Remember some time back when I made a post about the hardest part of making ice cream being the steps adding sugar and adding heavy cream? That was said in a pretty much joking manner. A truth yes, it disgusts me to add all those things in, but a joke because it was a subversion of what people would expect to be a difficult step in ice cream making.
But I'll tell you frankly that its no joke when I say the hardest part of the entire scholarship assessment today at SPRING was the peer review.
I dont suppose im authorised to talk about what we actually did today, so I wont go into details. What I can say is that we were split into groups. My group has seven people. Throughout the assessment with the exception of one individual section, all our activities were done as a group.
It was pretty amazing, first to be in the same group as one of my classmates (whom I have already met earlier in the interview round), and then to find a group of other people who I can really seem to relate to. I felt like I was really able to click with them. The ideas we share, the things we talk about. Three guys were post NS and they shared about their NS (and OCS) lives, the things they faced, things which were really intriguing to us pre-enlistees. We talked about our aspirations, and I find people who are already planning on how to go about with their future businesses, not dreamy ideas but more concrete plans. We shared about business strategies, and boy was I surprised that two other people in the table knew what the blue ocean strategy is. We laughed, we joked, we anticipated tea time together (hungry men we were), and lots more. It was enriching and I truly enjoyed the company of these people.
After all our activities ended, we finally had tea time. Someone casually joked that we might be given a secret assessment after tea time (or maybe tea time itself was an assessment). It was quite amusing later to then hear one of the assessors tell us 'we have one last activity before we end off for today'. So we all picked that piece of paper and volia, peer review.
Sure, most of us probably have done peer reviews before. Its tough, but alright. We'll give people a score from 1 to 5 and stuff like that. This is different though. They gave us five characteristics, and for each characteristic, you had to choose one person whom you thought was the best in it and one whom was the worst.
You are forced to condemn one person for every characteristic.
To make it worse, some time before that, another assessor had said 'enjoy the company you have together now, because only about half of you will be back'.
It was really difficult, for all of us. The two people in the group who completed the assessment the fastest were the ones who didnt quite understand the requirements (giving ticks and crosses for each characteristic for each person) and had to redo. Most of us chose to take care of the ticks first, before going into the crosses, for that was the really hard part.
I really didn't know what to do. Everyone in the group was good. I don't know if this is something specifically special for our group or if all the groups were good because we are after all the shortlisted candidates. I didnt want to condemn anyone.
Let me trail off a little and talk about something related for awhile first. In my group, I felt that myself and another person showcased our abilities the least. I dont say we arent as good, I say we showcased the least because we simply didnt speak and share as much as others. Its not my tendency to speak out quickly and all the time I spend thinking and processing ideas fully is in a way, lost. And these guys who were talking werent throwing nonsense, they were actually pretty good stuff. In that sense, perhaps the two of us lost out and could be potentially seen as the weakest links.
I certainly dont agree that we were the weakest links, for one when the other person spoke, I felt that he knew exactly what he was talking about, that what he said had substance (less is more I suppose). Perhaps like me, he spent his time thinking and processing and thus though he was generally much quieter, it didnt in anyway mean he was 'lesser' than anyone else.
Yet, I felt that people who perceive us as the weakest links. After all, who would be able to discern our thoughts if we dont speak them. I hope the assessors didnt, I hope my group mates didnt, but im afraid that the possibility is very real.
So back to the assessment, I really didnt know how to fill up that form. A few selfish thoughts begin to creep in. What if I could place my negs against this other person? Perhaps by pushing him down, I could guarentee that I was above him in placement. He wasnt inferior in anyway to me, but it seemed to me that he possibly had the best chance to be perceived as inferior. Then I thought too, maybe I could place my negs against the average person, to push him below me so I could beat him and become the new average.
At the end of the day though, I knew I was never going to do that. It would go against my integrity, and that I will never compromise. Strategically speaking, yes perhaps by doing so I would improve my scholarship chances. Yet I will not do so.
And I guess the thing that scares me the most is that certainly I am not the only one who thought that. Who knows how many people placed negs on me. After all, it was compulsory to neg one person per characteristic. The whole atmosphere was so tense, and the thought that these people who were filling up their forms were in a way betraying one another, betraying our new found friendships (albeit forced to do so), it unsettles me greatly.
In the end, out of the six people, I gave five of them one positive vote and one neg each, and left the last person untouched.
Maybe the SPRING assessors will see it and know that I didnt really attempt to judge accurately. To which I'll say, I did my best. I felt that everyone was good, everyone was deserving of continuing in the next round, so I will choose to distribute my votes in such a manner.
This despite the fact that I dont know how many people 'betrayed' me. I dont know if they perceived me to be weak and placed negs on me. Maybe. The thought that others may have stacked negs against me while I still choose to vote equally unsettles me further. But it matters not how other people voted. I know I voted right. I voted with integrity, I voted without being judgmental, and so I will have voted with no shame, no guilt and no regrets.
At the conclusion of it all, we exchanged contacts and got everyone's email. Didnt see the other groups doing that (perhaps they already did, I wouldnt know) but as I did it, I just couldnt quite shake off the feeling that these are the people whom we have just voted against. That even in the midst of making new friends, these are our enemies, competing for the same few limited slots that exist.
I dont want that. I hate the thought of it. Yet, its true is it not? Is this not what the working world is like? Is this not what is happening everyday in our meritocratic society?
And im reminded of Kanzaki Nao's words in Liar Game:
“All of you believe that the Liar Game is all about rewarding the best liar, don’t you? Well, I sure don’t. I believe that the Liar Game is all about conquering that desire within you to lie and succumb to your greed. It’s a game that tests whether or not you can remain an honest and upright individual.”Maybe im not as noble as Nao to attempt to save everyone trapped in the system, but I dont think I could backstab or push others down so that I may gain from it. Im afraid that people will do that to me all the same, regardless of the choices I made, but I shall not waver. My life is driven by eternity.
As I took the train home with one other member of our group, I believe the thought of how we had to condemn one another lingered on our minds. We talked about it a little, and he mentioned how he felt that today, even in the group activities we had, everyone was clamoring for attention. Trying to pitch in their ideas so that the assessors will take notice of them. Perhaps even a semblance of struggle to be seen as the leader. While everyone was nice and listened to each other's ideas, everyone was trying to stand out from the rest. As he said it, I felt this connection, that we both knew that even as he spoke those words, we werent speaking of other people, we were also speaking of ourselves. I too had felt obliged to be more assertive, fearing that if I did not do so, I would lose out.
He told me about how it would be the same in NS. That end the end of BMT, you had to do a peer review just like this. And if you went to OCS, worse. Every few months you had to assess your peers. He did mention one thing though, and it was that OCS is different, you get to know people for a long period of time. Initially, everyone looked good, it would be impossible to rank anyone. After perhaps one or two months though, things start to show. The facade that people put up breaks away and their true nature seeps out.
In that sense, perhaps today the assessment we had was skewed. Everyone put on their best front. Perhaps we all seemed that good precisely because everyone was doing their best to be seen that way. Everyone was friendly perhaps because being friendly is vital to survival. What do these people actually think of me? My classmate? The person whom I conversed with on the train? How did they vote for me? Who was I to them?
And who are they really? Is all that I have seen today but a facade of their true selves? What was on their mind throughout the whole of the assessment? What is the condition of their hearts?
Suddenly, I find that the world seems to have become such a scary place.
---