TO THE many people who are frustrated about the Lawn Selection Committee and ultimately question its fairness: I feel your pain. I had the same questions and reservations about the process until I served on the Lawn Selection Committee this year as a lottery member. It was through this experience that I witnessed the fairness and effectiveness of the Selection Committee. While moderate improvements can be made, the system is well run overall. The biggest problem with Lawn selection is not a systematic bias but a lack of transparency to the University.
For me, it is difficult to understand the seemingly secretive nature of Lawn selection. It implies shady backroom dealings. This idea could not be further from reality. The committee consists of 20 ex-officio members and 15 lottery members. Together, these individuals make up the most diverse group I have seen at the University. Some have expressed a legitimate concern that having ex-officio members could promote an institutional bias, but in reality, these committee members represent such a breadth of the community that any one of them helps to reduce any potential group bias. Most of these ex-officio members are not Lawnies or even your typical college politicos; they are representatives of an important student population.
The lottery system drawing the remaining students has its own imperfections. Of the roughly 3,000 eligible fourth year students, only 60 entered themselves into this lottery. Presumably, only students who are passionate about the Lawn would volunteer themselves for 40 hours of thankless work. There is no way to ensure diverse representation by randomly selecting from this small population. If the entire committee consisted of only these students, there would be a greater threat of an institutional bias. It is the existing combination of self-selected passionate students and ex-officio members that reduces the possibility of bias into the Lawn selection process.
Since this system impacts so many students, there should be more transparency in the process. Allowing students to know who was on the committee or, at the very least, what schools and organizations they represented will help to alleviate concerns about unfairness or bias.
A tremendous amount of flexibility is afforded to committee members in evaluating candidates. The only criteria given in selecting Lawn residents are extracurricular involvement and scholastic achievement, which leaves a lot to members in their decision-making. Stepping into the process, I was most skeptical of using GPA as a determining factor. At first, it did not seem that a purely personal accomplishment should factor into who has given back the most to the University community. In reality, though, the student who has a 4.0 and lacks extracurricular depth is not going to make it onto the Lawn.
On the other hand, the student who has contributed significantly to the University and has a 3.6 stands a better chance than the same student with a significantly lower GPA. While this might leave some people dissatisfied, we cannot ignore the principal reason we are at school and the need to have well-rounded students at the University's core.
The biggest problem with including GPA is accounting for the varying difficulty in different majors, but to mitigate this, applicant transcripts are included and committee members are encouraged to assess each student's academic rigor. Of course, committee members are not experts in schedule difficulty. Class ranks within each school would be beneficial, as it would leave less room for interpretation and potential bias of the committee members.
After an initial meeting, committee members never met again to discuss applicants to ensure complete fairness. We could not exchange ideas on applicants or even our general thought process. There were no negotiations, and other than general thoughts at the first meeting there was no expressed group sentiment. It was, however, agreed at the initial meeting to give serious consideration to an applicant's essays.
One essay question asked what the applicant hopes to contribute to the University next year and how living on the Lawn will support it. For me, this was a particularly important question, because I worry about the possibility of Lawnies "retiring" in their last year. This possibility is frustrating because there is no accountability for the applicant's answers.
I can only hope the stated goals of prospective Lawnies are genuine and their spirit and dedication last throughout their tenure on the Lawn. An applicant can provide very exciting, ambitious goals and end up contributing very little for the community next year. It is important to understand that Lawn rooms are so much more than just a reward for past achievements. Though the committee may not be able to hold next year Lawnie's accountable, every student next year can.
One applicant wrote that a Lawn room would not be his room; he would merely be the keeper of it. I hope every future Lawnie shares that sentiment and I especially hope the Class of 2007 holds them to that.
Dan Laufer is a fourth year in the School of Engineering.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 3 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
