,
13 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I spent a large part of last week reviewing applications for the @IRIS_EPO REU internership. I have some thoughts. (THREAD)
First, the applicants are AMAZING. I’m humbled, and glad that I’m not on the job market! And our Ed Specialist has done a careful job constructing questions-this is important. REALLY important.
The questions don’t ask about leadership skills, or only want to know about the achievements of the students. There’s room for more detail and nuance. It’s a much more holistic approach.
For instance, there’s a suggested GPA, but no GPA requirement. If a student has a low GPA there’s space for them to explain. Maybe they had a sick parent. Maybe they had a baby. Maybe they had some mental health struggles.
There’s recognition that LIFE HAPPENS. There’s also a space for students to talk about things they think we should know-and they do! They tell us about their activism, how past failure has made them more resilient, how their military service/family/service job has prepared them.
Of course we also have all of the other stuff (statement of interest, coursework, LOR) and that is important too. But you don’t always get a good idea of the true ability of the student from those metrics.
Student CV’s often tell you more about their opportunities than their abilities.
And this can impact URM students, students from rural areas, non-traditional students, students who work and go to school, or others who may not be able have access or time to focus solely on coursework and extracurriculars.
By having a more holistic view of the student, by allowing them the space and opportunity to give context and background, we can select students who can and WILL excel in the REU, even if they don’t have a 4.0 (or even a 3.0).
And, btw, choosing students who have struggled, or students who are URM, 1st gen, women, etc is in NO WAY sacrificing quality. Full stop.
I choose my shortlist without looking at demographics. It was about 45% URM (much higher than the overall percentage of URM applicants) and 70% women.
“In order to have a fuller, richer science, where we’re tackling a broad set of questions and bringing a broad set of solutions, we need a broad set of scientists.” - @webmz_ popsci.com/women-science-…
In order to make sure that we have equity in who has access to opportunities in science we must make sure to remove artificial barriers to success. This is one way to work towards that goal (IMHO).
