Sophomore orientation fail
Amy Tayloe
Issue date: 11/19/09 Section: Opinions
Everyone at Smith remembers their first-year orientation. Moving in, meeting HONS, wandering campus, going to "class." It's generally considered a blissful two weeks, an ease into the life of the college student. Though the focus tends to be more on first-years than transfer students, it's an enjoyable experience. So, why not create a similar program for sophomores? Not a bad idea, if the ensuing program had not been mismanaged.
This year, the administration started a trial version of sophomore orientation, amusingly titled, "Spring Into Fall." How punny. Unlike regular orientation, it was just one day and consisted of three main events: receiving feedback on academic writing from the previous year, "learning" qualitative skills applicable to everyday life and talking about how to pick a major, adviser and more.
Probably the most helpful event was the first reflections on academic writing, although that isn't saying much. One, and only one, piece of writing from first year was reviewed. Sophomores broke into groups to reflect on how they could improve, but this was poorly supervised, and usually trailed off into silence. The comments were moderately helpful, but essentially the same feedback as given by the professors that taught the class.
The second event, which covered qualitative skills, may have been helpful to someone with no background in math or practical mathematics but was repetitive for those that had. While statistics, compound interest, approximations and unit conversion are important, three out of four can be found on the inside of a daily planner. The talks assumed the sophomores knew nothing, which was both insulting and boring. Those designing the orientation may have been trying to balance writing and math skills but emphasized the former.
The third event, talks on how to pick a major and adviser, could have been very helpful if participants had been split into groups based on interest, allowed to attend talks by several faculty well-informed on the future job possibilities for each major and done given a day or two to do so. Instead, the groups and faculty were chosen at random and there was one hour-long discussion. They were practically useless for sophomores to plan for their future.
Overall, the Spring Into Fall orientation was more of a Spring Into Fail. The small amount of useful information gained was repetitive and poorly presented. It would have been more useful, and less time-consuming, had Smith returned our papers, given us a day planner and told us about the upcoming major talks. If sophomores are to have an orientation, it should be based on what's given to the new students, and nothing like this.
This year, the administration started a trial version of sophomore orientation, amusingly titled, "Spring Into Fall." How punny. Unlike regular orientation, it was just one day and consisted of three main events: receiving feedback on academic writing from the previous year, "learning" qualitative skills applicable to everyday life and talking about how to pick a major, adviser and more.
Probably the most helpful event was the first reflections on academic writing, although that isn't saying much. One, and only one, piece of writing from first year was reviewed. Sophomores broke into groups to reflect on how they could improve, but this was poorly supervised, and usually trailed off into silence. The comments were moderately helpful, but essentially the same feedback as given by the professors that taught the class.
The second event, which covered qualitative skills, may have been helpful to someone with no background in math or practical mathematics but was repetitive for those that had. While statistics, compound interest, approximations and unit conversion are important, three out of four can be found on the inside of a daily planner. The talks assumed the sophomores knew nothing, which was both insulting and boring. Those designing the orientation may have been trying to balance writing and math skills but emphasized the former.
The third event, talks on how to pick a major and adviser, could have been very helpful if participants had been split into groups based on interest, allowed to attend talks by several faculty well-informed on the future job possibilities for each major and done given a day or two to do so. Instead, the groups and faculty were chosen at random and there was one hour-long discussion. They were practically useless for sophomores to plan for their future.
Overall, the Spring Into Fall orientation was more of a Spring Into Fail. The small amount of useful information gained was repetitive and poorly presented. It would have been more useful, and less time-consuming, had Smith returned our papers, given us a day planner and told us about the upcoming major talks. If sophomores are to have an orientation, it should be based on what's given to the new students, and nothing like this.
Be the first to comment on this story