http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/babbles/2012/10/02/the-best-and/ John Coyne Babbles is a collection of comments, opinions, musings, and outrages from this RPCV who served with the first group (1962-64) in Ethiopia. Tue, 21 May 2013 17:23:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/babbles/2012/10/02/the-best-and/comment-page-1/#comment-2468 Sam Stokes Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:26:27 +0000 http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/babbles/?p=5962#comment-2468 John, I remember the selection process somewhat differently. After my volunteer service (1963-5) I sat on a number of selection boards as a desk officer and country director. As I remember it, we ranked those trainees who were selected to go overseas into six categories: top quartile (those most likely to excel), second quartile, third quartile, fourth quartile (least likely to excel, but would do an adequate job and were still worth sending overseas), special placement (i.e. could go overseas, but could only serve in certain locations or assignments because of extenuating circumstances such as health) and, finally, “high risk/high gain.” This last category was a special wildcard-type category for volunteers who were considered risky, but who might nevertheless make major contributions and were therefore worth taking a chance on. I don’t remember our using other terms like “high risk/low gain.” At the end of two years of service, country directors were expected to evaluate volunteers into the same four quartiles and the selection officials in Peace Corps/Washington would then compare the results in order to fine-tune the process. Both from my own experience as a country director and from what I remember hearing from Washington, there was relatively little correlation, which no doubt contributed to the decision to drop the system around 1970 and move towards a greater emphasis on self selection. Sam John,
I remember the selection process somewhat differently. After my volunteer service (1963-5) I sat on a number of selection boards as a desk officer and country director. As I remember it, we ranked those trainees who were selected to go overseas into six categories: top quartile (those most likely to excel), second quartile, third quartile, fourth quartile (least likely to excel, but would do an adequate job and were still worth sending overseas), special placement (i.e. could go overseas, but could only serve in certain locations or assignments because of extenuating circumstances such as health) and, finally, “high risk/high gain.” This last category was a special wildcard-type category for volunteers who were considered risky, but who might nevertheless make major contributions and were therefore worth taking a chance on. I don’t remember our using other terms like “high risk/low gain.” At the end of two years of service, country directors were expected to evaluate volunteers into the same four quartiles and the selection officials in Peace Corps/Washington would then compare the results in order to fine-tune the process. Both from my own experience as a country director and from what I remember hearing from Washington, there was relatively little correlation, which no doubt contributed to the decision to drop the system around 1970 and move towards a greater emphasis on self selection.
Sam

]]>