engineering 9. Engineering 10. Aerospace Engineering

5. Chemical Engineering 6. Other/Not Listed/None

GENDER, AGE, RACE & ETHNICITY: The demographic distribution of the EngineeringCAS applicant pool is reflective of the overall graduate education trends in engineering studies at the graduate level. (Percentages <1% not shown)


As the 2019-2020 EngineeringCAS TM Cycle Report makes clear, EngineeringCAS was able to continue generating impressive momentum and results for its participating programs during the most disruptive year in recent memory. In addition, the data it contains demonstrates Liaison’s ongoing commitment to helping institutions understand their most important goals and quantify the success of their class-building initiatives. We’re looking forward to another great year expanding the EngineeringCAS Community and its contribution to graduate education as a whole.

4 | #buildabetterclass

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4

Powered by