The RA group process has been with us seemingly forever. But why? While group activities (such as group discussions, icebreakers, and team-building exercises) are meant to provide a sense of how potential RAs work in a team and engage with others, I don’t believe they are truly effective. They are contrived and artificial. How does one even evaluate them fairly, anyway? In fact, an over-reliance on group processes in RA selection may be doing more harm than good, for the candidates, the department, and our ultimately, our residents.
While group activities are useful for gauging teamwork dynamics, they do little to assess the individual qualities that make a great RA. Maybe individual interviews are an attempt to tease these out, but they are not always showcased in a group setting. More introverted (or even just quiet-nervous) candidates may struggle to make their voices heard. Group interviews can create an environment where the louder, more confident students shine, while others who may be just as capable are overlooked. RA group processes don’t give a full picture of a candidate’s potential to succeed as an RA, leading to the risk of selecting someone who may not be the best fit for the role but who simply performed better in a group activity.
Most applicants who participate in group exercises are aware that their behavior is being observed, which can lead to inauthenticity. Candidates may feel pressured to act in ways they believe the interviewers want to see—whether that’s taking a leadership role in the group activity or staying silent to avoid controversy. This type of behavior doesn’t reflect how they will perform as an RA in real-life situations. As a result, the process may miss identifying candidates who are naturally empathetic, reliable, and capable leaders but are less inclined to assert themselves in group settings.
For many candidates, the RA selection process is already an intimidating experience. Adding a group activity can increase stress levels. This stress may not only impact candidate performance but also cloud their ability to showcase their true abilities. And for some students, the group interview process can feel like a performance. It can also unintentionally exclude the diversity of our hires. This can be particularly problematic for students from marginalized backgrounds who may face additional social barriers in these environments.
Have you ever been evaluated for building a tower out of marshmallows and dry spaghetti? What is this even about? The reality of being an RA is very different from participating in a group discussion or team-building activity. Most of the tasks RAs face are individual and direct: helping a student in crisis, dealing with conflict between roommates, enforcing policies, or facilitating one-on-one conversations. Yes, they do need to work on a staff team. This is true. But can’t this be determined in better/other ways?
One of the final issues I have with RA group processes is the evaluation of them. Do all of our interviewers know what they’re evaluating? Are they evaluating the same things? In in the same way? This is problematic even for “traditional” question and answer interviews but is likely compounded in group-observation interviews. I think the validity of evaluations of RA group processes is highly questionable.
It’s time for the RA group process to go. Case studies, practical role plays, and other interview methods should take their place.
