Candidate Proposal Reviews – Krishna Patil ll G.Sec Social & Cultural

1918306_856438827811997_7815043476671317124_n

 

Find his proposals here. He did not submit any statement of purpose.

*All proposal reviews are based on TSA’s assessment of the proposal document provided by the candidate. We crosscheck all facts mentioned in the proposal and give feedback around three parameters : 

  1. Need & Impact of the proposals; we attempt to assess the value of the proposal for the students.
  2. Feasibility; whether the proposal will ever see the light of day or not.
  3. Originality; if the proposal been implemented/presented before in some form or another.

The views mentioned in the proposal critiques below are TSA’s alone and are meant for a more holistic sharing of information about the candidates and their ideas. This, we believe, will lead to fairer and more impactful selection of candidates for the various positions of responsibility.*

 

Proposal I- Live your Life – 3 day event.
1- Originality: Few Soc-Cult candidates have taken up campus morale as an issue before. This proposal clearly draws inspiration from the R U OK campaign conducted in 2014. This is an amalgamation of a number of different, largely unrelated ideas (open house, movie screenings, interaction with the graduating batch, and powercuts),none being particularly original. 0.5/5
2- Feasibility: It is unclear whether this should be under the ambit of the Soc-Cult GSec, rather than the counselling centre, seeing as this is not about encouraging and enabling the social and cultural pursuits of the students. Further events like the open-house have been tried before, but could not draw enough students. This seems to be the largest hurdle: it’s hard to imagine students being too enthusiastic about power and LAN cuts or about sermons about substance abuse. Also, 3 entire days for this seems a bit excessive. 3/5
3- Need/Impact: The R U OK program in 2014 was organised in the wake of a number of student suicides, to boost the morale of the student community but students’ opinions are divided as to whether it actually helped in any way. Many people, this reporter included did find the programs fun and refreshing, and many people are arguable depressed. However, whether students will take it seriously enough to actually reach out depressed students is uncertain. There have been recent incidents involving substance abuse, which the proposal attempts to address through an interaction session with the graduating batch.  2/5
Proposal II- All Night SF events
1- Originality: We were unable to find similar proposals. 4/5
2- Feasibility: If the requisite permissions can be obtained, this proposal does seem feasable: the proposal makes not mention of any groundwork the candidate has done. Many people are usualy awake all night during SF, and these events could draw adequate crowds if they are organized well. 3/5
3- Need/Impact: The candidate claims this will solve a scheduling issue with SF by preventing events from clashing. Some of the events proposed, like star-gazing, jamming, screeing international moveies and the cyber arena sound interesting. This could make SF more rewarding to some participants, who may be caught up in events during the day.  4/5
Proposal III – Research Scholar Weekend
1- Originality: This proposal is identical to one of Bodhisattya Bhattacharya’s in 2014.  “Cultural weekends”, workshops and awareness drives have all been proposed before, but have never been implemented. 0.5/5
2- Feasibility: Why research scholars will be enthusiastic about this weekend, when they aren’t about the GCs is puzzling to this reporter. Also, having a third category of events in addition to inter-hall and open-iit seems expensive and unnecessary. 1/5
3- Need/Impact: The PG involvement in the GCs is lower than the UG involvement, but this is likely because of them being busier with their academic workload. Having separate events to essentially get PGs in the mood for the actual GC events seems like a massive over-reaction to something that is arguably not even a problem. 1/5
Proposal IV- Social Case Study Event
1- Originality: This had been proposed by Pragya Chandra in 2014, but has not been implemented. However, tying up with NGOs is a new idea. 2/5
2- Feasibility: It looks simple enough to implement, provided NGOs are willing. Events like Chem Quest do get their problem statements from companies, so it should be feasible. 4/5
3- Need/Impact: This could provide opportunities for students to learn about making social case studies and encourage them to engage with social issues. The candidate also proposes to actually implement the feasible ideas, which could create a positive impact on society in some measure. 4/5
Proposal V- Guerrilla Marketing
1- Originality: Another amalgamation of various ideas. The spring fest road trip was proposed by Vivek Bhutra (did not win) last year. Proposals to tie up with television channels have been proposed as well. Flash mobs and viral videos to promote spring fest seem new. 3/5
2- Feasibility: His claims of this being free look dubious; surely events like the car ride and the flash mobs will cost some money. Besides this, it does look feasible. 3/5
3- Need/Impact: Although the candidate claims that this kind of marketing will be absolutely free, the flash mob and roadtrip events would still require the organizers to invest considerable time. Whether publicity will directly translate into footfall, however, is unclear. Further, the fact that SF ran out of accommodation this year and even had to send emails telling prospective participants not to come, begs the question of whether we really need to increase participation rather than spend those resources on improving the experience. 2/5

 

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.