BETWEEN fellow columnist Sam Waxman's musings on the exclusivity of selective organizations, and Morgan Guyton's Declaration piece about the Lawn selection process, the inner circles of the self-governance scene received a fair amount of press last Thursday. The selection process, as Waxman defined it in his column, "Pulling strings secures students success" (March 2), is the "mother of all exclusivity" at the University.
Although there are anomalies, certain bullets on resumes are rewarded, while others command little respect. The activities that pave the path to the Lawn have not always been constant, but there is a general feeling that membership in organizations such as Residence Life, the University Guide Service and Madison House are good bets for future Lawn residency. But while certain problems are inherent to the process, others easily can be avoided.
The biggest problem that falls in the avoidable category is the essay. The manner in which the Lawn application is set up lends itself to a disproportionately large focus on what a person does as opposed to what kind of person he is. The essay question, which should allow an applicant to showcase her personality, is dull and generic. Why do you want to live on the Lawn? How will you contribute to diversity of the Lawn community? Interesting that, despite the token politically correct question, the Lawn remains a bastion of establishment.
Next year's steering committee should change the essay to a personal statement. This change will not eradicate the generic what-the-Lawn-means-to-me essay, but at least students will not feel constrained by the question.
There is a related problem that is not altogether avoidable -- the who-do-you-know factor. Activities certainly are important, but the overrepresentation of one group or another on the Lawn is reflective of the organizations that selection committee members respect, and not necessarily of which groups deserve respect. Certain groups definitely are overrepresented on the Lawn -- more than 20 percent of this year's crop are U-Guides, and more than one-third of next Year's Lawnies have held leadership positions in Madison House. One could argue that these particular organizations provide a service to the University and that students who are involved have given a lot back to the community. One also could argue that they should not monopolize the Lawn.
This problem, however, could be alleviated by a change in the essay question. Words are powerful stuff, and, as in any sort of application, a good essay can get you in, and a bad essay can knock you out. If the essay allows for a bit more creativity, perhaps more essays will stand out, and the committee will have to rely less on applicants' resumes in the selection process. What a person does is important, and is sometimes a good determinant as to what that person values and what he is good at. But less emphasis on certain organizations could eliminate, or at least soften, the effect of the Lawn track. Yes, I said Lawn track. An applicant's activities should be a large consideration, but they should not be the whole consideration. A change in the essay question could help that.
Not as easily alleviated, if possible at all, is the problem of a select set of personal biases on the committee. Such across-the-board biases stem directly from the committee's make-up. Membership on the committee itself is a process. A steering committee consisting of key politicos and representatives from the undergraduate schools chooses the rest of the committee from applications. Those who are interested in sitting on the committee tend to be students already involved in the political scene. As such, they run in the same circles, share similar interests, and favor certain organizations.
Despite the bad rap that the political elites receive, this is not a negative thing -- they are interested in serving on the committee when other students are not. Any monopolization of committee seats, however, manifests itself in the lack of diversity on the Lawn once the votes are tallied.
Members of next year's fourth-year class can fix this, if they are so inclined, by applying in large numbers
to sit on the committee. There were so few applications for committee seats this year that it was virtually self-selected.
It's time to make room for a little more creativity and a little more individuality in the selection process.
We can start by dismantling that path to the Lawn, one brick at a time.
(Masha Herbst's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. She was a member of the 2000 Lawn Selection Committee.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 3 days agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 3 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 4 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
