Lessons learned

I've been trying to think about "lessons learned from reading ~50 files" last night and this morning. It feels like most of what I have learned, actually, has been about the letter of nomination and about recruiting candidates. While writing the Truman application is a non-trivial undertaking, I think it's also really, really hard for a candidate to create a Truman application that falsely represents who they are in a positive way (though a poorly-done application may not positively represent them). Also, thanks to the copious amount of advice about the Truman application on their website and Tara's consistent presence at both the NAFA conferences and on the listserv, I think most of what I needed to learn about how to advise a Truman candidate I have picked up over the years -- I don't feel like there have been big, revelatory moments where I smack my head and say, "Oh, so THAT's what they are supposed to say in question 11!"

That said, here are some lessons learned about the letter of nomination and recruiting candidates:

Letters of nomination:
1) Get to the point. Most of my letters have been in the 1000-1200 word range. I will be aiming for 600-800 from now on. This doesn't have to be literature, and extraneous info makes me want to start skimming.
2) Introduce the candidate, tell us what they care about, and give us the highlights of what we will be reading.
3) Be upbeat, but don't oversell. I'm going to read the file myself, and get my own impression of the candidate. If you have set me up for greatness and I don't see that, it's disappointing. Save "She seems to be the ideal Truman candidate" for those who you have really good reason to be the ideal Truman candidates -- I have read several "ideal" files this weekend that ended up scoring out as a 2.5 and were nowhere close to being a finalist.
4) If you have a history of working with Trumans and can compare this candidate to past finalists/scholars, that makes an impact on the reader -- but do so sparingly, and only when the case is truly warranted.
5) Remember: we are looking for scholarship, leadership, and service. Stick to those. We don't really care too much about how funny he is, or how well she runs.
6) Think of it as Cliff Notes for the application. Give us the thesis, outline the story, and close with an argument for advancement. Then let the student do the heavy lifting in the application.

Recruiting. From now on, I am going to go seek out students who exhibit the following combination of traits:
1) Proven leaders who have shown initiative and gotten results
2) Public servants who have a demonstrated record of caring
3) Top students who have a demonstrated plan for the future (the second half of this is the one part of a Truman app that I think can be created, and where good advising may make the biggest difference)
4) Students to have an issue or idea that ties together their work and compels them forward
5) They should have some connection (minimum) to the government, public sector, or campaigns. More than that is welcome and encouraged, but often times not present.
6) Know that "outstanding" candidates (8+ points) are a rarity -- we have yet to see one in the ~70 files my team has scored so far. It's an interesting combination -- Truman kids are all amazing, and they could all use improvement. Almost every candidate has visible flaws, even those who I am near-certain will end up as Scholars. That's ok. Nominate them anyway.

Lastly, I think that we, as advisers, have a tremendous responsibility to help our candidates understand that this is not a referendum on them as people. I have one specific candidate in mind as I write this. She is an incredible young woman -- a top scholar at an impressive school, is well-respected, has some significant accomplishments, and her letters of recommendation are absolutely impassioned about who she is and how much they admire her ("top student I have known in my 35 years doing this" kind of letters). But she's not a Truman -- I think I scored her as a 3.5. Her record of leadership was not what we are looking for (no record of creating change) and she's been all over the map in terms of her activities. Those activities have been impressive, but have not been consistent. You can tell that she poured herself into this application, and I can only imagine that, based on her letter of nomination, her adviser is breathlessly awaiting her announcement as a finalist, which will never come.

As advisers, when we recruit and nominate the right students, we are setting them up for success in the competition. When we recruit and nominate the wrong students, it is still ok -- this is a bear of an application, and candidates learn really important lessons from wrestling with it. Look, that young woman is going to be perfectly fine in life -- more than "fine." She is going to go on to do great things. Just not with a Truman, and that's ok -- this is one model of leadership and social change, but not the only one. I hope her adviser tells her that today.