On 20 May 2017, at 07:36, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com wrote:
There is no manipulation. The idea that someone could have befriended all of their reviewers every year for a decade is quite silly. I'm sorry that you didn't get a scholarship this year, but at this point there is not a useful conversation being had here.
If you think there is a problem, volunteer for the scholarship committee next year and help fix it!
There is, of course, a legitimate question if each committee blindly choses from the current pool of applicant without looking into history, or if there is some institutional memory that will ensure a wider spread of accepted applications.
In the first case, it is not unlikely that someone who wrote a good application once and who otherwise fits the criteria will have a good chance one year later.
In the second case, one could give bonus points for first-time applicants, or forbid application immediately after one success, or have an arbitrarily complex system of awarding handicap scores based on recent successful applications.
I’m personally on the fence - a scholarship may be the only chance for some people to attend, so spreading them widely seems to be fair. On the other hand, repeat visits help to build more lasting relationships.
But I do think this is a question that should have an explicit answer either way.
Bye,
Stephan
-- ------------------------------ It can be done! --------------------------------- Please email me as schulz@eprover.org (Stephan Schulz) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------