With more and more first-year babies each year and an increased need for qualified resident advisors, it has become exceedingly difficult for the Resident Staff selection process to properly choose new RAs. Luckily, the application process has been overhauled in order to make the process more efficient and provide better insight about each applicant. The elimination of the preliminary knowledge test is a crucial change in the system that, combined with the other changes, will produce better, more involved RAs.
Being an RA is an extreme responsibility. You are in charge of the safety of a large group of students, usually first-years and are responsible for their actions on a daily basis for an entire school year. This type of responsibility entails the ability to juggle both schoolwork and extracurricular activities while ensuring that you fulfill your role as role model, leader, conflict mediator, and law-enforcer, among other positions. And some people fail. RAs have been known to drop out of the program, because of problems ranging from poor grades, lack of time, or even engaging in illicit affairs with residents. I know at least one RA who quit because of bad grades and had several friends whose RAs were involved in relationships with residents. So what distinguishes good RAs from bad RAs and how can they be distinguished in the initial application process?
In the past, the RA application included an infamous knowledge test designed to test knowledge of the RA position, resources, and general University information. Lots of people failed this memorization test and were therefore immediately precluded from further consideration in the selection process. Doesn't this seem a bit unfair? One could argue that in applying for a position as serious and competitive as being an RA, it is necessary to remove the applicants too lazy to dedicate a large amount of time to memorizing these basic facts while rewarding those who have the work ethic and determination necessary to pass the test. But at the same time, as current RA Nitya Reddy points out, the test wasn't exactly a "true indicator of who could be a good RA. It is important to have a detailed knowledge about the University, but it is more important that one is compassionate and willing to look up questions residents may have." Sure you can pass a test, but that doesn't mean you have a natural knack for making split-second decisions in situations that are not even remotely mentioned on the test, like when your sleeping resident is attacked in the middle of the night by another drunken resident in a fit of misappropriated anger over an innocent hockey stick. Yes, that happened to me. In that case, I don't think that a test would give you the mental fortitude to wrestle the offending resident to the ground while the rest of the suite scatters to safety. But seriously - elimination of this initial test would keep those who may actually be good RAs with natural leadership abilities in consideration.
And that's another important quality of a good RA - natural leadership ability. It is imperative that a good RA maintains the perfect balance of friend and foe; they are there to help you but also to discipline you. A knowledge test would not give this sort of character analysis of any applicant. Plus the knowledge test involves a huge commitment of time to memorize information that is essentially useless as an RA. Eliminating the test allows applicants much more time to focus on more crucial aspects of their applications. Other changes in the selection process, however, will allow for the selection committee to characterize potential RAs. Previously, applicants were given an interview with six to seven people if they passed the test. Now, interviews will be done in teams of three to five to maximize efficiency and increase the number of interviews. Interviews are the most crucial part of the process, as they give evaluators insight into the true character of the applicant, and the decreased interviewers won't diminish from the stringent qualities that the committee is looking for. As Reddy notes, "Some of the more important qualities we look for in an RA, includ[ing] enthusiasm, compassion, and the ability to work well with others, can be made very apparent during the application and interview process." Removing the test therefore qualifies more people for an interview and increases the potential for evaluators to find RAs who are more capable, engaged, and enthusiastic. There's no check-box for that on a knowledge test.
Overall, the changes in the RA application process can only create better RAs. It is unfair to eliminate potential RAs based on an arbitrary test of knowledge that will just be forgotten a week later and probably not even used during their tenures as residential advisors. RAs should be judged based on leadership abilities and ability to keep respect while enforcing rules and befriending residents. In the end, your RA should be your good friend. And no test can determine that kind of compatibility.
Danny Di Giulio's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at d.diguilio@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 hours agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 20 hours agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
