Nearly 300 students submitted applications this winter for the most prestigious housing in Charlottesville. The Lawn Selection Committee recently decided which of these students will have the opportunity to move into a Lawn room in August. Those involved in the selection process provided insight about the method of selecting the honored students and discussed the effectiveness of this process.
Creating the Application
Pat Lampkin, vice president for student affairs, said she appoints the Lawn Selection Organization Committee, which is the body that determines the selection process each year.
Lawn Head Resident Tom Holman said this committee reviews selection criteria, announces requirements and trains members of the Lawn Selection Committee.
Lampkin said during her involvement with the Lawn selection process, only a few noticeable changes have been made, including making applications anonymous, altering the voting scale and including randomly selected students on the committee, Lampkin said.
According to Holman, few changes were implemented this year.
"None of the direct criteria [were] changed in terms of what people were looking for," he said. "Things were slightly re-worded ... The physical application did change a little bit."
These changes included allowing students an opportunity to justify a lower GPA.
Who Decides?
Holman said the Lawn Selection Committee is composed of 35 voting members and himself. Fifteen are randomly selected from an applicant pool of interested fourth-year students, while the remaining 21 members represent different groups in the University community.
These ex-officio members, according to Holman, include the presidents of Student Council and the fourth-year class, as well as either the presidents or fourth-year representatives of the six undergraduate schools. Also represented are the Honor Committee, University Judiciary Committee, Asian Student Union, Black Student Alliance, Inter-Fraternity Council, Inter-Sorority Council, Latino community, Arab/Middle Eastern community, queer community, student athletes, international students and transfer students. The head resident of the Lawn is the 36th, non-voting committee member.
Reading Applications
Lawn Selection Committee member Steve Hiltner said all members of the committee read every application in about one week.
Holman said the Lawn selection process has been designed so committee members cannot discuss candidates with each other.
"Basically the idea ... is to have a diverse group [with a] diversity of opinions in the committee ... versus having the committee collaborate," Holman said, noting that the committee strives "to get a representative Lawn."
A computer program is used to discourage discussion among committee members by varying the order in which committee members read applications.
"All the committee members can log in and all the applications are assigned all random numbers," Holman said. "It's impossible to identify applications. It's just to make it so that each application is in random order for each committee member."
According to Andy Paradis, former Inter-Fraternity Council president and committee member, this policy "keeps people from politicking to people they know."
Paradis said committee members use different criteria to evaluate applicants.
"Some people look more at activities, some at GPA," he said. "A lot of it is your instinct and if you feel that this person deserves to live on the Lawn."
Holman said each committee member was responsible for selecting 65 top candidates from this year's 297 applicants. The votes of all committee members were tallied, a tie breaking vote was held and 47 candidates were selected to occupy the Lawn's non-endowed rooms.
Applicants' Reactions
Several newly selected Lawn residents expressed concern about the selection process.
Trevor Dobson said he was concerned about diversity on the Lawn, noting that certain leadership positions at the University are "disproportionately represented."
Dobson added that he thinks the lack of diversity on the Lawn is "indicative of a much larger problem" at the University.
Wyatt Fore said he was concerned about the lack of transparency of the selection process.
"I have no idea who was on the committee; it was not transparent at all," he said.
A Perfect Process?
Some involved with the selection process have voiced logistical concerns regarding the process of selecting residents.
One issue with the process, Lampkin said, is that not all deserving students can be rewarded.
"The big issue ... doesn't have as much [to do] with the process ... We have more students we should honor than the rooms we have available," she said.
Committee member Jeff Frank noted a potential procedural problem for the committee: timing.
"We had a grand total of eight days for [about] 300 applicants," Frank said. "I suppose it left me wondering at the end really, if we could ever tell for sure that the process was getting the best people."
Hiltner said he felt the range of essay questions provided committee members with enough information to make informed decisions about the candidates.
"The essay questions that were asked were ones that allowed us to get a sense of each candidate, so I think the Lawn Selection [Organization] Committee did a good job with choosing questions," he said.
According to Holman, the Lawn Selection Committee will meet again before the end of the year to discuss potential improvements to the selection process.
"We are considering adding more time to read the applications ... because it was rather hectic," he said.
Read More
Shots fired reported at 100 block of Harmon Street, no injuries reported
By Thomas Baxter | 4 days agoThis is the first community alert of June.
Full Board discusses financial aid challenges, medical research and entrepreneurship
By Thomas Baxter | 6 days agoBoard members discussed the Pan-University Entrepreneurship Initiative, a project that aims to help develop more entrepreneurial ventures at the University.
Finance Committee approves 2024-25 operating budget and Major Capital Plan
By Zackary Holt | 6 days agoThe proposed 2024-25 fiscal year budget for the Academic Division includes a 6.8 percent increase in spending over the previous year.
