As Presidential Scholars, we feel it is our duty to defend the Presidential Scholars program at SMU in response to John Jose’s ill-informed and inaccurate attack on “the system.” As members of the program, we have our own experiences and actual information to support our arguments. From Jose’s style it would seem that he is in one way or another involved with the Presidential Scholars program, but the opposite is true. To our knowledge, Jose has no ties to the program aside from being, according to him, “blessed to count many of these scholars as [his] closest friends.” Therein start the problems.
Jose begins his attack by criticizing the interview process used to select Presidential Scholars. Having been part of 16 interview committees between the three of us, we disagree completely with Jose’s interpretations of the interview process. All of the faculty members, as well as the scholar interviewers, are required to attend an informative lunch during which Dr. Thomas Tunks, associate provost of SMU, and other experienced faculty interviewers describe the expectations for the interview process. The importance of the decision is constantly stressed, and scholars and faculty alike thoroughly review the candidates’ extensive files well before the interview. A committee composed of three faculty members and one current Presidential Scholar then interviews the candidates. Jose argues that committee members pick candidates solely on GPA, SAT scores and “feelings”; however, committee members look at files consisting of numerous recommendations, essays, admission interview notes and a questionnaire that the candidate had previously filled out. The questionnaire describes three to four topics of global importance that the candidate is willing to discuss during the interview. Needless to say, raw test scores are only a smidgeon of the dozen or more pages in each file, and thus constitute only a small portion of the candidate’s overall evaluation.
Moreover, Jose calls for the program to be less subjective, but claims that we rely too heavily on objective criteria. Obviously, Jose has never sat through the interview process and is unaware of the high caliber of discussion during those 30 minutes. Jose makes a suggestion that the interview process “does a disfavor to those whose qualifications are broader and not easily captured by the current criteria.” We ask Jose what else can be evaluated to get a complete picture of the candidate. The interview process already includes discussion, debate and stimulating topics, and the candidates’ GPA and SAT scores are reviewed before they are invited to interview, after which they carry little weight. Of course, the program is for SMU’s brightest students, and there is no way to avoid looking at GPA and SAT scores as a reflection of the candidates’ academic capability.
As if Jose has not already proved his lack of research, he is also inaccurate when he says the program should expand, implying that there are no such plans. We agree with him in this respect, for if Jose had contacted anyone who is involved with running the program, he would know that the Presidential Scholars program is planning to take on approximately 35 students this year, a great increase of its acceptance rates from past years, and a trend that will continue in the coming years as well.
We are also offended that Jose ridicules current scholars, calling them “indolent, lazy, boorish, arrogant and generally unconcerned about academic affairs.” Jose says that two to three students in each class exemplify these characteristics. We would like to know on what Jose bases this claim. According to his calculations, 15.8 percent of the class of 2010 is undeserving of the scholarship, a strange assumption for someone who is not even a part of the program. Each class of Presidential Scholars is both tightly knit and diverse, and to make generalized assumptions about the caliber, character and failings of these students through hearsay and groundless notions is at best unprofessional and at worse insulting, inflammatory and hurtful.
Jose continues to say that Presidential Scholars should not be “normal” students. What defines “normal”? If “normal” means maintaining high academic standards and a desire to be involved on campus, then we are guilty as charged. Shouldn’t every student have these aspirations? Presidential Scholars make the most of their scholarship, and any doubt in that regard is unfounded. And if “normal” is to Jose a negative quality, one to be shunned and guarded against at all costs, then perhaps the Presidential Scholars program is the last vanguard against SMU’s reputation as elitist and snobbish. For the sake of fairness to the SMU community, then, Jose must realize that unfounded and un-researched accusations bear no merit and cloud the judgments of those who are interested but know nothing of the program. For the sake of the sponsors, the institution into which they pour their funds must function as a community of scholars. Jose’s article is unscholarly by any standard. And for the sake of the university and its reputation, now and in the future, its students must act with the utmost understanding and respect for their peers, aspects which are strikingly lacking in the article in question.
Jose claims that some scholars are arrogant about their advantage, but little does he know that many, perhaps most, of us aren’t inclined to disclose our scholarship status. It doesn’t define us. Jose writes as if the President’s Scholarship shapes who we are; rather, we are the ones who shape the program.
Jupin Malhi is a sophomore biology and psychology major and can be reached at [email protected]. Nikki Pasrija is a sophomore journalism major and can be reached at [email protected]. Alex Frolov is a sophomore biology and philosophy and can be reached at [email protected].
