Berichte für C2 Proficiency üben (Kostenlos)

Alumni mentoring pilot: evaluation and next steps

Purpose and evidence

This report evaluates the recent mentoring pilot and recommends how a second trial could inform a decision on expansion. The available feedback comes from regular attendees, with additional comments about scheduling from students on placements. It therefore provides useful but incomplete evidence of the scheme’s effectiveness.

Benefits and limitations

Regular participants valued advice tailored to their individual circumstances. This suggests that personal contact with alumni offers something beyond general careers information: an opportunity to explore a particular concern in detail. Retaining this individual focus should be a priority in any further trial.

However, favourable responses cannot establish that the programme met the needs of the wider student body. Students who stopped attending, or never attended, are absent from the formal feedback. Their experience might alter our assessment substantially. Fixed meeting times also appear to have restricted participation by students on placements. Increasing the number of identical sessions would not necessarily remove that barrier.

Recommended second pilot

The university should test a limited range of alternative appointments, including some remote meetings, while preserving individual mentoring. Before allocating places, it should invite brief comments from previous non-attenders about both practical obstacles and the relevance of the offer. This would help distinguish a scheduling problem from a lack of perceived benefit.

Evaluation should record who participates, whether appointments remain accessible and what specific decisions the advice helps students make. Collecting feedback from those who withdraw would reduce the present imbalance. Mentors should also report the time required, since a model valued by students may still be difficult to sustain.

Conclusion

Immediate expansion would be premature. A focused second pilot would address the known access problem and test whether the apparent benefits extend beyond regular attendees. The director would then have a firmer basis for deciding what to expand, for whom and at what practical cost.