It seems as if this year’s revised proctor selection process, with its newly instated changes, created more of the usual controversy and confusion that it had originally sought to eliminate.
Some of the revisions from last year’s process included the incorporation of a peer-evaluation component as well as student-initiated conversations between proctor candidates and members of the selection committee.
The peer-review component, for which members of the junior class had to rate all their classmates on a one-to-five scale for various attributes, was impersonal and slightly chaotic. Many students admitted to feeling rushed and, consequently, giving their peers arbitrary grades.
But it was after the class had gone through this process and candidates had sent in their written applications that the disorder set in. Members of the selection committee had suggested that only those who were clearly undeserving of proctorship would be cut from the first round; however, after decisions were made, many students felt as if they had been unfairly judged.
We understand that choosing proctors is difficult in that it inevitably generates many hurt feelings and egos, but we would encourage members of the selection committee to keep in mind the value of communication. In future years, if students are clearly informed of all of the steps of the process and the specific credentials that the committee is looking for, much confusion and misunderstanding could be alleviated.