We recieved in our inbox today an email about a new decision: the admissions committee for the Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto is debating whether or not to add a student to the "deciding who gets in" mix. We were asked to, informally, choose whethe we were yay or nay on having a student representative on the committee.
I do not think that there should be a student on the admissions committee. At first glance, there seems to many reasons why a student should be on the committee. They are the ones who are experiencing the process--they are fresh out of school, they are living the challenges of applications, they know how difficult it is to attain a certain academic schedule while maintaining other aspects of life. Having been there, and quite recently, it seems to make sense that a student would be a welcome addition to the admissions committee.
Unfortunately, it is for precisely those reasons that a student would be a terrible idea. My fellow students are no more qualified to choose who enters our program than I am. I am quite happy to leave it to professors (who are interested in being on the committee, but that's a whole other can of worms) with experience, both in life and in education, to choose who enters the program. I have to think they might know a little something more than us.
Also, the point was suggested that perhaps we should get used to peer to peer evaluation. Which is absolutely true. If we were evaluating professional articles set to paper with the intention of being reviewed. This is personal character that we are talking about, private things that need not be made public and that need not be known by peers. There is a difference between personal scholarship and private reference letters, private appeals for acceptance, and of course, personal grade transcripts (especially from that year in res where no school work was done!). The committee is not around for Pub Nights, or study groups, the committee is a professional group, not of peers, but of superiors.
Someone suggested that the acceptance process was akin to the hiring process and that this would be good experience for one's future professional life. However, there are a few major differences. 1) You are not hired by your fellow level one employees. You are hired by someone who is ahead of you, who's been through it before. 2) The manager who does the hiring, or the department, is trained to do so. Plus, they have their own professional reputation to maintain. Their employees are a reflection of themselves and they could be putting their own reputation on the line when hiring. This is also exactly why I hate group work as students. There is no chain of command, no "boss," no "project manager," there is no one to ensure someone stays on track because it will be their butt if someone does not. If we want to talk about the real world, let's talk about professional reputation, being called on bullshit, and being fired. Okay, I can't talk about group work anymore without, oh, still wanting to kill members of previous groups for being so unbelievably selfish. Christmas, this year, you will be enjoyed.
The word 'authority' is extremely important in these situations. This whole situation is about authority and responsibility. A student does not have the right qualifications or the right distance or the right standing in the hierarchy of education to make these decisions. And everyone in the room will know it: Do we honestly think that student's voice is going to outweigh a professor's? A long time administrator's? It will not. Now, that's the real world for you. What are we imagining: sending in some charismatic twenty something to defend our rights to personality? Seriously.
What could be more powerful in this situation is a statement prepared by students that details what exactly they are looking for in fellow students. Bright, dynamic personalities, whose heads filled with practical know how and dedication to studies. But, also, someone who will make a trustworthy and informed information professional. How do you tell all of that from paper? You can't. And that is the real issue here. Not who does the choosing, but how we apply. Why not have an interview process? Why not submit something a little bit more creative? Why don't we get to show ourselves a little bit more?
Isn't this the root of the problem? That we want the people in power to know that there is more to us than transcripts or job experience. If we want change, we need it where it matters. Not a superficial band aid that causes more controversy than any one program needs.
I do not think that there should be a student on the admissions committee. At first glance, there seems to many reasons why a student should be on the committee. They are the ones who are experiencing the process--they are fresh out of school, they are living the challenges of applications, they know how difficult it is to attain a certain academic schedule while maintaining other aspects of life. Having been there, and quite recently, it seems to make sense that a student would be a welcome addition to the admissions committee.
Unfortunately, it is for precisely those reasons that a student would be a terrible idea. My fellow students are no more qualified to choose who enters our program than I am. I am quite happy to leave it to professors (who are interested in being on the committee, but that's a whole other can of worms) with experience, both in life and in education, to choose who enters the program. I have to think they might know a little something more than us.
Also, the point was suggested that perhaps we should get used to peer to peer evaluation. Which is absolutely true. If we were evaluating professional articles set to paper with the intention of being reviewed. This is personal character that we are talking about, private things that need not be made public and that need not be known by peers. There is a difference between personal scholarship and private reference letters, private appeals for acceptance, and of course, personal grade transcripts (especially from that year in res where no school work was done!). The committee is not around for Pub Nights, or study groups, the committee is a professional group, not of peers, but of superiors.
Someone suggested that the acceptance process was akin to the hiring process and that this would be good experience for one's future professional life. However, there are a few major differences. 1) You are not hired by your fellow level one employees. You are hired by someone who is ahead of you, who's been through it before. 2) The manager who does the hiring, or the department, is trained to do so. Plus, they have their own professional reputation to maintain. Their employees are a reflection of themselves and they could be putting their own reputation on the line when hiring. This is also exactly why I hate group work as students. There is no chain of command, no "boss," no "project manager," there is no one to ensure someone stays on track because it will be their butt if someone does not. If we want to talk about the real world, let's talk about professional reputation, being called on bullshit, and being fired. Okay, I can't talk about group work anymore without, oh, still wanting to kill members of previous groups for being so unbelievably selfish. Christmas, this year, you will be enjoyed.
The word 'authority' is extremely important in these situations. This whole situation is about authority and responsibility. A student does not have the right qualifications or the right distance or the right standing in the hierarchy of education to make these decisions. And everyone in the room will know it: Do we honestly think that student's voice is going to outweigh a professor's? A long time administrator's? It will not. Now, that's the real world for you. What are we imagining: sending in some charismatic twenty something to defend our rights to personality? Seriously.
What could be more powerful in this situation is a statement prepared by students that details what exactly they are looking for in fellow students. Bright, dynamic personalities, whose heads filled with practical know how and dedication to studies. But, also, someone who will make a trustworthy and informed information professional. How do you tell all of that from paper? You can't. And that is the real issue here. Not who does the choosing, but how we apply. Why not have an interview process? Why not submit something a little bit more creative? Why don't we get to show ourselves a little bit more?
Isn't this the root of the problem? That we want the people in power to know that there is more to us than transcripts or job experience. If we want change, we need it where it matters. Not a superficial band aid that causes more controversy than any one program needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment