02/08/2014

02/08/2014; 19:01:

The whole SAC-Coordinator & SAC-Treasurer process was rather long, pretty interesting and very tiring.
On the first day, all applicants were asked to send in a Résumé and a Statement of Purpose. There was wonder as to how the short-listing would work, since most applicants seemed to have similar documents.
Three days later, a mail greeted the applicants at 8:16 p.m., dividing them into three groups for Task #1. An 8-slide PowerPoint presentation had to be prepared, pitching the IPM to the academia and HR managers of certain companies. This had to be sent in by 11:30 and be presented in front of the panel (comprising the 2013 SAC-Coordinator, Treasurer and Committee Coordinators) at 11:45. Each presentation itself was an almost 45-minute affair, with cross-questioning and arguments taking place. All applicants waited till the end of the presentations after which each applicant was asked to rate all of his/her group members on 4 different parameters – Team Work, Cooperation, Leadership and Communication.
Just as the applicants returned to their hostels, presentations presented & questions fended off, at well-past 2:00 a.m., another e-mail popped up at precisely 2:58, announcing Task #2. A list of all activities conducted by the SAC-Student Activity Council from September 2013 to July 2014 was to be compiled, complete with detailed analysis on the efficiency, strengths, weaknesses and possible improvements. Secondly, research work was expected on the activities undertaken by the SAC’s in other undergraduate colleges with suggestions as to how some of these could be adopted here. All this had to be compiled as a word document and a PowerPoint presentation on the topic was also expected. All of it was to be submitted by 8:00 p.m. with an individual presentation of your work to the panel at 9:00 p.m.
The presentation process began at 9:00 p.m. and went on till almost 2:00 a.m. The luckier applicants got done earlier while the rest sat around till well beyond midnight. Just as all the applicants were settling in to sleep, an e-mail greeted them, informing them that 8 applicants had made it to Task #3, for which they were expected to show up , without delay at 2:25 a.m. Frantic phone calls and scurrying around later, the 8 showed up. Task # 3 was a Group Discussion, the topic being ‘Is MBA Education Expensive?’.
Then, unsure of whether there were any more surprises to be expected, the 8 crept away to bed. The final task, Task #4 which was a personal interview was held on the evening of 1st August. 6 applicants made it to this. The interview mainly tested how the applicants would react in certain situations, once they were SAC-Coordinator.
Post this, 4 applicants made it to the final round- the election for SAC Coordinator. The applicants for SAC-Treasurer had had a similar experience, facing mainly accounting related tasks and finally faced with an interview, after a single elimination. 3 applicants made it to the final election round. Each then had to send in an election manifesto, which along with the Tasks grading was shared with all the students, presumably to allow everyone to make an unbiased decision.
The election was held from 11:30 to 1:15 a.m. A student-designed online portal was used for voting, though every student had to make a trip to the voting booth- designated rooms picked by the panel.
The results were declared less than an hour later. There is now a brand new SAC-C , Oshin Goel and a brand new SAC-Treasurer, Govinda Bhadada.

I’m sure that the whole process was a very enjoyable one, despite being extremely hectic and surprising (not always in a good way!). There was a lot learnt, since the PGP Committee selections happen in the same way. Committee & Club heads are to be appointed, a process which will follow a similar procedure.