What if
we replaced group process with a battle to the death? The one left standing
wins the position. I think this would solve a few issues with our selection
process, one being a lack of motivated candidates. If you want to be an RA, you
better want it bad; otherwise you will die at the stinger of a tracker jacker.
But, honestly,
how different is our group process compared to the whole Hunger Games process
anyway? First, we choose a select few students who may or may not turn out to
be superb candidates, or tributes. With the quality of candidate I see, sometimes
I really think we simply pick names from a jar. Secondly, we sit around as
judgmental spectators as they flaunt their abilities, trying to get noticed and
make an impression. After all, when we are evaluating 20-24 students, it is
hard to remember the average candidates.
Lastly,
they must beat out their competition, especially during Carousel when there can be only one winner—the candidate who earns the job. They may not stab a sword
into their opponents’ hearts; however, they have to be cunning, ruthless, and
likeable all while being observed by us. To all the future RA candidates: May
the odds be ever in your favor.
That's awesome.
ReplyDeleteHaha, it's totally like the Hunger Games. At my university there is a group application process. They do separate interviews, but they also make the candidates work together on several different activities (program development, conflict resolution) and they also get the applicants engaged in roleplays with a group of RAs who play the roles of problematic students. It's funny, because there is a sense of cooperation...at the same time, you know sooner or later the time may come to stick a knife in someone's back.
ReplyDeleteI had to apply twice to make it in. The first time there were 37 applicants for only 2 positions. The odds were only slightly worse than the 1:24 ratio of the Hunger Games. The next time, 14 people gunned for 5 spots...the odds were ever in our favor.
~Shane