Potential Scholarship Nominators
Congratulations. If you are seeing this page, it should be because one of our volunteers has informed you that you have the opportunity to be a Potential Nominator for one of our scholarships - and - has provided you this link. Here's how we do things: (1) We do not have an Open Application process for our Scholarships. (2) In cases like this, we identify Potential Nominators (such as - You). If we determine there is a good fit, we will then give you a chance to nominate a student for one of the scholarships we fund. Our organization will then consider that particular student's nomination. There is no cost to you nor to the student to be a Nominator or Nominee. As volunteers, we have already raised the money that would fund the scholarship. We put together this link to help you understand our perspective when we are choosing Nominators and to address some commonly asked questions and/or some issues that frequently come up during the process.
PROMPTNESS
== When selecting Scholarship Nominators, we maintain a simple standard: Prompt without Exception. We don't consider any extenuating circumstances. We just ask ourselves: Did they respond promptly or not? If a response from a Potential Nominator (PN) is not prompt, we will not give that PN a chance to nominate a student. Over the years, when they have not been prompt, some PNs have asked why we can't be more 'flexible' when they claim they had a 'good reason' why they did not respond promptly (such as a 'busy week' or 'a big event' or 'a vacation' or 'a death or illness in their family'). There are several reasons why. Here are four of them:
(1) They knew the deal. In advance of the process getting underway, we make our Prompt without Exception standard very clear. So, when they chose to not respond promptly, they did so with the full knowledge that we don't make exceptions.
(2) If we are going to accept Exceptions to promptness, then we have to assess each Exception on a case by case basis. That would require us - volunteers who have already sacrificed tens of thousands of hours of time - to sacrifice even more time (assessing each Exception, confirming its validity & voting on whether to make an exception). If we can choose one Nominator whose delay costs us time - or - another Nominator who is always prompt without exception, thereby sparing us from wasting that extra time -- why would we choose the first one?
(3) In almost every case, even when an extenuating circumstance popped up, a PN *could* have responded promptly if they were willing to accept a slight inconvenience. If they delay in responding to avoid that inconvenience, it will cause an inconvenience for us. In other words, one way or the other, someone will be inconvenienced. This entire process is to benefit the PN's student -- not ours -- and we've already been inconvenienced many times (sacrificing time from work and family, missing weddings & funerals & vacations & holidays, to raise the money and manage this process). If we can choose a PN who is willing to incur one slight inconvenience in an effort to secure our support for their student - or - choose a PN who wants us to incur an additional inconvenience in order to spare themselves one, why would we choose the latter?
(4) One Nominator always responds promptly to us. Another Nominator procrastinates over and over. Which one do you think seems to be truly eager to help their student? If we can choose between a PN who seems to be truly eager to help their student - and - one who does not seem to be eager to help their student, why would we choose the latter?
KINDNESS
For us, another emphasis when choosing Nominators is Kindness. An example will help explain our perspective. One PN sent us an initial note that addressed us by name, thanked us for the call, expressed their excitement and gratitude for the opportunity and reiterated how eager they are to start the process and hopefully secure our support for one of their students who they care about so much, and their note is politely signed at the bottom. Another PN sent a brief message that is addressed to nobody, signed by nobody, and simply reads: "Send me information about scholarships." Not even a thank you included. If we can choose which PN we deal with, why would we deal with the one who fails to be kind and friendly and grateful? When a PN writes to us, it is not like entering data into a machine. We are human beings volunteering our time. Of course we prefer to receive kind and friendly notes. Who wouldn't?
PEOPLE WHO ARE CURIOUS
People don't make an effort to get to know an ATM machine. They don't say hello to the machine or express hope the machine is having a good day. They don't try to learn from the machine's past experiences. They simply insert data & the machine provides money as requested. We are human beings, not an ATM machine. If one PN is making an effort to learn about us and from us -- consciously mindful of the fact that we are human beings with a lot of experience that could benefit them -- while the other has zero questions for us & makes no effort to get to know us & instead just sees us as a 'checkbook' -- why would we pick the latter?
PEOPLE WHO LISTEN
At the start of the nomination process, we will send the PN a numbered list of details about the PN process & how to format their responses to us. One of those items on that numbered list will be: Please always address us when you write us. In response, a PN sends us a note that is not addressed to anyone. In such a case, the PN will sometimes admit they overlooked (or forgot) that "small detail" from the numbered list but will wonder why that concerns us so much. There are two reasons:
1) Put yourself in our shoes. Do you think it comes across as more or less kind when someone sends us a note that is not addressed to anyone? If we can pick and choose who we let be a Nominator, why would we pick the one who comes across as less kind?
2) If one PN ignores/forgets one of the items on a numbered list we sent them but another PN follows that same list exactly as requested, why would we pick the former instead of the latter? After all, when we choose a PN, we will send them a numbered list of criteria & priorities to carefully consider when selecting a student to nominate. Shouldn't we go with the one who shows us that they carefully follow the items on a previous numbered list?
Simply put, as an all volunteer group, if we are going to give this special opportunity to potential Nominators, we want Nominators who are kind & friendly, who are curious, who listen, who honor their commitments, and who are prompt without exception. As long as some Potential Nominators demonstrate those qualities, it makes sense to us to stick with those Nominators as the ones we will choose.
PROMPTNESS
== When selecting Scholarship Nominators, we maintain a simple standard: Prompt without Exception. We don't consider any extenuating circumstances. We just ask ourselves: Did they respond promptly or not? If a response from a Potential Nominator (PN) is not prompt, we will not give that PN a chance to nominate a student. Over the years, when they have not been prompt, some PNs have asked why we can't be more 'flexible' when they claim they had a 'good reason' why they did not respond promptly (such as a 'busy week' or 'a big event' or 'a vacation' or 'a death or illness in their family'). There are several reasons why. Here are four of them:
(1) They knew the deal. In advance of the process getting underway, we make our Prompt without Exception standard very clear. So, when they chose to not respond promptly, they did so with the full knowledge that we don't make exceptions.
(2) If we are going to accept Exceptions to promptness, then we have to assess each Exception on a case by case basis. That would require us - volunteers who have already sacrificed tens of thousands of hours of time - to sacrifice even more time (assessing each Exception, confirming its validity & voting on whether to make an exception). If we can choose one Nominator whose delay costs us time - or - another Nominator who is always prompt without exception, thereby sparing us from wasting that extra time -- why would we choose the first one?
(3) In almost every case, even when an extenuating circumstance popped up, a PN *could* have responded promptly if they were willing to accept a slight inconvenience. If they delay in responding to avoid that inconvenience, it will cause an inconvenience for us. In other words, one way or the other, someone will be inconvenienced. This entire process is to benefit the PN's student -- not ours -- and we've already been inconvenienced many times (sacrificing time from work and family, missing weddings & funerals & vacations & holidays, to raise the money and manage this process). If we can choose a PN who is willing to incur one slight inconvenience in an effort to secure our support for their student - or - choose a PN who wants us to incur an additional inconvenience in order to spare themselves one, why would we choose the latter?
(4) One Nominator always responds promptly to us. Another Nominator procrastinates over and over. Which one do you think seems to be truly eager to help their student? If we can choose between a PN who seems to be truly eager to help their student - and - one who does not seem to be eager to help their student, why would we choose the latter?
KINDNESS
For us, another emphasis when choosing Nominators is Kindness. An example will help explain our perspective. One PN sent us an initial note that addressed us by name, thanked us for the call, expressed their excitement and gratitude for the opportunity and reiterated how eager they are to start the process and hopefully secure our support for one of their students who they care about so much, and their note is politely signed at the bottom. Another PN sent a brief message that is addressed to nobody, signed by nobody, and simply reads: "Send me information about scholarships." Not even a thank you included. If we can choose which PN we deal with, why would we deal with the one who fails to be kind and friendly and grateful? When a PN writes to us, it is not like entering data into a machine. We are human beings volunteering our time. Of course we prefer to receive kind and friendly notes. Who wouldn't?
PEOPLE WHO ARE CURIOUS
People don't make an effort to get to know an ATM machine. They don't say hello to the machine or express hope the machine is having a good day. They don't try to learn from the machine's past experiences. They simply insert data & the machine provides money as requested. We are human beings, not an ATM machine. If one PN is making an effort to learn about us and from us -- consciously mindful of the fact that we are human beings with a lot of experience that could benefit them -- while the other has zero questions for us & makes no effort to get to know us & instead just sees us as a 'checkbook' -- why would we pick the latter?
PEOPLE WHO LISTEN
At the start of the nomination process, we will send the PN a numbered list of details about the PN process & how to format their responses to us. One of those items on that numbered list will be: Please always address us when you write us. In response, a PN sends us a note that is not addressed to anyone. In such a case, the PN will sometimes admit they overlooked (or forgot) that "small detail" from the numbered list but will wonder why that concerns us so much. There are two reasons:
1) Put yourself in our shoes. Do you think it comes across as more or less kind when someone sends us a note that is not addressed to anyone? If we can pick and choose who we let be a Nominator, why would we pick the one who comes across as less kind?
2) If one PN ignores/forgets one of the items on a numbered list we sent them but another PN follows that same list exactly as requested, why would we pick the former instead of the latter? After all, when we choose a PN, we will send them a numbered list of criteria & priorities to carefully consider when selecting a student to nominate. Shouldn't we go with the one who shows us that they carefully follow the items on a previous numbered list?
Simply put, as an all volunteer group, if we are going to give this special opportunity to potential Nominators, we want Nominators who are kind & friendly, who are curious, who listen, who honor their commitments, and who are prompt without exception. As long as some Potential Nominators demonstrate those qualities, it makes sense to us to stick with those Nominators as the ones we will choose.