Contemplating a piece based on experiences here..

[Loric]

So, I had a thought and I figured i'd just info-dump it here and see what you fellow artsy-fartsy folks thought.

 

Notion: Graduate school admissions processes are awful. People with the best of intentions can try and get nowhere, while someone with the same stats can excel, and often the decisions are based on "luck" or confluence of events, etc.. rather than on true evaluation of ability or interest. It's a game and some people win and some people lose. 

 

Proposal: An illustration of the arbitrary nature of the decision making process and the consequences of such decisions by committees. 

 

General Method: Asking potential applicants for copies of their rejection/admissions letters, submitted materials, etc.. to create a personalized sort of collage. Add in perhaps a good portrait and make a representation of "applicant" to express and humanize the concept the bit. Further, begin pairing the applicants by acceptance/rejection by program. Allow the audience to directly compare A and B themselves and come to their own conclusions. The point would not be to compare "this is obviously a good candidate" to "this is obviously a poor candidate" but rather try to find pairs who are not particularly discernible. More alike than different. Emphasize the seemingly arbitrary nature of the process. 

 

Evolution: Track the applicants and get updated portraits over time. Follow their resumes, job offerings, and general life paths. See just how far things begin to diverge based on the whim of a committee.

 

So.. That's what's in my head at 4am. Your thoughts?  

[nugget]

You are forgeting about the human factor. People want to work with people that they get along with well. This is subjective and will depend on factors that an audience can't comment on such as the applicants' personalities and if certain people would enjoy working with them, dislike working with them, or somewhere in between.

[Loric]

But the typical applicant doesn't have an interview, no? So whatever is on paper is what there is. The portrait is already more humanizing than most apps.

[kafralal]

Not sure if the typical applicant doesn't have an interview...I would have thought it was the other way around. 

 

I think Jenste has a point. There is the faculty factor—what they're interested in.

 

It has a bit of the feel of 7up, 14up, 56up etc documentary series—an experient in the nature vs nuture class debate. It's hard on the paricipants and you have to wonder if it would have value beyond a general curiosity and the chance to gawk at others' lives  that would make it a socially/ artistcally valuable experiment.

[Loric]

In my last field interviews were compulsory - but you also didn't apply until asked to do by a department.

On here I've seen that many fields don't require anything outside the app itself. It was a big change in how to approach things for me. In the past I'd find POI's, visit and interview, and then be asked to apply (barring school base standards, you were admitted the second they asked you to apply)