Obviously, the primary concern of any college should be the conditions for students. Earlier in the semester, I wrote an article about student-centricity at Stevens after attending Pancakes with the President. I was really satisfied with the fact that our ideas—which could otherwise be dismissed as mere student suggestions—were being heard. It makes sense that we students have a say in how things are run. I mean, the university should try to keep us happy because they want us to stay at Stevens and pay our tuition and fees every semester. (Hey, colleges are businesses, too).
Thus far, my time at Stevens has been focused on the academics and the activities offered. Now, I know that my list of priorities will most likely transform and grow as I progress through my studies and begin to deal with departments like the Office of Career Development. However, as a freshman, I just want to learn and enjoy life. Actually, at this university, I expect that nearly all students are focused on gaining the most from their education and I’d say that a majority of students participate in some type of campus organization before they graduate. Therefore, academics and activities are generally the two most significant interests regarding the welfare of undergraduate students at Stevens.
I have heard many student complaints and opinions regarding these popular areas of interest, and I admire my fellow ducks for taking initiative to solve issues on campus. I have already witnessed some simple changes and progressive initiatives taking effect during my first two semester. Seeing many student successes has made me realize that students have a lot of power on campus. I have noticed that this power has been executed individually by a student advocating for an open test bank and the beginning of a new RSO like Stevens Stand-up Society.
However, what concerns me are established organizations such as the Honor Board and the Student Government Association having age-old power and major influence on campus. Although Honor Board members and SGA senators are peer-elected, all undergraduates play important roles both under the Honor System and as part of the Student Body. Therefore, all undergraduate students have power granted by the institution. Through these systems, the university demonstrates confidence in students to prove judiciousness in governing over crucial academic penalties and RSO budgets. Is the influence of student grades and student money too sensitive for proper discretion by the students?
First, I’m going to address the power students have under the Honor System. Last week’s issue of The Stute actually featured a Letter to the Editor by Shane Quinlan Arlington, current Vice Chair and ex-Chair of the board. He wrote about the possibility of bringing back test proctors. This would mean giving back more power to professors to monitor students taking exams—a dynamic shift away from trusting students to uphold the Stevens Honor System. As a member of the Stevens Honor Board, I hear about various investigations of Honor System violations and a lot of academic dishonesty. Are students simply too tempted to take advantage of the trust placed on them? Would students fear being caught by a professor more than the possibility of being reported?
On another note, the SGA has total control over tremendous amounts of funds. Not to mention, their constitution states that they can levy the Student Activity fee, approve or reject new RSOs, and create committees. The group has influence over any proposed event by RSOs, controlling campus activities. Because the voting Senators are comprised of peer-elected representatives of each class year, it’s basically a popularity contest and lacks complete representation of various majors and social groups.
The SGA are essentially the “do-ers” approving what they like, without focus on encouraging events to draw the rest of the student our of their dorm rooms. (Former Editor-in-Chief of The Stute, Joseph A. Brosnan weighed in on issues with the SGA being comprised of “do-ers” in a recent editorial). This select group is trusted to responsibly delegate large sums in the best interest of the entire student body. I believe that the senators do not gather sufficient information on campus events to make informed decisions, nor do they possess the financial skills to make wise budget cuts. They follow budget guidelines, but often make exceptions due to their own biases. Is the current method for electing senators sufficient for determining who has enough discretion for distributing funds? Should the SGA have an adviser presiding over all meetings?
I leave it to you to decide whether the Stevens administration should become more active in these matters concerning academics and activities. It may be too trusting of the institute to place so much power in the hands of the student body. At such a small university, almost everyone on campus knows each other. So many social and personal ties breeds corruption, and result in student-run autonomy failing to function as intended.
Be First to Comment