We had interviews for the Society this week.
They were intense.
Get the image out of your head that this is a nice one-on-one conversation. There are no questions like "what can you bring to the society" or "Why do you think the Society would be a good fit for you." We don't sit and grin while you come up with some frivolous B.S. We berate you, demand for you to defend your argument, and try to find holes in your argument so we can shoot you down. Because we will shoot you down. We enjoy it.
While this is going to be an anonymous blog (mainly so I can rant without anyone I know finding out) I still can't explain the interview process in detail; but a general outline should be more than enough to understand the exhausting hell we force potential members to go through.
We create a small panel that goes over the interviewee's card, and see if we are knowledgeable enough to ask them questions on their "interests." Then we meet them, shake their hands, sit them down in a cycle of chairs, and swoop in for the kill.
If you put down "Movies" as an interest, you better be able to answer "are movies art?" define "what is art," discuss the role of censureship and government involvement in the arts, and why anyone should even care about art at all.
"What is Art?"
"Well, Art is in the eye of the beholder"
"What if I say the Mona Lisa isn't art. Am I right?"
"You have to consider the intent of the Artist"
"So when I write a grocery list, that isn't art?"
"Right"
"What if I wrote one and said it was"
"Well, then, yes"
"But, I thought you said a grocery list wasn't art"
"Well it depends on the what viewer thinks"
"Wait, so 'art' is based on both the intent of the artist and the view of the beholder? How can it be both"
" . . . "
"let's move on"
I can't tell you how many of those conversations I had this week, including an English major who couldn't define Literature. Not even a short definition that could withstand minor scrutiny. How can you go to college to study something and not even know what it is? Seriously.
Other most common shitty responses were:
"No evidence, is evidence"
"You can just tell when you see it"
"It just 'is'"
Wishy-washy answers are annoying, particularly when were required to make each interview last for a specified amount of time (though usually make up our minds in the first 15 min.). Some of the worst interviews are when people don't take positions at all. Getting answers out of them was like trying to play dominos on a water bed.
"I guess you can see it that way" "Some, people might say that" "You can look at it different ways I guess"
You do realize this is a debating society, don't you?
Sad.
But of course with any group, along with very smart people (and some slow and indecisive ones) you get some real gems.
I read one card where the person put "Cheerful Colors" and "Happiness" among her
interests. . . It ended up being an exhausting interview as she fumbled on and on about happiness and colors while simultaneously vomiting rainbows and butterflies.
After finally getting the last bit of Sesame Street logic out from underneath my nails. I was ready to interview again.
This time it was a girl who though water bottles were immoral, even if you are helping a community in Africa that doesn't have a clean source of water. When asked her what was an alternative she responded:
"Brita Filters!"
*Blank stares*
And I was on some of the more sane panels. Some of my fellow members also interviewed people who believed that we should enslave all humans to create economic growth and that freedom of speech was important, in case we encountered people from different dimensions who wished to impart their knowledge on us.
Overall we were able to pluck some very intelligent people out of the jumbled mix, who unfortunately don't have nearly as amusing stories, but we have a very promising class this semester.
I have come out of the week feeling a little prouder of my intelligence and little questionable about my College's admissions process.
