How I read a Truman file

I finished my Udall blog with an extended post on "How I read a Udall file." I thought I would do the same with Truman -- take the application question by question, piece by piece to show what I was looking for as I read.

First, the big caveat: I am one reader. Other readers read differently. It's a subjective process. Readers often disagree on files (today we had one file that all three of my team members needed to read -- it was scored as a 7.5, 7.0, and 4.0. The two of us that had scored it high had to do some serious convincing of the third. She had some good points I hadn't thought of, but the other reader and I were really convinced by this file, and she ended up as a finalist). So take what I have to say with a large grain of salt - the other 17 readers would each differ with what I write here, I am sure.

FacRep letter: I already wrote about this yesterday, but this is where you first encounter the candidate. I am looking to learn the theme of the application, get a preview of what the highlights of the application will be, get any contextual or background info that is really needed (family troubles, medical issues, etc that might not show up elsewhere), and get a sense of how much the FacRep really thinks this one deserves a Truman. I also look for what's missing. Three long paragraphs about academics, and no mention of leadership? Uh-oh. FacRep letters really need to make the case in all three areas -- appropriateness of grad plans, leadership, and service. Personality stuff -- how much you like talking with him or look forward to your meetings with her -- usually don't really matter.

I then glance through the opening materials -- what is their undergrad degree in? What do they want to go to grad school in, and for what degree? This starts to frame what I am about to read -- the candidate's background. Knowing what the end goal is tells me what we are aiming for in reading their activities of the last few years.

The Washington Summer Institute is actually a quite revealing question and helps to let me know a surprising amount about the student. How enthusiastic are they about this opportunity? How much have they thought about and researched opportunities? Are they creative? What do they care about, and why? Are they willing to push their comfort zone and try something different? Can they tell me all of this in a very short amount of space? Again, this helps to give me a preview of where the application is going to end up, so I have some idea of what roads we might take to get there. And, no, they do NOT have to say yes to this question -- but if they say no, they should say why that is, and should have a really good reason for it (Teach For America starts training in the summer, for example). Since so many readers are past scholars who know that the Truman is so, so much more than money for grad school, they want to see that candidates know the true value of the award lies in opportunities such as TSLW and the summer institute.

Questions 1-6 -- the biographical information -- is really important. How students list their information (since it is in order of importance), where they have spent their time, whether or not there appears to be leadership activities, if what the FacRep highlighted seems to be showing up here, how long they spent on various activities, whether or not I can spot the emerging theme and evidence that they have led and done service work... it's all here, in a shockingly small number of words. If candidates have done something that involves an acronym or a campus-only group, they should briefly (briefly!) explain it, especially if they are not going to write about it in questions 7 or 8. They don't have to have something for every question, and very few candidates have something to list of substance in every box, but there should be something really substantive in question 2, something that demonstrates service (preferably hands-on) in question 3, and you've got to give us something to hang our hat on in question 4. I didn't look too thoroughly at questions 5 & 6. Really, I was mostly looking at two and three, and if there wasn't much there or in four, the candidate was already in trouble. When I finished these, I could usually guess what the leadership essay and public service essay were going to be about -- and if I had no idea, then that usually didn't bode well for those essays.

Truman has phenomenal resources on their website on how to approach the short-answer questions -- the advice you will get there is better than anything I can offer, really. I can tell you that question 7 is, to me, the most important part of the application. We're looking for leaders and change agents. We're looking for people who have already made a difference. "Lead by example" doesn't get you far. I found the sports leadership essays to not be very effective, with specific exceptions where the candidate really did show leadership that could be more broadly construed. And personally, I was much more interested in the essays that just stuck to the question and told me what they did, rather than the ones that turned it into a discourse on their personal views on leadership. If you don't have me on-board with your application by question seven, you're probably not getting me on-board. I should know who you are, how you spent your time, and what difference you have already made in the world.

Question 8 is on public service. This is where you show me that you care, and that you can't imagine a career not in public service. It's also a chance to highlight another major accomplishment, but it's not a place to just recite your resume -- it's a place to let the reader in and show that you care and what your motivation is. I need to know why you do what you do, so that I know that you won't just grab the money in the private sector later in life. 7 and 8 give you the chance to discuss just two things you have done in-depth, so you need to make really good use of them. A good question 8 answer (and there were surprisingly few of them) helps build a crescendo to..

Question 9! The turn! Now we know who you are, what you've done, how you prioritize and spend your time, the change you have created, and why you care. That's a lot. And the past is prologue to....oh, please let it make sense. There were so many candidates where I read question 9 and thought "What?! Where on earth did that come from?" If I thought that, the file almost never advanced. What comes next should be a logical and natural extension of the past. I did not read 9 terribly closely -- I looked to see if the candidate made sense of an issue, defined it well, and could speak knowledgeably about it. But both it and 10 (which I just glanced at) I take as being more fodder for interviews than a decision-maker on whether or not to advance as a finalist. I'll put the policy proposal in that category, too. I looked at policy proposals (when I got to them in the file) but did not look at them very closely, and can only remember one or two cases where it changed my mind on a candidate (not always positively).

I really liked reading questions 11-13, which I read as a group. They should be consistent with the past, of course, and definitely in line with what the candidate wrote about in question 9. But you learn a lot about the nominees by reading these -- creativity, vision, how they conceive of themselves, what they really want to work on, how much effort they put into the application, etc. I was surprised to find that 12 and 13 were more elucidating than was 11. Pretty much everyone wants to go to the same grad programs (and it is helpful when someone says "I want to go to ______ law school," and the dean of admissions at that law school is seated next to me). But after grad school? There are SO many paths their lives can take after grad school, and it is really exciting to see what they have come up with.

At that point, I have a pretty darn good idea of whether or not this kid is a finalist. The ones on the bubble can be pushed one way or the other by the letters of rec, but they're pretty uniformly positive. One piece of advice we can all share with our letter-writers, though: the "she is the pinnacle/perfect/ultimate/best/ideal Truman candidate" label is not a good idea. Because if she's not, that makes me wonder how well you understand this opportunity and how seriously I should take the rest of your letter. The best file I read all weekend -- a truly remarkable person -- had these beautifully understated letters. They didn't need to oversell the candidate, because they knew that the file would take care of itself.

I hope that helps. I have to say that much of what I have just written does not feel like it will be news to FacReps who have been doing this for some time, who go to conference presentations, who use all of the many pieces of advice on the Truman website, who reach out to Tara with questions, and who consistently read the NAFA listserv. Truman has a real commitment to transparency that I applaud and think makes for stronger applications from all candidates. It's near-impossible for a student to fake a strong question 7, for example, even if they know what they are supposed to write. Even if you know how to make a hamburger, if the beef is lousy, the burger will be, too.

Which is a roundabout way to address the questions that came up on the NAFA listserv about my serving on this committee as a FacRep, and whether or not my candidates will get an unfair advantage in the future by my reading several dozen files. Did I learn from this? Definitely. But most of what I learned was a reinforcement of past lessons learned in other ways -- there was not a lot about reading files that surprised me. It was quite interesting, and I am very glad I did it, and I think I may have a better guess in the future about whether or not my candidates will advance in the competition -- but a lot of that also depends on the region they are in, how competitive the state is, and issues of subjectivity and luck that none of us can control, no matter how many of these files we read. I do think my candidates will benefit from me being here -- but I hope yours will, too, from this blog.

Congratulations to all of the finalists! Go knock 'em out at the interview, and don't forget to enjoy getting to know one another -- it's fun to think of all of these files coming to life and sitting together in a room, sharing ideas and experiences.

To the non-selected candidates, remember that this is not a referendum on you as a person. I read many, many files of amazing young people who care, who lead, who are making a difference, and who are not going to be Trumans. You're all going to go on to lead successful lives, lives of service, lives of leadership. You won't do it with a Truman. That's ok. Yes, today stinks, and you should let it stink. But then get back to work, and go make a difference.

That's it from Annapolis, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have.