10-07-2016, 01:20 AM
On that note; since I guess most of us agree that simple numerical test scores aren't the ideal way of deciding who gets in and who doesn't, what substitutes do you think would do a better job? My university has a pretty cool approach. Because it's an art school, during the final stage after portfolio selection the exam is divided into two days for making a piece and one day for interviews. The interview is constantly emphasised as the most important part of the whole thing, yet when you get to it it turns out that you're the one who's supposed to be asking the questions. The reason why I like it as a twist is that sometime during the two days you get for making something, a professor will aproach you without warning and start chatting to you, making that the effective interview.
This accomplishes a couple of things I think are neat:
1. It makes sure you're authentic and unprotected during the interview
2. It shows how well you do under unexpected pressure
3. The jury can judge you based on your reaction and question when you learn that they pulled a fast one on you
Obviously this wouldn't work for medicine, but as far as art schools go it's top notch in my oppinion
This accomplishes a couple of things I think are neat:
1. It makes sure you're authentic and unprotected during the interview
2. It shows how well you do under unexpected pressure
3. The jury can judge you based on your reaction and question when you learn that they pulled a fast one on you
Obviously this wouldn't work for medicine, but as far as art schools go it's top notch in my oppinion