[SSC] Student selection notes

[Joss Winn]

On 22 Oct 2011, at 15:02, Richard Hall wrote:

> Hi Joss,
> 
Hi Richard,
> 
> Thanks for your collective work on this. It is appreciated.
> 
> 1. On the selection process, where we state "Group meeting to narrow down to smaller number", I assume this might alter year-on-year, as we increase from 20 students. Do we have criteria in case we get 21 and have to make that awkward decision? How do we ensue that we don't just take the 4 A-grade, A-level student over the student with alternative experience?
> 

Yes, this was discussed today. So far, to begin with, the aim is to keep it to 20 students, though this is not clear whether it includes all levels of students, including PhD equivalent. The question of whether it means 20 new students per year was raised and I suggested that currently, 20 should be the maximum at any one time and that some years we may not take students on for this reason. This is partly because our intention *at the moment*, (everything I say is said framed in this way as we all accept that the SSC will evolve and change) is to focus on what we can achieve now with the resources we have and also that we are not aiming to build another large institution. 

The question of criteria/judgement seems less important to me when we work on building consensus, which should reflect a more holistic measure of whether the student is suitable or not. As the Student Selection notes state, everyone is dealt with on a case by case basis. In reality, if we have 21 suitable student members, I would favour accepting them all and would seek consensus on that. Depending on the number of teachers and the time people can commit, I may well prefer to opt out of accepting 30 students. We'll have to see.

On the matter of qualifications over experience, again, selection by consensus should ensure that matters such as this are picked up, discussed and avoided. We keep each other and the SSC in check through this process.

> 
> 2. In terms of the interview, why give them an unseen text? Why not email it/multiples through so it is seen? I'm not sure what we get by making this unseen.
> 

I don't think it had occurred to us. I'd be happy to provide the text before the open day. I don't really mind either way. 
> 
> 3. Good question about an application form. Do we want an application statement, rather than a form?
> 
We proposed a form that included a statement. We need to know basic stuff like name, address, phone number, etc. as well as ask them for a statement. When you bring all this together, it's an application form by most accounts. At first we did question this in our working group but then figured that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with an application form. Designed well, it should be useful.
> 
> 4. What do we mean by social engagement? How will we judge what is good enough?
> 

Again, by consensus. The issue of 'judgement' did come up today when discussing quality and peer review. I'm not sure we resolved anything, but a democratic, dialogic process that aims at achieving consensus, should ensure we 'judge' fairly, I think.
> 
> 5. Why are academic qualifications important? Can we add "or equivalent"? Otherwise we risk being seen as selective and not community-engaged.
> 

Our notes probably aren't clear enough. We haven't given academic qualifications any greater value over experience. We're hardly going to ignore qualifications either. They'll be taken into consideration as well as experience, social engagement, their personal statement, and everything else.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Richard.
> 
> 

All the best,
Joss

p.s. you should try to make the next Saturday meeting in November if you can. They are very productive and energising. You'll get a great deal out of it in terms of your recent questions. Unfortunately, the mailing list is a poor substitute, although as David expressed in his earlier email, I appreciate your efforts to enrich the discussion and contribute from a distance. It would be great if more people did the same, too. We currently have 83 people on this list :-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org on behalf of Joss Winn
> Sent: Sat 22/10/2011 09:54
> To: ssc at lists.aktivix.org ssc at lists.aktivix.org
> Subject: [SSC] Student selection notes
> 
> Here are the notes from our working group meeting on student selection:
> 
> http://bit.ly/ncrCrf
> 
> We'll work them up into a more coherent statement following today's meeting.
> 
> Joss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SSC mailing list
> SSC at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20111022/ac759bf4/attachment.htm>