Audition and Portfolio Video That Is Not an Email Attachment

What you can do together

• Review submitted audition, portfolio or statement video in one place, at consistent quality, rather than as attachments opened however each reader manages.
• Restrict each application's media to the readers assigned to it, with a record of who viewed what.
• Attach the applicant reference to the media so it is retrievable against the application.
• Apply a retention decision to submitted media after a cycle closes, rather than leaving it indefinitely.

How it connects

Applicant records and the media submitted with them would come across from Slate over its API, the applicant identifier arriving as an attribute so a recording belongs to an application rather than to a folder of files named by the applicant. Review material would then sit under the library's access control, so a reviewer sees the applications assigned to them.

The reason this matters more than tidiness is the review itself. A panel comparing forty audition recordings needs them playable in one place, at consistent quality, visible to the right readers and not to others, with a record of who watched what. Attachments give none of that. An engagement would settle how long submitted media is kept after a decision, which is a question admissions offices usually answer only when asked.

Slate would stay the admissions platform, and the application record stays authoritative. Nothing is written back unless a step is scoped for it. An engagement would also establish whether media is pulled from Slate or submitted directly into the library with the application referenced, because the second avoids moving large files twice and is often the better shape.