10 NSC Dnipro of EYP-Ukraine Selection Report
The selection panel has received a total of 120 applicants: 77 internationals 43 Ukrainians
Selection procedure The selection panel of Dnipro 2016, consiting of Nathan Hunter (President), Sherbaz Ahmed (NC President), and Olha Chychykalo (HO), used a two-step anonymous selection procedure to ensure fairness among applicants.
Step 1. All applicants’ names were removed from the excel sheet, leaving only applicant number
and answers to questions. Each panel member was asked to grade each answer using a colour code (green, blue, orange, and red). Step 2. Once all applicants were graded, Nathan intergrated all grades into a mastersheet with all applicants’ names, nationality, gender, and session history. This second document was sent to all panel members on the same day as the selection meeting in order for them to review applicants, but they were not allowed to change any grades or make any modifications. Step 3. The National Board of EYP Ukraine has reviewed the final list of selected officials and had a collective right to veto the candidate if substantial concerns were raised.
Selection criteria The criteria with the highest value was the quality of the application. For each answer the panel evaluated the applicant’s understanding and vision of the role they had applied for In general we prioritised future development, thus when two applications were of a similar quality we would opt for the least experienced candidate in order to develop them furthe At the end of each selection panel we then took into account gender, nationality, and experience in order to create a diverse team, however this was not used as the deciding factor if there was a great difference between the quality of two applicants
Chairs team Selection panel consisted of :
Nathan Hunter, Sherbaz Ahmed, Olha Chychykalo
Applicant statistics
29 EYP countries among applicants: France Luxembourg The Netherlands Ukraine Turkey Poland Georgia Romania Switzerland Russia Portugal Greece Lithuania Armenia Italy Ukraine Czech Republic Sweden Norway Bosnia and Herzegovina Slovenia Estonia Serbia Austria Ireland Finland Belgium Croatia Spain
Total number of applications : 95
Jurors: 12 Vice-president : 8 Editors: 11 Chairperson :64 14 Ukrainians and 50 international applicants (chairs) 4 Ukrainian and 5 international (VPs)
Results
Vice-President
Arabela Sarkic Daniil Lubkin Evgeny Sukhov
Bosnia and Herzegovina Ukraine Portugal
Sophia Chahine-Parpaillon Annemari Sepp Nataliia Senatorova Zurab Giorgobiani
France Estonia Ukraine Georgia
Yulia Nagirniak Karl-Joosep Volmerson Kyrylo Korol
Ukraine Estonia Ukraine
Juror
Editor
Chairperson Erik Ananyan
Conall Molloy Mariam Kunchuliya Adriaan van Streun Emin Hodžić Anna Švecová Sofiia Pylypiuk Jesper Thunström
Armenia Ireland Ukraine the Netherlands Bosnia and Herzegovina Czech Republic Ukraine Sweeden
Editors Selection panel consisted of :
Nathan Hunter, Sherbaz Ahmed, Olha Chychykalo
Total number of applications: 11 4 Ukrainians and 7 internationals
Results Yulia Nagirniak Karl-Joosep Volmerson Kyrylo Korol
Ukraine Estonia Ukraine
Journalists Selection panel consisted of :
Nathan Hunter,Yulia Nagirniak,Karl-Joosep Volmerson,Kyrylo Korol
Results Ricarda Pfingstl Lukas Ischlstรถger Janno Rasmus Dreger Nadiia Railko Davit Manukyan Olga Doroshenko Roman Mazur Julia Matviychuk
Austria Austria Estonia Ukraine Armenia Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine
Results
Sophia Chahine-Parpaillon Annemari Sepp Nataliia Senatorova Zurab Giorgobiani
France Estonia Ukraine Georgia
Total number of applications: 30 12 Ukrainians and 18 internationals
Jury
Selection panel consisted of :
Nathan Hunter, Sherbaz Ahmed, Olha Chychykalo
Total number of applications: 12 5 Ukrainians and 7 internationals
Feedback – How to write a better application
For those who did not make the final selection of Dnipro 2016, we have decided to provide a greater insight into what elements contributed to a good answer to each question in the application. What did you learn in your most recent session? - - - - -
A learning point that has value to you An argument for why this learning point is important Something quite concrete and personal as opposed to generic and abstract An explanation of how this came about Proof that you will be able to learn and take something out of this Dnipro 2016
Jury members
Pick the top 3 elements that would make you want to select a delegate -
We did not evaluate your choice
Explain why these three are most important to you
- Strong arguments for each of your choices - Focus on multiple aspects of different delegates instead of just one priority (teamwork, academia, energy etc) - An overall view on how EYP can help the delegate and how the delegate can contribute to EYP - Demonstration of the ability to observe certain skills instead of just stating their importance
Editors
Why do you believe a media team is necessary? - -
A great understanding of the different ways a media could be necessary Strong arguments for each reason
- - -
A vision that takes into account the current session vision and the session theme Concrete measures that the editor(s) will implement to achieve their vision A personal touch to the vision, as opposed to a generic description of a media team
What is your vision for the session?
Vice-Presidents Considering that the chairsteam will be selected 2 and a half months prior to the session, what can the VPs do to better prepare the chairs? - Take into account the president’s vision already set out (chairs’ topics, online chairs training etc.) - Innovative ideas on how else we could use this time - Concrete measures to back up any ideas
Name something that you hate in EYP. How can you change it in this session?
- Personal connection with certain elements of a session - A will to improve our sessions - An understanding of how you can make this change bearing in mind the role you are applying for - A concrete way in which you could make this change
A chairperson tells you that they are struggling with CW, their committee is going in circles, and they ask you if you can take over for a bit. What do you do? - An understanding of how to help the chairperson develop instead of just solving the problem with the committee - Concrete ways in which you could help the chair - An idea of the type of distance you prefer to keep (or not to keep) with the committee and arguments for why - Your ability to think analytically to find a solution
Chairpersons
You are 3 hours into teambuilding and you have two delegates who haven’t said a word. What do you do? - A focus on understanding the problem before taking action - An understanding of different delegates; this may not even be a problem if the delegate is an active listener and prefers not to talk - Measures proposed not isolating the delegates or making them feel bad for not talking - Concrete games/ideas suggested - Arguments for why the suggested ideas would work
What is the role of a chairperson during Committee Work? - - - - -
An understanding of the different approaches a chair can take A focus on how the chairs actions can affect delegates (especially in their development) A clear vision on what the chair is and is not responsible for in CW Arguments for this vision A personal touch to the question, stating why you believe it is a particular way