07-08-2016, 07:01 PM
I disagree with the idea that removing a set standard would make the trial somehow easier to pass. Allowing someone to know the exact expectations (or, if you will, the "questions on the test") increases their capacity to prepare a static rehearsed trial entry, requiring less knowledge and experience than someone who is genuinely capable of improvising solutions to construction and verbal problems. I agree staff consistency is potentially dubious without proper training, experience, and moderation, but I see no reason why this change couldn't be implemented given adequate amounts of those. Let's not reduce the trial to an industrialized screening process; it's a trial, not the SAT. This change reinforces human interaction within trialing, ideally forcing the testificate to communicate ideas and ...think!
If anything, this change could be taken as a step in the OTHER direction on the difficulty spectrum. The trialee now has the challenge of impressing staff with original, interesting works and diverse knowledge. Sorry, but that generic ALU is just not going to cut it anymore... we want to see innovation! In this case, the school server is more useful than ever, since without actual experience and knowledge it will be painfully obvious a trialee isn't ready by how they react to unexpected answers and requests from staff. (I would encourage staff to ask trialees to modify/improve their builds after finishing them to further assess their knowledge). As someone who has personally trialed many many people, I can say from experience that our old requirement felt like a hindrance on my ability to adequately filter incoming members. I often felt the obligation to accept those who technically met our requirements but weren't ready in my eyes.
We desire the sort of creative individuals building on our server that develop new technologies and stick around for a long time, not those who will memorize the questions on the test solely to pass it and gain a status bump for a few days before getting bored and leaving forever.
So yea, if it wasn't clear, I support this change, at least until it proves that it lowers (or raises) our standards in a direction we don't want.
If anything, this change could be taken as a step in the OTHER direction on the difficulty spectrum. The trialee now has the challenge of impressing staff with original, interesting works and diverse knowledge. Sorry, but that generic ALU is just not going to cut it anymore... we want to see innovation! In this case, the school server is more useful than ever, since without actual experience and knowledge it will be painfully obvious a trialee isn't ready by how they react to unexpected answers and requests from staff. (I would encourage staff to ask trialees to modify/improve their builds after finishing them to further assess their knowledge). As someone who has personally trialed many many people, I can say from experience that our old requirement felt like a hindrance on my ability to adequately filter incoming members. I often felt the obligation to accept those who technically met our requirements but weren't ready in my eyes.
We desire the sort of creative individuals building on our server that develop new technologies and stick around for a long time, not those who will memorize the questions on the test solely to pass it and gain a status bump for a few days before getting bored and leaving forever.
So yea, if it wasn't clear, I support this change, at least until it proves that it lowers (or raises) our standards in a direction we don't want.