Spring Break
Task Force should help, not harm students
Issue date: 10/10/08 Section: Opinion
On Thursdays, SMU student Alan Rose is in class at 6:00 a.m. for the university's student broadcast news show. His last class of the week ends at 6:20 p.m., and he then hustles to the studio to host his one-hour radio show. The remainder of his night is spent eating dinner, hanging out with friends, catching up on homework and possibly going out to a social event later. Rose is at work at 9:30 a.m. every Friday morning.
Thank goodness the Task Force's academic regulations didn't affect him.
If they did, Rose potentially wouldn't be able to intern for large blocks of time on Fridays. His radio airtime might be cut short, since he would be constantly busy finishing the hours of homework recommended by the less-than-scientific Task Force formula: two hours of outside work per every hour spent in class.
The vulnerability that comes attached to the byline of an opinion article (this one in particular - my first) is unnerving, but I'm comforted by the fact that I'm not the only student who remains dissatisfied with the accepted Task Force recommendations and chooses to write about it. That's not to say that I don't feel safer with some of the other recommendations; the semi-accepted Medical Amnesty Program and Good Samaritan Policy are obvious steps toward student safety, as is the increased lighting on campus. My issue lies with the academic recommendations.
According to the April 29 press release on the SMU Task Force on Substance Abuse Prevention Web site, the academic recommendations were conceived to "strengthen a culture of personal responsibility and academic achievement" as well as to "nurture the increasing intellectual strength of our incoming students."
Kudos to SMU for attempting to raise their standards and foster personal accountability among students. Unfortunately these regulations preach to a perpetually-diligent choir.
Six academic policies were recommended and all were accepted without limitations. Four of the six academic recommendations (increase of Friday classes, midterm progress reports for freshmen and sophomores, mandatory final exams during the designated time slot, and exponential increase in homework) are unreasonable for two reasons: it implies that the majority of students need assistance prioritizing school before social life and hence a more structured scholastic experience. More importantly, it generalizes students' academic behavior and punishes those who don't need assistance.
Thank goodness the Task Force's academic regulations didn't affect him.
If they did, Rose potentially wouldn't be able to intern for large blocks of time on Fridays. His radio airtime might be cut short, since he would be constantly busy finishing the hours of homework recommended by the less-than-scientific Task Force formula: two hours of outside work per every hour spent in class.
The vulnerability that comes attached to the byline of an opinion article (this one in particular - my first) is unnerving, but I'm comforted by the fact that I'm not the only student who remains dissatisfied with the accepted Task Force recommendations and chooses to write about it. That's not to say that I don't feel safer with some of the other recommendations; the semi-accepted Medical Amnesty Program and Good Samaritan Policy are obvious steps toward student safety, as is the increased lighting on campus. My issue lies with the academic recommendations.
According to the April 29 press release on the SMU Task Force on Substance Abuse Prevention Web site, the academic recommendations were conceived to "strengthen a culture of personal responsibility and academic achievement" as well as to "nurture the increasing intellectual strength of our incoming students."
Kudos to SMU for attempting to raise their standards and foster personal accountability among students. Unfortunately these regulations preach to a perpetually-diligent choir.
Six academic policies were recommended and all were accepted without limitations. Four of the six academic recommendations (increase of Friday classes, midterm progress reports for freshmen and sophomores, mandatory final exams during the designated time slot, and exponential increase in homework) are unreasonable for two reasons: it implies that the majority of students need assistance prioritizing school before social life and hence a more structured scholastic experience. More importantly, it generalizes students' academic behavior and punishes those who don't need assistance.
Be the first to comment on this story