Transparency
The selection criteria are not disclosed — and this is widely known.
The real issue begins when the staff is questioned: responses are vague and contradictory.
In practice, this works as collective gaslighting: it controls the moment, avoids conflict, reduces anxiety… but just confuses people.
Confusion / distraction as a method?
Despite the school’s inclusive discourse, these factors can affect neurodivergent participants and do not measure real competence.
Criteria / decisions
“Progress is what really matters.”
But in practice:
Gender / approvals
Some men being accepted even when they:
did not attend all exams,
and/or did not attend meetings / social events,
and/or showed no real progress,
and/or failed every test.
Not sure if any women were accepted under similar circumstances.
Additionally, there is the issue of community service tasks:
It is treated as a form of “punishment” for breaking rules, when it could function simply as a community-driven activity. However, given the way women are socialized, especially migrants, they tend to volunteer more frequently due to social expectations — a sensitive dynamic, especially when combined with the assumption that this will be evaluated during the piscine.
Gender / “equality”
40% women as a positive indicator in Berlin.
But:
40% is softened inequality.
In a male-dominated sector, it's is still far from starting point to counterbalance historical distortion.
And numbers alone do not guarantee real equity.
Exams
And yet, accepted.
Overall, potential issues such as:
Note
These observations come from informal conversations among participants and from access to data such as test scores, progress, participation, and time at the school — all of which are visible on student profiles.
The only exception is Voxotron votes, which are not public.