change

after analyzing the comments on the last post, I've now come to the conclusion that I'm possibly looking for a problem with the new system, even if it doesn't exist. I'm in a discussion to improve the outgoing exchange process, so there has to be areas for improvement. But in-order to improve, you have to find a problem. One of the problems I found was the drop in MT traineeships and overall numbers. The reason behind this is what I was searching for. That's still up in the air. It is relatively soon (about 1.5 years) into the program and if results aren't supposed to happen for 2-3 years, I will still have to wait to see if something weird happens. And the extraordinary drop in MT/DT ratio may actually be expected from the new program, as the only way for the numbers to stay steady for the first two years are for undergrads to go on the traineeships.

At the end of spring semester in 2007, then we will be able to see what the new results are. There are over 12 people graduating. How many of them will go on a traineeship? The concern I had is that some of those that I thought would for sure go on one, are now leaning away from it. But I will just sit back and wait to see what actually does happen.

Additional notes:
I know @Madison is not recruiting a lot of business and technical background students. Therefore it would not be expected that the LC would be raising large amounts of MT and TT EPs. Is there more impact to be had in sending students that already study foreign policy/affairs or those that have little direct knowledge on the subject? I'd argue for the second, although the best LC members are those students that are already gung-ho for international development. So the bus/tech students have the higher potential for impact, but they also have the higher drop-out rate. I'd love to see more bus/tech students in the LC, but i'm not sure if the lc is still stable enough to take on the extra students who have a high likely-hood of not sticking around for the long term.