I remember my tenth grade English teacher telling me that the most important part of the essay is the conclusion. She described it as the one thing that would stick in the reader's mind.
For years, I have told people that my favorite book is A Tale of Two Cities. Yet, just recently, I remembered despising reading the entire book but absolutely loving the ending. In my assessment, I almost completely forgot the rest of the book.
Now, I ask, is it a coincidence that we chose to give to the two last organizations we visited?
Were they actually the best fits? Or rather, did we see five great organizations and these two were freshest in our minds?
Is it a coincidence that the organization with the least support was Catholic Charities? It was the organization that we not only saw first, but was the only organization we saw before Spring break. Was Catholic Charities that much worse than everything else, or did we just have the worst memories of it? Now, I personally do think it was the worst pitch we saw, but maybe my memory is biased too.
Do you all think that the order in which we visited organizations affected our decisions?
We gave to Lourdes. The Lourdes group in class was the only group we saw present that openly and unanimously opined for their charity to receive the donation. While other groups pointed out discrepancies in their organization's programs and RFPs, the Lourdes group made a point to directly say that they all support giving to Lourdes.
Passion and confidence are contagious. Hearing the group speak so glowingly about Lourdes couldn't have not influenced the class. When the people that are supposed to know the charity best can say nothing but positive things, it leads the class to think that the organization is nothing but positive. Did it sway the class for Lourdes that each of the groups members voted to give to it and vocalized their vote? On the flip side, did it affect the class vote that members of Catholic Charities group openly expressed doubt and uncertainly about their organization? Did it affect the class vote that the YMCA group appeared ambivalent and noted negatives about the site visit? The way anything is presented is important. Look to the world of advertising and how consumers are influenced. No company suggests to the public that its product may not bet he best. No customer would buy a product that openly expresses its flaws in an ad. I ask you all, do you feel that the Lourdes' group passion and support of the charity influenced the vote? Did the Lourdes group truly try to give our class an all-encompassing understanding of the charity, or did they treat their presentation as an opportunity to persuade?
I'm not saying that the Lourdes group violated any unspoken rules or intentionally influenced anyone. Good for them that they loved the organization they were assigned to so much. All I ask is if you think it is possible that their passion influenced the vote.
Were there other unaddressed items that could have swayed the vote? I open the floor.
First off, I believe you bring up really interesting points about the order of the site visits, as well as the ability of our peers to sway us. I have, personally, not really considered the fact that we might be more influenced by those organizations that are most recent in our memories. While I am sure that having seen an organization more recently does help one to remember more details and maybe be more likely to choose them, I also feel in this case as though the later ones happened to be the best fit for our class. I cannot speak about Catholic Charities because I was unable to attend that site visit, however, I can address the YMCA which I thought gave an amazing pitch. Being that they were the first organization I visited, I was left truly convinced that they were an amazing fit for us. Yet, as we saw more organizations and were able to compare and contrast them, as well as have time to analyze what we actually saw at all of them, I realized that there were better matches. For me, in this case, it was not the fact that others were more fresh in my memory, but that the others truly were more aligned with our interests. I was also able to realize that I was just swept away by the YMCA, initially, because I had nothing else to compare it to and not enough time to process it.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the points that you mentioned about the Lourdes group’s presentation, which I was a part of, I can see how you might think that our advocating for it could have swayed the class. Although it might have swayed certain individuals, I believe we were simply giving the facts and then making a case for whichever organization we believed was deserving, which we happened to feel was Lourdes—so I apologize if it came across as though we were trying to sway anyone. It is easy to seem like we are bias because we have looked the most closely at this organization. However, I feel as though the fact that other presentations also made a case for Lourdes before we even went, shows that it genuinely showed many great qualities regardless of how closely we each looked at it. Furthermore, the other groups might have focused more on negatives of the organizations because they genuinely found more. Our group, together, assessed all of the positives and negatives we were able to come up with for Lourdes and presented both to the class, so if it came across as bias because it focused on positives, I believe that just says something about the organization. Even following our presentation in class discussions, many people brought up concerns they had with Lourdes and Lourdes still won the vote, so I think there is certainly more to them winning than just people being swayed.
First off, I believe you bring up really interesting points about the order of the site visits, as well as the ability of our peers to sway us. I have, personally, not really considered the fact that we might be more influenced by those organizations that are most recent in our memories. While I am sure that having seen an organization more recently does help one to remember more details and maybe be more likely to choose them, I also feel in this case as though the later ones happened to be the best fit for our class. I cannot speak about Catholic Charities because I was unable to attend that site visit, however, I can address the YMCA which I thought gave an amazing pitch. Being that they were the first organization I visited, I was left truly convinced that they were an amazing fit for us. Yet, as we saw more organizations and were able to compare and contrast them, as well as have time to analyze what we actually saw at all of them, I realized that there were better matches. For me, in this case, it was not the fact that others were more fresh in my memory, but that the others truly were more aligned with our interests. I was also able to realize that I was just swept away by the YMCA, initially, because I had nothing else to compare it to and not enough time to process it.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the points that you mentioned about the Lourdes group’s presentation, which I was a part of, I can see how you might think that our advocating for it could have swayed the class. Although it might have swayed certain individuals, I believe we were simply giving the facts and then making a case for whichever organization we believed was deserving, which we happened to feel was Lourdes—so I apologize if it came across as though we were trying to sway anyone. It is easy to seem like we are bias because we have looked the most closely at this organization. However, I feel as though the fact that other presentations also made a case for Lourdes before we even went, shows that it genuinely showed many great qualities regardless of how closely we each looked at it. Furthermore, the other groups might have focused more on negatives of the organizations because they genuinely found more. Our group, together, assessed all of the positives and negatives we were able to come up with for Lourdes and presented both to the class, so if it came across as bias because it focused on positives, I believe that just says something about the organization. Even following our presentation in class discussions, many people brought up concerns they had with Lourdes and Lourdes still won the vote, so I think there is certainly more to them winning than just people being swayed.
Tim, as you, I also noticed that we selected the last two organizations to donate to. I also agree that catholic charities gave the least persuasive pitch. I do not think that Catholic Charities was forgotten about because after the site visit, the peers that I spoke with also mentioned that they were unimpressed. However, after the YMCA visit, it appeared that the class supported the organization and were totally for donating to it. After the rest of the site visits, people began to discuss that fact that the YMCA was a large organization with a lot of funding and saw this as a turn off. I think that the YMCA is so large because they are doing such great work in the community that people feel comfortable donating to them.
ReplyDeleteI do think that passion is what makes a site visit memorable. The YMCA, Lorde’s, and Urban League all displayed such passion that their organizations are hard to forget. To tie this to the group presentations, I feel as if all of the groups’ opinions of the organizations were able to sway people in certain directions. I was in the YMCA and supported the organization. However, just working with my group and hearing why they did not feel as if the YMCA fit with our class’s goal swayed my own opinion and made me second guess why I liked the organization.
I understand some of the criticisms of the Lourdes group, but as a member I would just like to respond from our side.
ReplyDeletePersonally, when originally beginning to work with the organization, I was extremely apprehensive about it. I was confused as to the real goals of their program, the newness of it and whether or not it was really an achievable or necessary initiative. I definitely didn't think that I, personally, was going to end up voting for the organization, but I was more than willing and open-minded to it's merits and possibilities. When putting together the first presentation, I was definitely convinced that the organization would not come out on top.
But after the site visit, I gained a much greater understanding for the organization and the program goals. I was really taken by the employees, the space, and the extra information garnered from the experience. I believed that the program was really going to be beneficial for the kids it served, and that it was a noble initiative to support.
Because of this, I had positive things to say about the organization. While my group's intentions was not necessarily to sway the class, it was definitely necessary that we convey the pros just as much as any cons we may have felt. I hope that we helped students in the class understand the organization by giving them the information we gathered.
I'm very intrigued by this post Tim because I feel that the timing of the sites visits definitely came into play in our decision. In our car rides back from each site visit, we had intensive conversations about the organizations we'd just visited, and I noticed a pattern: interest ebbed and flowed with each respective site visit. The thought first cropped up in my mind when the class' excitement about the YMCA dwindled upon seeing the Children's Home, and then that seemed to dwindle upon seeing the BCUL, and so on. The freshness, as you said, Tim, seemed to me to be as crucial a factor in the gravitas we afforded each organization upon leaving it as the organization's assets they presented themselves. While I don't think the entire decision was based on this implicit bias, I very much agree that it exists.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, however, I don't think the Lourdes group was particularly more guilty of this bias than anyone else, but rather that their fair review of a good organization and intriguing program merged with that preeminent freshness bias. Rather than playing into the bias cognizant of their action, or being overly affected by their bias, I believe that that the presentation group gave a fair analysis of pros and cons, but that Lourdes just implicitly had a slightly better chance of class support due to the preeminence of this bias of recentness.
I'm very happy that this topic was brought up, because I did notice the bias and found it interesting. However, in over-analysis of this bias concept we risk sullying the rationales for why the BCUL and Lourdes had such support from the class explicitly. Therefore, while it's very insightful and intriguing to discuss the role of biases in this decision, because of how this bias in particular is based on none of an organizations' strengths and weaknesses and only on freshness and time, we should really relegate only some legitimacy to it. Our discussions as a class revealed much more depth in defending organizations' tangible merits than could ever be boiled down to merely an extraneous bias.
Tim, this is great post and a very interesting debate. I think Lourdes did a great job of selling their program as well as acting professionally. This visit had the most staff members, which I found helpful. The staff members, who had the greatest expertise in the area of the question, gave us a well coherent thoughtful answer. I think there was an interesting dynamic with the order of the site visits. It seems that most of the students, if not all the students in our class, would have been fine giving to any of the five charities. I was impressed with the level of service each organization provides to the community. The order of the site visits seemed to be opposite their order of popularity. The first site visit Catholic Charities, was viewed less favorably. The YMCA, the second visit, received marginally stronger support. The Children’s Home, the third visit, received a few votes. The Urban League, the fourth visit was supported by a third of our class, and Lourdes, the last visit, received the majority of support from our class. As a class, we became skilled at how to review philanthropy among non-profits. We learned what to look for, what questions to ask and with our last visit to Lourdes, everything we studied really seemed to coalesce.
ReplyDeleteEven at the beginning of our visits I was concerned about how the order of the sight visits might influence our final decision making. I know that for me, recalling the past visits was difficult even after a week of visiting them which is why it was very helpful to have groups give one final presentation on each organization. In regard to passion swaying decision making, I don't necessarily think it is a bad thing. In the end, our task was to select an organization that not only fit our class's over arching topic of youth services and education, but to also choose an organization we were comfortable about standing alongside with and were passionate about. I may have been biased not because of the order of the site visit but because I was rooting for Lourdes since it was first introduced as a potential contestant. The site visit confirmed that my initial hunch was not misguided.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of our presentation, yes passion was a huge motivator for our initial excitement to share it. However, I don't believe we let our bias be the motivating influence for our presentation. Especially when it came to the questions the class had, we made sure we contacted the leaders of DAASP and MHJJ to have prepared answers to address all of these concerns regardless of whether or not we thought the outcome of these questions would put them in a negative light. Furthermore, as your group mentioned in your presentation, professionalism is an important factor to take into consideration when selecting an organization. The structure of the RFP, handouts with answers to questions we had prior to the site visit, and quick responses from emails was impressive and a reflection of their professionalism.
Overall, it may have helped that everyone in our group preferred Lourdes but I don't think this was coincidence. Lourdes truly gave a professional and engaging presentation along with an RFP that aligned with their needs. Even if Lourdes was our first site visit, I am confident that Lourdes would have still been a top choice in our class.