[[ ___ + LOVE MAKES THE WORLD TURN ROUND& ROUND + __

Tuesday 29 April 2014

Utterly disgusted after listening to a friend's experience in a local university interview. After a group case discussion, the interviewers actually asked each of them to name a person whom they think is the weakest. What kind of message is the university trying to convey to its interviewees? That in order to achieve success you'll have to trample others, put down others to bring yourself up. Choosing the best candidate for the scholarship at the expense of mocking the ones they perceive to be 'weaker' and trampling on their pride. And that is what happened to one interviewee when nearly everyone in the group except for one person arrowed and attacked her. And I begin to ask myself the significance behind asking this question. Maybe that university hopes to sieve out mature thinkers that will give exceptional and thoughtful answers, answers that hopefully do not put others down. But that said, the university would have expected that by asking this question, many people will turn to attacking others and the ones being attacked will be hurt. Talking about community service being one of the core values when they don't treat people right in interviews.

Or maybe the university wants to show its interviewees the 'harsh side of society', that people must learn to accept criticisms and learn from them instead of being defeated and feeling rejected. However, how fair is it to judge the capabilities of a person in less than a day, much less within the span of a single group interview? What right does a university have to subject a person to judgments, criticisms and even humiliations from a group of strangers that do not even know that person well? Yes, criticisms are common in the workplace. But a person in the workplace does not get judged within a day of entering an organisation, his abilities are judged by the works he has done and not done, within a reasonable period of time that allows his colleagues to understand the kind of person he is. Therefore, the argument that the university is trying to reflect the realities of the workplace is not justified because the conditions are not comparable and it is not fair.

If there exists the tiniest and slightest possibility that the university asked this question out of a sincere desire for the 'weakest' candidate(s) to reflect on their weaknesses and improve on them, they should have asked the candidates to voice out the weaknesses of everyone in the group. Nobody is perfect and everybody has something to be improved on. Be it a lack of confidence or excessive arrogance, both traits have to be corrected.

The importance of questions asked in a university interview cannot be underestimated. It reflects the things that the university values and it can also reflect the culture and beliefs of a university. I went for a scholarship interview of another university a while ago and the question they asked me was cliche but left a very deep impression on me. The professors asked me what are the things I can contribute to the university and the students there. After I answered the question, they told me they believe that helping and sharing with my peers is what will make my learning in the university an enriching and fulfilling one. And that fond memories can be created from forging strong bonds with my peers. From the interview, I knew that what the university looks out for in its scholars is not how exceptionally smart or how very confident you are, but more than that they want scholars that have a heart to share with their peers and a desire to create a more positive learning environment in the university. And I now look forward to entering a school with people, although not everyone, who are willing to support and teach one another, which is so very important because no man is an island. We learn more when we learn together. Therefore it makes me so very sad and disgusted because by asking its interviewees to pinpoint someone whom they think is weak, what does this question reflect on the university and its school culture? Will it be one that leaves the weakest behind, one that believes in the survival of the fittest? Its senior SCHOLARS that asked this question, why didn't they pause the interview and provide another point of view when they witnessed everybody arrowing the poor girl who has her own strengths that should be mentioned too? By conferring this group of senseless people the title of a scholar, what does it say about the university's definition of a successful student? What are the traits the university hopes to inculcate in its students? I do hope that they are not producing "confident, outspoken, and straightforward" students that climb up the corporate ladder by backstabbing and putting others down.

By asking that question in a group interview where everybody fights to speak just for the sake of speaking, it is inevitable that the soft-spoken and the introverts will be attacked. But what's wrong with being an introvert who can do great things? JK Rowling, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein and Warren Buffet are examples of introverts who have impacted many people across the world with their capabilities and great ideas. Although words are powerful, they have to be put into actions for great contributions and changes to be made. If a person is confident but is without complementing capabilities, that becomes arrogance. The words of that person is so senseless and useless that they might as well have not been spoken at all. It is super sad if a person reaches the end of his life and looks back to the realisation that he had just been a woodpecker all of his life, just making noise but not doing anything meaningful or significant. Introverts have their own strengths, and they can do great things. Introverts can be confident too. I have a friend who is an introvert, and I have to admit that she knows better than me when to speak and when not to speak. Therefore, being introverted is a trait that we should never put down.

I also wonder why the interviewers did not ask the candidates to discuss the strengths of others, when they asked for the weaknesses. Why are the interviewers so focused on asking for weaknesses? I think the question reflects the mentality of the scholars to some extent at least. A school shouldn't be one that goes around digging the weakness of its students and correcting them, although yes it is important. But what is more important is to discover and develop the potential and strengths of their students, because those are traits and skills that are unique to individuals and are what will help them succeed in their workplaces in the future. An organisation thrives not by constantly correcting its employees and shape them to become their 'ideal workers' that are all the same. A successful organisation recognises that each employee is different and has his own strengths and set of skills that he can contribute to the organisation in a unique way. A school should teach its students to look for and appreciate the strength of others, instead of whipping those whom they deem are not as capable or do not fit into their perception of a person destined for success.

Perhaps the whole point of this interview is to show the students a glimpse of how harsh the society and the workplace is. Maybe it is meant as a wake up call for students to put on their armors and shields against back stabs and office politics etc. But how the workplace is like in the future depends on the values the institutions and universities are inculcating in their students now. If a university is so caught in the frenzy of preventing back stabs, putting down others, exalting themselves, not appreciating others, saving their own butts etc, the students they produce will just make the workplace a sadder and more tiring place to be in, and the society a harsher one.

I was thinking, if I had the chance to go for that university's interview and if I were given that exact same question, I would just answer them straight in the face, "You know what? Out of the four local universities, I think your university is the weakest."

Jermia hopped off at 01:09