Editorial: Demand to be heard
Issue date: 2/13/09 Section: Opinion
Two weeks ago, the Trinitonian published an article on Sophomore College (SoCol). While the article did cover the Residential Life administration's perspective on SoCol, it admittedly lacked students' perspectives. In an effort to provide the Trinity community with more comprehensive coverage of SoCol, the Trinitonian initiated two surveys regarding SoCol, one given to a stratified random sample of sophomores within the program and one given to a stratified random sample of first years. Specific information, including the survey method and results, can be found online at www.trinitonian.com.
According to our findings, 87 percent of sophomores surveyed recommended that SoCol not be mandatory in the future. Less than one percent surveyed rated the SoCol program as very effective, with about 58 percent rating it not effective at all and the remaining percent falling in-between.
At an institution of higher education such as Trinity, one would hope that the administration would make decisions and enact policy through objective research and substantial evidence. And while the 2006 Upper Class Task Force Report may have been written using these scholarly methods, Residential Life has, since the onset of SoCol, clearly demonstrated an attitude that devalues student opinion as well as objective statistical research. When asked whether any amount of student dissent would convince Residential Life that SoCol is not a good idea, Assistant Director for Residential Education Katie Storey said, "No. It is a good idea. The fact that the Task Force found it was proof enough to start it." After the Task Force initiated SoCol, it clearly did not matter how much student dissent or robust evidence of the program's ineffectiveness was presented to Residential Life.
Storey also stated, "I think that people felt like they were forced into [SoCol], but that will normalize over time because that will be just what we do." While 60 percent of the current first years surveyed are looking forward to SoCol, 83 percent think it should be optional. Most alarmingly, only six percent of first years surveyed claimed to be very knowledgeable about SoCol while 56 percent claimed to have some knowledge of the program, and about 39 percent claimed to have minimal knowledge. Perhaps SoCol will normalize because Residential Life has also grossly under-informed first years about the program.
While the SoCol program may have potential to do some great things, the issue in controversy here is more the fact that Residential Life is limiting student choice without even acknowledging student opinion. Within the next few weeks, the Faculty Senate will be deciding important changes regarding faculty course loads that could cause a huge impact on what courses will be available or even reduce the amount of courses we will be able to take in the future. The state of our education could easily become in flux in the near future; let us make it clear that, this time around, our voices do not fall upon deaf ears.
According to our findings, 87 percent of sophomores surveyed recommended that SoCol not be mandatory in the future. Less than one percent surveyed rated the SoCol program as very effective, with about 58 percent rating it not effective at all and the remaining percent falling in-between.
At an institution of higher education such as Trinity, one would hope that the administration would make decisions and enact policy through objective research and substantial evidence. And while the 2006 Upper Class Task Force Report may have been written using these scholarly methods, Residential Life has, since the onset of SoCol, clearly demonstrated an attitude that devalues student opinion as well as objective statistical research. When asked whether any amount of student dissent would convince Residential Life that SoCol is not a good idea, Assistant Director for Residential Education Katie Storey said, "No. It is a good idea. The fact that the Task Force found it was proof enough to start it." After the Task Force initiated SoCol, it clearly did not matter how much student dissent or robust evidence of the program's ineffectiveness was presented to Residential Life.
Storey also stated, "I think that people felt like they were forced into [SoCol], but that will normalize over time because that will be just what we do." While 60 percent of the current first years surveyed are looking forward to SoCol, 83 percent think it should be optional. Most alarmingly, only six percent of first years surveyed claimed to be very knowledgeable about SoCol while 56 percent claimed to have some knowledge of the program, and about 39 percent claimed to have minimal knowledge. Perhaps SoCol will normalize because Residential Life has also grossly under-informed first years about the program.
While the SoCol program may have potential to do some great things, the issue in controversy here is more the fact that Residential Life is limiting student choice without even acknowledging student opinion. Within the next few weeks, the Faculty Senate will be deciding important changes regarding faculty course loads that could cause a huge impact on what courses will be available or even reduce the amount of courses we will be able to take in the future. The state of our education could easily become in flux in the near future; let us make it clear that, this time around, our voices do not fall upon deaf ears.
Be the first to comment on this story