Divya Patodia is a third-year social science student currently finishing her second term as a science faculty soph. She won the Soph of the Year award for London Hall last year, and was nominated again this year. But Patodia will not be returning as a soph next year—in fact, she didn’t even get an interview.
What Patodia didn’t know when she handed in her initial application was that, unbeknownst to the sophing community, the Orientation Planning Committee had radically overhauled the soph selection process. Whereas in years past the sophing leadership teams evaluated named applications of prospective sophs from their own faculties, applications this year were anonymous and distributed randomly throughout the faculties. This was done to address frequent complaints of rampant favourtism throughout every level of soph hiring. Each application was scored out of 40 marks, and a pre-determined number of interviews were awarded to the top-scoring applicants in each faculty.
Patodia, however, took issue with the revamped application questions, which she charged with being both irrelevant and not reflective of qualities needed in a good soph. Questions focused on relaying the values of the orientation program, the values of volunteering and the outcome expected from members of the O-Week program. The problem, according to Patodia, is that most of the questions had “correct” answers that could simply be copied out of the sophing contract, or even from a Google search.
“I think the new system screwed up. [Instead of asking qualitative questions] that can actually help you get to know an applicant, they asked questions where all they were really looking for was for you to copy directly out of the sophing contract,” Patodia said.
“Also, [dispersing] all the applications throughout random faculties was a mistake. Each team has their own traditions, and each team knows what it takes to be on that faculty team—OPC shouldn’t have taken away soph leadership teams’ ability to make those kinds of calls.”
Particular controversy surrounds two questions on the application that ask applicants to name “up to 6 specific learning and development outcomes” and “up to 10 different examples of soph behaviours […] deemed inappropriate.” According to Michael Zawalsky, president of the Undergraduate Engineering Society, these questions were misleading in that they were actually marked out of six and 10 respectively. So while the questions said to list “up to” a certain number of examples and implied an applicant would not be penalized for providing less than the maximum, such was not the case. On an application marked out of 40, this could mean the difference between getting an interview and being rejected.
“There was a total misalignment between how the questions were phrased on the application. It’s an instance of poor communication, where people aren’t being evaluated in the way they’re being told they’re being evaluated,” Zawalsky argued.
Fearnall, however, said the question was intentionally phrased as such to obtain a measure of applicants’ dedication.
“The intent of using the “up to” phrasing was to test an applicant’s willingness to go above and beyond to identify resources for first-years. The thinking was that if an applicant identified the maximum number of resources in an application, then they would also do the same for a first-year during O-Week,” Fearnall said.
Zawalsky also attacked OPC’s decision to hide the change from the sophing community until after applications were already submitted. This was done to prevent head sophs from giving their friends code words that could be used to circumvent the system.
“Previously, engineering has never cut anyone prior to an interview, so the application has never really been taken into account. You have a lot of returning sophs who assumed the system would remain the same and treated it like a bit of a joke,” he explained.
“In turn, this led to some cuts that we found very undesirable and unfair when considering those people’s merits.”
Fearnall, however, was unsympathetic to those who made light of the initial application process.
“It was posted very clearly on the top of the form that applications were to be taken seriously and that they would be used in the evaluation of the candidate. I have a little bit of trouble with those who say they weren’t informed the application would be taken seriously,” he said. This was in reference to a clause on the form reading “applicants will be short-listed based on quality of these applications.”
Fearnall also stressed how important it was to eliminate bias in the selection process.
“I think what people forget is there’s so many students who felt unfairly treated by the Orientation Week hiring process in the past, and we have an obligation to stand up for them. At this point, we know they’re right—they were mistreated in the past and we have to do something. There are 30,000 students across this campus and we have a duty to represent each and every of them.”
Loading ...
Dear Western Community,
Entitlement is a self inflicted disease that has no place in this world. Regardless of whether you will be a soph or not, if you’re entitled, you’re an embarrassment to Western, and an embarrassment to yourself.
Western’s hamartia is self-entitlement, which is due to the sickening attitudes of a few snotty immature and self centered people who can’t see past their own twisted and self absorbed perspectives. Unfortunately, this is not just limited to snotty students. Western will fail to be a world class, cutting edge, higher learning institution as long as this entitlement exists.
So get over yourself! We’re all but a specs in this universe. Know your place, serve your humanity and be the change.
(click to show comment)
I was a Soph for four years, Alumni for several years now. I don’t know if the new process would have left me hanging dry or not, but I can say that the process wasn’t just an amazing chance to give back to a community that had given me so much, but also an amazing learning experience for myself that helped me in both my life and current professional degree. I made countless friends, and still talk to countless “frosh” that I still consider some of my closest friends. Whether you liked your Soph or not, I can tell you that the majority of them tried their very best to do all they could for their Frosh (despite some bad apples), and I’m happy to have ever been a part of the process.
While I understand the need for them to re-design the selection program (this is an overdue overhaul), their is obvious injustice in the communication between administration and the Soph community. I don’t want to get into all the whiny details, because it’s not my place to say, and what has to be said has probably been said several times over.
What is important is for people to remember that Sophs play an enormous role in the “best Western housing experience” throughout the year, be it through Residence Council events or Orientation Week. That’s not to say they deserve special attention, but the must be recognized as an important cog in the gear that makes that experience a Western experience. Numbers are lowering because focus is pulling away from Sophs, placing them in either a bad light or (in this case) working against them.
There are way too many well-deserving people that should be a part of the coming year. I know many, and I’m sure there are many more that will never know the potential they have in unique role (not to say I don’t disagree with some comments; I did actively volunteer outside of Sophing as well, and it is not the be-all-end-all of volunteering). Soph numbers are hurting, and if they don’t want to lose their program, administration had better reconsider how important this program is to them, and the importance to keep quality Sophs.
The majority of the ones commenting are those who want to be Sophs. Sophs are equatable with politicians.
“I like helping others!”.
If so, go to a soup kitchen. Who said you had to help in this specific way. Like the USC executives, all you want is a resume.
I think the soph system is totally biased. Just look at certain soph groups you can see the clicky feeling in them. I don’t want to put out rumors of specific soph groups but it exists. If you do not fit with their mentality then you wouldn’t be selected.
I do think the anonymity factor is a good thing when selecting interviewees
I graduated from UWO 3 years ago, and during my time there had the privilege to soph for a few years. Had I been subject to this new recruitment system, I’m not quite sure I’d have had as much fun as I actually did. A bit of a shame, really.
Here’s my take about the process–it felt underhanded in that the rejected applicants were the only ones given the email that explained the new process AFTER its submission, and it also just looks as though OPC did not trust the leadership teams to pick their own applicants. Why have faith in leadership teams at all if OPC was going to vet their pool of applicants?
It would have made sense to me if the applicant’s name was struck from the application but still submitted to their intended leadership teams. Faculties teams, in particular, have been making a move towards being an extension of faculty councils for some time now. Who would know which applicant could represent that faculty better than their leadership team?
And if I may say so personally, the application seems to cut out first-year students who applied to be a soph. I take this point from the last two questions, regarding exclusive soph behaviour and addressing it. Former sophs would have seen the contract, and given the training to know what behaviours to avoid, and the steps they can take amongst their leadership team if a problem should arise.
What first-year student would know of the “correct” answer to those questions (given that it was scored)?
And on that note, wouldn’t successful applicants end up learning the answers to those questions during training anyway?
Also, when it came to questions about listing the learning objectives and the resources on campus, the article did mention that such answers could be Googled, yes. What it failed to mention as well was that sophs are given instruction and direction to access those resources for their first years during training. Why question an applicant, who has never been sophing before, on knowledge they are going to receive later?
So here’s my thing–for an application that was meant to equalize the process for all–it seems very much like you had to be a former soph to apply.
Would it not have been better to create an application that demonstrated effort, demonstrated passion, demonstrated real desire for this leadership position?
Anyone can write a shitty application–that’s when they are struck from being granted an interview.
Or anyone can write an excellent application–that’s when they’re given the chance to prove that can walk the talk.
Anyone can act well in an interview–it’s up to the leadership team if they’ll be a genuine fit for the team they have in mind.
Had I received the rejection letter from my intended leadership team, I would have taken it with grace–as they know the kind of team they want to represent the faculty and the kind of applicant I am from my application. If they don’t fit, they don’t fit. And I move on.
Getting it from the OCO, and with the no notice of the change in selection process prior to my application submission? I felt cheated. There was no transparency, and in all it felt like a gesture intended to sweep it under the rug and avoid an uproar.
Sophs need to like each other to be a cohesive unit and best serve their purpose – Anonymous
Perhaps sophs need to consider that dealing with the challenge of creating a tight-knit group from a collection of diverse individuals with different personality traits during your ‘soph weekend’ may actually help them accomplish their eventual task.
Students get thrown in with a bunch of people that have radically different backgrounds then their own. Their first experience at the UWO is likely an interaction with a group of people who all look the same and act the same. Sure they encourage some people to get out of their shell, but many frosh soon realize sophing is a self-important clique.
All these sophs who like each other and present the university experience in their soph-centric manner, gradually become friends with like minded frosh and recruitment is influenced on these relationships, even simply by discouraging those who hate the soph clique from applying and providing new input.
Moreover, what type of leadership is involved in creating a team from a group of friends? It seems like new recruits are tacked on until they conform to the group dynamic developed by the soph leadership, who are surely all returnees and friends.
Patronage is a problem, and it damages the whole program. Sophs don’t truly recognize how divisive the program is on campus. Half the people love sophs, half think they are a joke. By focusing on the half that love sophs, they miss the opportunity to grow into something that actually meets the mission statement of the sophing program.
Can we also talk about how regularly people degrade themselves in soph ‘interviews’? The value placed in being ‘outgoing’ has resulted in recruitment and team-building process akin to that of a fraternity… I don’t get the whole moral high ground that sophs claim they have in determining who is qualified.
I was having a discussion about this with a friend the other day and we agreed Sophing is a privilege and not a right. Those who have reacted in the immature manner that has been exemplified on social media outlets fuel this bad rep that many Sophs undeservingly get – that we are a group of elitist and entitled individuals. Additionally, it says a lot that we are a community that quite literally puts Sophing above a student passing away. Our priorities clearly need to be re-evaluated.
I completely value the attempt to remove bias from applications in order to give everyone an equal chance, however, this being said, I don’t think it is fully relevant when it comes to sophing. Were this an application for a course or program in which you are learning, then yes this would have worked completely, but it’s not. Sophs are suppose to be welcoming, enthusiastic and nice. What part of the application brought forth this? If O-Staff felt that sophs weren’t as informed of the school, then they should have an added part during training in which they teach and test them.
An important point that I feel should be also brought up is that this change was only made to faculty soph applications, which I find highly unfair.
Moreover, in terms of the wording of the application, that is completely the fault of the O-Staff. Has the expression quality before quantity mean anything? An applicant could have worked very hard and made detailed accounts of 7/10 points and that is, in my opinion, better than someone who mediocrely reached the 10 mark.
Regarding the different head soph teams marking it, once again a good attempt at eliminating bias to the max, but it is also wrong. Each soph team has different characteristics, and each head should be given the opportunity to build the team they wish. In order for a team to work well and to it’s maximal capacity, they must all work as one. Whether we like to admit, or not, liking each other is an integral part of it. In the real world, knowing someone really does make a difference when applying for jobs; so why is it a big deal in terms of sophing? If a head team is chosen, you expect that team to be responsible enough not to choose a friend who will not be a good candidate because that reflects poorly on them.
Also, there’s a reason certain types of personalities are more prominent in sophs, it’s because those are the characteristics of leaders. I’m sorry but I refuse to believe that some quiet introverted, but a good writer, is better qualified for the position than someone outgoing, enthusiastic and social. The same thing goes for anything in life. You would never hire a prof that is afraid of public speaking because it is essential for what they are doing. The same can be said for sophing.
Lastly, if improvements need to be made, then create a different change. Have previous sophs attain references from heads of the residence and hand it in, in a sealed and signed envelop provided by O-Staff. Make first years have their RA/Dons fill out an evaluation. For those in upper years, create some other form of referencing, perhaps teams you’ve been part of or your previous sophs. It doesn’t even have to be a “reference letter,” it can be a check-list with the option to comment. Perhaps start applications earlier, and have a member of O-Staff shadow the interviews to reduce the chances of someone choosing someone based solely on their connections.
For the most part sophs have been good in the past. O-Staff shouldn’t be changing the whole system, they should be looking for way to revise parts in order to create the best amalgamation of the two processes.
also me and my friends applied last year for the first time all of them got in except me. None of the head sophs new us but they got in. They just had a passion and respect for the program. I feel the anonymous factor doesn’t really matter because they are going to interview you which wont be anonymous, so what is the point of this.
just a bunch of bs lik really you measure willingness to help forsh on o-week by a number….. all that tells me is that the people are doing sophing for there resume. the way you should measure willingness is heart abd passion for our school. the people who apply to be a soph are people who have a true passion and also were really effected by there own o-week. with this passion comes repsect for the program and its rules. So what are these people looking for…. robots ????? they lost a lot of amazing sophs this year because of this
Distributing applications throughout soph teams makes sense to me due to the time constraints this year. Although I’m not sure if it was actually a factor, it just seems more efficient since the soph selection process is almost a month behind this year.
^Do you see the irony in what you are saying? You know who is “eventually going to have to come face to face with reality” or have to realize that “not everyone can make a soph team” ? Those sophs who did not get interviews this time around and reacted in incredibly immature ways, aka e-mailing leadership teams, e-mailing orientation staff, cursing, and.. nothing else.
You simply cannot give 600 interviews. They have no choice but to make cuts based on written application. Could the questions have been slightly better? Certainly. And I’m sure this year’s application writers appreciate any feedbacck you have for next year’s process. But should the applications be blind? Yes.
The orientation program is not in the business of training students for the “real world”. It is, however, in the business of ensuring first year students have a smooth transition into their University experience. So if a soph team is made up of members who can’t accomplish the latter but are super cool outgoing people who will do great in the real world, there IS a problem. You are grossly underappreciating the number of people outside of “soph culture” who in previous application cycles have thought it to be incredibly unfair.
The same problems that are being brought up now existed before. Only, those people who felt like their best friend who didn’t get an interview would’ve made an amazing soph were not already immersed in soph culture, did not have a sense of entitlement, and were not as vocal about their issues.
As a first-time soph applicant going in to my fourth year at Western, I had no preconceived notion that I would gain better treatment from the reviewers of my application based on my relationship to them or my ‘name value’ as a present/visable member of my faculty/affiliation.
In short, I treated my application with the utmost respect and worked my butt off. I didn’t simply copy and paste answers (though I can certainly see this as being an issue that could be fine-tuned for the future). Instead, aspects of the application that I was less-familiar with, such as listing student support services offered by Western, forced me to go back and research some of the awesome programs offered at UWO. I feel more prepared to potentially Soph having done that initial research that some seem to have viewed as pointless, irrelevant or ‘a joke.’
There has always seemed to me to be too much of a Soph-first instead of Frosh-first outlook on the Sophing experience. It’s really too bad that Patodia will not be given an interview this year, though with her apparent credentials, she will no doubt remain a part of UWO’s volunteer community. Clearly what these changes are meant to address are those that feel entitled. I dare say Zawalsky and the above poster falls into that group; at the very least, that is how this article portrays him.
Good Soph candidates will emerge through this system as the years go by. All that the Orientation Committee seems to be asking is that applicants keep their egos in check and truly embody the altruism that should be inherent in the program. The O-Week experience does not start with Sophs; it starts with Frosh. That is something that we as leaders in our student community need to remember.
The fact you feel obliged to change a whole program just to accommodate the few people that feel cheated out of the system is amazing. It always seems that every year someone is complaining that some head soph team didn’t pick them because they weren’t a friend. That is a load of horse shit. Maybe take a step back and realize that not everyone can make a soph team, it is an unfortunate problem with having umteen thousand applicants to a program. The very fact that you seek to accommodate that small majority who is out of touch with reality is sad. What are you going to do when the same person complains in the real world they didn’t get a job because he/she wasn’t the boss’ favorite? Are you going to change the application process then? How about getting a different company to come in and grade the applicant and then advising the previously mentioned boss on who he/she would choose? Does that make sense? What makes it okay to this at a university but not in the real world? We are adults here, and eventually we are going to have to come face to face with the reality that sometimes, we aren’t a fit for a program. I’ve been cut from a soph team, but I’ve also made that soph team. It just so happens that the year I was cut the head soph happened to be a friend. Everyone needs to get their egos in check, or else this program will continue it’s incredible rise to mediocre and Tim Horton’s Children Camp Status!