In T5E’s brand new series, correspondents have a closer look at the institute’s ‘PoR Culture’. This five-part series, based on extensive interviews with the PoR-holders across different verticals in the student body, tries to identify the factors that drive the craze for PoRs in the institute.

In Part 2 of the series, Abhishek Kelkar provides an introduction to entering the PoR system in the institute: What are the selection processes? Are they fair? How does one ‘crack’ them? What are the entry and exit scenarios across the teams?

Read on to find out more!

Accommodating New Talents in the Team

How accommodating are our PoRs? Are they open to new talents who have not been part of the team previously? We identify some key insights pertaining to the same:

  1. Most PoRs are as accommodating as possible, especially in the lower rungs of the ladder. However, a supply-demand phenomenon definitely affects the intake and accommodating nature of the PoR.  
  2. The nature of PoR affects the selection criteria of the PoR extensively. For instance, If the PoRs require a specific skill-set to be developed, the inclusion of new blood takes a backseat as the focus shifts onto the necessary skill.   

HOW I MET MY POR: The Selection Process

 


  1. The higher-most representative authorities are the ones elected through the annual GSB Elections. Experience and expertise count equally towards the selection of the student for such positions of responsibility.  
  2. The selection of coordinators is based on written applications and/or interview performances. In some cases, more priority in given to the interview.
  3. The broad aspects the applicants are tested upon are
    1. Cultural fit
    2. Work ethic
    3. Ground work
    4. Enthusiasm.

Prior experience in the team does not play a role, especially in the lower rungs of the PoR ladder.

Fairness of the selection process

  1. Overall, the institute is moving towards fairer, more transparent, multi-step rigorous selection procedures.
  2. Involvement of faculty members in the selection of the senior most members of the team makes the system more reliable.
  3. The continuous evolution of the selection process makes it adaptable to any anomalies pertaining to fairness. However, the level of conscious effort undertaken to make the process fair has never been evaluated.

Ease of entry

  1. Ease of entry is broadly viewed as a supply-demand problem from the team’s perspective. From a demand-based perspective, certain PoRs have, over years, built great brand and legacy due to which they are sought after more than others.
    Note: With the ever increasing number of PoRs, the onus lies on the teams to make the responsibilities more engaging and fulfilling for the students.
  2. Exception to the norm: Heavily tech-centric PoRs (example: CFI project membership) can be considered exceptions. A unique entry barrier in such teams is the amount of resources allocated to the teams. More the available resources, bigger the projects and hence bigger the teams.

Barriers to exit

  1. The barriers to exit are generally quite low. The only key aspects keeping a student bound to a PoR are peer pressure and/ or passion to work for the team.
  2. Sometimes, the exit barriers are too low! Students end up under-performing and affecting the team adversely. This tends to affect the accountability of the PoRs and happens to be one of the major drawbacks of the low exit barriers.
  3. Most of the teams do not have any official procedure to quit. They merely stop getting assigned any responsibilities.

Stay tuned for Part 3 of the series! Write to us at t5e.iitm@gmail.com for any suggestions, clarifications or feedback.

(Visited 154 times, 1 visits today)