2008 Woodie Awards
Fix a flawed system, do not use it
Issue date: 1/15/03 Section: Editorials
- Page 1 of 1
The early days of the semester are a swarm of activity as most Georgetown students scramble to add into courses they could not get into during pre-registration. While the process has never been a convenient one, this year the administration has made it especially difficult. In add/drops past, a student who wished to enroll in a class would simply need to gain the appropriate signature on a multicolored form. Although that was sometimes difficult to obtain, especially in the case of crowed and popular classes, the decision over who would get into the course at least rested with the professor. Students in special circumstances, such as seniors who need a certain overbooked course to graduate on time, could be heard and accommodated, at least theoretically, by the course instructor.
This semester, however, the administration's push to make the entire add/drop system an online experience has been met with repeated frustration. In many cases, the professor has lost the ability to add students into a course. The new system places students at the mercy of an electronic wait-list, with slots assigned randomly by the registrar's computer. Although this streamlines the process, it also does not take into account an individual student's need to take a particular course. A senior who needs one more class to fulfill his graduation requirements is in the same position as a horde of freshman attempting to get into the same course. Though the first-year that miraculously finds himself in a 500-level class that he signed up for on a lark may be ecstatic, the senior who was waiting to take the course, last offered three years ago, in order to complete one last requirement will undoubtedly be somewhat less than happy. These are all factors that are taken into account by professors, but not the machine that has taken their place as the judge of who gets into what class. If the University and academic departments feel that their course requirements are truly beneficial, they must be willing to play an active role in making sure students can actually meet those mandates. Certainly, some professors still add students to already full classes. Others, however, are constrained by departmental regulations or the whim of a computer.
We only need reference last semester's attempt to test the new online housing lottery to judge the effectiveness of online services: the trial resulted in a total failure of the system. Is the administration honestly ready to trust something as important as the selection of courses entirely to a glitch-prone computer program? Even without technical issues, the system needs to take into account the special circumstances of students who have legitimate reasons for adding into necessary classes. Once such a new system has been tested and all its kinks fixed; then, and only then, should it be unleashed on the student population. It would be a shame to prevent a senior from graduating on time because the computer denied him access to an Intro to Ethics class.
This semester, however, the administration's push to make the entire add/drop system an online experience has been met with repeated frustration. In many cases, the professor has lost the ability to add students into a course. The new system places students at the mercy of an electronic wait-list, with slots assigned randomly by the registrar's computer. Although this streamlines the process, it also does not take into account an individual student's need to take a particular course. A senior who needs one more class to fulfill his graduation requirements is in the same position as a horde of freshman attempting to get into the same course. Though the first-year that miraculously finds himself in a 500-level class that he signed up for on a lark may be ecstatic, the senior who was waiting to take the course, last offered three years ago, in order to complete one last requirement will undoubtedly be somewhat less than happy. These are all factors that are taken into account by professors, but not the machine that has taken their place as the judge of who gets into what class. If the University and academic departments feel that their course requirements are truly beneficial, they must be willing to play an active role in making sure students can actually meet those mandates. Certainly, some professors still add students to already full classes. Others, however, are constrained by departmental regulations or the whim of a computer.
We only need reference last semester's attempt to test the new online housing lottery to judge the effectiveness of online services: the trial resulted in a total failure of the system. Is the administration honestly ready to trust something as important as the selection of courses entirely to a glitch-prone computer program? Even without technical issues, the system needs to take into account the special circumstances of students who have legitimate reasons for adding into necessary classes. Once such a new system has been tested and all its kinks fixed; then, and only then, should it be unleashed on the student population. It would be a shame to prevent a senior from graduating on time because the computer denied him access to an Intro to Ethics class.